Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama reignites battle over gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 23 2011 11:29 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Andy Horlacher
Sandy, Utah

Isn't it an impeachable act to NOT do what you have been sworn in to do?

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

Is it time for a constitutional amendment to place marriage out of reach just like religion and speech?

Led Zeppelin II
Bountiful, UT

This is another reason why Obama is worse than Bush was. And Bush was one of the worst President we have ever had. What is really scary is Obama is starting to look more and more like Rocky Anderson. And Rocky Anderson is one of the worst cancers we have ever had in politics.
I lived in Downtown SLC when Rocky Anderson was Mayor. An absolute nightmare! So glad to get out of there. If Obama goes on the Rocky road I will illegally flee out of the country.

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

gladys - Just remember the legend in your coins "In God we trust" and what has God has said? we can read and find the answer in the holy Bible where God has spoken since the world's foundation, He says: Romanos 1:26-27 after this, Do we really trust in God?
Do Gays have rights? of course they have them, like citizens, but they couldn´t change God´s Law about marriage the Holy Bible says: Génesis 1: 27-28
So that, if wu trust in God, we can obey His Law.

LDS: No one is trying to change God's laws. Just man's laws.

We LDS also need to obey scripture like you imply above. Legal Civil Rights mustn't be limited by others' subjective moral or religious views. The apostle Paul specifically scoffs at this idea (1 Cor. 10:29). See also D&C 134:4 about letting our religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.

Taking away the rights of others simply because we feel that that right is a sin is itself sinful.

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

Tekakaromatagi - The laws for marriage define marriage as being between two people who could potentially be biologically united to create a child. If two men or two women can meet the standard of being potentially able to jointly conceive, I am all for them being married.

LDS: If the standard to qualify for a legal marriage is "two people who could potentially be biologically united to create a child", then let's only give marriage to couples who can potentially bring children into the world. No new marriages for women over 45, for the sterile or infertile, etc...Also, for those couples who don't produce kids within..say..3 years of being married, their marriage licenses should be revoked. If they can't produce kids, why do they need or deserve marriage any more than same-sex couples who can't either?

coco_sweet
Sandy, UT

Oh good heavens people. These type of decisions were also done by W. Bush, Clinton, Bush Senior etc. for other laws they felt were unconstitional... Nothing new here.

Devilion
Taylorsville, UT

If the definition of marriage changes. This begs the questions of arrange marriages, and the muslim practice of multiple wives. I'm sure that there are many other marriage practices that are currently against US law. Would all of these other marriage practices also be legal?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments