Comments about ‘LDS Church, other religious groups respond to Prop 8 ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 7 2012 3:53 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Since the equal rights movement for women it's all been downhill for religion, I remember when only men could hold the priesthood, those days now long gone, since religions were forced by the government to accept women as equals.

But alas this has NOT happened, and it is not the intent to force religion to be tolerant of others, even if they espouse it as a teaching. Religion is still quite free to discriminate against ideas, races, and sexes and will continue to so...Freely!

Vince here
San Diego, CA

Jut wondering what civil rights measures were passed by the voice of the people?

1. The Bill of Rights? No, that was a number of delegates that voted to include those in the Constitution.

2. ERA? As much as I believe that women should be equal, i.e. equal pay for equal work, for one, the ERA for no good reason, was voted down - on the basis that if people look into documents defending opposition to the ERA, as "immoral." Go figure.

3. Inter-racial marriage? Again, not by the voice of the people - and it is now quite outdated.

5. Civil rights of the 1950s and 1960s - History speaks for itself, landmark U.S. Court decisions and legislation from the federal government.

6. Rights to give back some of the rights taken away from indigenous tribes - again, executive orders.

7. Women's suffrage: In states, when it was placed to the people to give women the right to vote, it was voted down.

8. To really defend marriage - i.e. to lessen the high percentage of divorce, for one. I am sorry, I can't recall an instance.

Please, if you respond, don't begin by saying "Vince, the real issue is..." because such rhetoric circumnavigates question #8 above.

OnlyInUtah
Cottonwood Heights, UT

This is an issue that should be decided, not by the supreme court, but by the supreme ruler of mankind.. and I believe He's given us his word on the matter. The justices need to go read the Bible.

rpjense
West Jordan, UT

The will of the majority was expressed through a democratic process. A single, openly gay judge reversed the will of the vote of millions. He did not have the personal integrity to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest that obviously created a bias. Now, a small number of judges from the Ninth Circuit (any surprises here?) has again reversed the will of the majority, RULING that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

At the same time, the Obama administration RULES via edict that religious-run health institutions must comply with the government view of contraception ... forcing them to violate their own beliefs and doctrines.

What has happened to the Constitution and government that our Founding Fathers created? It appears that it is in the process of being co-opted and trammeled by a minority that is intent on trampling out anything that is traditional family-based, decent, pure, and moral.

Of course there are going to be many of you who will whistle and caw against the concept of core moral values. Say whatever you want. You can preen and pretend, but those values don't change. You can trot out your "experts", but their rhetoric cannot change fundamental verities.

Sooner or later we reap the whirlwind.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Just a reminder -- Prop 8 was an expression of the will of millions of people of the state of California, ensconced -- at their request -- in the constitution of that sovereign state.

Now two leftist activists, appointed for life as a political trick to a partisan, discredited, laughably-oft-reversed court, one that has come to richly deserve its nickname -- Ninth Circus -- flout the will of those millions.

And some think that's a cause for celebration?

That's beyond sad. This leftist-inspired and implemented dictatorship of the radical fringe will shortly leave our nation a riven, carved-up, hollowed-out hulk.

That's not a cause for celebration.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

OnlyInUtah said:
Cottonwood Heights, UT
This is an issue that should be decided, not by the supreme court, but by the supreme ruler of mankind.. and I believe He's given us his word on the matter. The justices need to go read the Bible.

The Taliban totally agrees with you, to bad we're fighting with them right now.

3 judges 2-1 the one decent was a mormon, activist judge who doesn't understand the constitution any better than those who believe in mob rule who have commented as such.

Don't worry you can still hate because America is still free.
The sad reality is, your children aren't as prejudice and like my father insisting he wasn't a racist,
believed that interacial marriage was wrong, and against the will of God.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'The justices need to go read the Bible.' - OnlyInUtah | 5:12 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012

And what about the Quran?

'A single, openly gay judge reversed the will of the vote of millions.' - rpjense | 5:33 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012

Not true.

Former judge Walker's ruling was actually SUPPORTED upon appeal by Judge James Ware.

Judge Ware also supported that there was no 'pro-gay' bias in Walkers 136 page ruling.

That was in June, 2011.

But I guess you couldn't be bothered to check that.

So, former judge Walkers ruling was supported by Judge Ware AND, majority of the 9th circuit ruling.

The only vote in SUPPORT of Prop 8...was by a Mormon judge.

'Judicial activism?'

18,000 same-sex couples got married BEFORE Prop 8.

If you do not think life-long monogamy is worth it, that is your choice.

But I, would celebrate your marriage.

UTAH Bill
Salt Lake City, UT

Maybe people will stop discriminating against LDS people when the LDS Church stops discriminating against them. I say that as an LDS person who is sometimes ashamed of my brethren.

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@onlyinutah

I really hope you where trying to be sarcastic.

