Comments about ‘Conservative icons disagree on gay marriage in Utah speeches’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, April 12 2013 9:50 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

If they attack religous freedom, that would violate the 1st amendment. That is a battle they will not win because they would be suppressing the 1st amendment.


@Brentbot --

"The omens are clear from the fall of the Roman (and earlier) Empires."

The ancient Roman and Greek civilizations each lasted for roughly 1000 years -- and both of them encouraged homosexual relationships. That's a lot longer than we've been around.

Unwin died 80 years ago. Sorokin died more than 50 years ago, and he was regarded by many as a kook besides. We've learned a lot about the world since then.

@JBQ --

"Love is lacking in a sexual relationship."


Hopefully, most married couples are having sexual relations. Do they therefore not have love??

I know gay couples who have been together for decades -- through thick and thin, richer and poorer, sickness and health. Is that not love??

"It would appear that our society is going the way of the great Roman civilization."

The great Roman civilization lasted for 1000 years.

@Tekakaromatagi --

"The movement to silence those who support traditional marriage is the McCarthyism of our time."

Nobody is being silenced. Heck, this UVU symposium wouldn't have been *possible* if anyone was being silenced.

However, some folks HAVE needed to be reminded that we live in a Constitutional Democracy -- not a theocracy.

Salt Lake City, UT

States are legalizing same-sex marriages; States are legalizing the use of marijuana.

. What does this tell us? The country is going to pot.

Boise, ID

Hutterite: "'Religious liberty' needs to be contained in the context of religion, not the larger society."

A great argument for hypocrisy, for a "double-minded man" or woman who is "unstable in all his ways."

Make sure religion doesn't influence anything one does in "the larger society." Why then bother with religion at all?



Sorokin has been mischaracterized by opponents of same-sex marriage. The key to enduring civilizations, according to Sorokin, was altruism. He founded the Center for Altruism at Harvard. He wrote about the importance of family units and about the evils of war. He wrote about the decline of civil society as people seeking merely to please themselves.

Marriage signifies couples making a committment to each other-- forsaking all others. It is a stabilizing force in society and in families.

The enemy of marriage is not same-sex marriage-- but promiscuity and infidelity.

salt lake, UT


Sorry for my skepticism of your "quote" from the supreme court but would you please site the case this "quote" came from since you seem to believe you have stumbled onto something that everyone on this debate has missed for the last 20 plus years.

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

How does professor george rationalize punishing people for the way they are born?

Walt Nicholes
Orem, UT

What if there were a Church who believed only in same-sex marriage? It sounds extreme, and contrary to all religious forms currently existing, but with the name "church" being applied to a wider and wider range of organizations such an organization is not impossible. There has already been a church that believed in absolute celibacy for both men and women.

So would this hypothetical church be given full freedom of religion? Or would lawmakers and regulators insist that to be a "real" church they would have to fit within existing definitional confines?

The sword cuts both ways. The fight for morality and liberty are not the same fight. I once penned: "The only government that can completely guarantee full freedom of religion is a non-religious government." I also wrote "The constitution does not exist to promote righteousness, it exists to promote liberty."

If you follow the logic there is only one destination - Libertarianism.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

Religious liberty was intended to allow a person to follow his conscience without government intervention or consequence. It is the foundational cornerstone to preserve and maintain a free and prosperous society.

It was intended that religious liberty would provide individuals with the values, standards, and moral convictions that would influence the structure and stability of public society. It was not intended that religion would have no influence on society, that we would leave our beliefs at the pulpit. Quite the contrary, it was intended that government would not prohibit the free exercise of religion, with the expectation that religious freedom would thrive and prosper without persecution, in order to provide a stable and moral backdrop for a strong and sustainable sovereign society.

Our founding Fathers were very well studied in the Greek and Roman cultures. They understood the best those societies offered, and the weaknesses that brought them to their destruction. Our founding fathers expected that individual conscience through religious liberty would provide the influence in establishing public policy to preserve a nation from moral and civil decay.


In these posts I see lots of great arguments for gay marriage from very smart people. When men get pregnant and naturally produce babies THEN I might believe that this argument is about family. Same for two women. This is not an argument about whats best for society. It's about truth contortion and self justification. It's about wanting to command God against His natural order. Maybe if we gay marriage is true and good long enough it will be true. IT WON"T! You may say it enough to change public opinion and get your way, but it will NEVER be true.

kearns, UT

I do not believe "gay marriage" is any sort of threat to religious freedom. If you want your church to live a certain way, that right will not be abridged, just as you cannot abridge the rights of others that have different beliefs.

