Quantcast
Faith

LDS Church files brief in gay marriage cases

Comments

Return To Article
  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    snowyphile: The public does not fund the Church operations. The day to day operations are paid for by the tithe payers of the church and money comes in from their other businesses

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    Mugabe: DCFS can Not just take children out of the home because they want to. Shildren are Not property

  • FLJOBGAHOME Orlando, FL
    Feb. 14, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    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.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Feb. 10, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    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".

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 10, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    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.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    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.

  • wear2manyhatz Holladay, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 7:21 p.m.

    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...

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    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.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 12:46 p.m.

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

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 11:28 p.m.

    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?

  • terlds Ogden, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    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.

  • korn75 Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    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.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    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?

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    Feb. 8, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    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
    Feb. 8, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    "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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    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!

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 1:24 a.m.

    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?

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    Feb. 7, 2013 10:05 p.m.

    @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?

  • Joggle Somewhere In, HI
    Feb. 7, 2013 9:58 p.m.

    @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
    Feb. 7, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    (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.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    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.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    Joggle

    "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.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 7, 2013 5:43 p.m.

    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.

  • Joggle Somewhere In, HI
    Feb. 7, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    @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!

  • SummitHigh Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 5:03 p.m.

    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.

  • John Simpson ARLINGTON, VA
    Feb. 7, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    Who were the "others"?

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    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.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 7, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 7, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Dubai Holladay Dubai, UAE, 00
    Feb. 7, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    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?

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:31 p.m.

    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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    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).

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Michigander Westland, MI
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:47 p.m.

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

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:36 p.m.

    RE: Bill in Nebraska, The Bible and the Book of Mormon and all modern revelation reveals that marriage is defined completely and entirely by God.
    And the priesthood implications as well?

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:58 p.m.

    Let your voice be heard. The ones who say nothing can not be heard. Stand for something or sit through everything. The Church has a voice .l am glad i can hear them. People are told far to much now days to just hush. You do not have to agree. But you can not deny one the right to speek.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:43 p.m.

    Re: very concerned

    Thanks for your observation; but please apply it to yourself next time rather than the rest of us. Your observation certainly doesn't describe me.

    Also, you claim civil rights struck a "universal note." Try telling that to southerners, including the LDS members down there, who still can't stand that blacks are allowed equality. Universal must, by definition, be universal. Clearly then, your claim is false.

  • alpinecoach kearns, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    I am sad to see many of my good neighbors on the wrong side of history on this matter.

    Bigotry is unacceptable.

  • AZ Blue & Red Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    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
    - Not a father and or mother on drugs and or abusing the kids
    - Not single parents who do not care
    - Not 2 men or women pretending to be a normal family
    - Not a father and mother who work all the time and have no time for kids and let the day cares of the world raise their children
    - Families that can not take care of the kids for any reason.

    Marriage is between a man and a women. 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 understand some kids are raised with one parent. But if that parent is loving and does their best it too can work.

    Please do not confuse these children of ours. We need real families just as God has prescribed.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    D&C 134:9 states; "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

    Why aren't LDS following their own scriptures?

    Please follow your own scriptures and stop mingling your religious influence with civil government whereby YOUR beliefs and marital society is being fostered but the marital society of same sex couples is being proscribed and denied.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    The bigotry in the majority of comments on this thread is disgusting.

    You can believe whatever you wish, but don't scream when your own religious freedom is infringed as you're doing to ours. We believe that God doesn't care who marrys whom and we also believe that discrimination is immoral.

  • kvnsmnsn Springville, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    LDS Liberal posted:

    =So - I want I want is someone to answer;
    =Do we marry for Love or for Sex?
    =
    =BTW - Can we stay married, or must we now divorce and stop having sex because
    =we are beyond our child bearing years?
    =
    =Answer me that - and we can have a discussion.

