Quantcast
Faith

LDS, Catholic and other religious leaders react to DOMA, Prop 8 Supreme Court rulings

Comments

Return To Article
  • Kathy. Iowa, Iowa
    July 4, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    LDS Liberal

    Gay couples are sterile 100% of the time.

    The only time gays have children is with the introduction of opposite gender material.

    2 sperm do not make a human 2 eggs do not make a human.

    Biology 101.

    Gays that have anything to do with a child comes from a heterosexual union. There is always at least one opposite gender individual's material.

    That is the law of human biology.

    End of story.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    This post is an open letter to all state legislators.

    If you really believe in keeping government out of our lives and in reducing government regulation of personal matters, please give serious consideration to ending regulation of marriage. We have a republic form of government. We do not have a theocracy. It is not good for legislators to pass laws that favor particular religious views, even if those views have moral applications and are "from God". Focus your attention on laws that protect the civil liberties of all people, but do it such that that your laws do not involve regulation of our personal lives. To be married or not is a personal matter and is not part of our civil liberties.

    To all readers of this post: Contact your state and federal legislators and express your views on government regulation of marriage. They represent you, so be sure they know how you feel about this matter.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    I've been thinking about having government withdraw from the marriage business. This would be a difficult/slow path to follow, because I suspect there are many laws that involve marriage. Here are my current thoughts, as a starter for discussion.

    1. Create civil unions. According to an article I read about marriage, there are only two states that have civil unions. This is an opportunity for Utah to become the third state. Government needs to be involved in civil liberties to protect the rights of all people, and civil unions would allow government to provide that protection outside the bounds of marriage.

    2. Once civil unions are in place and provide the protections currently provided by marriage, laws that regulate marriage can be changed to transfer that protection to civil unions. Eventually, all laws regulating marriage would be gone, and the government would finally be out of the marriage business, allowing social groups, including churches, to define marriage however they wish.

    3. Elimination of government marriage licenses and regulation of people who conduct marriages would be gone.

    4. Persons could use definitions of marriage as part of the reasons they choose to be members of particular social groups.

  • wazzup Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 2, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    So lets assume God were on the Supreme Court, would he have voted in favor of gay marriage? Real simple question. I look forward to the responses. :)

  • plainbrownwrapper mid-state, TN
    July 2, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    @Guy --

    "The one that said above that homosexuality is not "against nature" blew me away."

    Many non-human species are known to exhibit homosexual behaviors on a regular basis. By definition, therefore, homosexual behaviors are not unnatural and not against nature.

    If you're truly interested, Google "homosexual behaviors non-human species" (without the quotation marks, obviously). You'll find lots of eye-opening info.

    "So how is it "not against nature" if by exercising homosexuality to it's fullest extent, the species in question COMPLETELY becomes extinct in ONE generation?"

    If humanity exercises celibacy to its "fullest extent", humanity will also become extinct in one generation. Nonetheless, celibacy is revered amongst the religiously devout.

    Obviously, this "fullest extent" standard is meaningless in analyzing human conduct.

    @Fiannan --

    "I cannot see how polygamy will not be the next marriage rights issue. "

    This has been discussed previously in other threads, but here's the very shortest version: polygamy and incest cause an increased risk of harm. Courts recognize this, and they are able to distinguish these behaviors from homosexuality.

    There are excerpts from relevant court cases in the "Nationalized same-sex marriage is inevitable" thread right now, if you're interested.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    July 2, 2013 2:31 a.m.

    Outside Ut: No one is forcing you to believe anything. Or change your lifestyle. Or to stop hating. The people of the LGBT community do not have the same rights as Americans as you do and they just want the right to love. They really don't care what you believe.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    July 1, 2013 5:23 p.m.

    In reply to Outside Utah, I think you need to get your facts straight. The florist in Washington state, Stutzman refused to serve Ingersoll, a customer of nine years, in early March when he came in to order flowers for his wedding. There is a law that states any customer, under the consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws, has the right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    July 1, 2013 4:26 p.m.

    Read many of these comments on here.

    Man!, what a bunch of clueless people there are. The one that said above that homosexuality is not "against nature" blew me away.

    So how is it "not against nature" if by exercising homosexuality to it's fullest extent, the species in question COMPLETELY becomes extinct in ONE generation? How is THAT "not against nature"?

    Absolutely un-friggin' real....

  • Fiannan Eugene, Oregon
    July 1, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    Okay, for the life of me I cannot see how polygamy will not be the next marriage rights issue. Note what this anthropologist suggests: ("Polygamy: the next Marriage Rights Frontier.Unlock the Door").If we set laws based on the idea that what people say they want, and also that these people claim to want an "alternative lifestyle" family how can we say no to them? If George and Pedro can marry and Robert, Natasha and Anna can't? This is certainly going to get interesting.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    July 1, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    For you folks quoting Scripture trying to prove your point just stop. We all know there are numerous Scriptures on both sides of the issue that can be quoted to support their argument.

    Although it's a worn out statement, just ask yourself "What would God do?" "What would Jesus do?". You ask yourself that question and the answer becomes pretty clear.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    July 1, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    RE: Wyominguy:

    I hate to burst your bubble Wyomingguy but changing the age of the missionary requirement has nothing to do with this. It dose however have every thing to do with numbers and dollars. The ages were bumped up so young people would not go to college and drift away from the church. The number of Missionaries they had in the field was at an all time low before the change. As you can see this "Devine Revelation" has, to this point, been a solution.

    More Missionaries = More Members = More Dollars. Pretty easy to figure out.

