Reader comments
LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision
404 comments | Read story
The Truth Is... | 4:51 p.m. May 15, 2008
One Man and One Woman is the best setup, and the Traditional Family is the best
unit--for Heterosexuals (who make up the vast majority). Why not leave
Homosexuals alone and allow them to live their lives in peace--and with whom
they love?
ABC | 4:52 p.m. May 15, 2008
BSR,
Your arguments are persuasive (if at all) only to those who also believe that the men in Salt Lake City are "prophets of God."
The ethical question concerns whether or not anyone who has a particular belief has the right under the law to force others who do NOT share that belief, to be subject to that belief.
In our democratic-republic, the rights of ALL members of our society are protected. ALL are "equal under the law." This is the basic principle of civil rights upon which our nation was founded.
To identify a group of individuals (or even 1 individual) who does NOT have equal protection under the law is to violate the basic principles of our nation and constitution.
As for how gay and lesbian individuals are harmed by not being able to have legal marriages, they have been denied a host of rights, privileges, and opportunities that accompany married status in our society. Everything from filing income taxes and insurance coverage for spouses to hospital visitation rights and death benefits are among the important things they have been denied for no other reason than their sexual preference.
Don't persecute others because of your faith.
Your arguments are persuasive (if at all) only to those who also believe that the men in Salt Lake City are "prophets of God."
The ethical question concerns whether or not anyone who has a particular belief has the right under the law to force others who do NOT share that belief, to be subject to that belief.
In our democratic-republic, the rights of ALL members of our society are protected. ALL are "equal under the law." This is the basic principle of civil rights upon which our nation was founded.
To identify a group of individuals (or even 1 individual) who does NOT have equal protection under the law is to violate the basic principles of our nation and constitution.
As for how gay and lesbian individuals are harmed by not being able to have legal marriages, they have been denied a host of rights, privileges, and opportunities that accompany married status in our society. Everything from filing income taxes and insurance coverage for spouses to hospital visitation rights and death benefits are among the important things they have been denied for no other reason than their sexual preference.
Don't persecute others because of your faith.
Comments continue below
Albuquerque | 4:54 p.m. May 15, 2008
There are a lot people on here with a chip on their shoulders toward the LDS
church. Wow, so obvious. Just because the church stands for something,
heterosexual marriage, does not mean that they are making derogatory remarks
against a group of people (homosexuals). If you want to talk about
closed-mindedness, look at the way you think about an entire group of people,
the LDS people, as well as other Christian faiths, just because they do not
support a lifestyle that God has not condoned.
Quandary | 4:57 p.m. May 15, 2008
I firmly oppose California's decision to overturn the ruling concerning gay
marriage. I am also a firm believer in the constitution and our country's
basis on the idea that all men are created equal. In America, it seems as if
that this idea is becoming more prevalent and less prevalent simulatneously.
People hold prejudice against religions, races, and, in this situation, gays. To
hold any kind of prejudice is straightforward denial of this country's
greatest belief. To believe anything else would be un-American. (Hence my
disappointment with the prejudice and irrefutable ignorance displayed by
scientologist, mormon, muslim or gay hating bigots everywhere.)
This country, as many people have forgotten by now amidst our own "glory", was founded on god. This "God" need not necessarily entail the existence of a greater being. It simply sets a higher law by which men can earn the right to be labled "Human". Homosexuality is wrong. While gays are people and therefore equal, a line must be drawn before mislead legislation goes to far. Homosexuality is an issue of morality. Morality is, regrettable, based upon perspective. My perspective is this: If homosexuality were a natural occurrence, gays would be able to reproduce among themselves.
This country, as many people have forgotten by now amidst our own "glory", was founded on god. This "God" need not necessarily entail the existence of a greater being. It simply sets a higher law by which men can earn the right to be labled "Human". Homosexuality is wrong. While gays are people and therefore equal, a line must be drawn before mislead legislation goes to far. Homosexuality is an issue of morality. Morality is, regrettable, based upon perspective. My perspective is this: If homosexuality were a natural occurrence, gays would be able to reproduce among themselves.
adan | 5:01 p.m. May 15, 2008
@Scary, 4:34pm
While I agree with you that the CA Court's decision is bad, I disagree with your logic.
Remember, it was a "majority" that kicked the LDS out of America back in 1847, driving them into what was (at the time) Mexico.
If the founders wanted majority rule, we wouldn't have all those Constitutional checks and balances--of which federalism is one.
All the same, let's get this CA thing overturned. I expect I'll be seeing a CA Constitutional amendment on my ballot this fall.
While I agree with you that the CA Court's decision is bad, I disagree with your logic.
