Comments about ‘Religious leaders wonder what's next after gay marriage court rulings’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 29 2013 11:55 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anderson Island, WA


Your post about "radical left activists" is nothing more than chicken-little fear mongering and wild speculation. Although I do expect as time goes by, more denominations will join the already long list of those which support gay marriage, largely because more people will come to understand how irrational and wrong the stereotypes and fears about gay people are. Since no one has been able to show how gay marriage can cause one shred of harm to heterosexual marriage - and the best lawyers and experts the opposition could muster tried their darndest and failed abysmally (read the transcripts)- I can only conclude this will be a good thing.

As far as Freedom of and from Religion, any logical person should be able to understand that you cannot have the former without the latter. We are a country which was established in large part to escape the tyranny of what was felt to be the "right" religion.

Freedom of and from religion allows everyone to practice their OWN religion-or none at all- and observe THEIR god's laws without interference from sanctimonious holier-than-thou's who want to impose their beliefs upon everyone else.

Salt Lake, UT


Please explain how same se x marriage is more fragile than hetero marriage? I really am curious how you came to this conclusion.

Daytona, FL


First, to use the word "Catholic" and the phrase "Same-Sex-Marriage" in the same sentence is simply wrong. True Catholics (those not swayed by popular opinion or press and dedicated to their Faith) will NEVER vote for Lesbian or Gay "marriage". This would be akin to abandoning our Faith altogether... Please do not confuse TRUE Catholics with would-be pretenders or "Cafeteria Catholics" (who choose what they want to believe from TRUE Catholic teachings).

I personally cannot condone same sex marriage because it precludes the possibility of naturally born offspring; which is by the way, necessary to continue our fragile Human Race! I am to assume that you are also for Abortion, Euthanasia, Forced (State controlled and enforced) Birth Control, etc? Given your comments, I have to wonder what you would draw the line at? If the Government decided to start (as China has for years...) to limit the number of children a family can have, would you also get behind it? Just wondering?

A very, VERY Concerned Catholic and VOTER!

Salt Lake City, UT

"Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we have so far. " This is interesting and something I am going to look into. So should the rest of us. This could be important analysis.

mid-state, TN

@steph1968 --

"to use the word "Catholic" and the phrase "Same-Sex-Marriage" in the same sentence is simply wrong."

Sorry, Steph, but you don't get to dictate what those churches call themselves.

The "Old Catholic" and "Reformed Catholic" churches broke away from the Catholic church back in the 1800s, and the "LIberal Catholic" church was founded by Anglicans and Catholics in about 1904. None of them are "johnnie-come-lately", and they are all in full communion with the Anglicans.

"it precludes the possibility of naturally born offspring"

Gay couples can have children in exactly the same ways that any other infertile couples do. Unless you are willing to ban all infertile marriages, this argument holds no water at all.

@very concerned --

" the spirit AND letter of the law of chastity always has been, and will remain, abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage."

Oddly enough, there is no commandment that says "thou shalt not be homosexual".

In fact, adultery and divorce are mentioned in the Bible a lot more than homosexuality is.

How many divorced people do YOU know? Are you ready to go stone them? People who divorce and remarry are adulterers -- and adulterers deserve death.


Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Giving a certain group of people the same rights that the majority share is nothing but a great thing.

Vince here
San Diego, CA


I have good Catholic friends and good Catholic family --- I am not a Catholic myself, but I believe I find your representation of Catholics inappropriate. I don't consider any one Catholic "truer" than another, or "true" and "not true."

If anything, through the years, I have come to realize that Catholics, like most other members of other religions, have opinions/beliefs/faith that somewhat differ from orthodoxy. In fact, even clergy sometimes disagree and I would not call anyone Catholic priest not a true Catholic by any means. It's human nature to have an opinion.

Vince here
San Diego, CA


You wrote, ""Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we have so far."

Someone corrected you on your claim and you cannot come up with substantial studies --- in fact, because there are none. Your claims are ridiculous.

MSN Living publishes that among heterosexual couples, "Seventy-three percent of couples said a lack of commitment was the main reason their marriage didn’t work" in their article "The 8 most common reasons for divorce."

According to another source in The Huffington Post, among other reasons: selfishness, forgetting to love, lack of commitment, being incompatible, not growing together, etc."

Among them, I do not see the gay factor you speak of...

Alfred Stansbury
Concord, CA

I don't know what religious leader will choose to do, but I do know a couple of relevant facts:
1) If no one over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would never have passed in CA in the first place. The controlling factor was not race but age, in the end.
2) Around the nation as a whole, gay marriage is "overwhelmingly" approved by people under 30.
So, long term as has already happened in the once-segregated South, an older bigoted generation will die off; and a new, more open generation will emerge and find its own religious voice and leaders.
As Sondheim wrote so memorably in Cabaret, "Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!"

