Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gay marriage: What's next for Utah?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 3 2013 5:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
BCA
Murrieta, CA

The fact that there is a picture of a gay couple holding hands in the Deseret News is proof enough that times are changing. The icing on the cake is the lack of the-sky-is-falling comments. Good for us all

snowman
Provo, UT

They can;t force Utah to let gay couples get maried and they don;t have to regcognise a gay marriage that took place somewhere else.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@california #1

Actually California did defend the law and lost in perry vs schwertzenegger, they wisely choose not to appeal but proponents picked it up and appealed it to the 9th circuit who allowed them standing but ruled against their appeal upholding the low courts decision. The state defended prop 8 lost, were does it say they must defend. every bad law all the way to the subprime court?

mattrick78
Cedar City, UT

@Contrarius Polygamy does not threaten straight marriages either. Should it then be legalized?

Scott3
Quiet Neighborhood, UT

I am surprised the media doesn't really talk about AIDS anymore. Doesn't that concern anyone?

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

The solution is simple: If you don't support gay marriage, don't get gay married.

Let's have freedom for all

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

"What's next for Utah?"

This is a lesson in history. Look back at Loving v Virginia. Even after the Supreme Court decision, most of Utah still did not perform interracial marriages. The rest of the country will move towards marriage equality. Episcopalians, Unitarians, and many other Christian religions already fully support marriage equality. Utah will be last, and LDS maybe never.

Spencer W. Kimball wrote: "When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children."

Boyd K Packer said "We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise."

Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

This topic is dividing country faster then any other disputes in history.It is sad .but I see no way out of it. We all have a right to stand up for what we believe is right.I respect all who stand up for their rights. Even if it goes against my rights. I have no respect for fence sitters who will not say anything out of fear. We do live in scarry Times. But to bury to your head in the ground until the conflict is over is wrong.

sharrona
layton, UT

Contrarius, All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Mt22:37-40.

For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”(Gal 5:13-14) but the acts of the flesh are obvious: *sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

RE: If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47. v 48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
But the very words of Christ would judge those who rejects Him IN THE FUTURE, “at the last day”.
God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Rom 2:12-16 AV)

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@Scott3 --

"I am surprised the media doesn't really talk about AIDS anymore. Doesn't that concern anyone?"

If you are worried about AIDS, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages stable monogamous relationships, which DECREASE disease transmission.

@mattrick78 --

"Polygamy does not threaten straight marriages either. Should it then be legalized?"

Both polygamy and incest increase the risks of harm to others. Multiple courts in both this country and others have reaffirmed that the state has an interest in preventing both polygamy and incest, but NO interest in preventing homosexual relations.

Here's an excerpt from just one relevant court decision. There are many others, but I have limited space!

-- 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...the state constitutional right to marry...DOES NOT AFFECT the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives."

cjf
Salt Lake City, UT

@The solution is simple: If you don't support gay marriage, don't get gay married.

Let's have freedom for all.

----------

Unless, of course, you are a hotel owner, a photographer, a baker, a fertility doctor, participate in a dating website, etc. Then prepared to be sued if you don't 100% cater to the gay marriage industry even though your conscience is against it.

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@Laura Ann --

"...but he did in Matt. 15:19."

Nope.

That quote mentions "sexual immorality/fornication/sexual sins" (depending on translation), not homosexuality.

Jesus never said a word against homosexuality.

"As I believe in the Bible, I can never condone gay marriage."

Many Christians both believe in the Bible AND support gay marriage.

@sharrona --

Once again you quote passages that don't contradict a thing I've said. Thanks for that. :-)

Sharrona:"but the acts of the flesh are obvious..." (Gal 5:19)

First, this passage doesn't mention homosexuality.

Second, you need to remember that it was spoken by Paul -- not Jesus. Paul is the guy who said it was better to remain single than to marry. Paul is also the guy who said that nobody should ever get divorced. He didn't even make exceptions for infidelity or abuse.

Sharrona: "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day." John 12;48

RIGHT.

If there is any judging to be done, it will be done AT THE LAST DAY.

It is NOT our job to do the judging now.

very concerned
Sandy, UT

I can believe that at some point in the past, some societies practiced homosexuality. But I don't believe that was the norm by any means. And we know that at least some of those civilizations fell flat, often from within.

