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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
New York, NY

I am both saddened and dismayed at LDS Church response to this matter. Regardless of any moral stance anyone may have on this issue, there is a glaring misstatement in Scott Trotter's comments. The SCOTUS did not in fact rule that supporters of California's Proposition 8 "lacked the legal standing to bring this case to court," rather that they lacked the legal standing to bring the case to the SUPREME court.

Contrary to Mr. Trotter and the LDS Church, I believe that there is NOT "something fundamentally wrong [with the government]" in this situation as SCOTUS has acted exactly as it was designed to operate; it allowed California the jurisdiction over its own law where it did not contradict any federal statute. It also protected one group of its citizenry by striking down discriminatory legislation brought by another.

I am ashamed that the church would act as a sore loser in this case. It should champion the legal process and feel free to avail itself of that process. After all, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law". - Twelfth Article of Faith, Joseph Smith

Persecution is not Mormon.

Omaha, NE

I hope that this doesn't mean that those who believe in gay marriage can force priests or bishops to perform a gay marriage. Are we going to have the National Guard show up at some cathedral or church building and force the minister at gunpoint to do something against deeply held beliefs?

We'll soon see I suspect. When you and I disagree on some moral issue, can you force me to do something that you don't agree with? Can I force you?

Mission Viejo, CA

“Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.”
This is because they've been misinformed. The State was the defendant at the circuit court. The proponents of the case, at the time, said they didn't even want the State defending Prop 8 because they didn't trust them. The State let the proponents take over the defense. However they lost. At this point, the State was still the defendant. Proponents of a measure, as unelected citizens only represent their own interests, not the State's. The State still has the right, as any defendant did, of choosing whether to appeal. They chose not to. That is well within a State's right and responsibility to do so. If the State felt they would lose on appeal, it would be incorrect to pursue the appeal. There is nothing wrong with how the system in California and SCOTUS resolved this. (Except it being entirely to easy to pass a Constitutional amendment on a simple majority vote.)

Lilburn, GA

“You don't get to impose your religion on everyone else by force of law.” Actually, that’s exactly what you are arguing. I’m a Georgia native and understand well the reasoning behind anti-discrimination acts, and while I agree with the spirit of the acts the laws themselves are fundamentally flawed.

You are arguing that as a business owner I should be forced to do what someone else thinks I should. Regardless of the belief system that motivates you, this is wrong. You are using power of government to force your opinions and beliefs on me. This is why a theocracy is such a bad idea.

This is why I fully support protection for gay unions, but am completely opposed to gay marriage. One allows for full legal protection for something that, while I personally don’t approve of it, doesn't force itself on me. The latter is already being used in combination with anti-discrimination laws to punish me as a business owner.

You can't say you believe in “equality” and “freedom” while at the same time supporting laws that force me to believe as you do.

Cedar Hills, UT

This is sort of like Obamacare. When Obamacare was first rammed down our throats most folks were angry especially with the corrupt process but they really didn't see how Obamacare was going to effect them personally...in a negative way. Now all that is changed and people are now feeling the pain of Obamacare from sky high premiums to dropped coverage to employer sanctions to the gutting of Medicare and on and on...

I predict that same sex marriage is going eclipse anything we have ever experienced in our society from our founding ...in a very ugly and negative way. Just wait. Those who fear that BIG GOVERNMENT and activist judges are going to force core Christian principles to be discarded and do so in a heavy handed way are right to fear. Right now people are going on with their lives and not really feeling the soon to come after shocks of this decision and almost certain other court decisions which will follow. A prominent Gay activist stated this year that THE real goal of gay marriage is to eliminate marriage as an institution. Make no mistake ... this is the real goal of the left.

Lilburn, GA


You can say you believe in “equality” and “freedom” while at the same time supporting laws that force me to believe as you do or face loss of property and imprisonment. If I want to refuse service to red heads I should be able to do that and then let the market place decide if I should stay in business. Threatening me with huge fines and jail time because I don’t want to sell flowers to someone is no different than having to live under sharia law in a Muslim country.

Elmo, UT

No one has ever answered this question for me. Why is government involved at all in marriage? I see nothing in the constitution discussing marriage. On a state level why do we have marriage licences and other things? As an LDS member, ANY marriage not under the covenant, is only for this life anyway. So why do I care who marry's who outside of my religious belief? I really don't understand what the big deal is.
As for marriage on a civil level, I find it amusing that heterosexuals are not marrying at the same rate and they push for divorce, yet Lgbt's want to get married...