Way of the Warrior

Instead of "wondering", religious leaders should be asking themselves, "have I been treating my neighbor as myself?" "Have I been treating others how I would want to be treated?" "Have I been un-Christlike in the manner I have treated others, and if so, should I not expect to be treated that same way by those I have abused?" Oh it is interesting to see the bewilderment of the persecutors when the tables turn.


Its rather simple.

The public has civil-marriage, and the church has religious-marriage.

If the church is so aching to have the word marriage to its self, then would its members be happy to convert their 'marriage license' to a 'civil union license' that all can obtain?

Mesilla/USA, NM

"This gives Christian churches the opportunity to do what Jesus called us to do with our marriages in the first place: to serve as a light in a dark place," Moore wrote. "Permanent, stable marriages with families with both a mother and a father..." Hello? Hello? Pastor? I always thought that WAS the goal. That's what you should be concentrating on but haven't been. Divorce and broken homes is almost the rule and not the exception. Where have you been? Did it really take expanding marriage to same sex couples for that light bulb to go off in your head? And guess what, those of us who are gay and want to marry our same sex partners hope to achieve the same thing. My same sex partner and I have been together for twenty-one years; we're monogamous, as well. That's never been an issue for us. We just did it because we're committed to each other. Just as you should have been in your own marriages. Did it really take gay marriage to show you the way?

Dietrich, ID

The lord never has or ever will approve of a same gender marriage situation are you smarter than an all powerful and knowing God who only wants the best for his children? What right does a judge have to overturn the will of a majority of people. Same gender things called marriages will always be wrong and people that use there legal authority to try to authorize them will one day have to answer to a higher power.

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT

I don't care that two homosexual marry. What bothers me is that so many Americans celebrating the supreme court decision seem to have casually brushed aside God's laws.

They are celebrating in the streets and on the web. Well, the people who lived at the time of Noah were probably living happy lives not knowing that they had offended God. The people living in Soddom and Gommorah were probably happy and feeling just fine even though they did not realize that they had offended God.

Ignorance is bliss until the judgements of God come calling on nations that intentionally ignore moral laws.

Mesa, AZ


"Freedom of and from religion allows everyone to practice their OWN religion-or none at all-"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Where is the freedom from religion part?

"We are a country which was established in large part to escape the tyranny of what was felt to be the "right" religion."

When did congress pass a law supporting the right religion?

Mesa, AZ

@Alfred Stansbury

"As Sondheim wrote so memorably in Cabaret, "Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!"

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away(Matt 24:38-39)

Salt Lake City, UT

Very concerned,

Two things:

1) We do not live in a theocracy.

2) Who appointed you to be God's spokesperson?

Las Vegas, NV

I am bothered by some of the feelings out there.
I am straight and married but I do not feel threatened by gay marriage.
Saying that divorce is always an attack on traditional marriage isn't necessarily correct.
Some divorces are frivolous and do have a negative effect, but others are necessary if a spouse has become abusive.
Whether it be physically abusive or psychologically abusive. Neither environment is a good one for kids. Sometimes the mother/father move on to healthier marriages which become better examples for the kids.
And there are plenty of married couples out there who don't have children together. Whether because they married as older adults or due to infertility. To look down on them because they don't procreate is callous in my opinion.

Salt Lake City, UT

You who believe that same-sex marriage is inevitable in Utah, don't understand the influence of LDS members, here, who vote for those who would make that decision. You're naive if you believe that legislators, the majority of whom are conservative and many of whom are LDS, would "buckle" simply because liberal states have gone down a different path. And, if you believe that the LDS Church is influenced in the slightest by the stance of other religions, you might want to re-read "The Family: A Proclamation To The World," especially the last three paragraphs. Does the Proclamation sound like a "suggestion" to you? To me, it is clearly a mandate and a warning.

Alexandria, VA

I am baffled still by the anguish that many profess at the progress that the LGBT movement has made especially in terms of same sex marriage. I am also inclined to think that if those who support "traditional" marriage had set the standard they seemingly claim to have instead of dishonoring marriage by divorce infidelity etc., we might be looking at a different scenario today. You can't claim to be the defenders of an institution when those (the LGBT community) whom you would attempt to deny access to the institution of marriage are doing a better job in defending it in the short time they have been able to marry than the "traditionalists" have in the millennia they have had to set the example they should have, but did not.

to comment

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