Remember, it was a "majority" that kicked the LDS out of America back in 1847, driving them into what was (at the time) Mexico.
If the founders wanted majority rule, we wouldn't have all those Constitutional checks and balances--of which federalism is one.
All the same, let's get this CA thing overturned. I expect I'll be seeing a CA Constitutional amendment on my ballot this fall.
HD | 5:06 p.m. May 15, 2008
The United States of America is a secular government, so it makes no sense to
argue that we should have any laws respecting a religion, which is the case if
you insist that gay marriage should be outlawed because homosexuality is against
biblical principles.
We are lucky that our government isn't run by biblical principles. If so, it would be okay to kill children for disobedience and to sell one's daughter to seven years of slavery.
Let's use a little reason and common sense when forming an opinion about this. Most religions offer irrational dogma over clear thinking.
We are lucky that our government isn't run by biblical principles. If so, it would be okay to kill children for disobedience and to sell one's daughter to seven years of slavery.
Let's use a little reason and common sense when forming an opinion about this. Most religions offer irrational dogma over clear thinking.
Anonymous | 5:08 p.m. May 15, 2008
Heck soon it might be legal and before you know it it will be compulsory!!!!
Darn well hope not. But what is scary is that 7 unelected officals can over
turn the voice of the majority. Now that is real scary!!!!
Aaron | 5:09 p.m. May 15, 2008
Some need to realize that the LDS church is made up of actual citizens. They/it
has as much right as any entity to become active in influencing policy toward
what they/it believes is right.
Those who think they/it is out to impose its laws upon the world are wrong.
An important principal of the church is free agency, and to respect the democratic process reguardless of the outcome.
And yet, when policy shifts against their beliefs, they/it is not beyond expressing dissapointment. (see headline)
Those who think they/it is out to impose its laws upon the world are wrong.
An important principal of the church is free agency, and to respect the democratic process reguardless of the outcome.
And yet, when policy shifts against their beliefs, they/it is not beyond expressing dissapointment. (see headline)
RC48 | 5:24 p.m. May 15, 2008
RE: The comment from Church:
LDS Church is the number one "church" that changes its doctrine to suit the masses. Oliver Cowdrey disagreed with the man Joseph Smith about plural marriage and he got excommunicated. Too bad you can't disagree about anything in this "church" or your testimony will be questioned. Sit down and shut up LDS church, no asked for your opinion.
LDS Church is the number one "church" that changes its doctrine to suit the masses. Oliver Cowdrey disagreed with the man Joseph Smith about plural marriage and he got excommunicated. Too bad you can't disagree about anything in this "church" or your testimony will be questioned. Sit down and shut up LDS church, no asked for your opinion.
sam hitt- rancho cordova ca | 5:28 p.m. May 15, 2008
im a former member of the LDS church, I say former because I chose to come out
to the world. I am a lesbian and I couldnt be happier with todays supreme courts
ruling. I believe in loving who you want and being with who you want and am
against that fact that the LDS church is openly admiting how harshly against the
LBGT community they are.
Just speaking from a life expierence it bothers me that they go off like they do...i say keep it in the pamflets, and all the other reading material but but force others to hear it in church.
let the members decide...and yes i am still attending church regularly. and yes i am in a lesbian relationship...i have a domestic partnership. but now i can get married!
Just speaking from a life expierence it bothers me that they go off like they do...i say keep it in the pamflets, and all the other reading material but but force others to hear it in church.
let the members decide...and yes i am still attending church regularly. and yes i am in a lesbian relationship...i have a domestic partnership. but now i can get married!
State Rights and Majority Rule | 5:32 p.m. May 15, 2008
Ok, so there are really two issues here that aren't religious or moral that
people need to grasp.
First off, if you do not agree with what California has done, then don't live in California! The reason why we have states is so that people can choose to live in the state that best matches their own beliefs. So, just don't live in Cali. Its that simple.
Also, there was a comment that the Supreme Court should not have overruled the decision of the popular majority. While this makes sense at glance, think about it. The majority of this nation has been, at times, racist or hateful. Does this mean the Brown v Board of Education should have been decided differently because the majority of the nation felt otherwise? The reason why justices are not elected is so that they will not be under the influence of the populations. They are supposed to decide based on the constitution and how it is read by them.
Moral issues aside, this is a politically just move. I applaud California's Supreme Court for making such a bold statement of freedom.
First off, if you do not agree with what California has done, then don't live in California! The reason why we have states is so that people can choose to live in the state that best matches their own beliefs. So, just don't live in Cali. Its that simple.
