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
Abinadis friend
Boise, Idaho

It is not up to us mortals to decide if same sex marriage is the right thing to do. Those of us who believe that we have a creator that gave us direction in how to live a life that is acceptable.
Marriage with a person of the same sex is not accepted in his plan. We of course now have the legal right, due to 5 people who think it is. Personally I believe differently. I will live my life as I believe we should. I have pity for those who choose otherwise. We will face our creator at some point with how we lived our lives. I will be glad that I didn't choose that path.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I think what will come next is affection in public. Holding hands kisses will be band.

Carson City, NV

We never discuss the fact that there are babies born out of wedlock. We never discuss the fact that fully half of all traditional marriages end in divorce. Even if traditional marriage was the greatest example of civil relationships, that is not going to end gay relationships. Those relationships have stood 40 and 50 years without being married.

The religious groups would be better off hating the sin, but loving the sinner. I believe that is what Christ taught us. We have made a judgement about these relationships and it is not our job to judge; "Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone". We need to only worry about living our lives as sinless as possible. Each person is going to have to come before God, he will judge each of us.

Ogden, UT

What should come next? Application of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution to same-sex marriaes in all states. If a person is legally married in one state, that person should be considered legally married in ALL states regardless whether the marriage could legally be entered into a given state (example -- first cousin marriages are recognized and accepted in all states, even if they couldn't be contracted in a given state). The Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constituion should apply to same-sex marriage, just as it applies to "traditional" marriage.

First cousins who are legally married in one state (like Utah) are still married if thy move to a state that does not allow first cousin marriages. It should be the same for same-sex couples. Once they are legally married in one state, they should be able to have their marriages considered legal in ALL states, and have all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage in whatever state to which they may move. Once married, always married, unless that marriage is dissolved by an order of the court in an action they bring to terminate their marriage.


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

Join the 21rst century and do what thay are supposed to do ie provide comfort and service to all peaple?

Springville, UT

One thing I think is really interesting:

I hear every day how nowhere in the Constitution does it say the words, "Separation of Church and State," so it is my pleasure to remind some people on this forum that nowhere in the Constitution does it state, "Freedom of Religion."

Oh, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" but what these people need to understand is one of the inherent logic structures within the Constitution is reciprocity. This means no laws can go against religion or religious beliefs but also that no laws can be in favor of religion or religious beliefs. It sounds obvious, but you might be surprised at how many people get irate when they are confronted with the Constitution protecting the people from religion just as it protects us from the non-religious.

Gay marriage does not in any way lessen the sacred bonds of religious marriage.

American Fork, UT

For most I think it will be business as usual. For a few, those that feel entitled to push themselves onto a society that they refuse to believe is right to ignore them entirely, they will be ever angry and disappointed, and left behind

Salt Lake City, UT

Religious conservatives use of the term "family values" is both limited to their own terms and insulting. I know two lesbian couples, both of which have children, and they're family is no worse than those who arrogantly claim they and others like them are living "family values." Their children are psychologically healthy and well adjusted.

Religious dogma is the wrong way to approach this issue.

Angelica D. Chow

thats great

Meadow Lark Mark

I just find it interesting that we think we can legislate morality. We make a law and then think that all is ok. Does that mean that if we pass a law that says murder or stealing is ok then is it? There are moral absolutes. Some are just not willing to accept that.

Olympia, WA

"Pro-civil rights" also does NOT mean "pro-gay marriage". Without exception, all pro-same-sex people that I see expressing their views, try to equate same-sex marriage with "Civil Rights" to make it sound inevitable, saying that anyone who is against same-sex-marriage is a "homophobic bigot". Given this, and the vindictive and mean spirit that goes along with it, make it impossible for the people who are pushing for same-sex marriage to simply ignore those who don't believe as they do. Oh yes, it certainly will affect everyone, as they will try to force everyone to wholeheartedly accept same sex marriage by bringing all sorts of frivolous lawsuits against any person or organization who shows any semblance of not accepting same-sex marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage. It is happening now, and how could anyone think that it won't increase in frequency and intensity in the future? And what is to stop some judge somewhere from saying that it violates someone's civil rights to not allow 2 men to marry 1 woman, or 3 men to marry, or whatever combination whatsoever. Anyone who doesn't see all of this coming is in major denial.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Out of wedlock births are a major cause of poverty and the political leaders are not trying to strengthen traditional marriage which is society's way of promoting that men should be responsible for their reproductive actions.

Somewhere along the line I used to talk with socialists and I did buy into their vision of a society with no rich or poor, but I don't think that the government is able or even willing to do this. (Refer to Pelosi's comment about having to pass the Obamacare bill se we can know what is in it with people getting their hours cut below 30 hours a week).