I don't have confidence that gay marriages will not threaten straight marriages. For instance, loud and intrusive protests across the street from the Salt Lake temple while newly-married couples were outside celebrating their sealings. From my experience, those who oppose true religion or religious doctrine will never be happy unless religion ceases to exist. And yes, we would talk in circles if there were no divine direction, so it is, in a very personal and public way, a battle between God's laws (religion) and man's. I'm just not convinced that there will be no impact on heterosexual marriage. We have personally observed that marriage in general is just not valued as much due to a decline in society's morals. Cohabitation, homosexuality, and other indescretions have taken a visible toll already.

very concerned
Sandy, UT

God DOES love all his children and He does want US to show appropriate love to each other. He wants us all to live in peace. He wants to give us all the blessings He can. You and I are His children. You are His literal spirit child. He loves you. Of this I have no doubt. That is why He reaches out to ALL, not just a particular few.

On the other hand, and this is very important, He teaches us that certain behaviors are contrary to His laws of happiness and His plan. He sent you to earth as an act of love to give you the opportunity to return to Him in joy and happiness. He wants us all to succeed and return to Him. He’d love it if all of us who transgress turned from our sins. He wants to be merciful, but cannot deny justice. Quite a quandary. How is it reconciled? Through the atonement of Jesus Christ. He makes it possible to return to Him if we believe in Jesus Christ, turn to Him, and turn away from our sins.

amazondoc
mid-state, TN

@cjf --

"Unless, of course, you are a hotel owner...."

The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination by private businesses more than 50 years ago. This is nothing new.

This is also the SAME law that protects Mormons against discrimination, btw.

It means that a Southern Baptist business owner isn't allowed to discriminate against a Mormon, even if that Baptist's "conscience is against it".

Doesn't sound quite so bad now, does it?

equal protection
Cedar, UT

Hotel owners, photographers, bakers, etc. are subject to state consumer anti-discrimination laws, not marriage laws. If you don't want to serve someone because of the marriage status, race, creed, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, then target the right law or regulation (Marriage law is not it).

Most folks don't have an innate trait to marry more than one spouse. For the majority of people, changing ones sexual orientation to fit ones religious view cannot be done. Much easier to change religious views with far better outcomes and efficacy.

timpClimber
Provo, UT

When the same sex marriage text books become required reading in public schools look for a sharp increase in charter schools and home schooling. Civil union contracts should allow all the benefits without the need for same sex marriage.

slow down
Provo, UT

"Being on the right side of history” is a poor moral argument. But I agree that Utah can improve the “legal” side of things, and I support that. Whether redefining marriage is part of those improvements depends on whether you think that a legal redefinition will obscure or diminish the importance of the mother-father-child relationship. Proponents of change often argue that it will not change anything. Some proponents of change, however, argue the exact opposite. You could argue that if more legal benefits were in place, the only reason to demand “marriage” is to dethrone the father-mother-child ideal at the cultural level. Many people, understandably, find that troubling, and are not sure that emphasizing the distinction between civil and religious marriage will solve the problem. (Look at the mainline Protestant churches.) To turn this into a question of bigotry is to prejudge the issue that is really at stake. Many people would love to find a way of being meaningfully accommodating without compromising the identity of a social and moral institution that they truly believe (call it naïve, if you will) is a vital human good.

Living Below the Y
Spanish Fork, UT

Yeah, it's looking more and more inevitable, unfortunately. The correct thing for Utah to do would be to change the name of the legal function (to 'civil unions' or whatever they decide to call it, as long as it is not 'marriage') and remove marriage from the anti-discrimination laws.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

Most local school districts have control over curricula. Some folks wanted home schooling when interracial marriage became legal. Can you imagine the outcome of a child reading about our nations laws in a school textbook?

Why the need for the separate status of civil union contracts? Many companies won't recognize civil unions for health care benefits. Moreover, why deny same sex couples and their children the social status and significance of having married parents? The supreme court just determined that homosexual couples are provided equal protection in our laws, and that something separate is demeaning and a second class status.

Besides, asking a prospective spouse "Will you civil union me?" as opposed to "Will you marry marry me?" just doesn't have the same "ring" to it.... in my view.

to comment

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