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

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 7 2012 3:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended


Whats wrong with calling a dog a cat?

Well, a dog is not a cat.

Whats wrong with calling a basketball a football?

Well, a basketball is not a football.

Whats wrong with calling a Ford a Chevrolet?

Well, a Ford is not a Chevrolet.

Whats wrong with calling a same-sex union marriage?

Well, a same-sex union is not a marriage.

It is two completely different things. Like dogs and cats. Basketballs and footballs. Fords and Chevrolets.

Let them enter into relationships. Let them enjoy the same benefits as others. But do not call it marriage because that is not what it is!

Call it Garriage. I'll get Married. And my same-sex friends can get Garried.

Then it is simple. Everyone has the same benefits, but everyone knows that Marriage= man and woman and Garriage= same-sex.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

May I suggest that all of you read the constitution again and then read the transcript of the trial.

I doubt anyone who has done this would even question this ruling. The judge cannot rule on evidence that was not presented AND the pro Prop 8 side did not present any evidence at all on how gay marriage harms society.

In court, you cannot say that you "believe" harm will occur, you must present real evidence. You cannot say that your religion will not allow you to recognize gay couples because the law does not care what you believe - they MUST deal with the law only.

Above all else, they MUST follow the constitution.

Anyone who has read the transcripts, please tell me where this judge and these new judges were wrong legally. Show me where they proved that gay marriage will harm society and thus it is right to deny tax-paying, law-abiding Citizens the privileges that you enjoy.

I can't do it. Can you?

Cleveland, OH

As a sixth generation LDS, I strongly oppose the church's continual involvement in politics and government.

West Jordan, UT

Interesting and endless ... the verbal wranglings of this discussion. Mankind, endlessly and bravely afirming that immorality is okay. We affirm this by basing our decisions, our twists of words, our logic, on what others have said. It appears we have let go of basing our logic and reason on anything resembling fundamental principles and truths. You can prove anything you want by trotting out your so-called experts in man's reasoning. I suppose if we wanted to, we could convince mankind that the sky was not blue. If enough people said so, it must be true ... right?

The fundamental problem here is that the people of California spoke. A majority voted in favor of a proposition and this has been overturned by a MINORITY ... a very few judges overturned the will of the majority.

I fear that our boat has left the harbor and we are hopelessly adrift in a current we can only faintly discern. Yes, the whirlwind will be upon us soon.

Salt Lake City, UT

CottageCheese: "Well, a same-sex union is not a marriage."

That is exactly what the court decided. From a summary of the decision:

"The panel majority determined that in taking away the designation of 'marriage,' while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, ...[other social goals of marriage]. The panel majority concluded that Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

In other words, same-sex civil unions relegate gays to second class status. It echoes Brown v. Board of Education: separate is not equal.

Mesa, AZ


"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."

Can you provide a single cogent secular argument against plural marriage. It seems like the polygamy laws passed in 19th and early 20th century, which were clearly targeted against a selected minority group, are a violation of the 14th Amendment. The definition of marriage which is accepted as being between one man and one woman must remain, otherwise if it is altered to include marriage between same sex couples then we are clearly discriminating against a minority who have married multiple partners. If these marriages are by consent of the parties involved and do not include underage participants, then those marriages should also be legal.

Salt Lake City, UT

The sidebar graphics of polling data don't show the full story. Support for gay marriage is very strong among younger people. Attrition of the older generations with the passage of time will eventually shift the tide to majority support for gay marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong side of history. The trend is towards expanding civil rights to all, as it should be. In thirty or forty years people will look back at today's fuss with the same bewilderment and incomprehension that we have when we watch newsreel footage of the angry segregationist mobs harranguing the Little Rock Nine on their way to class. It will seem such a quaint, dated, and misguided use of human energy.

By the way, how hard would it be for the DesNews online to link to the actual decision and make it easier for us read it for ourselves?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

rpjense said:
Interesting and endless ... the verbal wranglings of this discussion. Mankind, endlessly and bravely afirming that immorality is okay. We affirm this by basing our decisions, our twists of words, our logic, on what others have said. It appears we have let go of basing our logic and reason on anything resembling fundamental principles and truths. You can prove anything you want by trotting out your so-called experts in man's reasoning.

Isn't this your only support? What other have said? (in your case religious leaders) Your so-called experts are clergy or Other men trotting out religion as a tool to suppress yet other men.

You have NO argument besides religion, that's why the courts overturned this silly prop.

