Comments about ‘My view: Religion's place in marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 16 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ogden, UT

The arguments Reid makes here are the same arguments made against mixed-race marriages. They weren't valid then; they aren't valid now. Bigotry and prejudice weren't valid then, and they aren't vaid now. The purpose of religion is to guide and end enhance the way people live THEIR lives. It is NOT to try to impose its practices and dogma on all of society. It is NOT to act lika a tyranny of the majority. Reid is wrong.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Another article on marriage? Dnews, you do recognize that there are other issues to write about, right?

Saint George, UT

Self-Evident truths are a saber that cuts deep. Marriage is between a man and women. However, both Democrats and Republicans, and in this case gays, are driven, not for 'civil rights', but for control. Liberty is a foreign concept. Liberty for gays means not just changing society, but changing God, and second, aligning themselves with the power of government to achieve its ends, hardly conducive to liberty in any sense. The hard part is watching Republicans and Democrats jump on board to the Anti-liberty movement.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


Please show me where this has happening in states or countries that already have gay marriage - where they are trying to change God. I think you have stepped a little too far onto the fear-mongering wagon.

Tell me how life is different for LDS members in Massachusetts. Tell me how oppressed members are in Canada or Norway. Give me specifics on how gays are changing God in Spain or South Africa.

Maybe people are just starting to see that the oppression of gays is immoral itself! Maybe people are starting to see that not sharing the benefits and privileges that we enjoy as married citizens is UnAmerican and Unconstitutional.

Maybe some of us are slow.

Eagle Mountain, UT

Whose morality are we going to enforce in law? Jewish morality where it is wrong to eat shrimp? Muslim morality where a woman should cover their head in public? The LDS morality where "strong drinks" should not be consumed? These moral beliefs (Standards) are not universal so codifying them in law would essentially be forcing citizens to follow specific religious standards which is a violation of the first amendment.

Does this mean that the government should not promote any sort of morality? No, as there are morals (Ethics) that span religious and secular belief, such as the Golden Rule, where harm to a citizen or group can be objectively demonstrated. Thus laws against murder, fraud, stealing, etc are valid within a secular government, such as ours.

There is no demonstrable harm resulting from the government recognizing same sex marriages so the morality against same sex marriage is a religious standard, not an ethical one. No harm to children or individuals. Traditional marriages are unaffected. The converse is true as there is demonstrable harm to same sex couples and their children so laws preventing their recognition should be repealed.

Steve C. Warren

Reid favors marriage. What he's clearly opposed to is sex between people of the same sex. If it were impossible for gays to have sex, Reid might favor same-sex marriage. Let him take comfort, therefore, in knowing that gays living together without the benefit of marriage are unlikely to have more sex if they live together as a married couple. In fact, if studies of straight married couples also hold true for gays, married gays would have LESS sex than those who merely live together.

Saint George, UT

Lane Meyer: How do you define suppression? Doesn't 'suppression' mean just 'disagreement' to you? If I believe gay marriage is immoral, destructive of God's plan, destroys a child's perspective of God, affects societal norms, and changes the future into a dark place, am I a bigot? I am quite against the federal government defining marriage. The Constitution gives the states this role.

Livelongandprosper: What do you mean by 'morals' and 'ethics'? How can a government promote 'morality' that has no standard? You are promoting what I know is immoral. If so, who decides what is 'moral'? Someone in a cubicle? As far as the Golden Rule, where is there any 'objective' measurement to promote that? If I am not mistaken, the golden rule is something of the heart, not something to be explained and encoded into law. Hearts are important, but not with government. Government only can operate by rules and laws. Even murder, fraud, and stealing are mischieviously (i.e. abortion) defined by political definitions, not universal truths. No, without God, anything is acceptable. Those Defining 'morality' or 'ethics' without Him succumb to a secular notion of what that is,something tyrants are prepared to do.

American Fork, UT

Interference and division. Clouding reality with superstition. Same role it has played in most arenas.

Salt Lake City, UT

banderson: "I am quite against the federal government defining marriage. The Constitution gives the states this role."

Then I presume you oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and the proposed federal constitutional amendments that would define marriage as one man/one woman. I also presume you support the extension of federal benefits (such as military family housing, social security spousal benefits, the ability to file joint federal tax returns, untaxed spousal inheritance, etc.) to same-sex couples that are legally married in those states that allow it. State laws can have repercussions in federal law.

Temple City, CA

Sexual morality is not merely a religious idea, though all of the largest world religions generally agree on standards of sexual morality and marriage.

It is in the best interests of any state--even states that reject religion--to control sexuality. Even most proponents of same-gender marriage agree that certain lines should not be crossed (rape and incest should not be decriminalized, for example). The underlying issue is where to draw the line; drawing the line against the encouragement of homosexuality is not purely a religious idea, but religious people certainly have religious reasons for discouraging the practice.

I believe firmly that, as a religious person, it is my right--even my duty--to maintain the line against a governmental encouragement of homosexuality, and, like Sen. Reid, to try to redraw the line back toward encouraging hetero-gender marriage, discouraging divorce and unwed and underage sexuality, and supporting stable child rearing by mixed-gender parents.

Further, the argument that because there are no immediate, obvious ill effects from same-gender marriage it should be allowed ignores the historical record: NO society that encouraged homosexuality over heterosexuality (including same-gender marriage) has EVER survived more than briefly.

