Quantcast
Utah

LDS Church responds to Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • jmarks 83860, ID
    Sept. 2, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    I feel that, even though this is a pretty old article, that I must just put in my two cents. :) I was raised LDS and I believed it with all my heart and soul, and tried to change myself, to turn myself straight for many years. I had a very painful childhood, always thinking that I was not good enough, doing everything possible to change myself. I just want to highlight the fact that being gay is NOT a choice. Some people in the comments here have said that it is someone's choice to be gay, but this is absolutely not true. If I had my choice, I would've been straight a long time ago! I'm still gay, and I now accept myself, and I support gay marriage. I feel that even if I don't get married to a man, and I'm not sure what I'm going to do, that it is simply awful for children to grow up this way, I think that they should know that their future is for them to choose. So there's my two bits. Have an awesome day, and be kind to everyone you meet!

  • 2plainbrownwrappers Nashville, TN
    July 3, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "Keep trying, but the fact it is in the Talmud only proves it was a religious rite."

    Sex is not a "rite", Red.

    For comparison -- the Bible records the levying of taxes. That doesn't mean that taxes are religious rites.

    Your argument doesn't hold any water.

    Keep trying, Red.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 3, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    To "2plainbrownwrappers" keep trying, but the fact it is in the Talmud only proves it was a religious rite.

  • 2plainbrownwrappers Nashville, TN
    July 3, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    For some reason I'm having trouble getting this to post. I'm cutting my reply down to see if it'll go through this time.

    All the following are from the book: The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies --

    "There was no rite or 'taking' in primitive marriage, only cohabitation."

    "Changes in the perception of the institution of marriage did not necessarily effect immediate innovations in the method of establishing the marital status. For a long time cohabitation remained the only proof of marriage."

    "The Talmud lists three methods of betrothing a woman: financial consideration given to a bride, a written bill of betrothal, and cohabitation (Kiddushin 2a)..." (these are ALTERNATE methods -- only one is required, though it was common to do all three)

    "The method of cohabitation was outlawed in the third century (Kiddushin 12b).

    IOW: until 300 years AFTER Jesus died, a couple could legally establish a marriage simply by moving in together.

    Keep trying, Red.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 3, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    To "Contrariusest" So then you agree that indeed the Jewish people had a marriage ceremony (ceremonies do not have to have a priest or rabbi), and that their ceremonies pre-date the civil marriages that were performed in Rome, Greece, or other similar nations.

    The Chuppah was part of the Law of Moses, that was given to Moses. You would have found that out if you had continued your research instead of going to one site alone. Had you done that, you would have found that before they engage in the Chuppah, they have the kiddushin, or religious cleansing, this is the part where the bride receives a blessing from her rabbi based on the blessing given to Rebecca, Pre Moses. This is all recorded in the Talmud, or Jewish Book of the Law.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    July 2, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    I'm disappointed in the Church's statement that seems to question government institutions if they don't follow church doctrines. CA state officials were the defendants in the Prop 8 case. They accepted the reasoned decision of the federal trial court after a fully expository trial. It is exclusively their judgement whether to spend limited state resources to appeal their losing position. In retrospect, weren't they right to avoid wasting CA tax money?

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    July 2, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "Jesus used the parable of the 10 virgins, and the events that are part of the wedding ceremony of the ancient Jewish people."

    Actually, the **only** even vaguely ceremonial element mentioned in that parable is the presence of oil lamps. No priests, no vows, no nothing.

    Keep trying, Red.

    "Jewish scholars can tell you all about the marriage rite according to the Law of Moses "

    From Bible.ca, one of their pages describing Jewish weddings in history:

    "Ancient Jewish weddings never involved a wedding ceremony like we see today with the bride walking down the aisle to be married in the synagogue. The "wedding ceremony" is something that did not develop for hundreds of years after Jesus rose from the dead."

    "Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)
    i. The bride would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah".
    ii. Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.

    Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation.

    Stage 3: The wedding feast"

    Again -- nowhere are any priests or religious ritual necessary. These were CIVIL weddings.

    Keep trying, Red.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 2, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    To "Contrariuserer" I don't know what bible you have been reading, but you are wrong. First of all, Jesus used the parable of the 10 virgins, and the events that are part of the wedding ceremony of the ancient Jewish people.

    You should also look into Jewish history more. Jewish scholars can tell you all about the marriage rite according to the Law of Moses (this predates the greeks and romans). Marriage did in fact require a specific ceremony and had specific guidlines.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    July 2, 2013 2:03 p.m.

    @Redshirt --

    "Marriage has been a religious rite for thousands of years. Religion was the guardian of marriage until about 150 years ago when governments decided to start issuing marriage certificates or licenses."

    Sorry, but you're completely wrong here.

    Actually, the very first recorded marriages in the Western world -- way back in ancient Rome -- were CIVIL marriages. Even back then, marriages were very commonly celebrated with no religious rites at all.

    Similarly, in ancient Greece, no specific ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only a mutual civil agreement that the couple would regard each other as husband and wife.

    Furthermore, in Jesus' own time, marriage did not require any specific ceremony at all -- either religious OR civil. Oddly enough, Jesus apparently did not see any pressing need to change that arrangement.

    Priests didn't become an essential part of Christian wedding ceremonies until the Middle Ages.

    As one sacramental scholar, Joseph Martos, puts it: "Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony..."

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 2, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    To "kolob1" there is respect for the law, and there is rolling over and letting government officials do whatever they want.

    I can respect the law, while fighting to change it to something better and more appropriate.

    Marriage has been a religious rite for thousands of years. Religion was the guardian of marriage until about 150 years ago when governments decided to start issuing marriage certificates or licenses.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    Marriage is not the exclusive domain of institutional religion(s). Marriages were being performed 4000 years before the Bible and before the religions of the day captured the "rite" as an official act of their respective religion. If one wants to "marry" with a religious ceremony then one can, just like one may choose baptism. BUT Marriage is not an official responsibility or right of any religion. It is optional at best.It is the duty of our government to regulate marriage and if the Supreme Court has ruled so, then so be it.The Supreme Court did not rule that you HAD to marry anybody. Just keep you sanctified noses out of the way and let the gays be. The more you push the more you get pushed back. Gays don't want to be married in your church, far from it so don't worry.To those who claim that the "sanctity of marriage" is being destroyed, I would like to know what marriage is being sanctified? Their first marriage their second or their third. There is no such thing as sanctity of religion in the law of the land. Sanctity comes from within, nor from laws or preachers.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    July 2, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    I thought that the Mormons respected the law of the land. There is a conservative (like a good Mormon) Supreme Court. So what gives? Respect the law regardless of whether or not you favor it. It ios the Lord's will!!

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 2, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    @haggie --

    "God has said "no" to gay marriages"

    According to you. Many other religious people disagree with you. There are already many church denominations which are happy to perform gay weddings.

    " I either need to follow the Prophet and defend traditional marriage or not follow the prophet and not defend traditional marriage"

    Again -- "defending traditional marriage" does NOT require fighting against gay marriages. They are two separate issues.

    "for those that think God and following prophets is not in vogue"

    Many religious people SUPPORT gay rights. Gay rights are neither anti-religious nor anti-God.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 1, 2013 10:58 p.m.

    it's quite likely the court would have ruled differently had they been given a logical reason to do so. saying that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage doesn't resonate with people of higher intelligence who spend any time thinking about the subject.

    had the court been given arguments that children need a mother and a father and had the people opposed to gay marriage promoted this instead it's quite likely they would have won.

  • haggie Visalia, CA
    July 1, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    Contrariuserer

    Two points:

    1. My argument was against Contrarius's assettion that the reason S/G were destroyed was becasue they were arrogant not because they were gay. However, I explained that the Prophet said "no" to being gay and they denied obedience to the principle.