Corona, CA

Why is it discrimination if you oppose something you beleive is wrong and immoral? Maybe your discriminating Prop 8 supporters becasue we oppose you. It's called taking a stand if you feel something is attacked, it's called the people, the voters here have spoken and you lost twice. Sometimes I wish that you could split us in half, you keep fresno and let us be our own state.

Marlborough, MA

Why is it so hard for the LDS church (and others) to understand that the courts are ruling on the constitutionality of the ban, not if the ban is popular amongst voters. This isn't rocket science folks. Please stop with the disingenous defense of the ban.


There will be ups and downs in this battle, but it is easy to see which way it is going. No case has been made to convince young people that gay and lesbian marriage is a problem. Hollywood has normalized homosexuality, at least to the extent that the young understand that there is nothing to fear. This will be decided by attrition as the old-fashioned voters just die off and the electorate is increasingly disinterested in interfering in other people's lives...especially about something that just doesn't matter. Any campaign to say that it does matter just marginalizes the campaigner. Within a decade, everybody will have accepted gay marriage and moved on.

South Jordan, Utah

The LDS Church statment is too little and too late. If it truly wanted to defend prop 8, it should have spendt some of its considerable legal talent at the trial court level instead of leaving the job to incompetents.

Fredericksburg, VA

@zoar63 and others

Honestly, I'm completely fine with allowing polygamy. As long as all involved parties are adults and enter into the arrangement of their own free will.


@ CottageCheese: You are right - a dog is not a cat, a football is not a basketball, etc., etc., etc.

But have you ever noticed that not all cats are the same? Nor are all dogs, footballs, or basketballs.

There are certain similarities that determine which category an item falls into, but within that category there are a great many differences.

A civil union, domestic partnership, or "garriage" is not a marriage. One of the benefits of marriage is use of the words "marriage" and "marry" and "married" and all their counterparts. Without a marriage, those aren't available. Anything other than a marriage is less.

A cat is not a dog, and a domestic partnership is not a marriage.

Salt Lake City, Utah

You know, it seems like there has been a lot of discussion lately about who gets to decide what to call various things...

discussions over words like "marriage" or "Christian"

I wonder who gets to decide - those who claim to belong to those groups? Or outsiders looking in?

Provo, Ut

The path of least resistance here would be for gay's and lesbians to find Church's willing to perform marriages for them, and then just get married. Then when they go out in public and introduce themselves to their friends and family, just use the familiar language of marriage, ie, husband/wife/spouse/etc. Then lastly, defy any of their opponents to fine them or put them in jail for calling their union "marriage". It wouldn't happen, and everybody everywhere would realize how stupid this whole debate really is. You can't put a person in jail for saying that they are married, and so you couldn't enforce proposition 8 even if you wanted to. Quit asking for permission and just get married if it matters to you.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Mormoncowboy: If you don't have a marriage license from the state, then you do not get the benefits of marriage.

And if you have a registered domestic partnership and call yourself married, everyone will know that you are not really married, which will have a negative social impact on you.

As the case states, there is a certain perception and distinction that goes along with marriage that only marriage has.

Anything else is not the same.

Murrieta, CA

The problem with saying that the court should side with the "will of the people" is that the will of the people is changing towards the acceptance of same-sex marriage. Does that mean that the church will be in favor of SSM when the majority of the voters are?

Obviously, the church cannot really mean this in view of the way the majority viewed polygamy. Be against it, fine, but use better reasoning. At least one that aligns with the history of the church itself. The church fought hard against the will of the public on polygamy.

Be against it because you think it is morally wrong and leave it at that.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Can you provide a single cogent secular argument against plural marriage."

Legally it'd be a mess. Let's say you have a guy and he's married to three women, each of those three women are married to him and two other men each. Legally how would this be handled? Do you just keep gathering deductions on your taxes? You'd have to change the structure of some things to work for a non-2-person model. What if there's divorces? Who pays alimony and to whom? If there were a way to straighten out that entire mess then I'd be fine with it being legal... even though I think it's morally wrong.

Tooele, UT

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

CA is not joining anything. The millions who voted for Prop 8 are figuratively being herded into cattle cars, on a track to somewhere they didn't choose, being disingenuously soothed into going along with it by 3 corrupt, dogmatic, doctrinaire judges, and way too many liberal libertines chanting the modern moral equivalent of "arbeit macht frei."

Don't accuse the good people of CA of "joining" anything. Particularly this lemming-like rush to the ragged edge of civilization.

to comment

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