The problem is that there is no “civil right” to a government entitlement. That goes for government Marrriage law (which is mostly about giving special privileges to married persons vs singles, non-married couples and a variety of other social arrangements). Wise government would treat people as individuals and would avoid handing out special privileges based on relationship status. Leave holy matrimony and its definition to the church of your choice; it’s got nothing to do with government and law. As for legal contracts, let anyone, gay, straight or whatever have a civil union for the purpose of inheritance and other family issues. But lets get away from laws and tax breaks to incentivise moral issues that should properly be up to the church or non-church of your choice.

To take a firm stand for a just cause, unpopular with your constituents, is the mark of a true statesman, not a politician and Rocky Anderson passes that test with full honors when it comes to marriage equality as well as his stand on many other important problems facing us.
J. Glenn Evans

As a former Congressional candidate, I totally understand what Rocky Anderson was saying. He was not recanting his stand on marriage equality. He was saying, as a representative for his elected district he would cast the vote to represent the will of his constituents.

Had I been elected I planned on establishing a website that would keep my constituents abreast of legislation as it crossed my desk. I would have them vote yes or no, so I could get a feel for the will of the district. Sometimes the majority vote would be different than mine. I would then have to decide based on the percentage of difference between yes and no which way to cast my vote. As technology improves we have better ways to be in touch and actually make government a more participatory process.

On this web page, Rocky wrote: “I’ve been proud to consistently support full marriage equality. When I ran for Congress in 1996, I unequivocally advocated for marriage equality….”

I was curious about his congressional campaign support for equal marriage liberties, and did a simple Internet search about it. I found just two news reports:

—“Anderson: I’ll put aside support for gay marriage” (The Salt Lake Tribune; July 9, 1996) (http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/SLTB/lib00497,100FD5FEB944B234.html)

—“Anderson clarifies stand on same-sex unions” (Deseret News; July 9, 1996) (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=POZHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r-wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6845,4511295&dq=anderson+clarifies+stand+on+same-sex+unions&hl=en)

So, it is true that he spoke out about his support of equal marriage liberties. But, I believe that his promise to vote against those liberties just to get elected wasn’t consistent or unequivocal as he claims. I believe that his promise was expedient and offensive, and the news reports proved it. Because of this, I won’t vote for him.

Judge for yourself.

aye ehl, please STFU, you’re making Anderson Supporters look like complete retards.

aye eh, you need to refine your critical thinking. Beliefs and facts are two separable entities. I have separated mine, I’m sorry you can’t separate yours. End of line.

Fellas, fellas…I guess you folks wanna give the rest of us some , uh oh, watchit, here it comes…“CHANG WE CAN BELIEVE IN!?!” WOW, I find it incredible how you can be so, ANAL, and incessantly petty about people living their lives as they wish.I guess you can hardly wait until the tides turn and someone wants to persecute you for your “choices” in life. After all, Tom, a man can change his mind, just as the weather can, change…isnt that right, Tom!?!Which is nature and which is choice, Tom?!? Were they not both, changed, Tom!?! Tom, you can define marriage, any way you wish, and I wont hold it against you. After all it is such a petty, insignificant, inconsequential wanna-be-argument, Alex. AAAAAA-L-E-X, were you asking a question below or belittling yourself (again)? Whew, if you fellas are representative of the type of tolerance and spirit of cooperation we Americans have to look forward to in politics, sadly, THE 1% criminals have this one in the bag. Thanks fellas!

What would that be? Do people choose their sex?

Actually, I find your analogy somewhat lacking, Alexander. I Find a distinct difference between differentiation of sex and differentiation of race.
[Please forgive the outburst by aye eh. He has yet to understand the difference between definition (i.e. marriage) and nature. One can be changed, the other cannot].

If they are human beings all the same, how am I wrong. Dumbass.

WRONG. They are all the same. They are human beings, Black, White, Gay, Mixed or what have you.Therefore, they are ALL entitled to having their inalienable rights as HUMAN BEINGS to be unimpeded and respected, and any action(s) [by a majority, minority or individual] toward preventing any HUMAN BEING from pursuing his/her happiness is a transgression and should be accountable to the society at large and punishable. Sheesh, what have you got against HUMAN BEINGS?!? Simply, if it doesnt suit your taste, dont eat. Politics sucks when it comes to people with ANTI-HUMAN attitudes like yours. If someone is doing what makes them happy and isnt physically/explicitly/directly harming you or yours, LET IT GO! YOU DO WHAT YOU LIKE AND MAKES you HAPPY, and VICE-VERSA. GET IT??? GOT IT. SHEESH!

A gay couple is different from a straight couple the same way an interracial couple is different from a couple with members of the same race.

OK, let’s just drop “Women’s rights”, “Civil rights”, “Gay rights”, and just wrap all the rights we can all think of into one, LOGICAL, COHERENT, JUST concept of individual rights. And let’s call them, simply, “HUMAN RIGHTS”! Thus, we can all take ownership of this concept and…" the only legitimate exception is those who would transgress against another. Otherwise, if it doesnt float YOUR boat, dont ride." Amen.

I personally feel that gays (as human beings) should have the the same rights as any other human being. However, I find a basic logic disconnect here:
If gays are truly interested in equal rights, what does marriage have to do with it?
Does this mean that gays want to be like heterosexual couples? But then they wouldn’t be gay. I’m not trying to be contentious, I see a difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. I didn’t make this difference, nature made it – and no one can change it by changing definitions.

p.s. I do agree totally about this being w-a-a-a-y insignificant compared to our other problems in this country.

" http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/marriagecovenan.htm "

Redefining the meanings of words and phrases, over time, is as common in the English language as the language itself. Yes, there is such a thing as “original intent” and prior definitions. But it is a natural cause/effect of vocabulary evolution that change does occur.
Now, this, “definition of marriage” thing is w-a-a-a-y insignificant compared to the, say, housing-foreclosure crisis, or, manipulated rising price of food, or, price gouging at the gas pump, or, the U.S. invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation…in your name!, or, the corporate-raiding of my pension fund, or…, you get my drift? These are events and things and issues which directly-adversely impact each and every one of us at a visceral as well as physical as well as personal level-and the lives of those whom we love and care for. This, fiat, concocted, ersatz, “Definition-of-marriage” argument, is nothing more than the typical divide-and-conquer / diversionary tactic used by the powers that be since time immemorial.
Those of us temporarily stuck on such diversion should just take a chill pill on this issue, and redirect our energies on things and issues which, TRULY do matter to the health, well being and livelihood of us all. And let the gay, and transsexual, and bisexual and asexual and polygamists amongst us, live and contribute to our potentially wonderful and prosperous and peace-loving society…, in peace amongst us. And the only legitimate exception is those who would transgress against another. Otherwise, if it doesnt float YOUR boat, dont ride.

Guaranteeing equal rights to all is one thing.
Redefining what marriage is is quite another.

Rocky2012 supports > Marriage Equality http://t.co/6DXJuNCS via @rockyanderson