Great editorial. Everyone has the right of free speech. Whether or not I agree
is completely irrelevant.
On March 10, 2003, Dixie Chicks lead singer, Natalie Maines, made a statement to
an audience in England that said, "Just so you know, we're on the good
side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're
ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."The outcry from the right was monumental. On March 14 Maines apologized.
"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my
remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be
treated with the utmost respect. ...I just want to see every possible
alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are
lost. I love my country. I am a proud American." But to no avail. Their CDs
were smashed in public demonstrations and right leaning country music stations
banned their music and the women of the group received hate mail, some of it
physically threatening. Today the band is still loosely organized and plays at
limited venues, but the band members have taken other avenues in recording
music.So this was a right wing outcry against a liberal position.
What editorials were writen in favor the Dixie Chicks when this happened?
"Rather than impose social or economic punishment on the holder of unpopular
views, we should welcome them into public discourse."Mr Davis
appears to have at least one blinder on. I was surprised that he was apparently
unable to find examples where those on the right attempted to "impose social
or economic punishment on the holder of unpopular views"When JC
Penny hired Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson, there were certainly calls for
her to be removed from that position or face "economic punishment"There are countless other examples.And, I see nothing wrong
with them. Isn't the free market system based on "economic
punishment" and "economic reward" from consumers?We are
all free to speak our minds. But we are not free from the fallout in doing
so.Lets just be consistent.
Mr. Davis writes as if the anti-SSM position is an equally valid position. He
writes as if the consequences of the discriminatory beliefs about LGBTs are not
-- discrimination. Why, when we now have information that refutes
all of the stereotypes, that makes baseless all the fears - why would we respect
as equally valid beliefs that cause people injury? Do we give equal standing to
other beliefs we now see as unjust and harmful? They still exist (e.g., white
supremacy). People still have a right to express them. Do we give them equal
standing in the public square? Is Mr. Davis saying we should?I
think those that believe their gods condemn homosexuality need to come to terms
with the fact that society now regards this belief of theirs as immoral, unjust,
and overdue for the scrap heap of history.BTW, Mr. Davis, calling
this a "political" belief is just trying to hide the ball. We all know
the genesis of these odious beliefs is religion and that the anti-SSM position
is overwhelmingly religious in nature. Let's call a spade a spade.
It has been said that the best way to counter bad speech is with more speech,
not with censorship. Those who don't have a good counter to speech they
disagree with are the ones who want speech codes on college campuses. Who would
deny a woman like Condaleeza Rice a chance to speak at a college. Who want a
fairness doctrine in the media, especially on talk radio, which would stifle a
lot of conservative speech. In other words, a lot of this is coming from people
who "consider" themselves to be open minded, tolerant, inclusive,
diverse. In other words, liberal. Ironic isn't it.
Good op-ed. We need greater tolerance for dissent and diversity. In the
predominant religious culture here in Utah, too often different, valid lifestyle
or political choices are viewed as deviations from gospel doctrine (e.g.
tattoos, wearing sleeveless dresses, or aligning yourself with something other
than the Republican party). And significant deviations from gospel doctrine in
those areas are viewed as acceptable in light of cultural standards (e.g., our
excess consumption of food, trashing the environment, exaltation of capitalism,
and anti-federal government ranting). People need to appreciate more the
strength that can come to our society by cultivating divergent views and the
weakness that comes from encouraging lock step, uncritical thinking.
“homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation.” People are free to say what ever they want, but if it is discriminatory,
stupid, or unsupported by facts they will rightly be pilloried by public
opinion. There has has to be a degree of proportionality, we
don't have time to take seriously any crazy notion hat comes out of the
mouth of David Benham. Our country is open to the "marketpace of
ideas" and if you have a radical idea, thats fine, but let's hear some
From the article: "This reaction is not for a slur of a group or individual,
which would be understandable, but for articulation of a political
opinion."The problem is that all the free speech opponents out
there try to equate every political opinion they don't agree with as a slur
on a group or individual.If you express any support for traditional
marriage, then it must be because you hate gays. If you think abortion is wrong,
then you must hate women. If you think that terrorism must be defeated, then you
must hate Muslims. If you want us to protect our borders, then you must hate
Hispanics. Etc., etc..
The left-wing will stop at nothing in its efforts to silence all who oppose it.
