Comments about ‘Supreme Court upends marriage debate, foreshadows long struggle’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 9:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

This one's over. It's time to stock up on cheap fireworks.

IndeMak
South Jordan, UT

Those of us that believe in traditional values are finding ourselves in the minority. Time to really hold tight to what we were taught.

LRenayHawk
La Vegrne, TN

Nothing will ever change or nullify traditional marriage. It has been here since time immemorial and will continue to do so. No one needs the Supreme Court to dictate or 're-affirm' that fact marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman. Here's the thing I think many are not understanding -- marriage is just as much as a civil right as it is a religious right.
No one can really argue against the religious aspect of marriage however to deny a couple who are just as monogamous as any heterosexual couple the right to marry just because they are gay or lesbian is civilly unjust.

Marriage is an institution not to be enter into lightly and marriage should not be symbol of prejudice. If one is to deny the right of marriage because of sexual orientation why not deny marriage for interracial couples; interfaith couples; couples with disabilities (physical or otherwise; couples that do not want to have children...

Rand
Ogden, UT

"On Wednesday, Kennedy wrote that the authors of DOMA were targeting gays, rather than affirming traditional marriage."

Bingo, it does nothing to support traditional marriage, it seeks only to prevent another group from having rights. That is bigotry.

"It is a very serious danger," McConnell said. "I think there are those in the same-sex marriage movement who have every intention of trying to stigmatize their opponents as being bigots and drummed out of civil society.”

This is the kind of argument gay marriage opponents make when they have no logic or reason to fall back on. The emotional argument. The rhetorical twist. The "I'm being victimized because they won't let me deny another person's rights based on my religion" argument. Your traditional marriage is not in danger from this. And you cannot claim to be the victim when a good number on your side paint same-sex couples as sexual deviants living in defiance of God's will. Talk about "stigmatizing your opponents"!

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

A majority of the Supreme court just stuck a finger in the eye of the LDS Church. Gay activists will shortly be Utah to add insult to injury.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

I don't understand the religious argument. You believe alcohol is evil, but you don't seek to ban it nationwide. You believe pornography and strip clubs to be immoral and wrong, but both are allowed in Utah. You believe cigarettes to be evil, but there is no nationwide effort to ban them. Yet, when it comes to allowing a 78 year old lesbian woman to receive social security survivor benefits after her partner of 45 years dies, you ABSOLUTELY must stop that! Why?

Wilf 55
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Countries that legalized same-gender marriage more than a decade ago can teach us a lesson: it was quickly accepted without much debate, the first few couples deserved an interview in the media, and then attention died out. The system affects some 3% of marriages and has no negative impact whatsoever on society (but it did revive the value of marriage and got more hetero-couple to enter into an official marriage!).

A number of years from now (5? 10?) all American States will have legalized same-gender marriage. And then, at some point, people will wonder what all the hassle was about and why so much energy and conflict went into such a trivial matter.

Albemar
West Jordan, UT

Equality for all and fairness, that is something to celebrate. However, with the tone of this article, how did those with all the power become the victim so fast?

I have never, ever heard anyone claim that religions were going to be made to change their religion or policies. Never. Where does this unfounded, ridiculous notion come from?

Religious Marriages should be practiced by any/all religions, just like baptisms, christenings, sealings and all others. However, Civil Marriages is a function of the government and all citizens should be treated equally.

All treated equal. Somehow it feels, that that is the rub. The notion that Gays will be treated equal with Straights. And for some, that is unacceptable!

If the Anti-Gay community had treated their Gay & Lesbian brothers and sisters much more respectful, we could have avoided so much of this. We can all agree to disagree and do our own thing. But we can't disagree and then deny another human being their civil rights and their families the benefits of citizenship.

The world is changing, and it is turning toward love and compassion for all.

amazondoc
USA, TN

I firmly support the SCOTUS decision, but IMHO Scalia was right about one thing.

He said: "As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe."

Yup, absolutely.

The arguments put forth to kill DOMA will be helpful in overturning state bans as well. It's a shame that we'll have to invest the additional time and money and energy in overturning them state by state, but today's decision will help.

I also can't wait for an upcoming challenge to section 2 of DOMA, which I have heard is in the works. That one will clarify whether states will have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, as they already do for straight marriages.

prinze777
Fresno, CA

Marriage is not a right. It is not stated as a civil right in any known federal or state law. No law says that you have a right to be married. The only civil rights that we have are those that are protected by the US Constitution and its amendments and marriage is not one of them, hence why the SCOTUS ruling was so limited in its scope - they recognized that marriage is not a right as defined by the law. It is a religious ceremony. It is a religious rite. I will predict here and now that within five years, you will see the same proponents of gay marriage suing churches for not performing gay marriages in those states where gay marriage is allowed. This will be a clear violation of the first amendment which states "congress shall pass no law respecting the . . . freedom of religion". I also predict that this attack will go blatantly ignored by those who now support gay marriage, who will simply justify the attack against religious freedom as a right of gay people to force others to perform there ceremonies. You can already see examples of this in lawsuits against catholic charities and BSA

prinze777
Fresno, CA

Unfounded? There have been many attacks by gay rights activist against churches. In the Bay Area in California, many of them beat people in the streets and vandalized churches. Many of these gay rights groups have also sued Catholic Charities for there belief that it would be morally wrong to give a child to gay couples. They also sued the Boy Scouts of America for not allowing gay scout masters (Dale [ACLU] v Boy Scouts of America). Because the ACLU lost the fight against the Boy Scouts, they sued the military for there support of the Boy Scouts. These are all documented, indisputable examples of the threat that gays pose against private organizations, especially churches. But that's ok, you can continue to play ignorant on the attacks on religious freedom for the sake of you misguided views on tolerance. You'll probably just play dumb or even support gay rights activist when they start suing churches for not performing gay marriages.

