Deseret News | Same-sex couple from Salt Lake plan to marry in California

Reader comments
Same-sex couple from Salt Lake plan to marry in California

244 comments | Read story

Emerson, Ralph Waldo | 1:56 p.m. June 29, 2008

"Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." Congratulations to Ron and Todd, truly an act of love and courage.

me too | 2:46 p.m. June 29, 2008

I also wish the Mormon Church would refrain from lobbying in secular govt. affairs. Itï¿½s been overlooked for too long in the U.S., and would never be tolerated in many of the countries that the LDS Church operates. I was around in the 70ï¿½s and was thoroughly disgusted by LDS leaders overt efforts to shoot down the National Equal Rights Amendment and excommunicate those who exercised their right to speak out. Now, 30 years later, nothing has changed. Utah may be a theocracy and that is your choice, but leave the rest of the nation alone.

To Emerson... | 3:36 p.m. June 29, 2008

Did you know Emerson housed the crazed John Brown? He claims to be peaceful, and expresses no belief in God, but claims that John Brown was as God himself. Not the best person to use for quotes. He was one of the biggest hypocrites in U.S. history.

Comments continue below

MY SLC | 3:48 p.m. June 29, 2008

Alright, I was going to put up a snarky remark myself regarding "the church's" right to support the amendment in California. For the record I do not support the Cal. amendment and think that it is now a revision of the constitution rather than an amendment, (but that is a whole different story).
What really troubles me is that TBMï¿½s attack what appears to be other TBMï¿½s for disagreement with "the church". The reason is that I have been there and was a TBM, RM and son of a bishop. I'm also gay. I have left (as opposed to being inactive) the church. My partner and I are living quiet lives in downtown SLC. We are professionals, contribute to our community, city and vote.
We fully support the right for gay couples to legally get married in the individual states, eventually Utah and the USA! The times are changing.

To: To Emerson | 3:50 p.m. June 29, 2008

No, I didn't know anything about Emerson and John Brown. Feel free to tell me more. Emerson may well be "one of the biggest hypocrites in U.S. history" but IMO he is one of the world's most eloquent writers. I love his messages, and his style of writing.

Lesson learned | 3:58 p.m. June 29, 2008

Many years ago I had a friend who wanted to marry someone not of her race. Being young and very indoctrinated by my Church, I urged her to "think about her unborn children" and "not to be selfish." She ultimately decided to give up the "love of her life."

I only wish I could go back and unsay those silly words. How different my message would be. I might even tell her that her child could one day grow up to be president of the United States.

Now I'm hoping that we all don't make the same mistake I made, again in our urgent words against gay marriage.

to to Mormon's ...@ | 4:41 p.m. June 29, 2008

Thank you for your kind comments, as a parent we hope our children will choose to follow that paths that we so strongly believe in. But they don't, that is called agency, then we as parents need to make our choices, are we going to be sad, angry, feel guilt or any other negatives that may arise? I started out with the above and then I realized that I had to give myself permission to be happy and at peace. If there are those here that have children, friends or other family members who choose to act on their homosexual feelings, love them, but don't hate what has always existed as far as the LDS church, which is the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. I have seen parents on both sides of the church and gays, those who hate and disown their child, they are wrong, they need to never stop loving their child, no matter how different they feel. On the other hand, there are parents that get angry at the church, because the church refuses to justify the sin that their child has chosen, this also is very wrong and sadly, apostate.

Phillip Hotchkiss | 5:18 p.m. June 29, 2008

I for one am pleased with the leaders of the Church.
for several reasons
1. for not letting the influence of the rest of the world dictate our beliefs. If the leaders of our Church was not allowed to stand up for their own convictions . they stand for nothing . including helping others when needed .
2.I am glad the LDS Church officials urge California members to support marriage amendment.
If the Leaders were to change the teachings in order to please the rest of the world. Its teachings were in vane and I would have wasted my time listening to them.
The Leaders are not lead by the rest of the world. nor by our voice . they are lead by Jesus Christ.

It bothers me at times how people choose to live there lives, the choices they make such as being gay .
But until I am forced to accept their life
stiles . I mind my own business.
I for one will follow the prophet even if it is not the popular way
leaders of the Church please prosed on guiding me and My family and Friends

Charles | 6:09 p.m. June 29, 2008

King Benjamin said, "My brethren, all ye that have assembled yourselves together, you that can hear my words which I shall speak unto you this day; for I have not commanded you to come up hither to TRIFLE with the words which I shall speak, but that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view."

