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
Rock Springs, WY

In the last days good will be called evil and evil will be called good. Line up on line, here alittle there a little. They know what they are doing to destroy this country. Ezra Taft Benson had a soviet union official say that America would be destroyed from within. He asked why? He was told because americans are so gulible. or is it just stupidity. We just seem to keep voting this philosphy in every couple of years.

Bountiful, UT

Hutterite is right. 'Religious liberty' needs to be contained in the context of religion, not the larger society. But that is exactly WHY the government CANNOT support gay marriage.

As it stands currently, the government has a NEUTRAL stance on the religious definition of marriage and on the morality of intimate gay behavior. The government currently does not imprison, fine, or otherwise punish gays for marrying. Nor does the government punish gays for engaging in intimate behavior.

IF however, the government legalizes and endorses gay marriage, it no longer will be advocating a neutral stance. It will be taking sides on both issues. It will be supporting ONLY the definition of marriage as espoused by gay marriage advocates. By extension, the government likewise will be supporting ONLY the moral views of those who believe intimate gay behavior is not a bad thing.

Sorry, but that would NOT be containing religious liberty within the context of religion. That would be government opposing, neglecting, shunning, and ignoring one group's religious views in favor of endorsing, supporting, celebrating, and rewarding another group's religious views.

Rock Springs, WY

Anti-Bush-obama we are fighting to keep the 2nd ammendment if it goes down. what makes you or anyone else think that the other ammendments that they the liberals, socialists, etc want to destroy are safe. Start down hill and its hard to stop.

Rock Springs, WY

How does is this Professor have a job in this PC world.

Sugar City, ID

It's not a religious issue; it is a biological, human evolutionary issue. Humans are a heterosexual, pair-bonding species. The purpose for sex is to reproduce the species. The purpose for pair bonding is to provide the long-term nurturing and training that human children need. The urge to form a heterosexual pair bond is strong--so strong that even people with same sex attraction are able to form strong exclusive heterosexual pair bonds and be excellent parents. Though there are behavioral aberrations,this is is how we evolved and experimenting heterosexual marriage or natural human pair-bonding, will have disastrous consequences and contribute to a huge human population crash. Already many countries are reproducing at below sustainable levels. These also are the same countries that advocate gay marriage. If gay marriage is inevitable, people with strong heterosexual pair bonds and their children will be the most likely to survive the population crash but the crash won't be a pleasant experience for anyone.

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

George said "It is difficult to think of any item on the domestic agenda that is more critical today than...the effort to renew and rebuild the marriage culture.”

Why hasn't he considered that marriage equality will promote the rebuilding of "the marriage culture"? There will be more marriages, fewer excuses to avoid marriage, and a stronger social message that will tend to make marriage the norm again.

George seems blinded by ideology.

center valley, pa

If being gay becomes a civil right, what defense will the Church have in refusing gay members temple sealings? Won't that be discrimination, subjecting the Church to Federal prosecution? It will be the same fight the Church had with the federal government over Polygamy.


@JSB --

"experimenting heterosexual marriage or natural human pair-bonding, will have disastrous consequences and contribute to a huge human population crash."

Only about 3-5% of the human population is LGBT. Allowing them to marry will have virtually NO effect on global population growth. Legalizing gay marriage will not suddenly "turn" straight people gay.

"Already many countries are reproducing at below sustainable levels."

The fact is that world population has grown **continually** since 1350. World population is still growing at greater than 1% every year. Our population is ALREADY threatening the global ecosystem, and the problems will only get worse in the future. Slowing down that growth rate should be the LEAST of our worries.

@RAB --

"IF however, the government legalizes and endorses gay marriage, ...It will be taking sides on both issues.....Sorry, but that would NOT be containing religious liberty within the context of religion. "

Legalizing gay marriage doesn't threaten anyone's religious freedom any more than legalizing the sale of alcohol does. If you believe drinking alcohol is a sin, then don't do it. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin, then don't have one. It's really very simple.

Temple City, CA

The difference between Leavitt and George is more nuanced than the headline made me believe.

As someone who actively campaigned for and donated to Prop 8 in California, I agree with George that hetero-gender marriage is the only appropriate form of marriage in any society. I think history, biology, and religion all support that assertion.

I foresee, as many Californians do, that, if the Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, there will be battle after battle on the same issue for years to come, and I will continue to defend hetero-gender marriage.

But I pay close attention to the public schools in California, and I can see the way the public-school winds are blowing. It is possible that same-gender marriage may someday become legal here (or the Supreme Court could exercise one of its occasional gross injustices and overturn Prop 8 and speed the process). If I understand Leavitt, one thing he seems to be saying is that the battle will change into a fight to defend religious liberty balanced against the temptation to descend into violence and hatred.

I add that if history is any indicator, religious liberty will be in grave danger.

South Jordan, UT

I have been working on my family history. It goes back to the 1500's. Nowhere in any lines do I see anything except a father and a mother for generations of my ancestors. Go to FamilySearch and look at your line. Any other "arrangement" does not a family make. You can argue it back and forth. It takes a man and a woman to have a child. It's God's plan. Anything else is contrary to His plan. Yes, the family unit...a husband and wife...is worth fighting for!

Portland, OR

The issue, 'religious liberty' versus gay marriage, is fake. The changes that will occur if gay marriage becomes legal are secular. No religion will be forced to marry same sex couples against its will. Churches can continue to exclude gays if they want to. So, one has to wonder what is really going on. I suspect this phony conflict has to do with money. Divisive issues allow institutions, including political parties and religious dominations, to raise money by exploiting the emotion attached to the issues. We saw that with the anti-gay marriage referendums and constitutional amendments that increased donations to and turn-out for the Republican Party in 2010.