Flagstaff, AZ

So agree with Eagles63. I don't think Govenor Levitt is agreeing with gay marriage, as much as he's saying it's a battle that is basically over. Statistically the support has grown and grown. I read an article reacently where supporters of Gay marriage basically said, don't rock the boat, wait for the current support to die off and the eventuallity of Gay Marriage passing is a forgone reality. The battle now is keeping religous freedom. Just as plural marriage became a political hot point for the church in 1890, so will our stance and the stance of other religions that teach against a gay lifesytle end up in the "cross hairs" as Eagles63 noted.


First of all, the title to this article is hilarious. The only way these guys are icons, is if you change the meaning of the word icon.

Second, the whole argument about whether lealizing gay marriage will end religious liberty is a huge red herring. Therefore the subject of the "debate" between these two is ridiculous and we are wasting our time listening to them.

People who have a problem with gay marriage are slowly dying off just as people who had a problem with interracial marriage died off. It's time to get over it.

Salt Lake City, UT

The issue boils down to is "To what extent can government power be used against churches who promote ideas that the government dislikes?"

If gay marriages become legal, the government could revoke the Church's privilege to perform legally recognized marriages. Jesus said to "render unto Caesar" the things that are Caesar's. Legal/governmentally recognized marriage belongs to Caesar. If LDS/Evangelicals won't provide this legally recognized act for gays, government could rightly prevent any LDS/Evangelical clergy from performing a LEGALLY recognized marriage. LDS couples would have to be married at City Hall and then, if they choose, have a NON-legally recognized temple sealing. This is done in other countries already where LDS and/or religious weddings are not legally recognized. Churches do NOT have a 1st Amendment right to have their marriages recognized by Caesar.

Revoking tax-exempt status is far-fetched. Even many gay marriage supporters would reject that and would support a constitutional amendment restoring it. Doing so would also violate the 1st Amendment since government would be rewarding/punishing churches based on RELIGIOUS doctrine. That would violate "equal protection" as well.

I believe that the above is something we could live with.

Silver Spring, MD

I am a person of faith. My partner of many years and I were married, by a rabbi, in a mainstream Temple, before God and our families. It was wonderful. It gave social and religious standing to what was already, for many years, the most important aspect of our shared lives.

People are free not to believe in God the way we do, of course. And their religions may carry out different rites, and may set their own conditions for those rites. That's about faith, though, and I think we have to respectfully acknowledge that we may all never agree, nor do we have to.

Now we are looking to protect our most important relationship legally, civilly, so that we are not legal strangers to one another.

We share a house, a car, a mortgage, bills, decisions about what to have for dinner and decisions about life and death.

I see very little difference between the way my partner and I live our lives from that of our non-gay, married neighbors. Those couples apparently felt the need to protect their most important relationship with a single marriage contract. We need to protect ours as well.


How does allowing same-sex marriage threaten religious freedom? How does allowing same-sex marriage differ from allowing other things religious groups oppose?

Boise, ID

Maudine: "How does allowing same-sex marriage threaten religious freedom? How does allowing same-sex marriage differ from allowing other things religious groups oppose?"

There are many good responses to this written here and elsewhere ad nauseum. If you don't accept all the many reasons given before, you won't accept a new one either. There are only so many ways to state well not only the obvious but the obscure. There's no point to restate endlessly what isn't acceptable to you now, nor to try to find a new manner of appealing to your sensibilities on the subject. Your mind is made up, which is your privilege and choice. So are the minds and hearts of us who already know the answer.

Mesa, AZ


"If LDS/Evangelicals won't provide this legally recognized act for gays, government could rightly prevent any LDS/Evangelical clergy from performing a LEGALLY recognized marriage. LDS couples would have to be married at City Hall and then, if they choose, have a NON-legally recognized temple sealing. This is done"

It would not make any difference if a government official performed the legal marriage all that really matters is that God accepts the NON-legally recognized temple sealing which according to LDS beliefs makes a couple man and wife for eternity where the government cannot alter, change, or penalize in any shape, form or manner.

Agua Dulce, TX

George is an academic who doesn't have to worry about practicality.

The simplest thing to do is to have the Church *not* perform weddings, only sealings.

Salt Lake City, UT

"I believe that we as a people need to be free to make our own choices and accept the consequences to those choices."

Therefore, you support banning people from making a particular choice just because you don't like it.

"Why does the public discourse not discuss the impact of SSM on our civilization? The omens are clear from the fall of the Roman (and earlier) Empires."

The fall of Rome had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. Pick up a history textbook...

to comment

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