    Just think, our Church (yes I am an very inactive member) will now have more money to use on political causes! Especially ones in which they have no dog in the fight.

    What's weird about this particular case is that the Church believes any marriage preformed outside of Temple walls is a marriage not recognized by God. By their logic you would think they would fight to make ALL marriages outside of the Temple illegal? Why are they just targeting the Gay's?

    Things that go hummm??

    I will fight on the side that fights for equality for all of GODS children.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 11:51 a.m.

    (continued from previous post)

    Luke 17:28-32 -- This one is about Sodom -- and Sodom is more about arrogance and inhospitality than about homosexuality.
    -- "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. " (Ezekiel 16.49)

    Matthew 10:15 -- Sodom again. Jesus is specifically referring to inhospitality.
    --"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." (Matthew 10:14)

    Matthew 11:24 -- Sodom again. Jesus is specifically referring to impenitence.
    -- "Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.... ” (Matthew 11:20-24)

    Mark 6:11 -- neither sex nor Sodom are even mentioned here, but Jesus is once again referring to inhospitality.
    -- "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them." (Mark 6:11)

    Sorry, but it's still true: Jesus never said a word against homosexuality.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    @Avnett --

    "any action against nature (including humanity), must be viewed by it's ultimate conclusion. "

    The problem with your argument is that homosexuality is NOT against nature. In fact, various homosexual behaviors can be found in many non-human species out in nature. Therefore, by definition, homosexual behaviors are in fact "natural".

    "If tomorrow morning we all wake up gay, humanity ends in one generation"

    If tomorrow morning we all wake up women, humanity ends in one generation. Does that make women evil?

    In fact, homosexuals will always represent a very small part of the population. Therefore, they offer absolutely no risk to the continuance of mankind.

    @ACurtis --

    Sorry, but Jesus doesn't even **mention** homosexuality in any of the passages you cited. Most of your cited passages are actually referring to Sodom -- and specifically talking about the inhospitality and impenitence of Sodom, not anything about sex.

    Matthew 19:4 -- This is a statement of the Creation, not a condemnation of homosexuality.

    John 5:46-47 -- This one doesn't even mention sex at all.

    continued in next post, if I can get it posted!

  • crunchem Cedar City, Utah
    July 1, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    What if a cake shop owner served a gay couple, but used their first amendment rights to chastise the lgbt customer, to the point that the customer may just walk out and refuse to be served? If said owner has such deep convictions to "make a statement" by trying to refuse service, can't this be accomplished in other ways?

    And if the customer refuses to be insulted and continues with the transaction, owner could always take the money and then tell the customer "I refuse to profit by helping the success of what I feel is deplorable. Therefore all monies you give me for service, which the law apparently requires me to accept, will be donated to my favorite charity" Then said owner places the money in a big jar labeled American Family Association or Save the Orphans or whatever.

    Would be interesting to see what the ramifications of this passive aggressive resistance would be.

  • Avnett Ogden, UT
    July 1, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Unfortunately this is not a religious issue as the majority in this forum are attempting to force. The application of scientific litmus, concludes that any action against nature (including humanity), must be viewed by it's ultimate conclusion. If it is wrong for all, then it is wrong for one. This includes murder, abortion, and homosexuality, among many others. If tomorrow morning we all wake up, walk out of our homes and murder one person, the conclusion is obvious. If every conception is aborted, humanity ends in one generation. If tomorrow morning we all wake up gay, humanity ends in one generation, (the latter two examples may be a bit less obvious to the dolt among us). Moral or immoral, it remains a simple, mathematical fact. One more fact: "Where there is no law, there is chaos". You may comment in opposition, but in fact, that would be futile..

  • ACurtis Chicago, IL
    July 1, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    I know many times we say if Jesus said it I would do it. The truth of the matter is we all come short of his glory that's why he has grace for us to hopefully get it right. For those that is trying re-write God's word to fit your lifestyle, shame on you. God does speak against homosexuality here is Jesus speaking Matthew 19:4, John 5:46-47, Luke 17:28-32; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Mark 6:11. Will this change your thoughts probably not but when it's all said and done we will all die and we will face his judgment. Hope this helps someone. I love all God's people but I have to hate the sin even my owns.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 30, 2013 5:13 p.m.

    The ad infinitum discussion here is nauseous. Anyone that can't read scripture, use common sense, or understand nature is not going to be persuaded by a reasoned analysis of the most bewildering development in the history of mankind, including a cult-like following of so-called 'tolerant' minded supporters that don't seem to have a clue as why it is important to defend the institution of marriage.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 30, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    @zoar --

    "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female..."

    That isn't a commandment against being homosexual.

    It's simply a statement congruent with the nonexistent reproductive technologies of Biblical times.

    "the admonition for men to cleave to other men does not seem to be included in this scripture."

    Of course not. The folks back then didn't have artificial insemination, they didn't have surrogacy, they didn't even have much adoption.

    Airplanes aren't mentioned in the Bible, either. Are airplanes evil?

    @A Guy With A Brain --

    You're the one who's wrong here.

    From LegalZoom -- "public accommodation" means any business open to the public --

    "The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
    [....]
    In addition..., many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference."

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    June 30, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    @ 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......"

    How do I say this?

    Wrong!

    A private business is a PRIVATE business. People 'need' homes and so laws were enacted to outlaw discriminating against selling someone your home due to their race. However, no one 'needs' flowers for a wedding. The problem with your side is you lack common sense and respect....your side is drowning with a "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine, too" attitude.

    How long, Lord, how long?....

