• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun owners miffed by SLC airport's confusing no-firearms signs

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

David Nelson wrote
And another: RKBA and the Mormon church. It expressed its opinion clearly.
I agree that all Churches and religion are generally off topic here as well.

However, considering that houses of worship are one of only TWO privately owned properties in the State of Utah (along with private residences) where there is any potential for a direct, criminal charge for having an unwanted gun present, there are going to be times when churches are definately directly on-topic here.

And in the Utah pages specifically, one would have to be grossly ignorant or naive to think that the opinions and views of the LDS Church--both those that are officially and publicly expressed, as well as those that are likely to be expressed privately to law makers--are not relevant when those opinions touch upon gun laws or RKBA.

And between the '96 press release from the first presidency disinviting ALL privately carried weapons (but exempting LEOs), the official actions of the LDS church to avail themselves of the law allowing them to ban private guns just after the law went into effect in about '03, the press release at about that same time, and the letter sent to Bishop's (but not read over the pulpit) about the same time, along with semi-private information I and others who have worked this issue with the LDS Church know and have attempted to properly convey to any willing to listen, it is clear that the LDS Church leadership does not want privately owned guns on their property here in Utah. I'll say again, the current law was and is a compromise. The LDS Church (and some other churches I might add) did NOT get everything they wanted. Neither was it everything the RKBA community might have hoped for. But it is a workable, if imperfect, balance between RKBA and the right to control private, religious property.

Dave, let's stop dancing around this and cut to the chase. The LDS Church has taken a political and legal position at odds with most all on this list when it comes to RKBA. They have an even longer, and much more active history taking both political, legal, social, and doctrinal positions in direct confclit with your views on gay issues. I suspect there are several other issues where you and the LDS Church have been at odds given their socially conserativism and your more liberal view of the world including perhpas the ERA and gambling. I would further suspect that most of those who have most actively opposed you on other political and social matters including "hate crimes" legislation have been active members of the LDS Church (though I note the LDS Church did everything short of actually endorsing the last "hate crimes" bill to come along). And yes, I put "hate crimes" in quotes because I'm not sure what a "love crime" is and I oppose giving special protections to anyone because of group membership. Rights are individual, not collective, but such comments are, by my own admission, inapproprite on an RKBA list.

Your angsts towards and unhappiness with the LDS Church is understandable. It is also tiresome on an RKBA list (especially on the Utah portion of such a list). Let it go and focus on what you can change. Affiliate with whatever church or other organization will meet your spiritual and social needs. Stop digging at or trying to antagonize the LDS Church on RKBA. It does no good, wastes energy, and is likely to result in hard feelings.

I will also continue to remind you and others of the unique political realities in Utah. Going head to head against the LDS church in Utah is like going head to head against corn growers in Iowa or the UAW in Michigan. It is an exercise best avoided if at all possible. Fortunately, going head to head with pro-RKBA community in Utah is very similar. So we have an uneasy--but perfectly workable--"truce" on guns. Take it for what it is worth.
 

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

Well utbagpiper, your lengthy posts of intolerance seemed to have shunned David from this forum. :cry: If you check his profile, he has deleted everything he has ever written and replaced it with "No longer a OpenCarry.org subscriber."
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
Well utbagpiper, your lengthy posts of intolerance seemed to have shunned David from this forum. :cry: If you check his profile, he has deleted everything he has ever written and replaced it with "No longer a OpenCarry.org subscriber."

I repeat;



tarzan1888 wrote:
Charles and David are both from the same state, and have worked together on RKBA issues more than once.

The dialog in posts by both men, in this thread and in others,reflects facts not in evidence in this forum.



Tarzan
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
Well utbagpiper, your lengthy posts of intolerance seemed to have shunned David from this forum. :cry: If you check his profile, he has deleted everything he has ever written and replaced it with "No longer a OpenCarry.org subscriber."
I am definately verbose. Wasn't aware that was reason to take offense.

