Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS Church responds to Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 10:40 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
CloudsAreGood
Costa Mesa, CA

It is indeed disturbing that the Constitution keeps being used as a springboard to overturn votes, over and over again, to go with whatever is popular or socially acceptable at a given time. At this point, after seeing more and more decisions like this over the decades, I no longer have any confidence in our voting system. The presidential race has been a joke for some time and the electoral college decides anyway, so there's not really anything left anymore. Personally, I could care less what people do in their own bedrooms, but to say it's a good decision because of individual rights is not totally correct. Children who are adopted into LGBT homes have no say in this social experiment. All of us are born into families without our say, sure, but what is going on is indeed a social experiment.

calcu_lus
tucson, az

We need to remove all references to marriage and children from the federal tax code. It's only fair.

JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt
Beverly Hills, CA

Church doctrine does not run the US Constitution. If it did, there would be disputes between all the religions as to whose religious beliefs should run secular government.

The LDS Church can stand by their principles but they do not guide California's secular government. The LDS Church does not need to solemnize civil secular marriage of same sex couples. Until Jesus himself comes to runs things, we will have to rely on this secular Constitution which protects tyranny of the majority. It has protected both sides of the political spectrum as it was designed to do. You win some you lose some.

Wilf 55
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

From an international point of view for the Church, the principle that the popular vote reflects the views of a majority of the citizens and should therefore be upheld is a risky and often untenable standpoint. "Democracy" does not always lead to just decisions, like putting the Mormon church on the list of dangerous cults, or denying Latter-day Saints equal treatment with other religions, or refusing missionaries the right to preach. "Equality for all" is a principle one cannot elect to follow in some cases, and not in others.

Spindlethumb
Clyde, TX

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children."

This is the most amusing part, considering the amount of unwanted children born to heterosexual couples every single day. They either get put in foster care, or the parents keep them only to abuse them physically, emotionally, and possibly sexually.

The amount of effort homosexual couples have to put in to conceive through a surrogate, or the trouble we have to go through to be allowed to adopt proves that homosexuals actually care about their children, or we wouldn't bother.

Sure, there are plenty of heterosexual parents out there who love their children unconditionally and would never do any of the things I've mentioned, but have you -ever- read an article about a homosexual couple putting their kid up for adoption, throwing their kid in a dumpster, or murdering their kid because it won't stop crying? No. You haven't.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

The war in the pre-existence goes on! Choice is God's ultimate gift, but to say he doesn't care about the choices you make would be a farce. God has Standards, although from the responses here, many of them LDS, you'd think he was up there saying, "Yea, go ahead, do anything you want--all's good! Your agency matters, far more than choices. All's good!"

CloudsAreGood
Costa Mesa, CA

It's tiring reading that it is the fault of religion that people don't accept homosexual acts. Most humans through all of recorded history have viewed homosexual acts negatively, not just religious groups. People need to be able to view things as moral or immoral as long as they are also tolerant of these others, don't harm anyone, etc. This has always been the best way for a society to run. From what I can tell, the LGBT community is the one not being tolerant of others and is forcing their views on people no matter what (with the name calling and not acknowledging the basic human thoughts and history on the subject that one can find on the internet every day). This is called tyranny.

Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

Wilf 55:

The respect for the voice of the people or "vox populi" is a tradition that extends far beyond the rise of modern democracies. History (and the Book of Mormon) teaches that we avoid it at our own peril.

"Equality for all" isn't a coherent principle at all, especially when taken as absolute. Should men and women be treated absolutely equal in all things? Equality when taken as an absolute means identical or the same. Will we have affirmative action for men, who are now a minority in many graduate programs? With the lines blurring between genders and same-sex marriage becoming the norm, there will be serious repercussions to this decision, especially in the area of family law.

JerryBall
San Francisco, CA

Justice Roberts: "'States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse,' Roberts said from the bench."

Shame on the California Supreme Court for gerrymandering the limits of their authority so as to hand over the legal reigns to out-of-state or private entities in order to reign over the State's Sovereign Right to pursue/not pursue tort or the infringement of a right to legal liability.

The California Supreme Court shamefully opened the door to any state trying to influence the elections of another Sovereign State's Rights and Privileges in conflict with State's Sovereign Rights.

neph3
Mountain View, CA

It is terrible to build stable society on exceptions. Marriage was created on the ability to procreate children. Healthy societies put children in focus. Then the argument came: not all heterosexual couples can procreate. This opened a road to homosexual marriages and bisexual marriages. The culture of contraception made children marginal to who can marry for hospital visitations, inheritance, tax breaks etc.

