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
Joggle
Somewhere In, HI

@Too

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.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Civil --

You said: " A homosexual couple will never be able to bear natural children."

There are many many sterile heterosexual couples in this country. They can't bear natural children either. Does that make their marriages any less valid?

The real, essential basis of any marriage is **commitment**. In this country we don't prevent people from marrying just because they can't have children, even if we know about their sterility before they get married.

And if you're really concerned about children, there are many thousands of children crying out for adoption. Why not encourage stable family units that want to adopt?

terra nova
Park City, UT

It is unfortunate that this debate has mostly devolved into an unproductive diatribe between those who believe they represent a religious point of view and those who think they represent a what they believe to be a "civil" point of view.

Truth is that those on the "civil" side of the argument have a belief system. Call it what you will, that belief system is no different than a religion. That belief system is just a secular form of religion.

Just so, those styling themselves as traditionally "religious" have a belief system too. However, having a belief system does not mean they cannot express an opinion in civil matters. Their belief system may color their thoughts, but isn't that exactly the same for those who live according to the precepts of a secular-belief system?

Pitting traditional (non-secular) religions against secular belief-systems against each other is not productive.

Each side has a preferred "belief system" (whether secular or non-secular) the real question is what is best for society at large and should that belief be codified into law?

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Terra nova wrote:

"Truth is that those on the "civil" side of the argument have a belief system. Call it what you will, that belief system is no different than a religion. That belief system is just a secular form of religion."

Here we go again, people calling no religion a religion, and calling no belief in god a belief system.

Sure, and black is really white, up is down, and it is all one big muddle so religious people have the right to enforce their religions on others willy nilly.

Hogwash!

The disciplined refusal to mix religious beliefs and influence in with government and civil law is not the same as mixing religious influence. If they were the same, there would have been no need for the Declaration, the Constitution, and the War of Independence...and you would be likely be an Anglican right now!

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right."

I agree that religious people have a right to express their beliefs. I think they should fight to have those beliefs put into law. BUT fighting with the words,"God said" and predictions of doom will not pass muster in our court system - and that is where this is being fought. When you express your beliefs in why gay marriage should be illegal, please assert to all your logic and arguments that you would use in front of a judge. Tradition, the scriptures, and predictions will not hold water in our judicial system.

If you have an argument that fits this bill, please pass it along to those who will be supporting Prop 8. They honestly could not find one the last time they were in front of a judge. Remember, we are a Constitutional Republic - and as such, the vote of the people cannot take away a right without showing harm to society if these American citizens retain this privilege. Read the whole trial if you have any questions.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:LDSliberal
" "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;"

Yes.

It is dangerous to have authoritarians leading authoritarian followers. I know i've told this before, but leaders here brought political material into our Sunday meetings and taught it to everybody 12 yrs and up. The political material was misleading and even contained blatantly false information. When we brought it to the attention of the leaders we were ignored. Our ward leader was "following the Lord" (ie the Stake leaders). Nevermind that the Lord relies on imperfect people who can and do make mistakes. But the Lord expects us to recognize, learn, and fix mistakes. At first I was a little ambivalent about Prop 8, but the campaign quickly convinced me it was not coming from righteous sources. Demonization, fear and lies are the favorite tools of political strategists. Too many people have been lulled to sleep by the rantings and ravings of hate radio and TV so that they no longer care or can discern between fact and fiction. Blind following becomes the norm.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@TOO;

Your personal beliefs about what is and is not "moral" matter for you and your family only. When you interfere in other people's lives, passing laws that prevent them from participating in the very same benefits that you, yourself enjoy, then you are violating the rights of other people to practice their own religion, or not, by forcing them to live by yours. That, sir, is bigotry and is immoral in itself, so the fact of the matter is that you are a hypocrite. Do a quick bible search on the word and see just what "god" has to say about the hypocrite.

Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

Ranchhand I do not see Too trying to pass a law i see Too trying to uphold the law . Your triying to pass laws to support your belves.. what was the law 20 years on gay marrying. Son who is trying to pass laws ?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Phillip;

20 years ago there was NO LAW that said gays couldn't marry. The Utah Constitution said "two people" not one-man/one-woman. You religious bigots were the ones to pass that law; we're trying to redress the situation.

Additionally, your faith is your faith. Believe what you want to and practice it YOURSELF. Do NOT try to force other people to live by your beliefs; that is theocracy. Preventing GLBT Americans from marrying the person of their choice violates our First Amendment rights to practice our religion without government interference. Would you like it if we got to decide which religious practices you could follow? If marriage is also a religious institution, and our religion permits same sex couples to marry, what business is it of yours?

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

Bill, the line is defined by the scriptures. The scriptures condemn those who allow their religious opinions to prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (D&C 134:4, 1 Cor. 10:29). The statements of the prophets when others tried to infringe upon the Saints’ marriage rights confirm this scriptural standard. Prior to Prop. 8, gays had the right to marry in CA. We LDS allowed our religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others by our overwhelming support for Prop. 8. We crossed the line and were on the wrong side of it.