Then after this great sermon the people said, "Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually."

Finally saying, "And we, through the infinite goodness of God, and the manifestations of his Spirit...are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days"

What a difference from today's members.....

Charles | 6:17 p.m. June 29, 2008

To Me too....such bitterness towards the LDS Church you have within you. Apostasy is a valid reason for excommunication. There are apostate members on this current thread and they don't even realize it. Satan works in subtle ways where people will become ashamed of the knowledge they have and will not desire to eat the fruit of the tree of life.

You are sadly mistaken about Utah thinking it is a theocracy. You apparently don't live here and are not a member of the LDS church.

Let me take this moment to let you know that there are many, if not most, Christian churches who believe what the Bible says and homosexual behavior is immoral and wrong. You obviously have bitterness towards the LDS Church but do you harbor that same bitterness towards the Catholic church? They take the same stand you know....

It's sad that so many have lost their testimony and are beguiled by the serpent...

Turn about | 6:27 p.m. June 29, 2008

What if the situation was reversed? What if gays were actually the majority, and they insisted that straight marriages were not allowed. Would this seem fair? Wouldn't you be doing all you could to make straight marriage possible? Perhaps we could used a little more empathy for each other. Remember, "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."

LDS woman in SF Bay area | 6:36 p.m. June 29, 2008

This story has been front page news now for weeks here in Cali, and I am troubled about it on so many levels. I believe that a committed couple deserves to have the government recognize their union if they desire it so. Especially for survivorship rights and medical rights. I do not believe however, that homosexual unions are recognized by God as "marriage" I love my gay friends wholeheartedly but I'm frankly weary of the whole topic and am sad that "marriage" could be defined as anything except between a man and a woman. Many of my gay friends have expressed to me that they also don't think gay unions should be called "marriages". For thousands of years, the basic unit of all society has been families with mothers and fathers at their head. This is the context where children have the best chance at growing up in love and happiness. The ever present "in your face" gay agenda/crusade/cause cannot change that fact. Between the fires, gay "marriage" and the general intolerance towards LDS church members I experience here...maybe it's time to move....

SLC'er | 8:31 p.m. June 29, 2008

Glad to see Chuck is at it again tonight. As for LDS woman in SF Bay area, I feel your pain . . . I feel the same way about living in Utah sometimes!!! The "in your face" Mormon agenda/crusade/cause is constantly abound. However, between the smog, liquor laws and the general intolerance of Non-LDS I experience here, I will not move as its always my home and I want to make it better.

To LDS woman in SF bay area | 8:59 p.m. June 29, 2008

I'm afraid the "general intolerance towards LDS church members" is not limited to the Bay area.

Charles | 9:05 p.m. June 29, 2008

To turn about...it's a silly proposal you put forward and one which is shallow and lacks foundation. But I will answer you this way...if there ever came a time where homosexual behavior is accepted as normal and becomes the majority, we will have a repeat of Sodom and Gomorrah. In other words, this nation will be destroyed because of the wickedness of the people living in this nation.

Homosexuals in California have all the "rights" afforded to them that marriage would bring, except on a federal level. So if it truly is about getting those rights, they have them...so I'd say it's not about the perceived slack of rights, but to force their immoral behavior on society as normal and we must accept it.

Sorry, but I'll never accept homosexual behavior nothing more than perversion run amok....

Good Luck | 9:24 p.m. June 29, 2008

Man! How are they going to explain this to the creator.. We just love each other soooo much! My take...
Its behavior like this that disrupt the law that governs everything in the great creation of things including the element that is causing havoc in the world today! The formula of destruction is..(my version!!Greed,Selfish,Ignorance.

foreigner | 9:27 p.m. June 29, 2008

What about adoption rights? Would gay marriage in the U.S. open the door for adoption rights in all states without concern for birth parents who might want a choice in providing their babies with a traditional family environment?

Not knowing much about the subject in the U.S., I am inclined to prefer the Swiss law that allows homosexual civil unions which provides all the same legal benefits afforded to married couples (medical, tax, inheritance, etc.), but does not provide adoption rights or the government sponsored right to receive artificial insemination.

pedophile | 9:57 p.m. June 29, 2008

So what is a pedophile supposed to do whom feels he is born that way? Does that make it right? Does that justify the means?