Kearns, UT

There are any number of "Golden Rules". 1-He who has the gold makes the rules, 2- Do unto others before they do unto you, 3-he who has the gun makes the rules, etc, etc, etc. So, which Golden Rule applies?


From the author:

If society is to be preserved, legislation must be advanced and upheld by the courts to protect the moral well-being of the many, even if a few regrettably suffer as a consequence.

All I can say about a statement like that is: WOW.


The Founding Fathers thought slavery was moral. Many religious people used the Bible to justify slavery and the Civil War. The same arguments about morality and the Bible were made to argue against inter-racial marriage.

We now view slavery as immoral and see no reason to prohibit inter-racial marriage.

Some religions support same-sex marriage. Why should the religious beliefs of those who oppose it have precedence?

The LDS Church considers the use of alcohol as immoral, but there are laws allowing it. Should we do blanket bans on every thing that any religion considers immoral? Or are we just going to treat this one thing differently? And if we are treating this one thing differently, why?

Tooele, UT

Maybe you missed it, but the protestors are crying out for religions to give up THEIR beliefs. You don't tell a person that their beliefs are wrong simply because you think differently. How much are the protestors willing to give up their OWN beliefs? From what I can see, they are unwilling to compromise. How do they expect religion to give them even a passing glance when all they do is complain and offer no possible solutions to this dilemma?
The constitution protects the right for people to practice their beliefs in peace. It goes both ways.

Eagle Mountain, UT

bandersen (9:58am): I am defining an Ethic to be a moral with some objective measurement of harm. I am defining a Standard to be a moral that causes no harm if it is not followed. If someone steals $1000 from you, then you don't need to believe in God to measure that $1000 and the harm the loss of that money has done to you. Abortion is in a gray area where there are good arguments on both sides of the issue that may be resolved with greater scientific understanding. Same-sex marriage in not in a gray area. Arguments against it follow a religious Standard and not an Ethical objection or are based on fallacy.

The Golden Rule, or ethic of reciprocity, is more about conduct than about what is in your heart. Jesus expressed this rule as "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law of the Prophets" (NIV translation). This rule has been espoused long before Christianity in many cultures and religions.

One of a Few
Layton, UT

Yet the founding fathers and successive generations were tolerant of religious bigotry (anyone remember how they hated Catholics, Mormons and Jews). Denying women the vote and property rights wasn't a big issue for them. Child labor was good. And of course slavery received a warm welcome. Not to criticize, those who came before. In fact, they established a course of progress wherein our collective morality evolved and continues to evolve. And with every evolution, the flat worlders run around crying about how the sky is falling. Some evolutions work out some don't. Free love of the 60s didn't really pan out but human intimacy is a lot more enjoyable now that it's okay to remove your clothes. Divorce is a problem but so are abusive spouses, so the law tolerates divorce and tries to make life fair. The "homosexual lifestyle" probably isn't any more healthy than free love. But for the life of me, I can't make myself worry about committed partners in a responsible relationship. And through it all, the best argument the flat worlders are able to give for denying a "civil right" is, "God said."

Eagle Mountain, UT

Re: Jeff (10:37am):

"NO society that encouraged homosexuality over heterosexuality (including same-gender marriage) has EVER survived more than briefly."

Could this be because there has never been such a society? Contemporary societies that have legalized same gender marriages have promoted marriage equality, not putting homosexuality over heterosexuality. Nobody has ever advocated such a thing to my knowledge, so it is a mystery to me why you would would think this is an example of potential harm done by same gender marriage. It has simply never happened and there is no reason to believe it will happen in the future.

Leesburg, VA

Sen. Reid writes in his 4th paragraph:

"we now have the highest divorce rates ever, with vast numbers of children being victimized because of it; over 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock; millions of babies have been aborted; generations of children are swallowed up by welfare dependency; and the prisons are overflowing"

My question to Mr. Reid is, are you blaming homosexuals for those actions?

Homosexuals would rarely have an abortion. Pregnancies in the gay community are in general intentional, expensive, and cause for celebration.

Homosexuals proportionally "adopt" and save more kids from welfare dependency than heterosexuals.

"Highest divorce rate ever": We couldn't know that about homosexuals, do we Senator?

"Prisons are overflowing": Please explain, I fail to see the connection between SSM and prisons overflowing.

The Founding Fathers were quite critical of organized religion and its dictatorship. Besides, many of their life styles would be considered immoral for our current standards, i.e. slavery, children with their slaves, and others.

Saint George, UT

Livelongandprosper: How is $1000.00 taken from my neighbor an objective measurement if I don't believe that there is anything wrong with it? Objective to you is not objective to someone else. It doesn't matter your reasoning. How about abortion, gay marriage, war? Can these things be objectively 'right'? Are you kidding? Only in America in the 21st century would these be considered as 'right'! How can you possibly say that abortion is a grey area, but gay marriage is not? Is polygamy a grey area? or a host of all sorts of societal relativisms. If you are going to defend your position, you have to be consistent? If you don't believe it harms society (not enough space), then nothing I can write or say is going to cat best.hange your opinion. So, is your 'objective' measurement any better than mine? No, it isn't! So,where do we go for that 'objective' measurement, if not with God. Without god, anything is acceptable. Allowing the state to decide what is right and wrong is a poor and uncivil society

Bluffdale, UT

For those who think that legalizing gay marriage does not affect them google
'What legalizing gay marriage has done to Massachusetts. Agree or not - this is reality in Massachusetts.

to comment

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