Quantcast
Family

Supreme Court upends marriage debate, foreshadows long struggle

Comments

Return To Article
  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:08 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert
    I will go further. I would fully support the right of a photographer to refuse to
    photograph any Mormon couple marrying in the temple. The services an artist choses
    to give in photography, floral creation or such is clearly an expression of speech,
    and should be protected by the 1st admendment.
    LDS4
    Would you support non artistic vendors like tux shops, limo rentals, etc...doing the
    same?

    JPL
    The main question is, is marriage primarily an affirmation of the relationship
    between to individual, or is it a system designed to raise children in the best
    possible circumstances?
    LDS4
    Since the state allows the sterile, infertile, aged, imprisoned, etc...to marry, the
    answer is the former, as far as the state is concerned.

  • Lorikay Farmington Hills, MI
    June 27, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    “…Doctrines belong to the Lord, not to men. They are his. He ordained them, he reveals them, and he expects us to believe them.” “…Celestial marriage is a gate that puts us on a path leading to exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is in that highest realm of glory and dignity and honor hereafter that the family unit continues. Those who inherit a place in the highest heaven receive the reward that is named eternal life. Baptism is a gate; celestial marriage is a gate. When we get on the paths of which I speak, we are then obligated to keep the commandments.” “…We need to be less concerned about the views and opinions that others have expressed and drink directly from the fountain the Lord has given us. Then we shall come to a true understanding of the points of his doctrine.” (“The Seven Deadly Heresies,” Elder Bruce R. McConkie in Speeches of the Year, 1980 [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1981], pp. 77–78.)

  • Lorikay Farmington Hills, MI
    June 27, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    United States Supreme Court...why will you forsake wise counsel (2 Chronicles 10:8)? Please, stop adding confusion to a nation seeking THE GATE back to Heavenly Father and the eternal preservation the family unit!

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 27, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    @John--

    "Actually the reason marriage is limited to a man/woman institution is because only man/women sex has the potential to produce children."

    "than man/woman marriage is the only possibility"

    One More Time: gay couples "produce" children just as easily as any other infertile couples do.

    "The state literally has no reason to regulate homosexual activity."

    Of course it does.

    Hundreds of thousands of gay couples are ALREADY raising children, with or without marriage.

    Marriage increases family stability. Stability is good for children. Therefore, gay marriage is good for the children being raised by gay couples.

    "If the government forces wedding cake designers to design wedding cakes for marriages they object to, religious freedom is infringed."

    "In Washington state a florist has been sued by the state to seek to force her to provide floral services to a marriage she objects to on religious grounds."

    A KKK member who owns a business is not allowed to refuse business to a black person, either.

    A Catholic business owner is not allowed to refuse business to an adulterer.

    These restrictions ARE NOT NEW.

  • michaelsuperman1 Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    “The argument for man/woman marriage is built around the fact that the main purpose of marriage is to create a system where children are raised by their biological parents in a stable and committed environment.”

    No where in the annuls of history is it recorded that the main purpose of marriage is as you state. Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people (and more recently the gov’t) that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses. It is not directly tied to procreation nor is procreation required whatsoever in a marriage. In fact, from the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. You may want to brush up on your history.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    The argument about preserving man/women marriage has no connection to a desire to see less homosexual activity. To connect the two is to muddy the whole debate.

    The arguments for man/woman marriage have to do with preserving marriage in its historical function. The rate of sexual activity is not very closely connected to marriage.

    Actually the reason marriage is limited to a man/woman institution is because only man/women sex has the potential to produce children. The state literally has no reason to regulate homosexual activity. Marriage is about the state trying to regulate certain activities to create families. The redefinition of marriage gets the state involved in regulating things it has no real interest in regulating, and reduces the freedom of us all.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    One thing is for sure, there are fewer real men in this country today than there were yesterday. Men are leaving marriages in droves, now we have added another group doing the same. Men, be men, live up to your commitments to teach and live what real manhood means and the Supreme Court decision would have been left in the dark ages where it belongs.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    The talk of churches changing what marriages they will perform misses the whole point.

    Religious freedom is a right of individuals, not just churches. If the government forces wedding cake designers to design wedding cakes for marriages they object to, religious freedom is infringed.

    The main issue is that the form of marriage teaches much. The main question is, is marriage primarily an affirmation of the relationship between to individual, or is it a system designed to raise children in the best possible circumstances? That is the real core question, and if the answer is the later, than man/woman marriage is the only possibility, and a new definition will undermine marriage achieving its intended goals.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    Considering the hate and animus directed towards those who have attempted to participate in formulating the public definitions of what marriage is, Rauch's "moderation" is not to be treated as a major voice.

    The way the government defines marriage has deep meaning towards how it affects people.

    Beyond this, when the government proactively affirms a relationship, it then works to force others to participate. In Washington state a florist has been sued by the state to seek to force her to provide floral services to a marriage she objects to on religious grounds. Since she has consistently served the customers in the past, it is clear that it is her moral objection to being a party in a marriage she cannot stand that is the key.

    I will go further. I would fully support the right of a photographer to refuse to photograph any Mormon couple marrying in the temple. The services an artist choses to give in photography, floral creation or such is clearly an expression of speech, and should be protected by the 1st admendment.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    This ruling signals a determination to reduce the opinions of opponants to merely "bigotry".

    The argument for man/woman marriage is built around the fact that the main purpose of marriage is to create a system where children are raised by their biological parents in a stable and committed environment. This requires that marriage have a form to produce children. This is to say that the outward rules need to focus towards child production.

    The man/women requirement is a clear affirmation of the form and intent.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    Justice Kennedy is a liberal and is considered the "Gay" justice for writing at least three opinions on gays. The election of Obama the most liberal president every elected guarantees these type of moral battles. Our country is hemoraging from media bombardment of the gay, equality and their rights message. It is time for some fairness in presenting the opposing view.

  • michaelsuperman1 Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    From several places now I've heard the position of "it is not a sin to be gay but it is a sin to have sex with the same gender".

    That is as close to circular logic as you can get. It's like saying: It's not a sin to be human but it is a sin to act human. It is not a rational position.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 27, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    @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".

  • michaelsuperman1 Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    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???

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    @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??

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    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.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    June 27, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    June 27, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    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. :(

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    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.

  • BYUtah Fan Herriman, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    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.

  • prinze777 Fresno, CA
    June 27, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    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.

  • prinze777 Fresno, CA
    June 27, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    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

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Albemar West Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    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.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    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?

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Rand Ogden, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:37 a.m.

    "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"!

  • LRenayHawk La Vegrne, TN
    June 27, 2013 12:10 a.m.

    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...

  • IndeMak South Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:31 p.m.

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

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:29 p.m.

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