This includes stripping opponents of employment, community safety, and even the
pursuit of happiness. The left would rather see parents put out of
work and have their children go hungry than to allow dissenting voices to be
heard. In the vision of the left, only one viewpoint has the right to be
expressed. I issue my strongest possible condemnation of those
leftists who are seeking to destroy freedom of speech. Their disregard for the
Constitution is nothing short of shameful
John Charity Spring - I challenge you to provide documentation of the things you
claim to be true. For the record, I consider myself to be a liberal in many
ways, but not all of ways. I have never proposed stripping anyone of
"employment, community safety, and even the pursuit of happiness" simply
because I disagree with them I would not like to see anyone put out of work and
especially not want anyone's children to go hungry. In fact, a true liberal
agenda celebrates differences and always promotes the health and well being of
all the citizens.Unfortunately there are liberals and conservatives
alike who suffer from low self esteem and are so consumed by their fears that
they speak out against anyone who disagrees with their position an almost
anything. Because of my religious beliefs I interpret that to be a lack of
faith in a higher power. Without that faith, and the feelings of being loved
that accompany it, people instead fear that with which they might disagree. So I would challenge you John, to provide specific examples of what you
Neither of the examples are free speech being restricted. They are examples of
two employers (A&E and HGTV) imposing standards of conduct upon employees
who are the faces of the company. I doubt it would be an issue for
A&E's accountants to take a public stance. The evidence is
in the editorial: when A&E's bosses realized the comments wouldn't
hurt revenue streams, they reversed course.
@John Charity SpringNo one has taken "destroyed" the freedom
of speech of either Phil Robertson or the Benham brothers. Do you know I can
tell? Because they are just as free today to say what they did, they could say
it today, tomorrow, the next day, a year from now. No one is putting them in
jail. Their freedom of speech in still 100% intact. However, they
did say something that made many people angry and those people exercised their
freedom of speech to protest. The corporations these people worked for decided
to suspend the individual (in the case of Robertson) or cut ties with them (in
the case of the Benham brothers). These companies are completely within their
rights to do that if they so choose. If you want to be upset with anyone be
upset with the companies, protest the companies decision, write letters to the
companies complaining about their decision.There are things I could
say that my employer would be very upset about and might even cost me my job.
I'm sure there are things you could say that would cost you your job. That
isn't a limit on your freedom of speech though.
Would a politician seeking to pass legislation that stripped the LDS church of
benefits that are awarded to his own congretation be welcomed at BYU to express
his certain beliefs that the Mormon church is a cult? Would Mr. Davis rush to
the defense of such a figure because of his willingness to welcome dissent? If
you don't see that happening, then a situation in which ignorant, libelous
comments aren't roundly comdemned is just as likely to occur.
I can relate -- Jesus was a long haired, happy Liberal, who gave away healthcare for free, feed the multitudes without charging
them, hung out with Social outcasts, forgave those who sinned, told his follwers to give their wealth to the poor and have all things in
common, and told his anti-Government distractors to just pipe down
and pay their taxes.Try saying that in Sunday School, in Utah, and see if your still welcome to come to Church.
When homosexuals and atheists are censored in their speech by taking away their
shows and their ability to earn a living it is called discrimination. When so called 'Christians' are censored in their speech by taking
away their shows and their ability to earn a living it is called payback and
justice. It is time they learn their lesson.
The usual left-wingers have been quick to criticize, and equally quick to
ignore fact. For those who claim that the left doesn't use economic
terrorism to silence its critics, we need only look at examples from Mozilla,
ESPN, CBS, and this from H GTV to see the irrefutable truth. It is
completely dishonest to state that someone has freedom of speech when that
someone's livelihood is taken away if they speak. The prisoners in the
Soviet gulags had similar freedom. If there is to be honest debate
about same-sex marriage, there must be free and uninhibited dialogue. That is
the issue here.
ECR makes an excellent point, and there are plenty of other examples. Amendment
3 gave same-sex couple absolutely no recourse to have their unions legally
recognized. I don't recall the DN asking for tolerance then, but now that
the shoe's on the other foot, we're suddenly supposed to
compromise.It's a bit late to complain about this now, guys.And JCS? One man's "economic terrorism" is another's
free market. What's your solution? The government forcing HGTV to hire
those people back? So much for conservatism...
Organizing boycotts and protests is now terrorism? Just out of
curiosity, when something is said that people on the left find offensive (like
that of Robertson or the Benham brothers) what should they do? If they
can't protest, express their anger, organize a boycott or other activities
what do you want them to do? Keep their mouths shut? Stay out of the public
square and pretend not to exist?
scldenizenI can't speak for Mr. Davis, or BYU, but I would
agree that a politician who held those views should be allowed to speak on
campus. What's the harm? The harm is when a college or students deny the
opportunity of speech to be heard on campus for political or social reasons
they disagree with. And if said speaker is offensive enough, there will be few
people listening. One of the main purposes of a university was to allow such.
