Quantcast

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Snapdragon
Midlothian, VA

Court Brief includes:

"...groups joined together to rebut the contention that their belief in marriage between a man and a woman is borne of bigotry. The accusation is false and offensive..."

Thank you, thank you! Whatever hate you are feeling, is devised in your own heart. Don't throw these awful intentions at us. Supporting Traditional Marriage is not a form of hatred!

aunt lucy
Looneyville, UT

"No valid reason but God said so." In my book that's valid enough and end of story. If god says homosexuality is sin, then to me it's sin. God will not be mocked.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

The brief claims that the positions of these religions isn’t about being anti-gay. It’s about being pro-marriage. “That support [for traditional marriage],” the brief states, “predates by centuries the controversy over same-sex marriage and has nothing to do with disapproval of any group.”

The brief also expresses concern that a finding against SSM bans “would necessarily declare that Utah and Oklahoma voters hold views on marriage that are irrational or bigoted,” and that this would “malign their deeply held convictions” and thus “demean” them.

This attempt to decouple their position on marriage from centuries-long denigration of LGBTs is insulting to the intelligence, as is the suggestion that the opponents are the ones in danger of being victimized here. I think the followers of the religions represented by this brief are being poorly served. I think the leaders of these religions have lost their moral credibility on this issue.

Springvillepoet
Springville, UT

I am pro-Gay marriage and I want to go to the concept of free speech when it comes to saying opposition to Gay marriage is not based in bigotry.

With the First Amendment, we must accept and allow that speech we do not think appropriate because we are a pluralist society---we accept that more than one idea has value even if we disagree with it. In order to preserve free speech for everyone, we must allow for the free expression of thoughts and speech for everyone, especially if we disagree with those thoughts and expressions. It is the only way to truly ensure free speech.

Much like free speech, not everyone has to agree with Gay marriage for it to be on the same level as other rights like speech or the right to bear arms. Why? Because the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion upheld marriage as a fundamental human right. Not a fundamental religious right or fundamental heterosexual right---a fundamental human right.

It doesn't much matter why people oppose Gay marriage. Those who oppose Gay marriage may not be bigots, but they are opposed to equality.

Ranch
Here, UT

Of course it's bigotry. If you deny someone the privileges you enjoy simply because of your beliefs then you are being bigoted against that someone. Bigotry; Utah's bylaws.

Robert Johnson
Sunland, CA

Opponents of inter-racial marriage would also argue that their beliefs are not based on bigotry. Saying it, doesn't make it so. As far as raising children, it doesn't take a specific bodily organ to raise a child. It takes commitment, patience and love. Same sex parents in many ways are probably BETTER parents than heterosexual couples, because their conscious decision to raise a child often entails overcoming a number of hurdles, so it requires a lot of commitment and patience in the process.

Incite Full
Layton, UT

Seen a lot of bad reasoning in this thread.

One person argues that there's so much divorce and bad heterosexual parenting that gay marriage cannot possibly "worsen" existing marriage. That's a poor argument, because it is taking the worst examples of nongay marriage and claiming it compares to the best examples of gay marriage. That's specious unless gay couples are claiming that there will be no gay divorce, which we already know to be false from states that have attempted this social experiment.

kolob1
sandy, UT

Now they say that this is not about bigotry. How they carve themselves out of the bigotry assessment ia amazing. For years they waged this war against the gays behind closed Church doors (Mother Jones expose). They fought hard to enact Prop 8(California), they enacted Amendment 3 (Utah)and they said that "gays " were an affront to Utah for insisting that their marriages be recognized after Judge Shelby's ruling. All these steps afforded the Church the opportunity to demonstrate their "love" of their gay members. They failed in all of these earlier attempts and they are failing now. They should have kept their word when they said they were neutral after Judge Shelby's ruling.The LDS Church is not now neutral, has never been neutral and will never be neutral.

Dark Reaver
SOUTH JORDAN, UT

I find all the claims in the article and the comments about being for the betterment of the children disingenuous.
You claim that SSM will hurt the children, yet in Utah, 1 out of 8 children go to bed hungry. Lunches are taken away from children in school and thrown in the trash.
There is a rainy day fund, it should be empty as long as ONE child does not get 3 meals a day regardless of the reasons why they are hungry.
1 child dies every 10 seconds on this planet, THAT should be your concern if you actually care about the welfare of children, not whether or not they have one father and one mother, or two or more of the same or different sex parents.
What do I see in Utah? Hungry children not considered worthy of money hoarded for a "rainy day".

Ranch
Here, UT

@III;

I don't care what Boyd Packer says. I don't care what your bishop says. I don't care what your god says. I care what the US Constitution says. Equal treatment for all citizens.