    I personally married for Love. Intelligent people marry for love; I suspect that people who marry for sex are going to end up unhappy in the end. LDS Liberal, you can stay married. What's your point?

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    LDS Liberal: I think you need to take a look at a video on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints main website. In it the talk is about an eternal perspective. Also, go back and reread President George Albert Smith's lesson on staying on the Lord's side of the line. What is evil will stay evil no matter what you think society should be. What is good is still good regardless what society thinks.

    The Bible and the Book of Mormon and all modern revelation reveals that marriage is defined completely and entirely by God. Some need to go back and listen to talks by many of the Apostles during CES Talks. Latter Day Saints who have attended the temple should be followers of the Apostles and President of the Church. Failure to do so, you do at your own peril. You will be held accountable for not taking steps to prevent same-sex marriage. Whether it becomes law in this land or not, it will have implications on the eternal perspective. The acts of homosexuality are not condoned by the Lord Jesus Christ nor by our Heavenly Father.

  • Paloma10 Ventura, CA
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    This is so sad and unfair, and not in keeping of having an inclusive society. It's a real pity.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    @LadyMoon

    Would you ask for the blessing of marriage from a church that doesn't believe you should be marrying in the first place?

    LGBT people have plenty of religious options if they want to have a marriage sanctioned by God.

    Entrance to the temple is not a right it is a privilege authorized by a LDS Bishop. Has the Church received a lawsuit from a member who was considered not worthy of a temple recommendation?

    How many LGBT people are still active mormons that they would like to receive a marriage blessing
    from the Mormon Church?

    LadyMoon the LDS or any other church have nothing to worry about LGBT people. You see, we would like for you to be free to worship and live your life in the most conducive way to happiness. We do not interfere with your life style and /or desires.

    Please stop trying to make your religious belief the law of the land, your actions are hurting your gay children, and millions of others around the world. Even if we are icky to you. Please let us be. We promise we will not invade your church. Scouts honor!! Oops! we're not allowed there either.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:16 p.m.

    @Lady Moon and those who responded to her posting:

    As a gay man, I can assure you that your anxiety about lawsuits directed at churches which won't perform gay marriages is unfounded.

    First, it's been written into gay marriage legislation that no church will be required to perform a gay marriage against its beliefs. Second, the overwhelming majority of us have no desire to celebrate our marriage at any venue which disapproves of us.

    Yes, there are overzealous activists among us (as there are in any group) who'll protest anything. But they're in the very small minority. And if they protest the right of churches to *not* perform gay marriages, I and my friends will be first in line on the side of the churches.

    As gays, we know full well how onerous it is for anyone to tell us: "You *should* be attracted to, and marry, your opposite gender, not your own gender."

    I hope my fellow gays will never tell a church, "You *should* approve gay marriage, not disapprove it." The loss of the churches' rights is the loss of our own rights.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    Why aren't the Amish filing a law-suit?

    I'm beginning to think the Amish have it right, and as Mormns, we're getting it all wrong.

    Lay-low, practice our own religion, and minding our own business...

    Everytime we've tried getting involved,
    we've either been run out, had our property confisgated or had 2/3 of the Federal Army come after us.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:07 p.m.

    I married for Love, not for sex.
    Too many of you think you get married to have sex - which is wrong.

    Furthermore - We are well past having anymore children of our own.

    So - I want I want is someone to answer;
    Do we marry for Love or for Sex?

    BTW - Can we stay married, or must we now divorce and stop having sex because we are beyond our child bearing years?

    Answer me that - and we can have a discussion.

  • Bob Pomeroy Bisbee, AZ
    Feb. 6, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    The LDS Church has made about as formal and official a statement as possible, everything it can do, about its relationship with the propositions stated. The question presented is whether that should be the law governing everyone.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    As I recall --

    Utah wasn't allowed to become a State until it changed it's position on the definition of marriage.

    Many hard-core "Conservative" Mormons called the Prophet a fallen prophet and left the LDS church when the change happened.

