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

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

With prayers of support.

snowyphile
Jemez Springs, NM

Churches get tax breaks with restrictions, aimed at separating religion from government. Lobbying is forbidden. Bringing lawsuits is against the spirit of the restrictions. Because the LDS are pushing the envelope, I'm going to see whether tax laws can be rewritten to explicitly prevent this type of meddling. If the LDS pays taxes, like a company, then it can meddle to its heart's content, but so long as the public is funding its operations through tax breaks, it must quit the public domain.

In NM, the Catholic Bishops have effectively blocked laws sanctioning same-sex marriage. (Same-sex marriage is deemed invitation to sin.) This is illegal, but the tax laws aren't enforced. Churches should be upstanding, and respecting a higher authority is no excuse for being a scofflaw.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

There have been occasions in the history of this earth when people as a whole in an area didn't do as the Lord commands. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel and other occasions seemed like significant events for those people. We live in a time when that certain place and people are not isolated and cover a lot larger area, than in those days.

It is easy for people to agree with society as a whole with the various methods of communication or at least inundating people with data and information, good and bad. It has always been easier to publicize and get people to listen and look at the things that most would consider bad. However, most is now saying that good things are bad. You don't have to do any research on your own as the Internet is filled with sites that aren't verified as truthful. All you have to do is say, "You saw or read it on the Internet." and people will believe or at least remember what you said. It may not be verifiably true but it was posted and people read it.

People don't verify truth today.

Grandma Char
Kaysville, UT

Marriage is for the creation of families. Children deserve to grow up with a mother and a father. I've always said, and now reiterate, that when two men or two women find they can create a life by themselves without medical intervention, maybe we can revisit this.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

The LDS Church and all the other conservative religious organizations which are fighting gay marriage are on the wrong side of history as well as the wrong side of justice.

A religion has every right to teach what it believes is "correct." But it has no right to try to impose its beliefs on a population of many different religions--and no religion at all.

The comments here which worry that changing the definition of marriage would be bad for society--why not focus on your own marriage, not marriage in general? If there's genuine love in your marriage, you're good for society.

Why does it bother you so much that two adults of the same gender might feel--and show--the same love? Why does it bother you that they might prove good for society too?

Yes, let your Prophet tell you the way things are and should be. But don't try to impose it on people who can't go along with it. Surely God will sort it all out in the end.

skeptic
Phoenix, AZ

If the gays wish full membership in corporate American society they need to show their badge of acceptance, money. If the organized religious corporate churches see there is enough money to gain they will shyly change their tune and open the doors to a new wave of loving parishioners.

Nagap
Dallas, TX

@Free Agency
"The comments here which worry that changing the definition of marriage would be bad for society--why not focus on your own marriage, not marriage in general? If there's genuine love in your marriage, you're good for society."

By taking a stance against gay marriage we are not suggesting that our marriages are perfect--no one is trying to make this point.

"Why does it bother you so much that two adults of the same gender might feel--and show--the same love?"

I don't think it really bothers me, but it certainly effects me and my family--mostly in negative ways. (the number one reason being the safety of children involved OR not involved in homosexual relationships and their influence on others)

"Yes, let your Prophet tell you the way things are and should be. But don't try to impose it on people who can't go along with it. Surely God will sort it all out in the end."

You can choose to follow the prophet or not. I don't think we should impose the right for gays to marry on everyone either.

azsmith
USA, AZ

I support the Prophet and the Apostles in their opposition to same-sex marriage.

While I cannot foresee the consequences of making it legal, God can. He inspired the LDS Church's First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to issue the Proclamation on the family nearly 18 years ago, anticipating this issue and providing guidance to those with ears to hear.

The LDS Church, the Catholic church, most Protestant congregations, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and others teach and believe that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. While numbers are reassuring, they are no moral authority. I reject the moral relativism that claims something is moral if my group of friends or a majority of those surveyed say so. Multiple prophets in multiple books of scripture from multiple religions down through the ages have spoken in agreement that "a man....shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh", and, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev. 18:22). What sophistry to claim that homosexuality is not forbidden by God. We reject his counsel at our peril.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Grandma Char
Kaysville, UT
Marriage is for the creation of families. Children deserve to grow up with a mother and a father. I've always said, and now reiterate, that when two men or two women find they can create a life by themselves without medical intervention, maybe we can revisit this.

----------

Should we void your marriage because you can no longer conceive? What if your spouse dies and you fall in love again and want to marry? Should we allow you to marry? What about infertile couples? Are they not allowed to marry because they cannot procreate without medical intervention? Remember, we have a constitution that takes note that citizens in simular situations MUST be treated equally (14th amendment).

Besides, Char, many gay couples are raising children. Don't you want these children to be raised in homes that are as stable and legally solid as possible? Why would you want to discriminate against those children? Aren't they as important to you as the rest of the children that you would like to be under the marriage contract? What is your reasoning?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

azsmith

My advise to you is not to have a same sex marriage. That way, you would not be rejecting the counsel of your God at your own peril.

