Comments about ‘LDS Church reaffirms position on marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 27 2013 1:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
California Steve
Hanford, CA

"As the First Amendment allows, the Church is free to keep their restrictions on marriage as long as it's within their own membership. There is no more chance of the Church being forced to marry a same-gendered couple than they would be forced to marry non-members."

Don't bet on it. Next they'll sue us for not performing the marriages. Then they'll seek to take away our tax exempt status all under the guise of "civil-rights".

The camel's head is in the tent. Soon the whole camel will be.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Please remember that Elder L. Whitney Clayton said:

"Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue (Prop 8) without facing any sanction, said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. "We love them and bear them no ill will."

It is not a commandment to disagree with the church on gay marriage.

Santa Monica, CA

Some wonderful and thought provoking posts on this thread. I for one have been amazed and heartened that this debate is (for the most part) civil and that people seem to be listening devoid of malice. But like all great civil rights issues, there is a right side and a wrong side. If you stand in support of "traditional marriage" you may as well be standing next to Gov. Wallace and cheering as he cried "segregation now, segregation fo-evah!" You are on the wrong side of history and though you may have convinced yourself that you are doing so with love in your heart for your fellow human being--you stand side by side with those who would deny tax paying citizens and the children of those citizens "Equal justice under law." And you are about to be counted among those well mannered ghosts of the South, who pined for the days of the old plantation and who protested that they knew what was best for their negroes. Namely--on the wrong side of history, dying away on your porch. Would you like your rocking chair carved out of mahogany, or will simple knotty pine do? Equality. Now!

West Jordan, UT

My personal response to several issues raised. The article mentions that marriage is to be between a man and a woman because it gives children the best chance to be raised in an ideal environment. If it was only about two consenting adults, then get a civil union, or in SLC you can get a co-dependent adult certificate and that takes care of the legal issues. To ParkCity Aggie, I don't think you understand the 1st and 16th Amendments, I think the debate is about the 14th and the "equal protection clause" which looks like it doesn't apply. The LDS Church has disavowed polygamy and will excommunicate anybody who practices it. To the person that says that the Church prophets are wrong about gays, you need to look throughout history, the Old and New Testaments both speak against homosexuality. My understanding of the New Testament and the LDS Church's stance is hate the sin and love the sinner. Compassion and love to the person suffering with same gender attraction, but no tolerance for homosexual activity which has been preached is immoral and aberrant. I think this shares my thoughts with the variety of questions out there.

Mission Viejo, CA

California Steve, Indeed, I would totally bet on it. Anyone can sue. However, it's up to the courts to determine that a suit has merit. Such suit would not be successful. The First Amendment allows religions plenty of coverage. Otherwise, don't you think someone by now would have successfully sued to have entrance into the temples to witness a family member's wedding?

Eagle Mountain, UT

I find it confusing when some people claim to be Mormons and claim to support gay marriage.


If one were to preach in the Church that relations between people of the same gender, or outside of the bonds of marriage for anyone was alright, that would be in direct conflict with the established doctrine of the LDS Church.

If someone were to argue that while they may not agree with the relations themselves (such as alcohol, or tobacco) but that they should still be treated as "people" and have equal protection under the law: I see no conflict with LDS doctrine or teachings, rather its an issue of personal politics.

I find myself in the position of morally opposed to, but civilly for same sex marriage, or the same rights I enjoy being married to my wife.

All Americans should have the right to have a their loved mate make end of life decisions for them. All Americans have the right to have their inheritance passed on to their mate without having to go through a long complicated court process. All Americans should be given equal opportunity to housing and employment without import to who their chosen mate is.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Chris B

The Prophet speaks God's will.

BUT the people still have their agency to obey or disobey and they will then reap what they sow.

Provo, UT

Utes Fan: Polygamy is covered under the Constitution. The Church had nothing to do with Prop 8. It was some people in the Church.

Los Angeles, CA

I guess no one wants to answer my question. I believe that polygamy is still church doctrine, although not current church practice. So in stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is not the church arguing against it's own doctrine?

