Same-sex marriage opponents call for an uprising

HIGHLAND, Utah - Billed as a call for an uprising, opponents of same-sex marriage gathered for a meeting in Highland on Saturday.

Former Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack spoke about issues concerning the U.S. Constitution, including same-sex marriage.

Mack says that since it appears that Herbert and other elected leaders have failed at their jobs, it's up to law enforcement and everyday citizens to deny same-sex marriage.

"The people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals. The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our throats," Mack said.

Cherilyn Eager, who helped organize the event, says that it's time for the citizens of Utah to speak up for their rights.

"We need people to stand up and speak out. We need to get noisy. We need some outrage," Eager said. "It is about the sheriffs now coming out to protect the people."

Mack says that the federal government's ruling doesn't overrule Utah's laws.

"That's a lie. That's an absolute lie. We have a right to raise our kids without homosexuals being part of the Boy Scouts, the schools and teachers and doing everything. They can be all that, but don't shove your agenda down my kid's throat. We have a right to raise our kids how we want not how you want," Mack said.

Mack and Eager urge citizens to call upon their local leaders because change will come from the bottom-up.

"The way you take back freedom in America is one county at a time. The sheriffs need to defend the county clerks in saying, 'No, we're not going to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals,'" Mack said.


  • jeff keller

    men & woman that what to get married are sick-sick -sick in the head and need help I am a male and I wont never go with a man sick and god & the state of Utah will do the right thing………………….

  • Terri Hemker

    “The way you take back freedom in America is one county at a time.” one of them said…..Yup! Next they’ll be ‘taking back freedom’ away from black people.

  • Roger Prows

    So, the gays have an “agenda” he screams while selling membership to an organization he is a part of. Hmmm….

  • BeeGood

    Fred Lyman, I would answer your question, but every time I try to publish the truth about that meeting on this site they won’t post it. so you can go on thinking whatever you want the media is corrupt.

  • JOEL5454

    You have no right no civil rights mans law to go against GODS LAWS PERIOD!men making love to man gives you aids period! These mentality people or nothing but Freaks of nature,and what the hell are you going to do about it if we talk about any of you PERIOD!

  • Susan Harms

    I believe the sherrifs the oath keepers were there to tell the people of utah that if we do not like the patriot act we can change it one county at a time by majority in our actions I do not believe they were on the side of these haters i believe they just got lost in trhe shuffle of these haters a small group of haters so as far as the oath keepers go I support you all the way…

  • Sally Lunn

    Ummm… Todd Tanner? Aren’t you playing for the wrong team here? Seriously dude, you need to check your own sexuality and start representing.

  • David from Midvale UT

    George Wallace tried this in Alabama. President Kennedy nationalized the Alabama State National Guard. ‘Nuf said.

  • Greg

    The only ‘disease’ you southerners need to cure is that kids killing one another with guns in schools, that is what this ahem, sherriff, needs to focus on to make your country better. Yes 2nd amendment, we get it.
    What a ‘free’ country you live in….not.
    Card carrying bigots.

  • Regan DuCasse

    Er, actually…the southwest territory, as agreed to by Mexico, and the Treaty of Hidalgo was BOUGHT and PAID for by the US for multimillions of dollars. Something like 45 million dollars.

    So even though Madison lodged a war just to do it and test the military of the US, eventually the land became the US through a contract signed by the Mexican gov’t.
    And there IS a receipt.
    Just sayin’.

  • Joe

    Exactly. The other day two young gentlemen knocked on my door and tried to recruit me into their lifestyle. Oddly enough, both of them had the first name of “Elder.”

  • Lucy

    You can try to push God out of it all you want, but I know what the ultimate outcome will be. It’s sad to see the Lord’s people in such a state as this, but it has been foretold for centuries by His prophets and thus it is no surprise to me.