    Same situation when "Blacks" could hold the Priesthood during the civil rights moevements,
    and Women could start giving prayers in Sacrament meetings only after the Equal Rights Ammendment proposals.

    Things can and will change.
    Just be open-minded enough to accept it when it does.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    "I believe in the church. I believe in what's right. Homosexuality is wrong." Comments like these are not arguments. They are meaningless statements. No court should care what you believe. Is there a rational argument for denying the right to marry to gays? No, there isn't. Your rights - and your life - remain unchanged..... Oh, perhaps I misspoke. Your life might change, after all. You might have to recognize that the law of the land includes gay marriage. I see now. Yeah, that's going to require a mental adjustment. I see. Let's not upset that.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    @LadyMoon
    "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? "

    The courts would throw out those lawsuits as a violation of the first amendment. Remember churches can discriminate however they want to with regards to marriage (consider the requirements to get married in the LDS temple now). As a strong supporter of gay rights/marriage myself I would oppose any attempt to force a church by law to marry same-sex couples in their churches or temples.

    Of course... any protests people have against those churches... that's a free speech matter and the church will have to figure out what to do about that. Though really, it's usually only people inside a church that protest internal church policies. Granted, the last time I said that I used women holding the priesthood as an example that a lot of people disagree with but nobody really protests and less than a week later there was that controversy about women wearing pants to church.

  • jenrmc Fort Worth, TX
    Feb. 6, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    "The Corporation of the LDS Church already pays millions in taxes on profits from its for-profit businesses."

    I can't speak for anyone else (snowyphile is specifically mentioned) but my concern is that the Corporation isn't the entity filing the legal brief and even if it were it is still a subsidiary of a religious organization. The intent behind my comment is to bring forth the idea that I don't believe that any religious organization (beliefs irrelevant) should involve themselves in any legal matter not concerning their rights as guaranteed under the Constitution and subsequent federal law. My objection isn't based on the stance taken just the appropriateness of the organization taking the action.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    Feb. 6, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    @snowyphile

    Nice ax to grind.

    The Corporation of the LDS Church already pays millions in taxes on profits from its for-profit businesses.

  • jenrmc Fort Worth, TX
    Feb. 6, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    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".

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    @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.

  • LadyMoon Crestucky, FL
    Feb. 6, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    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!)

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    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.

  • kvnsmnsn Springville, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    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.

  • afsdatwe waerwa, MN
    Feb. 6, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Smarty ,
    Feb. 6, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    What does any religion have to do with laws?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    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?

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    @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.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    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!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    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?

  • azsmith USA, AZ
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Nagap Dallas, TX
    Feb. 6, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    @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.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Grandma Char Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    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.

  • snowyphile Jemez Springs, NM
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    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.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    With prayers of support.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    @alt134
    You are correct. Our nation is not a theocracy. But it is free. People and organizations are free to express their opinions and even try to influence laws. These are serious issues and people have a right to speak and act on them (in a legal manner).

    @Claudio & Emajor
    Sometimes, *fear of making a mistake* IS a good reason not to do something. I am a bit weary of having the gay marriage proponents compare same-sex marriage to, say, the equal rights amendment. I think they are apples and oranges. One, (equal rights based on race, creed, religion, etc.) has struck the hearts and minds of people in a universal way. The other (equal rights for gay marriage) seems to have only struck a single philosophical note, justifying a behavior that is, at best, quite distasteful. I believe that people seem to accept it because THEY do not want to SEEM intolerant or be labeled *homophobic*, not so much because it strikes a basic human chord, but that people do not seem to know where to turn, and therefore, take a noncommittal approach because they are not sure. Just my observation.

  • Suburbs of SLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    @Liberal Ted
    "Gays do not have a right to force their will on Religion. Religion has a right to stand up for their beliefs and ability to freely worship."

