Comments about ‘LDS Church, other faiths say same-sex marriage opposition not due to bigotry’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 10 2014 8:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Kent, WA

As was said before..."just because it is legal, does not make it moral." We are certainly seeing the fulfillment of prophesy. They call "good evil and evil good."

The Owl
Ogden, UT

The main point that many are missing is that legalizing gay marriage will also grant "equal rights" to adoptions. I believe that every child deserves a mother and a father as evidence shows this is the best environment for child rearing and establishing gender identity. Gay marriage, where children will be routinely adopted, would amount to an experiment that could have devastating consequences. Numerous studies show the importance of having mothers and fathers in the home. No one is proposing taking children away from loving families who become nontraditional, but most would concede that having a mother and father provides the best environment for kids. That is what the briefs are addressing. This whole debate should be about what is best for children rather than what is in the self-interest of adults seeking validation of their lifestyle! No one is suggesting that 2 consenting gay adults cannot love one another or have a relationship with many rights similar to married couples. But they don't need marriage to provide those rights as these concerns can be addressed in other ways. Society may vote to change the definition of marriage, but in the end, a gay relationship is something quite different.

Huntsville, UT


No LGBT military couple should have their religious leaders refuse to perform the services for them it performs for everyone else. You don't think that it is bigotry, to refuse to perform your duty for those offering their lives for your protection? In the name of your god? Not much of a good example, imo.

And, you are wrong about the 'morale in the military' being reduced. I work with many service men/women in my job (many of whom are LGBT), and they're not showing any reduction in morale that I've witnessed.

Provo, UT

Who cares about who the state marries. Give people benefits and what ever. Who cares.

The moment they start trying to accuse churches of discrimination for not marrying them... this is the moment I have lost all faith in any sort of equal rights...

The only problem I have is that sometimes It looks like it's not just equality but legislated acceptance that people are after.


Typically racists are accused of racism, misogynists of misogyny, and bigots of, well, bigotry. Usually if one is not acting in a bigoted way, one will not be accused of bigotry. Perhaps the accusations say something, quite possibly correct, about those pushing so hard to deny gay people their civil rights.


How can if be fair that the spouse of a married couple who has been married for 30 years can make end of life decisions when a gay couple who are legally denied the right to marry are not afforded the same right. As long as property rights, inheritance rights and all the rights that are extended to married couples are denied to same sex people then the government is withholding those rights from gays. If marriage were simply a religious rite then there would be no argument. But it carry's legal protections that should be extended to all.

I am LDS and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I realize that the religious aspects are separate from the legal aspects. Maybe government should get out of the business of marriage.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@donn: As far as I'm concerned, the Evangelical chaplains of whom you speak can't leave the military fast enough. Since the large influx during President GW Bush's Administration, they've been notorious for disrespecting the denominations of our troops and pressuring them to convert. I don't know how well-represented Mormons are in the military ranks, but I'm surprised you haven't heard the stories by now.

Military chaplains are there to serve troops of every denomination, not just their own. Whatever religious mission they have in civilian life must be relegated to the service of everyone once they join the service, be they Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Jewish, Islamic, Mormon or Hindu. There is no "one true religion" in the military. These are volunteers from a diverse nation, not a Crusade.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ The Owl

Unwed people, regardless of sexual orientation, can already adopt in this state. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of children in this state being raised in loving homes by same-sex parents. Allowing these couples to be married will benefit these children because they will have two legally recognized parents. This alone renders the "for the children argument" completely null and void. Also, a lot of people have said that same-sex couples can't have rights similar to traditional married couples. Amendment 3 explicitly forbid civil unions for same-sex couples as well as marriage.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Having read all the arguments and accusations here against gay people, and against marriage equality for same-sex couples, I am truly disappointed in the poor reasoning and lack of basic decency in some of the comments. Not to mention the level of hypocrisy.

They cry "selfishness" while being selfish. Their primary objection to marriage equality is letting gays and lesbians share the word "marriage" with them.

They cry "intolerance" while being intolerant. It's fine for them to call gays and lesbians name, to baselessly accuse them of all manner of evil, to defame them in every way possible. But if anyone points out their animus and bigotry, the bigots cry "oppression" and "religious freedom."

