Quantcast

Comments about ‘Robert P. George: Marriage, religious liberty, and the “grand bargain”’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, July 19 2012 12:49 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Sank You, Doctor
Salt Lake City, UT

Please show me how Mormons in MA have been affected by allowing gays to marry there. Show me that since 2004, Mormons (or any other religious people) are now marrying gays in their temples, cathedrals, synogogs, or any other building that they do not want them to marry in. Show me the harm that has come from allowing gays the same rights as the rest of Americans.

Show me where gays are marrying in our temples in Canada. How about the harm to all the marriages in the Netherlands? Sweden? Spain? Mexico City? DC? Anywhere?

Gay marriage has been allowed for about a decade. If there were to be harm, it would start showing, don't you think?

Show me the harm.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Mr. Robert P. George wrote an excellent article that more than explained his point. He didn't resort to name calling. He didn't resort to innuendo. He didn't twist words. He simply told the truth clearly using logic. That is refreshing.

People who use logic when they read his article will not be fooled by rhetoric that is used by some to inflame, distort and confuse.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

Hm - lots of "my rights are being infringed upon!" and very little substance or examples to illustrate the claim.

Under President Reagan, religious charities started wanting government money to fund their efforts - instead of relying solely on donations. At that time there were many, both religious and non-religious, who argued against this on the grounds that receiving government money would either negatively impact the religious charity by forcing them to change their standards so they could serve everyone or it would allow them to discriminate against those seeking services from them.

Religious charities answered these concerns by stating that they knew they would have to follow the law and offer services to all without discrimination which may sometimes mean setting aside religious conflicts.

Now, those religious charities are claiming that not only should they be allowed to discriminate in the services they offer, they should be allowed to codify their beliefs as law and deny civil benefits to those who act in ways not inkeeping with that religion's beliefs - anything else is a violation of their religious freedom.

Your religious freedom does not - and never has - extended to the point of forcing me to adhere to your standards.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

It was not Christian charities that went chasing after government dollars, but government that went chasing after charities to off-load the heavy burden that FDR, LBJ and other Democrats placed on government. Government looked for partners, which is not what those who distort history are telling us.

President Reagan firmly believed in a partnership between private charities and public charities. He was well meaning, but the left is vilifying him for having compassion and vilifying Christian charities for being CHRISTIAN. Instead of being grateful for some help in handling some of society's problems, the left wants to tell Christian relief organizations that unless they act opposite to their Christian Doctrine that they will force those charities, through the courts, to abandon Christian principles.

To that, I would tell the Christian charities to give the government full responsibility to care for the sick, the poor, the homeless. Give the left what it wants. Let the liberals handle the full load themselves without help.

Mr. George pegged this one accurately. He is warning us about the deception and guile of those who pretend to be one thing as they privately plan to destroy the entire concept of marriage.

Bebyebe
UUU, UT

Marriage is a contract. What two people do within this contract is no one's business but there's.

Worrying about other people's private lives is creepy. Get over it.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

If one believes in the American creed, he cannot escape the notion that freedom is the ability of the individual to do as he pleases so long as he does not infringe on the freedom of others.

The American Constitution specifically exempts from coercion , force and imposition the control of a persons thoughts and beliefs. It does that by keeping government out of the religious world. And that requires keeping religion out of government. When religion is in the government, there is no freedom of religion.

Churches and religions are straining at the chains that hold them back from using the government to enforce their religious beliefs. We must not allow religion to break free from it’s mission.

RAB
Bountiful, UT

Ultra Bob is right, which is why the government should not establish official government approve of a practise opposed by millions of its religious citizens. Government backing of same-sex marriage is the equivalent of government establishing an official religious viewpoint on homosexual behavior. The government would be saying that this is the official approved religious view of the United States. It is laughable to proclaim that doing this would not affect people who dare to have religious views contrary to the government's established religion.

micawber
Centerville, UT

@RAB

I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage is equivalent to government establishing an official religious viewpoint on homosexual behavior. For religious reasons, I don't drink; the government allows drinking. Is it taking an official religious viewpoint on drinking? For religious reasons, i don't use drugs. The government outlaws drug use. Is it taking an official religious viewpoint on drug use?

Xbalanque
DC, VA

He's spot on. There are few who are willing to address the argument at this level.

SSM can never be equal HSM because in and of itself and under the best of circumstances, it can never bear the same fruit and benefit to society. Make it a civil union, fine. But the benefits that are derived from it are not and can never BE the same. I don't feed a six-year old the same amount as an 18 yr. old, but I have treated them equally. Unfortunately a lot of this was changed in the court system by changing the lens by which sexual orientation was viewed. Race, gender, and sexual orientation to this point had been considered things that were unchangeable. Someone can not change their race. By changing the view of sexual orientation, the assumption is that it is something that can not be changed. My two cents...peace.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Title:

After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

Line:
'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

This information was gathered from the National Center for Vital statistics.

The only 'consequence' of gay marriage?

Gays marry.

Zero evidence of the harm to any heterosexual.

Period.

RAB
Bountiful, UT

@mcawber
The issues you cited are not the same as gay-marriage. The goverment ALLOWS drinking. It does not officially APPROVE OF or condone drinking. To establish approval of something, you invest in it and support it financially. If the government were to pay for all alcoholic drinks for anyone who wants them, then they would be establishing government APPROVAL of drinking--and they would be wrong to do so. The same is true if they condone and support homosexual behavior by supporting gay marriage with tax breaks etc. They are not just ALLOWING gay marriage. They are establishing APPROVAL of it.

The drug issue is also irrelevant. Religions that approve of drug use as part of their ceremonies have been allowed an exception. Thus, the general government disapproval of drug use is not conflicting with anyone's religious views. If religions did have officail religious views that encouraged drug use, the government would then be in the wrong to establish official government disapproval of drug use.

to comment

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