    Right, but that's not what is happening here. Gay marriage would not be 'forced' onto religions. They needn't perform it or endorse it. And no one (all right, there are a few who are talking about tax breaks, but I think they are in the minority and in the wrong) is suggesting that religion's can't continue preaching against homosexuality - just as they continue preaching against adultery, even though that is legal.

    @BrentBot
    "In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived."
    Until opponents of same-sex marriage can show me that they are just as passionate about fighting divorce and single parent homes, then I don't think they have a moral ground to stand on. Whatever threat homosexuality poses to the institution of marriage - and I'm not saying there is no threat, it is certainly a dramatic change that could have unforeseen consequences - they pale in comparison to the damage heterosexuals are already foisting on this institution.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    The filing of the amicus brief is a demonstration of too little too late. If the Church was going to invest its legal resources, it should have done so at the trial level. The lawyers who defended prop 8 at trial failed to put on a case.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    To the posters here who are hanging their hat on The Family Proclamation, it carries less weight than you might think. It is NOT revelation, but rather "a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow." That's how President Packer characterized it in his printed remarks from general conference in 2010.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. .

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh(Mt 19:5)

    Ephesians 6:2,3. Honor your Father and Mother”[not Others or mothers],which is the first commandment with a promise. God distinguishes father and mother from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God.

  • Nagap Dallas, TX
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    @Pagan

    Since when did one (the state of Massachusetts) become a good sample size? We have fifty states this union and about thirty of them have banned same sex marriage in some form. Clearly the prevailing attitude is that gay marriage is WRONG. Oh yeah, and what were the percentages of Proposition 8 (what percentages were for/against? I think you may be on the wrong side of the fence, but I think most of us like it that way.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    Sorry but as we are not a country run on theocracy, we are also not a country run on atheism, socialism, humanism etc.

    We are a Republic.

    Religion has rights in this country along with other organizations and people. Gays do not have a right to force their will on Religion. Religion has a right to stand up for their beliefs and ability to freely worship. No one can take that away. I haven't heard of a religion that opposes gays being able to rent or buy a home free of discrimination. I haven't heard of religion talk about forcing gays to not practice their lifestyle. I have heard from religions of eliminating discrimination against members of the gay community and make sure they feel more welcomed. However, religion is not going to bend and start preaching that acting on gay feelings and emotions is appropriate. Or change their mind that man and woman is the only form of marriage. Just as they're not going to give approval for adultery, murder, taking the Lords name in vain etc.

  • Civil Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Homosexuals are trying to legislate "rights" that nature never bestowed. All the laws in the world won't make hetero- and homosexual unions "equal." A homosexual couple will never be able to bear natural children. That is why comparing "mixed race" and "same sex" unions is ludicrous.

    I fully support same-sex couples having all rights they should be naturally entitled to: The right to employment without discrimination, the right to housing, the right to visitation, the right to convey or bequeath one's property, the right to make health and end-of-life decisions for a person who has chosen to give them that right, and the right to bundle all of those rights: just not to bundle those rights into an exact copy of the rights of married, heterosexual couple. No logical, rational, fair, objective person can ever say that being a hetero- and homosexual couple is the same thing. Until the difference between those unions is acknowledged, we should not, nay, cannot agree on what the similar rights should be.

  • wendell provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    I support every Americans right to share their own opinion. Here is mine: I firmly believe that the LDS church will one day realize they were on the wrong side of history when it comes to gay marriage. As a life-long member of the LDS church, and as a divorced gay man with children, I must say that the stance they are taking is driving a wedge between many faithful Latter Day Saints and their religion.

    My children, my parents, and many of my siblings, while they do not necessarily agree with my lifestyle, are seeing the true joy I have found for the first time in my life. Many of them no longer agree with the church's stance on this issue - they love me and want me be to be able to share my life with the person I love.