    2. God has said "no" to gay marriages and regardless of my personal belief and statistics to the contrary, I either need to follow the Prophet and defend traditional marriage or not follow the prophet and not defend traditional marriage (and in the case of some people who profess they believe the Prophet is God's spokesman, they work against God's word). But in the end I need to realize that I have not followed the prophet.

    Of course for those that think God and following prophets is not in vogue and/or works against what modern culture thinks is appropriate or acceptable, must also realize I am not your judge, I simply have an opinion and our democratic process must be defended even if you dont agree with my opinion. I feel the same for your rights even though I may feel you are on the wrong side of the issue.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    @haggie --

    "What is arrogance? "

    Well, assuming that "defending traditional marriage" requires opposing gay marriage is one good example of arrogance.

    In reality, gay marriage does NOTHING to harm traditional marriage. So it is completely possible for a Mormon to support both his Prophet and gay marriage at the same time.

    If you really want to defend traditional marriage, then focus on issues that will really HELP traditional marriage.

    Fight divorce.

    Fight unmarried cohabitation.

    Encourage commitment.

    Fighting against people who WANT to form committed, stable relationships will NOT help traditional marriage. In fact, it's counterproductive.

    "for centruries man and woman have been getting married and procreating and gays never have"

    This isn't actually true. In fact, gay people have been forming stable relationships and even getting married all the way back to Assyrian times (there are blessings for same-sex unions in Assyrian religious texts).

    And as has been said many times before, gay couples can procreate in the very same ways that any other infertile couples can.

    Go ahead and defend traditional marriage. But don't do it on the backs of people who aren't actually harming traditional marriage one tiny bit.

  • haggie Visalia, CA
    July 1, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Contrarius,

    What is arrogance?

    God says to His Prophet (Prophet being the spokesperson of God, Noah, Moses, Samuel, Thomas S. Monson, etc) tell the people to defend traditional marriage. Then folks like "LDS4GayMarriage" and the like say, I know more than God (and His Prophet) therefore I will not defend His commandments in fact I will work against them. Arrogance?

    Would it be arrogance for a person who is not LDS to assume using God's word that "arrogance" really is the sin that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, when for centruries man and woman have been getting married and procreating and gays never have and now gays want to be married (but will still not be able to procreate)?

    I believe in His Propeht so I will defend His word. "whether it is by Him or the mouth of His Prophets it is the same"

    God's plan was to send us to earth to two loving parents so that we would have the opportunity to be raised in a way He thought was best. Any other way is a deviation from His plan.

    Those who don't beleive President Monson is a prophet I appeal to common sense.

  • haggie Visalia, CA
    July 1, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    LDS4GayMarriage,

    For Pete sake, so what if my wife wieghs three hundred pounds. I may like that. Who therefore has a right to ridicule her for how she looks and why wouldn't I defend her. Ridiculous! That's my wife. The State of California didn't defend the will of the people and is therefore in deriliction of their duties. Had a conservative government not defended gay marriage, there would be an uproar. Hypocrisy!

    Furthermore, the Prophet has asked that we follow God and defend traditional marriage. So, if you are LDS and you are 4GayMarriage, why won't you follow the Prophet. Maybe that is just a convenient label (LDS4GayMarriage). I believe President Monson is the Prophet. Therefore if I have a personal position in opposition to what God has asked, I should follow the wisdom of God and adjust my position. However, your position which is in opposition to God's will, I assume you must think God is a fool, or President Monson has gone rogue.

    The wisdom of man.....

  • plainbrownwrapper mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "This argument and many like it is the learning of men rationalizing away the scriptures and replacing them with their logic."

    "Logic" is not a dirty word, zoar.

    Many of us both think for ourselves AND have deeply held religious beliefs at the same time. Intelligent thought and religious faith are NOT incompatible, believe it or not.

    @solsticelight --

    "God does the judging, not us."

    You are exactly right! Judging is GOD's job, not ours.

    "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1

    "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47

    "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?" James 4:12

    -

  • plainbrownwrapper mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    @Cougar in Texas --

    "There are indeed life-long bisexuals who will desire ongoing relationships with both a man and a woman (polyamorous)."

    Sure. But polyamory is not at all the same thing as bisexuality. There are polyamorous heterosexuals, polyamorous homosexuals, AND polyamorous bisexuals.

    "You deny a form of religious oppression by stating that the example used was from Europe where there are officially recognized churches and therefore cannot apply in the US, then go on to use a court case in Canada (actually, only British Columbia) to show that polygamy will remain banned in the US. "

    Sure.

    Europe has state churches. We don't.

    Canada has equal protection written into their constitution. Just like we do.

    The situations are entirely different.

    "And the BC case was upheld only due to the harmful nature of the specific polygamous unions then under review. "

    Nope, sorry, you're completely wrong here.

    From Judge Bauman's decision: "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

  • Bob K porland, OR
    July 1, 2013 1:53 a.m.

    Will anyone who has any information about ill effects of a decade of marriage equality in Mass, Canada, etc, please enlighten me.
    In 2008, I saw those TV ads for Prop 8, which involved people judging very liberal schools in MA and CA, and claiming that Gays wanted to take the rights of all parents to control their kids' moral education. I figure if a school is in an lds neighborhood, in can lean toward mormon values, and in a liberal town, a liberal school makes sense.

    There is no LEGAL argument against marriage equality, only moral/religious arguments, which mostly do not belong in civil law. This is why Prop 8 keeps getting struck down, not because there was a Gay judge or a liberal conspiracy.

    Marriage equality: marriage/procreation based churches cannot, as of yet, fathom fitting it in, when their own children are Gay and want it. Fear takes over, and turns to busybody actions trying to control secular people and members of liberal churches.

    I personally think Jesus could find no harm in loving same-sex marriages.
    The problem is churches adapting to today's reality

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 30, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    @Contrarius

    "The term "sodomy" actually refers to acts which are just as easily enjoyed by heterosexuals as by homosexuals.

    Are you ready to deny marriage to straight people who happen to enjoy those very same acts?"

    This argument and many like it is the learning of men rationalizing away the scriptures and replacing them with their logic. Another way is to say the apostle, disciple or prophet hated homosexuals and whatthey wrote were just their own opinions, thus causing doubt about the rest of what they wrote about.

    Or they may say that Christ never said anything about homosexuality while ignoring the fact that the people that Christ was speaking to observed the law of Moses which forbid homosexual activity. So there would have been no reason for Christ to mention homosexuality They already knew it was sinful.

    O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.. 2Ne 9:28

  • Cougar in Texas Houston, TX
    June 30, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    amazondoc

    There are indeed life-long bisexuals who will desire ongoing relationships with both a man and a woman (polyamorous). If marriage is reduced to love and dedication to another individual, the bisexual is forced to choose one and have relationships outside of marriage with the other. How many people do we hear about that married one sex, left that person, married or shacked up with someone from the other sex, and then tried to decide where to go next?

    You deny a form of religious oppression by stating that the example used was from Europe where there are officially recognized churches and therefore cannot apply in the US, then go on to use a court case in Canada (actually, only British Columbia) to show that polygamy will remain banned in the US. And the BC case was upheld only due to the harmful nature of the specific polygamous unions then under review. Polygamy was not rejected because it was polygamy, but because it involved child brides, forced marriages, and expulsion of rival young men.

    The rationale used to support gay marriage naturally opens the door to any relationship between individuals who vow to love, honor, and cherish.

  • AZ Blue & Red Gilbert, AZ
    June 30, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    People can do much of what they want. I think most know deep down what is right and what is wrong. What is natural and what is not. (Whether they want to admit it or not).

