Comments about ‘Lesbian couple say marriage lawsuit against Utah, LDS Church was filed without their knowledge’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 31 2013 6:58 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

I don't see anywhere in the article what the complaint is against the LDS church in the lawsuit. I can't imagine what they would be suing the church for anyway.

Kudos to these ladies for doing the right thing in this case. It will be interesting to see what's behind all this. Sounds like the lawsuit was a bucket of hogwash to begin with.

Kimber
Salt Lake City, UT

I sure agree with those that have contributed that gay people are basically good just as heterosexuals are. This was certainly an example of what good people can do.

donn
layton, UT

@ Ulvegaard: Christian discrimination is Biblical:
”For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone “who believes” in (Jesus)him will not perish but have eternal life.”(John 3:16) .

Cougsndawgs
West Point , UT

Please stop with all the fear mongering that gays want to destroy religion. Marriages performed in church rites and ordinances are protected under the constitution and always will be. It's the state that has to comply in issuing licenses to marry that has to recognize civil rights and the constitution. If you own a business that makes gain from public consumption then you cannot discriminate against people based on their religion, race, or sexual orientation...it's called the civil rights act, created to protect minorities and give them equal treatment in trade, employment, and any other worthy endeavor.

LDS temples will NEVER be required to perform gay marriages. Marriage in the temple is a religious right, where obtaining a license to marry is a state and civil right. The fear mongering and false bravado from religious zealots needs to stop. Take some courses in constitutional law and actually understand what you're talking about before spreading fear and hate.

jimhale
Eugene, OR

It sounds like the facts of this situation are not fully known.

These women may not be "out to tear religion". But someone will be.

Unfortunately, in our legal system, it only takes one.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

@intervention:
"The ninth amendment clearly states that simply because a right is not 'specifically enumerated' does not mean the right does not exist."

Who's saying gays don't have the right to marry? They have the same rights as anyone else (except polygamists, children, etc.), so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not rocket science.

"Additional(ly), marriage has historically been a civil contract between parties to manage the orderly transfer of properties, wealth etc."

Managing properties, wealth, assets through marriage is a recent phenomenon. Historically, marriage has been mostly to produce, raise, and protect children (citizens) through to adulthood.

"Perhaps churches should do what the LDS church does have their members get a civil marriage license and do their 'temple marriages.'"

Everyone who marries has to have a 'civil' marriage license. That's the law. The 'temple' thing is for another purpose, I think to do with the hereafter.

Father to elderly parishioner: We need to sit down some day and talk about you and the 'hereafter.'

Elderly parishioner: I know what you mean... when I go to the garage for something, I ask myself 'what am I here after?'

ClarkHippo
Tooele, UT

I will be honest and say I have some concerns and important questions about same-sex marriage. At the same time however, we need to be careful about knee jerks reactions to stories such as this.

The fact is, this lawsuit sounds like a frivolous attempt by some ethically challenged lawyer to try and profit from the recent rulings on Amendment 3, and the fact that at least one lesbian who was on the plaintiffs list doesn't want to have anything to do with it, tells me this lawsuit isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Let's all take a step back and calm down for a moment.

3grandslams
Iowa City, IA

This lawsuit is just the beginning. How quickly the true intent is revealed of the gay and lesbian community...What is funny is the lawsuit claimed they were denied their religious freedom, yet the whole time the gay community has been screaming the 14th amendment of due process was being violated.

By the way religious communities WANT the religious freedom debate...because clearly now this is what it is.

Kudos to the two individuals who had some integrity.

Johnnyoh!
,

What a shocker, an unethical lawyer.
Must put a lot of miles on his vehicle chasing ambulances
Good for the couple to come forward
Odds are the judge will not throw it out.
Could be someone misrepresenting the attorney

Rikitikitavi
Cardston, Alberta

Follow the Prophet, he knows the way: LDS Children' songbook #110.

Here
Sandy, UT

It wasn't that long ago that SSM was even an issue. All the GLBT community wanted was "civil unions". And it wasn't long before that that SSM or civil unions were even considered. They weren't even on the radar.

In other words, I don't have confidence that some in the GLBT community will be satisfied with their marriage "rights". I agree (with other people who have posted here) that churches still have a lot to fight for. Some opponents of religion would deny religious liberties (as outlined in the first amendment) in the name of individual "equality" (fourteenth amendment). I don't think that's what the authors of those amendments had in mind, using one of them and forgetting the other.

Here
Sandy, UT

Wait a minute. If there is a suit out there with twenty-five couples as plaintiffs, and one couple claimed they weren't consulted and want out (to their credit), then what about the other 24? Is this real? Is there a lawyer out there with 24 plaintiff couples suing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints and the State of Utah over marriage?

