Quantcast

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
hillplus
Aurora, CO

Class action suits are big bucks for unscrupulous lawyers!

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Vanceone, your "argument" is completely false. Firstly, as I understand it, Temple weddings are religious only. From what I gather from another commenter, the couple must hold a civil marriage certificate first. If so, there's no "licensed" officiant involved.

Second, and more importantly, only State officers, such as judges and justices, and by extension municipal officers such as clerks, are compelled to marry any qualified couple that presents with a license, relevant fees, etc.

Religious clerics are recognized/"licensed" as being ABLE to officiate weddings as a clerical function of their religion, but are not COMPELLED to, at all, let alone outside their religious tenets. Try marrying someone outside your religion and see how quickly your options become limited. A Jew marrying a Catholic can't marry in either a Church or a Temple.

I haven't seen the suit, so I don't know what it was about, perhaps illegal political activity, but it's certainly not going to compel religious marriage. That idea is nonsense.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Au contraire: I was married in the temple and I only got a marriage license--a license to be married. It was the officiator in the temple who actually performed the marriage. So, indeed, they DO have a license to marry people. You are right, though--in England, you have to go through two ceremonies, one civil and one religious.

I was just explaining a path that some LGBT friendly judge could take to mandate religions being forced to marry gays against their will. The argument is there, if the judge wants it. And as we have repeatedly seen, there are a lot of judges willing to ram gay rights down the populace's throat.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@alfred

And the difference between the other forms of marriage that the court has upheld laws against and gay narriage is that the people defending those laws were able to prove a harm if they were allowed something those that oppose gay marriage have never been able to do, which bring us to your see one point, marriage has never been defined by law and is not currently defined by law as being for the purpose of procreation and there is no evidance that allowing gay marriage would in anyway negatively affect procreation or the raising of children. again this argument has been vetted in the courts time and again and found to be baseless, you are not covering any ground that has not been worn thin over the years

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Vanceone, no judge would reach that conclusion. The First Amendment prohibits it.

No civilian religious cleric can be ordered by a court to conduct any rite or ceremony. I'm not sure how the military regs handle Army chaplains, who have responsibilities towards all soldiers, but that's another situation.

As a Mormon, Jew, or Quaker, you can't be married in a Catholic church. You could sue until the cows come home, and it wouldn't matter. That's how it is.

Churches are independent of each other, and of the State. Each denomination is free to practice religion according to their own faith.

Here's an interesting tidbit about Quaker marriages. We believe no man or woman has the power to marry a couple in our religion. Only God does. The approved couple stands before the assembled body and commits themselves to marriage, speaking their own vows. The Quaker Meeting's function is only to witness and record that marriage. There is no officiant as such. The marriage laws of my state have a special section to accommodate us.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

If you think the 1st Amendment is going to stop some gay judge from forcing religions to marry gay people, your naivety is showing. The Constitution also protects freedom of contract. You have the right to engage, or not, in business with whomever as you choose. Except for civil rights, and especially in the case of gays, where they can force you to conduct business with them. Just ask any wedding planner/baker/florist what happens when the gays come demanding you serve them. The state forces you to--you have no freedom anymore. Except to go out of business, that is.

Do you honestly think that the gay judge who overturned Proposition 8 wouldn't use any theory he could to force a church to perform a gay ceremony? In New Jersey the courts already force churches to allow gay ceremonies to occur on their property, but as of yet not conduct them. There's not much difference between forcing them to allow a ceremony and forcing them to conduct one.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Sounds to me like a lawyer smelled a big payout... and didn't even think to stop and ask the people he was going to USE for his lawsuit to see if they wanted to be part of the suit. Probably figured "who WOULDN'T want piece of this payout"?

Layers like this one are the reason the profession has such a bad reputation.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Actually, supporting same-sex marriage increases government regulation. In Utah in November 2013 homosexuals could live to gether with no state interference. There was no law against such action, they faced no criminal penalties. They were free to stay or to leave, and one party could not bring the state to try to regulate the actions of the other.

