Comments about ‘LDS, Catholic and other religious leaders react to DOMA, Prop 8 Supreme Court rulings’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 12:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tyler D
Meridian, ID

“No religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic, and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint,” – Orthodox Jewish statement

Some of our Christian friends could learn a thing or two from the Orthodox Jews.

But I have full faith (pun intended) that after the next hurricane, tornado, earthquake, tsunami or any other “coded message” God likes to send us expressing his displeasure, the Religious Right will give us an earful about how extending compassion and equality to those who are (born) different from us is really the work of Satan.

I never quite understand why, if being homosexual is so evil, why wasn’t it one of the “Big Ten?” It certainly seems to be a much graver sin to the Religious Right than “coveting your neighbor’s ox” which did make the top ten.

And why didn’t Jesus ever say one word about it?

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

LDS Church statement: “...the (LDS) church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children."

I look forward to the slew of bills to be introduced in the next session by the overwhelmingly LDS legislature that will repeal Title 30, Chapter 3 of the Utah Code. If you really want to nurture children in homes with both a mom and a dad, this is how you will do it. Fighting gay marriage does absolutely nothing on the child nurturing front.

Brathor
Erda, UT

""Regardless of the court decision,” Otterson continued, “the (LDS) church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman."

Yes, just as the Church remained committed to their own 'traditional' marriages.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Monson speaks for God according to Mormons

Pope Francis speaks for God according to me and Catholics

It feels good to know I am on their side.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I'm happy when the court is protecting us from the rule of a gerrymandered mob. We all have rights, and no church is being forced to give anything up.

mishi
San Francisco, CA

Interesting that the article quotes an Orthodox Jewish leader at length, though both Reform and Conservative Jews - by far the majority of American Jews - outnumbering the Orthodox by over 6 to 1 - officially support marriage equality. Next time, maybe a more representative sampling of opinions, hmmm?

merich39
Salt Lake City, UT

This SCOTUS decision was necessary, right and inevitable in a country founded on the premise that all men are created equal.

rondonaghe
Mesilla/USA, NM

the only group of religious leaders who support heterosexual only marriage to get it right was the Jewish leaders who said that they have to respect secular law, while still holding to their religious viewpoints. While a church and its adherents have religious freedom in this country, they do not have any standing in secular laws. The participation by the LDS in supporting Prop 8 to begin with was an ugly incursion into secular politics. Further, the LDS leaders who said that the Supreme Court interfered with the civic rights of the citizens of California was also wrong. There should never have even been a vote on Prop 8, since at its most basic it was an attempt by a majority of citizens to impose their will on a minority of citizens' rights. That is why, during the debate and legislation on interracial marriage, it never came to a vote of the citizens to impose its will on a minority of other citizens. There's more at stake in this debate on Same Sex marriage than redefining "traditional marriage" as between one man and one woman; it's allowing the tyranny of the majority to vote on the rights of the minority.

TheProudDuck
Newport Beach, CA

Equal protection requires the government to treat like situations alike. While there are similarities between same-sex and opposite-sex couplings, there are also differences. While we *could* choose to treat the two different situations alike, the Constitution does not require us to. (And today's limited procedural decision does not require that we do.)

For myself, I'm starting to think that state-regulated marriage is an obsolete relic of the age before birth control, abortion and no-fault divorce. There is no longer much of a reason for secular government to get its grubbby mitts on the institution -- and frankly, I would rather today's corrupt, deceitful, lawless politicians stay as far away from marriage as possible. They are not worthy to touch it. Leave it to us quaint religious fanatics, where the politicians and corrupt judges can't do it any more damage.

Oh, and John Roberts has the backbone of a sea anemone.

OutsideUT
Lilburn, GA

If these cases were simply about two adults choosing a particular lifestyle, it wouldn’t matter to me. However, we are already seeing lawsuits against people who don’t want to support gay marriage. The State of Washington is suing Barronelle Stutzman because she politely declined to sell flowers for a friend’s gay marriage. Another church in MA is being sued because it declined to be rented for a gay marriage. The list goes on.