And please, enough of the infertile comparisons. Infertility is a physical malfunction of the human reproductive system. They still choose to be heterosexual, on the other hand there is nothing wrong in most cases ('cus one would never know)functional with homosexuals. They also choose there lifestyle.

To to to Emerson Again | 10:18 p.m. June 29, 2008

Lemme tell ya, he may be an eloquent writer, but it's hard to really feel the meaning of his words when you know the history behind his hypocrisy. He believes in no God but believes John Brown, a crazed murderer is a version of God himself. He claimed to be a peaceful man yet housed a murderer (Yes, John Brown was an abolitionist, but murdered (brutally I might add) many women, girls, and children in his "fight"). I can't believe and apply his words to my life when I know everything he ever said....He really didn't mean.

adoption | 10:21 p.m. June 29, 2008

Look at what has happened to catholic adoption agencies in England. They get to shut down or put gay couples on the same footing as anyone else.
Just think about the idea that if a church teaches that marriage should be between a man and a woman for the rest of their lives, that it has a statistically solid record for placing children in stable homes with a mother and a father that is likely to stay together, that church cannot legally place a child as it would prefer. It has no right to "free exercise of religion" with regard to its desire to "peacably assemble" a family according to its ideals.
Hail tolerance!

If a birth mother wants to give her child up for adoption to a married man and woman, perhaps that mother is a crazed, hateful, bigot. I think not. By the way, there are many more married straight couples wanting babies that there are babies available for adoption.

MY SLC | 10:32 p.m. June 29, 2008

Somebody else mentioned the genealogy issue. How are they going to handle the legal marriage and offspring of gay couples from now on? Also, dare I say it? baptism for the dead?

Adoption | 10:38 p.m. June 29, 2008

There are many adoption agencies that would not allow gays to adopt. The state does not need to set a law here

Marriage is a Religious Issue... | 7:06 a.m. June 30, 2008

Let's pass a law making it illegal for Atheists to marry!

To Charles @9:05 | 8:09 a.m. June 30, 2008

I'm not saying the situation ever WOULD be reversed, where gays are actually in a majority. I'm just saying that I strongly believe in treating others the same way as I would want to be treated.

To the Emerson buff | 8:15 a.m. June 30, 2008

I'm sorry to hear that about Emerson. I'll have to research those stories more. But I still enjoy many quotes I've heard from him. You don't have to be perfect to say things that are truly enlightening. (Love the message not the messenger?) Thanks for responding.

To Marriage is a Religious Issue | 8:20 a.m. June 30, 2008

How about simply abolishing marriage? Who really needs a "piece of paper" to prove they love someone, anyway? All other rights can be worked out by the couples and their attorneys. Sounds fair to me.

gag me with a spoon | 9:39 a.m. June 30, 2008

How many times does one have to say the Church does not HATE homosexuals? They are as loved as anyone else in the Church and are welcomed. The Church, and the LORD teaches us to hate the sin, if they practice. There is no sin in homosexuality as long as one does not committ the acts...same with heterosexuals. We all must bridle our passions and live the commandements to the best of our ability. Homosexuals do not get a free pass...life may be more difficult for them, but so what...we ALL have many trials we have to endure on this earth. These 2 men may be smiling now but when judgment day comes, unless they have given up their sinful lifestyle and fully repented, they will not longer be smiling. Same goes for any unrepented sin. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Always has been and always will be. The Church, because it is the Lord's Church will always take a stand in this and other matters when it goes against the Lord's teachings. Make it legal or whatever, it will still be MORALLY wrong in God's eyes. The picture is actually very sickening.

Wise up people | 10:10 a.m. June 30, 2008

To congrats t you, and all others on this forum who just can't seem to get it (and probably never will): Being gay is NOT wrong. ACTING on these gay feelings is. Being heterosexual and having desires for the opposite sex is not wrong. ACTING on those feelings, if unmarried or married to another, is wrong. The Church loves and accepts the Gay people just like anyone else...what is NOT acceptable in Christ's true Church is breaking of the Lord's commandments, the law of chastity. The Church will always speak strongly on this as they always have; sexual sin is second in seriousness, to murder. So everyone say this to yourself until you understand: ACTING ON SINFUL FEELINGS IS WRONG AND AGAINST THE COMMANDMENTS. ACTING ACTING ACTING. Geesh, sinners want to excuse their sin but there simply is no excuse. Antis are only mad at the Church because they can't sin and stay in it. Go to another Church where your sin is more acceptable...sin will never be condoned in Christ's Church, so whine all you want. The Lord's church is true and someday you will know it but it may be too late.

