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
Inis Magrath
Fort Kent Mills, ME

--- "the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman."

Prop 8 had nothing to do with "strengthening traditional marriage." I'll believe the Church's statement is true only when they spend millions and millions trying to make divorce illegal. Otherwise, it is obvious "strengthening traditional marriage" was not their motivation in the Prop 8 case, but merely animus towards and against LGBT Americans.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Considering that under the conditions it had the trial court found religious animus, the involvement of the LDS Church in the trial proceedings would have made the ruling if possible even more antagonistic to religious freedom.

This of course also presupposes there was a way the Church could have been involved. Such is not likely based on the actual nature of the laws.

As it was, there were very reasoned briefs for the man/woman marriage side that the judge ignored, so it is unclear that there was much that could have been done to change the outcome.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Can anyone of you who believe that gays should not be married argue it without religion?

The United States is NOT a theocracy and unless all of you religious folks can decide on which religion is the One religion that all of you agree on, then you really have no argument. Will the LDS Church join with the wesboro baptist or will the Catholics accept sharia law?

Good luck in the future, cause your kids don't care who loves who.
My father was a believer in not marrying outside your race, none of his children carry on this outdated teaching.

Arlundy
Holdrege, NE

The LDS Church, as an organization, did not "fund" or "buy" results of Prop 8. In fact, during its campaign, I lived in California and attended church there. There was a rather stern letter that was read over the pulpit from the leadership of the church that they would IN NO WAY sway ANY member to vote in according to the church. We were urged to decide for ourselves and vote how we thought, **individually,** would be appropriate. There were, in fact, a huge outpouring of non-members to any and all rallies and protests that were led OR attended by *local* LDS members.

And honestly, I'm glad the Fed Gov't is pulling out of marriage entirely. My irritation with the developments of Prop 8 is a State's willingness to overturn a popular vote to further an agenda. I'd be angry at an overturn of ANY prop that passed by popular vote. States should be able to decide for themselves how their state should be run, not by ANY government bureaucrat, local or federal.

If popular vote doesn't matter, really what voice do We The People have??

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The Perez decision analogy is hogwash.

1-It was a California Supreme Court decision. That is very different than a Federal District Court.

2-the main reason it is hogwash, is that the issues involved in defending a voter passed initiative that the government officials not only opposed, but opposed even at the trial court, and defending a law passed by the legislature are totally different.

Also, the comparisons of laws not based on biological facts to those based on the structural reality of marriage is made solely with the attempt to delegitimatize ones opponents and ignore the fact that their arguments come from a deep structural definition of what marriage is.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

Michael Otterson said:

"Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."

Didn't Mike get the memo? Civil rights were NEVER up for popular vote, and so long as our Democratic form of government exists, civil rights will never be up for popular vote!

Where did this guy get his education?

Rustymommy
Clovis, NM

Why is there a thing wrong with declaring marriage to mean between a man and a woman. I do not wish to deny gay or lesbian couples any civil rights. They can have insurance privileges,inheritance privileges, whatever it is that makes them feel like they need to not be a second class citizen. But the word marriage has a specific meaning to me. Let them use a different term to describe a union betwen two people of the same gender. Make it whatever they want to call it, but God said that marriage is between a man and a woman and that definition should stand. It's not about discrimination. It is about basic definition. I know gay couples and respect their rights and allow them their point of view. So why can they not also bend a little and accept full rights without the word marriage attached?

JerryBall
San Francisco, CA

I drink the delicious tears of the immortal conservatives!

Victory is even sweeter, with their bitter moaning!

But a condemnation and a question: Shame on the California supreme court for giving away a State's Right to tort or right to legal liability since the State decided not to support an appeal? Giving sway of Sovereign State's Rights to out-of-state or private entities with no real skin in the game is pretty low. Now that there is an established federal supreme court ruling upholding precedence that non-state or private citizen entities have no legality to represent any other sovereign state for a sovereign state issue, how is it that these non-state entities are going to attempt another run about through the courts? I always thought a precedence superseded all subsequent rulings..

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO

@Spindlethumb
Yes I have heard of cases like that and as a professional in the justice system I have handled plenty of the same types of cases you refer to with homosexual couples. Homosexual couples are not all you paint them to be. Yes there are plenty of bad homosexual parents but the majority of those are not in a committed relationship but rather go from partner to partner. The breakdown of traditional marriage and familial relationships has been a long-time process and only continues with this decision. Biblical calamities have been evident with the breakdown of the family and will continue to build as society puts God in the rear-view mirror.

paintandestroy
Richmond/Cache, UT

I applaud the churches stance, five members of the supreme court saw an opportunity to revel in a moment of praise from the "Me" generation and took it.