    So the bottom line is this.

    Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong.

    We have many things that are "legal" that are wrong. God knows what is right and we all will know for sure in the next life. Just don't act surprised when truth be told.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    June 30, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    @Sneaky Jimmy

    'The LDS Church needs to distance itself from the huge tactical error that was Prop 8...More and more church member's are beginning to see that allowing more people to marry is actually a good thing for this country.'

    Well, like California, the LDS Church isn't a democracy. The faithful LDS community will not question what the leaders of that church say. LDS who disagree with the official positions of the church will either have to agree to disagree or leave. Trying to change the official position is futile, and simply isn't how the LDS Church operates.

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    June 30, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    Passing laws doesn't make people moral, honest, virtuous. We cannot force others to be good.

  • twells Ogden, UT
    June 30, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    I have simple questions. I really don't how the will of the people keeps being ignored in this country. It takes money for these types of cases to advance to the Supreme Court. Who is paying for this? Are there really that many Gay people in this country that have enourmous political power? It is not easy to be Gay in any culture. I have many concerns and worries as well . Yet, I will never have the resources to have any impact. We have such monumental problems in this country and yet this is the direction and focus. Protected status is what groups are demanding. What about those groups that want traditional families, the freedom to practice a religion of choice, to want smaller government interrence? Do we as a society really want a Governmental entity constantly deciding moral questions? We are on a very slippery slope. We have seen recent open mass governmental corruption with the IRS, Bengazi, NSA spying. Where are the consequences for this type of corruption? Where is the public outrage - why is no one accountable?

  • solsticelight Newport, OR
    June 30, 2013 12:55 a.m.

    For those of us who are more concerned with minding their own moral compass than everyone elses, this is not even an issue! God does the judging, not us. In my community, the gays have lovely gardens and the cutest little dogs! They are well-spoken, drive nice cars, listen to nice music, are very artistic and own a lot of the local businesses. They smile, wave, and are courteous drivers. I can't think of one problem I have with them. God doesn't make mistakes...

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 30, 2013 12:23 a.m.

    This pronouncement was ill conceived and poorly timed. The LDS Church needs to distance itself from the huge tactical error that was Prop 8. Continued rhetoric about protecting traditional marriage no longer holds water. More and more church member's are beginning to see that allowing more people to marry is actually a good thing for this country.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 29, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    @ImABeliever

    "Genesis Chapter 18: 3 Words: Sodom and Gomarrah = Destruction."

    You may be a "believer", but you're not enough of a READER.

    Sodom actually had a lot more to do with arrogance and lack of hospitality than it did with homosexuality.

    "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me." (Ezekiel 16.49-50 NASB)

    And btw -- the term "sodomy" actually refers to acts which can be enjoyed by straight couples just as easily as by gay couples. Are you going to start trying to ban straight marriages?

  • ImABeliever Provo, UT
    June 29, 2013 3:31 p.m.

    Genesis Chapter 18: 3 Words: Sodom and Gomarrah = Destruction.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 29, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    What is viewed as a great defeat for conservatives and for religion is nothing of the sort. Traditional marriage is virtually unaffected by this ruling . If anything traditional marriage is helped by the fact the gays have come fully out of the closet. No longer will gay people marry straight people unawares they will stick to the their own kind and this is good for traditional marriage.

  • Vince Ballard South Ogden, UT
    June 29, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    Instead of being a republican democracy, as the Founding Fathers intended, we are at risk of becoming a "juridocracy", created by an increasing number of people who simply will not accept the law of common consent. This should worry us all, regardless of our position on the issues at hand.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    June 28, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    For those who continue to insist that the LDS church single handedly won the election for Prop. 8, or that they are trying to force everyone to submit to their doctrines, try to consider that religious organizations have a right to protect their own doctrines from being overwhelmed by governments - it's called 'separation of church and state'.

    Those who have suggested that the next agenda will be to try to force religious organizations to recognize and accept gay marriages or be disenfranchised. Already in the world pastors have been threatened with legal action for continuing to preach their established doctrines which do not mesh with this new social experiment.

    Agency declares that everyone may choose for themselves and that includes religious entities who do not agree with gay marriage.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    dtlenox
    By applying such a one-size-fits-all, unjustified stereotype, they are themselves
    becoming the very thing that they accuse others of being.
    LDS4
    Pot-Kettle-Black!! For decades, gays have been labeled as sexual deviants, child
    molesters, and worse. The religious right picked this fight and lost and are now
    complaining now that the shoe is on the other foot. You are reaping what you sewed.

    haggie
    ..to make matters worse the state of California did not defend its own constituion.
    That is kind of like going to a party and people make derogatory remarks about your
    wife and you don't do anything about it (whether the name calling was accurate or
    not).
    LDS4
    If you wife is 300lbs and someone says that she's fat, are you REALLY going to try to
    convince 9 strangers that she's fine and that there's nothing wrong? The Pro-8
    side's defense of the initiative was as laughable as saying that your 300lb wife is fine. That's why the state begged off defending Prop 8. Why waste their time and tax payer's money? It was a loser right out of the gate.

  • haggie Visalia, CA
    June 28, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    A consitutional ammendment in the state of California was legally passed making it illegal for state officials to marry same sex couples. This ammendment was appealed to a Federal Court which ruled against California's own populations wishes. Then to make matters worse the state of California did not defend its own constituion.

    That is kind of like going to a party and people make derogatory remarks about your wife and you don't do anything about it (whether the name calling was accurate or not).

    The fact of the matter is that there is a God. He is not pleased with deviant sexual behavior. We can be as smug about it all we want. God is our judge!

    Overstock.com has just lost my business. We do plenty. Probably not enough but I can make my money talk to.

    Ciao

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    Who cares what the LDS Church has to say about anything. If you're not a member, the pronouncements of the LDS Leaders mean diddly squat.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    These arguments about marriage could be eliminated if governments at all levels got out of the marriage business and focused on civil unions. Protections and tax breaks currently given via marriage could be given via civil unions. Social groups could define marriage however they wanted, and social groups would have no fear that government might force them to do marriage differently than they want.

    Government = civil unions
    Social groups = marriage

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    @Dan Maloy

    I agree that the LDS church knows other churches do baptisms differently, but it doesn't try to force LDS baptisms on others. Yet, with marriage it tries to force a definition of marriage between a man and a woman as the only form of marriage. As a church organization, they have the right to enforce in their organization a particular kind of relationship as marriage, but they should allow others the freedom to have different kinds of relationships in marriage and still call those relationships "marriage". I'm an active LDS and have opportunities to discuss marriage with other active LDS. I've been told by LDS friends that gays can do whatever they want, just don't call it marriage.

    The statement from the LDS church public relations department includes "Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states." The LDS church seems determined to continue governmental regulation of marriage.

    Government = Civil unions
    Social groups = marriage

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    Liberals on the Supreme Court voted as a block to deny the majority of the voters of California their constitutional rights. Justice Kennedy a huge legal friend of the gay community supported their position. Prop 8 supporters faced itimidation, political punishment and a Catholic friend in the Bay Area had his convertible scratched while he was at mass by homosexual advocates. Other things like targeting busineses,demonstrating on supporters lawns, verbally attacking at contributors business. The list could go on but the final straw was a multi million documentary supported by Hollywood billionaires blasted the bigoted and possibly criminal conduct of church leaders for forcing gays to be straight and then committing suicide. Hollywood and silicon valley have enough money and liberals willing to spend it to control public opinion.

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    June 28, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    @ Allen Salt Lake valley, UT @Spider Rico

    "The LDS church accepts that other churches have forms of baptism other than immersion by someone holding priesthood authority. Why is it acting differently in with marriages?"