But, the window in time that allowed gay marriage to be used as a wedge issue has passed. A clear majority of Americans now support it. Prof. George's plan to continue to promote gays as threats to our entire society will surely fail.


@BYUAlum --

"Any other "arrangement" does not a family make."

You have just single-handedly insulted, marginalized, and demeaned millions of people who have been successfully raised by step-parents, grandparents, adoptive parents, aunts and uncles, elder siblings, or others of the myriad loving family arrangements that have existed over the centuries in this and many other countries.

The truth is that there are many many different family structures around the world, and there always have been.

"a husband and wife...is worth fighting for!"

And **nobody** is trying to take that arrangement away from anybody.

I just don't understand why some religious people feel so threatened by the idea of gay marriage. Nobody is trying to make straight people stop getting married. Nobody is trying to force straight people to take part in gay marriages. Go ahead and have as many straight marriages as you like, gay people DON'T CARE.

Fun fact: in countries where gay marriages or gay registered partnerships have been legal for years, there has either been no effect on marriage rates or the marriage rate has actually INCREASED.

Gay marriage is NOT any kind of a threat to straight people.

Midwest Mom
Soldiers Grove, WI

Or ... it could just be that the GOP lost the White House and they're looking to add to their voting base.

Leesburg, VA

To those who fear SSM threatens their freedom of religion:

My dear brothers and sisters in the Lord. I am just an average gay man. One who was a regular devoted and conflicted LDS until he realized that God loves him in the same way he loves all his children.

Because the LDS church does not accept my relationship of and our daughter as a family, I just don't go to the Mormon church anymore.

There is no resentment on my part against the LDS beliefs about homosexuality. I said, I'm just an average gay man, most gay men and women I know feel the same way.

I find amusing that many (not all) of those who oppose SSM attempt to portrait themselves as victims; Eventhough, they are the ones inflicting the aggression.

Let's be logical here. Do you think that any homosexual couple would want to have their marriage blessed by a church/minister who despises them?

I can assure you, that I and many other LGBT will defend your right to believe we are going to a very hot place.

In the meantime, however, we will fight your attempts to legalize your bigotry and descrimination.

Pleasant Grove, UT

The only way to have true religious freedom is to get the government out of marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament and should not be defined by the government. If we followed that rule, advocates for traditional marriage (only) would not need to worry about gay marriage being defined as marriage in public kindergarten classes, and advocates for gay marriage could get married as their consciences dictated in the churches and ceremonies of their choice. A century ago, the state of Utah would have also had a much easier time if the federal government had not been in the business of defining marriage. Religion and state should not be separate, but church ans state should be separate. Church and state are not separate if the government has the power to define religious rites and ceremonies like marriage.

Orem, UT


It seems that all those who support not only gay marriage, but the gay lifestyle, use the same arguments over and over. No, I do not have the right to judge to condemnation. I do have the right to judge what I believe is best for me and my family. Whether I judge or not judge has nothing to do with there being serious consequences to our choices. Changing the definition of a bedrock, foundational principle will bring consequences whether you believe so or not. And what are those consequences? I believe the kind of thinking that changes the definition of traditional marriage will lead eventually to the crumbling of the family. Is this to say gay couples can't rear children? Of course not. What it does say is that as we go down this path of corrupting essential ingredients of a moral society, the society will eventually crumble. This is only the beginning...

I believe there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong, not 'moral relativism'. Right, or in other words truth, is the opposite of chaos. Chaos is what happens when we ignore God.

BYU Papa
Cedar Hills, ut

Why do gays need to call their union marriage? They can make a contract to be true to each other, share finances, and death benefits, and follow the own idea of fidelity. They cannot have children by their own choice so they are not a family. Otherwise they already have rights necessary to live together as friends. They should not expect people to accept their life style as normal because it is abnrmal. We can still be their friends if they are willing to accept our view.

Lebanon, TN

@BYU Papa --

"Why do gays need to call their union marriage?"

Because separate is not equal. If you call it something different, then it *is* something different. Our country proved that back in the days of racial segregation.

"They cannot have children by their own choice so they are not a family."

Actually, more than 100,000 gay couples in this country are **already** raising children, with or without marriage. They are just as much "families" as any infertile couples who choose to adopt, use surrogacy or artificial insemination, or have children from previous marriages.

"They should not expect people to accept their life style as normal because it is abnrmal."

Nobody needs for you to accept them as normal. You have the right to keep whatever personal opinion you may choose. We only expect you to accept the fact that, in this country, ALL citizens have the right to equal protection under the US Constitution. And that means freedom from discrimination.

If you think that gay marriage is a sin, then don't have one. It's none of your business if someone else chooses to have one. It's really just as simple as that.

Zona Zone
Mesa, AZ

Mike Leavitt and some Princeton professor no one has ever heard of are "Conservative Icons"?

Cottonwood Heights, UT

The problem is, no one against gay marriage can present a legitimate legal reason why such unions should not be recognized and given the same privileges and responsibilities as their straight counterparts. You can try, but it's beyond easy to poke holes in any such arguments. The issue here is religious in nature, and the government is not allowed to rule according to religion, expressly because of the first amendment. People can be against gay marriage all they want, but they do not have the right to deny others what they har simply because the disagree on religious grounds.

to comment

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