Quantcast

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
windsor
City, Ut

Who were the three judges?
Looked up that there are 48 judges in the Ninth Circuit. Who were the three and why were they the ones to rule?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT
HVH

since when do the taliban read the bible?

Bible, Koran, Torah all draw their authority from father abraham so they're all essentially the same.
When religion isn't the government, there's always a battle for control.

Isn't that what this really is, Religion wanting dominion over the word "marriage?"

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

I agree that marriage is sacred if one uses the definition of sacred as worthy of reverence and respect. However, that sacredness doesn't come from the pronouncement of an imagined diety. It comes from the daily acts of commitment that are symbolized in the pronouncemnt that two individuals are married. Declaring that one is "married" to another individual has come to mean that the commitment one feels towards that individual is increased. Marriages fall apart when that commitment falls apart..not when a diety says it falls apart. Marriages are made by the daily acts of people not by prouncements. Prouncements symbolize only.

If the symbol of a diety sanctioned marriage (religious ceremony..man and woman) is important to you fine, but don't be fooled into thinking that sanction makes your marriage, and don't be fooled into thinking that it prevents others from having successful marriages (non religious ceremonies..same sex).

To deny someone the privledge of that special commitment because it offends your theology is not just religious bigotry, it's constitutionaly wrong, and morally wrong because of the opportunity loss it inflicts on society.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

OnlyInUtah: "The justices need to go read the Bible."

I have begged on these forums in the past for someone to provide a single cogent secular argument against gay marriage. Still waiting. All I get is the Bible. Fail.

RocketScience: "The definition of husband is: a man married to a woman; the definition of a wife is: a woman married to a man."

Your definitions and argument are tautological. Another fail.

rjpense: "He did not have the personal integrity to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest that obviously created a bias."

If the opponents of gay marriage are to be believed, gay marriage poses a dire threat to straight marriage. A straight judge would have an equal (perhaps even greater) conflict of interest and would also have to recuse. Yet another fail.

Pagan
Salt Lake 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...' - Rocket Science | 10:48 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012

A man and A woman.

Singular.

Not, polygamy.

Which was legal in Utah, until 1890.

So the claim of marriage 'always' being between A man and A woman...

is proven, false.

Polygamy, is not monogamy.

Again.

'This just goes to show us that we can't rely on Democratic presidents to appoint judges...' - BrentBot | 4:24 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012

Um, judge Vaughn Walker, the judge to first strike down prop 8, was 1st nominated to his position by...

Ronald Regan. In 1987.

His 2nd nomination came from...

George H. W. Bush. In 1989.

So the claim that this ruling is because of a 'Democtratic' President...?

Is false.

Please, do some research before making unfounded and factually faulty....

claims.

Grundle
West Jordan, UT

"homosexuality should be discouraged by society" WHAT???

That is the question they asked LDS people in the ?

Homosexuality just is. Why am I attracted to the opposite sex? Because I just am.

I would have been in the 25% that answered NO to that question because it is the wrong question! You can't discourage a state of being because it exists no matter how you react to it. The LDS church has repeatedly come out in favor of compassion and love for all (all..meaning excluding no one)

The debate gets clouded by those who draw conclusions from the results of poorly designed polls.

dustman
Nampa, ID

Next thing you know plural marriage will be legal. Wait a minute...

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Browsing Dave
Surprisingly singled out? LDS members donated half the funds and 3/4 the volunteer hours to prop 8 despite being 2% of the California population. Those who work the hardest get the most credit... and the most blame.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Next thing you know plural marriage will be legal.' - dustman | 9:04 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012

Then I guess the 'defenders' of traditional marriage...

never really cared about mongoamy, huh?

It was all talk.

What does it SAY when lgbt support mongamy, and religion supports polygamy?

Just to get the ability to marry any woman you find attractive to be able to sleep with them.

Wait a minute....

CottageCheese
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

A lot of comments say that the LDS church and others are trying to take away the "right" of same-sex couples to marry.

Since when was marriage a "right" anyways?

Is there any constitutional language explicity stating that "all citizens of america shall have the right to be married"

There is no language in the constitution granting marriage as a "right" to anyone. Heterosexual or homosexual.

And yet... these judges overturn Prop 8 ruling on a basis that it is unconstitutional?

There is nothing in the constitution about marriage in the first place!!!

Why?

Because it was - has been - and still is a religious practice. The constitution doesn't mention anything about marriage to separate a religious practice from the laws or the land. Looks like the consitution attempted to separate church and state - and opponents of prop 8 are trying to combine them.

Give me a break.

ciaobello
Concord, CA

For the second time on this issue, I wonder why I voted if the will of the people gets tampered with. Why have it on the ballot in the first place? I respect the statement by the Church.

john mclane
Salt Lake City, UT

@BrentBot "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."

