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

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
kargirl
Sacramento, CA

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?

Shelama
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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

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

The Caravan Moves On
Enid, OK

@ 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.)

Cougar in Texas
Houston, TX

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.

UtefromAZ
Phoenix, AZ

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.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@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...

neph3
Mountain View, CA

>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.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@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?

trekker
Salt Lake, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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?

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

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!

MedFacts
Draper, UT

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.

Dennis
Harwich, MA

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

amazondoc
USA, TN

@ 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.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

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.

aislander
Anderson Island, WA

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.

neph3
Mountain View, CA

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

@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.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@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.

maclouie
Falconer, NY

"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.

to comment

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