The Brethren aren’t always right. Every talk I’ve seen referencing 1 Thes. 5:22 cautions us to avoid acts that may seem or appear to others to be evil. The Greek work rendered “appearance” does not mean how something seems to be but rather its manifestation, occurrence or type. The footnotes, as well as non-KJV and non-English Bibles confirm this.

HBL and JFieldingSmith stated that their words are to be ignored if they violate scripture. Demanding unquestioning obedience no matter what is an apostate notion.

korn75
Cedar Hills, UT

The LDS church, or any other church for that matter, has no business getting involved with government politics as a religious organization. If the members want to personally fight the laws, then fine. If the church, as an organization, wants to ban gay marriages in their own church, then fine. As a fellow Utahn, I'm ashamed and embarrassed to see many of you supporting this. Even if you agree with the cause, it's wrong, plain and simple.

terlds
Ogden, UT

I am not against same-sex couples creating a union and having the constitutional rights. What I am against is changing the meaning of the word marriage. There are differences. I have nothing against those who believe differently than I do. Why do people care so much that that kind of union be called a "marriage"? When we start redefining words, we get into trouble. The word gay used to mean happy. What happened when we redefined that word. Now it has come to have very derogatory meaning. If we are going to redefine the word "marriage" we may as well start over with the whole dictionary. I do not believe I have the right to dictate what other people believe to be correct if it does not affect my rights, but I do believe I have the right to stand up for upholding the meaning of the word "marriage". If two consenting adults want to create a union, that is their right. I also believe in tolerance. But that means to love every person, but not necessarily agree with the things they do.

I M LDS 2
Provo, UT

terlds

Yeah, this is all just a big disagreement over what definition should be recorded in the dictionaries...

Seriously? That is the best you have?

snowman
Provo, UT

MapleDon: The Church itself had nothing to do with Prop 8. Some people in the Church did but not the church itself.

firstamendment
Lehi, UT

It is sad that the vote of the people is overridden by special interests. Religious people should have the right to vote, to speak, etc. without being sued, constantly harassed, maligned, etc.

wear2manyhatz
Holladay, UT

Afraid gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage?

Why? Any proof of that?

As to the question of pro-creation...babies will always be made in the expected fashion. How many LDS couples are grateful for non-traditional means of conception? As to other non-traditional forms of marriage...they've always existed and always will.

And heterosexual marriage and hetero-procreation will always exists, as well.

I am a member. I'm just not worried about what others want for their lives...

The Scientist
Provo, UT

Once again, the over-the-top, distorted misrepresentations of the opponents' views are invoked by those who have no sound arguments.

firstamendment wrote:

"It is sad that the vote of the people is overridden by special interests. Religious people should have the right to vote, to speak, etc. without being sued, constantly harassed, maligned, etc."

Nobody has taken away the right to vote. And nobody has taken away the right of citizens to vote away the civil rights of their fellow citizens... because nobody ever had that right!

Nobody has the right NOT to be sued, or "harassed" or "maligned" in public discourse, especially not a Church, and especially when a Church injects itself (contrary to its own scriptures) into the civil process and tries to gain advantage for its own members and policies at the expense of other citizens who do not share the same beliefs or membership.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:Snowman

The LDS church would lose its tax-exempt status if it directly contributed to political campaigns/issues.

However, the church did report over $180,000 "in-kind" contributions to CA Sec of State for its involvement in Prop 8. The in-kind contributions were mostly travel expenses for people such as Whitney Clayton, but also included use of audio-visual facilities.

Members were directed from the pulpit to contribute to the Protect Marriage organization. LDS members appeared in Prop 8 commercials and an LDS member authored the "Six Consequences" manifesto.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

amazondoc, you took the words right out of my computer! I was just sitting here, reading many of these comments, and if I were a person from Mars, besides being an undocumented alien, I would have come to think that having gay marriage either meant that people would be forced to be happily married (for you younger folk, gay also means happy or brightly colorful) or forced to marry someone of the same gender, and whichever were true, the passing of laws permitting it would mean that all humans in that country of marriageable age would be required to have such a marriage. Now, that's how some of these anti-SSM posts would read to the average Martian. Are some of you actually that fearful of allowing those who do not believe as you do to have their God-given agency? Really? I'm certain that isn't so. Do you honestly, then, think that forcing your beliefs on them legally will convert them to your way of thinking? As my sixth grade teacher used to say, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

FLJOBGAHOME
Orlando, FL

Acknowledgement of the severe impact of DOMA section 3 upon same sex couples married under state law is missing in this discussion. I am retired from the Federal Government I live a chaste and deeply spiritual life. I had no relationships at all because it was conditional for my security clearance. Once it became legal, I entered into one relationship that endures decades later. I live every day in fear that I die before my disabled partner and he subsequently becomes sick, destitute and homeless. DOMA section 3 denies my spouse benefits that would give me peace of mind of knowing that my partner will be okay if I am no longer around. My father also retired after a long Federal career and remarried after my mom died of cancer. No children from that second marriage but my stepmother has all his Federal benefits now that my Dad is gone too. The crucible of states allowing same sex marriage has given us the evidence that there is nothing to fear and that the true conservative position is to support fair treatment of all unions between two persons.

to comment

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