Some habits are hard to break

Wait, what?

Wait, what do I need to understand?

The Salt Lake Tribune reported recently on the legal answer filed in the federal lawsuit challenging Utah’s marriage laws. It seems that in response to the filing, an activist group brought a copy of the Constitution to the attorney general’s office to draw attention to their belief that the venerable document requires Utah to change its marriage laws.

A passage in the story is, inadvertently, amusing:

Valerie Larabee, executive director, and Nikki Boyer, board president, said they were following one of the rules from Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Seek to understand.

“We don’t understand and hope to,” Larabee said. “Our intention is on having the [lesgian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT] community voice heard.”

Those who’ve read the book will remember that the habit (No. 5) is actually: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” The sequence, of course, is the point.

The marriage critics have adopted a habit that’s much easier to follow: first get your voice heard and “hope” to understand the other position.

This actually seems emblematic of the redefinition effort. Those who freely charge that marriage laws can only be explained by atavistic hatred appear to have spent little or no time trying to understand why the male-female understanding is virtually a human universal (though even a cursory examination of history would give some clues).

It’s too bad someone in the office Tuesday didn’t hand the copy of the Constitution back and ask the protesters to underline the part that allows the federal courts to tell the state how to define marriage.

This entry was posted in Constitution and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Pingback: Sutherland Institute » Some habits are hard to break()

  • Pingback: Some habits are hard to break - |

  • Adison

    What you need to understand is this…Utah’s amendment 3 is one of the most offensive and contradictory parts of the Utah State constitution. It is one of two sections in the document that rather than laying out the guidelines for how government power is distributed or protecting citizens from the abuses of power, it protects the belief of one portion of the population from that of another portion thus going against the beginning of the UTAH Constitution where it talks about the strong need for the separation from church and state. Literally imposing the beliefs of some over those of others. The constitution is meant to protect. A simple law or policy would have sufficed but rather, being worried that their rule would be declared unconstitutional, apparently for good reason, they threw it into the Utah constitution like a carving on the Washington Monument that says Gays Suck, it seems out of place and cruel. I understand why they protect traditional marriage. I see its beauty that is why I want to marry someone. It makes you feel like a girl that walks up to a tree house and sees no girls allowed on the door.

  • Rick

    The previous comment’s first sentence is a perfect illustration of the post. They don’t want to understand first and then be understood. They want to be heard and then force others to agree (“What you need to understand is this …”).

    • Adison

      The comment below the picture asks “wait what do I need to understand?” I answered the question, sorry if the logic of my statement “forced you to agree” because I sure can’t force anyone to agree with me. I can share my views and hope you understand them. Whether you agree is up to you. Let me see if I understand you. The article focuses on part of Mrs. Larabee’s statement that was quote by the tribune originally. You have done the same with my comment, rather than addressing any points I bring up you rather focus on one small part of my comment.

  • Sky Harrison

    Gay marriage will become the law of the land in my lifetime. It is inevitable. And when it does, I can’t wait to see the stunned faces of all employees of the Sutherland Institute. It will be priceless.