A married couple agrees to allow the state to regulate their actions. If you doubt this, just look at some things that are required of parents after divorce. The only justification for such regulation is the state wants to create a situation where as much child rearing is done by biological parents. This requires marriage in the form of child producing relations and creating an expectation of sexual exclusivity in marriage. Both of these will be undermined by same-gender marriage.

Why does same0gender marriage undermine the form of sexual exclusivity? The easy answer is because some non-lesbian single women will enter it while still being open to finding a male spouse. I have even seen a commentor on this board advocate such a course.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

When a New Mexico photographer was told the price of being a US citizen is being forced to violate her deeply-held religious beliefs, why do we thing other organizations are far behind.

How long until a homosexual sues the LDS Church for not being allow to hold their wedding reception in an LDS facility? Probably a while. However, a Bed and Breakfast in Vermont already stopped hosting weddings rather than schedule a same-gender one, and still was somehow roced to pay $30,000 although they had totally left the business before the couple in question planned to get married.

A baker in Colorado has been threatened with jail time if he does not make a cake for a same-sex wedding. This is a clear violation of freedom.

In Kentucy a t-shirt business has been gone after by the "Human Rights Commission" for refusing to provide T-shirt to a gay rights parade. This incoherent law suit is part of a much larger trend.

Cougsndawgs
West Point , UT

Vanceone:
You're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about religious marriage ceremonies and then bring in businesses and whether they have the right to withhold services. Any business that offers it's services to the public is required by the CRA (Civil Rights Act) to provide their services regardless of race, religion, and now sexual orientation (as SCOTUS has declared is a civil rights protected minority group). A business can't refuse to serve someone because they are Mormon and the business doesn't agree with their lifestyle. A business can't refuse service to an individual because they're black, Latino, or Asian. The fight you want to bring against gays is no different than the fight southern states wanted to take against blacks and segregation. A public business CAN NOT discriminate on who they will provide services to...this battle was already won and is history (over 50 yrs ago).

Religion and religious marriage ceremonies have never had the same requirement as businesses. They have the right under the 1st amendment to perform ceremonies to whomever they want according to their religious views...separation of church and state.

Bob K
portland, OR

Vanceone
Provo, UT
"If you think the 1st Amendment is going to stop some gay judge from forcing religions to marry gay people, your naivety is showing. ...Just ask any wedding planner/baker/florist what happens when the gays come demanding you serve them. The state forces you to--you have no freedom anymore. Except to go out of business, that is."

---Please look up "public accomodations laws" and remember you are riled up over 3 or 4 cases in the nation.

"Do you honestly think that the gay judge who overturned Proposition 8 wouldn't use any theory he could to force a church to perform a gay ceremony?"

---- SAD, completely mistrusting of human nature!
If I write that judges from "the other side" will make dishonest rulings, it reveals me as a person to whom dishonesty is natural.

"In New Jersey the courts already force churches to allow gay ceremonies to occur on their property, but as of yet not conduct them. There's not much difference between forcing them to allow a ceremony and forcing them to conduct one."

---NO, a facility that a church rents to "anyone" for profit was involved, not a church.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

Article title: "‘Lesbian couple say marriage lawsuit against Utah, LDS Church was filed without their knowledge’"

Gee, imagine that.....somebody screaming at the top of their lungs (via a lawsuit) against the LDS church about homosexual "inequality" when those involved want nothing to do with the screaming.

In other words, more lies and falsehoods involved in the homosexual agenda.

What a shocker....

I commend the lesbian couple in calling out the falsehoods.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Vanceone
"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. ... Any liberal, leftist judge will follow this reasoning."

This liberal thinks you'd lose the case because the church already has the right to deny any couple they want because say one of the two isn't LDS. There has never been any requirement for churches to marry every type of couple that is eligible under state/national law.

G L W8
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Those who are critical of Vanceone for making a thorough, hypothetical legal scenario which could occur, and probably will, considering the state of things on the SSM issue, need to pay close attention. You have more trust in the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment than I do. For nearly the last half-century, the ACLU and others have been promoting the "establishment" clause at the near-exclusion of the "free exercise" clause, building up a plethora of precedent that would make the argument under the "free exercise" clause extremely difficult. Only time will tell who is right on this one.

to comment

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