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    June 30, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    Both the LDS church AND the Catholic church took firm stands against homosexual 'marriage'.

    And yet the VAST MAJORITY of these negative comments are directed solely towards the LDS church.

    Why is that?

    Oh, wait a minute. I remember now....it's because liberals only hate Mormons.

    Got it.....

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 30, 2013 2:00 a.m.

    @Contrarius
    "There is no commandment which says "thou shalt not be homosexual".

    Mark 10:6-9
    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
    And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
    What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    There is only one way to for a man and a woman to become one flesh. But the admonition for men to cleave to other men does not seem to be included in this scripture. “Thou shalt not be homosexual” would have been a redundant commandment.

  • Piret Clifton, NJ
    June 29, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    Why are those who oppose changing the Marriage Law accused of hating homosexuals? Changing the law has already led to hatred and discrimination towards those opposed to homosexual marriage. People in California whose names were published as donors to anti-Proposition * campaigns were fired from their jobs, were publicly vilified, were the subject of all kinds of hatreds and prejudices. It woks both ways you know. And do you really want to see the words "father" and "mother" disappear from our language.m as they have disappeared from the birth certificate in Canada, to be replaced by "parent 1" and "parent 2"? What do those expressions mean? Nothing.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 29, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    @Rick LT

    "If would seem that for many of these liberal denominations, the "go along - get along" philosophy is more important than God's commandments."

    There is no commandment which says "thou shalt not be homosexual".

  • Rick LT GLENDALE, AZ
    June 29, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    If would seem that for many of these liberal denominations, the "go along - get along" philosophy is more important than God's commandments. The Episcopals have already seen what the "can't we all just get along?" philosophy has done to their faith.....split it right down the middle.

  • LordPillsbury Mcminnville, OR
    June 29, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    From the Orthodox Jewish statement- “Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process..."

    Interestingly enough, the other Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 speaks opposite of the statement from the Orthodox Jewish representative. Indeed, the decision on social policy remain with appointed courts and not the people (democratic process)!

  • BoMerit Alpine, UT
    June 29, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    I agree with Judge Scalia's dissent: we are now waiting for the second shoe to drop on the states. What happened in this decision was the ascendancy of the federal over the states. This was not a trial balloon in which the Executive and Judiciary were testing the resolve of the sovereignty of the states - this was the Judiciary (with the willing relinquishment of the power of the Executive in order to accomplish a Monarchical objective) telling the States to prepare for the federal boot on the State's necks tomorrow - and it will come soon. A very sad day indeed.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 28, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    Patriot,

    Where are you getting your information that we live in a democracy?

    We live in a Republic.

    Read the Constitution.

    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4).

    The other question that I have for you - why do you keep using the term "liberals" as if it were a bad thing?

    This country, after all, allows for freedom of political expression.

    When the courts ruled in favor of banning same-sex marriage in California, I don't recall once, not once, that includes you, of calling the judges activist judges --- or is it only when they rule in a way you do not agree with?

    By the way, this is not the first time that judges nullify what you call "the will of the people."

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 28, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    @Serenity --

    "Homosexuality is not natural; in fact it is an abhorrence in nature"

    A variety of homosexual behaviors can easily be found in non-human animals out in nature. Therefore, by definition, these behaviors are NOT unnatural.

    "What boggles my mind is how can they have a marriage without performing unnatural acts?"

    The very same acts enjoyed by many homosexuals (not all, by the way) are also enjoyed by many heterosexuals.

    Are you ready to deny marriage to heterosexual couples who enjoy these acts?

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 28, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "So I guess it was okay for the rich man to worship other gods..."

    You need to study your Gospels more closely.

    "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matthew 22:37)

    That takes care of at least three of the commandments you're worried about.

    As for the Sabbath -- You should already know that NOT keeping the Sabbath as the Pharisees thought they should was one of the things that got Jesus AND his disciples into trouble! (for example Mark 3, also Matthew 12)

    "Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)

    "He said to them, 'If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:11-12)

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    June 27, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    @ Heretic.
    I'm glad you clarified the story. I didn't know it was a rental property and that the priests weren't forced to conduct the service. I don't know if that changes the problem of suing some religious organization to force it to use it's rental property to allow something that they fundamentally oppose and disagree with. But I'm glad that they weren't forced to participate in it. I hope that it stays that way, that is, I hope that people are not forced to do things against their own conscience.

    I guess I'm spewing hate... not sure how. By claiming I am spewing hate, are you?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 8:05 p.m.

    The bringing up of the marriages in a church issue ignores where the real religious freedom issues will lie.

    They will lie in the rights of individuals to run their companies how they chose. One does not give up the right to practice their religion when they start a business. A photographer, a cake maker and a florist must have the right to run their businesses in line with their religious beliefs.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 27, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    @amazondoc

    "Jesus himself never said a word against homosexuality.
    Homosexuality is never even mentioned in the Gospels"

    "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."
    (Mark 10:19)

    So I guess it was okay for the rich man to worship other gods, make and bow down to graven images, take the Lord’s name in vain and not keep the Sabbath seeing as Jesus did not mention those.

    In fact Jesus never mentions keeping those remaining four anywhere in the gospels.
    On the sermon on the mount, the ten commandments are not even brought up. Maybe the reason Jesus never said anything about homosexuality is it was common knowledge among the Jewish people that it was a sin. And why would he say anything about homosexuality if the people already knew that? Since they did observe the law of Moses.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 8:00 p.m.

    The issues involved in not providing good to same sex marraiges are nnot about "not selling goods to a group I find immoral". It would help if people would articulate the issues more clearly.

