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
Cedar Hills, UT

why is it today that the LGBT community can protest and that's all fine and good but when Churches protest they get pounded by the media? It is wrong and it is pervasive throughout the media. The anti-Christian bigotry in this country is real ...it is ugly ...it is led by the media and supported by Democrats. Most of all it is anti-American because America is a Christian founded nation...like it or not!!

Madison, AL

"It is offensive to equate the struggle of civil rights in the last two centuries with the current same gender marriage issue."

I think it is absurd to recycle the same arguments from those who opposed advancements in civil rights then criticize people for making comparisons between the gay rights and civil rights movement. The arguments proffered by those opposing gay rights are no different than those who argued against racial discrimination. The only thing that's changed is swapping out skin color with sexual orientation. To dismiss the comparison is to say those were really good arguments but they were just applied to the wrong issue.

Gay rights may affect a smaller number of people. I see that as a sign of progress. It means we've learned lessons from what went on in the middle of the last century and before. Fewer people are effected by injustice as we move forward. Forgetting the lessons learned in the civil rights era is far more offensive than making apt comparisons.

Herriman, UT

As an active LDS member, I believe that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. However, I cannot support a bill that denies rights to a minority based on my religious beliefs. If Civil Unions provided the same protections, rights, and responsibilities as marriage, the many homosexual people I know would be satisfied. One said to me, "I don't want to change the definition of marriage. I just want the same rights as those who marry, and Civil Unions do not provide that." Our Constitution protects minorities from being suppressed by the majority based on "beliefs." It isn't the other way around, as I've seen by many comments that say, "The majority voted and they said no to marriage for gay people." That is unequal and don't we believe in equality under the law? We may not agree with the lifestyle, but who are we to deny others their rights (don't we believe in free agency)? If the government weren't involved in marriage, this wouldn't even be an issue.

USS Enterprise, UT

It is sad that people are forgetting that this current battle is more about State's Rights. The problem as stated in the original ruling is the 10th ammendment and the 14th ammendment to the US constitution.

One says that if it isn't in the Constitution that it is up to the states to decide. That is also what the SCOUS said in the DOMA ruling.

Now we have the 14th Ammendment that specifies equal protection.

So, the questions are what is not being protected by prohibiting gay marriage recognition and can one ammendment trump another ammendment when the rights conferred are in contradiction.

Eagle, ID

It's nice to hear the why of Marriage. "No other institution joins together two persons with the natural ability to create children for the purpose of maximizing the welfare of such children." I would say I have emperical evidence that this statement is correct. My wife and I have had the natural ability to have children and we are, and continue to be, grateful beneficiaries of this Great Plan of Happiness.

Salt Lake City, UT

I would be more than happy to allow the gay community have their 'precious piece of paper',
but they are not just after that, they want to force me and like minded to celebrate
their bad behavior. Note the suing of those who do not want to be a part of this
celebration,- photographers,bakeries, etc. Let them be married, but allow me to choose who
I want to offer my services too under conditions that are offensive to my own beliefs.
Shopping around for someone to sue seems to more their intent than celebrating their


Just a few comments:

I have no problem with people fighting for things they believe strongly in. But I do have a problem when it is done in a way that is misleading.

One way that gay rights has gained huge support is to claim it is about equality. That is not accurate. This is about additional rights. It has no merit when claiming it's about inequality. I, as a single man, have the exact same rights as any gay man. I can only marry a woman. He can only marry a woman. I can't marry a man. He can't marry a man. We both have all the same rights when it comes to marriage and any other aspect of life. They are in fact fighting for additional rights, that would then allow both of us to marry a man. But by using the term "Equality" to gain support, it's very misleading, and of course for anyone that has a heart, why wouldn't they support a cause that involes equality?

Niskayuna, NY

While I agree that such opposition is in fact not due to bigotry, the real problem is that where advocacy groups are permitted to define the terms, the media by and large just reprints their definition irrespective of anything other than that strained often inappropriate and itself bigoted usage. It is entirely possible to disapprove of gay marriage on a host of rational grounds not related to morality or religion. That said, it's also not inappropriate to rely upon moral grounds and pose the question to the advocates, who defines morality?

