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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

It will be interesting how LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY married gay and Lesbian Couples will be welcomed in California's LDS block Ward meetings later this Summer. Sitting in my High Priests quorum meeting recently there was talk of physically ejecting couples who had the temerity of holding hands or putting there arms around each other during worship services. I wonder if our ward's inter-racial couples will have a sense of deja vu? Circa 1978

Alexandria, VA

Somewhere I read about "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." We live in a Republic - not a Democracy and the "will" of the voters is not necessarily the end result and while the LDS Church may be troubled - "troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates" what happened today is the correct outcome of a Republican form of Government - as Benjamin Franklin is quoted - “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Yes - we live in a Republic where the rights of the minorities are protected even if the majority does not agree. Thank God for very wise founding fathers - we could probabaly not write as good a Constitution today.

Park City, Ut

Well things change, sorry. Polls in California show that 60% support SS-marriage, 55% nationwide. Times are changing, attitudes are changing. The LDS Church doesn't have to marry Homosexual couples, neither in their churches nor in their Temples. There is no slippery slope that leads there, and we all know it less we want to fall victim to typical logical fallacies. People wont be legally marrying animals, a marriage is a contact and an animal cannot enter into a contract. Polygamy? If they are consenting adults, not 14 child brides, then who cares? Most rational people understand that Polygamy cannot sustain itself anyway (unless your in a clan that systematically kicks the young men out when they reach a certain age). My point is that there is way too much unsubstantiated fear about marriage equality. I suggest we all work on our marriages instead of worrying about the marriages of others.

Anderson Island, WA

Yes, @Neph3's allegations are pure hogwash. Don't know where he got that stuff, but it is typical of the dis-information campaigns that have surrounded this issue.

And Neph3...please do some research...you will find that none of your silly allegations are true in the USA...

Orem, UT

For those of you who feel like this is a violation of our Democracy, remember, we aren't one.

We are a Constitutional Republic.

Majority rules does not apply here.

Cowboy Joe
Encampment, WY

Why is everyone getting so worked up about this decision? It only deals with 4% of the population who have same gender attractions.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

Chief Justice Roberts said something very interesting on the judicial process of this case. He said if they gave a non-state entity legal standing in enforcing the California, law, that would be the first time in the history of the country. If you think about it, there are literally thousands of unenforced laws on state books. If the ruling went the other way, it would open the flood gates and the courts would be overwhelmed with groups on both sides of the political spectrum seeking the courts to enforce the laws. The role of enforcement belongs to the executive branch and is part of the checks and balances system. Gay marriage may be unpopular, but giving the judicial branch the power to enforce laws would be terrible and would also make the Judicial Branch the most powerful of the three. I think Justice Roberts understood that in writing the majority opinion.

Hyrum, UT

@ ceci:

Why should it be so disturbing to you or anyone else how Mormons choose to spend their money? The Church didn't use any general funds in supporting Prop 8, nor did the buy an election as you asserted. They asked members who were in agreement consider donating some time and money to make sure others were better informed of the issues involved, since there was so much misinformation being bantered about by pro-homosexual marriage groups.

People are and should be free to spend their personal money anyway they see fit. It's our right to further causes that are important to us. And as long as it doesn't feel like a waste of money to us, why is then such a big concern of yours? Those opposed to your ideologies don't go around trying to tell you how to spend your money and what is and isn't a waste of your money. Show the same consideration in return.

I find it refreshing that people will stand up and contribute their time and money for what they believe is important... whether or not you agree with those beliefs. Please don't be so judgmental.


Your incredible ignorance of the Mormon church and this issue is laughable. Members of the LDS church number in the millions in California and have entered into this debate according to the democratic process we espouse as americans. They did not "bus people in". To disallow citizens of California a voice would be the worst kind of discrimination.

This case is judicial activism at its worst. Read justice Scalia's dissent.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "BYU Track Star" they will be welcomed, just as gay people have always been welcomed. The issue will be what happens if they want to join the LDS church.

South Jordan, UT

Let's see, the foundation of this nation and the US Constitution is based on personal and religious freedom. Clearly, a number of commenters have forgotten their history while being so anti church or anti religion.

Blue AZ Cougar

@ ceci

Why do you get to dictate what is right and wrong based on your absence of god and religion?