As well as the purpose of the 1st Amendment. To protect free speech,
particularly that which may be offensive to many or the majority. It seems many
on the left in America have forgotten those basic principles, or never agreed
with them in the first place.
The editorial applies to both sides of the aisle. I find it amusing to read both
sides calling out the other using examples that only benefit themselves. Those
posters missed the point of the column.
@JCS"It is completely dishonest to state that someone has freedom of
speech when that someone's livelihood is taken away if they speak. "Freedom of speech is associated with the gov't not oppressing you.
The examples you cited weren't gov't based, they were employer
decisions. If you want greater protections for workers in the workplace
regarding free speech, you probably need a stronger labor movement. It's
your side that argued for all this time that gov't needs to get out of the
way of business, that businesses should be able to refuse services like making
cakes for same-sex couples.
So Schnee is saying that mob action is not oppression (as long as it is against
those whose views oppose his/hers). I disagree.
@SCfan"The harm is when a college or students deny the
opportunity of speech to be heard on campus for political or social reasons they
disagree with"In the case of "traditional marriage"
advocates, this type of speech has no place within the halls, except philosophy,
of our universities for two reasons:1. The premise of Biblical
inerrancy is entirely subjective and should not be considered objective truth,
or reflecting objective reality. 2. The basic assumption of human
sexuality being an individual choice is inaccurate and should therefore be
placed on the same shelf as flat earth mapping and geocentrism.If we
attribute any value to unbiased truth, then the reaction to false claims about
our fellow humans should be swift and unflinching. To do otherwise, as Mr. Davis
is suggesting, would be cowardice.
The conservative, reactionary comments about this are ridiculous. The free
enterprise system "silenced" these people, not the government. There is
a difference. If you don't know that, you ought to return to elementary
school.You certainly can say any inane, foolish thing you wish.
However, you also have to accept the consequences of being held to the public as
a fool. And no one has the duty or responsibility to hire a fool for a paying
job such as these already well off dudes.What happened to the
conservative line of personal responsibility anyway? You want to utter complete
nonsense, and then fight to avoid the consequences.
To John Charity Spring, Liberal Today, lost in DC, this is from an earlier post
of mine on another thread:What do Disney, Starbucks, Pepsi, UPS,
Oreos, Muppets, JC Penny, Levi Strauss and Company, J.P. Morgan, American
Airlines, Medtronic, Inc. of Minneapolis, MN, Well’s Fargo, Portland
General Gas and Electric of Portland Oregon, Hewlett Packard, The Providence
Journal, Textron, Fleet Bank, IBM Corporation, CVS/Pharmacy Stores, Carrier
Corp. of Syracuse, NY, Amazon, Nike, Google, Home Depot, General Mills and
Cheerios, and the Girl Scouts all have in common? Right wing Christian Groups
are and have been calling for boycotts of everyone of these because of their
support for Gay rights. Ford Motor Company, under pressure from right-wing
groups, pulled advertising from pro gay publications because of the economic
Impact brought by the Christian Right--the exact same thing HGTV did with the
Brenham brothers. What's good for the goose....
Mr Davis:My family consists of four. Me and my partner, and our two
adopted children. She works, I am a stay-at-home mom for at least another year,
maybe longer - both kids are special needs, it takes time. I will be
blunt. If "my side" wins the debate, your family will not change or even
be touched. You may have some psychological discomfort at the abstract thought
of same-sex people getting married. But you suffer no harm.If your
side wins it has very real-world impact on my family, on our children. It harms
them, treats them as second class, makes many things you take for granted much
more difficult for us to do. Your side talks abstracts and
slippery-slope and makes false equivalencies. My side talks about
real loss and real harm.You can talk, but understand that I may not
be very sympathetic, may not have patience for what you say.