    Yes, the LDS church knows that other churches do baptisms by other than immersion and not by the priesthood authority, however, they do not accept those baptisms as being valid.

    The LDS church leadership, and its members, understand that God has laws and that it is man's responsibility to yield to those laws and not God's responsibility to yield to the rules of man.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 28, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "why would Jesus approve of people engaging in an activity that God disapproves of?"

    "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47

    1. The OT Mosaic laws were replaced by the New Covenant.
    2. There is no commandment saying "thou shalt not be homosexual".
    3. Jesus never said a word against homosexuality.
    4. Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Gospels, except for one passage in which Jesus acknowledges -- WITHOUT condemnation -- that some men are "born eunuchs" (see other threads for why "eunuch" can include homosexuals in ancient texts) and that such men should not marry women.
    5. Paul didn't like homosexuals. Paul also supported slavery, believed that women were inferior to men, told everyone that nobody should ever get divorced, and insisted that it was better to remain single than to marry. He was a mortal, fallible man.
    6. Many Christians, Jews, and members of other faiths support gay rights, including gay marriage. They have no trouble reconciling the Bible with the full citizenship of gay people.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    To "Scoundrel" why would Jesus approve of people engaging in an activity that God disapproves of? Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible.

    If Jesus wept, it is because society is normalizing sinful behavior.

  • sjc layton, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    That "popular" vote garnered 52%

    Hardly a landslide. Nevertheless, the California government is sufficiently corrupt to abandon the wishes of its voters. It's a failed state, and hopefully will secede from the union before it drags us down with it.

  • brightness Taylorsville, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Gays are people, we are all created equal. God created gays to diversify the population and we try real hard to prevent or steer them away for who they are. Only God can do this, but he chooses not to.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    @Spider Rico

    The LDS church accepts that other churches have forms of baptism other than immersion by someone holding priesthood authority. Why is it acting differently in with marriages? Let each social group have the type of marriage it wants and let government focus on civil rights through social unions.

    Government = civil unions
    Social groups = marriage

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    "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."

    The purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect the Constitution not the popular vote of people. People can and do sometimes vote for things that are unconstitutional.

    Government = civil unions
    Social groups = marriage

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    @dtlenox --

    "their main argument rests on the demonization of those with an opposing view"

    That's baloney.

    The main argument for gay rights is that EVERYONE DESERVES EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION.

    That doesn't demonize anyone.

    "The vindictiveness, and the nastiness of the main rabble-rousers of the pro-gay-marriage crowd "

    I was living in Knoxville just a few years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church gathering there and SHOT NINE PEOPLE just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".

    Gay people in the US are still **EIGHT TIMES** more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.

    Another gay man was shot and killed in NY just a day or two ago -- WITH the shooter shouting gay slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime.

    We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.

    In some countries, homosexuality is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.

    Civil rights for homosexuals is **literally** a matter of life or death. But you're upset just because a few gay activists may have been RUDE??

    Get real.

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    June 27, 2013 8:40 p.m.

    @ atl134, Salt Lake City, UT...@Dan Maloy: "And how was the LDS church harmed by same-sex marriage? If there was evidence of that then they could have standing."

    The LDS church is only an organization and was not harmed directly, and, the LDS church never claimed that it was. What it did claim, correctly, was that homosexual activity of any and all kinds, including 'marriage' was immoral, and because it is immoral, it had a moral responsibility to speak out against it.

    Now, who IS harmed by same-sex 'marriage'? Those who participate in it and the kids they are foolishly allowed to raise. That's who.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:20 p.m.

    @ Stephen Kent Ehat

    Agreed...and anyone who knows history knows that "judicial review" itself isn't even constitutional, but an accepted practice nonetheless as a result of Marbury vs. Madison.

    I for one do not respect the so-called authority of 9 presidentially-appointed judicial activists who are held beholden to no one over the authority of our constitutionally instituted and democratically elected representatives...nor do I respect any government that refuses to do their duty simply because they find it personally repugnant.

    I find their actions personally repugnant, and in light of recent clandestine government programs (i.e. the IRS scandal, the buying of over a billion hollow-point rounds of ammo used not for target practice, but for maiming/killing, the Fast & Furious scandal, the NSA scandal, & the list goes on and on...), I and many other Americans are feeling more and more the same way. Our government is out of control.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    June 27, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    The Supreme Court is one of three departments of government constitutionally in place to mutually provide "checks and balances".

    Who checks the Supreme Court in practice? It seems as though no one does, unless we just wait for current justices to resign or retire, and pray for a Senate that doesn't usually ultimately vote for the presidential nominee.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    There are fewer 'men' in the world today. Being a 'man' means taking care of your responsibilities, including children. Unfortunately, we have another swath of 'boys' avoiding their responsibilities of fatherhood and marriage.

  • dtlenox Olympia, WA
    June 27, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    I see this ruling as a sign of the beginning of the end of religious freedom in America. The thing that strikes me most about the pro-gay-marriage people is that their main argument rests on the demonization of those with an opposing view, by labeling them as mean-spirited bigots. By applying such a one-size-fits-all, unjustified stereotype, they are themselves becoming the very thing that they accuse others of being. The vindictiveness, and the nastiness of the main rabble-rousers of the pro-gay-marriage crowd leads me to believe that they won't stop their vendetta against the religious right and won't be satisified until they can force everyone to believe as they do, by penalizing them and persecuting them until they do, using our now corrupt judicial system and corrupt politicians to enforce newly created "laws" to force their beliefs on others.

  • loiskay Vancouver, WA
    June 27, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    Supreme Loss

    Politics
    Defeating, Disgusting
    Unfair rules, Unfair judges
    Hurt many people
    God weeps.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    aislander: "Do you really feel the need to impose your religious beliefs upon the civil laws of a free country? Because if you do, I suggest you move to a theocracy. I hear Iran might be nice."

    Nice try, taking it all to an extreme to attempt to validate a point...

    I don't believe anyone in these comments is advocating a "theocracy." Neither is anyone advocating a state religion.

    Asking that moral thought being involved in the development of governmental or societal action is not the same as wanting a "theocracy." I believe that moral thought is what creates all societies (society creates all governments). It is merely the choice of what type of moral thought the society chooses. Therefore, since much of moral thought is preceded by religious doctrine or thought, then pretty much every government is created through religious thought or doctrine. To believe that the United States of America wasn't formed through moral and/or religious thought would be to ignore the facts.

    Claiming that a desire to have moral reasoning as a part of our governmental objectives is like wanting to have all things Iranian is an argument that is non-sense.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 27, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    @Mikhail --

    "Do you expect us to believe that there were no husbands and wives "married" prior to Roman civilization?"

    Nope, and I never said any such thing. :-)

    OTOH, many anti-gay folks insist that we should not "change the definition" of the term "marriage". -- But the word "marriage" comes from LATIN -- maritatus. Surely the Romans who literally INVENTED the word knew what the word meant -- and to the Romans, "marriage" was not an especially religious event.

    "I would dare say that marriage pre-dates government"

    That kind of depends on your definitions for both "marriage" and "government".

    @TRUTH --

    "get ready for mass exodus and the return of Sodom and Gomorrah!"

    As others have already pointed out -- Sodom was not really about homosexuality.

    "Sodomy does not mean one who fails to take care of the poor!"

    The term "sodomy" actually refers to acts which are just as easily enjoyed by heterosexuals as by homosexuals.

    Are you ready to deny marriage to straight people who happen to enjoy those very same acts?

    @Spider --

    "The LDS Church believes God has a Wife "

    Mrs. God??? REALLY??