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ alfred
"Who's saying gays don't have the right to marry? They have the same rights as anyone else (except polygamists, children, etc.), so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not rocket science."
It would seem for some we need to start with a history lession not rocket science seeing your comment is almost verbatim the arguements used to oppose interracial marriage and is no less redicoous now as then and as was the case then been rejected by the courts . You also seem to be lacking in understanding the history of this debate or you would now the arguement that "marriage has historically been mostly to produce, raise, and protect children (citizens) through to adulthood," has been found time and again to be without historical or legal bases.
Not sure what your argument is in terms of civil licenses since you seem to be simply proving interventions point.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

That some could be so full of hate, and not even recognize it, just breaks my heart.

These fears and worries about the "agenda" of advocates for LGBT equality, where are they really from? Is it some fear that those you've repressed and reviled for many years might somehow revisit those same sins upon you, that those you've ill-treated will treat you the same way? Ask yourself, if in fearing that, do you express that as even more hate and contempt?

Because these fears are thoroughly unwarranted. There is no conspiracy against Christians in this country. Everyone is free to worship in their own way and their own houses of worship. The fact that no denomination is entitled to bring Dominion to our secular society is not an example of oppression.

The last time a government in this country achieved Dominion, the Puritans of Massachusetts Colony, they methodically slaughtered "savages," accused and burned "witches" and hung Quakers as heretics. Their abuses, though, are what motivated writing our First Amendment, to prevent theocratic tyranny.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Those of you that keep claiming this is evidance of some grand conserecy by the lgbt community knowing full well this couple did not file this claim only continue to hurt your own cause. If you want to now why those against gay marriage are losing look back at these post they undermine your own credibility.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

@spring street:
"... seeing your comment is almost verbatim the arguements (sic) used to oppose interracial marriage and is no less redicoous (sic) now as then and as was the case then been rejected by the courts."

Of course the court ruled on interracial marriage. And the federal government ruled on polygamy, incestuous marriages, age differing marriages, and several others. If the court (or government) can rule that these are illegal marriages, it can also rule that same sex marriages are also illegal... and should.

"You also seem to be lacking in understanding the history of this debate or you would now the arguement (sic) that "marriage has historically been mostly to produce, raise, and protect children (citizens) through to adulthood," has been found time and again to be without historical or legal bases."

No historical basis? Marriage has been around for centuries. Children need to be born or the humans will disappear forever. And they need to be nurtured lest they die of lack of care. Marriage is a formal commitment to assure that this transpires as planned. With same sex marriage, bringing offspring into the world and nurturing to adulthood is a nonexistent objective... or secondary at best?

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Look, I can make the attorney's case really easily here: The LDS church should be forced to marry gay couples in their temple because now that gays can legally be married, every person licensed by the state to marry someone has to conduct all eligible weddings. What if you went to a licensed state garbage dump to dump your garbage and they told you no, because you are gay? Illegal. LDS temples are there to marry people, so they have to marry all people. It's equal services. If they don't want to marry people, then get out of the marriage business.

And after all, The LDS church has been told long ago that they in particular must comply with the law of this country on marriage.... Reynolds v. US, the 1800's. The 1st amendment doesn't allow you to refuse to comply with the law.

See? The legal argument is easy. If the LDS church, a state licensee to conduct marriages, wants to conduct marriages then they must marry anyone that can be married legally. Otherwise they must lose their license. Any liberal, leftist judge will follow this reasoning.

Bob K
portland, OR

funny_guy
Vacaville, CA

"The GLBT agenda has nothing to do with equality, but rather the destruction of organized religion -- as they attempted to do to the Boy Scouts years ago.

... COMPLETELY untrue that there is a Gay agenda to destroy religion. The agenda is to live without interference from religion and have equal rights, to be the same as everyone else.

... The Boy Scout comparison is utter nonsense.
A--Boys join very young and may realize they are Gay half way through scouting. Would you turn them away from their friends, unable to finish their scouting?
B--If you had 3 straight sons and one Gay, would you want him excluded?
C--There have ALWAYS been Gays in scouting, often the best scouts. The issue was making them violate their oath by lying.

"Even though I find you to be repugnant....." Many in California finds mormons repugnant now, but you have freedom there.

"My sole objection to same-sex marriage is their intolerance towards anyone with different values."
... Think what you want, say it politely, don't block rights, live in harmony. If you need to say Gays are going to hell, you will be invited to go first.

bigirish
OREM, UT

So much publicity to all this hubbub, just what the same sex community wanted to spark their cause, when if we would just keep things in perspective, we'd see that this is such a small population trying to get all the attention and news! And our news people jump on it and make it front page stuff! No balance here, eh?

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

Utah is the first post-DOMA case based on a fundamental right to marry. Judge Shelby repeatedly quoted Scalia's dissent rants to bolster the argument that since marriage is Constitutionally protected, and since we can't discriminate against homosexual marriages just because of the ick factor, then ALL marriages are Constitutionally protected.

If Utah continues to push this to SCOTUS, it will be the height of irony when SCOTUS has no choice but to rule for equality, it becomes the law throughout America... all due to Utah's insistence to codify state-sponsored discrimination into law.

to comment

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