Comments about ‘Religious, political leaders sound off on same-sex marriage before court hearing’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 19 2013 3:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

The article prominently mentions Mr. Richard Land’s opinion against same sex marriage. As is is his right to have as his personal opinion. What calls my attention is his request below: “Land urged the justices to keep Proposition 8 within California's borders and not allow their ruling to impact the constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in more than 30 other states.”
Before the SCOTUS hears the case, Mr. Land knows how the highest court is going to rule. This indicates to me that Mr. Landon knows that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
How long has he known this?
If he thought that, why he waited all this time?
Why he persisted in a legal and socio-political war attempting to prevent citizens of their constitutional rights?
I find Mr. Land disingenuous and hypocritical. Characteristics that I find repulsive in a man claiming to be a Christian.

I know there are serious and honest children of God who are against SSM. I dare to say that Mr. Land is not one of them.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

So the "ship has sailed" on the issue of homosexual marriage has it? After all, if a consensus of scientists can determine the cause and outcome of global "climate change" in the coming decades, surely a political consensus is all that required to radically redefine the mere foundation of human society. And all for the better, surely.

And, with more and more people arriving at the "correct" decision that marriage should no longer be defined as a marriage of the sexes (note the use of the plural, meaning the two opposite sexes) surely it will only be a matter of time before God himself figures it out.

Nevertheless, until that happens, I'm sticking with the concept of marriage that has worked so well for so long, regardless of whatever political "consensus" there eventually may be.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

IMHO the issue of marriage definition can't really be left up to the individual states for long. It affects too many issues that frequently cross state borders -- property, inheritance, legal powers, and so on -- and interstate issues are the domain of the Federal government, not the states.

Ophelia
Bountiful, UT

It's interesting to note that the recent ABC/Washington Post poll (a reputable, accurate polling source) found 58% of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage. Even more impressive is the fact that a whopping 81% of Americans under 30 favor same-sex marriage. Thank goodness for the youth!

JD Tractor
Iowa City, IA

Religions shouldn't be forced to go against their conscience and marriage is a religious ceremony. If the argument is for "financial benefits" for marriage partners then this isn't really about "love" or marriage, it's all about money. Leave marriage alone and focus on those issues.

BrentBot
Salt Lake City, UT

The Supreme Court should be concerned with the continued thriving of our Western Civilization. Marriage has reflected 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.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

So JD Tractor, marriage is a religious ceremony? Try getting married without a government issued license..and marriages performed in a home by a judge aren't valid. Marriage is a secular contract sometimes performed and or sanctioned by a religion.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

"Deeply divided" - not really - as others posting here have noted - under 30 years old - the majority favors allowing same sex marriage and for those of us over 30 (sometimes those of us well over 30) our views have changed as well. Same sex marriage is simply an issue of "equal" - nothing more and nothing less between consenting adults. No one is forcing anyone whose beliefs are different to use their Church, Synagogue, Mosque or other religious building to support Same Sex marriage. The paradigm has shifted for the better; I believe.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Brentbot --

"In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived."

People keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. In fact, both the ancient Romans and the ancient Greeks encouraged homosexual relations -- and their civilizations each survived for roughly 1000 years. That's a lot longer than we've been around!

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

The problem I see with keeping each state in control of marriage is the Full Faith and Credit clause in the constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

This is one of the reasons DOMA is unconstitutional. Why would a heterosexual couple who marry in Massachusetts and move to Utah still be married and not a homosexual couple? What gives Utah the right to treat these citizens differently? Isn't that also a constitutional right - equal treatment under the law (14th amendment)?