    The issue is about being forced to proactively participate in a ceremony that someone finds affirming a wrong view. The florist in Washington regularly and willingly sold flowers to openly homosexual people. However, being the floral designer for a ceremony that would celebrate and normalize a relationship she religiously objected to was too much and she was not willing to do it.

    The issue is about participating in ceremonies that affirm what one finds morally wrong.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 7:56 p.m.

    The claims that the ruling today were the result of the democratic process are just plain false.

    The rulings today were the result of judges usurping the democratic process.

    If the judges would leave these decisions to the vote of the people and the legislature as it should be, there would be a lot less acrimony involved. People would recognize that they need to reason on these issues, instead of speaking in such vitriolic and hateful rhetoric.

  • utah1966 broomfield, CO
    June 27, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    The Federal government defined "marriage" long ago, in that Mormons could not practice polygamy if they wanted to become a state, and therefore, a citizen of U.S. It really messes up their system of taxation, the rules which THEY set. Another reason to pass the consumer sales tax by Fairtax dot com. NO special deal for anyone. Pay as you spend on new goods.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 4:55 p.m.

    @patriot
    Cedar Hills, UT

    "We live in a democracy - by the will of the majority of the people - unless of course...."
    4:02 p.m. June 26, 2013

    [I'll remember how silly that comment is each and every time I remember that GWBush was selected by the SCOTUS, and lost the Democratically popular vote and will of the people.]

    ==========

    Kathy.
    8:42 p.m. June 26, 2013
    Iowa, Iowa

    "Gay couples are sterile 100% of the time. It is impossible for them to reproduce."

    [That comment is so full of holes I don't even know where to begin...
    Sterile? No.
    Not only possible, but most of the gay parents I know reproduced their own children

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "But they provide scriptures about love And forgiveness yet ignore Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality."

    We don't "ignore" it at all. We simply acknowledge that Paul was a mortal, fallible man.

    Paul also supported slavery. (for example Col 3:22)

    Paul also thought that women were inferior to men. (for example 1 Cor 14:34)

    Paul also told everyone that nobody should ever get divorced -- he didn't even make exceptions for infidelity, even though Jesus did. (for example 1 Cor 7:10-11)

    Paul also told everyone that it was better to stay single than to marry. (for example 1 Cor 7:38)

    Do you truly believe that all of these things were "speaking as if Christ was speaking for himself"?

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    I guess I simply don't understand that when something that used to be completely morally wrong and socially unacceptable all of the sudden becomes right and acceptable. Homosexuality is not natural; in fact it is an abhorrence in nature but now, in our country, it is the law to accept it and to give it the denominator of a union between a man and a woman or marriage. What boggles my mind is how can they have a marriage without performing unnatural acts? They can't. Yet they insist on calling these unnatural acts an act of love?

    Equally mind-boggling is that the highest court of the land accepts this and makes it law that we all must accept their judgment. We must all say that it is good because the Supreme Court of the United States says it's lawful and thus good and that all the people in the land must accept it as such.

    I think I have to go flush my mind of all my old beliefs so I can accept the new laws of our land. Or maybe not.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    re:UtahBlueDevil

    "No - we live in a democracy where the rights of the minority classes of people are protected against populist versions of government"

    Do you really understand the meaning of a democracy UtahBlueDevil? I don't think you do. As I suggested earlier, please read Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia's opinion. Never in the history the United States have the rights of the many been so trampled on by the desires of the few. Yes the few "unelected" and "activist" judges who use their bench to undo the democratic process as did happen in California with prop 8. You cheer the gay decision and other liberal rulings but remember the shoe could very well be on the other foot where far right groups pressure certain judges to "undo" the democratic process and vote of the people on certain liberal issues which pass by the vote of the people. I 100% guarantee if that happens you will be the first to cry "UNFAIR"!! Am I right? The ONLY thing that the democratic process has to unsure is that the law is constitutional ..but today it more...it is does this law fit the political view of the few.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 27, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    Those who support same sex marriage accuse those who oppose it of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible they will follow. But they provide scriptures about love And forgiveness yet ignore Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. Many of us here believe Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ and as the Lord’s representative he was speaking as if Chirst was speaking for himself. Paul’s warning should not be taken lightly. and as it says in Ezekiell

    So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.
    When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man], thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
    Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
    (Ezek 33:7-9)
    Paul was acting as a watchman.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    @TRUTH --

    "NAMBLA and polygamy..."

    Here we go again.

    1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens. Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal freedoms.
    -- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for years now.

    2. adult incest (adult siblings, adult parent/children) -- it's illegal in every state, again because of public safety. Not only is there still a question of undue influence/coercion amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is very high (roughly 30-40%).
    -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent court cases, both in Federal and state courts, which have very clearly and uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest.

    3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't be removed.

    4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety.

    The courts can easily distinguish between these different practices -- even if you can't.

  • TNChristopher Kingsport, TN
    June 27, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    HPR

    I wouldn't call a 5-4 vote a strong argument for the unconstitutionality of Prop 8. It boiled down to one person's opinion.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 27, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar – “Don't you think people… are picking and choosing only certain passages of scripture by which to live?”

    That’s fair – but the point is EVERYBODY picks and chooses from the Bible and no one today follows it 100% - I assume no believer today owns non-Israelite slaves, sells their own daughters into slavery, stones them if they are not virgins on their wedding night, or kills their children when they talk back.

    My point (as “amazondoc” made so well) is why does the Religious Right get so up in arms about homosexuality when it’s not even one of the Big Ten? To me, it suggests that for many (present company excluded) religion is simply a cover for bigotry.

