Quantcast

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

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
funny_guy
Vacaville, CA

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.

hpr
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@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.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@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…

TNChristopher
Kingsport, TN

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.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@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.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

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.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

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.

Serenity
Manti, UT

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.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@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"?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@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

utah1966
broomfield, CO

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.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

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.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

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.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@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

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.

Hamath
Omaha, NE

@ 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?

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@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)

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@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?

Vince here
San Diego, CA

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."

to comment

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