The results are devastating. Schools must teach that child can have 2 fathers, two mothers etc. The biological principle how children are conceived, and why would they care about biological parents is swept under the carpet. This "revolution" continues while Europe becomes depopulated and importing people who have no intent to assimilate. America hangs by a hair by importing South Americans who are behind on the "progressive ideas" such as abortion, contraception and divorce. Their children still matter.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Gay people already live as couples. The fact that this may now be called marriage does not affect any hetro sexual marriage one way or the other. The fact that it might hurt heterosexual marriage is an illogical argument the only people who let others do their thinking could believe.

A better argument against allowing gay marriage would be that it makes it more difficult to deny homosexuals adopting children. Children should have a mother and a father.

Yetfor the most part does fighting homosexual marriage seem oblivious to this.

dustman
Gallup, NM

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children."--says the Heterosexual Guy.

@bandersen: People should be allowed to choose. In the end, we get judged for it. Remember that there is a judgement.

As an LDS person, its hard for me to be threatened by a gay couple. How could two people that love each other and want to solemnize that in marriage hurt me? I'm glad we have laws that protect people. Anti-same sex marriage laws don't seem to protect anyone. Unless you assume all homosexuals are deviants out to hurt people. Otherwise, let people make decisions, or choices, and let us live out he consequences, both good and bad.

bikeboy
Boise, ID

Utah Democrat: "... perhaps focusing on helping traditional married couples instead of expending resources attacking the legal protections of families outside the flock would be a better way to demonstrate such commitment."

I'm not aware of ANY organization that focuses more on "helping traditional married couples" than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

PhotoSponge
nampa, ID

Shame, Shame on the corrupt courts for their decision!
So many of you here are missing the whole point--The courts have just said, "We don't care what YOU the people vote for! We're going to rule the way WE (the corrupt judges) want!"
This is a REPUBLIC, or at least it started out that way, and we are quickly losing ground to those who wish to destroy this great nation. And in all great societies past, the break-down of the traditional family was the beginning of their fall.
Freedom of choice is marvelous, but what are you chosing? What consequences are coming because of your choice?

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

For those who say this will not destroy this country: Here is proof that it will: "And hesaid: THus saith the Lord God - Cursed sahll be the land, yea, this land (USA), unto every nation, kindred,m tounge and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." The Supreme Court of this land failed to uphold the divinely inspired Constitution of the United States and thus has set the stone rolling that will ultimately destroy this nation as a whole.

However, thank you for speeding up the day of which the Lord Jesus Christ shall come and rule over his entire creation, when righteousness in all its glory shall reign upon the earth and the wicked shall be utterly destroyed. I look forward now to that day when the Lord shall be king of the whole earth. Thank you for speeding that up but shame on for destroying this great nation. It is a sad day to be an American.

MConners12
Topsham, ME

I'm thankful that my church leadership is "irrevocably" clear on the matter. Fairly hard to find an anchor these days.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@CloudsAreGood;

Wow, you certainly have an Orwellian way of putting things, don't you.

Tyranny is when the majority denies the same basic privileges they enjoy to the minority. Accepting that others want to marry (and can do so without your approval) is NOT tyranny.

It was "intolerant" to vote for Prop-8 and deny GLBT couples the rights you enjoy.
It was "intolerant" to vote for Amendment-3 and deny GLBT couple the rights you enjoy.

And YOU accuse US of intolerance. Please read your New Testament to see the exact words that Jesus Himself used about the hypocrite.

JanSan
Pocatello, ID

To ceci
It is not only Mormons(LDS) who believe that this is wrong. And we can and have every right to say and vote for what we believe is true! At least at this time. Until you and people like you take that right away from us also. It was NOT only the LDS church that stood by its beliefs in California but people from BOTH sides sent money and help in many ways. Look at all the help the TV stars gave with their opinions in commercials on TV and in shows! put all that money together and it would most likely outway what the church gave plus all the monies sent in from people for their side. Even some LDS people helped out. The problem as I see it, is the people took a vote and the government overrode the vote of the people. This is not longer a country "Of the people" The supreme court proved that point and that is what really worries me now.

E-Dot-Bizzle
Reynoldsburg, OH

Trust in The Lord, follow the Prophet, and keep the commandments and your covenants...you'll be just fine at the last day.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The definition of marriage is about the meaning of the term. To claim it is about rights is to presuppose a certain understanding of marriage, an understanding not compatible with how it actually functions.

The government endorsement of a ceremony that people object to on moral groups will create a conflict between individual conscience and the government as we have seen in Washington.

Government recognition of a system means more government involvement, which runs against certain forms of liberty.

Under Proposition 8 people in California are free to have whatever same-sex commitment ceremonies they chose. The government does not stop these. The only difference is the government does not seek to proactively force others to participate in them, as it does in Washington.

to comment

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