    Regarding the “lifestyle” I think it is fair game to call out certain “fast & loose” behaviors, and while the gay community no doubt has its fair share, I think most gays are just like you and me – they have jobs, own homes, in some cases raise children, and are otherwise good citizens.

    What they do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not one bit my business…

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 12:32 p.m.

    @Blue AZ --

    "Don't you think people who support same-sex marriage, who also claim to be religious, are picking and choosing only certain passages of scripture by which to live?"

    Here's what the Bible argument boils down to:

    1. The Old Testament Mosaic laws were replaced by the New Covenant.
    2. There is no commandment saying "thou shalt not be homosexual".
    3. Jesus himself never said a word against homosexuality.
    4. Homosexuality is never even mentioned in the Gospels, except for one passage in which Jesus acknowledges -- WITHOUT condemnation -- that some men are "born eunuchs" (see other threads for why "eunuch" can include homosexuals in ancient texts) and that such men should not marry women.
    5. Paul didn't like homosexuals. Paul also supported slavery, believed that women were inferior to men, told everyone that nobody should ever get divorced, and insisted that it was better to remain single than to marry. He was a mortal, fallible man.
    6. Many religious people -- including Christians, Jews, and members of other faiths -- support gay rights, including gay marriage. They have no trouble reconciling the text of the Bible with recognizing the full citizenship of gay people.

  • hpr Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    @TNChristopher: Obviously you did not read other posts. The fact is that the majority does NOT have the right to pass laws that violate the Constitution. Some of you just don't seem to be able to understand that. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to:

    Settle disputes between states.

    Hear appeals from state and federal courts.

    Determine the constitutionality of federal laws.

    Pay attention to that last one. DOMA was unconstitutional. Prop 8 was an appeal that the groups who opposed a lower courts determination had no right to take to the Supreme Court so it was turned back to the lower court's decision.

    Not rocket science and not hard to understand if you will just put your religion where it belongs and not use it as a basis for law.

  • funny_guy Vacaville, CA
    June 27, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    Hutterite said ... "no church is being forced to give anything up" NOT YET ANYWAY!

    Even the Hutterite lifestyle is not immune from bureaucratic domination. History is repeating itself and many sit around saying, "It doesn't affect me so why should I care." Not until the Gestapo comes knocking on your door, then it will be too late to do anything about it.

  • TNChristopher Kingsport, TN
    June 27, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    For those who keep harping on the churches that voiced their opinions in the Prop 8 vote, may I remind you that no church hss a vote but they certainly have the right to voice their views. Only individuals can step into that voting booth and vote according to their conscience. And their vote is secret...they are not beholden to how a church or any other organization says they should vote.

    Apparently the courts don't respect the right of individual citizens to vote.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    Get ready...NAMBLA and polygamy are going to ride the coat tails of this ruling!! And Rightly so!

    They are no different than GLBTers!

  • Blue AZ Cougar ,
    June 27, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    @Tyler D

    I see your point about a different moral standard, that's a good point. However, I never said I based my moral views on a narrow interpretation of the Bible -- that was your assumption. In fact, I haven't quoted any scripture thus far, so I'm surprised you know what my views of the Bible are.

    I'm not sure you read my last comment in its entirety. I clearly said I have a responsibility to teach my kids respect for all people, regardless of their orientation. I believe that is in line with the passages of scripture you cited (e.g. compassion, love your neighbor, etc). That doesn't mean I have to agree with what that lifestyle or what everyone does, or throw a party when someone wants to trample on my religious views.

    Don't you think people who support same-sex marriage, who also claim to be religious, are picking and choosing only certain passages of scripture by which to live? Perhaps they haven't read Deuteronomy 23:17, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Isaiah 3:9, Romans 1:27, or Jude 1:7.

  • hpr Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska: The Supreme Court makes sure people follow the laws and the constitution. For those of you that I saw whining on television who said that every vote should count and the majority of people in California voted for Prop 8, I say, the peoples' votes should count unless they are voting in favor or against something that is in essence illegal/a violation of the constitutional rights. If you don't want to have your wishes overturned then don't try to pass a law that violates those rights. And if I hear one more person refer to God and his wishes or refer to marriage being between and man and a woman and God, I think I will scream. Are you trying to say that Atheists do not have the right to marry? Are you saying that Agnostics do not have the right to marry? What gives you the right to make those decisions and say who can or can't marry? What if suddenly someone had a revelation that we all had to love the same sex?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 27, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar – “I realize some people think that "moral and religious grounds" have no merit, but I believe they do.”

    You’re confusing the issue by implying that people who view this differently than you have no morals, when in fact they simply have a different moral standard.

    You chose to base your moral view on your religious views (e.g., a few obscure passages in the Bible) whereas other folks have a different moral basis – which by the way might be just as religious as yours (e.g., compassion, love your neighbor, tolerance of differences that cause me no harm, etc…).

    Perhaps something to think about – assuming your views are based on the Bible, why are you picking and choosing what passages to follow? Since it is one the “Big Ten” why aren’t you championing laws to close all businesses on Sunday or perhaps even throwing stones at your neighbor when he mows his lawn on a Sunday?

    Also, we should note that the Federal government is explicitly forbidden from championing your moral standards (that are religiously based) over others.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    For those who feel the so-called rights of the majority were trampled in the Supreme Court's decision on Prop. 8, a few thoughts: 1. If Prop. 8 were on the ballot today, it would almost certainly be defeated. 2. The governor and attorney general who decided not to defend Prop. 8 were also elected by majority vote. 3. Under the U.S. Constitution, we have individual rights--not rights of the majority. Otherwise, we'd end up with Southern States depriving minorities of rights and "Christian" voters forcing businesses to close on Sunday. (Oh, wait. That last thing does happen in Highland, Utah.)