Bob Pomeroy
Bisbee, AZ

Wyomex: and which are the fools? Those that recognize the facts and ask ritual to conform, or those who wish to conform reality to the ritual? I think secular law should adopt to practices which are de facto, leaving non-secular matters to be advocated without the force of law. it leaves coercion as the state's monopoly, and protects freedom of persuasion.

Mission Viejo, CA

Hamath, have you ever seen the National Guard ever force a priest or bishop force anyone to perform any marriage? No? That's because it won't ever happen. We have the First Amendment in this country. It gives religions all the cover they need. If that weren't the case, the Church couldn't restrict access to the temples to members. Please don't let irrational fear live your life for you.

Buffalo, WY

Anyone wonder why President Monson changed the ages for Missionary Service ?? Its times like these that give us reason to appreciate divine revelation.

Mount Pleasant, UT

Has anyone noticed how all the important issues are being denigrated by the present Administration and liberals(democrats)? And of course we couldn't expect anything different when you have two homosexual judges on the court with this last decision.that wasn't too hard to figure. Our wonderful country is slowing going down the tube and it's disheartening to believe day by day we are losing our God-given rights and it doesn't seem to bother our present Administration or those attached to their hip. It's so sad.

Here, UT

Hamath says:

'When you and I disagree on some moral issue, can you force me to do something that you don't agree with? Can I force you?'


Isn't that what Prop-8 & Amendment 3 do? Force others who don't agree with you to live by your version of "standards"? Your argument is hypocritical since you obviously believe it is okay to force LGBT citizens to adhere to your standards.

Heber City, UT

I disagree strongly with Michael Otterson's comment about the system working. The court's job has done exactly what they are supposed to do - provided oversight over legislative overreach. If a simple majority vote is all it takes, then Mormons would have been permanently evicted from Kansas, non-mormons would be voted out of Utah and Michigan fans wouldn't be allowed to travel into Ohio :)

It's ironic that he wants to erroneously claim the 1000 year history of man-woman marriages while conveniently forgetting about the history of plural marriages.

This is the another important step in what will one day be viewed as the only appropriate way to treat people...and for those clawing to keep the "status quo", well, that's just fun to watch.

West Valley City, UT

It’s about evolving as people. Yes the Bible says between a man and woman but the bible also says things agreeing with sex slavery in (Exodus 21: 7-8) and cannibalism in (II Kings 6:28-29). Why is it that the churches can pick and choose what to agree with and not to in the bible? It’s not going to hurt anybody that they get equal rights, (Unless the homophobes have a heart attack).

broomfield, CO

Catholic, Mormon, Jew and Evangelical have spoken. Does anyone wonder what Muslims think of this? I think they don't even allow any Muslim to BE gay, say nothing of "married"! Will the SCOTUS be making a 'decision' on that in the future?

Cedar Hills, UT

So here is a thought that one of the more liberal Supreme Court Justices introduced a few months ago as the hearings and oral arguments took place. If we allow same sex marriage based on non-discrimination then why not polygamy as well? The lawyer for gay marriage was stunned by this suggestion and had no reply. Yes sir - by the EXACT same argument polygamy should be allowed in America. A man should be able to have 30 wives and visa versa. The road ahead - as you can see - is going to be dark and ugly for our children and grand children.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Hamath said: I hope that this doesn't mean that those who believe in gay marriage can force priests or bishops to perform a gay marriage. Are we going to have the National Guard show up at some cathedral or church building and force the minister at gunpoint to do something against deeply held beliefs?

Did they show up to force the church to admit blacks into the temple?

Outside You are free to be a bigot if you wish.

Bob Pomeroy
Bisbee, AZ

utah1966: No. Religions are not affected by the decision, which pertains only to governmental action.

Beverly Allen
Los Angeles, CA

Fashn4LaDiS is right. There is a disturbing trend of National disasters following the descriptions in Leviticus 26, for people who break God's laws. He created those laws to protect families, and unless we want to experience another destruction like Noah'a Ark days, or Soddom and Gommorah, we'd best uphold his laws. 1 Corinthians 11:11 does say, "Neither is the man without the woman, in the Lord."

Elk River, MN

Maybe Christians will start to wake up and realize that they shouldn't be looking for the state to define marriage. Of course, it's no business of the state anyway. A better response from the churches would have been, "Ho hum. We really don't care what the state says. This is between our congregations and God." In this respect, the LDS response wasn't too bad. Paraphrased: "Marriage and families are important. We're going to continue doing what we think is right." Not bad.

to comment

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