bandersen
Saint George, UT

It is truly an awesome development to see citizens actually start talking about the importance of States' Rights. It is a harbinger of eventually getting back to the idea of Individual rights, as enshrined in our constitution. Those who are insecure about that possibility need to step back and realize that America is about taking the best ideas and watching them grow or diminish on their own merits rather than using compulsion to achieve certain ends. The ends do not justify the means. If California wants to legalize gay marraige, abortion on demand, free birth control, free love, free drugs, violence, bigotry, or failed educational ideas, let them do so. Citizens will eventually realize the damage done, particularly if another state is succeeding with something else, and make changes. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of States' Rights! If they don't, the one size fits all mentality will only cause more grief, pain, and unhappiness.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Bandersen:

You wrote:
"Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of States' Rights! If they don't, the one size fits all mentality will only cause more grief, pain, and unhappiness"

I ask: To who?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

bandersen
Can you address the two constitutuional problems with having each state decide the marriage of same sex couples, ie, The Full Faith and Credit Clause and the 14th amendment?

Where do you stand of these two intrinsic parts of our divine constitution?

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

The Articles of Conferation with strong states' rights was supplanted by the Constitution and a stronger central govt.

The question of States' rights and civil rights was further clarified with the civil war.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@BrentBot – “The Supreme Court should be concerned with the continued thriving of our Western Civilization.”

Not when they are decided cases. Their only concern at that time should be what is and is not constitutional.

Have we not learned that lesson from Roe v Wade that judicial activism (whether from liberals or conservatives) is never the answer? If you want your ideas (ideals and morals) to prevail, you need to win in the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise, to quote Lincoln, you should “emigrate to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty… where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

We (the people) are either a self-governing democratic Republic, or we are living under a dictatorship of the “black–robed nine.”

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Thanks for letting me respond: I don't necessarily agree with what happened after the Civil War. The Articles of Confederation was dropped in favor of the Constitution, mostly because of the lack of a strong central government. I'm absolutely certain, however, that our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves over the power of the central government today, or for the last 100 years for that matter. Whatever they were or weren't, they were for Liberty, something as foreign to most of our citizenry as soil on the planet mars! The 14th amendment needs to be rescinded. However, since it is still law, I support it. Also, the conflict occurs if and when unjust laws are passed by the federal government that conflict with the 'unalienable' and individual rights embedded in our constitution. Compelling me to recognize abortion, pornography, or child abuse (anything evil) as a legal right infringes on my life and liberty. Empowering the states and individuals to stand up for truth (and their own ideas of truth) will allow our country to work the way the founders envisioned. I would hardly call 'gay marraige' our most pressing national issue.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Unfortunately for some, God represents a sizable majority in the eternal scheme of things. God understands YOLO better than anyone, which is the reason why his opinion on Gay marraige is so important. He doesn't condone or believe in alternate versions of His plan, no matter how much we strive to convince Him otherwise. He is God!

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Baccus0902" the Proposition 8 is completely constitutional. The 10th ammendment says that if it isn't mentioned in the US constitution it is up to the states or people to decide. The people decided and ammended the California Constitution to define marriage.

To rule against Proposition 8 would be unconstitutional.

sergio
Phoenix, AZ

Religion is politics, and politics is money; therefore, figure out where the money is and come down on that side of the issue because it will be the winner: every time.

Jeff
Temple City, CA

This is not a complex question. Same-gender marriage is wrong for a number of reasons (including, but not limited to religious reasons, social reasons, and biological reasons, all of which are supported by historical reasons). Over time, the value of traditional marriage has been assaulted on at least two fronts: legal (nationally based apparently on the 14th Amendment which has to do with the rights of former slaves, not sexual practices) and educational (the pressures in the public schools to accept same-gender marriage are intense, and students are even bullied into accepting it against their views).

The propaganda war is now constituting a third front. "If," the propaganda says, "the majority accepts same-gender marriage, then the courts ought to; and now we can prove that the majority accepts it." An unstated reality is that public-opinion polls have often clashed with the voting booth on this issue. Why? Because (as pollsters have said) people feel intimidated by the pro-gay pollsters to say what they believe the pollsters want to hear, but they vote their consciences.

By all means, let us retain sight of the original premise: same-gender marriage is wrong.

to comment

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