Quantcast
Home » News
Home » News

The Commentariat: A sampling of reader comments posted on sltrib.com

Published June 29, 2013 1:01 am

This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2013, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

"Why does 'traditional marriage' need defending? And why does defending it have to be mutually exclusive from allowing same-sex marriage? And why do people get their knickers in such a twist over something that, unless they choose to participate in it, doesn't affect them in any measurable way, significant or otherwise?"

— Guy Incognito

commenting on the June 27 Tribune editorial, "Marriage equality: Utah's law now on shaky ground"

" 'Hatch: Why I'm voting yes' Because I was told to do so by the businesses that donated the most money to me. Any questions?"

— shadowpuck

commenting on the June 25 commentary from Sen. Orrin Hatch, "Why I'm voting yes," explaining his decision to support the immigration reform bill in the Senate.

"A Pat Bagley cartoon sez more than any three-hour Rush Limbaugh show."

— Stink (I)

commenting on the June 26 Kathleen Parker column, "Everybody's a comedian," which suggested that too many people in public life are trying to emulate comedians.

"Saddest of all is since Democrats morphed into liberals, they actually believe this issue is about compassion instead of saving the 1 percent money in labor costs."

— tck62

commenting on the June 27 sltrib.com article, "Immigration reform passes Senate with Hatch's support"

"Rick Perry reaffirms his commitment to life as he executes Texas' 500th prisoner."

— ChairmanMauzer

commenting on the June 27 AP/sltrib.com article, "Gov. Rick Perry, filibuster star clash over Texas abortions"

"I'm guessing the Constitution is certainly out of date and parts of it should summarily be tossed out. After all, look how much the nation has changed since it was created."

—Green Eyed Lady

commenting on the June 27 George F. Will column, "Time caught up with the Voting Rights Act," which argued that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was based on outdated ideas and thus the Supreme Court was right to invalidate parts of it.