Also, there was a comment that the Supreme Court should not have overruled the decision of the popular majority. While this makes sense at glance, think about it. The majority of this nation has been, at times, racist or hateful. Does this mean the Brown v Board of Education should have been decided differently because the majority of the nation felt otherwise? The reason why justices are not elected is so that they will not be under the influence of the populations. They are supposed to decide based on the constitution and how it is read by them.
Moral issues aside, this is a politically just move. I applaud California's Supreme Court for making such a bold statement of freedom.
me | 5:34 p.m. May 15, 2008
Being a Californian, I am sorely disappointed. No matter what is said or done,
they always find a way to overturn what the people have voted for. Sometimes one
wonders if it really matters if you vote or not.
It is always the loudest who are heard, I guess we who have values are not noisy enough.
I am just happy I don't have to answer to the Lord for others follies !!
me :+(
It is always the loudest who are heard, I guess we who have values are not noisy enough.
I am just happy I don't have to answer to the Lord for others follies !!
me :+(
Here Comes the Flood! | 5:36 p.m. May 15, 2008
If California wants to be Sodom and Gomorrah than I will go to DisneyWorld
instead.
JD in Huntington | 5:38 p.m. May 15, 2008
Social pressure does not persuade God. Even if every single person on planet
earth wanted gay marriage to be legal, it would still be wrong in God's
eyes. Unfortunately I think it will become just as acceptable and commonplace as
drinking or smoking, both socially acceptable, both wrong in God's eyes.
to ABC | 5:38 p.m. May 15, 2008
can you show me in any law that says hospital rights are only for heterosexuals?
Just one reference in a law will do.....
What is the purpose of government promoting education? Because society benefits from a learned citizenry.
same with the institution of marriage. Societies through the ages have held that the family, mom dad and children, are the bedrock of society. It's the family structure that is the backbone of any society. Stable families usually bring forth children ready to contribute to society.
The quickie divorce has been one of the huge downfalls of our society. So has abortion on demand. The sexual revolution has done nothing to contribute to society except bring STD's, unwed mothers in record numbers, broken homes and abortion.
What's absolutely unbelievable is people are so duped by the PC police that we don't call evil wrong any longer. We now call good bad and bad good because no one wants to offend anyone else.
Prophets from the beginning of time have prophesied of our day and their prophesies are being fulfilled; sadly.
Good and just people need to start getting active in things before society breaks down even further...Get with it people!
What is the purpose of government promoting education? Because society benefits from a learned citizenry.
same with the institution of marriage. Societies through the ages have held that the family, mom dad and children, are the bedrock of society. It's the family structure that is the backbone of any society. Stable families usually bring forth children ready to contribute to society.
The quickie divorce has been one of the huge downfalls of our society. So has abortion on demand. The sexual revolution has done nothing to contribute to society except bring STD's, unwed mothers in record numbers, broken homes and abortion.
What's absolutely unbelievable is people are so duped by the PC police that we don't call evil wrong any longer. We now call good bad and bad good because no one wants to offend anyone else.
Prophets from the beginning of time have prophesied of our day and their prophesies are being fulfilled; sadly.
Good and just people need to start getting active in things before society breaks down even further...Get with it people!
Frustrated in WA | 5:38 p.m. May 15, 2008
People forget that marraige is currently restricted to some degree in all
states. No plural, first cousins, brothers and sisters, and none under a
certain age so why are Gays so picked on. You would think they were the only
ones.
Surveys are only as good as the person who tweeks the answers to support their personal cause.
Remeber, the liberal mentality that is pushing the gay lifestyle also supports legalizing drugs and prostitution. Take a look at Holland to see how smart that was.
In Washington our stupid governor and the legislature rewrote the law because we didn't know what we thought was right.
Surveys are only as good as the person who tweeks the answers to support their personal cause.
Remeber, the liberal mentality that is pushing the gay lifestyle also supports legalizing drugs and prostitution. Take a look at Holland to see how smart that was.
In Washington our stupid governor and the legislature rewrote the law because we didn't know what we thought was right.
What's scary | 5:39 p.m. May 15, 2008
is the thought of all the haters on this board having the ability to vote. The
ignorance spread by your typing is incredible.
The IRS should remove the tax exempt status of the LDS Church because...do you actually know the law or do you just spout off about nothing? Are you going to go after the churches that Obama is campaigning in?
There is man and woman for a purpose. For those of you who can NOT see that, I feel sorry for you. You throw out reason and common sense.
Wickedness is spreading today at a rampant speed with the assistance of those in power positions. We need to heed the advise of getting honest and just men and women in positions to protect us from evil.
Unfortunately, we do know that the times are only going to get worse. Our world is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.
For those of you LDS who support this decision, I wonder where you left your testimony and understanding of the gospel.
