Comments about ‘Prop 8 trial witness: Being gay not a choice’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 22 2010 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Two cents.

I STRONGLY agree with "clarity for ye fogged". Our sole purpose here on earth is to replenish life. Why, then, are we so sidetracked by the attraction of male-male or female-female?? How in ANY WAY is marriage going to justify anything?? What will be different in the lifes of gays and lesbians if they are married? One man and one woman. Simply to raise children. If everyone were gay what would the world be like? How selfish we are to dig our country into a whole of dept. Now, what are we doing? Trying to stop the reproduction of man ... SELFISH.

It's time...

For the government and states to get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches.

Good old fashion separation of Church and State.


"Our sole purpose here on earth is to replenish life."

That is your sole purpose on earth two cents? To replenish life? Really. Well I think it is plenished now. You can find something else to do.


Being straight isn't a choice either.


For those who profess that being gay is against Christian principles, the issue here is that the Bible has not been brought into as part of the testimony.

This is a legal courtroom, not a church.

Having someone be gay does not lessen your belief in your Christian beliefs.

Separation of church and state anyone?

To Waaat

You might want to inform the defenders of Prop 8. It seems they take a few angles about homosexuality. If your argument was valid, the entire argument that they submitted would be in defense of the definition of marriage, not about discriminating against gays.


To Observer: Why didn't you quote any actual facts, rather than just making up stories intended as scare-tactics?

To JM- glad to see you continue your "I've posted tons of studies and evidences..." and yet never actually posting any.

to observer

You have fallen prey to the propaganda that the pro prop 8 put out. All those examples are exaggerations or not in ANY STATE but countries that do not have our freedom of religion.

Please check the internet on all of these and your eyes will be opened to how you have been led astray.''


"Homosexuality is un-natural"

There is homosexual activity in other primates. Being left handed isn't natural if nature means in the norm.

byu alum

@Consider: Actually, *BANNING* gay marriage endangers the freedom of religion. Many religions want to marry gay couples. Their religious liberty is being trampled on by Prop 8.

As Mormons, you'd think we would have a better appreciation for the state trampling on religious liberty due to unorthodox marriage rites.


re: BYU alum

How is banning governmental recognition of gay marriage inflicting on freedom of religion? Gay people can have all the religious marriage ceremonies they want. It's called separation of church and state. NOWHERE does prop 8 say that religious institutions can't perform marriage ceremonies. It only says that the government won't recognize 2 people of the same sex as being married.


@M | 5:47 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010

Not sure that the Constitution will allow states to get in the business of deciding which religious ceremonies are recognized, and which aren't. Are you proposing that no marriages performed in churches be recognized?


@ Trowe:

Of course not. The states recognize marriages performed by authorized persons, regardless of where they are performed. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between religious ceremonies and state sanctioned marriages. I know several people who have been "married" in churches in SLC. What I said (and obviously you didn't understand) is that the gov can't and won't prohibit religious gay marriages, it just won't recognize them as valid (not because they're in a church, but because they're between 2 people of the same sex).


@M | 7:14 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010

I think I did understand you. My point is that I don't think that the constitution will allow for states to give the "marriages" performed in one church validity, while denying the "marriages" performed in others. Perhaps the court will decide that if states want to remain in the marraige license business, that they will have to also perform the marriages. After the civil marriage, people can then perform ceremonies in their various churches. As it currently stands, I think the court will find that having a state deny some religious marriage ceremonies while accepting others will violate the constitution's establishment/free exercise clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"



My point is not that churches are being, or will be, denied the right to perform ceremonies. My point is that by RECOGNIZING the INDIVIDUALS being married in one church ceremony, and disregarding the others, the state is clearly giving preference to one type of church ceremony, while stating that another is somehow less valid. This recognition can easily seen to be as an establishment of which religions beliefs are recognized. Sooner or later the court will most likely rule that this recognition is a violation.


@ Trove,

Really? So because the gov't doesn't recognize a church's marriage of certain individuals, the court would rule this as an infringement of religious rights? Hmm, last time I checked the gov't doesn't recognize polygamist marriages, so I guess the courts should step in and allow them to be recognized? They don't because there isn't any constitutional violation w/ regard to religion.


M | 10:58 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010

I think it is unlikely that polygamy will become legal, due to other issues...however, if the states continue to allow churches to perform legal ceremonies, I could see it happening. Much more likely solution is to get churches out of the legal business, and turn it in to a state thing. States could then decide what types of unions best serve the state, and churches could perform marriages according to their religious beliefs.

common sense

It's obvious that if the state grants certain benefits (social security, etc) to straight marriages it should also do the same for gay ones.

Anything less is discrimination.


M | 11:46 p.m. Jan. 23, 2010

Yes, that is currently how the situation is. However, I think you're completely missing the point. At some point the court is going to ask why it is that some churches' view of marriage is being given legal standing? (no matter how you spin it, when a minister of any church performs a religious ceremony the result of which is a legal marriage, the state is recognizing a religion's marriage view) When the court does look at that, I think they'll find that giving such legal standing equates to an establishment of religion, especially when it is denying other churches ability to perform marriages as they believe.

To: Elementary School

Yes, I knew at an early age I was different. I tried to deny it, but I knew it. Don't you see it when there is that one boy who gets along better with girls than the other boys? How about the boy who sits out the game of kissing tag or another game when they have to be paired up with a girl? It happens, and it happens before we truly recognize our sexual identity.

to comment

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