I defy you or anyone else to point to any intolerance in my posts, especially in the full context of those "lengthy" posts.

I'm sorry to see Dave leave. I fear the he has chosen to take offense where none was intended and that a working relationship has been damaged simply because he cannot accept my personal views on the very issues where I have been more than willing to live with his personal views. That is unfortunate and is why I avoid posting my opinions on non-RKBA topics on an RKBA list. That is especially true for "hot button" issues like abortion, gay issues, etc.

But again, if he or others feel compelled to preach their views on non-RKBA issues I will feel free to counter with my own positions.
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

There are people in this world who will always stand for what is right and speak up, even when others do not like what they say, which is true.

There are people who are professional victims in this world, will always be victims, and love taking on that role



The RKBA and professional victims tend to be mutually exclusive, with one group looking always for sympathy and the other group looking to take control of their own destiny.



Every time I go to the SLC Airport, I carry a loaded handgun that is either open or concealed, while I am in the non-sterile portions of the airport.



That is what this thread is about and that is why I am posting.





Tarzan
 

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

utbagpiper wrote:
I defy you or anyone else to point to any intolerance in my posts

utbagpiper wrote:
Dave, I'd really rather NOT see gay issues, much less any particulars of your sex life being dragged into nearly so many discussions on this board. I find homosexual sodomy repulsive and would really prefer it not come up.
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't seem to remember David posting a particular about his sex life here. Unless he's posting graphic particulars of his activities, the statement made is exaggerated.
utbagpiper wrote:
I will voice my continued belief that such thins ought to remain PRIVATE. Nor will I make any apologies for what repulses me or what I consider to be grossly immoral conduct.
utbagpiper wrote:
I am strongly opinionated and guided by my most deeply held religious, moral, and social beliefs that it would be very bad public policy to legalize gay marriage or grant any further societal recognition or acceptance of homosexual conduct.
Intolerance.
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
utbagpiper wrote:
I defy you or anyone else to point to any intolerance in my posts

utbagpiper wrote:
Dave, I'd really rather NOT see gay issues, much less any particulars of your sex life being dragged into nearly so many discussions on this board. I find homosexual sodomy repulsive and would really prefer it not come up.
Lonnie Wilson wrote:
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't seem to remember David posting a particular about his sex life here. Unless he's posting graphic particulars of his activities, the statement made is exaggerated.
utbagpiper wrote:
I will voice my continued belief that such thins ought to remain PRIVATE. Nor will I make any apologies for what repulses me or what I consider to be grossly immoral conduct.
utbagpiper wrote:
I am strongly opinionated and guided by my most deeply held religious, moral, and social beliefs that it would be very bad public policy to legalize gay marriage or grant any further societal recognition or acceptance of homosexual conduct.
Intolerance.

"Intolerance" to off topic posts.....Yes.... "Intolerance" of posts and topics not in accordance withthe values of this forum......Yes.....



Tarzan
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:


utbagpiper wrote:
Dave, I'd really rather NOT see gay issues, much less any particulars of your sex life being dragged into nearly so many discussions on this board. I find homosexual sodomy repulsive and would really prefer it not come up.

utbagpiper wrote:
I will voice my continued belief that such thins ought to remain PRIVATE. Nor will I make any apologies for what repulses me or what I consider to be grossly immoral conduct.
utbagpiper wrote:
I am strongly opinionated and guided by my most deeply held religious, moral, and social beliefs that it would be very bad public policy to legalize gay marriage or grant any further societal recognition or acceptance of homosexual conduct.
Intolerance.
I'm afraid you mistake personal views, and lack of celebrating every choice made by others as "intolerance." I could just as easily flip that around and accuse some here of being "intolerant" of my particular religious, social, moral, and political beliefs.

You are allowing current political correctness vis-a-vie homosexuality to color your judgement. If I had written about how repulsive brussel sprouts are to my tongue, but respect others rights to eat what they see fit, you might well disagree with me, but you'd never brand me intolerant.