To the nutjobs that keep spouting about D&C 132, I say you have no clue what you are talking about. Your comments confirm that lack of knowledge.
The IRS should remove the tax exempt status of the LDS Church because...do you actually know the law or do you just spout off about nothing? Are you going to go after the churches that Obama is campaigning in?
There is man and woman for a purpose. For those of you who can NOT see that, I feel sorry for you. You throw out reason and common sense.
Wickedness is spreading today at a rampant speed with the assistance of those in power positions. We need to heed the advise of getting honest and just men and women in positions to protect us from evil.
Unfortunately, we do know that the times are only going to get worse. Our world is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.
For those of you LDS who support this decision, I wonder where you left your testimony and understanding of the gospel.
To the nutjobs that keep spouting about D&C 132, I say you have no clue what you are talking about. Your comments confirm that lack of knowledge.
How DARE the supreme court? | 5:41 p.m. May 15, 2008
They are going against the peoples desire. A Government FOR the people. The
United States Supreme Court, Congress, AND President(s) have decided NOT to
allow Marriage to be a gay union.
This doesn't take away ANYONE'S rights. There is a difference between allowing people to be Gay and allowing people to call it Marriage.
The human male body isn't designed to 'work' with another male. It's such a simple concept. It's an IQ test for the human race which California authority unfortunately cannot pass. Good for the people though.
Too bad that California's government isn't being -For the people- and practically not by the people either. Businesses, greed, media, and power control our world.
Cheers to the LDS church.
This doesn't take away ANYONE'S rights. There is a difference between allowing people to be Gay and allowing people to call it Marriage.
The human male body isn't designed to 'work' with another male. It's such a simple concept. It's an IQ test for the human race which California authority unfortunately cannot pass. Good for the people though.
Too bad that California's government isn't being -For the people- and practically not by the people either. Businesses, greed, media, and power control our world.
Cheers to the LDS church.
Henry Drummond | 5:40 p.m. May 15, 2008
**sigh**
I remember hearing a speech many years ago in which the speaker insisted that that one of the biggest mistakes the country had made in the last 100 years was allowing women the right to vote. His reasoning was that it broke up families.
I see much the same logic (or lack thereof) in those who wish to deny marriage rights to homosexuals on the basis that it destroys marriage.
I fail to see how denying rights to a group you may disagree with stops you from enjoying your traditional marriage.
I remember hearing a speech many years ago in which the speaker insisted that that one of the biggest mistakes the country had made in the last 100 years was allowing women the right to vote. His reasoning was that it broke up families.
I see much the same logic (or lack thereof) in those who wish to deny marriage rights to homosexuals on the basis that it destroys marriage.
I fail to see how denying rights to a group you may disagree with stops you from enjoying your traditional marriage.
ABS | 5:47 p.m. May 15, 2008
Values? Follies? Can you not see that these words are more devisive than
anything the California Supreme Court did today?
Ross | 5:58 p.m. May 15, 2008
This is a case of an activist court, that treats the people of California as if
they are stupid and need a liberal to make decisions for them.
This is not just a majority issue, but one of eternal consequences. The courts of California are upping the misery index in a state that is bordering on bankruptcy, spiritual and financial.
This is not just a majority issue, but one of eternal consequences. The courts of California are upping the misery index in a state that is bordering on bankruptcy, spiritual and financial.
HarryL | 6:10 p.m. May 15, 2008
I believe the LDS Church did the right thing. I was shocked by the decision,
myself. Living in CA as I do, the politics are extremely confusing and for the
CA Supreme Court to feel it has to re-interpret the values of a public that in
the past stated to the contrary says a lot about the pitiable condition of this
society. In most areas of CA the population is very culturally, racially,
ethnically, and religiously diverse. I think there is a genuine concern on the
part of the people who live here for oppressed groups, of which gays are one. In
fact, it is hard to live in CA and not feel oppressed. Yet sometimes all a
person who suffers a lot of rejection may have to work with is a sense of
acceptance and what it would feel like to be accepted, something that Utahans
have a strong reputation for not having.
KAR | 6:12 p.m. May 15, 2008
The privileges bestowed by marriage are not a right, but a privilege, granted by
society to promote certain behavior. In a one-man-one woman marriage, it is
traditionally assumed that the couple will provide the benefit of children who
will become productive, law-abiding citizens. In return, society grants certain
tax incentives, visitation rights, property protections, etc.
The issue of morality is completely separate. Both one-man, one woman and same-sex marriages can be immoral and abusive. Whether a same-sex marriage can be moral is a deeply religious issue that won't be solved on this board, just as the existence of God will not be resolved. Most Christians, Jews, Muslims and others from various cultural roots consider same-sex partnerships to be either immoral or undesirable.