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

for al those LDS people drying because people have a negative view of the church, this is a big reason why. This is an example of actual of attempting to oppress others. People having an opinion about your religion is hardly the same as taking away a persons ability to marry. one is simply words the other is actions. see the difference?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

HVH

since when do the taliban read the bible?

Brother Chuck Schroeder
A Tropical Paradise USA, FL

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a first response in 1995. All about "The Family." A Proclamation to the World in 1995. The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Then ban all same-sex marriage and abortion.

The justices need to go read the Bible they swear on.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

*'LDS Church's in-kind donations to Prop. 8 total $190K' - By Lynn Arave - By Dsnews - 02/03/09

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

Regardless of what elections may decide, judges may rule or legislators may enact, the definition of marriage has always been, is, and always will be: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife

The definition of husband is: a man married to a woman; the definition of a wife is: a woman married to a man. A same gender couple cannot be husband and wife and marriage does not include two husbands or two wives.

Two men or two women living as a couple do not meet the definition of married. The definition of marriage was established religiously thousands of years ago and no one can change that. All the legal rights can be given to couples and the law may call it marriage but does not make same gender couples what they never can be.

It is not a matter of discrimination it is a matter of what is and what is not. It is an attempt to make that which is statistically defined as abnormal behavior seem normal through a legal definition.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

The ruling regarding standing and the motion to throw out Judge Walkerâs decision was a unanimous 3-0 vote.

In his August 4, 2010, decision, which the 9th Circuit upheld today, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitutionâs 14th Amendment. In his opinion, Judge Walker presented 80 findings of fact regarding same-sex marriage, which included discussions about the immutability of sexual orientation, the ability of same-sex couples to be good parents, and the inequality of providing LGBT couples with civil unions as opposed to full marriages. These findings of fact are highly significant, because while appellate courts can overturn a lower courtâs decision based on its findings of law, they usually defer to those courtsâ findings of fact. Todayâs ruling affirms Judge Walkerâs findings of fact, meaning that they can but used in the future in other trial cases in the 9th Circuit that deal with LGBT rights.

regis
Salt Lake City, UT

It is incredible and infuriating that a few judges using twisted reasoning can overrule the will of the people. The notion that the constitution of the United States was intended to protect the rights of a gay couple to marry is laughable.

BrowsingDave
PROVO, UT

I must admit I was surprised that the LDS Church responded vocally or officially to the ruling. I suppose it was in an effort to show solidarity with other religious groups. While I strongly support their right to voice their opinion in the matter, both in 2008 and today, I don't see how their statement today does them any good. In 2008, it helped them take an early stand on a major issue, and triggered increased awareness of the issue among it's members, in many cases resulting in much-needed moderation and understanding. Though the backlash was strong and surprisingly singled out, at least Prop 8 let the LDS define themselves and choose a clear course of policy.

Since gay marriage will be a reality everywhere in the country within 30 years (if not sooner, look at the demographics), in my view it was uncharacteristically foolish of LDS PR officials to officially dig up an issue that their stance is already known on, and that didn't go over well to begin with. Churches have every right to define themselves and take stands, but it's better to take rare and firm stands then to quip about every little ruling along the way. Here's to better judgement in the future, as this case will undoubtedly continue past the election and media wave.

BrentBot
Salt Lake City, UT

This just goes to show us that we can't rely on Democratic presidents to appoint judges who will uphold the will of the people. Democrats always believe they have superior wisdom to the "masses". Just look what they are doing to our country: no Federal Budget in three years, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and trampling on the religious rights of Catholics (and other denominations in the future).

Never vote for another Democrat for President.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

rpjense: "The will of the majority was expressed through a democratic process. A single, openly gay judge reversed the will of the vote of millions. He did not have the personal integrity to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest that obviously created a bias."

No, Judge Walker was _not_ "openly gay." He only "came out" after he retired.

But you set yourself up too easily. The dissenting opinion in yesterday's court ruling was from Judge Randy Smith, who is "openly" a Mormon.

Why do you feel justified in questioning the objectivity of Judge Walker, but not Judge Smith?

Look, it is flat-out impossible to offer an argument against equal rights for all citizens without resorting to ancient religious beliefs which we, out of respect for religious freedom, permit to be excluded from evidence-based critical examination. The time has come to end this exclusion.

"My religion says so," is neither a rational nor a constitutionally acceptable reason to deprive someone of their civil rights.

Esquire
Springville, UT

If civil rights were determined by a vote of the people, perhaps slavery would still be part of the way of life for a large part of this country, and certainly we would have a permanent second (or third) class. Change is hard and uncomfortable, and like it or not, this change is coming. The question still not answered for me is if we grant all rights equivalent to marriage but deny the formality, what is the big deal about allowing marriage. We are already there in a de facto way. Your personal faith and the way you live your life has not been infringed and it won't if people you don't know or not personally involved with are married or not. Are we going to impose religious views on all, or seek to sway the views and actions of individuals? Who decides whose moral code should be imposed on the whole of society?

to comment

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