    Thanks for the education there. I gotta say, that really sounds hysterically funny.

  • DavidJ Branson, MO
    June 27, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    This is just another example that you cannot legistlate morallity. While the Constitution is based morallity, the people of the country must maintain their oun set or morals. The churches used to be the guiding light to those morals, now they are more worried about what is PC. It is sad that the people are more inclined to go to the government for guidance than to God and the churches.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    amazondoc: "In Western civilization, the first officially recorded marriages were in the ancient Roman civilization. They were CIVIL marriages, not religious ones."

    Do you expect us to believe that there were no husbands and wives "married" prior to Roman civilization?

    I would dare say that marriage pre-dates government, since it predates recorded history (or depending on whether you accept the Old Testament as historical evidence, as soon as a man and a woman showed up). Since government would require a population base, it would be rational thought to believe that a formal relationship between a man and a woman was recognized. Since the species has propagated only through such unions or recognized relationships, such recognized relationships did predate any organized communal society or government.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    Gay marriage will never be accepted in the temple and if it is ....get ready for mass exodus and the return of Sodom and Gomorrah! And by the way...Sodomy does not mean one who fails to take care of the poor!

  • Spider Rico Greeley, CO
    June 27, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    @Ralph - You couldn't be more wrong. The Church will never accept gay marriage because it goes against the very fundamental premise of the Gospel - the rearing of families. The LDS Church believes God has a Wife and We are His and Her children. The Proclamation to the World reiterated this and is held as scripture. This would not be akin to blacks and the priesthood in any sense. It would cut to the very fabric of the Gospel. If the Church were ever to change this doctrine it would be the end of the Church because it would mean that it is not led by God because that doctrine is the foundation of the Church. Gender is an eternal defining peice of who we are. Why some are attracted to their same gender I do not know but I have some ideas. What I do know is the LDS Church will not change this position because it is not merely a position.

  • Paloma10 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    While I whole heartedly belief that the Church has the right to decide who can participate in marriages within it membership. I feel as strongly that they do not have the right to dictate civil marriage rights. I am saddened that the Church became so involved in our political process in California, to the extent that it has. I am amazed that the Church has been allowed to keep a non profit status after so strongly pushing a political agenda. I am very happy that this decision was corrected. I hope that in all this, people remember that we are all God's children and that he loves everyone, gay, straight, black, brown, red and white and so many more!.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    June 27, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    "has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates"

    Wow! Strong words from a Church that believes governments are divinely inspired (hope I didn't misquote something). Strong words, though.

    What will be left is for us to teach correct principles and let the people govern themselves. Sometimes I wonder if we should be governed by laws or by principles, anyhow. Here's a thought, if Jesus taught that we should forgive one another, then what right do we have to punish someone who "breaks the law"? As you can tell, I'm confused.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    @neph3 --

    "This is a thoughtful article by a gay person who anticipates the "next steps" in the US in the same way I do"

    You left out the part of the article in which he states:

    "The Defense of Marriage Act, a relic of the Clinton years, does seem to me to be incompatible with the equal protection clause of the Constitution."

    and

    "I don't agree with Prop 8 on its face, nor the referendum system itself that California has."

    @trekker --

    "yes the sodomy laws are still on the books"

    Sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States by Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 27, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    @Nef3 "NOT YET! They are coming! Bisexual marriage will be next (we hear how LG sisters and brothers need to help B and T brothers/sisters. It is on the agenda but not implemented yet until the LG process is completed."

    There you go again. You hear from whom? And why shouldn't bisexuals or transgender citizens be allowed to marry the person they love?

    There is only ONE gay "agenda". Equality. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    Why do you want to deny we law-abiding tax-paying US Citizens equal treatment under civil law?

    Do you really feel the need to impose your religious beliefs upon the civil laws of a free country? Because if you do, I suggest you move to a theocracy. I hear Iran might be nice.

  • neph3 Mountain View, CA
    June 27, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    This is a thoughtful article by a gay person who anticipates the "next steps" in the US in the same way I do and
    many others here:

    "Why do gays need a Big Government hug? Column - USA Today"

    "So what is next after this arduous fight over the word "marriage" "
    ....

    " Morally, the next step for the gay political movement should be to recognize the threat to unborn gays and lesbians from abortion resulting from the advancement in genetic testing. Or maybe demand that America stop giving aid to or loaning money to Islamic-led governments that hang gays in public on street lamps as official punishment.

    But that won't happen. The gay political movement is bound and gagged to the progressive left. So instead, we will see demands for public accommodations for gays and infringement upon the religious liberty of many faiths. I am confident that this attorney general, or the next one, and the Obama IRS, will put pressure on churches and synagogues to marry gay and lesbians. After all, there is a track record of such behavior over the past four years."

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 27, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    Good grief! So many chicken littles out there shouting that the sky is falling. Lots of bluster with no actual facts nor quoted reliable sources. Guess you should find a cave to hide in lest the sky fall on you.

    The facts show that gay marriage has harmed no one. If your heterosexual marriage is somehow threatened by gay marriage, (and how I cannot imagine) then it surely is not much of a marriage.

    Massachusetts, which has the most experience with same sex marriage in the USA now has the lowest divorce rate in the country. After all, haven't heterosexuals have done such a stellar job in bringing marriage to its current condition? Could it be that some of them are worried they'll be shown up by gays? No one has yet produced one shred of actual credible harm caused by gay marriage.

    Why not wait with all the hand-wringing and fear mongering until someone actually has applicable results to prove your point? Or at least stop all the vague speculation with no apparent basis. Gay marriages are simply equal treatment for tax-paying law-abiding gay citizens under civil law, something guaranteed by the US Constitution.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    It's quite interesting to read most of these posts. Some are obviously well thought-out and well written, while others are obviously written without much pre-thought or logic at all. There is an extreme amount of bias in the world... with apparently no less since this original article was written.

    One thing seems rather obvious. Not one person seems to have changed their mind or point of view of this subject from over 115 comments. Not a single person has acquiesced their feelings on this subject. As such, it basically is just a feel-good thing for anyone commenting, and not much else. Still, it's somewhat interesting to see what others think, no matter how much a person may agree or disagree.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    @ Ralph --

    "The Church will eventually accept some form of gay marriage. It's inevitable."

    I agree, Ralph. The LDS church has always seemed very politically savvy to me. Just as they eventually caved on the racial issue, they will also eventually cave on gays. It may take awhile, but they'll get there. I'd be happy to place a bet on that, if I thought anyone from this group would still be in contact a few years down the road.

    @Dan --

    "Lacked standing"?

    "Standing" means that the plaintiffs had to prove that they would materially harmed if the law were overturned. They could not do that, and therefore they lacked standing. It's a very simple legal principle -- it basically translates as "keep your nose out of other peoples' business".

    @Mikhail --

    "Marriage was not invented by government."

    Actually, it sort of was.

    In Western civilization, the first officially recorded marriages were in the ancient Roman civilization. They were CIVIL marriages, not religious ones.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    June 27, 2013 5:23 a.m.

    @Ranch hand...you're the smartest man on planet. Well said.

  • MedFacts Draper, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:22 a.m.

