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
Paloma10
Salt Lake City, UT

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!.

Spider Rico
Greeley, CO

@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.

TRUTH
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

Mikhail
ALPINE, UT

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.

DavidJ
Branson, MO

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.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@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.

Mikhail
ALPINE, UT

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.

loiskay
Vancouver, WA

Supreme Loss

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

dtlenox
Olympia, WA

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.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

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.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

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.

Cool Cat Cosmo
Payson, UT

@ 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.

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

@ 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.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@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.

Allen
Salt Lake valley, UT

"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

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? 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

brightness
Taylorsville, UT

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.

sjc
layton, UT

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.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@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.

to comment

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