But to project that belief upon the country and in doing so, regulate some of your fellow citizens to second class status (because of your beliefs - not because there is a legal, logical reason to deny them the same privileges and benefits that you enjoy) is not constitutional. We are a Constitutional Republic. That means that the constitution rules over all. The will of the people MUST conform to our constitution.

The US is having problems with our families, but instead of attacking those who want to marry and establish families of their own (which,BTW is going to be about 2% of the total population), why not fight against divorce and unmarried children being born at about a 40% clip?! This is what is causing our society to falter. You are looking at a scapgoat, but the problem is elsewhere!

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

@Nagap

I wasn't implying that straight marriages need to be "perfect." My argument is that marriage is a living relationship between two adults. And as long as there’s genuine love in that marriage, it can’t “damage” society, whether the partners are straight or gay.

There's absolutely no *objective* effect of gay marriage on you and your family, only a religious one. If your kids are "influenced" by gay marriage, that's something you need to work out for yourselves. You can't ensure that your kids (or anyone else) will go along with heterosexual-only marriages by legislating against gay ones. Indeed, the large majority of young people support gay marriage, despite what they were most likely taught.

Gay marriage is not being "imposed" on society, since it's not forcing anyone to take part in it, or to have their churches honor it against their will. If you're going to take other people's rights as a threat to your beliefs, that, too, is something you need to work on for yourself.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

While there has been much debate about who is for and against gay marriage, we need to look at the outcomes.

Read the article "No Explanation, Gay Marriage has sent the Netherlands the way of Scandinavia." in National Review. They go through what the Netherlands has done to marriage. They took marriage from being something desirable to something that didn't matter. Now, they have lots of out-of-wedlock births (higher potential for poverty) and fewer marriages. They point out that gay marriage will not effect those who are currently married, it will result in few marriages in future generations.

Why do we want to damage socieity in the future so that we can "feel good" today?

Smarty
,

What does any religion have to do with laws?

afsdatwe
waerwa, MN

Laws are made for the common good not the individual good, that would be chaos. If "affection" is the only criteria for marriage, then you truly could marry your fishing buddies, your pet, or your own sister. Traditional marriage was designed for pro-creative unions and to protect women and children and make sure men were accountable to the children they sire. Furthermore, laws teach, this is a stepping stone in the gay agenda towards mandating one-sided propaganda in schools, as already done in California and stripping away our freedom of speech and religion. In Canada, parts of the Bible have been written into law as "hate speech" and even home-schooling parents are by law criminals for teaching Biblical sexual morals to their own children.

kvnsmnsn
Springville, UT

The Victorian value system strongly condemns gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage would be a rejection of the Victorian value system. With that value system rejected, what is the rationale for prohibiting polygamy?

In the land of liberty, I personally have no problem with legalizing gay marriage, but the proponents of polygamy tried to get their alternate sexual lifestyle legalized first, and they should get it legalized first, or at the same time.

If a bill was put together that would legalize two or three adults of any gender combination marrying, I would support that bill; I would try to get it made into law.

I'm not fighting to get polygamy back in the LDS Church. I don't think polygamy will ever come back that way, and I certainly don't want it to come back that way. What I want is vindication. I want the US government to admit it was wrong when it nearly legislated the LDS Church out of existence for practicing its alternate sexual lifestyle.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

This should be a good money making scam. When all the gays that find a friend only 1.5% will stay friends. Look at all the money in divorce costs. This should be better than drugs for them.

LadyMoon
Crestucky, FL

Here is the question I've pondered for many years: As the church does believe in following the, "...laws of the land" and where more and more states support gay marriage, how is the church preparing now for potential, perhaps inevitable, cascading lawsuits by gay members demanding temple marriage? (Could this lead to multiple federal, multi-million (billion) dollar anti-discrimination law suits against the church in consenting states where temples also co-exist? Could the federal government sanction the operation and closure of temples in these states that refuse gay marriages?) I know, right! It's a scary thought. (And if this is the first the church has ever considered this notion, it's good they are doing so now -- to prepare!)

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@LadyMoon,

This is really a non issue. Legalizing Same Sex Marriage does not mean the Churchs are required to change their doctrines or practices. For example, I cannot ask the Catholic Church to marry me unless I am Catholic, we don't even allow all straight couples to marry in the temple. Same Sex Marriage has been legal in Massachuesetts for 6 years and no law suits have been brough up.

Legalizing same sex marriage will change absolutely nothing about how the Church operates. The First Amendment would protect that. It protects any and all preaching, what it does not protect is the use of religion to make laws.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LadyMoon" more likely, if the feds require that all government recognized marriages be equally available to gays and straight people the church will do what it has done in other countries.

In countries that do not recognize temple marriages, they typically have a civil ceremony followed by a temple marriage. The church would not have to worry about its temples.

If they went after the church's religious status, the will do what already has been done in other nations, which is to call themselves a "club".

jenrmc
Fort Worth, TX

I am bothered by the fact that a religious body would file a lawsuit regarding something that doesn't affect the functionality of the sect. How a family is defined legally has no impact on the sect's ability to function. The tax-exempt religious organization status should preclude it from delving into legal matters that it isn't impacted by explicitly. Just as a religious organization can't support/participate in electioneering it shouldn't participate in legal matters that don't affect the organization.

to comment

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