I wrote repeatedly that I support self defense and the rights of adults to conduct thei private affairs as they see fit. I've REPEATEDLY made clear my willingness and desire to work with anyone (short of racists and serious criminals) on RKBA without regard to their views on any issue other than RKBA. THAT is tolerance.

Apparently what you and Dave and too many others demand is full societal acceptance, celebration, and agreement on every public policy issue you might adopt. You are not going to get that from me in certain areas any more than I am going to get it from you or Dave or othes in some other areas.

I'll write once again, I am willing and anxious to work with those from across the political spectrum anytime we agree on RKBA. I will avoid bringing up my particular views on various non-RKBA issues so long as others show forth the same respect to me. But don't expect me to remain mute if someone chooses to preach positions on a non-RKBA issue.

In the proper forums, I am more than willing to discuss those other issues IF people want to and are willing to do so in a mature, rational, and intelligent way. This is not the correct forum and immediately accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being "intolerant" is not the most productive way to debate.

All the best.

Charles
 

rocknsnow

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
275
Location
Layton, Utah, USA
imported post

Welcome to opencarry.org. We are a free discussion forum dedicated to helping people understand the shifting landscape of open carry laws in the US. All are welcome but we do have a few rules.

1) Since we are a site dedicated to open carry, freedom, liberty, firearms and gun rights, all posts should relate in some way to one of these topics.

2) Keep the profanity to a minimum. While an expletive may be the only way to convey the depth of anger / surprise or frustration you are trying to express, please do not use them gratuitously.

3) Links to spam/membership sites not related directly to firearms are NOT allowed under any circumstances!

4) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks based upon race, religion or sex.

5) We reserve the right to remove posting for any reason, at our sole discretion.




This comes from the rules of this forum. In my opinion there are a few of us that have somewhat bent and or broken these. I would ask that you please read these and be considerate of others. I realize that people have strong values. I for one do not believe in gay marriage. But this website is not the place to talk about such things. We are talking about guns rights...gun rights and marriage are two different things. utbagpiper...you spoke in a different thread the one about temple square how you think that was not a battle to fight, and that we need to be careful in which ones to fight. It seems you need to remember those words yourself. This website is not the place to fight about gay rights or whatever. I mean no offense to you or anyone else. I just hope that we all need to realize that we lost David due to the fact that we seemed to have picked a fight that was not to have been fought here.
 

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

Charles, your intolerance does not stop at the issue of homosexuality. Here are some of your attacks directed at me.

utbagpiper wrote:
I don't think you've done us, or RKBA, or even open carry ANY FAVORS at all.
Citizen wrote:
I'm not convinced SGTJensen deserved that level hostility. He's not immature, and I'm sure he'd have understood it just as well if it was laid out for him minus the hostility. We're all on the same team, here.

utbagpiper wrote:

But show forth enough maturity, discretion, and respect for the beliefs of others NOT to push the legal OR SOCIAL limits at relgious property whether or not it falls under the technical definition of "house of worship."

utbagpiper wrote:

Or do you only pull out the "must obey the law AND always be armed" routine when it is convenient?

utbagpiper wrote:

You do NOTHING to help our efforts
utbagpiper wrote:
I've REPEATEDLY made clear my willingness and desire to work with anyone (short of racists and serious criminals) on RKBA without regard to their views on any issue other than RKBA.
EXCEPT when it comes to gay issues and LDS issues.
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

rocknsnow wrote:
..........we lost David due to the fact that we seemed to have picked a fight that was not to have been fought here.

Repost;

tarzan1888 wrote:
There are people in this world who will always stand for what is right and speak up, even when others do not like what they say, which is true.

There are people who are professional victims in this world, will always be victims, and love taking on that role



The RKBA and professional victims tend to be mutually exclusive, with one group looking always for sympathy and the other group looking to take control of their own destiny.



Every time I go to the SLC Airport, I carry a loaded handgun that is either open or concealed, while I am in the non-sterile portions of the airport.