They trumpet "children!" as their battle cry, but can't answer why they don't care about children in heterosexual marriages. Or in orphanages. Or in single-parent homes.

My advice: pray. Pray hard. Because your arguments don't have a prayer of their own.

The Owl
Ogden, UT

I'm amazed that liberals have reduced themselves to advocating what RanchHand states..."No LGBT military couple should have their religious leaders refuse to perform services for them". Are you suggesting that religious leaders be arrested or just shamed for refusing to perform a gay marriage ceremony against their conscience? Liberals pride themselves on how "open-minded" they are so long as others agree with their narrow point of view! This sounds like a proposal coming out of Russia - not the USA. Liberals continue to use false arguments of "equality" to support their misguided causes and then charge those who disagree with being bigots. Of course, it worked in the last election with the supposed "War on Women" waged by Republicans because of an ignorant electorate. I suggest you think through the consequences of changing long-standing traditions like marriage before jumping on the bandwagon. Were President Obama and Hillary Clinton bigots a short 6 years ago while running for President for having the same stance on marriage that many of us still have? And comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement should be offensive to any black person as this is a ridiculous comparison.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

The Proclamation to the World is doctrine that cannot be ignored. Society will be much better off when we can codify this wonderful word from the Lord into our civil marriage laws.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

I am pro-SSM and therefore necessarily pro-marriage. If I didn't think marriage was a good thing, I would be trying to convince ALL of my family and friends to avoid it.

I don't believe that most anti-SSM's are bigots. I think the beliefs they hold on this issue are bigoted. One belief does not a bigot make.

I also don't believe that most anti-SSM's act out of hatred. I believe them when they say they believe they are acting out of love. I do not agree with their definition of love and I believe that their definition leads them to inflict great harm without seeing it as such. But I believe harm is what LGBT and SSM advocates are proving in courtrooms across the land.

I hear the genuine concern that religious liberty is being threatened. I think religious privilege rather than religious liberty is being challenged, and I think that these privileges have been unconstitutional all along. So I believe the efforts my side of the argument are making actually serve to PRESERVE and STRENGTHEN religious liberty, and I believe this will be borne out in the end.

layton, UT

RE: RanchHand,In the name of your god? True,

Acts 5:29 We ought to obey God rather than men.

1 Cor 6:9 do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.

I was on Military bases in the western U.S. for over 30 years. Military families in base housing have a more conservative and moral culture.

RE: A Quaker, Vietnam: Chaplains are very important to the morale of the men:
Chaplain Watters was fatally wounded while ministering to fallen comrades under intense fire near Dak To in 1967.
Iraq: Chaplain Vakoc after celebrating Mass(communion) with troops in 2004, they were attacked and he died from his wounds in 2009.

I’m a Vietnam Veteran (AF infantry). When were attacked, The majority I was around prayed, in Jesus name.
I.e.., Defensor Fortis:
"Lord, you have called us to be guardians of a nation founded on your principles. Whatever our tasks as Security Forces men and women, we do them to serve you and our nation. You bless those who obey you, Lord; Your love protects them like a shield."

West Richland, WA

@A Quaker, regarding those opposed to equality: "Their primary objection to marriage equality is letting gays and lesbians share the word "marriage" with them."

As far as I can tell, this is the absolute bottom line. After all the smoke-and-haze deflection arguments have cleared away, we see this is *precisely*, *exactly* the heart of the matter.

Does it sound stupid? Does it sound completely mad to have this much upheaval and strife because Utah's religiosity objects to sharing a word?

You bet it is. It is completely barking mad. I am with A Quaker: those that embrace legal bigotry had better pray hard, because the defense the state has mounted has no prayer whatsoever. It is doomed, with absolutely no hope of prevailing.

As it should be, because at the end of the day, Amendment 3 is just one big insulting awful package of pure hatred for the LGBT community and human beings with working souls. It’s actually impressive, in the same way ebola-tipped bullets fired into crowds of baby seals is impressive: just overwhelmingly, unremittingly awful on multiple levels.