  • Regan DuCasse

    Reread your comment, and looked up the info on the UTAH territory. Hmmm…interesting providence there.
    Native Americans aren’t native Mexicans, and Mexicans didn’t own it either.
    I like your post though!

  • JJ

    Yes, prophets have been predicting doom and gloom if ____ happens (insert any social change) and yet the world has never ended. They’ve said for centuries that the world was always getting more and more wicked- yet today people still love each other and want to make the world better- so if we’ve been progressively getting more wicked over centuries and we’re where we are now, the world must have been absolutely perfect in every way back then! Maybe these “prophecies” are really just self-fulfilling prophecies of confirmation biases that churches use to keep you invested…

  • Anthony de Jongh

    Well, you don’t have to push out anything that does not exist, so I’m not even trying……and I do hope that one day ‘the religious’ will stop forcing their agenda upon the rest of society, because it’s getting old, lame and annoying now!

  • Anthony de Jongh

    @ Lucy Well, you don’t have to push out anything that does not exist, so I’m not even trying……and I do hope that one day ‘the religious’ will stop forcing their agenda upon the rest of society, because it’s getting old, lame and annoying now!

  • qwiowweuifn

    Lucy: Imaginary friends can’t be pushed, sorry. (Or pulled, or anything in the physical realm of the real world.)

  • Bill

    I just don’t understand how the law didn’t provide “equal protection” for all and how this became a constitutional issue? I just can’t get past the fact that heterosexual marriage (the law) was EQUALLY available to all people (expect for family and age issues) but that most homosexuals were not interested in that arrangement and choose not to participate. There was nothing stopping homosexual relationships or keeping them from making commitments, even legal ones, to each other. The real debate that needs to be happening is whether this is indeed an issue of rights, or just an issue of policy.

  • Shawn Lee

    You are very right and the American south of the 50’s and 60’s is a perfect example of a minority needing protection from a tyrannical majority. Alexis de Tocqueville was a very forward thinker, as were many of our Founding Fathers.

  • Austin (@rsaustin31)

    Bill says “There was nothing stopping homosexual relationships or keeping them from making commitments, even legal ones, to each other.”

    EXCEPT the second paragraphs of these state level constitutional amendments ….

    “…shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor …. recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage”

    explicitly does just that.

  • Michael

    I don’t understand why you think I shouldn’t have the right to marry husband or even why it’s of any concern to you.

  • Pat

    You are aware that argument was already defeated in court–when it was used to defend interracial marriage bans, aren’t you?

    That’s not a joke. They literally used that argument. It lost, because it is STUPID.

  • Michael Haskins

    just don’t understand?

    READ “The Tyrrany of the Majority” for starters.

    The notion that a person’s constitutional rights may be subject to a majority vote is itself anathema,
    – Judge Albert V Bryan, Jr.,

  • Tim

    Bill, you could make exactly the same arguments against interracial marriages; that same-race marriage being available to everyone regardless of color was in some way “fair” and that interracial couples were free to pursue relationships.

    It’s a stupid argument and you know it.

  • David from Midvale UT

    Do YOU want the state to decide to whom YOU should be married or in any way limit YOUR choice? Should state government tell you that you have to marry some total stranger completely absent any emotional attachment? Your concept of “equal” is seriously inadequate.

  • Trish Ramirez

    That’s perfectly alright in this state, Joe. Indeed, the local predominant faith sees nothing wrong with exporting their children around the globe to convert perfect strangers to their lifestyle. They train them up from birth, indoctrinate them even, to do precisely that. Then they have the audacity to call out random strangers for doing nothing more than simply wanting to live their lives as they choose. Can you IMAGINE the public outcry if the LGBT community built an “LGBT Training Center” next to the MTC in Provo and started sending out rainbow feathered-boa wearing companion pairs door to door in the state to try to convert people?? Just picture it in your mind for a second. LOL

  • Michael Haskins

    Nothing to KILL or DIE for And no religion too
    Imagine all the people Living life in peace…
    You may say I’m a dreamer But I’m not the only one

