Comments about ‘Mormon Media Observer: Gay marriage debate shows threat to religious freedom’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 4 2011 6:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Somewhere in Time, UT

Excellent article. Right on target. Our society is on the precipice. I hope we can avoid going over the cliff. If we do, there isn't much time left for us. God will not be mocked.

Chubbuck, ID

I have no ill will towards the gay community, and I happen to have quite a few gay friends. I can understand their feelings in this issue to a degree, but this article does bring up a good point. If a church's doctrine specifies homosexual acts are a sin, why would a homosexual person want to be married in their church? The article also stated there are churches out there willing to perform marriages for homosexual couples, but the writer quoted in the article didn't seem to think that was enough. Why is it so important to force others into their frame of thinking? Is it just so they can be married wherever they please? Let religious practitioners believe what they believe. If the gay community wants to be treated in a certain way, they need to afford religious communities the same respect, and vice versa. No more anti-gay stuff from religions either. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But as long as people are going to do it, I still need and want to respect them and reach out in fellowship. I can't define a person by what I consider to be their most conspicuous sin.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

You saw this coming from miles away. It is the homosexual's 'in your face' moment to the religions who believe their behavior is deviant and wrong.

if that were to occur, watch for a federal law exempting religions from having to perform gay marriages. so have the gays bring it on!

Wasilla, AK

The target is the temple.

washington, WA

I am an Atheist (not gay, but that's beside the point) but I am all for the churches right to refuse to marry a couple that goes against their beliefs (just as much as I wouldn't expect a unemployed vegan to look for work in an abattoir) It's wrong (in my opinion) to force someone to do something they aren't comfortable with.

Agua Dulce, TX

Churches could simply refuse to perform ceremonies altogether and simply choose to solemnify the civil marriages of their congregants.

Salt Lake valley, UT

It's too bad that government of any kind is regulating marriage. Marriage is a social construct, and social organizations should be free to define marriage in any way they wish. We would be better served if government got out of the marriage business and focused on regulating rights of persons who choose to enter into social unions. But, government is in the business of regulating marriage, and that isn't likely to change.

Orem, UT

This is a goood example of the next step for the gay rights folks. Since we have enacted hate crime laws that make it a criminal act to even speak out against homosexuality as a minority, enforcement of that law will be combined with the legality of state laws for marriage. The next step is to bring legal action against any church which teaches the practice of homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. When that happens no church will be able to preach God's laws from the pulpit. That is the plan of gay rights folks to force not only acceptance of a deviant lifestyle, but total state and religious support of it. I
If a person truly believes a church is of God, then doesn't it follow that We must follow the teachings of that God? If it be of man then it makes no difference what is taught. If it be of God then man can have no control of what is taught, if it is to remain of God. The gay rights folks should take it up with God. But only if they believe it is of God.


Howard Chuan-Eaton:Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?

Quite simply because Homosexuality is "...an abomination..." in the Bible and the Talmud. This excludes the support of homosexuality.

Were the Homosexual to repent and abstain, they would have the full support of any Church that teaches from Scripture. That abstention or celibacy would not require marriage.

Huntsville, UT

The biggest threat to religious freedom is religion itself.

If you enact laws that prevent SOME religions from performing same-sex marriages, you are infringing on that religion's freedom of religion. If you are willing to deny another religion the freedom to practice it as they see fit, you run the risk of losing your own religious freedom.

In the end, the freedom to practice your religion does not give you the right to infringe on anyone else's freedom - in any arena, civil or religious.

The first Amendment does NOT give religion the right to infringe on anybody's freedom.

Salt Lake City, UT

This article is a prime example of baseless fearmongering.
Gays will never marry in the temple. The California Supreme Court decision invalidating Prop. 8 stated that no church or clergyman would be force to perform gay ceremonies. The recently passed NY law allowing gay marriage said the same.
Even if by some miracle some court ruled that churches, we LDS, along with other groups would tie that decision up in court appeals until a constitutional amendment (state or federal) that would allow churches to marry whom they will in their own facilities could be passed. Such an amendment would get passed at light speed. Many gays would support it as well. No politician would dare oppose it. It would have overwhelming public support. The public may even support gays being allowed to marry civilly, but FAR FAR more people believe that churches have a right to deny marrying gays if it goes against their doctrine, especially since gays could go to City Hall, a Vegas wedding chapel or other gay-friendly churches to get married.

Same-sex marriage in NO WAY threatens religion. Religion is FAR FAR more of a threat to the equal civil rights of gays.

Fred Vader
Oklahoma City, OK

Before "pagan" and others come on here and tell us how wrong we all are and how this won't happen, please checkout what almost happened in the "progressive" UK recently: legislation was voted on to take the authority of performing marriages away from churches who refused to perform gay marriages in their churches and temples. Where is the outcry from the gay marriage supporters who swore this would never happen and they wouldn't support it? And the slippery slope just keeps getting slipperier.