The idea of society with no poor is good. But the government is not the solution. We'll have to do it without them. I just hope that they don't interfere too much. (I wonder what will happen with society's respect for human rights like freedom of conscience?)

Who here has ever participated in inner city tutoring programs? Gone to Decker Lake youth detention center to tutor or tell stories? The new liberals in our society are those who strengthen traditioanl marriage rather than redefining it.

Branson, MO

What a mess:)

my two cents777

@marxist: hogwash.

Orem, Utah

As a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, here is my view. In the Book of Genesis God commanded our first parents Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Churches who support gay marriage are saying they don't support this law of God. Because of my belief in God I support this commandment and believe that marriage can only be between a man and a women because our first parents were Adam and Eve.

Medical Lake, Washington

I seriously question any reported statistics which speak to the success rate of gay marriages and children in those situations. There aren't enough samples to draw a legitimate conclusion nor enough time to base it on. Once gay marriage has been around for thousands of years, then we can start to tout the benefits of it when compared with heterosexual marriages.

Its a nice rosy outlook to think of this 'movement' as a benign one in which only peace and tranquility and equality for all is the objective. Already wars on religious organizations which oppose same sex marriage in their doctrines have been waged; even when such religious groups have offered no violence or retaliation against the opposition.

The LDS church supports traditional marriage but does not preach hatred or violence from their pulpits against those who support a different view point. Stating their policy and living their doctrine is not hate speech.

Leesburg, VA

Abinadis friend:

You wrote;
"Personally I believe differently. I will live my life as I believe we should. I have pity for those who choose otherwise. We will face our creator at some point with how we lived our lives. I will be glad that I didn't choose that path."

That is your right to do. You can count on me an thousands of other LGBT who would defend your right to do so.

You will live your life as you think you should, we just expect to have the same right.

Riverdale, UT

The LDS Church bases its doctrines on direct revelation from God, which cannot be altered or intellectually interpreted by man, and on decisions made by Church officers with authority from God to act in His name.

Other church's doctrines are based on the ideas and opinions of men/women, who create those doctrines by logic and interpreting scripture intellectually. They deny modern revelation exists, so it is OK for them to define and change doctrine by logic and reasoning; I’m sure they are prayerful when doing so.

LDS doctrine comes directly from God. It can be obeyed or rejected, but it cannot be changed. LDS members cannot debate whether or not SameSexMarriage (SSM) is God's will, because God has told them it is not, period.

Condemning LDS members for not accepting SSM is pointless, because LDS doctrine, which every member sustains as part of being LDS, is that God has defined “marriage” already, by revelation, to the Church. The Church conveys what God has revealed to His prophets in these times.

The only way an LDS member can change that is to debate God about it. Good luck with that!

Riverdale, UT

It appears to me that some people who defend LGBT lifestyles and relationships are making a "guilt by association" error when they defend their ideas.

LGBTs certainly have the right to complain that they have not been treated well and fairly by many who oppose LGBT lifestyles. Truth is, they have not. That is one issue which has been around for a long time. I lived and worked in California with LGBTs daily, but I am pleased to say I didn't give much thought to it and did not treat them badly.

Now, LGBTs are defending the rulings about SameSexMarriage, which they are pleased and proud to have won. In doing so, the mistake is being made when LGBTs assume that heteros who oppose SSM are also condemning them as has been done for many years, just for being LGBT. While they are sometimes right, they are often wrong; I, and others I know who aren't in favor of SSM, are not condemning LGBTs at the same time.

LGBTs should not assume that heteros who oppose SSM necessarily hate LGBTs, i.e., "guilt by association". They are separate issues. There is plenty to work out without doing this!


@dtlenox --

""Pro-civil rights" also does NOT mean "pro-gay marriage"."

I was wondering when someone would remark on my choice of words there. ;-)

"Pro-gay marriage" does NOT mean "anti-traditional family" -- yet the anti-gay folks keep trying to frame the argument that way.

Equal rights for gays IS about civil rights -- and that means civil rights for ALL.

"what is to stop some judge somewhere from saying that it violates someone's civil rights to not allow 2 men to marry 1 woman, or 3 men to marry, or whatever combination whatsoever. "

We've covered this bit of hysteria many, many times already.

Gay marriage is already legal in 13 countries around the world, and will soon become legal in several more.

Polygamy is not legal in ANY of those countries.

Of special interest is Canada, which has had gay marriage for years now. In 2011 the Supreme Court of British Columbia easily REAFFIRMED the constitutionality of their polygamy ban, based on public safety (risk of harm) arguments. I've quoted parts of Judge Bauman's decision in many other threads, so I won't repeat them here.

Polygamy is NOT bound up together with homosexuality rulings.

to comment

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