What I don't understand in this whole argument is that because my personal views happen to be impacted by my commitment to religion, they're suddenly worth less than your opinion or automatically discounted. Why do we have to default to the viewpoint of non-religious folks? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Blue AZ Cougar

Honest question for any LDS church leaders out there -- in the temple recommend interview, people are asked the following question:

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

At what point does someone's support of LGBT groups (e.g. vocally, monetarily, etc.) result in a temple recommend not being issued to that person?

This is an honest question, I'd appreciate only logical and sincere responses because I'm genuinely curious about this.

Anderson Island, WA

@OutsideUT said: "Nef3 is right ... Granted, in these two cases the peopled involved were not sued for refusal to provide services, but were sued over "Violations Of Non-Discrimination Laws." This is not a "disinformation campaign", but real life for the poor people involved."

You concede that these are discrimination suits. They are based on sexual orientation discrimination which is illegal in many jurisdictions. These suits would be the same with or without same-sex marriage. Therefore both you and Nef3 are WRONG.
Please stop trying to mislead people. Be aware also, cases often cited in these dis-information campaigns are outside the USA where laws are different. These distortions and warnings of "consequences" are nothing more than an unfounded fear campaign.

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA


Presuppose these are already Gay/Lesbian LDS people. There are already chaste Gay/Lesbian people in the Church. Would they be welcome to the fellowship of the ward to worship God alongside other LDS people? I get the feeling from these Older Gentleman in my HP group that there would be an issue.

Las Vegas, NV

VERY TIMELY for our Local Church Leaders this past Sunday to Re-Affirmation THEIR Commitment to Upholding the Document written in 1995: The Family-A Proclamation to the World & felt it necessary for ALL members under their leadership to hear their Testimony of it.
...“We, the First Presidency & Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that Marriage Between A Man & A Woman Is Ordained Of God...
...Children are Entitled to birth Within The Bonds Of Matrimony, and to be Reared by A Father & A Mother...
...Gender is an Essential Characteristic of INDIVIDUAL Premortal, Mortal, and Eternal Identity & Purpose...
...We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth Remains In Force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife...
Further, we warn that the Disintegration of the Family will bring upon Individuals, Communities, & Nations the Calamities FORETOLD by Ancient and Modern Prophets.

Salt Lake, UT

If I was the Church I would tell the feds then their requirement for statehood banning plural marriage was unconstitutional and should be ignored. Just because the rest of America didn't like that belief of the LDS religion. Yet Muslims etc come to this country are turned a blind eye the fact that the too practice plural marriage. Yes plural marriage is still practice in belief marriage doesn't end at death so if a man remarries in the temple and is sealed to more than one woman he is living plural marriage. If the gospel is to be spread to all corners of the Earth as doctrine teaches the LDS church will have to allow plural marriage otherwise how can that be fulfilled, you can't say leave all your wives but one to join the church.

Wasatch Co., UT

@tators: "Why should it be so disturbing to you or anyone else how Mormons choose to spend their money?"

Because their money wasn't just an expression of free speech, it was also a fundamentally anti-American attempt to strip rights and marriages from CA citizens. As an American, you should be disturbed about it, too.

Outsider Looking In

If you read Roberts' opinion, he explained that the proponents of Proposition 8 didn't have standing to intervene where the State was choosing not to appeal the Federal District Court's decision. The reason they didn't have standing is because they could not establish that they (non-gays) would suffer any apparent or noticeable harm if the district court's ruling to overturn Prop 8 took effect. That was the whole point of the Federal District Court trial: straight folks won't suffer any harm if gays start to get married. If the proponents could have shown how they would be harmed by the decision, it is likely J. Roberts would have sided with the dissenters and agreed that they had a right to appeal the decision and the Court would have jurisdiction over the "controversy." They were given every chance and opportunity to convince the rest of us that gay marriage would hurt THEM. They couldn't come up with any argument at all. By dismissing the case for lack of standing by the appellants, the Court basically found the same thing that the Federal District Court judge found: if these folks get married, what's it to you?

Salt Lake City, Utah

I find the fact that SCOTUS agreed to consider the merits of the DOMA case much more troubling than the remanding of the prop 8 case. They have gutted the "adverseness" requirement from Article III and have veered radically from precedent in manufacturing a federal precedent that was already moot at a lower level. Watch out for this maneuver in the future. SCOTUS may have a long laundry list of issues for which it would join with a friendly administration to contrive precedential effect, and for which it will assign weak dogs to argue for the opposition of such issues.

to comment

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