Comments about ‘Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage struck down by U.S. judge’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 14 2014 5:50 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

It's always comforting to me that no matter how the "winds blow" in this world that God's laws do not blow with it.
Good can be called evil and evil good by the worlds standards, but it doesn't change reality.
I believe sexual behavior outside of marriage between a man and a woman is a sin. Are these my religious beliefs? Absolutely.
However, having these beliefs does not give me the right to ever be unkind or disrespectful to anyone, but it does not mean that I have to believe the same way they do.

Provo, UT

BTRP, at least you'll admit the action is a choice. But someone with pyromania may not view their inflammatory activity as immoral. They might might say "unequivocally, it is not a choice to be immoral, but self-expression is why I engage in arson." People who don't share the moral views of others are nonetheless held accountable to those moral views all the time. There is no other way to have a civil society in the face of any kind of disagreement at all. One person's supposed "right" to do whatever they feel self-justified in doing cannot override a hundred other people's right to participate in determining what kind of community they want to live in.

St George, UT


"Most of the detractors in this thread still fail to grasp that this marriage equality issue has absolutely nothing to do with personal beliefs resulting from dogmatic indoctrination.

It is a civil rights matter."

And I say marrying a donkey is a civil rights matter. Go find a state that agrees with you and feel free to make gay marriage a right all you want, but don't force me and my state to agree with your version of moral right and wrong.

Phoenix, AZ

It would be good if all the contrarians would write down their verbose opinions to read back to themselves twenty years from now to hear how foolish they sound. And of course by then there will be a new president of the Mormon church and things will be different as current presidents supersede past thinking.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

Clearly Satan has a strong foothold in our judiciary. I fear the battle for righteousness has been lost and evil will be the law of the land.

Glendale, CA

I am really sorry this is becoming so hard for certain people. Unfortunately, the days of pushing religious beliefs on this topic onto others is coming to an end. I hope you can come to terms with this and accept your fellow citizens. Please I urge you to do this before the courts force you to do so.

Springville, UT

@ illuminated:

"An atheist will claim that prayer shouldn't be allowed in school or on state property because it offends him . . ."

An atheist (which I am not) will 'insist' prayer should not be 'mandated' in school.

* * *

"Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because moral beliefs are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage to animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?"

Are you honestly trying to use the slippery-slope fallacy of equating the relationship between two consenting adults to bestiality?

* * *

Springville, UT

@ Red Wings:

"When did religion give up its "monopoly" on marriage definition?"

When the First Amendment to the Constitution was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Riverside, CA

Why does everyone keep repeating the talking point that the AG didn't request a stay? You can go online and read the transcript of Judge Shelby denying the stay. A stay wasn't requested prior to his decision. But a stay was certainly requested.

I'm shocked the judge didn't stay his own order sua sponte. Arrogant and irresponsible IMO.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because moral beliefs are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage to animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?"


Maybe it has been a while since you received a marriage license. You must both go in person before the county and show identification that you are who you say you are and then both sign the license.

Why not animals? Trees? Stars? Children?

Can they physically or legally sign a contract?

LOU Montana
Pueblo, CO

I has to be killing conservatives to see Americans have freedom.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


Provo, UT

Next question, that gay rights supports refuse to answer:

The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no protections to Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated, and their rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. Both the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, and the 14th amendments gave zero protection to the Mormons against the Federal Government.


Let's see...the saints came in Utah in 1847. The civil war started in 1860. The 14th amendment was passed after the civil war.

Oh, there WAS no 14th amendment when the saints were being pursecuted, was there. States rights were still allowed to rule, but then we fought a war and killed 600 thousand of our citizens to prove that the federal government must be supreme.

Now we know better.

West Richland, WA

@illuminated: "And I say marrying a donkey is a civil rights matter."

This type of False Equivalency argument does not lend credence to your position on the issue. Donkeys, pets, minors, inanimate objects all lack recognized legal capacity under the law to consent to a contract.

You then say: "don't force me and my state to agree with your version of moral right and wrong."

Hopefully you will grasp the concept that no one is "forcing" you to agree to anything, or to be gay, or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. You are free to continue to harbor any ill will and demeaning thoughts about them as you see fit. An easy cure if you don't like something, is simply not pay attention to it.

Peace will come to you when you understand that not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringement on your freedoms.

Idaho Falls, ID

@ Pragmatist You said "BTW that is a core characteristic of arranged "marriages" that historically have been the normal mode of marriage for centuries." Yes and the primary reason for those arranged marriages was so that a man and a woman would reproduce and perpetuate the species. Obviously, not all marriages are able to reproduce. That's an exception. For many that is a sensitive and heart breaking thing. DON'T even try to bring that argument into your pro-gay marriage argument. Some never intend to have children- that's a decision- a perk of being married and it's their choice. Some are too old to conceive. Don't we owe it to them as a society to allow them companionship and legal benefits in their elderly years?

