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
Westland, MI

We agree 150% with all these religious groups on this legal brief.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

Scientist: This is a moral issue completely and entirely. It is the gay community that has made it a political one. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has every right to go after laws that will not infringe upon its freedom to practice religion. I suggest since you seem to feel you know more about the Church of Jesus Christ than most members to listen to an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ explain this in a legal manner during a CES broadcast in 2011. It is still relevant today. Elder Dahlin H Oaks spoke and is one of the most respected legal minds in the United States. By the way he is the one who wrote the amendment to the Nebraska Constitution ensuring traditional marriage would stay in that state. Listen to his comments if you want to know why.

We as members and a church have the right to do exactly what it is stating. It is constitutional and well within our rights. Sorry but you are on the wrong side of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sacramento, CA

So no fault divorce is a bad thing, and it was better to have couples coming up with ways to blame each other for why things went south? That had to be really great for the kids, at a time when Mommy and Daddy were living apart and their young minds and hearts were trying to wrap their heads around that! Sure! So let's tell them now, what, these various churches can go into states where the leaders don't live and become involved in the decisions of people whose laws they are not even subject to? Does that make sense? As a person who has lived in California for decades, I claim the right, along with others who also reside here, to make and be subject to laws that are made by those who are lawful residents of this state. No one who is not a resident has a right to intercede in our lawmaking. If residents here wish to affect potential laws, they can do so without the help of those who do not reside here legally.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Bill in Nebraska wrote: " Sorry but you are on the wrong side of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes, that concerns me as much as disagreeing with Santa Claus, or differing in opinion with the Tooth Fairy.

Your scriptures do not qualify the doctrine by saying it is OK to mix religious influence with civil government when it is "a moral issue" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Sacramento, CA

Each faith claims its own divine truth, and has good in it. We can all agree on that. And we can, I'm sure, all agree that the acrimony and agony caused by marriages that don't work out is something everyone involved wants to avoid, even if the main protagonists manage to work something out and go on. But does no one ever notice that there often is a story in the news about a couple or couples who, after waiting for years--even decades, finally was able to say vows when SSM was legalized in their state? Does anyone ever notice, read the article, listen to them speak of their joy at finally being able to say the words "We are married" out loud? This is about love, friendship, and devotion, not about any other thing. It is about the only reason worth marriage to anyone, what makes it work to people if they are body surfers or fully paralyzed. Love. Yes, some disagree with this kind of love. But our agency, our choice, our live is not someone else's, and it is not our right to choose for them. Our faith tells us that, too.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

AZ BLUE/RED: " 90% or more of all the many children we have had and or adopted came from single messed up parents. Most on drugs or have abused and or neglected them. Can not think of any that came from a traditional family of a loving man and women who respected the rights of the children. "


Did you ever get a child from a family of two dads or two moms? That would then give you the ammunition to fight against gay families. But so far, you have merely pointed out how bad it is for children to have single parents, right?

Dubai Holladay
Dubai, UAE, 00

I think that any religious organization that files a "Brief" in this case or any other is requesting to pay taxes on all income.
What we must remember is Gay marriage or any marriage is not going to harm any other Marriage. Lets stop wasting time and energy on preaching about what is best for children here when thousands of children are starving to death everyday, this is what we should be trying to stop.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

To those who continue to make religious arguments for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, you're exactly what I meant about being on the wrong side of history.

Do you think that the states which have approved gay marriage are really "embracing godlessness?" No, they've simply learned to look at gays three-dimensionally rather than through the filter of religious dogma. And more and more people (including the younger generations) are doing the same.

I grew up in the 1950s in "liberal" New York City, and I could never tell anyone I was gay. My brother would make his wrist go limp to mock gays. My cousin thought gays were freaks.

It took half a century, but my brother now counts a lesbian couple as best friends and finds the gay culture of San Francisco (where he now lives) lively and enjoyable.

My cousin, when told that a second cousin had just come out, responded, "What's the big deal?"

Neither of them are "godless heathens." They're just no longer letting religious dogma separate them from people they love.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

AZ Blue & Red
Gilbert, AZ
As a foster Parent for 25+ years what we need are loving traditional normal families (Married Man and Women) for our children. This is the key

90% or more of all the many children we have had and or adopted came from single messed up parents. Most on drugs or have abused and or neglected them. Can not think of any that came from a traditional family of a loving man and women who respected the rights of the children.


I so applaud good people like you!
Thank You.

If my wife was up to the task - I'd like to be doing the same thing by opening up our home to those kids in need.

I am however curious to ask becasue you never mentioned it -
Of all those kids,
Did you ever foster a child from homosexual parent or parents?

I've heard their relationships tend to be more safe and more secure.
[Less abuse, less violence, less break ups, less cheating, etc.]

God bless you again for your acts of loving kindness.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

Scientist and others: You quote only part of that section but miss this very important verse: (D&C 134: 6)

"We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without thempeace and harmony would be anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws, given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his maker."

So yes our doctrine does allow us to differ between moral and immoral acts. Therefore, as stated it is upon every faithful Latter-Day Saint to stand behind the Apostles and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You have convented to do so if you are endowed. To do otherwise puts you on the wrong side of the line. We are on the side of the Lord Jesus Christ. He has given his gospel and commandments. Obey them.

