Comments about ‘Is support for traditional marriage 'hate speech'?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 6 2013 5:09 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Linguist
Silver Spring, MD

To my mind, the question of whether it's "hate speech" or not is really a non-issue. I am gay, and a person of faith. I am now legally married to my partner of many years.

I have never and will never demand that those from other faith traditions accept mine. Egads, as a Jew, I am already on the "wrong side" for most Americans yet I wouldn't want to force anyone to believe that my faith tradition trumps theirs.

My partner and I married in a religious ceremony in the very same Reform Jewish temple where he had become bar mitzvah years earlier. It was wonderful. It meant the world to me, to him, to our families. And the congregation was extremely welcoming.

But it had absolutely no force of law behind it. Now, with the law in our state recently changed by popular vote, we are legally married. A win-win in my view.

There is no conflict. Really. Religions must be able to set their own rules, for or against, in accordance with the tenets of their faith.

The law, on the other hand, must protect all of us. And that includes gay couples.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

So just how are things in MA, IA and the other states which have legalized gay marriage?

Ryan T. Anderson's article in National Review Online merely trots out the same old stuff we heard during the Prop 8 campaign.

People who are worried about the "state" of marriage in society should put their time and attention on ways to promote and support stable, long-lasting marriages regardless of what the sex of the partners are. Our children deserve that.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

"Cruz responded to the statement by saying, “If you look at other nations that have gone down the road toward gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced.”

Conveniently, he didn't name those "other nations", so now we can't validate his wild accusation.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Quoting "biblical truths" (i.e.; calling people "abominations" and claiming they should be put to death), is, in my book "hate speech".

Now if you just want to call them "sinners" and the like, no problem.

The next thing that Mr. Cruz needs to learn, is that "biblical truths" have never been proven to be true. Ever.

If you think that churches will be force to marry gay couples if they don't want to, just look at the Mormon church. Are they required to marry heterosexual non-member couples in their temples? (no) Are they required to marry "unworthy" heterosexual members in their temples? (again, no). What makes you think gays could possibly demand more than actual members couldn't?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . clergy in America will remain free to preach what they want to — they will never be forced to celebrate a same-sex wedding . . . ."

Too late. We're already there. Military chaplains are being told that objections they or their endorsers may have to performing gay marriages are irrelevant, and that a "failure" to perform such marriages will considered a violation DoD policy that could jeopardize continued service.

The Obama regime recently filed an objection to proposed section 530 of the 2014 appropriations act, which would require "the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, actions and speech reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member."

Makes real people wonder, why? What could the regime possibly object to in such language?

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@procuradorfiscal

"Military chaplains are being told that objections they or their endorsers may have to performing gay marriages are irrelevant, and that a "failure" to perform such marriages will considered a violation DoD policy that could jeopardize continued service."

Please cite your source. That seems to run counter to everything the Chaplain Corp does. In fact, DoD policy prohibits a chaplain from teaching anything contrary to what their endorsing agency believes.

I would be very interested to see if that changed, please provide a source.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"Equal rights for women" hasn't penetrated churches yet, so it is hard to imagine legalization of gay marriage is going to require clergy to perform same-sex marriages."

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:Procura

"Defense Department guidance issued to military chaplains said they may participate in ceremonies on or off military bases in states that recognize gay unions. Chaplains are not required to officiate at same-sex weddings if doing so is counter to their religious or personal beliefs, the guidance said."
(Washington Post 2011)

"House Minority Leader Pelosi on attacked a Republican proposal reinforcing the right of military chaplains to steer clear of gay marriage ceremonies.
The California Democrat said the chaplains already have that right, and no one is trying to take it away.

"Nobody's ordering them to do that. I've never seen any suggestion that we're ordering chaplains to perform same-sex [marriages]. Where is that?" Pelosi asked during her weekly press conference."
(The Hill 5/2012)

"Chuck Hagel assured the Senate on Thursday that military chaplains will not be forced to conduct same-sex marriages they disagree with — though the defense secretary nominee said same-sex couples will have access to chapels."
(Washington Times 1/2013)

"Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and services members,” Obama wrote."
(Fox 2013)

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re:"Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and services members,” Obama wrote."

So, if it's mere restatement of current policy, and there's no intent to change that policy in the future, what could possibly make the section an "ill-advised provision?"