There is a difference between freedom of speech and immunity to consequence.Freedom of speech means that the government can't prevent or
sanction your speech. Minor exceptions to this are where you threaten, harass,
defraud, or incite a riot or stampede. You also are liable for civil damages
for libel and slander if you spread damaging untruths about someone. But, short
of causing criminal damage intentionally, we have the freedom to express our
honest thoughts and opinions.But, you don't have the power to
make everyone accept what you say, nor do you have the power to pretend it has
no effect on the people around you. Conservatives frequently argue that people
have no right to a job. Try to unionize, and the typical Conservative viewpoint
is crystal clear.Here, where you find a conflict between free speech
and employer rights, you're being hypocritical. Of course a company has
the right to dismiss a contract worker if they feel they're a liability to
them. A company has every right to polish their image as they see fit. The
customer comes first.
slcdenizenGive me an example of unbiased truth. I don't mean
Earth flat vs round. That is scientific truth. The examples you used about
Bible, sexual orientation, marriage are merely social/political opinions that
people have differences on. Based upon your point of view, I could just as
easily say that liberalism is destructive to the American way and should be
swiftly and unflinchingly done away with. You might say the same about
conservatism. Point is, what you seem to want to call call "unbiased
truth" might just be your opinion, not scientificly founded. In any case,
I'll stick with more speech, not less. I'm surprised at how vehement
your side seems to be in stopping speech you don't like. A rather
totalitarian attitude in my (political scientific) opinion.
"The objective is clear — the elimination of opposing opinions from
the public square. The intent is to intimidate holders of opposing views into
silence"Probably the only article Richard has written that I
agree with. The above statement is exactly correct and IS the goal of the
radical left in the country of which the gay community is a part of. These
people allow only ONE opinion - theirs. The media are to blame for thrashing
anyone who dares oppose the gay agenda. This is more akin to the paranoia with
Joseph Mcarthy and is upheld and promoted by the Democrat party. We have seen a
CEO fired recently at Mozilla for supporting Prop 8 six years ago with a small
donation. We have seen NFL football players being told they need to go to
"re-education" camps when they oppose or at even voice convern over this
first GAY player on the RAMS. This is a society based on intimidation and terror
but it is the direction America is headed sadly. The decline of a once great
American society is happening so fast now that every week it seems a new freedom
is being threatened. The ugly face of liberalism.
I agree with Professor Davis' larger point, and I offer this homegrown
example: When Jeffrey Nielsen, a visiting professor at BYU at the time (2006),
wrote an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune that staked out a position different
from the Church's regarding same-sex marriage, he was dismissed from BYU.
I think that chilling free expression in an academic environment is particularly
harmful, since the exchange of ideas among faculty and students is the very
raison d'etre of any worthwhile academic enterprise.
@SCfanLiberalism and conservatism are simply lenses through which we
view certain aspects of our society. As we've progressed and gained more
insight into the nature of our world and the human experience, reality has
become less fuzzy and certain truths replaced older, dogmatic ones. The window
for political disagreement has likewise narrowed. Does anyone squabble over
which is the best method of expelling witches? Or by which standard we price a
slave? Those once contentious issues have been abandoned because of the progress
made with regards to the fundamental truths about ourselves e.g. owning a person
is morally reprehensible, and witches don't exist. SSM
opponents make a simple claim that homosexuality is a conscientious choice
rather than a genetic component of one's self. That is an inaccurate claim
about human biology. Therefore, prescriptive claims about treating individuals a
certain way should be rebutted and ignored. There's no room for
disagreement on certified facts and dressing the issue up as a respectable
political disagreement is as absurd as superciliously weighing in on the merits
of burning or hanging a woman accused of witchcraft.
ordinaryfolks,the liberal reactionary comments about this article are
ridiculous. Davis wasn’t telling the government to back-off, he was
telling the mobocratic liberals to back off.You certainly can say
any inane, foolish thing you want. YOU saying our comments are complete
nonsense says more about you than the comments.
@Badgerbadger"So Schnee is saying that mob action is not oppression
(as long as it is against those whose views oppose his/hers).I
disagree."I'm not saying it's not oppression, I'm
just saying that it's not government oppression (since it's the
company/employer making the decision, not any gov't law/official). We do
not have laws that protect free speech in the workplace so if you want something
to change then you're going to need labor laws (either through the
gov't or collective bargaining) that cover such a thing.
I think the author makes a valid point and is even-handed in his analysis. It
wasn't that long ago that supporters of gay marriage were losing their
jobs. Now that popular opinion has swung to the other side, some people want to
even the score by seeing that people who opposed gay marriage get fired. This
only poisons the public sphere for everyone. As Mahattmah Ghandi said: "An
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth only makes the whole world blind and
Those who oppose SHOULD be welcomed.
To Open Minded Mormon:Jesus might have given health care away for
free, but he never advocated that the government force other to give free health
care. Jesus never argued that we should use the government to do such things.