JerryBall
San Francisco, CA

To JanSan of Idaho.

You have no rights to interfere with California's Sovereign Rights and elections. You do not pay California State Taxes, Property Taxes, nor do you reside in California. Just as California has no right to interfere in Idaho's (or Utah's for that fact) Sovereign State's Laws. PERIOD. Tend to your own house without interfering in another's house.

PhotoSponge
nampa, ID

"Ranch Hand" is wrong and "Bill in Nebraska" has it right.
The only thing that really matters, is the Word of God; what He has said will happen, will happen.

neph3
Mountain View, CA

>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.

Of course it does!!!! Already some pastors were jailed for being against calling gay unions "marriages". Gay activist already want to revoke non-profit status of religions which wouldn't extend marriage to gays. As soon as the civil marriage is settled there will be room for open confrontations with religion, compulsory teaching in public schools about two mothers or two fathers (against scientific facts). In the same way unborn child is defined as "non-human" and whether it can live or not is a "matter of choice." Once you introduce new rules, this leads to inevitable confrontation in the name of "progress".

E-Dot-Bizzle
Columbus, OH

Why don't you pray about it?

....don't like that idea? Why not?

Jaime Lee Bonberger
Houston, TX

To those who say that SSM does not affect others' marriages, I say that it will:

A 2012 survey sponsored by the pro-gay Williams Institute of UCLA: LGBT people make up 6.4% of the US population aged 18-29, but only 1.9% of those over the age of 65. SSA youth are assumed to adopt the identify and lifestyle, but those who do not wish to do so will have fewer recourses and options. If they are in my family then, yes, it affects my marriage.

My children will be indoctrinated by public educators, news media, and pop culture to believe the church is discriminatory for not recognizing gay marriage. This will create conflict in my home and family.

As has been shown in Europe (France being the latest), wherever gay marriage is approved, traditional marriage is on the decline. If we can expect the same in the US, then yes, this will affect my family, my children and grandchildren. While correlation is not necessarily the same as causation, the two are at least co-variates.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@BikeBoy
"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."
Only if you're a mormon. If your not a mormon they don't really care that much.

Cougar in Texas
Houston, TX

Inis Magrath
"I'll believe the Church's statement is true only when they spend millions and millions trying to make divorce illegal."

The Church does spend millions and millions trying to strengthen traditional families, but making divorce illegal would have no impact on family adhesion.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@Neph3
Is this in america? I'm pretty sure the conservative media empire would have made us aware if that was at all true. But if it is PLEASE let us know where to find this. It sounds a bit, um, bogus.

hapticz
Passaic, NJ

aside from the 'separation of church and state' (aka keeping civil actions/rules separate from religious beliefs and rules), the inclusion of yet another "rule" for application among the throngs of variants we have within the peoples of this nation seems just another attempt from some to control what other's do and think. most civil law is based upon the concept of reducing damage to another, in effect to preserve life, liberty and 'happiness'. this law seems to provide nothing of the sort, other than to preserve the change that is obstructed by the existing religious legacy. (of which much of our current laws have reflected for many years). its a piddling issue, until someone has their own strict and personal life 'harmed' by the concept of these unions, which, in large part simply does not happen or occur. (unless it serves some other purpose??)

live long, prosper and let the grass grow high, life is short enough as it is! ;-))

QuercusQate
Wasatch Co., UT

By saying that the Prop 8 defendants didn't have standing to bring their case, SCOTUS is implicitly saying that straight people/religious people are NOT HARMED by marriage equality. It doesn't mean that no citizens' group can ever again challenge a law. Of course they can, as long as they can prove they are harmed by it.

As an elderly lesbian, returned LDS missionary, former Gospel Doctrine teacher, etc. I take exception with those in this forum who are attempting to denigrate my relationship with my legal-in-some-states wife. She means as much to me as your spouses mean to you. We are no more degenerate or immoral than are you. Our marriage was a solemn demonstration of our love, loyalty and fidelity to one another, and we'd appreciate it if you would please pause before demeaning it and us.

to comment

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