  • Blue AZ Cougar ,
    June 27, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    @RanchHand

    I was trying to have a candid conversation about what my concerns are. I wasn't being facetious and I certainly wasn't denigrating anybody. I didn't, or at least wasn't trying, to use any hateful words. It seems to me that because you do not have the same concerns I do, somehow I'm not allowed to voice mine. Somehow my concerns are not important simply because you don't share the same view.

    Can you pause for just a second and consider that I disagree with same-sex marriage on moral grounds? And based on that, and based on how I would like to raise my kids, I find it a little concerning that they might be taught that same-sex marriage is OK despite the fact that I disagree with it on moral and religious grounds.

    I realize some people think that "moral and religious grounds" have no merit, but I believe they do. As I said in my original comment, I have the responsibility as a parent to teach my kids respect for all people, regardless of their orientation. I also have the right, though, to teach my kids about morals and religion.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    It is an issue about religious freedom, but maybe somebody should take into consideration the fact that gay people worship God also! They try and define us as evil and whatever else suits them, but they never consider our beliefs in God! Are we so stupid that we understand nothing?I have a right to believe that God created me the way I am. I have a right to relationships that help me live a better life! I have a right to stand up to any lie that is put out there concerning my life! He is our God as well as yours! I can not speak for all of you, but this has never been some joy ride or joke. This has been harder than people will ever know and I know that God is aware of all of it! All of it! What you do is wrong! What it does to others is something you can only know if you live it, but never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that LDS people would do these things. My beliefs in God are just as important! I have tried for years, but Mormons never listen!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    Hamath "@ Happy Heretic...Since I wrote my post, I read about a church being sued and losing because they wouldn't allow a gay marriage on their property. Is that good for your point of view? "

    Telling half a story changes ones point of view. I see you used the word "property" it's a rental property open to the public as in a "Business." The church leaders were not "Forced" to marry anyone as you also eluded to with "allow a gay marriage." and now you know the rest of the story.

    Your still free to voice your hatred, because I agree with free speech, I'm just more persuaded by the truth instead of clever editing.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    @kaysvillecougar;

    Denying LGBT couples the right to marry the person of their choice isn't "tolerance" or free speech, it's tyranny.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    @OutsideUT;

    Why should people have to choose a different florist than their favorite (the florist in question had been selling flowers to that particular gay couple for years) or choose a different baker than their favorite?

    Who is a better Christian, the gay couple who treats others the way they want to be treated or the "Christian" who REFUSES to follow the commandment Jesus himself gave them: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? I'd wager the gay couple are the better Christians.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar;

    I'm sorry, but please explain to me how it is "respectful" to denigrate an entire group of decent Americans by claiming you must "protect" the children from them?

    That isn't "respectful" in my book.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    June 27, 2013 4:53 a.m.

    @ Dan O,

    Read up on the Civil Rights Movement and how the National Guard was used there. Perhaps it was appropriate then or perhaps it wasn't. You should chose. However, there is history of the National Guard being used to force people to adhere to others beliefs.

    @ Ranch
    I'm talking about marriage as a religious ceremony. As far as the law goes, I see your point. Marriage was originally a religious ceremony and the gov't got involved for record keeping and tax purposes. So all sorts of ramifications are associated with it now. That doesn't change the fact that the ceremony is religious/moral to many people, priests and bishops, etc. Should they be forced to perform a marriage that they fundamentally don't believe it and believe is wrong?

    @ Happy Heretic...Since I wrote my post, I read about a church being sued and losing because they wouldn't allow a gay marriage on their property. Is that good for your point of view? It's wrong to the core. You church must not believe what you do because I disagree with you and I will force you to do otherwise.

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:44 a.m.

    It's interesting that so many of you in the gay community are so intolerant of religious people exercising their constitutional rights of free speech. I would think there would be greater tolerance and understanding, but the shrill comments noted on this and many other articles sadly shows the lack of tolerance that you desire from others.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 26, 2013 11:20 p.m.

    @Bill --

    "For those who say this will not destroy this country: Here is proof that it will"

    Bill, you do understand that less than 2% of the US population believes in the Book of Mormon -- right?

    Try these on for size instead:

    "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47

    "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-40

    "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other." Galatians 5:14-15

    "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?" James 4:12

  • Capn Crunch Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:50 p.m.

    Please explain to me exactly how shooting down DOMA changed the definition of marriage? According to Merriam-Webster Marriage is "(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." Seems the same to me. There are actually some states where you can marry your horse. How is that okay to people, but those same people think gay marriage is a sin? There is no place for religious bigotry in our laws. This country was not founded on religion. This country was founded by secularists who left their homeland where many were being persecuted because of their religion. They didn't want religion to cause the same issues here so they made it important to emphasize that this country was not founded on religion and should not be ran with religion in mind; it will be ran for the people. I really wish people would stop saying this country was founded on "biblical principles". IT WASN'T.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:47 p.m.

    Mark 12:31 says: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

    Matthew 5:44 says: "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you."

    Matthew 7:12 says: "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets."

    If you go to a business, how do you want to be treated? Do you want to be refused service because the owner doesn't like your race, gender, weight, hair color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.?

    I doubt it.

    Then why would you want to refuse service to those who come into your business? Is that how you demonstrate your love for your neighbor (or your enemy)? Is that treating others as you would want them to treat you?

