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
Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

"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." "

So... heaven forbid we treat gays and lesbians as people? Heaven forbid they have rights.

Section 533 (which was signed into law by the way) was feared to be used as a tool to allow for the discrimination against these Soldiers. No Soldier deserves that, Mike. Each of them swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. They didn't sign up to receive your disdain because of a life style choice.

You preach (and I believe in) a loving God that has set commandments. Which do you think wins more souls? Treating them as the sons and daughters of God they are, or gawking at the notion we even consider them human? We preach of a loving Christ, why not show that love, treat them as equals, and let Him judge?

You have your sins too, don't judge because others sin differently than you.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

If you want to see the meaning of tone of the argument against the argument for the traditional definition of marriage, one need look no farther than the dissent by Justice Scalia, who states, "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

lingusist
perhaps you have no intention fo forcing your choice on the rest of us, but that is not the direction in which the courst and militant gays are headed.

RanchHand,
your questions about marriage in LDS temples evidences an ignorance of US and LDS history. The federal government disenfranchised the church and confiscated its temples to force a change in religious practice. There is a definite precedent. And with BO's ideology of Fed govt uber alles, we have plenty of reason to fear

redshirt007
tranquility base, 00

Marriage in churches is not legally binding without a marriage license. Ministers are "allowed" to perform the ceremony by the state government but it's the government that has taken all legal authority in marriage.

Return authority to the churches and get the government out of marriage entirely.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Darrel,

Do you think that anyone in government has the right to dictate religious doctrine? Do you think that the President has the authority to dictate to a minister when or how that minister conducts a marriage?

The Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about sexual orientation, including any special rights to anyone based on his/her sexual orientation, but the Constitution does have an absolute guarantee that government will not interfere with religion. Obama is injecting his personal ideas about sexual orientation into the ordinances performed by clergy in the military. There is no exemption offered to the President based on where or how clergy conducts ordinances - even if the clergy has been hired by the Commander in Chief.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Linguist:
"Now, with the law in our state recently changed by popular vote, we are legally married. A win-win in my view."

Are you any happier now that you're 'married?' If so, it seems strange that a little piece of paper can be the determining factor of happiness.

@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."

Marriage is a state and not a federal issue. The military is a federal organization thus has no authority to dictate or decide what marriage is to be.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@Mike Richards

"Darrel,

Do you think that anyone in government has the right to dictate religious doctrine? Do you think that the President has the authority to dictate to a minister when or how that minister conducts a marriage?"
============

Absolutely not! You and I are both in full agreement on that point. I think that a vast majority of Americans, if not all, would be in full agreement. Uncle Sam has no business between me and my pastor.

Where we differ is people claiming this is happening. I have asked for specific examples, and some have tried to use the military. It isn't and will not happen. Where are these churches, or ministers that are forced to carry these marriages out?

Our temples aren't even required to marry every straight couple. Catholic bishops are free to not marry previously divorced people. The government is not, and has not declared any intention to try and change that.

If that were to ever happen, I'll be right at the front of the protest march along with you.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

2 bits,

Prohibition of gay marriage does not support "traditional marriage". Nor does allowing gay marriage change "traditional marriage".

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

@wrz @Linguist:
"Now, with the law in our state recently changed by popular vote, we are legally married. A win-win in my view."

Are you any happier now that you're 'married?' If so, it seems strange that a little piece of paper can be the determining factor of happiness.

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

First of @Linguist
Wonderful, I wish you and your partner all the happiness in the world.

@ wrz

Really? Are trying to devalue someone's marriage? Are you married? Or did you just decide that "little piece of paper" wasn't worth it?

The day I got my "little piece of paper" was the happiest day of my life. And never, in my wildest dreams would I try to devalue what that "little piece of paper" may mean to someone else.

Linguist
Silver Spring, MD

@wrz

As I indicated, it was the religious ceremony that had an emotional impact on me and my family-- I suspect in exactly the same ways that it does on anyone who marries. There wasn't a dry eye in the chapel!

The problem was that it had no force of law behind it. We remained legal strangers to one another.

While that "little piece of paper" cannot buy happiness, it can provide some piece of mind. I saw that directly when my father died, and my grieving and distraught mother fretted over all the paperwork that fell to her (us). The family lawyer assured her that we had only to order a bunch of death certificates and, as his legal spouse, she would have them on hand whenever any questions about rights of survivorship arose.

And he was right.

So that "little piece of paper" has tremendous legal value. That may be one reason that you don't find many (any?) opposite-sex couples foregoing signing the civil marriage license when they marry religiously.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

mcbillay

Jobs bills passed by the House: 0

untrue - too much MSNBC for you!

if you mean jobs paid with federal money, then you might be right, but there are still some who believe in the private sector.

BO's supposed "compromise"??? he has made NO definite proposals. He said YOU give up something definite, and I'll throw out this nebular concept that will never materialize.

As I said, too much MSNBC for you!

1covey
Salt Lake City, UT

Look at what's happening to Orson Scott Card. Legal action has already been taken against ministers who refuse to marry those of the same sex.

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

@1covey

Legal action has already been taken against ministers who refuse to marry those of the same sex.

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

Who? Where? I'd like a source on this, because that would be an absolute travesty.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@1covey --

"Look at what's happening to Orson Scott Card. "

He's being boycotted. Big whoop.

NOM is currently sponsoring TWO boycotts. If they can boycott, why can't anyone else?

"Legal action has already been taken against ministers who refuse to marry those of the same sex."

Baloney. Name the ministers.

It is true that some churches **in other countries** are being required to perform same-sex marriages -- but that is because those countries have STATE churches. Obviously, we do not.

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

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Darrel,

Somehow I think that you've been caught up in your own rhetoric.

The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to have special laws for sexual identity nor to discriminate because of sexual orientation, but it does.

The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to make laws about marriage, but it has.

The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to involve itself in religion, but it does.

Obama has publicly stated how wrong America is for not allowing gays to have exactly what they want, yet he has no authority to legislate and no authority to change the Constitution to favor anyone because of sexual preference.

We are not defined by our sex. We are not defined by what we think about sex. We are not defined by our sexual preferences, but you couldn't tell that by reading the comments of those who will boycott Orson Scott Card because of "offenses" perceived, or those who will boycott Utah because of "offenses" perceieved, or those who will block temples or vandalize churches because of "offenses" perceived.

Sorry, but rhetoric does not change history.

milojthatch
Sandy, UT

We as a society keep going farther over the edge, and every time those with common sense try to pull us back and warn the people about what's next, those pushing us over the edge go, "You guys are crazy, it won't happen." Then when it happens, they deny they ever said that and we start the whole thing over again.

It truly is a scary time to be on this Earth.

Linguist
Silver Spring, MD

"change the Constitution to favor anyone because of sexual preference."

The Constitution does not mention sexual orientation. Or marriage. Or the Internet. Or a host of other things that are relevant to today's society.

It does, however, establish basic general rights, including such rights as Equal Protection under the law. Most of the court cases being decided in favor of gay people are based on these general rights.

That's why, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas couldn't have one set of rules for what opposite-sex couples did in private and another when same-sex couples did precisely the same thing.

That's why, in Evans v Romer, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado's law targeting gay people and depriving them of protections afforded to heterosexuals.

And that's why, in the recent DOMA case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government couldn't treat some married couples differently from other married couples.

With respect, most of the laws in question are special laws that target gay people and deny them rights that others take for granted.

Really???
Kearns, UT

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

Can you cite the specifics of the fines or penalties? I would like to see some concrete evidence to back up that argument.

to comment

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