Salt Lake City, UT

Bill, Joseph Smith said, "We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves."

President Lee said that we should judge all men to see if their words comply with scripture. They didn't re: prop.8. I'd love to see that brief. My bet is that it is as weak as Judge Smith's dissention.

Sanpete, UT

Free Agency,

I personally could not care less if I am on the "wrong side of history". Women wanting to vote was once on the wrong side; abolition of slavery; civil rights; the common-man having access to scriptures, etc.
There have been many instances where the "wrong" was actually right. I care about my and my family's salvation. I am just beginning my adult life and will not sit by and watch society legalize what I believe is immoral. I will care more about what God thinks,not man. And through my Prophet, God has told me that this is wrong.

John Simpson

Who were the "others"?

Salt Lake City, UT

As a society, we have every right to "moral laws," irrespective of religion. For the purpose of illustrating the point and meaning no offense, here are 2 examples, one subtle and the other egregious:

1: Perhaps I feel like my employer is robbing me. My personal moral beliefs are that stealing is not wrong, it's much more of a competition, especially if I've been robbed. With this moral view, I have every right to steal back. Why is this illegal?

2: How about cannibalism? Why is it illegal to consume human meat after someone has died (not murdered)? It could be argued to be "natural," there are many examples of this in nature. It's also legal to eat many things that are potentially harmful to health, why not human flesh? (By the way, there have been cultures where cannibalism is legal and acceptable.)

General acceptance of moral relativism has it's limits, in any and every society, often independent of any particular "religious affiliation." For many, that line is drawn on who can be considered "married." Some people just plain feel that it is wrong, and they have a right to express as much.

Somewhere In, HI

@TOO...and others

You are welcome to care about what God thinks for yourself personally and the people that beleive as you do, but you forget that your religion has no rights in the lives of those that believe differently.

There is nothing wrong with individuals or churches treating marriage as sacred or sacramental, but this is not a debate about what individuals or private institutions should be doing. It is a debate about how the government should treat people and how the laws on marriage should be written. Is there any obligation on the part of the government to define civil marriages in a manner that does not conflict with religious conceptions of the same?

With all due respect to religious people, the answer has to be no. It doesn’t matter what their personal feelings are regarding marriage, nor does it matter how important a particular definition of marriage happens to be within their religious system. The government is separate from and independent of their religion and must define marriage in a manner consistent with the secular principles upon which the government and the laws are founded.

All arguments against gay marriage fail in the light of knowledge!

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

lds4gaymarriage: I suggest you actually read the entire D&C 134. You will find complete and total justification for the actions the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency took to stand behind Proposition 8. In a meeting shortly after it became clear the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was involved in Proposition 8 Elder Oaks stated that there was no intention at first to get involved with it. However, when the Catholic Archdiocesy requested our assistance the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency counciled for several days before taking the action they did. They knew quite well what the consequences were before they acted.

President George Albert Smith taught about staying on the Lord's side of the line. There is no fence sitting you are either on one side or the other. No one can serve two masters. Either they will hate the one or despise the other. Which side are you and others on. There is safety in falling the President of the Church. I know the action taken is the correct one to take. It was bold. It was correct. It was the Lord Jesus Christ way.

Sanpete, UT


"You are welcome to care about what God thinks for yourself personally and the people that beleive as you do, but you forget that your religion has no rights in the lives of those that believe differently"

That argument has no base whatsoever. I am practicing what I believe, and you are practicing what you believe. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anybody, I am merely standing up for what I believe is right, just like you. Your religion has no right in my life because I see differently from you. You try to legalize gay marriage the way you want, and I will try to stop it like I want.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

TOO wrote: "You try to legalize gay marriage the way you want, and I will try to stop it like I want."

And you are losing, because reason and the Constitution is not on your side.


(Yes, I know, I'm not in UT now -- but I lived in SLC for several years)

Legalizing same sex marriage actually promotes family stability by allowing gay couples to legally commit to each other. I would think that family proponents would support that stability, not fight against it. It seems like a catch 22 -- people decry the perceived instability/promiscuity of "the gay lifestyle", but then they try to prevent gay couples from enjoying the benefits of stable relationships. How does that make sense?

As the wise George Carlin used to say: "if you don't like gay marriages, then don't have one."

Nobody is forcing anyone to participate in gay marriages, folks. We are talking about fundamental human equality and recognizing roughly 10% of our population as something more than second class citizens. This will be no more damaging to our society than recognizing racial civil rights or the civil rights of women.

Somewhere In, HI


Obviously you fail to understand the argument and ignore relevent points. #1: I'm not gay so NO- I'm not practicing what I believe is right for me, but I do support the right of gays to marry and do what's right for them. #2: Unlike you, I'm not using my religion to discriminate against gays and prevent them from having equal rights....and committing to the person they love just like I did....without religion. Religion is not needed to be married! I have no religion....so NO...there is not religion on my end to be in YOUR life!

As said....you are losing, because reason and the Constitution is not on your side.

to comment

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