Hmmmmmm.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Moderate: You asked which nations? Sweden and Canada have had instances of people supporting traditional marriage who have benn eiter fined or fired.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

You are always free to discriminate against any group, but it normally stops when it becomes too uncomortable to do it.

Yes, it's perfectly legal for clergy to refuse to perform gay weddings, and this should be their choice as long as they want it. But over time, they will be, more and more, miserable outliers.

The right to discriminate isn't clearly legislated. But the tendency to discriminate is eroded one group at a time. Gay marriage is here, and resisters will just move furrther and further to the fringes. But let that be their choice!

Edgar
Samaria, ID

This letter could be used as a text book example of the straw man argument - state that you know something will happen, even though there is no evidence to support your argument, then carry on about all the ramifications of that very thing happening.

Paranoia strikes deep.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO the answer is "no". Speech supporting traditional marriage does not automatically mean hatred for ANYBODY.

Support for traditional marriage is just supporting the age old definition the term "Marriage" has had in our culture as far back as history goes. It doesn't mean you hate anybody. It just means you want to preserve traditions of what a family is.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What, exactly did Obama mean when he said, "Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision,as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that."?

Has he read the 1st Amendment that protects the doctrine and ordinances of establishments of religion? Does he know that chaplains are recognized as ordained ministers of their respective establishments of religion? Does he know that the federal government cannot EVER tell an establishment of religion what it must believe or what it must do?

As Commander in Chief, he can kick out all chaplains. He can leave the military without religious influence. Maybe that's his goal. Maybe he wants to teach young people how to use firearms without being burdened with a conscience.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Tekakaromatagi --

"Sweden and Canada have had instances of people supporting traditional marriage who have benn eiter fined or fired."

Sweden has a state church. Since the church is officially affiliated with the state, naturally it must uphold all the laws of the state.

Now aren't you glad we have separation of church and state here?

Cite your examples from Canada.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

The hate part comes in because many do not stop at "I support traditional marriage."

It is generally followed by hateful comments about legally-sanctioned marriage for all.

If you support traditional marriage, have one, nurture it. Just don't tell others their marriages are wrong.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@ Mike Richards

"What, exactly did Obama mean when he said, "Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision,as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members...(shortened for space)

===============

Let's take it at face value. The Department of Defense cannot, and will not force a Chaplain to perform any ordinance, or practice that is contrary to their endorsing agency's values. An LDS Chaplain is not forced to perform baptism on someone he deems has not met the requirements, in fact he is prohibited from doing such. Therefore, unless the Church receives revelation and changes its stance, an LDS chaplain will not be forced to marry two guys.

On the other hand, DoD will allow chaplains from agencies that allow these marriages to perform them.

I have received numerous briefings, and every other serviceman, on this when the repeal took affect. How this affected Chaplains was a big part of those briefings. In short, it won't. They can still preach what they want from the pulpit, and will not, cannot be forced to go contrary to their religion.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@ Darrell,

You chose to ignore the "meat" of Obama's message where it said: "My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that."

He is putting the "rights" of gay and lesbian service members above the Constitutionally protected freedom of establishments of religion to define their own doctrine. He thinks that if he hires a minister that he has the right to tell the minister what to do and what to teach. He is "fully committed" which is just more "gobbledygook" which means that he will do anything he wants to do without regard to the Constitution - just as he has ignored the Constitution in the past.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I hope it doesn't get to the point where churches have to marry those they don't want to. But that's where it has to end. Religion isn't a victim just because it can't force itself on society, and it's no less free because it can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. It's just religion, it's not society and it's not me.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

@Hutterite,

Unlike many countries, we have no State religion. You told us that religion is acting like a victim because it can't force itself on us. I beleive that your response is inaccruated and misleading. As Americans, we have the RIGHT to choose to join a religion or to remain independent of religion. We have the RIGHT to choose how we worship God or to not worship Him. We have the RIGHT to honor and obey a Creator, or to reject the Creator and place ourselves in His position. The government cannot tell us how to worship, where to worship or what to worship.

You can put government between you and your god, but that is not allowed by the Constitution. It is your own desire, not the law of the land.

No person in government can tell us how to pray, or even whether we can pray without violating the Constitution. Any person in government that tells clergy what they must do or even what they CAN do, has violated the Constitution.

Obama cannot use "gay rights" to amend the Constitution. He does not have that right nor does he have that authority.

to comment

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