BYUtah Fan
Herriman, UT

The religious argument against gay marriage is really rather simple. Traditional Christianity regards homosexuality as a sin for very good scriptural reasons. Legalizing gay marriage will encourage and legitimize the gay lifestyle. Therefore, it should be resisted. Before you denigrate this reasoning, you should realize that all law is morality. Most of our morality comes from our Judeo-Christian heritage. It is true that morality is a rapidly shifting sand these days. But that does not invalidate the morality of those people who did not shift along with the sand. I see the "gay rights" movement less as a moral issue than a simple exercise of raw political power. Gay people are riding the tide at the moment. It will be interesting to see how far it takes them.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

BYUtah Fan,

"The religious argument against gay marriage is really rather simple. Traditional Christianity regards homosexuality as a sin for very good scriptural reasons."

Don't they also recognize adultery as a sin? But if you cheat on your wife you can still get remarried and no one is trying to legally stop that. They recognize murder as a sin, but legally you can get married on death row. They recognize stealing as a sin, but if I rob a bank I can still get married from prison legally. Child molestors can legally get married. Felons can marry. Abusive alcoholics can get married at a drive thru wedding chapel in Las Vegas. Newt Gingrich can get married several times. Even though all these things are considered a sin, they do not preclude someone from getting married. Episcopalians, Unitarians, and other Christian religions allow gay marriage and even have gay preists. To deny that by force of law deprives them of their 1st amendment freedom of religion.

Mayfair
City, Ut

from article “I think and I hope that gay people...will be more tolerant and civil in the way they express their views,"

I for one, have not found this to be the case. :(

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

This is the religious difference.

Being a gay person is not a sin. Engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same gender is. Engaging in sexual activity with someone of the opposite gender outside of marriage is a sin.

As far as the alcohol thought. Being gay is not a sin. Drinking alcohol would be. As well as molesting, adultery...go down the list.

Are there people who do not follow the commandments and sin? Yes. Are there gay people that follow the commandments and don't sin? Yes.

The debate is not about whether or not being gay is a sin. Being gay is not a sin. Likewise it is not a sin for being straight. However for either party engaging in other "sinful" activities is a sin. Can people change those behaviors and repent? Yes. Will people fall back into the same sin over and over again? That is a possibility. Can they repent and try over again? Yes. How many times? Until they die.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

Long struggle ahead - as other posters here have said and I agree - NO and as others have said - in ten years we will look back and wonder why there was so much turmoil over this. Impact on religious freedom - None. And Please do not bring up the issue of doing business in the public square and confuse it with religious freedom - they are not the same - you may not discriminate in the public square.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

from article “I think and I hope that gay people...will be more tolerant and civil in the way they express their views,"

Like the religious folks have treated them? Right? Westboro Baptists and Gayle Ruzicka come to mind and they profess to be Christian.

Father of four is exactly right, where is your outrage at all the other sins in your holy books that we don't have laws prohibiting, or is it just that sin that needs to be legislated?

We are NOT a theocracy, if you want to live in one, the middle east has several variations on the theme to offer. Unfortunately for christians, they are the minority there, so another religion will trump yours, but that's what your trying to do in America, so I'm sure you'll be understanding.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@prinze777 --

"There have been many attacks by gay rights activist against churches."

There has been plenty of violence on all sides.

I lived in Knoxville (TN) at the time that a man stormed into the Unitarian church there and SHOT NINE PEOPLE because he "hated liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".

Gay people in the US are EIGHT TIMES more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people. That's from FBI crime data, not something just pulled randomly out of the air.

In the country of Georgia recently, PRIESTS led an angry mob against gay rights activists. One story reports that "Thousands of Orthodox anti-gay activists broke through police cordon and pursued gay rights protesters in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, injuring at least 28 people in the process."

Violence should be condemned on ALL sides. But it's quite clear which side suffers from most of the violent attacks.

@Mayfair --

"I for one, have not found this to be the case. :("

Let me get this straight: gay people have been denied equal citizenship for years -- they have been beaten and killed because of homophobia -- but you're upset because you think they're RUDE??

michaelsuperman1
Phoenix, AZ

Liberal Ted from Utah
This is the religious difference.
Being a gay person is not a sin. Engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same gender is. Engaging in sexual activity with someone of the opposite gender outside of marriage is a sin.
Using this argument then… as long as gays don’t have sex they aren’t sinners and they should be able to marry.
How do you arrive at drinking alcohol to be a sin if at the last supper Jesus said to drink wine in remembrance of him? Could it be that drinking alcohol irresponsibly is what is a sin the same as doing anything irresponsibly could be a sin?? Could it be we are confused on more than one issue???

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@prinze --

"Many of these gay rights groups have also sued Catholic Charities for there belief that it would be morally wrong to give a child to gay couples."

Of course they did. Adoption agencies are carrying out a GOVERNMENT SERVICE (adoption), so they must uphold the laws of THE GOVERNMENT.

"Marriage is not a right."

SCOTUS disagrees with you.

From Loving v. Virginia, 1967: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)."

@Liberal Ted --

"Engaging in sexual activity with someone of the same gender is."

According to you. Many Christians and Jews disagree with you.

"Are there people who do not follow the commandments and sin?"

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

And gay people who are married aren't even having sex outside of marriage.

Isn't that odd -- anti-gay people accuse gays of promiscuity and having sex without marriage -- but then they turn around and try to deny gays the ABILITY to get married, therefore FORCING gays to "live in sin".

to comment

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