Pittsburgh, PA

Aunt Lucy: For billions of people living in this 21st. century, "because God said so" is not good enough reason for denying civil rights to other human beings. The Bible condones slavery. We know slavery is an abomination. The Bible preaches vengeance "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". We know forgiveness is the right thing to do, every single time. The Bible says "if your child disobeys you, the child should be put to death." We know this is lunacy. Are we wiser than God?
We cherry pick the Bible, choosing the parts that support our own beliefs and bigotries. Horrible crimes have been committed in the name of God throughout the centuries and we have not witnessed any manifestation of outrage. As a Brazilian poet once wrote "God, oh! God, where are you and why you don't answer me? In which world, in which star do you hide, wrapped in the sky?" His name was Castro Alves. He was writing about a slave's lament.
"Because God said so" is not acceptable for all the people going through persecution, torture, and murder on this planet because of the way God created them.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "RanchHand" but you are wrong on every front.

For example. A sex offender is denied their "freedom of association" when they are restricted from living close to schools and parks, and put their name on sex offender registries. Why don't they get equal protection? Why do they have their "rights" cut short compared to non-sex offenders?

As for polygamists, lets look at what your ilk wants to do. They want to say that you can marry the person that you love. Marriage is no longer defined by anything biological, but by emotion. You are now saying that a person can only love 1 other person at a time. That is very bigoted against polygamists, since they are capable of loving more than one person at a time. If a 2 gays can love eachother enough to be married, why can't a group of people do the same? You are denying them their basic right to marriage.

To "Red Corvette" the irony of your statement is that those that typicall call others bigots are usually the biggoted ones. The LDS church is not biggoted towards gays. This can be seen by the gay travel magazines that promote Utah.

Pittsburgh, PA

Dan Taylor: If you believe we are created in God's image, have you ever asked yourself why does he keep making gay people? Do you think he wants to tell us something? I've been married for 38 years. We have 4 children and 3 grandchildren and to this day, I've never heard an argument that would convince me that a gay couple marrying is somewhat detrimental to MY marriage.
About your fictitious example: Life finds its way (from Jurassic Park). Life always finds a way to perpetuate itself. We have in vitro fertilization already. And that society will progress, because gay people have been affirming live all around us: they are raising children, they are scientists, teachers, judges, artists, doctors. They are just like everyone of us, trying to "progress the good in society" every way they can. It's a pity you can't see it.

Murray, UT

If all the homosexual proponents wanted was equality, they would seek to change laws that benefit married couples, such as the death tax, end of life decisions, tax codes, etc.

That is not what they want, and many posters here have told us that.

It amazes me that those who deny God want his servants to perform a religious rite for them. They say it is about equality, but it isn't. They want to mock those who are religious, grind everyone's noses in their violation of nature, and demand that we endorse them for it. They seek domination, which is the opposite of equality and freedom.

I hope that those who have been more than tolerant, and are now embracing this power grab by the homosexual community, will see it for what it is, plain pure bigotry, oppression, and power mongering.

Rick LT

To say traditional marriage is bigotry is laughable. Even the most debauched societies of history did not allow same-sex marriage. In Rome, quiet same-sex trysts were allowed, but never marriage. Marriage to a brother or sister, or a horse (Calligula) was a horror to them. Saying it's bigotry is like saying putting up two stop signs on a minor cross street of a major intersection is bigotry against those that choose the street less traveled, since it impedes their progress. Clearly, those signs are there to protect the traffic on the main thoroughfare. It's for the public good......just like one-man/one-woman marriage is good public policy (for the last 5,000 years of human civilized history.

Pittsburgh, PA

Juangone: The rights and privileges that come with marriage are important. Same sex partners need that protection. For heterosexual couples, there is no discussion regarding inheritance, property ownership, pensions, taxes, etc. Because of my profession, I've seem cases where same sex partner who built businesses and bought properties as a couple lose everything due to the sudden death of the other partner. I've seen a family denying visitation rights for someone who had been the half of a couple for 54 years!!! This is wrong and it needs to be addressed. Those are civil rights. Those are matters of equal rotection uder the law.

to comment

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