Comments about ‘Supreme Court stay on marriage shows desire for slower process’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 6 2014 8:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Bob K:

Religious people don't have to accept being forced to do things that are against their religion. There has clearly been an encroachment on religious freedom by the gay agenda. We are sitting on a precipice of very dangerous actions that could completely unravel our society. People of conscience have to continue to fight to save this country from the slippery slope which will destroy us as a people if we don't wake up.

I have great sympathy with individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction. I have no sympathy with the radical gay agenda. Anyone who wants to know about the dangers needs only look at Massachussetts and what has happened there over the last ten years of gay marriage. It's frightening.

Salem, OR

Regardless of what faith you have...

Regardless of what religion you have...

Regardless of what church you belong to, or donate to...


IF it was not a choice, then why do so many religious groups employ missions, to convert people to their particular view of God?

Likewise, there are people who live long lives who do not believe in a god.

If you believe that atheists will go to Hell, then that is THEIR choice!

No one in the United States should be using any aspect of religion, faith or God to change your neighbor's ability to enjoy their rights as a Citizen of these United States.

If you do not believe in gay marriage, then DON'T MARRY A GAY PERSON!

But you should not have the legal ability to block my choice of the one person who I want to marry.

American Fork, UT

Good. Let's get the process correct and straight, so it eliminates that entire segment of the argument against same sex marriage. Then, let's move forward with it.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

I applaud the decisions to have the stay.

Irregardless of how this all turns out, I think that one benefit of the discussions is that a lot of people are going to give more weight to the instituion of marriage as a stable environment for the raising of children as opposed to sleeping around, living together and getting married only when there is a pregnancy.

Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . the law cannot legally force a church to marry a couple they don't want to marry."

While that may be true today, there are certainly liberal and LGBT activists that will continue to push hard to change today's reality tomorrow.

Recent developments clearly demonstrate that it is now firmly entrenched in US law that a single radical, agenda-driven, liberal judicial appointee is free -- without significant consequence -- to disingenuously wreak tremendous havoc with American law.

And that's the op-ed's point -- this issue is better considered and more judiciously decided in legislative discussions than in legal proceedings before corrupt, unhinged liberal judges, who have recently demonstrated precious little fealty to the rule of law or their oaths of office.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Whatever resolution is reached on what shall be the law of the land cannot change religion. That’s not the issue. Likewise, sectarian religious beliefs cannot be the basis for public law that applies to believers and non-believers alike.

Keep religious belief out of the discussion. The picture is muddled enough without making it impossible for reasonable people to work something out.

Sandy, UT

To Liberty For All: Your comments are your doctrine not LDS Church doctrine.

Salt Lake City, UT

Every time I see that baby in the arms of two 70 year old men (Elton John and his "husband") I can't help but feel sorry for that kid. Actually, I get a little nauseous.

Marriage is more than binding two adults. It was ordained for the proper raising of children. As sympathetic as I am to all the claims and testimonies of gay people, I can't help but wonder why we can't all agree that the best way for a child to be raised is by a man and a woman. It just seems like that natural order of things...like since the beginning of beginning of time.

Seattle, WA

It seems like a lot of religious people who have never felt same sex attraction believe that sexuality is fluid and that there is a significant number of people who could be happily heterosexual but are also curious about exploring same-sex and other non-traditional relationships and will explore them if they are legally and socially accepted. It seems they are worried about normalizing gay love because it will make more people gay. Based on my experience, I don't think this is true and I'm not worried about it.
What I guess I most want to add to the discussion is that we need to assume the best about other people and not see evil intentions where they don't exist, no matter which perspective you're coming from. There are legitimate concerns to discuss, but we need to at least start by accepting that a gay person's feelings are real and not inherently evil.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I hope this stay puts some urgency on it for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court needs to rule on this once and for all. They seem to keep stalling and delaying. They SHOULD have decided this way back when they got the California case, but instead of deciding they just send it back without a decision on a technicality (deciding the people who questioned the lower court ruling didn't have standing, and the California AG failed to defend the Amendment approved by Proposition 8).

I think State AGs should defend EVERY part of their State Constitution (new or old, whether they agree with it personally or not, whether they agree with it politically or not, it's part of their job description to defend the Constitution).

Just letting this Amendment fall that was a result of a legal Constitution Amendment process and got the required votes... was Government neglect of the will of the people if you ask me. California should have defended it (even if the AG knew he would loose) so the Supreme Court would have to actually DECIDE (not just reject the case due to lack of standing allowing the lower court decision to stand).

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Cats: Whether or not you intend it, your "slippery slope" argument and fear-mongering serve the purpose of hate-mongering, since fearful people often hate that which threatens them.

The key point here is that no one is threatened by allowing same-sex couples to pledge themselves to a lifetime relationship. No one. There is no slippery slope. We are asking the exact same thing of them that we ask of the 95% of couples who are straight. They must be unrelated by blood, currently unattached by marriage, of the age of consent, and willing to pledge to each other for life.

This is not a big change.

To those who point to child-bearing as a requirement... For this to be true, first:

. Change marriage to require child-bearing. Disallow all infertile marriage.

. If a couple doesn't bear a child within three years, dissolve their marriage.

. If a couple's last child dies and they don't bear another within three years, dissolve the marriage.

. If parents can't support their children, dissolve the marriage.

Make those changes to marriage, and your arguments will be valid. Otherwise, no.