How long do you think it will be until there is a lawsuit in California because the LDS church won’t perform a gay marriage in its temple? These are real cases happening right now. These cases have very little to do with equality, my gay friends are very well protected in their civil unions and I support them in that.

As long as “equality” is defined as “do it my way or else” this will not end well for anyone who tries to maintain their individual rights to run a business/church/organization according to the dictates of their conscience.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Thank god the USA isnt' a theocracy.

mishi
San Francisco, CA

Re: OutsideUT

Sorry, but anyone running a public business has to adhere to anti-discrimination laws. Selling flowers and providing a rental space open to the public are covered by civil rights law. That's very different from a religious organization being forced to alter whatever prejudices it might cherish and perform ceremonies against its will.

(Though, let's face it, organized religion IS a business.)

Wyomex
Burlington, WY

Isaac Bashevis Singer, a Nobel Laureate, wrote a book entitled "The Fools of Chelm and Their History." In one story, the town was experiencing a shortage of sour cream. The town leaders decided to call 'water' 'sour cream' and 'sour cream' 'water.' That year, there was no shortage of sour cream, but water ran short.

When words are redefined, particularly words that have deep moral or spiritual meaning to individuals, the redefinitions are difficult to swallow. We now think of the words gay, rainbow, closet and coming out differently than we used to. We have to swallow the big pill now - "marriage" doesn't mean what it used to.

The Fools were right after all.

Wilf 55
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

"... traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children".

Proven? When one looks at the history of mankind, its crimes, wars, and genocides, perpetrated by men who in most cases also grew up in traditional families, that statement is difficult to prove. Of course, loving parents will have a good influence on children, but loving parents can also be a same-sex couple devoted to each other's well-being and their children if they chose to have them.

I am willing to listen to good arguments against same-sex marriage, but unsubstantiated statements about history and fear-mongering about the future are not convincing.

HappyHeathen
Puyallu, Wa.

“this will not end well for anyone who tries to maintain their individual rights to run a business/church/organization according to the dictates of their conscience.”

Some lunch counter owners used that same argument a few years back and Barronelle Stutzman is running a place of business not a church or private organization.

Jim n' Puyallup

The Hammer
lehi, utah

So does the constitution not protect ones conscience? Do I not reserve the right to do business with whom I choose? Since when does the government reserve the right to punish me for not selling goods to a group I find immoral and wrong? When that happens the government has taken the position to be an authoritarian and not a protector of free association according the 1st amendment. This ruling today on proposition 8 was complete folly. The ability of a people to demand their leaders uphold the rule of law is vital to good order. This ruling will set horrible precedent for the future as governors decide to ignore legislation or voter will just because they don't like the law. Gay marriage will now shove themselves down everyone's throat at will without anyone being able to object to their moral depravity and sickening practices.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

The Hammer:
"Do I not reserve the right to do business with whom I choose?" No, you don't. I grew up in Mississippi and Louisiana at a time when the school districts were being forcibly integrated. Your argument is the same they used then to deny service to interracial couples, buses to black students, and books to black school districts.
"Since when does the government reserve the right to punish me for not selling goods to a group I find immoral and wrong?" Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Discrimination is against the law whether it is because you are black, gay, Mormon, or an adulterer. You don't get to impose your religion on everyone else by force of law. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. You are just upset that you can't deny others that same right.

"A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed" Deuteronomy 22:13-21

(See, I can quote scriptures too. When do we make this a law?)

E.S
Bountiful, UT

Being LDS myself I just believe we should be respectful one with another, no matter our opinion on the case.

J in AZ
San Tan Valley, AZ

Law is the lowest common denominator of behavior. What is legal does not have to be either moral or ethical. This is why we find the courts issuing decisions like this.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

We live in a democracy - by the will of the majority of the people - unless of course an unelected activist judge decides to overrule the will of the people and then we don't. For all those liberals who love the decision I would ask you to read Judge Anthony Scalia's opposing opinion. Pretty scathing and very detailed and specific regarding how BIG government continues to stomp on the very core fabric of our republic. You don't have to agree but at least read it.

to comment

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