MaBaBah | 10:14 a.m. June 30, 2008

I find it interesting that a church that is known for the mockery it made of marriage would even have the nerve to comment. This is a church of dirty old men that believed that marriage was between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman...

Any church that doesn't believe in love is far from true.

As far as the guy from the state is concerned, his unsympathetic stance swayed my opinion to be pro same sex marriage. Funny how we are all about individual rights until we find them a little offensive.

Congratulations to the DN for printing an article that was unbiased on the issue. I gotta tell you, I am impressed! Thank you!

If you are against same sex marriage, don't do it, but leave the others alone.

Thechurchistrue | 10:16 a.m. June 30, 2008

Even if sin becomes legitimized, it is still SIN. No way around it. God says don't do it, marriage is between a man and a woman, and that is that. Case closed.

To Carole | 10:19 a.m. June 30, 2008

God does not HATE homosexuals, neither does the Church. God loves EVERYONE and so does the Church. What God and the Church hates, and has never, and will never condone is homosexuals ACTING on their passions. Bridle your passions, as even heterosexuals are commanded to do. We love the sinner, hate the sin.

If yours is the True One.. | 10:23 a.m. June 30, 2008

I'm sure glad I don't belong. Self righteous and judgemental, to spend an eternity amongst some of you would be tantamount to going to "the other place"!

To:infertile hetero couple | 10:31 a.m. June 30, 2008

Surely you could not be so ignorant as to believe what you wrote. God is ordained between MAN and WOMAN. If either of the parties are infertile, this is no sin. It is a sadness, but they will be rewarded in the hereafter with all the children they want. Yes, marriage is for the procreation of children WHENEVER POSSIBLE, but if not possible,their union is still sanctioned by God. GET REAL. Surely you can't be dumb enough to believe your own diatribe. Just another justification trying to turn a wrong into a right...it just can't be done.

Be kind | 10:36 a.m. June 30, 2008

To those who disagree with the Church's position on this issue, please remember to be kind and tolerant of those who do believe. Always remember "love the believer, hate the belief."

Bible quotes | 10:57 a.m. June 30, 2008

One of these is what it is, "a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife", but there is one of the ten commandments that talks about not coveting, one of those things we have always thought of as a donkey, but maybe there is duel meaning.

Hey still a non believer | 11:35 a.m. June 30, 2008

Some non homosexual couples can't have children by themselves, correct? So according to your statement, you do not believe they are right. Doesn't our church teach us not to judge? All you do is judge people that are not the same as you. I am emberrassed to be considered of the same faith as people like you!

Just be fair | 11:49 a.m. June 30, 2008

Whether you want to acknowledge it our not, there ARE homosexual families right now who DO have children. Are we willing to make the benefits and stability of marriage available to them, or must we continue to treat them like second-class citizens? Why can't we just be fair? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

JanSan | 12:26 p.m. June 30, 2008

I have a question that I have not found an answer to yet...If the people in California voted this down,then how was the California Supreme Court able to override the vote of the majority? This sound unconstitutional to me. I thought that the goverement was of the people for the people by the people (or something like that). What happened to the rights of the people who voted this down? Please someone out there help me to understand this... me

To JanSan | 1:15 p.m. June 30, 2008

This is a very basic example of government ï¿½checks and balancesï¿½ at work. There is a division of power among the three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) in order to prevent abuse.

The CA legislature wrote the marriage bill and put it to a vote to become law, which it did. Subsequently, an objection was brought before the CA Supreme Court for an opinion. It is the courtï¿½s responsibility to INTERPRET law, not create it. The courtï¿½s interpretation was that the marriage law (defining marriage between a man & woman) was unconstitutional based on the way the CA constitution was currently written. The law then became void, and homosexual marriages are currently being rushed through the courthouses. The next step is for the legislature to create an AMENDMENT to the state constitution to change the ambiguity. If the amendment passes, this would effectively close any legal loophole interpreting marriage as anything other than between a man and woman. If the amendment does not get enough signatures to make the Nov ballot or does not pass by vote, then gay marriage will remain legal in CA.

Hope my explanation makes sense to you.