    What most people in this dialogue don't seem to realize is the Gay marriage has been the law of other countries for years it really has not destroyed "traditional" marriage or brought on any of the irrational fears of the doomsayers. In my opinion, Justice Kennedy has exemplified the most Christ-like attitudes today when he spoke about dignity and how others should be treated. Christ boiled down ALL the laws the Prophets to only two commandments and then had to define "neighbor" and chose a Samaritan despised by Jews as half breeds to illustrate his point. From the comment by various churches and organizations I'll let you decide "by this shall men know ye are my disciples' if ye have love one to another." My choice is Justice Kennedy on this day, Gandhi said it best, he'd "become a Christian if he ever met one." Perhaps some should dwell less on the law and more on the love of God and their neighbor---who just might be gay. One who will now be treated equally under the law, at least in some states.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    June 27, 2013 12:56 a.m.

    amazondoc:
    "Now, aren't you happy that we have separation of church and state here?"
    Love this! While you wrote it about the subject of government requirements on churches, it certainly informs us as to why we do not want to be basing our laws on our religious beliefs. If we had a state church, whose would it be? No one in this country would be content. The LDS have a history of what being an outsider is like.
    Now maybe your words can bring some purposeful meditation to some who wish to legislate according to religious doctrine of their own choosing. Doing so could easily have unintended consequences, especially if one is in the minority.
    Rock on!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:49 a.m.

    I recall a time when Latter-Day Saints where being thrown in jail, having property seized, and being denied citizenship and constitutional rights because of our hard stance on the definition of "marriage".

    As also I recall,
    The Lord gave us the Manifesto and changed to comply with U.S. law.

    Some believed it was a "revelation",
    while others bitterly left the Church and started their own rather than follow the "apostate" and fallen prophet.

    So, it all boils down to this:

    Who will YOU follow?

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    Continued. Polygamy didnt have the issues of today with Jeffs group whne the LDS Church allowed it, Thnaks to Uncle Sam telling the church it would take all its properties temples etc put its leaders in prison as well as any husband and father living plural marriage. It forced people into hiding and too split off groups it created the problems. There was no law banning polygamy when the Prophet Joseph received that revelation from God to obey that commandment. What the US government did was unconstitutional. and should be overturned. Most polygamists are only married to the 1st wife thus they are only cohabiting if they are arrested they better arrest people who commit adultery or that are in live in relationships this also includes Homosexuals, yes the sodomy laws are still on the books, it is not right for the government to pick and choose what laws it will enforce. Todays ruling is far from Equality.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 26, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    @Cougar --

    "Shouldn't a legitimately bisexual woman be able to marry both a man and a woman?"

    You obviously doesn't understand what bisexuals are all about.

    Bisexuals do NOT want to marry both a man and a woman. They are simply open to having relationships with either gender. Bisexuals can be just as happily monogamous as anyone else -- the only difference is they have twice as many people to pick from as heterosexuals.

    As for polygamy in general -- courts have already clearly demonstrated that they can tell the difference between polygamy and homosexuality.

    For a clear example, go look up the 2011 case in which Canada reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban. They've had gay marriage for years now -- yet they've had no trouble separating it from polygamy, nonetheless. The same thing will happen here.

    "Churches in some European countries are already required to do so, or find someone who will."

    This is only because churches in Europe are often STATE churches -- meaning that they are attached to the government. and thus they must uphold all the laws of that government.

    Now, aren't you happy that we have separation of church and state here?

  • neph3 Mountain View, CA
    June 26, 2013 9:29 p.m.

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

    NOT YET! They are coming! Bisexual marriage will be next (we hear how LG sisters and brothers need to help B and T brothers/sisters. It is on the agenda but not implemented yet until the LG process is completed. Similarly to abortion: it was supposed to be rare and up to 6 weeks (based on thin air but still 6 weeks). Today you can easily get it over 4 months and Cuomo is talking up to the day of birth. This is how "progress" looks like.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:40 p.m.

    @patriot
    "Can you see a time when BIG brother government forces the LDS church to perform gay marriage in their temples? Seem far fetched?"

    I'd be on your side if that fight should ever come though really... considering we have religious protections yet the LDS church can still require that both in a marriage be LDS to marry in the temple... I honestly don't see this as a fight that's going to come up. People generally just want churches to stay out of their own business. The people who would down the road try and push the church to marry same-sex couples... that would come primarily from people inside the church, not outside.

    @Dan Maloy
    And how was the LDS church harmed by same-sex marriage? If there was evidence of that then they could have standing.

    "With rulings like this, it won't be long until God will fulfill the punishment America brings upon herself."

    Upholding the "divinely inspired constitution" sure seems to be bugging a lot of you today...

  • UtefromAZ Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2013 7:31 p.m.

    So amazing how much America has lost total control of her morals.

    Well, so sad that this sort of thing has to happen a week before my favorite holiday.

  • Cougar in Texas Houston, TX
    June 26, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    ParkCityAggie

    Of course things are changing. With the constant barrage of news outlets, public education, and pop culture who merely parrot the message of the gay lobby and marginalize anybody who thinks differently, it was inevitable and was something many (like me) predicted over 10 years ago.

    The slippery slope is only a logical fallacy if the "logic" does not hold. For example, how can we now withhold legalized polygamy when the B in LGBT is still unrepresented? Shouldn't a legitimately bisexual woman be able to marry both a man and a woman? And if the man in the marriage is also bisexual, marry yet another man? Thus, 4-person marriages must eventually become legal under the currently desired status quo. Where that leads, who can predict, but it is unchartered territory?

    There are already plenty of angry voices declaring any church that does not marry gays is discriminatory and should lose tax exemption. Churches in some European countries are already required to do so, or find someone who will. While we can hope that this does not happen here, there seems to be a growing number of people who would like it to be that way.

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    June 26, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    @ Ralph - Salt Lake City, UT - "The Church will eventually accept some form of gay marriage. It's inevitable."

    Ralph, if you knew who REALLY runs the LDS church, you wouldn't say that. I'll give you a hint anyway: not gonna happen.

    Ever.

    (But, hey, you can say it anyway if it makes you feel better.)

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    Dan Malloy, eschatological judgement is pretty much guaranteed regardless, is it not?

    That's a solid, central pillar of Christianity (including Mormonism).

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    June 26, 2013 6:38 p.m.

    There would be a lot less arguing about this (and a few other subjects) were we to remember that this country, founded by spiritually-directed, if not churched, men, did not put into the founding documents a religous base but a citizen-directed, government base. We are not a theocracy. All of us, at times, however, may find ourselves a minority, and we could find our group legislated against. That said, in humility and with the spirit of brotherhood, it is wise to be empathetic to our fellows when deciding who to leave out of the codes of freedoms we all wish to enjoy. Can we do that, or is the ego, the wish to be better, have more, be on the top of the heap, too great to resist for some of you?

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    June 26, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    Article quote: "By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates," LDS Church spokesman 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."

    "Lacked standing"?

    News flash to the Supreme Court and to those on the left: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not the only organization or group of people fighting to sustain Prop 8. Perhaps you guys have forgotten the MILLIONS of California citizens who voted in favor of Prop 8?

    With rulings like this, it won't be long until God will fulfill the punishment America brings upon herself. How utterly pathetic....

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:20 p.m.

    In God I Trust... I have never trusted in the Supreme Court, and I never will.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:15 p.m.

    The Church will eventually accept some form of gay marriage. It's inevitable.
    It's not a bad thing. In fact, it shows that the Church is flexible and needs to get new converts.
    They had to allow blacks into the priesthood and they had to give up polygamy. They will eventually, at least tacitly, recognize gay marriage/unions.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    Anything that does not have a negative secular effect is not a moral issue at all.

    Same-sex marriage is not even a moral issue.

    It may be a religious issue but one shouldn't confuse religion, or the pronouncements of religious leaders, with morality.

    The ONLY things needed for a system of morality is socio-biology and the evolutionary traits of empathy, altruism, cooperative social living, sense of fairness & sharing, and the nurture, protection and education of the live-born young.

