Comments about ‘Utah gay-marriage advocates disappointed’

Return to article »

But LDS officials say the California court's ruling is 'welcome'

Published: Wednesday, May 27 2009 12:56 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

They can slow the progress of civil rights, but they can't stop it. California will eventually follow the pioneering states that have moved ahead. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to my marriage. It's a shame that some feel threatened by it.


31 for 31. Still batting 100%



Yeah the same majority who thought SLAVERY was swell
Yeah the same majority who defined Blacks as 3/5ths of human
Yeah the same majority who denied women the vote, or their being able to divorce, have custody of their children or own property.
Yeah the same majority that put Japanese Americans in Concentration Camps and stole ALL their property.


gays = disappointed


volcanos = warm

Origin of marriage

To say that the gay marriage issue is an issue that should be a social issue first and religious second is a bit ludicrous. Marriage was originally a religious institution that was later adopted as a legal institution by various governments. For government to go in and try to change the definition of marriage and try to force religions to accept a mandate over a religious belief is a violation of the separation of church and state. Hmm, last I checked that's what the prop 8 opponents are accusing the churches of. Looks to me like they're try to protect their right to worship as they choose.

Re; Geezer

It's not a civil right that is at issue. Or at least not as you define it. It is about the separatiom of church and state. If gay marriage is legal the next step is that religions can't speak out against homosexual acts. Don't believe me? That's exactly what happened in northern Europe. (Sweden or Denmark if I remember right.) It progressed in exactly that way and now a preacher can be arrested for saying on his pulpit that homosexuality is a sin. Can you honestly say that the GHLT community won't take that step if they win this one? If you don't think they will then you are purely delusional.


If we are so bigoted, why do you try so hard to seek our acceptance? Make up your own thing, don't call it marriage. You have all the same rights already. I don't understand why you continue to seek acceptance.


Gays have always had the right to marry like anyone else, just do it right, marry someone of the opposite sex! There is no "Right" to be won here, nobody is preventing them from marrying, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want too, just like anyone else! What is the cotton picking problem? Get married to someone of the opposite sex who is also "Gay" and have an "Open" relationship, it's pretty simple! Just deal with the consequence of adultery like most other indiscriminant people will, that's all, you are all going to the same place anyway, what's the difference?

RE; anonymous

Boy, have you really twisted that one around. In none of those cases you described was it the majority that believed what you claim. It was a very powerful, well funded minority, which last I checked more accurately desribes the gay community.

to: Anonymous 2:35 p.m.

yep, the same majority who later overturned all of those things. stop whining. if you truly beleived you were right, you would be convincing the people to vote in your favor, not a few judges. that is the american way. the courts might have banned slavery, but they did it with public support. see amendment to the constitution. and you should try reading the constitution from time to time. it did not count blacks as 3/5 of a person, it counted slaves as such because they were still considered property. and that's a stupid thing to bring up for your argument because that provision was added o that the slave states would not have a majority in congress and stop the passage of an amendment to ban it altogether later. you really should brush up on your history before using it as an argument.


It is a great day for democracy.

The Deuce

Is this really about relationships or is this about changing a definition. I am confused as to what the Gay/Lesbian side wants at this point. I believe I understand what the supporters of Prop 8 want but I am confused about the other side. If what is wanted are equal rights, then a civil union with those rights satisfies the argument. I don't believe that anyone would oppose this. Leave the definition of marriage alone and focus on what is really wanted, legal rights. Now, if this is not what we are talking about then the problem will continue. Is there any room for compromise at this point?

why allow any gay marriage?

this ruling was insane. Why enforce prop 8 which prohibits gay marriage and then turn around and allow for it for those that slid under the fence before the law was changed? It's like outlawing all new prostitution but allowing those currently practicing to just keep on doing it. No wonder California is going out of business.

Boy in Boycott

It saddens me to see those of us who lost a fair election and judicial review to continue to indulge in the hate and anger that we ascribe to those who dissagree with us.

Let's move beyond these emotions.


Since you so kindly offered gays to marry opposite sex partners...ya mean like the 14yo daughters you don't rape and call it some creepy old trolls third wife in TX?

Mormons you can believe like any other Christians...use the BIBLE as your ONLY holy text.


Mormon owned businesses on the yes on prop 8 donor lists and maps.....wouldn't want to be YOU


To: CougarKeith | 3:28 p.m. May 26, 2009:
See my previous comment at 1:23 p.m. 5/26.
To advocate marriage to someone you do not love for the sake of obtaining the legal benefits of marriage, and then to advocate adultery for the sake of love is simply absurd. It is contrary to the whole reason marriage as a social institution was created in the first place. Would you advocate such a plan for straights? Say, would you marry an ugly rich woman for her money, but sneak out on Friday nights with the poor babe you really want?


i support the decision made today. god defined marriage between a man, and woman. we as humans have no right to try and supercede god, and redefine marriage, just to fit our lifestyle. God created us, we need to follow his words, because in this broken world, nothing will give us true love other than worshipping a good, holy, and just God.

Ex-Post Facto

why allow any gay marriage? | 5:27 p.m. May 26,

The United States Constitution does not allow for the passage of ex-post facto laws. This means a law cannot be retroactive in nature. It can only have its effect on persons after passage not before. Had the California Supreme Court declared the 18,000 same sex marriages performed before passage of Prop 8, null and void., the U.S. Supreme Court would have quickly overturned their decision. The CA justices allowing those couples to be still be married, upheld the U.S. Constitution. They had no other choice.

Thank goodness

I was so happy to hear that the courts upheld the decision to prohibit gay marriage. It is good that the government should support the ruling of the people.

As far as anyone not agreeing with allowing gay marriage being a bigot, give it a rest. Please stop with the hatred towards those that have as strong of feelings against gay marriage as you do for it. Let's all just try to get along, please.

to comment

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