C'mon, Rudi, let's not be so one-sided. Surely your gentle readers should also be made aware of the opinions recently voiced by our esteemed Weber County legislators, Stuart Reid,
And let's not forget the ever-reasonable voice of S-E columnist Mark Saal, who writes in the great journalistic tradition of holding himself above the fray and finding fault on both sides:
It's important to document all of these reactions, so history can properly judge how the Top o' Utah responded (at least in print) when freedom finally arrived.
Ya know it is a puzzlement that Utah's predominate moral code condemns same sex marriage while whole hardily supporting payday lenders who charge upwards of 453% interest. Both practices supposedly condemned in the bible. Maybe as evidenced by former AG's Swallow and Shurtleff money is the cost of freedom in the land of Zion?
It seems odd that one publicity-seeking judge, in an effort to make an historical name for himself, can overrule the public, and all these liberals cheer and call it freedom.
And it's stranger, that nobody argues the reason against gay marriage as an health issue. Sodomy remains the primary transmission mechanism for AIDS. State sanction of this practice seems counter-intuitive.
Gays can sodomize each other all they want, so said the Supreme Court. Local laws cannot ban this practice. But must the citizens of a state also be forced to license the practice? You liberals seem to choose your positions based on random chance. They have no logic.
4 comments:
C'mon, Rudi, let's not be so one-sided. Surely your gentle readers should also be made aware of the opinions recently voiced by our esteemed Weber County legislators, Stuart Reid,
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57302470-82/majority-marriage-republic-state.html.csp
and Jeremy Peterson,
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/12/23/gay-marriage-ruling-opens-door-legal-confusion
as well as some of the letters to the editor that have recently appeared on the S-E web site:
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/12/23/activist-judges-may-rule-against-majority
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/12/23/federal-judges-insensitive-ignore-outcry-people
And let's not forget the ever-reasonable voice of S-E columnist Mark Saal, who writes in the great journalistic tradition of holding himself above the fray and finding fault on both sides:
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/12/23/can-we-perhaps-claim-moral-high-ground-same-sex-marriage-issue
It's important to document all of these reactions, so history can properly judge how the Top o' Utah responded (at least in print) when freedom finally arrived.
Yep, Dan. I'd had all these trashy pieces bookmarked, but decided to cut to the chase this afternoon, perhaps outta sheer laziness.
You're right, though: 1) This reactionary BS needs to be exposed 2) Ogden voters can do much better In House District 9.
Ya know it is a puzzlement that Utah's predominate moral code condemns same sex marriage while whole hardily supporting payday lenders who charge upwards of 453% interest. Both practices supposedly condemned in the bible. Maybe as evidenced by former AG's Swallow and Shurtleff money is the cost of freedom in the land of Zion?
It seems odd that one publicity-seeking judge, in an effort to make an historical name for himself, can overrule the public, and all these liberals cheer and call it freedom.
And it's stranger, that nobody argues the reason against gay marriage as an health issue. Sodomy remains the primary transmission mechanism for AIDS. State sanction of this practice seems counter-intuitive.
Gays can sodomize each other all they want, so said the Supreme Court. Local laws cannot ban this practice. But must the citizens of a state also be forced to license the practice? You liberals seem to choose your positions based on random chance. They have no logic.
Post a Comment