That is what this thread is about and that is why I am posting.





Tarzan
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
Charles, your intolerance does not stop at the issue of homosexuality. Here are some of your attacks directed at me.
Kevin,

I'm truly sorry. I thought that my apology for my less than appropriate tone on the Temple Square post had been accepted and put behind us.

That notwithstanding, I fear you are still using "intolerant" in an overly broad way. Simple disagreement with a position, a tactic, or a view is NOT intolerance. But such word usage is your choice and I won't debate semantics on this issue any further.

I work on RKBA with those who disagree with me on issues ranging from homosexuality, to immigration, to religion, to recreational drug use., to a host of other issues I am very tolerant of their views so long as they show forth similar tolerance for my differing views.

In RKBA settings, I am more than happy to leave these others subjects unstated whenever possible. It is shame that there are those who are unable or unwilling to do so and who then go on to take great personal offense when some do not agree with them.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

rocknsnow wrote:
I realize that people have strong values. I for one do not believe in gay marriage. But this website is not the place to talk about such things. We are talking about guns rights...gun rights and marriage are two different things. utbagpiper...you spoke in a different thread the one about temple square how you think that was not a battle to fight, and that we need to be careful in which ones to fight. It seems you need to remember those words yourself. This website is not the place to fight about gay rights or whatever. I mean no offense to you or anyone else. I just hope that we all need to realize that we lost David due to the fact that we seemed to have picked a fight that was not to have been fought here.
Rock,

No offense taken, and I appreciate the post of the forum rules. I may have been well served by taking that tact myself. I might caution you against voicing any opinion opposed to gay marriage lest someone label you "intolerant." :)

I believe if you'll go back and read my posts you'll find I have not been fighting over gay issues. It seems my transgression was to mention that I did not believe bringing sodomy or other sexual practices into an RKBA discussion was really appropriate and letting something of my own views and feelilngs of these issues be made known.

I am sad to have lost David's perspective here. I'm sorry he insisted on waging a fight here that should not have been waged and in taking offense where none was intended. But at the end of the day, we are all adults and David is gone not because of any fight, but simply because he chose to leave.

It seems that disagreement on gay issues is more important to him than agreement on RKBA issues. That might make perfect sense on a board committed to marriage or family law. On a board committed to OC and RKBA, it is a bit peculiar. I note that in previous years his has been the only pro-RKBA group in Utah to support (almost all others actually opposed to one degree or another) "hate crime" laws that would have the effect of turning relatively minor misdemeanor offenses into felonies (with the lifetime loss of RKBA) if the victim happened to belong to one of several, politically correct and protected categories.

While I have never let that difference of opinion hinder a working relationship, I think it speaks somewhat to the order of priorties for Dave and his group and I don't think RKBA is their highest priority. And that is their right. But when posting to an RKBA group, I should hope that we could all stick to RKBA issues a little better, and try not to take offense too easily if someone does disagree with us on some other pet issue.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
Well utbagpiper, your lengthy posts of intolerance seemed to have shunned David from this forum. :cry: If you check his profile, he has deleted everything he has ever written and replaced it with "No longer a OpenCarry.org subscriber."
Maybe in bad taste under the circumstances, but the techie in me has to ask how one goes about editing every post one has ever made in a single command? Is there a feature on this website or did Dave use a custom script of some kind?
 

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

utbagpiper wrote:
Maybe in bad taste under the circumstances, but the techie in me has to ask how one goes about editing every post one has ever made in a single command? Is there a feature on this website or did Dave use a custom script of some kind?
David deleted each post, one by one, and replaced it with what is there now. He also deleted everything that he could in his profile.
 

