Comments about ‘LDS Church files brief in gay marriage cases’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 5 2013 6:30 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.
Fifty-three percent of Americans answered yes to the question...'

The Reader
Layton, UT

Gay Marriage is wrong. Marriage is between man and a woman. If the supreme court mandates gay marriage it will still be wrong. The gay lifestyle is not normal and never will be.

Springville, UT

This is surprising. I thought the Church was backing away from this, after the negative publicity from Prop 8. Very courageous.

Bronx, NY

"What evidance do we have?" A mountain of research, including longtudanal studies dating back more the twenty years (NYU) as well as several states and countries that already haave gay marriage. You can sta all you want the evidance will not change, there is no proven harm to society.

As has been pointed out to you many times over the years "the people" do not have the right to viate anyone's federal constitutional rights its not something you get to simply vote away with a simple majority vote.


Where can we read the brief? I'm interested in the legal arguments raised in the brief, and if they exist, why they were not raised at trial.

Ogden, UT

To Cats 8:54 p.m. Feb. 5, 2013

If it is found that the people of California don't have the right to determine what is in their own constitution, something is seriously wrong.


You are saying, then, that the people of California should be able to amend their Constitution to permit racial segregation and dicrimination? That would be exercising "the right to determine what is in their own constitution". AND that would be wrong, from both a Constitutional and an equitable and an ethical position. It is NOT right to try to legislate away people's rights, ragardless how one feels about the issue.

Wilf 55

Some countries have known SSM since 10 years now. Thousands of couples have wed. The vast majority of these couples form stable and loving marriages. If they have children, they are mostly well raised, better than in the many divorced or recomposed hetero cases or in dysfunctional families were husband and wife fight. There are no indications that these SSM couples are detrimental to society. In fact their desire to marry encourages hetero couples to marry rather than just live together. Our LDS ward sent a wonderful young man on a mission. He was converted when 18, but had been raised by two dads who gave him an excellent education. Just last week France approved SSM, and yesterday the U.K. One day, the arguments that such marriages are "immoral" and "unnatural" will probably sound like the arguments used against interracial marriages a century ago.

Bronx, NY

Sorry violate not viate

Daytona Beach Shores, FL

@Pagan. 'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

Perhaps the low divorce rate in Massachusetts has more to do with the fact that over 65% of the population of that state are either Catholic or LDS than it does with anything else.

Danbury, CT

RE Pagan and others who wonder about whether gay marriage is good or bad for society:

For me, a good rule of thumb with anything is "what if everyone did this?"

If every marriage were a gay marriage vs. a hetero marriage, what would society be like? No unions of men and women. Children all conceived artificially and chosen by non natural selection. Raised by parents of only one gender or the other, etc.

And consider this: why draw the line at gay marriage? If you erase that boundary, why not erase ALL boundaries? Three or Four or more in a marriage. Brothers and sisters. Minors and older people. Where does it stop if you say there is no right or wrong?

Glad to see Chris B and I agree on something...


We, or the church of Jesus Christ is a Corporation, which requires members to apply for a marriage license issued by the state. This moves God out of the equasion, since the marriage is a contract between the couple and the state, the state being the holder in due course. From that moment on, the state owns everything that the couple has and will accumulate during the duration of the marriage. This is why DEFACS can come and take your children, without any reason than that the children is the property of the state. When an incorporation is filed, it becomes the subject of the state and the state can do with it whatever it pleases because the state created it and baptized it; therefore, it becomes its godfather. This is why one must apply for a name from the Secretary of State. Sir Edward Coke sheds light on this fact. Said he:

The name of incorporation, is a proper name, or name of baptism; and therefore when a private founder gives his corporation a name, he does it only as godfather; and by that same name the king baptizes the incorporation.


Personally, I think the gay marriage debate has been bad for both sides of the argument, and will hand Satan a victory no matter which side comes out on top. For the church, it comes out as a net loss, because even if "traditional marriage" wins out, it has only galvanized LDS support for the Republican party and for something that will do more damage to our families than gay marriage ever could - the Romney/Ryan economic plan.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

There goes the chances of the next Mormon Presidential candidate.

Salt Lake City, UT

According the the LDS membership report from January 1st, 2013, only 0.38% of the population in Massachusetts is LDS. Therefore, I hightly doubt that the low divorce rate in that state is due to the LDS population.

American Fork, UT

These types of statements from the LDS church have caused this debate to be front and center, and caused numerous people to take a stand on the issue. Five years ago proposition 8 was able to pass because a lot of people didn't have a strong opinion and figured status quo was best. However, that changed, and now the polls show that the majority of Californians and Americans support equal marriage rights. Proposition 8 may be upheld by the Supreme Court. If that happens the issue will be brought before voters again in California, and it is an entirely different climate now thanks to the LDS Church and others who made people take a stand on the issue.

Ogden, UT

Oh I see. It's not that you have a bias against homosexuals, it is that you feel so strongly that straight relationships are better for society. You know anyone could apply that same principle to any law designed to restrict the rights of a particular group, don't you? For the sake of argument, allow me to use a somewhat hyperbolic and purely theoretical example to illustrate this:

"On the contrary, our members supported Jim Crow legislation based on sincere beliefs in the value of traditional race relations and roles for children, families, society, and our republican form of government. Only a demeaning view could dismiss our advocacy of these laws as ignorance, prejudice, or animus."

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the wording used. Sugarcoating doesn't hide the core message.

Fern RL

There are two aspects of Marriage, both the legal aspect and the religious one.

In the legal aspect, marriage is the great equalizer between men and women. It gives men more responsibilities toward pregnancies, birth control, and other female health issues, as well as future stability. The responsibilities extend to the raising of the children who will be the tax-paying citizens of the future. This is the kind of legal protection women need in their relationships with men.

In the religious aspect it puts into one word the difference between some sins and some righteous behavior. Various religions have different attitudes toward marriage, and if they want to perform gay marriages that don't affect the legal system, no one is stopping them.

Any attempt at dividing and redefining marriage legally to include same-sex partnerships, is watering down its equalizing effect on men and women.

Ogden, UT


Slippery slope arguments distort the issue and always lead it into the extreme. The reason minors can't marry is because society believes they are incapable of making properly informed decisions at that age and can be taken advantage of. Relatives can't marry because that does terrible things to the gene pool. You can't marry animals because they aren't your species. And I honestly have no problem with polygamy, it's the child abuse and cloistered lifestyle of the fundamentalists that are the problem.

Same-sex marriage is between consenting adults. There's a big difference there.

Let's take your slippery slope argument the other direction: strict adherence to religiously inspired black-and-white right-and-wrong: Jail time for premarital sex. Adulterers should be put to death, as per the Bible. Sterile couples should not be able to marry because they cannot procreate. Single people must be forced to marry and procreate before age 40 so every person has a family and keeps the human race moving along. You did argue that "what if everyone did this" is the metric to use, yes? So then, everyone MUST marry and have kids.


I'm grateful that the church stands for truth and right. As a member of the church, I stand with them.

Hayden, ID

Those who are most intolerant of the sacred demand tolerance for the opposite. "Tolerance is a like a coin, on one side is tolerance but on the other side is truth", Dallin Oaks Disciples of Christ are obligated to live in the world but not be of the world.

to comment

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