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
Gregorio
Norco, CA

Marriage is defined between one man and one woman period.Other words can be chosen for other lifestyle choices. Government sanctions marriage because history has a record of showing the great advantages of a family within a community with a mom and a dad for children.
Our US constitution works only for a virtuous man and woman who the founders believed in the marriage covenant.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Mick
KJK, We can put a lot of stipulations on marriage. We can make a lot of rules. None of them will be "fair" to all minorities of society.
KJK
But why do it? D&C 134 decries laws that advance one group and harm another. We LDS had an extermination order issued on us. We were once an unpopular minority too.t happened to the Golden Rule?

Mick
Definition of words should not be changed.
KJK
The definition of “voter” changed to include Blacks and women. The definition of “priesthood holder” changed in 1978.

RedWings
There is no implied superiority of "marriage" versus "civil union"; this is a fabricated difference on the part of the gay rights extreme.
KJK
Why was Prop.8 proposed? Is “separate but equal” really equal?

zoar63
The definition of marriage will change and that opens up so many possibilities. All we have to do is just keep changing the definition to accommodate other’s that feel they have been discriminated against.
KJK
If you can enter a legal contract with one or more people, that same arrangement should be allowed to be a marriage too.

twspears6007
Bakersfield, CA

Are polls the way to report and give an unbiased opinion as to the wishes of the American people. ABC News and the Washington Post resultss are not reliable and are far away from the will of the people. Most of the latest reports are purposly reported higher in favor of sames sex marrieges to attract more support for a very flammable issue. California has had two ballot measures that supported marriege between a man and a women only both measures were prop.22 and prop. 8 both measures were struck down by Court decisions. How long is the American People going put up with a Court or Courts that overrule the will of the people. This should be the issue at the Supreme Court does the courts support the peoples will or do they support the results of polls or biased courts. Trenton Spears

Cookie999
Albuquerque, NM

I believe God created male and female for a reason, but even if He didn't, there is still order in the universe. A playground slide is meant to be slid down, not climbed up against the laws of gravity. And yet there are children who will try to climb up that way, simply because physically and technically it can be done, although it creates disorder in the natural flow of things. Children who are correctly taught the proper use of the playground slide are going to be irritated by others who keep trying to climb up the other way, because they can see it causes disorder. People who struggle with same-sex attraction may or may not have a pre-natal hormone orientation, but even that can be changed, if they are willing to look into the possibility. Saying that so-called "homosexuals" and so-called "lesbians" cannot re-define marriage is not limiting their choice to choose disorder; there are already civil unions and domestic partnerships.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@Contrarius

"Making polygamy or incest legal would involve giving the entire population new rights that nobody currently has. But making same sex marriage legal only requires eliminating a bit of unconstitutional gender discrimination."

But if you allow same sex marriage you have changed the traditional definition of marriage which is defined as a union between a male and a female. When that definition changes to allow same sex marriage and you refuse to include polygamists you are now discriminating against a new minority group and denying them their rights. Once you change gender definitions we can now start arguing number of partners and in a few generations after that it will be the age of the partners. Equal rights for everyone. And if you deny these rights to the new minority group you become the new pluralphobes or whatever definition the future activists will call it. Best to stay with the traditional definition and then you will not have to face this Pandora’s box you will have opened

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

Gregorio, twspears, Normal, Cookie -- I thank God that our laws and Constitution are not dictated by the views of any one particular religious group. I also thank God that this country is a constitutional democracy, and not a theocracy.

"does the courts support the peoples will or do they support the results of polls or biased courts. "

I also thank God that the Supreme Court does not necessarily support the people's will OR the results of polls. Its function is to support THE US CONSTITUTION.

Finally -- think of the old saying, "if God had meant for us to fly, we'd have wings". Human civilization is meant to move forward and grow, not to stagnate in outmoded ruts of dogma. We no longer view women or other races as inferior beings, or slave-ownership as a worthy goal, or genocide as an acceptable past-time -- even though all of these things were espoused by the Bible. Our civilization has fortunately moved on since then.

The recognition of gay people as full citizens, with the same rights as everyone else, is our society's latest step forward. Anyone who refuses to grow with the times will simply be left behind.

Bob in Boise
Garden City, ID

Gays and lesbians have always been free to marry someone of the opposite sex and in that regard they are not discrimated against. What they seek is for the institution of marriage to be re-defined. Something 30 states have refused to do. One of them, California, has refused twice. The civil union statute in California, just like in Colorado recently, was hailed as a good and positive thing when passed. Homosexual advocates then used the same statute as evidence of discrimination in their court battle to overturn it. I find that just a little hypocritical.