Tooele, UT

Re: "I do not understand the state's reasoning."


Its reasoning is based on the state's interest -- a democratically-recognized interest in fostering what is best for its citizens. That interest is democratically defined by the state, not by LGBT activists or agenda-driven liberal judges. Minority liberals may agree or disagree, but fortunately, they can't overrule.

The only matter here at issue is whether Amendment 3 is rationally related to that state interest.

And, it's simply not honestly arguable that any action to optimize the child-rearing environment is not rationally related to fostering the best child-rearing environment. So, it's not honest to assert Amendment 3 is not rationally related to a valid state interest.

Liberals may assert the state's definition is too broad, too narrow, too late, too soon -- whatever. But, not that it's invalid. That's not theirs' to decide.

Once you cut through the emotion, bullying, and sophistry, the answer is clear -- there's no Constitutionally protected "right" to same-sex marriage.

If LGBT activists want that to change, their only legal resort is to the legislature.

Anything else is cheating.


Secondly, I have a real issue with the way "Hate" is being used to gain support. Just because somebody doesn't agree with same-sex marriage, they are labeled as a bigot and full of hate. So of course anyone that is hearing of this will think, "well I dont' hate them, so I have to support this cause." I can certainly say I don't hate any gay person. In fact I have huge respect and love for many people that are gay and close to me. If a parent doesn't want their child to be allowed to do something, does that mean they hate their child? Not at all. Right or wrong, it's not fair to use this tactic to gain support for the cause. "You don't support my cause, so you hate me." Yet it's been used, and honestly most people are afraid to speak out about it simply because they are afraid of being labled as full of hate.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Nevada is letting it go.

Tooele, UT

@ daehder1:

At it's height, polygamy was practiced by only a very small percentage of LDS members and has never been "covered up", as you put it.
In fact, in it's official web site at lds.org it openly talks about polygamy as being a part of the history of the church, it's reasoning for bringing back the plural marriage as it was practiced throughout most of the Bible's history, and when and how the practice was again ended. There is no "coverup" whatsoever.

You stated "Mormons believed that the best setting for raising children was with one man and several women". That is an utterly false statement. If not, then please provide any credible evidence for your statement. No Church leader has ever even insinuated such an idea, let alone stated anything like that.

I don't know what your definition of "not so long ago" is, but the Church has officially disavowed any practice of plural marriage for about 120 years... which is about half of the entire timeline history of our country. So it was actually quite a long time ago.

In order to be viewed credibly, please do some research before commenting.

NotInMiami, FL

Constitution: "Banning gays from marrying is clearly against the 14th amendment of the US Constitution."

No, it clearly is not against the 14th amendment. It might be against your interpretation of the 14th amendment though. The 14th amendment was controversial when it passed (1868) and has been controversial since that time. It's been used for both good and ill over the years. If one thing is clear it's that the 14th amendment (specifically, the equal protection clause) is not clear for any given issue.

West Richland, WA

@grounded and rooted

"it's hard to respond to condescending and patronizing comments like this. We are not children, but intelligent adults with legitimate concerns."

You have elected to take my comments as "condescending and patronizing"... perhaps some introspection is indicated to determine why you feel this way.

That having been said, your point is well taken; I appreciate that many posting here are indeed intelligent adults who believe they have legitimate concerns. I understand this.

People who consider themselves good-hearted (who obviously are in many ways) find themselves characterized as small-minded and bigoted, not recognizing they've behaved in small-minded, bigoted ways - expressing ignorance and prejudice, rushing to enshrine their religious views in exclusionary laws targeting the object of their prejudice - are hurt by charges of mean-spiritedness.

The resulting cognitive dissonance is the source of their angst.

While arguing the *right to their beliefs* exempts them from charges of bigotry, they fail to see that those *beliefs* are the REASON for their bigotry. This creates pathos. Like fish that do not know what water is.

Salt Lake City, UT

procuradorfiscal, 2/11 9:23am: "The better model would be the legal, Constitutional approach... The proof is in the pudding -- America is not at war with itself over sovereign immunity, slavery, female suffrage, ..."

