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
The Final Word
Alpine, UT

This is pretty simple really. Evil is never good regardless of how anyone wants/tries to spin it but it is a necessary component of the plan.

Evil is real and it is expanding to surround us despite those who tell you the opposite of what your conscious tells you. Then again, those familiar with scripture are aware of this and the difficulties ahead.

In the end all of this will be settled so just make sure you are standing in the RIGHT place when the time comes.

Don't be distracted by the strategic incessant attempts at confusing what righteous behavior is.

Houston, TX

Look at Canada to see what will happen next. Anyone caught reading or teaching the Biblical teachings on homosexuality will be arrested. When Rome is burning, someone has to be blamed.

very concerned
Sandy, UT

I try to love all. It’s hard though when militant activists are pushing their agenda so strongly. But, if I am one who tries to follow Jesus Christ, I am obligated to love them in a brotherly way. I do believe there are sincere, dedicated people within the GLBT community. I am sure there are many fine people who work hard, and are loyal and honest. We just disagree on some things.

But, I am convinced that the Church got it right though, when it said, in the Family Proclamation of 1995, that, *WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, . . . . will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.*
But, might I wish for a more civil dialogue. I see The Church and the Deseret News asking all of us for more civil dialogue. The Churches’ voice is one of warning and even invitation.

South Jordan, UT

What's next for religious leaders? They go about their business like they always did.

mid-state, TN

@ClarkHippo --

"After all, do you really think the ACLU, HRC or Equality Utah will care if LDS, Catholic or Baptist people are harassed or mocked or intimidated?"

I was living in Knoxville a few years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church gathering there and SHOT NINE PEOPLE just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".

Gay people in the US are still **EIGHT TIMES** more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.

Another gay man was shot and killed in NYC just this past week -- WITH the shooter shouting gay slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime.

We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.

In some countries, homosexuality is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.

Civil rights for homosexuals is **literally** a matter of life or death. But you're upset because you're afraid that a few gay activists may be RUDE??

Get real.

EVERY time you disparage or criticize gays or make them seem less than you, you are ENCOURAGING that ongoing hatred and violence. Those attacks -- those deaths -- are on YOUR heads.

Murray, UT

@ Contrariuser

So by your reasoning, are all Muslims, or the country of Israel, responsible for Muslim terrorists acts?

I think those who pull the trigger are responsible for the actions. Not everyone of their race, or gender, or orientation, or religion, the one who pulls the trigger only.

To blame everyone of a certain classification is exactly the unfair practice this article is talking about.

Thanks for proving the point.


"But from what my gay and lesbian friends tell me, the GOP has lost the GLBT vote for the next century."

This may be true for the Lesbians but, they're less than 2% of the U.S. population. This number pales in comparison to the courting the right needs to do with minority voters.

Gay men however, are pleasant and gay because they want to be. They're definitely more forgiving.

mid-state, TN

@Badgerbadger --

"So by your reasoning, are all Muslims, or the country of Israel, responsible for Muslim terrorists acts?"

Most Muslims don't advocate that Jews are evil. Any who do so are contributory to the extent of their advocacy.

There's a reason why hate speech is often punishable by law -- and in many countries around the world, not just our own.

"The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that 'any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law'."

In the US, SCOTUS Justice Frank Murphy in 1942 summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words - those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

We **know** what the consequences of homophobia are. Every time we hear of another gay-bashing or gay murder, we see those consequences with our own eyes.

Murray, UT

@ Contrariuser

"... and the insulting or 'fighting' words - those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

We **know** what the consequences of homophobia are."

FYI 'Homophobic' (any form of the word) is one of those 'fighting' words.

Just pointing out the double standard. You want civility for one group while you insult another. Civility is a two way street. Your own words convict you, and you only, as a hater. I believe there is a compromise that could be made that fully respects those on both sides of this issue **IF** insults and hate could be set aside. But, lumping those opposed to SSM as being homophobes, haters, bigots, halts the conversation.

Cedar Hills, UT

I am just guessing here but if you peer 20 years down stream I could easily see one of two things...

1. Marriage in America disolved
2. The LDS church forced to perform gay marriage in their temples.

Either 1 or 2 spells further decline of our society which by the way is following ..not too far behind that of Godless and moral-less Europe.

mid-state, TN

@Badgerbadger --

"Just pointing out the double standard."

It isn't really a double standard. "Homophobic" is a term with a specific definition -- "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" -- and we can see from the repeated failure of anti-gay-marriage people to come up with reason-based arguments that it does indeed apply in the majority of cases.

But -- BIG but here -- **even if I were applying a double standard**, as you claim -- even if I were 100% guilty -- the consequences of my supposed "hate speech" are MUCH MUCH less significant than the consequences of yours (I mean the general "you" here -- the folks who are against gay marriage).

Nobody is being killed or beaten just because they oppose gay marriage.

But people ARE being killed AND beaten just because they are gay.

With greater consequences come greater responsibilities. The speech that does the most harm is the speech that should be the most restricted.

First we need to work on cutting out the speech that actually leads to people getting KILLED. THEN we can worry about the speech that merely ruffles a few feathers.

Los Gatos, CA

What should come next is opening our arms to everyone. We should follow Jesus' command to love our neighbors as ourselves, while continuing to preach faith, repentance and baptism. The Holy Spirit will be more powerful changing those within the Church, and those who do not believe the way we do, than any law suit, or hate filled sermon.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Marriage needs to be defined as a man/woman institution to preserve its proper form as an institution dedicated to the raising of children by their biological parents.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

"Homophobic" is a fluid term used to attack the statements, beliefs or otherwise of those who feel that God ordained sex only between a man and a woman lawfully married, and that all other forms of sexual action are wrong.

It is used to malign people who feel a vested interest in preserving marriage as the institution it is and thus preserving the definition it has.

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

I'm curious about a statement by Russel Moore. He said: we believe marriage is as resilient as Jesus says it is (Mark 10: 6-9).

Doesn't that mean that "biblical" marriage will survive regardless of any change in civil laws? Doesn't that imply that this whole fight should be done without appeals to Biblical values, as the Bible seems to tell us that marriage will survive regardless, and that churches have no proper role in opposing the expansion of equality?

Sophie 62
spring city, UT

I think what's next is legalizing polygamy.

mid-state, TN

@Sophie 62 --

"I think what's next is legalizing polygamy."

That is very unlikely to happen.

Here's a few reasons why:

1. Roughly 15 other countries already have gay marriage -- and NONE of them have legalized polygamy.

2. Canada recently reaffirmed their polygamy ban in court -- even though they've had gay marriage for 10 years.

3. Multiple court decisions in the US have reaffirmed the distinction between gay rights and both polygamy and incest.

Here's a couple of excerpts from US court decisions. In these quotes, "Lawrence" refers to the SCOTUS ruling overturning sodomy laws --

-- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, (Mass. 2003): "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but this) DOES NOT MEAN that this constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR INCESTUOUS relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships..."

-- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "the holding in Lawrence is actually quite narrow.....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.'"

to comment

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