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
imported post

I've been watching this post for about a week now....at first I was just skimming posts but then I found the "gay" issue and had to watch it unfold.
So there is no misunderstanding about my perspective on things, let me first say that I am not gay, I was raised babtist, and I'm a libertarian. Make your own assumptions about my beliefs if you'd like...they vary.
Being relitavely new to opencarry.org, I wasn't sure if I should say something or not seeing as I live in Boise but hail from Indiana. I've only been to Utah once and that was driving through the corner of it on the way to Idaho (not sure if I even got gas there). So if my comments aren't wanted, just let me know and I'll happily go back to my Idaho forum. The discussion interested me and I thought maybe I could offer an outside perspective.
First off, while this is a forum deticated to firearms and opencarry, I think that any topic is fair game if it even indirectly effects our beliefs about firearms. This issue is obviously effecting the way we interact with each other and that in turn effects our ability to work as a team. I think the discuassion is valid, though I would ask someone to start a new thread to continue this topic and get back to the airport carry issue on this thread. This not being my normal forum, if someone else is interested, please start a new topic for this.
While I do not like to argue semantics, I think it's important for us to come to an understanding of what the other is trying to say. Semantics is important in this case. There is a HUGE difference between tolerance and acceptance. There are many things I hear on a daily basis at work, from friends, even at my church, that should offend me. Why don't I get offended then? Because one of my core beliefs is that everyone has the right to be wrong. ;) It's ok with me that people think differently or choose to live a different lifestyle than I choose. That being said, I too have been accused of being intolerant because I don't cheer their choices on. When relative to a discussion, I will gladly share my views with anyone and have offended many people this way because THEY are intolerant of my beliefs. Just because I don't believe the government shouldn't be involved in an issue doesn't mean that I support that cause...it means that I think those changes should be made through social means and community.
I can be tolerant (allow it to be around me, not attack it through forceful means) but not accept (internalize, take as my own belief) many things in this society. I can still exercise my own right of expression though and defend my own beliefs when nessesary.
Back to the main point though...this is about open carry and firearms. I didn't read anything on this board that would qualify as "cyber-bullying", I just saw people openly expressing their beliefs and I think that's what the whole point of owning firearms is. To live free and speak freely. Just as I choose not to shop at certain places do to their OC stance, he chose not to be here for his own reasons. I'm sorry your friend chose to leave this board...I hope if he's reading this, he should know that he is still welcome here and his thoughts on gay rights are welcome as well, when relevant to our main topic. But don't expect people to internalize everything you believe and make it their own.
 

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
imported post

I didn't make a secondary post following up on this situation, but given recent events, I feel the need to speak up.

David made a point about sodomy LAWS. Not the act, LAWS. There's a huge difference in discussion between the two, and he made a corallary (sp?) between the two situations (preempted local rules and laws versus unenforceable laws.

He is essentially correct that Utah has certain laws on the books which stand unenforced but still may be used to justify a possible false arrest.

I think it's hypocritical for an open carrier, who pushes for the acceptance of open carry in their daily lives with others around them, who demands that the law enforcement community accept the fact that they are sovereign individuals not to be trifled with on violations of their constitutional rights against search, seizure, and unreasonable detainment; and then go back and state that they believe that the state has the right to regulate the private conduct of consenting adults, or that they need to "keep their lives private" by never disclosing anything about their lives while the ones who happen to demand "go back in the closet, gays" can freely talk open carrying with their wives, having lunch with them while doing so.

David should not have left at all.
 

Mr. Magnum

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
62
Location
Santaquin, Utah, ,
imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:
I didn't make a secondary post following up on this situation, but given recent events, I feel the need to speak up.

David made a point about sodomy LAWS. Not the act, LAWS. There's a huge difference in discussion between the two, and he made a corallary (sp?) between the two situations (preempted local rules and laws versus unenforceable laws.

He is essentially correct that Utah has certain laws on the books which stand unenforced but still may be used to justify a possible false arrest.

I think it's hypocritical for an open carrier, who pushes for the acceptance of open carry in their daily lives with others around them, who demands that the law enforcement community accept the fact that they are sovereign individuals not to be trifled with on violations of their constitutional rights against search, seizure, and unreasonable detainment; and then go back and state that they believe that the state has the right to regulate the private conduct of consenting adults, or that they need to "keep their lives private" by never disclosing anything about their lives while the ones who happen to demand "go back in the closet, gays" can freely talk open carrying with their wives, having lunch with them while doing so.

