Comments on: Could a Travel Boycott Be Headed Utah’s Way?

By: Traveling Wedding Photographer,Amanda

Traveling Wedding Photographer,Amanda — Tue, 12 May 2009 21:48:39 +0000

Even with the weirdness in Utah, the scenery is unrivaled and you are only hurting yourself if you miss it ! This is my home area! There is too much there to see to miss it. ~Amanda

(Report comment)

By: Amy

Amy — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:30:33 +0000

I think that anyone that refuses to go to a place as beautifully stunning as Utah because a stupid church that most people in the tourist towns of Utah loath, needs a head check of their own. If you travel to places like Moab and actually take the time to hang out and get to know the people, you soon find out that they dislike the Mormons and totally disagree with their ways and beliefs just as you do. Most people in that town are very open minded people who regardless of the Mormons stay because they love the area the seclusion,and the beauty. However the people of Moab rely almost solely on tourism and to punish them and the awesome people in the other surrounding towns not to mention the Native American 's on the reservations there… Well that's not fair. I think that's worse than not allowing marriage of any type. You're saying we should cause innocent people to loose their jobs, their homes and starve just because a bill was not passed due to the rich Mormons. The Mormons don't even live in these towns. They don't work at these resorts. They don't rely on your money… Not like the service industry there that absolutely HAS to have your money in order to put presents under the tree, keep the heat on, feed one another. Most of my friends in Utah are the people that rely on your money because they guide your tours and serve your food, they clean the toilets to your resort, and make sure the roads are clear for you to travel on, and I am sickened that you would want to lash out at them.. You should attack them where and when it will only hurt them and not thousands of innocent people.

(Report comment)

By: Caro

Caro — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:34:23 +0000

This is ridiculous. What rights, outside of Social Security death benefits, are gays denied? Zero. Zip. None. I know gay couples who considered themselves married long before it was an issue.Lots of hetero couples live together without the benefit of marriage (Susan Sarandon and TIm Robbins, for example), so what's the big deal? This tempest in a teapot is going to end up backfiring on the gay community.

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:15:02 +0000

I'm sorry, but you've been misinformed. Prop 8 had NOTHING to do with forcing churches to marry gays, it was about CIVIL marriage only. If you're paranoid enough to believe that it's a "slippery slope" perhaps you ought to look at all the countries that have legalized gay marriage in the civil arena. Here in Canada, it's been almost six years since we did so, and not one priest has been dragged screaming down the aisle and forced to marry two men or two women. They weren't protecting themselves, they weren't stopping the government from telling them what to do "within the walls of their sacred establishments" – quite the contrary, they were attacking others who are not members of their faith, and attempting to impose their will on those outside the walls of their sacred establishments. If you value freedom of religion (which it seems you do), I don't know how you can support a church breaking the bargain it has made with the state like this.

(Report comment)

By: Support Democracy

Support Democracy — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:34:13 +0000

I can't believe how many liberal nuts there are in this country! This blog talks about a "Church entering the public arena" by spending tens of millions of dollars to support a proposition that strips Americans of their basic civil rights, but there are two sides to every story and, as usual, the American Left isn't as much concerned with facts as they are with undermining the basic Christian Values which (whether they like to admit or not) this country WAS founded on. If Proposition 8 didn't pass then the Mormon Church could be required to perform Gay Marriages in order to maintain its Tax Exempt Status. It is no more fair for a State of Federal Government to tell a Church which ordinances it can or can't or HAS TO perform than it is for a Church to tell a Government which laws to pass. The Mormon Church took a stand for its rights and defended its values just as any protester would do. If some Liberal watch group had paid tens of millions dollars in advertising to try to prevent Prop 8 from passing, would you same people who are so outraged with the Mormon Church truly feel that they had done something unethical? My last point is this: the Mormon Church is a comparatively new Church and, as such, is much more open to ridicule and abuse. There is much less tolerance for it than other, more established, Christian Churches in America and I think this fact is playing a big role in this hot topic. I hardly doubt there would be this type of backlash against the Catholic Church or the Jewish Faith had they funded a similar campaign. Can you imagine such a thing? It is bigotry and it is unjustly hypocritical for those of you claiming to be champions of civil rights and fair treatment of minorities to expect a Religious Organization to quietly allow the government to tell them what they can and cannot do within the walls of their sacred establishments. You may not like the outcome, but the people DID vote and that is what makes this country great! You can't blame one group who provided some funding to protect themselves against one bill. Funding is funneled through all sorts of crazy places from all sorts of groups who intentionally maintain anonymity to avoid this type of backlash, but the Mormon Church was open and honest with their stance and supported their cause. Kudos to them! And… for the record, I live Utah, am NOT Mormon, and feel sorry for anybody who passes up the chance to ski in the most beautiful place on Earth just because they want to throw a tantrum.