Eugene, OR

The "gay rights" movement has never been about equal rights under the law. It has been and continues to be all about forcing acceptance and societal approval - of activities that a generation ago were not only not called rights but were in fact crimes through out the nation.

Participants in homosexual activity have never been an economically deprived minority grouping.

The goals of the movement have grown ever more far-reaching, being redefined every decade: Legality. Employment. Housing. Public accommodations (e.g. Boy Scouts). School curricula. Civil unions. Gay marriage.

The ultimate goal is forcing the Mormons, the Catholics, the Evangelicals and the Muslims to allow gay marriage in churches, temples and mosques.

The Supreme Court cannot be depended upon to stop that last step. It opened the door to the temples the day it found that states could not make sodomy a crime.

New York passed gay marriage with a religious exemption. Expect immediate lawsuits.

Federal politicians who have avoided this issue by saying it should be left to the states are either fools or charlatans.

This will come down to an amendment to the US Constitution...which takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

Howard Chua-Eoan was speaking for himself, not the "gay community." It was an *opinion* piece. And though there may be other gays who share his opinion, I wager that the great majority of gays--especially those who seek to marry--would want nothing to do with institutions which deride their love. They certainly wouldn't want to get married under the legally-compelled "blessings" of those institutions.

The whole battle for gay marriage is predicated on separation of church and state. As more than one person has pointed out elsewhere, for gays to insist that government should force religions into performing gay marriages takes away the very basis for legalizing gay marriage. It breaches the separation.

Your churches and temples will be inviolate, as long as you don't try to dictate public policy from within them.

Old Scarecrow
Brigham City, UT

It is true that in both the UK and Canada governments have come close to taking marriage authority away from churches to appease the LGBT activists. The actvists in the U.S. are gearing up for such attempts here by writing articles like the one quoted that separates belief, faith or obedience to any religious principles from the legal right to have a marriage performed that will be recognized by civil authorities. The Constitution's freedom of religion can be construed as only protecting believers from laws that would dictate which religious beliefs they must hold, or where they must worship, but not guaranteeing that religious believers are free to choose their beliefs and act on them. These are dangerous times for religious freedom.

Ron Hilton
Holladay, UT

The Mormon church was almost destroyed in the 19th century by the US government dicating what forms of marriage could be performed in LDS temples. It could absolutely happen again. Even if most gays don't have an anti-church agenda, the militant minority definitely does. Lawsuits are inevitable, and we are just one liberal swing vote away from it in the Supreme Court. The LDS is church is not anti-gay. It is merely trying to protect religious freedom from encroachment by anti-church forces masquerading as pro-gay.

Salt Lake City, UT

Fred Vader
..legislation was voted on to take the authority of performing marriages away from churches who refused to perform gay marriages in their churches and temples.

See my comments above regarding a constitutional amendment. Also, outside of the US and Canada, LDS temple weddings are not recognized as legally binding and LDS couples must first be legally married in a public wedding or at City Hall and THEN be sealed in the temple. IOW, exactly as Fred's nightmare scenario envisions. So even if the nightmare becomes a reality in the US, it won't be the end of the world since most LDS live under it currently without batting an eye. Again, this so-called nightmare won't happen because the citizens won't allow it and would pass a constitutional amendment to prevent it.

The Supreme Court cannot be depended upon to stop that last step. It opened the door to the temples the day it found that states could not make sodomy a crime.

Gays makeup 2% of the population, women make up 51%. How successful have women been in suing the Church to be ordained to the priesthood?

More baseless fearmongering!

Bluffdale, UT

Why is government involved with marriage a social institution?

Marriage is a contract that is enforced by making it binding in court. It allows you to sue for divorce if the contract is broken protecting not only the spouse but children too with property, alimony, child support, and visiting rights.
Marriage changes the tax code since the contract is considered long term.

It is essential that all religions are free to define marriage anyway they choose. Government should only be involved with making it binding in court.

Salt Lake City, UT

The Constitution protects the rights of churches to not marry whoever they don't want to. That's why the LDS church is free to not marry... anyone they don't want to. Even unworthy LDS members aren't allowed to marry in the temple. So how would gay people accomplish something that has never been an issue? For that matter who would support it? The Constitution says churches can not marry whoever they don't want to. The vast majority of people support that position, including the majority of those who support same sex marriage.

layton, UT

Allen: The Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage.
The Bible also teaches against polygamy: and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of ONE wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.(Titus 1:5,6) 1 Timothy 3:2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of ONE wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;(1 Tim 3:2).

Will the Mormon Church evtually give women the Priesthood as liberal Christians do?

to comment

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