David should not have left at all.
+1
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:
David made a point about sodomy LAWS. Not the act, LAWS. There's a huge difference in discussion between the two, and he made a corallary (sp?) between the two situations (preempted local rules and laws versus unenforceable laws.

He is essentially correct that Utah has certain laws on the books which stand unenforced but still may be used to justify a possible false arrest.

I think it's hypocritical for an open carrier, who pushes for the acceptance of open carry in their daily lives with others around them, who demands that the law enforcement community accept the fact that they are sovereign individuals not to be trifled with on violations of their constitutional rights against search, seizure, and unreasonable detainment; and then go back and state that they believe that the state has the right to regulate the private conduct of consenting adults, or that they need to "keep their lives private" by never disclosing anything about their lives while the ones who happen to demand "go back in the closet, gays" can freely talk open carrying with their wives, having lunch with them while doing so.

David should not have left at all.
I agree, David should not have left. He should not have allowed himself to get so offended over my personal beliefs concerning his lifestyle and sexual practices as to pack up and leave. But that is his choice.

I will also point out that David did NOT limit his remarks to JUST Utah's laws regarding sodomy. He did not write in hypotheticals that SOMEONE might be made a de facto criminal over private conduct. He said that HE WAS a de facto criminal because of the anti-sodomy laws on the books in Utah. He moved HIS sexual conduct from the private realm to the realm of public discussion. THEN he chose to get offended when some of those subjected to that discussion were less than thrilled with the topic and less than fully supportive of his conduct.

As I've written before, I have worked with Dave on previous occasions. He makes no secret of his sexuality. (Nor of the fact that he is a Democrat, while I am a registered Republican, nor that he is quite liberal in his political views, while I am quite conservative. Nor have I made any secret of my religious affiliation or the extent of my devotion thereto.) And that knowledge has never been an impediment to me having a good working relationship with him. So what he "revealed" on this list is not a revelation at all. But he chose to bring it up. That makes it fair game for comments and the reality is, just as people disagree with us over OC (or gun ownership in general) a whole lot of people do have beliefs that do not support homosexual conduct. Similarly, what I posted about my personal views should not be a shock to anyone who knows me at all or who is at all familiar with LDS doctrines, theology, or even culture.

Those old enough to engage in consensual sexual activity, should be mature enough to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with, support, celebrate, nor encourage their choices. Sadly, while I have been--and am expected to be--completely willing to tolerate Dave's choices with which I might personally disagree, Dave is unable or unwilling to accept my personal choices and beliefs with which he disagrees.

Utah, and every other State have a HOST of laws on the books that are unenforced and unenforceable. I trust all here have seen various lists of silly laws including limits on dancing after midnight or eating sunflower seeds. I should add that Utah's sodomy law is NOT entirely unenforceable even under the highly flawed Lawrence decision and one of Utah's two openly gay legislators has sponsored a bill the last couple of years NOT to repeal it, but to modify and limit its application to conform with Lawrence. So for Dave to suggest the "delete button" is not only overly simplistic from a separation of powers point of view, but also an inaccurate and over-reaching reading of Lawrence. His pet peeve is not with a particular law remaining in statute. Nor is it even with government officials not abiding the law. It is with the fact that his lifestyle is not wholly accepted and celebrated, that it is not held on equal footing with heterosexual marriage, that there remain those of us who firmly believe and are willing to say from time to time that certain private conduct is immoral, unhealthy to individuals and society at large, and ought not be granted public sanction even as we concede a right to be left unmolested in that private conduct.