If it were up to me, I'd say yes to gay marriage as long as there were no children involved. No adoptions, none of this make a baby because we want one business.

Will gay marriage affect my own marriage? NO!! But in the long run it will affect the next generation by confusing them and harming them psychologically. Mark my words.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@ImaUteFan: This may come as a shock to YOU, but not every religion opposes same sex marriage, either as a civil institution or a religious one.

In any event, I don't hear anyone telling you that you can't keep your beliefs regarding either gay people or the institution of marriage, or that you can't speak your beliefs. What you can't do, no matter how many like-minded people you band together with, is to use the force of government to restrict that minority's right to live an equivalent peaceful and civic existence. Our Constitution places limits on that. Nor can you restrict the rights of others to speak in criticism of you and your beliefs. Like it or not, that's the very nature of a free society.

@BlueAZCougar: Have a look at Romans 14. It's not just about food and drink. It's about the very nature of sin and judging your fellow man.

@ClarkWGriswold: Then, by your measure, heterosexual marriage is a failure with 41% of births out of wedlock.

@Pete1215: Many gay couples have two high-income earners. They actually pay MORE in taxes if they marry.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "skeptic" I don't think you understand the LDS church very well. They have been preaching against homosexuality, adultery, fornication, drug abuse, etc. for 60 years. There have been several different leaders, but they all have said the same thing. Don't count on things changing ever when it comes to doctrine in the LDS church.

Salt Lake City, UT

Prodicus, you probably can't see it, but there seems to be a plank in your eye. Yes, very much like a railroad tie...wow.
But thank you for pointing out the mote in my eye, I am eternally grateful.

Leesburg, VA

@ Bandersen

You wrote:

"I think that it is odd that someone would refer to something that was considered dark, demeaning, and gross for centuries by all of humanity would now refer to it as "enlightened"and that every human that lived before the last thirty years as the anomaly of history!"

I think you bring up an interesting point.

Native Americans, Indians, Greeks, Romans, and actually many more cultures accepted same sex relationships with no problem. The oldest religion in the world Hinduism, includes stories of homosexual nature among certain gods.

What happened then? Paul happened.

The gospels never mentioned Jesus against homosexuality, on the contrary, there is evidence that he supported same sex relationship i.e.Centurion asking healing for his servant, (debatable linguistic manipulation in the translation). Jesus taught that some Eunuchs were born that way (natural).

Paul introduced to Christianity some mores from his Jewish up-bringing and they were spread with Christianity.

Same sex relationships were "considered dark, gross and demeaning" in most cultures 'only after' so called Christian values were imposed by the invading conquerors.

Jesus, BOM, D&C, Joseph Smith, never said anything against Homosexuality.

Orem, UT

Prodicus, I hope that you recognize the choice is just the same as the choice you make between you and your spouse. As far as the arsonists who enjoy setting things aflame, they certainly can be judged by society but they are also held to a standard called the law. The risk of jail keeps most arsonists at bay, however, homosexuals marrying doesn't carry the same negative connotation to most society nor the law.
The "morals of society" are subjective to the individual, but as you mentioned, many are agreed upon by a significant number of people (not all). You talk about the "right to do whatever they feel self-justified in doing" Do you feel self-justified when you make love with your spouse? Don't you feel that its "right" to be physically intimate with the one you love? Why is your feeling of "right" the standard by which others must live their lives as compared to the feeling of what is "right" for a gay person? Do you sincerely not believe that someone could feel the same way about a person of the same sex as you do with your spouse?

Phoenix, AZ

@James Whistler:
"...could we (or the moderators of this forum) put a moratorium on comparing gay relationships to incest and bestiality?"

Generally if someone is losing an argument they usually try to get the other person's argument cut off.

"It's off topic and obnoxious."

I'll tell ya what's obnoxious... two guys making out.

"If a person or group is barred by law from certain benefits or responsibilities that other people freely enjoy, and the government can offer no compelling reason for that distinction, then the law is unjust and must be thrown out."

Did you mean laws barring persons from polygamous, incestuous, close relative, sib marriages? Is that your point? Inquiring minds wanna know.

"Discrimination is unconstitutional."

Are you making the point that polygamists should be able to marry?

"The state can still make marriage determinations, BUT, and this is a vitally important point, those determinations must follow the US Constitution."

The US Constitution says nothing about marriage. You can't say authority to define marriage resides with the state but the US Constitution says which marriages states can and cannot authorize. This is just circuitous arguing.

to comment

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