    I cannot wait for the day that marriage equality is the norm in this country (mark my words...it will happen). I will be the first in line to publicly declare my love and commitment to the man I love. My extremely faithful LDS children, parents, and many friends and family will be there celebrating with us.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    Eliyahu,
    Bingo, and very well written. The LDS Church is pursuing this issue as if the proposals were about redefining Temple marriages rather than civil marriages. If I'm not mistaken, LDS doctrine plainly states that marriages performed outside the temple are null and void in the eternities. Why they are pursuing this with such fervor I do not understand. There are many civil laws that run counter to LDS doctrine, but the Church is not battling those.

    The problem here (and this is plainly visible in many of the above comments) is that the LDS Church and many of its members are taking their belief system and projecting it onto society at large as if they were inviolable truths. If there were a clearly demonstrated harm, I could understand this. But it is driven by religious rather than rational evidence-based arguments. That's harder to swallow, particularly when their stance involves keeping civil rights from another group.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Seems like only yesterday liberals were calling marriage an outdated conservative institution. Now they all want in on it. Go figure?

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Let's face it. Marriage, when regulated by a government entity really has nothing to do with morality. It's about finances. It's about benefits. Tax benefits. Health benefits. Insurance benefits.

    Take away government and corporate benefits, and who really cares if you are married or not? Who? People with religious convictions that are trying to manifest devotion to divine providence and his plan for the safety and happiness of man. People that believe in the sanctity of the marriage union and the act of procreation. A man that loves a woman and a woman that loves a man. Two that want to serve each other according to the will of divine providence. People that believe in bringing children into the world because this is a beautiful world. People that believe that families are the strength and power of society.

    Listen, it's time to take marriage out of the hands of government. Give it back to the churches where it belongs and stop all of this silliness.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    I have always done my best to respect the people around me. Almost everyone I have come to love, including all of my family, are LDS. What has been done to gay people is no family value! I lived with it all of my life and as much as I have ever known anything, I know that God is fine with it. After all, He created me. Even the Church admits that we have no control over it. You see, you want to portray as something that we are not, which is your right. Don't expect us to accept it. We will live our lives the best we can and we don't need your approval for that. I wonder how well any of you would do if people talked about your intimate life in such degrading ways. My personal life is mine and the least people can do is give the respect that they so demand for themselves. As hard as it can be, I will not pretend to be someone that I am not. But I will do my best to respect your beleifs

  • WhyNotThink North, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    Fern RL has come close to the real issue. There is a religious component to marriage and by legislating a definition of marriage; the state defines what religions must believe. This is a case of separation of church and state and the door swings both directions.

    An acceptable alternative would be to separate the church from the state. The state would perform civil unions only. They would stop participating in the marriage ceremony which would be reserved for the religious component of this problem. The civil unions would be defined by legislation. The ceremony of marriage would be defined and performed by a non-state sponsored organization. The marriages would be recognized by the state as a civil union also and all of the laws associated with the state contractual union would be recognized by the state. The churches can protect the sanctity of their respective chosen marriage ceremonies and defined requirements.

    This would result in a true separation of church and state.

  • dustman Nampa, ID
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    As an LDS person, I find it disturbing that we can call ourselves Christian AND preach tolerance. Christ did not preach tolerance. He didn't tolerate people and their actions, He preached love of the sinner and not the sin. So much for the church remaining neutral in political matters. If you don't believe this is a political matter, then you better inform your politicians not to have a stance, or let them take a stance and see if it is going to help them or hurt them get elected.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:26 a.m.

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

    Yeah, and if everyone grew up to be a heart surgeon we would go extinct because there would be nobody producing food, shelter, fuel, etc that keep us going. Does the fact that if everyone were a heart surgeon we would die of starvation mean that heart surgeons are inherently bad and immoral?

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    The fundamental question is whether there should be gender-specific laws at all. Is gender a superficial human attribute or is it significant enough to warrant specificity in our laws?