Generally agreed (imagine that!), but the counterargument is "Justice delayed is justice denied." Do you think that the slave in 1850 or the nonvoting woman in 1910 was better off justice-wise than their descendants today? How long should an oppressed group wait for public opinion to catch up?

procuradorfiscal, 2/11 10:28 am: "This current crop's only tools are transparent sophistry and snark."

Spoken by one personally familiar with both.

Now your homework: Provide a rational, nonsophist explanation of how the legislature's overwhelming passage of SB89 in 1996 conforms to the "child-centric" model of marriage presented in the state's brief and the amicus briefs described in the article. Prior law already provided for "responsible procreation" by prohibiting marriages that were prone to genetic defects. So why carve out a small exception and specifically endorse and mandate nonprocreative marriages other than to acknowledge that sometimes marriage can be about satisfying adult needs and not just children?

Bountiful, UT

I find it rather disingenuous that this appeal has been framed as LDS Church vs. the same-sex marriage lobby when there are 28 separate briefs filed and the LDS Church is only 1/6 of one of those filed briefs. The references to the 14th Amendment are convoluted because the Amendment itself identifies restrictions to sex, age, salvery - thus cherry-picking out an opinion based upon sex from an Amendment that clearly uses sex as restriction in other ways, muddies the waters. This should prove to be good legal theatre if nothing else.


I find it funny - and strange - that anyone would think it a valid argument that slavery and marriage should be equated in any manner. I also find it to be false logic to believe that something, because it is traditional, is inherently evil. Gravity has been around for a long time - it isn't evil - it just is. Most human beings have chosen to walk on two feet, therefore, is that tradition evil and outdated? Should it be compared to slavery. False thought is what causes slavery - not tradition.

Murray, UT

"The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons"

I love that a pro SSM person is comparing homosexual partners to this group. It doesn't help your case.

Unalienable rights - inherent rights you are born with. Our government is not the author or creator of these rights, but it recognizes these as preexisting rights.

Religious rites - ceremonies performed by churches for religious purposes.

Marriage is a religious rite, not an unalienable right. The state should be separate/neutral.

Child's right to a father and a mother is an unalienable right. Children are ALWAYS born to a father and a mother, even if the father's contribution passes by test tube to the mother. It is a right we are all born with. Adoption to families with less than a father and mother is a violation of children's unalienable rights.

It is a shame that the religions need to defend themselves against the false accusation of bigotry (they did it very well!), especially when it is anti-religious bigots making the accusations.

Hyrum, UT

@ Rebe:

If what you said it true about gays not wanting to change the definition of marriage and only wanting the rights afforded by marriage, then why don't they just push to expand the rights already given in Civil Unions?

Doing so would be a much easier approach and a lot less controversial. But since that hasn't been their approach, it's obvious they want more than that. They do want to change the current definition of traditional marriage and to force the rest of their agenda on everyone else.

By not allowing others the right to believe as they prefer to (and whenever different from their own beliefs), they themselves are demonstrating bigotry and causing resentment. Suing others for such things as not wanting to take pictures of their controversial ceremonies isn't conducive to wanting mere acceptance. It's pushing an activist agenda.

In taking the approach they currently are undertaking, they may eventually get the law to force others to legally accept their lifestyle, but they are causing the hearts of others to turn against them. By forcing their non-traditional views on others, they are understandably causing resentment toward both them and their agenda.

District Heights, MD

Interesting comments. I find it amazing how well this new view on marriage is playing out. Interesting that bestiality isn't included as those who practice it want to make love to their animals and love them dearly, or a brother and sister cant marry even though they love one another and of course most of human existence young women at age 13 were already pregnant yet the LBGT community does not include equality towards these people and their values, very bigoted on their part to claim equality. Where is the plural marriage as Muslims practice and other societies?
For those who toss human history to the wind, all their forefathers and mothers, most religions values and beliefs it amazes me to think they think their ideas are right and 10's of billions are wrong. Love the person not the action, follow natures procreation design and your better off especially with the Children.

to comment

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