Society punishing another for their speech or exercising their conscience has a
chilling effect on free speech and dissent.Where does it end?And in the end who will stand up for you?How is this any
different than silencing dissent or censorship?Can you truly be
considered a free and tolerant society?What is scary is the extreme
left here trying to justifying their societal censorship and punishment of
others.--@open-minded Long haired?. Jewish
society did not wear their hair long. that is just the imagings of
renaissance painters.Healing someone is healthcare?Jesus
was none of those things and did none of those things.A closer read
of the scriptures shows this.Trying to use Jesus to justify your
man-created political ideologies is just wrong, plain wrong. Neither my ways are
your ways neither my thoughts your thoughts.
I seem to recall recently that there was a strong push by "gay marriage"
supporters for Utah to pass laws restricting employers from discriminating
against employees for being gay. However, based on the posts on this article,
those same "gay marriage" supporters have changed their minds.
Employers are now free to discriminate, because those choices are merely.....how
did you phrase it?.....oh, yes..... "employer decisions" and "free
market".One less thing for legislatures and courts to worry
Liberal Larry is the one who hit the nail on the head."People
are free to say what ever they want, but if it is discriminatory, stupid, or
unsupported by facts they will rightly be pilloried by public opinion."Not one of the supposed injured suffered any kind of official or legal
blow back. They simply experienced an appropriate response to an offensive
opinion or statement. It's a healthy society that tolerates
and encourages diversity including diversity of opinion, but it's a simply
a political smoke screen to think that any and all offensive and destructive
ideas will be tolerated. Unfortunately the right is full of such ideas now.
There's a great deal of irony in your comment, pragmatistfelife. The
statements, "discriminatory, stupid, or unsupported by facts" and
"offensive and destructive ideas" are opinions. You see, those who
defend traditional marriage believe that SSM is "offensive and
destructive", while SSM advocates believe that banning SSM is "offensive
and destructive". Unless we can talk to each other and explain why we
believe as we do, all we get is eye-poking and confrontation.In my
view, a point of the article is that seeking to punish those with whom we
disagree engenders confrontation and division, while allowing others to speak,
and heaven forbid, listening to what they have to say, gives us at least a
chance of finding common ground and working our way through differences.And yes, both sides are guilty of the same offense. So, if you buy into
the philosophy that two wrongs make a right, then I guess that's an okay
excuse to continue the hostilities.
Mississippi recently passed a religious freedom law stating that an individual
or business who feels that their religious exercise is being burdened by a state
law can use their religion as a defense for not following said law; they also
have the option of suing the state over the law.Many individuals and
businesses in Mississippi feel this law is discriminatory and have joined
together to participate in an anti-discrimination campaign by displaying
stickers that state, "We don't discriminate. If you'r buying,
we're selling."The American Family Association, proud
supporters of the law, believe that displaying the sticker is discriminatory
towards religious freedom and will force businesses that would like to
discriminate to do business with LGBT individuals - because LGBT individuals and
their supporters will take their business to businesses that want to do business
with them.In other words, the American Family Association wants to
be able to choose not to do business with LGBT individuals, but doesn't
want to make it easy for LGBT individuals to know where they are welcome because
this will hurt their bottom line.They want it both ways.
Fred Phelphs would be a saint if you looked at some of the so called same gender
marriage supporters. You can't defend traditional marriage without being
called a bigot, narrowminded, this is the 21st century get with the times and on
and on. People also say there is a constitutional right to marry
someone of the same gender, though that is not found anywhere, while they will
tell those who disagree with them to be quiet. Hypocrisy there as they
don't want the 1st amendment applying to anyone that disagrees with them.
" Those who oppose should be welcomed"Sure why not? If the opposition is well reasoned with supporting facts and evidence, then
absolutely it should be welcomed.And if it's a Right Wing
rehash of lies on top of lies that circulate on Right Wing Radio, seemingly
worthless drivel completely undeserving of of space or time . . . Publish it
anyway, because it demonstrates just how wrong and willfully unaware some people
are willing to be.And that can serve a useful purpose too.
We all should respect diversity of opinion in America, unless it's from a
white religious point of view. Then it should not be tolerated.
I have now read this op-ed several times and the more I read it, the more it
bothers me.Mr. Davis, exactly how does it make us more free to
continue to entertain unjustifiable beliefs that another group should have their
freedoms restricted or denied?Exactly how does it make us more free
to tell companies, "You can't respond to your market. You have to make
sure no one feels 'punished'"? Doesn't this obliterate
citizens' ability to influence their own markets? And how do you enforce
this without governmental interference?I don't think you
thought this one through. You're actually advocating the loss of free
speech and regulation of company decision-making. I'm surprised the
anti-government folks and free market worshippers weren't all over this
one.If what you were trying to say is, "Let's not be so
tough on those with unpopular views," my response is: It depends on the
nature of the view. If it leads to injury to others without a rational
justification, then I would think a just and moral society would want to
demonstrate its disapproval, wouldn't you?