    If gender is superficial, then there shouldn't be any laws with gender distinctions. Following this logic, there is no need for separated gender public bathrooms, locker rooms and showers, college dorms, military treatment, etc.

    If gender is significant, then there should be separate laws governing male-female unions, male-male unions, and female-female unions (The likely three combos). Traditional marriage laws have been passed for years to govern the male-female union. Separate laws should be passed to govern male-male unions and still other laws should be passed to govern female-female unions. Of course, none of these laws should be discriminatory in nature (why would anyone want that?).

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    The underlying problem here is that we use the same word (marriage) for two different things. The first is the union of couples under religious auspices, that is, church marriages. For thousands of years, this is all there was, and the State wasn't involved beyond the extent that a particular religion controlled the State. The second, and more recent, is a civil marriage. This entitles a pair of people to State recognition for legal purposes and gives them rights such as tax breaks, inheritance rights, visitation rights, and the right to make decisions for each other when incapacitated.

    The problem occurs when we conflate the two. In reality, churches needn't recognize a marriage as religiously valid. For instance, Orthodox Judaism doesn't recognize marriage between Jews and non-Jews. The Catholic church doesn't consider religious intermarriage valid. No one is requiring them to change doctrine or to consider gay marriages valid within religious parameters or to perform such marriages. A civil marriage only grants the same secular rights as are now given to non-gays. Unless churches are required to perform and recognize gay marriages, and they're not, why fuss about it?

  • Leo Femedlers El Paso, TX
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    Constitutional. Nonconstitutional. Lowest divorce rate. Hmmm.

    The point of defense is well written in the article "our members supported Proposition 8 based on sincere beliefs in the value of traditional marriage for children, families, society, and our republican form of government."

    Traditional marriage upholds what we believe to be a LAW of God. In order for children, families, and society to prosper the laws of God must be upheld. It really is that simple. And yes, I understand there are many that believe otherwise and are vocal in their beliefs.

    Another key word here is "belief". Belief precedes understanding. I have spent most of my life studying the laws of God and have come to believe that they are real. Understanding of them soon followed.

    I am not a bigot. I believe and understand differently than proponents of gay marriage. I too will be vocal in my belief.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Itsme2 SLC, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:00 a.m.

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

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    eastcoastcoug,

    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.

  • Fern RL LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    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.

  • kishkumen American Fork, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Mulder21 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    @johnbh99
    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    There goes the chances of the next Mormon Presidential candidate.

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:18 a.m.

    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.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:00 a.m.

    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...

  • johnbh99 Daytona Beach Shores, FL
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:46 a.m.

    @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.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:38 a.m.

    Sorry violate not viate

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 5:24 a.m.

    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.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 12:53 a.m.

    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.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:56 p.m.

    @meta
    "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.

    @cats
    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.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:44 p.m.

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

  • The Reader Layton, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:07 p.m.

    '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...'

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    **’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12

    ‘"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 10:04 p.m.

    "What evidence do we have that gay marriage is good or bad for society?"

    'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    Line:
    '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.'

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:55 p.m.

    Re:Hutterite

    Yes, sometimes it is difficult to get a comment past the censors, even though it doesn't appear to violate their stated policies.
    They need to add "astuteness" to their list of violations.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 9:12 p.m.

    @metamoracoug
    "Do you recall the last one? It was no fault divorce."

    I don't see why that is relevant since these are two different issues but if you want to claim it's valid then I would note another "social experiment" three years before no fault divorce when we ended interracial marriage bans which I'm pretty sure we can agree was a good thing.

    "What evidence do we have that gay marriage is good or bad for society?"

    Massachusetts sure seems to be doing just fine. Still has the lowest divorce rate in the nation even half a dozen years later.

    @UteMiguel
    "Prop 8 keeps losing in court because it has been before the most liberal judges in the land."

    Care to tell me which Presidents appointed those 4 judges?

    @NT
    "Sounds like you are prepared to take on the attorneys who filed the brief."