To claim that someone's belief system is flawed because they don't want certain privileges granted for same-sex marriage is a flawed position. Committed same-sex couples don't get a stick or a carrot. Neither do best friends, a family friend caring for an elderly man/woman, or many other loving, caring relationships where there is sacrafice and long-term commitment. Should partnerships based on sexual preference be any different?
The issue of morality is completely separate. Both one-man, one woman and same-sex marriages can be immoral and abusive. Whether a same-sex marriage can be moral is a deeply religious issue that won't be solved on this board, just as the existence of God will not be resolved. Most Christians, Jews, Muslims and others from various cultural roots consider same-sex partnerships to be either immoral or undesirable.
To claim that someone's belief system is flawed because they don't want certain privileges granted for same-sex marriage is a flawed position. Committed same-sex couples don't get a stick or a carrot. Neither do best friends, a family friend caring for an elderly man/woman, or many other loving, caring relationships where there is sacrafice and long-term commitment. Should partnerships based on sexual preference be any different?
Mike Richards | 6:14 p.m. May 15, 2008
Another fine example of Judges creating legislation. The people in California
voted and made their collective will known. Independent of that vote, a few
"enlightened" judges decided that they could impose their own will on
25,000,000 people.
The Constitution means absolutely nothing. The will of the people means absolutely nothing. Power hungry judges that have never read the Constitution (or at least feel that they are totally exempt from its contents), felt that their opinion was the only opinion that matters.
The Constitution means absolutely nothing. The will of the people means absolutely nothing. Power hungry judges that have never read the Constitution (or at least feel that they are totally exempt from its contents), felt that their opinion was the only opinion that matters.
Sorry, Mike | 6:46 p.m. May 15, 2008
Actually it's a fine example of judges exercising their constitutional
power to not allow unconstitutional law to be inplemented.
The Constitution, in fact, means everything. There is a system in place which allows for amendment, and it is now up to the people of California to determine if they wish to follow that path. Constitutional guarantees cannot be overridden by "the will of the people" expressed in a referendum; the path is justifiably much more difficult than that.
You should read the constitution sometime, and understand that its purpose is not to grant powers to government, but rather to limit the authority of government.
The Constitution, in fact, means everything. There is a system in place which allows for amendment, and it is now up to the people of California to determine if they wish to follow that path. Constitutional guarantees cannot be overridden by "the will of the people" expressed in a referendum; the path is justifiably much more difficult than that.
You should read the constitution sometime, and understand that its purpose is not to grant powers to government, but rather to limit the authority of government.
The Problem IS... | 7:06 p.m. May 15, 2008
ANYTHING could be declared unconstitutional including Mother's Day,
baseball and apple pie. We do have higher courts but they are so clogged and
backlogged by cases like this it may be years before they sort it out. This
decision didn't say it was obviously unconstitutional (notice the 3
dissenting votes), it was merely a reflection of the process of appointing
judges which resulted in 4 activists on the bench. Unfortunately, the voice of
the people won't be heard as these judges can't be voted out of
office. Even China has a constitution and courts, but it doesn't mean they
reflect the will of a free people.
zoar | 7:16 p.m. May 15, 2008
�The Constitution, in fact, means everything. There is a
system in place which allows for amendment, and it is now up to the people of
California to determine if they wish to follow that
path.�
When California passes a law amending its constitution to define that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, the issue will be settled. States with such amendments, or States that already have it as part of their constitutions are safe from judges who would overturn the will of the people
When California passes a law amending its constitution to define that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, the issue will be settled. States with such amendments, or States that already have it as part of their constitutions are safe from judges who would overturn the will of the people
Anonymous | 7:40 p.m. May 15, 2008
If straight marriages were so sacred and straight people's
"values" were so unimpeachable we might not have the divorce rate we
do. ...in the US AND in UT.
K.C. | 7:57 p.m. May 15, 2008
Mike Wrote:
"Another fine example of Judges creating legislation. The people in California voted and made their collective will known. Independent of that vote, a few "enlightened" judges decided that they could impose their own will on 25,000,000 people."
Mike,
The "people" of California have weighed in on ALL 7 judges who handed down this decision. They have each, in the recent past, been confirmed by the voters.
Kennard -- confirmed 2006 with 74.5%
Corrigan -- confirmed 2006 with 74.4%
Werdegar -- confirmed 2002 with 74.1%
Moreno -- confirmed 2002 with 72.6%
Baxter -- confirmed 2002 with 71.5%
George -- confirmed 1998 with 75.5%
Chin -- confirmed 1998 with 69.3%
"Another fine example of Judges creating legislation. The people in California voted and made their collective will known. Independent of that vote, a few "enlightened" judges decided that they could impose their own will on 25,000,000 people."