"For example, only 30 years ago someone who came out as gay might be fired
from their job. "For example, TODAY, IN UTAH, someone who came
out as gay might be fired from their job. "Most people
don’t want to run the risk of losing their economic livelihood for
expressing their views. Hence, they will keep quiet."Which is
why so many LGBT people remain in the closet, even today.It
isn't about "opinion" only, Mr. Davis, it is about having your
rights voted on. It is about having othe people constantly tell you you are
"broken", "perverted", "inferior". It isn't about
their opinion, it is about the ACTIONS they take to discriminate against their
fellow LGBT citizens.
@That's RightProvo, UTTo Open Minded Mormon:Jesus
might have given health care away for free, but he never advocated that the
government force other to give free health care. Jesus never argued that we
should use the government to do such things.5:05 p.m. May 14,
2014[Really?! Then please show me ONE scripture where He said we
couldn't.] ======== the truthHolladay, UTLong haired?. Jewish society did not wear their hair long.[Sure
they did.]that is just the imagings of renaissance painters.[Really?! Then why does the One True Church, depict him with long hair in
paintings, statues, AND in the Temple?]Healing someone is
healthcare?[um, ...hello?...YES!]Neither my ways are your ways
neither my thoughts your thoughts.[I guess that whole "Come, Follow
me", "Trying to be like Jesus", "Do as I'm Doing" thing
just can't be true then?]
@JCS;You criticize "the left" and ignore the exact same
action from "the right". It's hard to take you seriously.You say: "It is completely dishonest to state that someone has freedom of
speech when that someone's livelihood is taken away if they speak."Did you know that I can be fired simply for my speech at work if I say:
"I'm gay"? Your worries are pretty hollow to me; can you be fired
for hanging a picture of your wife in your cubicle?"If there is
to be honest debate about same-sex marriage, there must be free and uninhibited
dialogue."Do we get to debate your marriage?@SCfan;I agree, we shouldn't prohibit speakers with differing
opinions. @slcdenizen;Actually witches do exist, wiccan
is a valid religious option.@Pops;It is pretty offensive
and destructive to LGBT families to deny us marriage, especially when it has no
affect on you.@higv;You're not being called a
"bigot" for supporting "traditional marriage" (I support it
too). It's your opposition to marriage equality.
Pops, "Unless we can talk to each other and explain why we believe as we do,
all we get is eye-poking and confrontation."Been there done
that, and it has no effect on the closed mind. Facts are on the side of human
effected climate change, fetuses don't experience the human condition until
around 26 weeks, God sanctioned marriage is based on a myth, the constitution
prioritizes federal law over state law etc. etc.Stephen Colbert did
an eye opening sketch when he showed that an accurate climate change discussion
would have three scientists on one side of the table and 97 scientists on the
other, not one of each. That's what were talking about.
Opinions founded in facts not myths and wishes.
"The solution to opinions we disagree with is not banishment; rather, it is
better arguments. "Awesome. When will you start?
@Karen R. of Houston disagreed with the author for labeling "anti-SSM"
opinions as poltical speech. She made the very good point that their genesis is
religious expression. However, I concord with Mr. Davis. Now that SSM is
countenanced legally, it has become political speech.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always
been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its
way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge'.” ― Isaac Asimov
Calling out those who would deny the same rights & privileges they enjoy is
not limiting their speech.
Open Minded Mormon: Jesus was a long haired (Not many barbers back then!) Happy
Liberal (Happy conservative too?) who gave away healthcare for free (He also
said, "Physician heal thyself-drug addiction, smoking, drinking, and
Pornography viewers weren't praised and excused, as is the case today) feed
the multitudes without charging them (Those receiving the aid were followers,
not arrogant conceited athiests), hung out with Social outcasts (but didn't
invite others to commit adultery), forgave those who sinned (Told them to sin no
more),told his followers to give their wealth to the poor (Didn't excuse
envy and greed) and have all things in common(wasn't advocated getting
something for nothing), and told his anti-Government distractors to just
pipe down and pay their taxes (wasn't condoning Communism or Socialism
since neither have anything to do with His view of charity and helping the
poor).Try saying that in Sunday School, in Utah (Or anywhere where
foolish ideas go unchallenged!),and see if your still welcome to come to Church
(Sometimes people are just looking for an excuse to stay away).