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:16:38 +0000

G. Hodgson: Thanks for pointing out my mistake on reign/rein. I'm a big fan of the English language, and always appreciate people who are vigilant in its maintenance. I don't think, though, that one mistake is enough for you to paint me, and all my peers, as part of some imaginary, entire generation that never learned how to spell: "Having been educated in the pre-spellcheck days, I actually had to learn how to spell." I can spell pedantry. And I can spell condescension, too. Just thought I'd let you no. (Har har.)

(Report comment)

By: G. Hodgson

G. Hodgson — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:01:49 +0000

While we're talking about homosexuality, can we make a little side-trip into homophones? No, that's not phone-sex between same-gender people–it's words that sound alike but have different meanings and may be spelled differently. To "reign" means to hold power, such as a king who "reigns" over a nation. "Reins" are the straps used to control a horse (they're usually attached to a bit in the horse's mouth). So when we want to pull someone back, or keep them from moving forward so rapidly, we "rein them in." Having been educated in the pre-spellcheck days, I actually had to learn how to spell. So it annoys the hell outta me to see "reign" used, again and again, in place of "rein." We hunt "bears," not "bares"; we study the "past," not the "passed"; we comb our "hair," not our "hare": we send "mail," not "male"; we blow our "nose," not our "knows"; and for heaven's sake, we "rein them in," NOT "reign them in." Language is supposed to communicate, but the more ambiguity we throw into it ("Did he mean a grizzly or something naked?") the less effectively it communicates. Regarding the topic at hand: Of COURSE it's okay for people to take political action (such as a boycott) against any interests of the Mormon Church. Nobody intended to force the LDS Church–nor any church–to offer religious blessings to the marriages of gay people–they simply wanted the CIVIL right to marry. If religion chooses to step across the line and influence politics (such as civil rights), then politics has every right to influence religion. The deal is supposed to be that neither one interferes with the other. When either one crosses the line of separation to attack the other, it's inviting counter-attacks across that same line. Seems pretty simple to me.

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:54:43 +0000

"Same-sex civil marriage is not, on the other hand, an attempt to impose values on all of society – the equivalent would be forcing all churches and religious groups to perform same-sex marriages, in my mind." Or better yet, forcing everyone to marry someone of their own gender!

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:46:29 +0000

Hmm, nothing I've read has had any specific comment from LDS officials. I think they're keeping their heads down and hoping it all blows over. For what it's worth, as I said somewhere above, I do think there's a scapegoating element to the focus on the LDS – people are (understandably) angry, and they wind up focusing on a safe target.

(Report comment)

By: Eva

Eva — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:43:27 +0000

Hey Theodore – I dunno, as I said above I'm far from an expert on the details of this stuff. In Canada, I'm pretty sure any church raising money for a specific candidate would be illegal – and I'd support that, whichever side they were on. It looks from this PBS transcript (-” target=”_blank”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june0...- interesting stuff in here! talks to both sides, and the IRS) that things in the States might be a little muddier. IRS investigations seem to be largely complaint-based, but yeah, from what I can gather from the article, any church raising money specifically for Obama would be in clear violation. All you'd need to do is file a complaint with the IRS. I do think that laws to "reign them in" are important – freedom of religion is important, and should be protected, but the key to that is that one religion's mores can NOT be imposed on the rest. What the churches think of civil marriage is absolutely irrelevant – it's out of their jurisdiction, and any attempt to interfere with it is an attempt to impose their values on all of society. And to rebutt the obvious rebuttal: Same-sex civil marriage is not, on the other hand, an attempt to impose values on all of society – the equivalent would be forcing all churches and religious groups to perform same-sex marriages, in my mind. Here in Canada, when we had our big same-sex marriage debate a few years back, the majority of Canadians were in favour of it. But our Prime Minister at the time was a Catholic. Word came all the way from the Vatican that folks there were keeping an eye on what our Prime Minister did – there was talk of excommunication if he passed the bill. To my mind that was the most outrageous interference in Canadian politics and society. It really made me see the importance of limiting church interference in civil affairs. Should an elected official follow the edicts of Vatican City, in direct violation of the will of the citizens he's supposed to serve? Absolutely not. And he didn't, in the end, thankfully.

(Report comment)