    At least I'm 0-0 in gay marriage cases, they're 0-2.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:57 p.m.

    My comment must have been published and quickly pulled because my observation, though not offensive, was astute. And yes, Mr. Hotchkiss, I know what a Hutterite is. It's how I was raised. I respect others and what they stand for, unless they try to make it what I stand for. Then, they'd better bring more to the table than this.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:54 p.m.

    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.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    Re: metamoracoug

    "What happens though if, 40 years down the road we realize that -- just like no-fault divorce -- legislating gay marriage was as damaging as our previous great social experiment? It is a sure bet that we will not be able to fix the error."

    Fear of making a mistake isn't a good reason to not do something. If Americans followed that, we would still have slavery, women would still be second-class citizens, and ultimately, our country wouldn't exist. All decisions come with risk.

    I don't have a dog in this fight, but your reasoning made me shake my head.

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    @atl134

    Sounds like you are prepared to take on the attorneys who filed the brief. Good luck with that!

  • UteMiguel Go Utes, CA
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:32 p.m.

    @atl134,
    Prop 8 keeps losing in court because it has been before the most liberal judges in the land. We'll see what the Supreme Court thinks.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    Atl: So, we are about to depart on another great social experiment. Do you recall the last one? It was no fault divorce. At the time, it was believed that this would be in the best interest of all parties involved. We now have lots of data that demonstrates this great social experiment reeked greater havoc to our social fabric than any other element in the past century. The problem is that even though we know how disastrous no-fault divorce is, we can't go back. We can't correct the stupidity we brought upon ourselves.

    What evidence do we have that gay marriage is good or bad for society? Very little on other side of the question. What happens though if, 40 years down the road we realize that -- just like no-fault divorce -- legislating gay marriage was as damaging as our previous great social experiment? It is a sure bet that we will not be able to fix the error.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:20 p.m.

    I am a member of the LDS church, and I support my Prophet. Gay marriage will not affect my own marriage to my wife, and it will not affect my personal life in the least. It is to me, immoral and unnatural, and that is why I am against it. Just like I am against pornography...it is a person's right to look at it, but it is immoral and destroys moral character of individuals.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    How sad...on so many well known levels too. When will we ever learn?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:59 p.m.

    Our nation has very serious problems most of which are the result of the disintegration of the traditional family of a father and a mother who diligently strive to raise well-adjusted children. Too many children are coming from dysfunctional homes who are growing up to be dysfunctional adults resulting in a more dysfunctional society. And that dysfunctional society provides an environment that makes it more and difficult to raise honest, responsible, well-adjusted children. It’s a vicious, ugly cycle. Messing around with the definition of marriage will not correct these problems; it will only make things worse.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:37 p.m.

    @very concerned

    Sorry, but we're a nation that isn't a theocracy. The LDS, Catholic and other churches are and should be perfectly free to not marry same-sex couples but to impose a religious rule on others for no reason other than a religious one (that's why Prop 8 keeps losing in the courts, they have failed to provide secular justification) is against the Constitution.

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:38 p.m.

    @ Chris B. I support the Prophet. I raise my hand in show of support.

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    @Hutterite. Are you aware that " Hutterite " is a religions group? Or are you excluding your self from your statememt. The Hutterites i know respect others for what they stand for. And I respect them as well.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:25 p.m.

    I look forward to hearing from those who claim to be Mormons to see if they agree with their prophet, who they say speaks for God.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:24 p.m.

    Good job Mormons! I am with you on this.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 7:20 p.m.

    I'm grateful for a church that teaches tolerance and compassion, yet stands up for measures that are good and right. The Family: A Proclamation to the World says it this way in the last two paragraphs,

    *we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

    We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.*

    I couldn't say it better. And by *family*, the shurch does not mean same-sex marriage.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 5, 2013 6:57 p.m.

    The Church always will defend the right.