Mike,
The "people" of California have weighed in on ALL 7 judges who handed down this decision. They have each, in the recent past, been confirmed by the voters.
Kennard -- confirmed 2006 with 74.5%
Corrigan -- confirmed 2006 with 74.4%
Werdegar -- confirmed 2002 with 74.1%
Moreno -- confirmed 2002 with 72.6%
Baxter -- confirmed 2002 with 71.5%
George -- confirmed 1998 with 75.5%
Chin -- confirmed 1998 with 69.3%
Marcus | 8:17 p.m. May 15, 2008
It should also be noted that the democratically-elected legislature of
California has *twice* passed a law extending marriage rights to gays and
lesbians only to see it vetoed both times by the Governor. Talk about imposing
*one's* own will.
Courts are wrong | 8:22 p.m. May 15, 2008
This is a country for, by and of the people. The Court can only rule on
established law, not create it.
Jonathan | 9:17 p.m. May 15, 2008
Marcus, it should also be noted that the Governor was democratically-elected.
He has every right to veto any bill he wants. Also, California voters directly
weighed in on this issue by a vote of 61% that they want marriage between a man
and a woman only. A direct vote by the people of California means far more than
what the state legislature passes.
Yockel | 9:27 p.m. May 15, 2008
Jonathan, the governor also supports the court's ruling and opposes another
referendum.
John Lambert | 9:34 p.m. May 15, 2008
To the 3:25 commentor:
Separation of Church and state is a false doctrine that has no constitutional basis. The Constitution says "Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof". The Church making a statement about what they believe the aw ought to be is within the free exercise of religion, and for the government to punish the church for making such a statement would be unconstitutional.
If my previous post has gone through, it explains why the church has every reason to worry about such a ruling. How many church members will have to decide between performing a same gender marriage and violating their views of morality or loosing their jobs? I do not know, but I can assure you the ACLU and their allies will do their best to use this ruling to ferret church members out of the judiciary.
Separation of Church and state is a false doctrine that has no constitutional basis. The Constitution says "Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof". The Church making a statement about what they believe the aw ought to be is within the free exercise of religion, and for the government to punish the church for making such a statement would be unconstitutional.
If my previous post has gone through, it explains why the church has every reason to worry about such a ruling. How many church members will have to decide between performing a same gender marriage and violating their views of morality or loosing their jobs? I do not know, but I can assure you the ACLU and their allies will do their best to use this ruling to ferret church members out of the judiciary.
K.C. | 9:38 p.m. May 15, 2008
Jonathan wrote:
"Also, California voters directly weighed in on this issue by a vote of 61% that they want marriage between a man and a woman only. A direct vote by the people of California means far more than what the state legislature passes."
That was eight years ago. And the numbers have shifted since then. Maybe not enough for a different outcome, or maybe so. It is possible that the people of California could vote down the call write discrimination into their constitution. We'll see.
"Also, California voters directly weighed in on this issue by a vote of 61% that they want marriage between a man and a woman only. A direct vote by the people of California means far more than what the state legislature passes."
That was eight years ago. And the numbers have shifted since then. Maybe not enough for a different outcome, or maybe so. It is possible that the people of California could vote down the call write discrimination into their constitution. We'll see.
Darin, to Well Reasoned? 4:34 | 9:45 p.m. May 15, 2008
Would you like to sit down and talk like a reasonable person? Your
"Law", and "Philosphophy", and "Nature", and so
on, are really your own emotions. Please, distinguish reason from emotio.
Let's be honest about what we know about nature. Do homosexuals exist? Yes.
Does any law banning homosexuality stop homosexuals from being? No. Does banning
homosexuality mean that all children will grow up with a mother a father? No.
So, is it true that banning same-sex marriage will help children? NO! Does
banning same-sex marriage hurt you or the community? No. How many questions do
we need to ask? Oh, yes, there is one-oh-so-important question: Does banning
same-sex marriage validate my religion and my fears? YES! Yes and Yes! (my
guess). And there is your "reason".
John Lambert | 9:47 p.m. May 15, 2008
Marriage is not about human rights. Marriage is about what type of
relationships the government will proactively condone. We are not arguing about
whether practicing homosexuals should be hauld off to jail, or whether a women
who has divorced and now lives with her lesbian partner should have the state
come in and take her children off. We are discussing whether same-gender
marriage should have the proactive sanction of the government.
The only people whose actual religios rights have ever been in danger in this whole debate are those of the people who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds who will soon be denied their jobs if they are justices of the peace.
The only people whose actual religios rights have ever been in danger in this whole debate are those of the people who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds who will soon be denied their jobs if they are justices of the peace.