Mission Viejo, CA

Snowman, Your statement is dishonest. The Church did indeed contribute to Prop 8. There are even election filings detailing that.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Chris B.

In the LDS Church even the least of us, when fulfilling our callings and acting under the direction of the Holy Ghost, would mean the same thing in principle as if God had spoken it one on one with you personally.

Why the lesson?

My point is that not only should the words of our Prophets be understood as revelations from our Heavenly Father- but when all faithful members who live righteously and TRULY sustain not only our Prophet, but sustain what he reveals to us... when all of us are testifying of the same truth- it is indeed puzzling that some turn from the teachings of their God yet still profess to follow Him.

Many members "struggle" with not understanding certain doctrines, which is perfectly understandable. It often takes prayer to be given understanding. While I didn't disagree, I did have to ask for myself how this doctrine is congruous with our full devotion to freedom. I now clearly and soberly understand that we're only fostering freedom through this position.

At some point, we're all "questioners". But those who directly oppose our Prophet while professing to be faithful members- they've been tricked.

boise, id

The Lord speaks through the prophet, but he also speaks as the church leader. We also believe in obeying the law of the land and free agency, so it is an issue with many sides.

Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

Red corvette. Yes it does.if you cant find it. Let me know ill.find it. All you have to do is read it
Its clear in all the scriptures about marriage

Pheonix, AZ

@Utes Fan:
"Correct me if wrong, but I don't believe gay marriage is illegal like polygamy is."

Both are illegal according to federal law. Gay marriage by the federal DOMA and polygamy by the federal Edmunds–Tucker Act.

"That means that gay couples can get married by any organization such as those Unitarian churches, but that the government won't recognize it."

That's true. Gays and lesbians can marry if they can find someone to marry them. But, as you say, the government (state and Federal) will not recognize it as a marriage.

"If this is correct, then it is worth repeating and recognizing the distinction."

The problem is, there are thousands of benefits accruing to marrieds that are not available if the government doesn't recognize the marriage.

The bottom line is, if anyone wants the benefits of marriage they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not that complicated. Those people who can't plan ahead or manage their lives to conform have to go without the benefits. Too bad.

Pleasant Grove, UT

"I guess no one wants to answer my question. I believe that polygamy is still church doctrine, although not current church practice. So in stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is not the church arguing against it's own doctrine?"

You have the doctrine wrong. Simply put, the doctrine is do what God commands. The current command is marriage between one man and one woman, not polygamy. That was a command in the past. Although it may be a command in the future, it is not a current command. By definition, doctrine is something that is taught or a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief. Current Church teachings prohibit the practice polygamy at this time, so the practice of polygamy at this time is not Church doctrine. The Church's argument in favor of traditional marriage is perfectly consistent with Church doctrine.

Virginia Beach, VA

Stay strong LDS faithful! Every time this subject comes up, and a few others I always reflect on what President Monson stated a few General Conferences ago. It's going to be very difficult to be a Mormon in this country in the coming years. I pray that our good brother and sisters from other faiths will lock arms with us!

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT

Gay marriage will likely sweep this country in one form or another. When it does, I will proudly stand with the Catholics and Mormons in defense of traditional marriage.

Lincoln City, OR

By golly, I finally found something that I agree with Chris B on... This is a Black and White Issue... Any shade of gray is a rationalization... Modern Day Prophets and Popes say that Gay Marriage is not condoned by God, the scriptures quoting prophets of old are pretty clear on that issue... If you are a Believer, that should be good enough...

It doesn't mean we can't love friends and relatives who are Gay or do support Gay marriage... It simply means they are wrong and engaging in beliefs and/or conduct that is contrary to God's will...

Northwest Coug
Pasco, WA

I can't believe I actually agree with Chris B on something.

Good call on gay marriage, Chris B, and how about those Cougs tonight!

Steve C. Warren

I understand that the Supreme Court may decide it is too early for a definitive ruling on gay marriage. And, although foes of gay marriage say traditional marriage is better for children, I understand that no reputable study has been done on the subject. Therefore, if a reputable study is completed and it finds that gay marriage is actually better for children, America should move quickly to outlaw marriages between a man and a woman.

to comment

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