Jeff
Temple City, CA

Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, regardless of what polls suggest the American public feels (though, as suggested previously, polls on this issue are often wrong--they were twice in California), regardless of people's feelings on the subject, homosexuality (by this I mean sexual relations between people of the same gender) is wrong. To give a sanction to homosexuality by allowing people of the same gender to marry would be approving of something that is wrong. It is wrong religiously to most Christians, Jews, and Muslims; it is wrong culturally throughout most of the world; it is wrong historically (even famously homosexual-tolerant Greece and Rome refused to redefine marriage); and it is wrong biologically.

There is no compromise on this subject. There can be none. Homosexual relations (and by extension same-gender marriage) are wrong. No amount of rationale will change the wrongness of it. I grant that almost 50 years of careful indoctrination has done its damage, and many people seem to be shifting their views to support same-gender marriage--but if 100% of the people on earth supported it, it would still be wrong. And it would have to be abandoned before extinction.

Ranch
Here, UT

@twspears6007;

Freedom in the USA, thankfully, does not depend upon the "will of the people". It is granted to EACH AND EVERY American citizen via the Constitution.

The First Amendment, i.e. Religious Freedom grants ME the right to worship differently than YOU. If my God doesn't mind same sex marriages, then whatever your god minds applies to it's followers and is NOT binding upon those who believe differently. Thank God for the First Amendment.

The 14th Amendment guarantees Equal Treatment Under the Law to ALL US Citizens. Civil Unions do NOT provide all the legal benefits that accrue with marriage. Again, thank God for the 14th Amendment.

Just because you happen to be in the majority doesn't give you the right to infringe upon the rights of those in the minority. "Traditional" marriage has changed multiple times in the past (women & children were once considered chattel, multiple women for one man, etc.).

It's time to grow up and realize that you cannot maintain a culture of bigotry and discrimination and call yourselves honest Americans. True Americans are free to live their lives as THEY see fit, not as YOU require them to do.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redwings
[There is no implied superiority of "marriage" versus "civil union"]

Of course there is, otherwise there wouldn't be people who are anti gay marriage but okay with civil unions. Legal rights aren't the same thanks to DOMA.

@zoar63
"So once same sex marriage is the law of the land than I suppose those who have advocated for it will quickly take up the cause for polygamists to legally marry. "

That'd be like me saying that once you're done opposing gay marriage I suppose you'd quickly take up the cause of banning interracial marriage.

Lightening Lad
Austin , TX

This is just another area where Christians can only come accross as biased against a group of people who have no more ability to become hetrosexual than I have of deciding to be right handed than left or brown eyed from blue. Marriage is a legal issue managed and licensed by the state, no one should be prevented from marrying another person if both are single and legal age. I have yet to hear a good argument showing how gay marriage can harm "traditional marriage" a bit, but that remains the reason for opposition. I know the Bible is clearly against homosexuals period, but the Bible also advocates death to adulterous women in Leviticus, while being very positive towards slavery and polygamy. Gay marriage will become law in time, would it not be better to let it happen without all the beating up on each other and divisiveness? Has the LDS Church been bad wounded for making itself the face of Prop 8, I think most folks would say yes. I don't believe we have the right to tell others how they should live based on a book written 3000 years ago, live and let live.

Jeff
Temple City, CA

@ Lightening Lad: Your post illustrates partly why there is such a divide between those who oppose and those who advocate same-gender marriage.

For one thing, it is entirely possible to move from right to left-handed. It's difficult for some, but possible for everyone with two hands. It is even possible to change eye color.

While I cannot speak to the ability of someone to change whom they are sexually attracted to, I can speak to the ability of people to subdue and even completely overcome overpowering urges. I have seen it happen many times.

Marriage is not just a state issue; it has a very long cultural tradition that extends far beyond the United States concepts of marriage. Also, you express a willingness to place some conditions about marriage (being single and "legal age") which are just as arbitrary as you claim that restrictions based on gender are. In other words, you are dismissive of others' opinions without completely analyzing your own.

Next: You recommend rejection of the Bible and its teachings, and you imply that the only reason someone should reject the Bible is because YOU don't believe it. Not a good reason.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@Jeff --

"it is entirely possible to move from right to left-handed."

No.

There are physical differences between the brains of lefties and righties. You can improve the use of either hand, but you can't change the underlying dominance.

Similarly, homosexuals can change their **behavior** -- but they can't change their inherent orientation. Homosexuals, like southpaws, have proven physical brain differences compared to heterosexuals.

"it has a very long cultural tradition that extends far beyond the United States concepts of marriage."

Right. Like all the cultures that did -- and sometimes still do -- practice polygyny and/or polyandry. Like the ancient Roman and Greek civilizations, both of which encouraged homosexual relations. Btw, did you know that at least two Roman **emperors** married men?

"Also, you express a willingness to place some conditions about marriage (being single and "legal age") which are just as arbitrary"

"Legal age" restrictions refer to the ability to give informed consent. Informed consent is an essential component of all contract law. Not at all arbitrary.

"you imply that the only reason someone should reject the Bible is because YOU don't believe it."

Pot, kettle, anyone?

This isn't a theocracy. There's your reason.

to comment

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