The duty of a federal judge is not and never has been to "uphold the will of the majority." Their duty is to uphold the Constitution. If the "will of the people" is to enshrine Mormonism (or indeed any other religion) as the official religion of Utah, a judge would be well justified in striking down such a law, would he not? If the will of the people is to relegate a certain class of people to slavery, is it not the duty of a judge to strike down that law?

Similarly, this panel of judges decided that Prop 8 violated the principles set forth in the Constitution (by denying equal protection to all citizens) and struck it down.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

2nd try
First, I would point out that even the LDS judge threw out the argument that Judge Walker's sexual orientation made him unqualifed to hear and rule on Prop 8.

Basically, the Prop 8 proponents had no defense except they don't approve of same-sex marriage. When cases are heard in court, evidence has to stand up to scrutiny.

CA will join the six other states which have already approved same-sex marriage and life will go on.

Churches will still be allowed wide latitude in their practices. For example, a majority of churches still prohibit women from leadership positions.

The requirement that religious institutions offer health insurance coverage for contraceptives has already been in place in 28 conservative and liberal states. Where was the uproar when it happened?

News media does an extremely poor job of informing the public. Very few facts or history are presented, with the end result of continual perpetuation of ignorance and hysteria.
It would be more useful for news sources to outline the judges reasoning in their decisions than merely provide soundbites and attention-grabbing headlines.

Bubble
SLC, UT

@ CottageCheese: 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Marriage is not a religious issue as evidenced by the fact that you cannot get married without a license from the state, but you can get married without the participation of a religious officiator.

The California Constitution was interpreted to contain the right to same-sex marriage.

Also, the part of the US Constitution that was violated was the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the laws - you cannot strip a right from a group of people and create an unequal situation without evidence of harm from practicing that right.

Prop 8 removed use of the word "marriage" - everything else - adoption, child rearing, non-discrimination, education about different family types, etc. - was still in place.

What harm is created in society by allowing same-sex couples use of the word "marriage"?

Prop 8 supporters acknowledged that domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage - thus acknowledging a harm to those who are forced to use the term "domestic partnership" instead of the term "marriage".

This is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

gayldsparent
Nashville, TN

@OnlyInUtah, whose supreme ruler do you want to decide, because my God is a loving God who made me the way I am and he does not make mistakes, neither did he intend for cowards to us his scriptures to be twisted and used as a weapon for bullying a minority of people because they are different from someones else's view on right from wrong. I prayed for years for change before I realized to ask God to change me and make me straight was also asking him to agree he made a mistake and needed to fix it. You know what I don't need to be fixed. I am who my Heavenly Father made me and doing what he expects me to do by loving and helping everyone not just the people I agree with or like.

iron&clay
RIVERTON, UT

The Proclamation to the World on the Family that was delivered in 1995 by the 1st Presidency of the Church would be censured by the Deseret News Editorial staff if I were to quote directly from it.

The evidence for my above statement is found on my email response from Des News when I made quote from said document.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

"Opponents of same-sex marriage have been unable to muster any arguments other than it offends their theology," said the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for a Separation of Church and State. "We have a secular government, and dogma should not and cannot be transformed into law."

Amen!!

RAB
Bountiful, UT

Looks like the spin is out in full force today.

It isnt about religion. The nature of marriage has never involved people of the same sex regardless of anybody's religion. People may have religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. But proponents of gay marriage merely use that as a convenient way to undermine their arguments.

It isn't about civil rights. All the rights that gay people want can be addressed without government-endorsed gay marriage. The opposition of the pro-gay-marriage community to similar rights for polygamists also exposes the lack of true interest in civil rights.

The actual issue is simply a question of whether people should be forced to endorse homosexual behavior REGARDLESS of whether or not they personally approve of it. People and their government SHOULD accept, allow, permit, and tolerate other peoples beliefs and behavior (assuming no one is being hurt). Thus, no law should be created to punish gay people who marry.

However, people SHOULD NOT be forced, by the government that supposedly represents them, to approve of, support, endorse, and agree with other peoples beliefs and behavior. Thus, no law should be created to endorse gay marriage.

johnnylingo62
Gray, TN

You may want to consider the "warning" that is included in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" given in 1995 by the prophet Gordon B. Hinckley concerning the dissolution of the core family:
"... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. 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 all have our free agency to choose how to act, or not act upon our impulses.

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

"Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society" Said the statement from the LDS Church. What the statement did not mention was that LIKEWISE Millions of other Californians voted against Prop 8. The Pro- Prop 8 groups in the Court Hearings were not able to prove that allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry would cause detrimental harm to society. Likewise if we allow popular vote to decide who can Marry, Interracial Marriage wouldn't have been legal until the mid-1990s based on opinion polls, 30 Years after the SCOTUS said it was legal nationally. Game over people. you lost! See you next spring before the SCOTUS if they will hear the case. In the meantime some 18,000 Gay and Lesbian California Citizens remain legally married. Shall the Evangelicals introduce a ballot initiative nullifying LDS Temple Marriage in California? Who knows?

to comment

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