Thank you for your very good article, Richard Davis.When I was in junior
high school, having lessons on civics, I can remember our teacher telling us
many times, "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the
death your right to say it."Today the prevalent attitude seems
to be: "If I disagree with what you say I'll punish you for saying
it."My, how times have changed.
logicguy.."Today the prevalent attitude seems to be: "If I disagree with
what you say I'll punish you for saying it."The problem
with this is not someone has a different opinion, an opinion based only on
religious belief, but that they are trying to make public policy based on that
belief. When someone tries to make public policy based on "the
bible says" it's down right dangerous to tolerate that belief in the
policy discussion. We can sit down over a beer and discuss it all you want on a
personal level but it can't be tolerated in the policy arean.
The problem with any discussion of SSM is that one side believes that any sex
outside of a marriage between a man and woman is sin. The other side does not.
The believer sees the problem as being one of allowing society to slip farther
into immorality and hedonism. The SSM supporter operates from a position of
allowing the individual to do as they see fit without consideration of right or
wrong, good or evil. That is such a vast gap in world view that no communication
is possible unless someone surrenders their principles.The problem
with discussions of climate change is that the first instinct seems to be to try
to attempt to mitigate any human contribution by limiting people's liberty
and prosperity. People don't react very well to being told that they have
to give up their goals for a more prosperous life for themselves and their
children. When economically viable solutions come about that don't need
government intervention to be competitive, this issue will become moot.
@Logicguy"I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend
to the death your right to say it."That is still true today. I
will continue to defend the rights of anyone to say stupid and hateful things. I
will also continue to defend the rights of everyone else to call people out when
they say stupid and hateful things and equally expect my right to call people
out for saying stupid and hateful things. If calling them out gets them in
trouble, oh well, that's the price you pay for exercising your right to say
stupid and hateful things. Free speech is a many laned, omnidirectional street.
@pragmatistforlife"Stephen Colbert did an eye opening sketch when he
showed that an accurate climate change discussion would have three scientists on
one side of the table and 97 scientists on the other, not one of each. "That was John Oliver.
Sure am glad the Gay rights people are finally more open about their true
desires: to punish their opponents. Not too long ago, the Gay rights people
would argue "How can legalizing gay marriage hurt you?" Now its a clear
answer: The more rights the gays get, the less rights the rest of us have.
They are open about firing people who disagree with them. They are open about
silencing their opponents. It's labeled "Consequences for
bigotry." They are contemptuous about Christianity (but silent with respect
to Islam). Why should we give gays rights? They want to use their
political power to punish everyone else. How can gay marriage hurt anyone else?
By firing them, silencing them, sent to reeducation camp (like the NFL did).
In short, the gay movement wants to institute thought control. If you even
THINK different, you are verboten. And to be punished. Sounds
American, right? That's what Washington fought for--to allow a group of
2-3 % of Americans to have total control over everyone else's thoughts.
@Vanceone;Way to twist things there dude.SSM won't
affect you. It won't. You are welcome to your opinion.
However, if you try to use your opinion to deny equality to LGBT people you
should be prepared to have people push back. Just because you can no longer get
away with bigotry without criticism doesn't mean you are being
oppressed.What "rights" do you actually lose by us getting
equal rights? The "right" to oppress a minority? You never had that
"right" to begin with. The "right" to vote on our marriages?
You never had that "right" to begin with. One thing more,
you do not have a "right" to grant rights to anyone, LGBT, women, or any
other group; that is why they're called "rights"; they are
inherent, not granted. They are ALREADY OURS to enjoy, just as they are yours
To "ECR" here are some examples of liberal "tolerance":Look at the football player who thought it was icky to see to gay men kiss and
shove cake in eachothers mouths. He is being punished because he didn't
conform.Look at Donald Sterling, he may lose his basketball team
because he didn't conform.John Stewart recently did a pice
mocking Harry Reid because of the liberal hypocrisy when they attack the Koch
brothers. The Koch brothers donate money to conservative causes and are
attacked, George Sorros can donate money to liberal causes and is praised for
his efforts.You see, liberals are only tolerant of those who act and
think like they do.As for marriage, according to some SSM activists,
the purpose of SSM is to destroy traditional marriage. Just look for the video
of Masha Gessen saying so.To "Open Minded Mormon" the word
you are looking for is Libertarian, not liberal (at least not in todays world).
Jesus wasn't forced to do any of those things by the government. He chose
to do them.
