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
Salt Lake City, UT

"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. "

The 14th Amendment was after the Civil War and after most of that conflict in Missouri and other areas. (Not to say it was all rainbows and sunshine in the Utah territory of course). Though it would've been nice to have an "activist judge" around to strike down some of that nonsense that was going on...

Phoenix, AZ

Redshirt, if you look at church history you will see the same can be said about polygamy, Blacks, ERA. Jews, etc. So perhaps an outsider looking in knows more about the Mormon church than an insider looking out. Sometimes one is too close to the issue to see the issue; don't you think.

Leesburg, VA

@ Vanceone

You wrote: " 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. "

I just learned from Lane Myer and Schnee that the 14th Amendment was made after the Civil War. Thank you guys!!

But what call to my attention is that you defend "Christian principles", yet, you seem to be saying if Mormons didn't received support from the Federal Government, then no one should get their support. At least LGBT shouldn't.

I doubt the LDS church would agree with that attitude. I know that Christ taught us something very different.

Vanceone, the LGBT is gaining victory after victory in the United States and around the world. No because we are persecuting anyone. But because finally society has evolved to the point that is questioning all those practices that "harm" other individuals.

LGBT treatment is only one of many other wrongs that need to be corrected

USS Enterprise, UT

To "skeptic" yes, you can say that the LDS church doctrine does not change.

Polygamy was part of the church doctrine in Joseph Smith's time, and it remains so today.

ERA was opposed when it was first proposed, and much of what the church said would happen has happened. The LDS church still opposes all of the bad things that have resulted from the ERA. See "The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue" on the LDS web site.

As for Blacks and the Priesthood, the doctrine has been that we don't understand why they were denied the Priesthood and that has always been the case. The only thing that chanes have been people's guess as to why. See "Race and the Priesthood" on the LDS web site.

Again, when you get past the rumors and guesses, the doctrine has remained the same since the church was founded.

salt lake city, utah

O'really, not quite sure what your point was up to your final paragraph,"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."

Actually I'm more than happy to "mark your words" because I think you are absolutely wrong and I'll be happy to remind you of that in five years.

Roy, UT

Is there not some collusion of these District Judges to move one after the other to actively attack the majority will of the people? Inasmuch as same-sex marriage is but an imitation of the real thing, marriage between one man and one woman, there are no grounds for inequality here...sad, so sad am I as I see foundational American values being shredded by people who openly mock the commandments of God.

Idaho Falls, ID

@ Pragmatist...a generation is longer than 5 yrs. It's at least 20. I have no doubt there will be a huge chunk of kids growing up with this in their faces who will be messed up because of it. Look what divorce has done to kids. Look what fatherless families has done to kids. Children growing up in these homes will be confused. I guarantee it. It can't help but affect them negatively. Will they be loved? Oh yes, but love isn't enough. They need to be taught by example. Two women can't teach a boy how to be a father. Two men can't teach a girl how to be a mother.

"Mom and Mom, who is my dad and how did I get here if you two can't make a baby together?" "Well, son we don't know who your father is." That's going to go over well.

"Dad and Dad, Which one of you gave birth to me? I want a mommy. Where is she? " " Well, daughter, uh, well, neither of us did and that's not exactly possible." I'm sure that little girl is going to love that conversation.

Phoenix, AZ

DRay, History has thousands of gods. From what one are you getting your information and to who is it applicable and how do you know it is as you say. Please explain.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "pragmatistferlife" since you are in disbelief, how about we look at the effects of instituting the "no fault" divorces. Back then we were warned that this was a bad idea, and that it would alter the way people look at marriage in the future.

Now, we have more divorces and fewer marriages. Seemingly simple things will change the next generation's attitude towards marriage. Gay marriage will further the damage that started with previous generations.


I tend to agree with "Ranchhand." I use to be an event specialists, and many Christian weddings and parties usually featured alcohol as part of their menu. I never heard one vendor complain that it violated their belief system. Just by providing a service to a same sex couple does not mean that one agrees with their life style, it is about being in business. I think that we have beat this "Dead horse" and there is no part of it left to be beaten.

No one can take away our right to believe in a principle, and if our faith is so fragile that it can be shadowed by the unrighteousness of some one else, then, maybe we need to evaluate our faith because that's where the problem lies.

Salt Lake City, UT

To all those that use Christ as the basis for their opposition of marriage equality, I have a simple request: Please provide the chapter and verse from the New Testament where Christ specifically speaks/taught about homosexuality.

The Apostles documented the direct teachings of Christ - such as the Sermon on the Mount where he is given direct attribution for many things, including the "Blessed are..." statements or when Christ directly teaches how to pray in what is termed, "The Lord's Prayer."

And yet, he is not recorded as saying anything on the subject of homosexuality. There's not one direct, first-person teaching by Christ on the subject.

If it was so important - and he abhorred it as much as so many Christians claim - wouldn't he have directly spoken about it? Wouldn't the Apostles have documented the very words, just as they did with his other teachings?

Saint George, UT

Baccus: the BOM, D&C, Jesus, and Joseph Smith never said anything about incest either? Justification for any sin isn't a reason for doing it! A conscience can only strive with man for so long! Time to check it again. But don't trust me, ask God!

Salt Lake City, UT

Read Matt. 28:19-20. Read John 21:25 We also don't have what he said specifically about pedophilia, methanphetamines, beastiality, insider trading or a hundred other different sins but he will hold us accountable none the less. He has spoken throughout the history of the world. It all applies. What was the first thing he taught in person? "Repent." Pretty clear message. He will judge the world. What was the last thing he told the adultress? It wasn't "neither do I condemn thee". It was "go they way and sin no more." I have to worry about me. I will have nothing to do with judging anyone else. But he will. Rather than asking people in the comments about Christ, I suggest you make all of his words and works a life's study. You will find there is a lot more to consider than what you presently comprehend.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

Clark W. Griswold
"Not quite, marriage is more than just a personal, social, and legal commitment. Marriage for thousands of years has always been about the joining together of man and woman for the purpose of creating children and establishing a family unit. Only a man and a woman can create their own biological children together and taking on roles as fathers and mothers in raising them. Two men and two women cannot."

You don't have to be married to have kids. Likewise, you don't have to have kids when you're married. Otherwise infertile and elderly couples would not be allowed to get married either. The ability to have children is a moot and irrelevant point in this debate.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Sal

You don't have the right to vote on who gets rights or not. State's make their own laws, but they can't conflict with the U.S. Constitution, which Amendment 3 obviously does.

to comment

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