    Same-sex marriage may be a religious issue for some people but it's simply not a moral issue.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    Can you see a time when BIG brother government forces the LDS church to perform gay marriage in their temples? Seem far fetched? Better think again. I would expect such a ruling within the next decade. Liberty is dead in America.

  • Daniel Leifker San Francisco, CA
    June 26, 2013 4:35 p.m.

    I have a lot of gay and lesbian friends in California, and many of them are openly crying with happiness today.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    To "BYU Track Star" there may be some individuals that have a hard time with it, but that is not what the LDS church as a whole is working on. 20 years ago I was reading in the Handbook of Instructions for church leaders that gays are to be accepted and fully fellowshiped into the church, just like any other person. To fully appreciate the church, you often have to separate doctrine from member practices and prejudices. My own grandmother had prejudices that were fine 40 years ago, but today are considered wrong. If your HP quorum has problems with a gay person, the problem isn't the church or its doctrine, but the people that are at a different point in their learning.

    If your HP group has problems with a gay LDS member who lives up to the LDS standards, the problem lies in your HP group. If they give that gay member a hard time, are you willing and prepared to stand up to your HP group and rebuke them?

    The problems arise when it comes to homosexual relationships, which are wrong according to LDS doctrine.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    QuercusQate

    "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."

    Perhaps you are equally disturbed by the pro-gay lobby and organized 501(c) groups who organized, raised money, and canvassed California prior to the vote on Prop. 8?

  • NotFaint Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    If there’s anything meaningful in all this, it forces individuals to declare their standing -- and just makes the impending sifting of the wheat and the tares so distinct. Choose ye this day…

    Not sure why the LDS church would so narrowly limit their position statement to the phrase “the best environment for nurturing children”. At a minimum, they should be declaring it’s the environment which best "assures the ongoing sustainability of the entire society”, not just children.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    “There is no democracy of facts.” Neal A. Maxwell. When words are redefined the argument cannot be won - there can be no meaning when definitions are changed for some type of perceived expediency. Without meaning there is no understanding. Without understanding we are left to chaos and its attendant violence. Hope you enjoy the chaos. It is here.

    State power was upheld by the Supremes today. However, when the leaders of a state, like Cali, choose their own judgment over the judgment of the majority of voters, what are you left with? Democracy, or a republican-democracy it is not. Marriage was not invented by government. I wonder why government believes it should even be involved with it. Who is to say how many cents in a dollar, ounces in a pound, or inches in a yard? Standards are the ideas of someone. Laws, natural or statutory, are declarations by someone.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    Why do people who aren't LDS care what LDS Church leader's response is? Why freak out that they didn't change their mind?

    Do you really expect them to change church doctrine because of a Supreme Court ruling? There are MANY things that are technically "legal" that Church Leaders warn are not good for us.

    I doubt church doctrine is going to change any time soon. But laws change all the time. It's nothing new. Just because something becomes "Legal" doesn't mean the doctrine is no longer true. We still shouldn't drink Alcohol (even though it's legal). We still shouldn't be getting Abortions (even though it's legal). This is no different.

    My concern is that the world is getting closer and closer to a point where God is not going to stand for it (if he really cares). And that affects us all.

    I wonder how long we have left before we are ripe.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 26, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    Moonton, at the time of Jesus, it was common for 12 year-olds to get married.

  • Moontan Roanoke, VA
    June 26, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    @Kate ... Jesus didn't say anything about pedophilia, either. And tyranny of the minority harms far more people than does tyranny of the majority.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 26, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    Let's clear up a little confusion here. It's forgotten that the proponents of Prop 8 didn't want the State defending Prop 8. They didn't trust the state and the state let them step in. They lost. At that point, there is nothing, no law nor precedent that requires a defendant (The State of California) to appeal a decision against them. There just isn't. The State chose not to appeal. That is well within their right. It happens all the time. In fact, if the State believes they will lose the appeal, the conservative thing to do is not file for appeal.

  • Moontan Roanoke, VA
    June 26, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    American society is crumbling by the day. SSM isn't the cause; its a symptom. With a 60% divorce rate, heterosexuals need no help destroying the institution of marriage.

    Know the Scriptures, live them, and ride out the storm.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar
    By the way (I should clear up any confusion I cause), I'm not a church leader by any means, heck I'm not even a member, but I figured I'd note Elder Clayton's statement since it seemed relevant to what you were looking for.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar
    "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?"

    Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy said that members should feel free to disagree on the issue without fear of sanction. So I don't think just providing vocal or monetary support to gay marriage efforts, as far as civil law is concerned, is enough to deny a recommend.

  • Kate Hutch Kenmore, WA
    June 26, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    Some of us seem to forget that the most sacred business of judges is not to ratify the will of the majority but to protect the minority from its tyranny. And Jesus did not say one word about homosexuality. Taxpaying, law-abiding citizens all deserve equal rights under the eyes of the law.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 26, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    Blue AZ Cougar
    Why do we have to default to the viewpoint of non-religious folks?
    You don't, You just can't use your religion to dictate what non-religious folks do, simple.

    We are not a theocracy or a pure democracy, why do so many of you want the christian version of sharia law in America?

    Cowboy Joe said it well: "Why is everyone getting so worked up about this decision? It only deals with 4% of the population who have same gender attractions."

    Other than using religious control through legislation, to deprive a minority of equal treatment under the law.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    Seriously,
    Why are so many LDS people so wound up about this anyway issue?

    I mean --
    If you truly know and understand LDS Doctrine,
    You should be the very first to realize ALL marriages end at death -
    even the monogamous heterosexual ones.

    So, as LDS members,
    shouldn't we all know that Temple Sealings are the one only one's the Lord counts anyway.

    And America is a NOT a Theocracy.
    Let American's and our Government pass our laws,
    we obey them,
    and let God have the final say so...

    Seriously --
    Keep Government and anyone else OUT of our bedrooms, houses, and the internet...

  • Commenter88 Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Outsider Looking In BOISE, ID
    June 26, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    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?

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 26, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    @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.

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Right2Worship Las Vegas, NV
    June 26, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    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.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2013 2:15 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    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.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 26, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    @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.

  • Blue AZ Cougar ,
    June 26, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Blue AZ Cougar ,
    June 26, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    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.

  • defender TWIN FALLS, ID
    June 26, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    @ceci
    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.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Cowboy Joe Encampment, WY
    June 26, 2013 1:26 p.m.

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

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    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.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 26, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    Noodlekaboodle
    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...

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    June 26, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    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.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    June 26, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    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.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    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

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 26, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    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.

  • hapticz Passaic, NJ
    June 26, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    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! ;-))

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    @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.

  • Cougar in Texas Houston, TX
    June 26, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    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
    June 26, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    @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.

  • Jaime Lee Bonberger Houston, TX
    June 26, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    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.

  • E-Dot-Bizzle Columbus, OH
    June 26, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    Why don't you pray about it?

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

  • neph3 Mountain View, CA
    June 26, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    >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".

  • PhotoSponge nampa, ID
    June 26, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    "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.

  • JerryBall San Francisco, CA
    June 26, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    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.

  • paintandestroy Richmond/Cache, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Spider Rico Greeley, CO
    June 26, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    @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.

  • JerryBall San Francisco, CA
    June 26, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    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..

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    June 26, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    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?

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    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?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Arlundy Holdrege, NE
    June 26, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    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??

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    June 26, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    --- "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
    June 26, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    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.

  • E-Dot-Bizzle Reynoldsburg, OH
    June 26, 2013 12:26 p.m.

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

  • JanSan Pocatello, ID
    June 26, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    @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.

  • MConners12 Topsham, ME
    June 26, 2013 12:20 p.m.

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

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    June 26, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    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.

  • PhotoSponge nampa, ID
    June 26, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    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?