    I hope someday you’ll join us

    And the world will be as one

    John Lennon

  • bignevermo

    “God did give mankind His law of marriage, and when God gives homosexuals the ability to naturally reproduce and replenish His earth, I don’t believe they will have any conflict with those who respect the sanctity of marriage and family.”
    So marriage is only for those who can reproduce? Thats laughable. Marriage is a civil contract…not a religious one…at least not strictly…marriages happen all the time outside the scope of religion…SSM does not affect your marriage…they have that right of the pursuit of happiness…equal rights!

  • dtaron

    I had no idea! Here I have been going through life understanding that the US Constitution says that it’s the Supreme Court who determine whether or not a law is constitutional. I had no idea that this function was assigned to individual law enforcement officers. Thanks for the, um, enlightenment.

  • Susan Nielson

    Given these stringent qualifications for marriage, I, a woman, would not have been allowed to marry my husband (male) because I couldn’t have children. Should those who adopt to create families be banned from marriage? It’s no different, and your argument is hurtful and unfair.

  • GAFAPilot

    Err, which particular ‘God’ are you referring to: Thor, Zeus, Poseidon, Shiva, Venus, Vishnu, Janus, Horus, Rama, Nugua, Aphrodite, Apollo, Athtart, Freya, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…. and how do you know that you’ve chosen the right one? And what about all those people who do not ‘believe’ in your particular flavour sky fairy?!

  • BeeGood

    I’m sorry are you discriminating against me because I’m white or because I’m a working class person? Hmmm whose tolerant of whom?

  • BeeGood

    I’m sorry are you discriminating against me because I’m white or because I’m a working class person? Hmmm who is tolerant of whom?

  • Rebecca Logan

    BeeGood, how are you being discriminated against? What rights have been removed from you because of marriage equality? What freedoms do you no longer have because two men or two women are now allowed to marry each other? Be specific. How has this changed anything for you?

  • Bill

    The law is all about the legal status of the relationships themselves. People can still be together, and still make legal agreements between them. But the government doesn’t have a constitutional duty to recognize all forms of human relationships.

  • Bill

    Michael, I don’t think you should have the CONSTITUTIONAL right to marry a husband because I don’t see that in the constitution. My argument is about the constitutionality of it. I believe you should and do have the right to be in a committed homosexual relationship with someone. And in terms of policy, I believe that homosexual marriage is only fair. And the reason it concerns me is that it has become a constitutional issue, highly driven by emotion, that will set precedent for years to come.

  • Roger Prows

    Bill, you do realize that the constitution is a flexible document and does not comprehensively cover all rights don’t you?

  • PavePusher

    First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Constitution is not a list of “you may do this”. It is a list of “Government may NOT do this”.

  • BeeGood

    Rebecca Logan, I was replying to a post that stated the people in the room were “white shabby red necks”, so am I being discriminated against because I’m white or because I’m working class?

  • Fred Lyman

    NO! – Beegood this is not discrimination. This is a description!
    I can’t and won’t judge how accurate – I wasn’t there – but ‘white shabby, rednecks’ is clearly a description.

    Discrimination would be refusing to hire you, rent to you or not allowing you all your civil rights under the Constitution and the law…because you were – IF you were – a ‘white shabby redneck’!

    Can you see how that’s different?

  • BeeGood

    Fred Lyman, I would like to respond but every time I try to write the truth they won’t post my comments. So go on believing what you read here.

  • Intrinsic

    “The truth,” BeeGood, or misinformation & lies that you’ve made up in your head?
    There was no actual racial slur, your rights are not being limited or taken away, and criticism is not the same as discrimination.

    Someone disagreeing with you, or not enforcing your prejudices through law, is not discrimination. Homosexuals are being refused basic rights, being beaten & even killed just for who they are EVERY DAY. That is discrimination.

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,195 other followers