To To JanSan | 2:07 p.m. June 30, 2008

Actually the court over ruled a voter initiative because it violated the state constitution. As a result the right wing minority in California is trying to change the state constitution through another voter initiative. It is this anti-marriage initiative which the Mormon church is currently supporting. This effort will probably fail. Polls already show a majority against the amendment and it is unlikely that the conservative anti-marriage groups will be able to convince a majority of voters to take away someone's legal marriage. What is great about marriage being legal in California is that California law doesn't require residency so any same-sex couple can come here and get married. It has been a very exciting (and romantic) month!

Anonymous | 4:23 p.m. June 30, 2008

I don't understand what gives all of you people against the situation the right to judge?

It is what it is...

Genetic Gadfly | 11:03 p.m. June 30, 2008

Whether same-sex attraction arises from a genetic predisposition or not is irrelevant. I personally don't believe it does. But even if it did, there are lots of illegal and sinful tendencies that may have some basis in genetics. We are asked to obey the truth, regardless of genetics. The truth is that homosexual practices are a sin. If one obeys the commandments and avoids such practices, that truth will set him free. Failure to do so leads to the chains of hell and spiritual death. My main concern is that mainstreaming this sinful practice will lead others into the same sin.

Charles | 9:19 a.m. July 1, 2008

to 2:07pm... glad to see you are so happy...just make sure you keep your perversions in California and keep the AIDS there as well. And we won't be providing federal monies for research on something that can be so easily prevented.... As for it being unconstitutional, that is debatable...especially since SCOTUS handed down a 5-4 verdict that the 2nd amendment actually says we as citizens can have guns. Should have been 9-0 in favor of actually reading the 2nd amendment.

But that's how the courts go and that's how liberal agenda's go...run to the courts because you can't get it legislated and the courts will "see" a "right" somewhere to appease the perversion...

Morgan | 10:36 a.m. July 1, 2008

As our culture continues its precipitous descent into the depravity and perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah, I am led to say in my heart, as the author of Revelation, "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." (Rev. 22:20)

To me too | 10:52 a.m. July 1, 2008

The fundamental definition of marriage and family is not a "secular governmental affair". The LDS Church and other denominations have every right, indeed, a sacred responsibility, to speak out on issues of basic morality, which is exactly what this is.

Legal Beagle | 1:35 p.m. July 1, 2008

LDS Church leaders are spiritual leaders. Their domain is spiritual (and moral, to the degree that spiritual includes moral).

Homosexual behavior is considered by LDS to be a moral issue. Therefore, they will speak out on it.

But the issue of gay marriage is not a moral issue; it is a legal issue. We do not deprive people of their legal rights simply because they do not conform to our unique moral standards.

The California State Constitution guarantees citizens the right to marry. Up until only 60 years ago(1948), California statutes forbad interracial marriages. (LDS Church leaders at that time also "discouraged" interracial marriages).

Time have changed. Today, no thoughtful LDS would agree with statutes forbidding interracial marriages. We all would concur that such statutes would not only be unconstitutional, but unethical, immoral and unChristian.

Indeed, we would strongly conclude that statutes are immoral and wrong if they classify, discriminate, or impose differential treatment on the basis of a characteristic such as gender, race, or religion.

Similarly, then, those of us with moral, ethical, and Christian sentiments find repugnant California statutes that classify, discriminate, or impose differential legal treatment based on sexual-orientation. The California SC decision is right.

Legal Beagle | 1:35 p.m. July 1, 2008

The current California statutes distinguish between the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples(marriage) and that for same-sex couples(domestic partnership).

One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a coupleï¿½s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families.

Although the current domestic partnership legislation affords same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, they potentially impinge upon a same-sex coupleï¿½s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.

Moreover, providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise ï¿½ now emphatically rejected by moral people ï¿½ that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects ï¿½second-class citizensï¿½ who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

How Sweet | 1:38 p.m. July 1, 2008

Ahhh... thats so sweet. Almost brought a tear to my eye.

Redundant Redundancy | 3:04 p.m. July 1, 2008

These discussions are the same old arguments over and over. Religious folk say homosexual behavior is wrong in the eyes of God. Gay folk say everyone should have the same rights. If you believe that there is a right and a wrong, then seriously contemplate this issue, get off the fence and determine which side you are on, the right or the wrong. If you don't believe there is a right or wrong, then study your history and see what happens to societies/people without morals.

re R R | 3:31 p.m. July 1, 2008

I don't know--Liberal Countries in Europe seem to be making out pretty well, in some respects better than ours. As for people, take a look-- Greedy CEO types, and corrupt Politicians, many seemingly without any morals at all seem to flourishing, don't they?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.