Anonymous | 9:51 p.m. May 15, 2008
C'mon folks, get real. This is the 21st century, not the 1st century...
get out of the words, labels and dogmatic nomenclaturing and accept the fact that a union of two people is a legal union. If the use of marriage is a problem then pass a law that the WORD marriage can only b e used for a union between a man and a woman, but also within that same law make sure that a union of anyone, including same sex, is given all the same consideration under law that is given for a man and woman union. Keep it to your issue of the use of marriage, not the banning of all same sex unions.
In other words, separate the two issues and quite attempting to make them one and the same, which they are not.
get out of the words, labels and dogmatic nomenclaturing and accept the fact that a union of two people is a legal union. If the use of marriage is a problem then pass a law that the WORD marriage can only b e used for a union between a man and a woman, but also within that same law make sure that a union of anyone, including same sex, is given all the same consideration under law that is given for a man and woman union. Keep it to your issue of the use of marriage, not the banning of all same sex unions.
In other words, separate the two issues and quite attempting to make them one and the same, which they are not.
John Lambert | 9:53 p.m. May 15, 2008
I think the people who think that California's court is not left-leaning
have issues. They may not be economically left-leaning but they clearly are
opposed to social conservatism.
Anyway, I am not sure California has had a real conservative Republican as governor since Ronald Reagan. The current governor is clearly not at all such.
Anyway, I am not sure California has had a real conservative Republican as governor since Ronald Reagan. The current governor is clearly not at all such.
Cricket | 9:56 p.m. May 15, 2008
The statement released by the LDS Church expressed regret in today's
California Supreme Court decision because (one reason) "the family is the
basic unit of society." Well, "the family" still is the basic
unit of society. This ruling doesn't change that. It's all in the
definition of "family" and the LDS Church thinks only a man and a
woman married to each other can be a family. I disagree with the definition of
family of the LDS Church and so does my dictionary which has this definition of
family: "The basic unit of society having as its nucleus two or more
adults living together and cooperating in the care and rearing of their own or
adopted children."
John Lambert | 10:01 p.m. May 15, 2008
The United States is not France. We have not yet banned religion from public
life. You can argue for the good of laws on any basis.
That said, there are hundreds of reasons that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.
When are the liberals going to go after LDS Family Services for not allowing gay couples to adopt kids. They have already driven Catholic Family Services out of the adoption business in some states.
For all those who claim to not care what the LDS church says, if you really did not care than you would have ignored the article.
That said, there are hundreds of reasons that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.
When are the liberals going to go after LDS Family Services for not allowing gay couples to adopt kids. They have already driven Catholic Family Services out of the adoption business in some states.
For all those who claim to not care what the LDS church says, if you really did not care than you would have ignored the article.
hey | 10:04 p.m. May 15, 2008
what people don't realize is that the church will NOT change due to any
social or political pressures. its not a matter of 'fitting in' or
'becoming tolerant'. its more about them opposing that which is wrong.
and its ridiculous how many people are gay just to stand out. there's a
biological reason behind people's opposition to homosexuality. think about
it. it can't and shouldn't work
K.C. | 10:13 p.m. May 15, 2008
"The United States is not France. We have not yet banned religion from
public life. You can argue for the good of laws on any basis.
That said, there are hundreds of reasons that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman"
John,
Not all religious people oppose marriage between two people of the same sex. Not all Christians do, not even all LDS do. Its clear that you do and that that view is religiously based. But why should your religious view be legislated above others?
That said, there are hundreds of reasons that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman"
John,
Not all religious people oppose marriage between two people of the same sex. Not all Christians do, not even all LDS do. Its clear that you do and that that view is religiously based. But why should your religious view be legislated above others?
John Lambert | 10:15 p.m. May 15, 2008
To K.C.:
That is why I like the Michigan system where we actually vote in judges instead of "confirming" them. When I was in Utah I would vote a straight no confidence on all judges because I think confirming unopposed judges is the most owrthless voting ever invented.
That is why I like the Michigan system where we actually vote in judges instead of "confirming" them. When I was in Utah I would vote a straight no confidence on all judges because I think confirming unopposed judges is the most owrthless voting ever invented.
Adoption No | 10:19 p.m. May 15, 2008
I don't have a problem with gay people choosing their life style. I
don't understand other peoples opposition to gay marriage.
I strongly oppose gays adopting children period. There are not enough to go around. Even if there were, foster homes are preferable.
I strongly oppose gays adopting children period. There are not enough to go around. Even if there were, foster homes are preferable.
John Lambert | 10:21 p.m. May 15, 2008
I spport the reality of God, not the false and non-saving dogmas of Satan.