To "GingerAle" but the arguments about the slippery slope are being
proven true. Here are some examples of what is going in around the world where
SSM has been legalized:From the Brussels Journal "First Trio
'Married' in The Netherlands". They were the first western nation
to legalize SSM, now they are headed down the same road with polygamy.From the UK Daily Mail "Is this the real-life 'Her'? Army
veteran who wants to MARRY his laptop says computers are his 'preferred
sexual object'".Consentual incest is already legal in
Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey. Switzerland is moving towards making it
legal too.You say that it is hysteria, yet the very things that you
claim wouldn't happen are happening.Do you think allowing
incest is a good or a bad thing for a nation? How do you think a nation goes
from marriage being between a man and a woman to allowing incest?The
same people warning against SSM also warned us about no fault divorces. Do we
really need to wait 30 years to see the damage of adopting this attitude towards
@pragmatistferlifeIt is one thing to be pilloried by public opinion
for your views.It is quite another for society to punish you for
having different or dissenting views.
@Open Minded MormonJesus did to have long hair.Any such
depiction in art is an artists choice, not gospel doctrine.In fact 1
Cor. 11:15 Paul says it is unnatural for men to have long hair."Does
not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for
him,"It would be inconsistant and therefore ungodly if Jesus had
long hair.Healthcare involve more than just one instant healing.
And certainly bearsn o realtion to having hospitals, and healthcare plans and
forcing your neighbor to pay fr your care..What Jesus did, as an
EXAMPLE, was do it voluntarily of his own free will, he did not conscript his
neighbor's property or money, nor involve government.Regarding: Neither my ways are your ways neither my thoughts your thoughts.You are confusing God and his perfect and infinitely higher ways with men
striving for perfection.Why the need to punish another for a having
a differing or dissenting or even offensive view?Would you want
someone to do that to you?
@Redshirtcaltech"How do you think a nation goes from marriage being
between a man and a woman to allowing incest?"If you want to
claim that same-sex marriage is a precedent, then you have to deal with the fact
that the precedent being set here was actually the courts overturning
interracial marriage bans. However, you of course like most normal people
support that decision so you wouldn't possibly try and blame that for
establishing any sort of precedent that sometime down the road may theoretically
lead to allowing incest or reinstating polygamy in these parts.By
the way, why are so many people keen on throwing the pioneers under the wagon?
It's like some of you are saying 'legalizing gay marriage is bad but
you know what's even worse? legalizing what important people in Utah's
@RedShirtCalTech:"Look at the football player...being punished
because he didn't conform."No, he is being punished for
violating behavior standards set by his employer. He can always leave the NFL
and get a job at Walmart. Or, he can follow behavior standards. "Look at Donald Sterling..."No, he said things that
violated the policies of the professional organization of which he is part. He
knew the rules, violated them anyway. "The Koch brothers..."
vs "George Sorros..."I have heard Limbaugh, Beck and Tparty
leaders pillory Sorros. Both are lauded and vilified. "As for
marriage, according to some SSM activists, the purpose of SSM is to destroy
traditional marriage. Just look for the video of Masha Gessen saying so."Ms. Gessen speaks for herself, not a monolithic gay movement. If you
actually ask gays, there are a few gay leaders who speak for a lot of the gay
movement, none speak for us all and many who get attention speak for themselves
and few followers. Don't tell me what I "must" believe
based on the words of others. Ask. I'll respond.
@RedShirtCalTech"Do you think allowing incest is a good or a bad thing
for a nation? How do you think a nation goes from marriage being between a man
and a woman to allowing incest?"How? I don't know.
Don't get it, myself. I guess we can look at some places that
allow it. For example, Utah Code §30-1-1 says that "first cousins can
marry if both are over 65, or, if both parties are over 55, if the court finds
that they are unable to reproduce."Letting me marry my
non-related partner is, you know, exactly like marriage. Letting first cousins
marry? That looks like an actual slippery slope.I would suggest
asking AG Reyes about it. He's all concerned about protecting marriage and
whatnot.Also, Utah Code §30-1-9 lets 15 year old children get
married. That would seem to be another of those slippery slopes your side keeps
obsessing on. But, again, your side set the slope up...
This editorial misses the point. The ani-SSM views are no more interesting and
contributing to the public discourse than someone complaining about interracial
marriage - and no more deserving of anything more than scorn.
In short, the message seems to be "We are really upset that it's no
longer cool be anti-gay."Keep in mind that in over 25 states,
including Utah, someone can still be fired from their job and denied housing
just because they happen to be gay. Zero protections for gay people. Yet we
so concerned a few rich bigots?