@Hemlock & panamadesnews;

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. You need to stop focusing on what other people call their marriages and work on your own.

@Badgerbadger;

That's pretty rich, calling us "selfish" when all we want is to enjoy the privileges and protections you enjoy - that you want to keep for yourself.

@David;

"The law of god" is irrelevant. This is civil, secular society we're discussing; not religious law.

@Sal;

Are you married when you cross state lines? We can't allow state-by-state non-recognition of marriages or you, yourself might end up divorced by driving to California or someplace other than where you were married.

MAYHEM MIKE
Salt Lake City, UT

Same-sex marriage advocates: Admit it. Today, you support homosexual marriage because so many people demand it; the hue and the cry for it has "come out of the closet." Therefore, your logic insists, it must be allowed. Tomorrow, when enough people demand it, will you also support a revamp of the term, "marriage" to include unions with multiple partners? Can you, with greater wisdom and insight than traditional marriage supporters have, predict and promise a beneficial effect on society if that occurs?

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

We are not bigots and we don't hate you. We just want you and your children to sit in the back of the bus, and use your own drinking fountains, and stay out of our country club. We can be friends - in fact, some of my best friends are gay - but I wouldn't want my brother to be one and get married.

It is especially telling that some of the same groups that supported "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" are now upset that Gay men and Lesbians aren't willing to settle for domestic unions. My husband and I have been together for 5 years. I want to know that he and I have the same protections as our married neighbors. No more, no less.

DaveRL
OGDEN, UT

The brief was neither accurate or convincing, prejudice & bigotry is still wrong no matter how lawyers try to paint it. One is free to have their own beliefs but to try impose those beliefs on everyone is not only wrong, it is disgraceful to think in the 21st century some still believe this is the right way as dictated by God.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

Scoundrel 8:47 pm: You forgot to mention how inappropriate it would be to believe anything President Obama said...

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@LovelyDeseret: It is the religious beliefs and the people that hold them which are trying to force people into second class status, not the other way around as you apparently claim. I'm sure Justice Sotomayor will work to support the rights of ALL people, not just the religous.

@Sal: Would you also recognize the fact that a marriage reco0gnized in once state would, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US constitution, be considered legal and binding in another states, regardless whether that marriage could be formalized under that state's laws?

---------------

I've read, studied and analyzed the amicus brief. There's nothing new or different in it; just the same arguments and "facts" produced before. I do wonder about one thing -- the religions reprsented in the brief claim that their positions are not the result of animus or bigotry, but the those are evident in every argument. I wonder whether they don't recognize their animus, or are just trying to ignore it so they look better in their own eyes. Either way, it's really sad to see them make an argument that just isn't true.

evansrichdm
west jordan , UT

God has said what God as said get over it. People still believe in God and follow his commandments, get over it.

If you done wnat to follow God that is your right, but dont get all high and migthy if other want to follow God and voice their belief, even if it by just living their belief. People have a right to be against gay marriage and voice it, just like those for gay marriage have voiced their opinion. Then in the next life both sides can try to explain their position to God and reap their rewards.

If you are going to force gay marriage on us then let those that want more then one wife or husband get marriage, but I am sure the gay marriage people will have a fit over that.
Also who is to say that old people that marry is this life wont be able to have children in the next? Will a gay couple be able to produce children in this life or the next based on science?

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

David, a two parent family--where the parents love and respect and are committed to each other-- is the ideal situation for children raising.

When gay marriage is legal across the country--and that will happen sooner than you expect--life will go on; the sun will rise and set. But we will be a fairer and more just society. And the children of gay unions will know that they were wanted.

Virginia Reader
Ashburn, VA

This issue goes much deeper than any of us realize. God ordained marriage between a man and a woman and we don't question God - even if it doesn't make sense. God is God and if he gave us life and a world to live on than surely he can tell us what is right and what is wrong. I feel for those who are opposed to my views, I know it is not easy, but I fear God more and his judgments.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Sal, civil rights are not for states or churches or voters to decide. You can marry the person you want to marry. It sounds like it wouldn't have bothered you if a Samoan man and black woman in Montgomery couldn't have married because the state of Alabama hadn't gotten around to repealing their laws against interracial marriage--because it isn't your ox that is being gored.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

David from Centerville:

In some heterosexual marriages it is impossible to produce a child, for whatever medical reason. These couples often see artificial insemination as a solution.

It turns out that lesbian couples also have that avenue of reproduction available to them.

Why should the state decide that one situation is legally sanctioned and receives the benefit of various tax & legal benefits, while the other is not?

Doesn't this arbitrarily hurt the child produced in the second circumstance?

to comment

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