  • OutsideUT Lilburn, GA
    June 26, 2013 10:34 p.m.

    @Really ???

    "They cannot..choose their clientele"

    And therein lies the problem. You are correct, state law requires a person to do something, in this case support gay marriage, against their will.

    In the case of the florist, the couple could have simply respected her decision not to support their marriage and used someone else. However, they are now using a law that was started with good intentions to destroy a woman over her personal beliefs.

    Legal? Yes. Moral? No.

    Yet, I'm told that I shouldn't worry because no gay couple would ever sue because a church won't perform a gay marriage. Except church's are also public places, and now this is a discrimination issue, and it already has happened to the UMC.

    Personally, I think in the end this will be nothing more than an inconvenience, and churches will likely stop performing "weddings" and instead perform non-public rituals after a couple gets "married" at the courthouse, same as other countries.

    But it's sad to see good intentioned laws, such as the civil rights acts, twisted to take away the rights of the majority, without adding any benefit to the minority.

  • Gregg Weber SEATTLE, WA
    June 26, 2013 10:10 p.m.

    I saw a reference to a bakery not selling a cake to a wedding for religious reasons.
    What if that was reversed? What if there was a cake saying [Now I want to get this OK'ed so I can only say that the cake wording is for one religious belief and against another (like Islam or Atheism) and the progressive owner rejected the sale?
    Shouldn't the owner be able to sell who whomever s/he wants and take the consequences of the sale going to some competition?

  • Rand Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska,
    You could live 100,000 years and never see the scenario you presented. Regardless, I feel sorry for those who live their whole lives in fear of the retribution of a god who claims to simultaneously love his children and threaten to destroy them for not following a set of archaic instructions. Perhaps it gives you comfort to believe that those who disagree with you will be "utterly destroyed", but for many of us that seems rather depraved. And for those homosexual couples who simply wanted secular marriage rights, I'm sure they don't share the same lust for your destruction. Something to keep in mind.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    June 26, 2013 9:36 p.m.

    For those who say this will not destroy this country: Here is proof that it will: "And he said: THus saith the Lord God - Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land (USA), unto every nation, kindred, tounge and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." The Supreme Court of this land failed to uphold the divinely inspired Constitution of the United States and thus has set the stone rolling that will ultimately destroy this nation as a whole.

    However, thank you for speeding up the day of which the Lord Jesus Christ shall come and rule over his entire creation, when righteousness in all its glory shall reign upon the earth and the wicked shall be utterly destroyed. I look forward now to that day when the Lord shall be king of the whole earth. Thank you for speeding that up but shame on for destroying this great nation. It is a sad day to be an American.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 26, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    "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"

    No - we live in a democracy where the rights of the minority classes of people are protected against populist versions of government.

    I personally support the churches religious stance on gay marriage. But I totally disagree with the concept of government being used to enforce religious law. Churches need to fight this fight. Bringing government into being the legal arm of churches is just a dangerous and wrong path to go.

    Banning two consenting adults choose to do something we, or anyone, doesn't approve to, puts all of rights and freedoms in jeopardy. By allowing others the right to follow their conscience, we ensure our rights are equally protected.

  • LRB NY, NY
    June 26, 2013 9:08 p.m.

    BLUE AZ I agree you have a right to teach your children. the morals and values you cherish. I presume you extend the same right to those who have different beliefs. what you can't do is drive different types away so your kids aren't "exposed". That would be treating us like Mormons were treated in the 19th century.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:54 p.m.

    @fowersjl
    "The LGBT activists will not rest until there is no marriage"

    Could've sworn your side has spent years trying to prevent people from getting married...

  • Kathy. Iowa, Iowa
    June 26, 2013 8:42 p.m.

    Gay couples are sterile 100% of the time. It is impossible for them to reproduce. The only way any gay person has children is if they interact in some way with the opposite gender. By definition one must be a step or adoptive parent.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 26, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    @Rand

    "Reading these comments just makes me all the more happy to see this Supreme Court ruling. I have no dog in the fight, but the more we chip away at the religiously-based and religiously-supported bigotry and discrimination in this society, the better. For all the good religion can do, we are sure seeing the ugly, rabid side of it right now in this comment thread."

    Or it could be that they are reacting to what they perceive is happening in the world.

    "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
    (Isa 5:20)

  • Rand Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    Reading these comments just makes me all the more happy to see this Supreme Court ruling. I have no dog in the fight, but the more we chip away at the religiously-based and religiously-supported bigotry and discrimination in this society, the better. For all the good religion can do, we are sure seeing the ugly, rabid side of it right now in this comment thread.

  • Blue AZ Cougar ,
    June 26, 2013 7:48 p.m.

    @ Ranch

    I was trying to have a respectful conversation, I'm sorry you don't have the ability to do the same.

  • azresident Mesa, AZ
    June 26, 2013 7:25 p.m.

    I can just see it now--somewhere out there someone will want to marry their lifelong companion, which happens to be a dog. A highly intelligent, highly trained, very loving, awesome companion, but a DOG nonetheless. The world is full of folks who think outside of the box, some of whom enjoy stirring the pot, others who are looking for their fifteen minutes of fame, and then there are those who are simply oppositional. We've already had pigs nominated for Homecoming court, marrying a dog can't be too far behind.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    June 26, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    J in AZ: I think you have made an astute observation. Thanks.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:00 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar;

    What part of our "lifestyle" do you dislike?

    That we get up in the morning eat breakfast and then go to work? Or is it that we watch a bit of television now and then? Or maybe its that we do a bit of chores when we get home that you find so disagreeable? Or that we take care of our children and pets, we cook, and clean our homes? Some of us even go to church regularly. Is that what bothers you about our "lifestyle"?