Leesburg, VA

>>No one ... should be using any aspect of religion, faith or God to change your neighbor's ability to enjoy their rights as a Citizen of these United States.

You're demanding an impossibility.

All laws are moral decisions about which behaviors we as a society consider right and wrong. In the US, citizens cast votes to direct how laws get shaped, executed, and interpreted based on personal beliefs about what is right and wrong. Those beliefs, for most of us, are influenced by religion. So while it's unconstitutional for government to prefer any one religion, it's impossible to require that individuals or groups not us any aspect of religion or faith to influence the shaping of laws (and even civil rights).

My religion informs my values, which influence my vote and political behavior. If you can demand that I can't use religion-informed values to direct my civic choices, then I can demand that you abandon whatever value system you use to guide your civic choices.

I think what you really want is for me to abandon my values while you get to apply yours.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think a more fundamental question is, Does a State in the United States under the Constitution have the right to create laws which are based upon a recognition of the differences between Men and Women and their innate roles in society? Traditional Marriage recognizes this, while a genderless marriage does not. Is it constitutional for a law to recognize that men and women are different, albeit equal, before the law? It is this fundamental principle which is under attack.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Judge Shelby acted in a manner absolutely inconsistent with legal protocol.

It is the duty of federal courts to strike down laws that violate the US Constitution. If that were not an option then there'd be no point in ever challenging any laws. Guess what, sometimes you lose (just like Chicago just had one of its gun laws struck by a federal judge yesterday).

"May I also suggest that our friends in the gay community need to try to understand the "straight" point of view too "

Roughly half of straight people in America disagree with you on the matter of same-sex marriage.

" Anyone who wants to know about the dangers needs only look at Massachussetts and what has happened there over the last ten years of gay marriage."

Absolutely nothing except kids learn that some families have two parents of the same gender, which probably helps reduce bullying of kids with those families. Oh, and Catholic Charities doesn't get state funding anymore because they don't follow state guidelines for adoptions. They could still use their own funding to maintain their... standards... but chose not to go that route.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

“I think the Supreme Court sent a very clear message to other lower courts that these things should be stayed until they are finally resolved.”

This was predictable…

@bandersen – “what you are calling SSA is nothing more or less than what ever human being suffers with any other sin or thought that deviates from a Christ centered life!”

What if you were born into a religion (go with the irony here) that told you opposite sex attraction was a sin and a deviation from a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” centered life?

Since gay people do not chose to be gay (who would chose the hassle?) it follows that they were born/created the way they are, so your admonition sounds (to them) exactly like mine does to you.

Is it any wonder that most gay people flee religion the minute they can?

boise, id

let's maintain separation of church and state, accept that religion or faith is an individual right, and create an environment of inclusion rather than exclusion. the biggest problem we have in this country is the never ending struggle of the have not's trying to make a place for themselves and their children in our economy which is becoming more and more reminiscent of the oppressive days when the Vanderbilt's, etc. ruled the economic life of our country and where most were relegated to a lower working class. we need to end the slippery slope into a true class structure.


"Please recognize that some things being pushed by the gay community like "gender identity" laws that allow anyone to use men's or women's restrooms regardless of their biological identity may not be acceptable to the straight community."

Consider a woman who identifies as a man and from all outside appearances is a man. What would your response be if this person walked into the restroom you are using?

Would that be more acceptable to the "straight" community? Having men and women who appear as the opposite gender using the bathroom that represents their "biological" identity? My guess is it would be unnerving to many women to have a man walk in and use women's facilities.

Google and read the case of Jonas and Wyatt Maines, " Led by the Child Who Simply Knew."

Los Angeles, CA

Pagan~ Marriage is a religious 'rite' or ceremony and traditionally has been. Ceremonies performed at the court house are civil ceremonies performed by judges. One religious and the other secular. No one is attempting to stop individuals from coupling, and most agree there is the free agency to choose. Even the religious understand it is not a sin to be 'gay' but according to religious tenants it is a sin to act on it. A difficult struggle in deed, a trial so to speak for them and their families and for how others react to and treat these individuals. For those that choose to live the gay life style I have no problem with them having civil unions, but understand that where some 'benefits' that do not match that of those that are married, should be extended and that is where 'equality' is attained. Some claim that the only way to attain equality is to provide 'marriage.' That is false and opens up other issue where gays show their animosity anytime a religious professional declines services based on religious believes. Courts defile constitutional rights of religious individuals forcing them to go against their religious beliefs. Compromise. Civil Unions equal benefits.

Los Angeles, CA

For those that claim that this does not affect or force clergy to marry, your naïve. That would be the next step, to sue churches for not performing gay marriages, just as the recent law suit brought against the LDS Church displays. They do this in incremental steps, not in sweeping motions. Just as other professionals face law suits by vindictive gays when they are denied various services because of religious beliefs, once gay marriage is established in their states.


If you're for gay marriage you are not gonna get through people who are against it and vice versa. Why waste your time to try and convince anybody to see your way.

Im not for it but I know it's inevitable, it's a matter of time. The only issue for me is the government forcing religions to marry gay couples. Is it gonna happen? I don't know. Could it happen? It's definitely in the realm of possibility. As long as it's written clear as day that gay couples that are turned down by a religious institution for marriage can NOT pursue any sort of law suit then I'm completely fine with them being married.

to comment

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