  • bikeboy Boise, ID
    June 26, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    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.

  • dustman Gallup, NM
    June 26, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    "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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    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.

  • neph3 Mountain View, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    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.

  • JerryBall San Francisco, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    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.

  • CloudsAreGood Costa Mesa, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    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.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    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!"

  • Spindlethumb Clyde, TX
    June 26, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    "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.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    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.

  • JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt Beverly Hills, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    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.

  • calcu_lus tucson, az
    June 26, 2013 11:44 a.m.

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

  • CloudsAreGood Costa Mesa, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    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.

  • ceci sacramento, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    What if my god says it's ok to allow gays and lesbians to marry? The US is NOT a Theocracy and we are certainly not a Mormon Theocracy. Mormon's cannot dictate what is right and wrong based on their god and religion.

  • Gwion mamaroneck, NY
    June 26, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    if you try to make the world like the church you end up making the church like the world - Tim Keller

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    The people of the United States, through their elected members in federal Congress assembled, decided that marriage is between one man and one woman for federal purposes.

    The people of the State of California, directly through their own state's initiative process, decided that marriage is between one man and one woman for California state purposes.

    In California the people side-stepped their Legislature because it was unresponsive to them.

    In both cases government continued unresponsive. President Obama refused to defend DOMA and in California the governor and attorney general refused to defend Art. I, §7.5 of the California Constitution (enacted by Prop 8).

    So. Who decides?

    We should not have been put through this last period of time, waiting for, of all things, nine persons in black robes in Washington, D.C. to decide so fundamental a question as whether to change the very definition of the most fundamental institution in society.

    Justice Scalia said it well: "[T]he Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better."

    The debate is far from over.

  • DefyGravity Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    You might want to do some research on how being gay is not a choice. Even the LDS church doesn't say that anymore. (See the gays and Mormons website the church created.) And according to church doctrine, Satan's plan had nothing to do with marriage. It was about taking away choices. Isn't that what you are doing if you take away people's ability to choose who they want to marry?

    And if one man and one woman is the best way to raise children, does that mean all the polygamous ancestors some Mormons have were all awful parents and all their children were deprived? I think the church is forgetting it's own history of different marriage practices in their zeal to defend their own status quo. I believe Hugh Nibley called that kind of attitude "zeal without knowledge" and suggested that zeal should be tempered with wisdom.That wisdom and understanding of one's own history is sorely lacking in this statement.

  • ceci sacramento, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    As a Californian, I found it disturbing that the Mormon Church spent so much money trying to defeat a measure and influence in my State. This is fundamentally unfair since it involved tens of millions of dollars ($11,000,000) raised by the Mornom church and, I believe, busing in people. After Prop 8 passed and opponents of it held a candlelight vigil, the new here even interviewed a 10 year old child who stood in protest of the vigil - she spewed the Mormon line of gay marriage being wrong. Mormon's are free to believe what they want, but why hurt others and buy elections? It's despicable. Californians should be the ones to decide, not outside interest groups. And, Religious groups should quit meddling in issues that so drastically take away the basic rights and human needs of individuals.

  • JohnNewman Austin, TX
    June 26, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    "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."

    Well, it is nice to see that the LDS church doesnt understand how the supreme court functions. If something is unconstitutional, you cant defend it.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Ok, this tone-deaf reaction was to be expected, but LDS Church will eventually change their minds. Once again, they will be well behind the curve, but hopefully they will be swinging sometime before 2078.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Marriage of same-sex couples isn't going to destroy this country. It is people who want to claim that their "god says so" who are going to destory this country.

  • Theeng2 Holladay, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    In the end, America is just a piece of land, and laws are just ideas that have been written down.

  • UtefromAZ Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    Hate to say it, but the legalization of Gay marriage is something that'll most likely destroy this country.

    Now look, I have no problem with people being gay. Because to me, it's their choice. But the fact that society is telling us that we basically have to accept them is what's wrong. I'm against racism, however, while I really think it's wrong that there's some people who don't accept afircan americans and I think it's messed up, I don't believe that they should be forced to agree or accept my view.

    This is just an attack on marriage, which is Satans plan in the first place.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    June 26, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    @Larry Chandler

    The difference is, the Constitution protects freedom of religion, but it does not mention marriage.

    From a legal standpoint, just like all business entities, marriage is regulated by the states. For example, you can't marry your sibling, for instance, or have two legal spouses. Marriage therefore is not a 'civil right' as many claim, open to whomever wishes to enter into the contract. It is a legal, contracted relationship approved and regulated by individually separate states.

    Further, as a state-regulated entity, the people of the state have every right to decide on how marriage is in fact regulated in their jurisdiction.

    Where the *real* conflict is if the people of a state attempt to change the definition of marriage into a 'new' type of relationship (man-man, or woman-woman, or something else), and then tries to force religious institutions to recognize and perform marriage types which are in contradiction with their teachings.

    Many will say don't worry about such a thing. But watch out. It is coming. It's already happening among military chaplains.

  • UtahDemocrat Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    Interesting that the church position, justified as a moral imperative, has devolved into concerns about "complex jurisdictional issues."

    As for the church remaining "irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage..." 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.

  • WouldntYouKnow Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    "...their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."

    The majority should never be allowed to vote on minority civil rights issues, for obvious reasons. If the majority can vote to take away rights from a minority of United States Citizens our constitution means nothing.

  • OC Guy San Diego, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    The state of California also declined to appeal the Perez vs. Sharp decision, which outlawed anti-miscegenation laws in the state in 1948. By declining to appeal this California State Supreme Court ruling, the US Supreme Court never considered it, thus overturning California's law barring interracial marriage.Would Mr Otterson also deem that legal process as "flawed"??f Though I imagine that from the 1940s until well into the 1980s, the LDS Church would have filed a friend of the court brief in favor of retaining legal barriers to interracial marriage. The 1978 issue of Ensign which announced the end of the priesthood ban for blacks also contained an article advising against interracial marriage.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    Re: Larry Chandler

    I think you used an apples to oranges comparison. Changing traditional marriage is different from outlawing a certain religion. One thing I am sure of. If the people of California, or Utah for that matter, voted to disallow Muslims, or Catholics, or athiests, ect. the LDS Church would be against it.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    The state of California had an obligation to defend Prop 8 and refused to do so. That's further evidence that government is corrupt. When government fails to follow its own laws, what do you expect?
    I praise the LDS Church for having the integrity to make a bold statement today. It's refreshing.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    I think this statement highlights why this is such a disturbing decision. It is actually more disturbing, because the fact that in one county in California there were government officials willing to defend the law is ignored.

    This was a horrible decision. What the Supreme Court should have done, if they really thought as some claimed that it should not weigh in on such issues, is to hold that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents man/woman marriage being defined as the standard of marriage. That is a straightforward and defendable decision, which in no way prevents those who wish to change it from doing so through normal democratic means.

    Letting the ruling by a district judge stand, especially this ruling, which exhibits a large amount of animus toward religion, was the worst possible decision. Especially in light of the California Supreme Court ruling that those who appealed did have standing under California laws.

    This will allow elected officials to ignore the will of the people in referendum cases even more.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    June 26, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    What was fundamentally wrong is that at the trial court level, the Mormon Church left the defense of Prop 8 to others who failed to put on a case. The garbage in garbage out rule applies to judicial proceedings.

  • Larry Chandler CEDAR CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    "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."

    And would the church be ok if people voted to disallow Mormonism? Or are there rights that cannot and should not be voted on?

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    "which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children."

    President Monson speaks for God, so Mormons believe.

    Catholics like myself believe Pope Francis speaks for God

    Either way, I know which side I'm on.