Utah has one of the strictest anti-gay-marriage provisions of any State, in our State Constitution. Not only does it define marriage as between one man and one woman (yes a bit of irony there for an area that once practiced polygamy, but I don't see Dave or very many other gay activists out supporting the "right" of polygamists to get multiple marriage licenses/certificates, so "hypocrisy" runs nearly universal), but it prohibits providing the same or substantially similar benefits as are accorded marriage, thusly defined, to ANY other union or relationship. Now I'm sure Dave and most other gays don't care for that. But it was duly passed by a super majority of both the legislature and the voters just a couple of years back. IT IS the law of the land in Utah. About a week ago, the new mayor of SCL swore an oath to uphold that Constitution. Three days later he proposed a "domestic partner" register whose obvious and sole purpose is to provide some of the benefits of marriage to gay couples. And this is all off-topic to this board UNTIL someone has the audacity to suggest that Dave's or anyone else's problem is with how the laws on the books are enforced while having NO PROBLEM with an elected official so clearly flaunting Constitutional provisions. Pretty hypocritical to get upset when they violate our RKBA provision in Art 1 Sec 6, but then celebrate when they violate Amd 3 provisions relating to marriage and the benefits of marriage.

And I've NEVER suggested the State should regulate the private conduct of consenting adults. I pointed out the fallacy of comparing a mere sign with a statute. And I suggested that our individual views on gay issues do not materially affect our views on RKBA and are therefore off topic. I have further offered my opinion that private sexual choices ought to remain private. I did not get upset about Dave mentioning a "partner" as others have done. I've never suggested he hide who he is. I objected to overt mention of sex acts and suggestions that if I support RKBA there is only one proper view for me to hold on the legality, morality, and propriety of those sex acts.

I recognize that there are those who believe and feel passionately about gay issues and believe that failure to grant legal recognition to gay unions as equal to marriage is similar to the denial of RKBA or to the deprivation of basic rights to minorities. I respect those views. But I disagree. I do not believe anyone has a right to redefine marriage. I do not believe anyone has a right to force others to accept or like a particular lifestyle. I believe society has a proper interest in defining marriage and granting benefits thereto in the manner that they calculate will best benefit society.

And I am quite happy to leave these views on gay issues unstated in RKBA discussions, just as I avoid implying or stating that those who support RKBA should automatically be in lock step on abortion, capital punishment, the role of religion in society, immigration, welfare, taxes, etc. I KNOW these are hot button issues and people are prone to take offense. But there was a clear pattern emerging from Dave in recent posts as he attempted to drag gay issues into a growing number of his posts. Do not expect me to remain silent when someone else brings up these issues and suggest (or stronger) that I, as a supporter of RKBA, should or must take any particular position.

And with the greatest of respect, Lonnie, I reject your assertion that I am a "hypocrite" for supporting RKBA and OC while remaining opposed to further expansion of the societal acceptance of homosexual conduct. We might just as well suggest one is a hypocrite for supporting RKBA/OC while not supporting the right to life of unborn children, or the right for a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy at will, or the right of a nation to secure its borders, or the rights of individuals to move freely from one nation to another, or the right to free health care, or the right not to have your property taken to provide free health care to others.

There are rights that are and ought to be fairly universally accepted among the pro-RKBA crowd: RKBA; freedom of religion, speech, and the press; the right not to self-incriminate; to be free from unreasonable/warrentless search and seizure; to have counsel and confront witness against you. But there are a whole host of other areas where those who support RKBA can, in good conscience and without a hint of hypocrisy, come down on EITHER or even any side of the issue. I will respect those who take a different view than I do on any or all of these. I won't stoop to calling them hypocrites or questioning their devotion to RKBA. But I will demand equal consideration in return.

Dave is offended. You sound a little offended. And being called a hypocrite or intolerant without damned good reason (which is NOT present here) is one of the few things likely to offend me. I'll respect your choices. I'll expect and accept no less from you in return. And, I'll retain and exercise my right to peacably voice my opinion on those choices if you choose to bring them up in a discussion forumn.

I think we now have exhibits A through Z of why these topics do NOT belong here.
 
Top