Comments about ‘LDS Church statement regarding court ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 7 2012 12:47 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition, especially when the people of California have spoken so clearly on the subject.' - LDS Church statement regarding court ruling

But gay marriage was allowed in California...

BEFORE, Prop 8.

So, to claim now that we should 'not' change something...

after the initial change...

is a Double. Standard.

Marriage has changed many, many times over.

As, Utah was the last state to deny polygamy, until 1890.

Loving vs. Virginia. Supreme court ruling (not popular vote) that allowed interacial marriage, in 1967.

Massachusetts. 2004. The first stae to allow gay marriage.

Back to Utah, Amendment 3. A change to the state constitution TOO 'one man and one woman' FROM....

'two people.'

Also, in 2004.

So, to review, marriage has changed many, many times over.

Just, in the last 120 years.

It will change again, and again...

until ALL American citizens can have the legal protections of marriage.

i.e. monogamy.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

We recognize that this decision represents a continuation of what has been a vigorous public debate over the rights of the people to define and protect the fundamental institution of marriage." - article

I have no issue with this.

I also encourage people who have differing views to talk about this with respect and civility.

Why I support marriage for same-sex couples is:

Harold Scull & Clay Greene. Sonoma county, California.

When Harold became ill, both he and Clay were put in sepearate nursing homes. All their posessions were sold, without their consent.

And Harold died. Alone.

Think this is the only example?

**'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

They were together for 18 years.

MormonDem
Provo, UT

" California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. "

I am a faithful member of the Church. But how can this statement NOT invite criticism and derision. Mormons have ALWAYS had the view that marriage should only be recognized between one man and one woman? We most certainly haven't always had that view, and our eternal perspective still allows for sealings between a living widower, his deceased wife, as well as that same man and his current, living wife.

I'm not making a statement here about the Prop. 8 ruling. I'm simply saying that, in its response to the ruling, why can't the Church avoid such blatant invitations for our own "non-traditional" marriage history to be scrutinized?

Yorkshire
City, Ut

MormonDem--"But how can this statement NOT invite criticism and derision. Mormons have ALWAYS had the view that marriage should only be recognized between one man and one woman?"

Perhaps the statement came out of a heart like mine--that while recognizing there was plural marriage at one time in the Church, maybe the crafters of the statement hope (as I do) that that 'requirement' of the restoration of "all things" has been met, and that we will never have to see it practiced again.

(I realize many members make the choice to be sealed to more than one wife, while one is dead, (something I could never do--I'm with Elder Scott)
--but here's hoping we will never have to be tried to the very last degree in that way again, with multiple living wives.
I have no trouble admitting that it is an issue that my heart only feels what Jacob spoke of in the Book of Mormon.)

BoldChapeau
Irvine, CA

Does anyone fail to see the irony of the Mormons, the people who invented alternative marriage, taking issue with this ruling?

to comment

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