    Being GLBT isn't a "lifestyle", it's an orientation, just like being straight. That's going to hurt your poor littles so much knowing that. Ooooh.

  • ENDavis Lehi, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:56 p.m.

    As we've seen by official church statements, and some of the reader comments here, there are many people in our country who are happy to demonstrate that they have no understanding of how this nation operates.

    The United States of America is NOT a pure democracy.
    It IS a constitutional republic.

    This means that every rule and law does not get to be decided by popular vote. As we've seen throughout world history, when one group gets into power, or in the majority, they will immediately begin exercising tyrannical oppression over the opposition/minority group, regardless of which group is in power or in the minority. The United States constitution was written specifically with the intent of protecting those in the minority from being oppressed by the majority.

    This is why we have things like the 14th Amendment. Every citizen is promised equal protection under the law. The LDS and Catholic churches don't get to decide which people deserve which rights or not. It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are. You don't get to treat a group of people as subhuman, just because they behave or think differently than yourself.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    calcu_lus: "The losers today are the children who will not get the opportunity to have a mother and father."

    As I hinted in an earlier post (#2 on this thread), existing hetero family law does far more to deny children a mother and father than gay marriage ever will. Gay relationships will at most only account for 2-5% of families and they at least provide children with two parents (maybe not a mother and father, but two, and children of gay couples are always chosen-- no "accidents" there). When half of straight marriages end in divorce (and many straight relationships issuing children are not married in the first place) it means that 50% of kids will not get the opportunity to have a mother and father. That's ten to twenty times more kids adversely affected by straight marriage than by gay marriage. If you REALLY care about children's welfare and dual parenting, go after divorce, not gays.

  • calcu_lus tucson, az
    June 26, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    The losers today are the children who will not get the opportunity to have a mother and father.

  • Blue AZ Cougar ,
    June 26, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    @Wilf 55
    "I am willing to listen to good arguments against same-sex marriage..."

    I'm happy to have a logical and respectful conversation about this.

    My main concern is for my children and the impact this movement has on their education. I don't want my kids exposed to that kind of lifestyle because I think it's fundamentally immoral. When I hear that the Supreme Court has paved the way for our society to more openly embrace it, it makes me nervous for how that trickles down.

    It's not the role of public educators to teach my kids that certain behaviors or lifestyles are appropriate when I fundamentally disagree with them on moral grounds. I send my kids to school to learn math and geography, not so others can use that as a platform to push their agenda. If kids are required to learn about that lifestyle in school, they should be required to learn about religion as well.

    As a parent, I have the responsibility to teach my kids to be kind to all individuals, regardless of their orientation. However, I also have the right as a parent to teach them about religion and morals.

  • fowersjl Farmington, Utah
    June 26, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    The LGBT activists will not rest until there is no marriage, until it is completely devalued, and any "loving" grouping can be called a "marriage". And all religious liberty is stripped away in the name of "equality". Sad day today.

  • ApacheNaiche PINETOP, AZ
    June 26, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    Sexual sin, in the eyes of God, is the second most grievous sin next to the murder of innocent people. The Supreme Court of the United States is not, nor ever will be equal to God.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 26, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    I have read all the articles here. I have laughed at many and smiled at others.
    This is a day of joy and I am very, very happy.

    I regret the knee jerk reaction of many people and organizations. But, I will not let them spoil my joy.

    This is a great day to be an American, is a great day for civil rights, it is a great day for being a human being.

    God bless you all, and may God continue blessing our country and the world.

    By the way, as an LGBT I will not interfere with your right to be bitter. we understand, and we still love you.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    "You are arguing that as a business owner I should be forced to do what someone else thinks I should."

    Um, no. Nobody is forcing you into a gay marriage. This is about the business owner who arranges and sells flowers, runs a catering business, or rents out a reception hall. They cannot pick and choose their clientele. It's that simple.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    I don't believe that the church will ever let a gay couple get maried in the temple.

  • AT Elk River, MN
    June 26, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Beverly Allen Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    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."

  • Bob Pomeroy Bisbee, AZ
    June 26, 2013 5:10 p.m.

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

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    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.

  • utah1966 broomfield, CO
    June 26, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    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?

  • mww73 West Valley City, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    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).

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    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.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Wyominguy Buffalo, WY
    June 26, 2013 4:41 p.m.

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

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 26, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Bob Pomeroy Bisbee, AZ
    June 26, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    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.

  • first2third Elmo, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    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...

  • OutsideUT Lilburn, GA
    June 26, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    Continued:

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    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.

  • OutsideUT Lilburn, GA
    June 26, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    @FatherOfFour
    “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.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 26, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    “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.)

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    June 26, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    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?

  • tenny New York, NY
    June 26, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 26, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    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.

  • J in AZ San Tan Valley, AZ
    June 26, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    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.

  • E.S Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2013 3:14 p.m.

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

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    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?)

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    June 26, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    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.

  • HappyHeathen Puyallu, Wa.
    June 26, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    “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

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    "... 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.

  • Wyomex Burlington, WY
    June 26, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    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.

  • mishi San Francisco, CA
    June 26, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    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.)

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    Thank god the USA isnt' a theocracy.

  • OutsideUT Lilburn, GA
    June 26, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    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.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    June 26, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    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.

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    June 26, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    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.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:04 p.m.

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

  • mishi San Francisco, CA
    June 26, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    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?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Brathor Erda, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    ""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.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 26, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    “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?