Same-gender attraction does exist, but people no more have to give in to it than
they due to other sinful attractions.
We live in world of sin as a result of the fall.
I will speak for the ways of truth and right.
Also end the false claim that the legislature represents the will of the people on a specific issue. Most candidates do not voice their opinion on such an issue, and ever fewer voters vote based on specific issues. There are multiple issues that voters weigh, and only rarely do they vote on specific issues. Even in Republican primaries it is hard to oust people who have supported same-gender marriage. This is partly because the PAC system functions to keep incumbants in office more than anything else.
We live in world of sin as a result of the fall.
I will speak for the ways of truth and right.
Also end the false claim that the legislature represents the will of the people on a specific issue. Most candidates do not voice their opinion on such an issue, and ever fewer voters vote based on specific issues. There are multiple issues that voters weigh, and only rarely do they vote on specific issues. Even in Republican primaries it is hard to oust people who have supported same-gender marriage. This is partly because the PAC system functions to keep incumbants in office more than anything else.
Bob | 10:57 p.m. May 15, 2008
Is this a political statement by the LDS and Catholic churches? Doesn't
that violate their non-tax status?
Tom | 11:00 p.m. May 15, 2008
Time for the LDS church, and all other churches, to lose their tax exempt
status. All churches are involved way too much in government, and do too much
behind the scenes lobbying. They're becoming more like political action
committees than religions. Although this is a moral matter to some, it came down
to a legal decision, a matter of government. When a church becomes involved in
matters of government, they should lose their tax exemption.
Walt Eddy | 11:02 p.m. May 15, 2008
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I hope that the
decision in California brings happiness and joy to all who seek the stability
and societal rights and privileges of marriage and that it stands up to all
legal and societal challenges. I myself have been married almost 37 years, and I
believe that if we, as a couple, work together it can last forever. I
wouldn't deny that joy, happiness, or belief to anyone else, no matter
their sexes.
I've thought long and hard, studied, and prayed about this. I have considered the position of my church, read its pronouncements, and I've considered the rationales of myriad other opponents. My stance is that, as a matter of conscience, I am for it. As a relatively young man, as a matter of conscience I similarly opposed excluding blacks from the priesthood before that stance was changed. However, I was timid, maybe intimidated, then and I didn't take a public stance. I have regretted it. I see no reason now to be cowed by the power and sweep of men.
I've thought long and hard, studied, and prayed about this. I have considered the position of my church, read its pronouncements, and I've considered the rationales of myriad other opponents. My stance is that, as a matter of conscience, I am for it. As a relatively young man, as a matter of conscience I similarly opposed excluding blacks from the priesthood before that stance was changed. However, I was timid, maybe intimidated, then and I didn't take a public stance. I have regretted it. I see no reason now to be cowed by the power and sweep of men.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Grizzlies lend forward to AHL team 2:06 a.m.
- Basic Sports Training clinic Saturday 2:06 a.m.
- Tony Finau reaches Big Break finale 2:05 a.m.
- Chicken-lovers dance for free food 2:02 a.m.
- Kansas' Secret Santa gives away $ 1:24 a.m.
- 75 hostages seized in Phillippines 1:24 a.m.
- Gates: US to be Afghan partner 1:23 a.m.
- Al-Qaida claims credit for blasts 1:23 a.m.
- Utah Utes campus briefs 12:39 a.m.
- SUU campus briefs 12:37 a.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Psychologist: Mitchell schizophrenic
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Snow brings big chill
- Jazz go up against 'the best'
- Letters: Global warming a lie
229 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall184
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil147
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead119
- Revive full food tax?100
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke94
- Palin signs books, chats with fans94
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Top 5 Players in minutes played: Utah 1 Fr, 2 Jr, 2 Sr Jr Carlon Brown...
Yep "self righteous" if the rest of us who don't rubber neck left, you would...
Thank you for keeping the team here for all of these years, and for always...
of misery, inconsistency, road games losses and of course, NO TITLE ! Long...
Glad to hear about Matt and the others who demonstrate you can play at a high...
I guess they forgot that God made clothes for Adam and Eve and that was...
and good luck.
There is an inherent problem in any rating system -- it takes into account...
Give Phillips some credit. He was 5/5 in field goals in the YBU game, and the...
Mr. Bender's kind of thinking doesn't even acknowledge that the world is...
Advertisements
"Why even vote on anything when the will of the people is ignored anyway? What has happened to this country? I don't care what the issue is. If a majority of the people vote for something it should stand."
You are aware, of course, that just because a majority votes a certain way on an issue that doesn't mean their decision is constitutionally sound. A voter initiative must pass constitutional muster or it will be struck down, which is what just happened.