Comments about ‘Utah group launches campaign to promote same-sex marriage with personal stories’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 18 2014 5:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bob K
portland, OR

No one is asking to change the definition of marriage in your church.

If you believe that yours (or any church's) definition of marriage should apply to civil laws, you are entitled to believe, but not to insist that others follow it.

Let your Gay kids have civil marriages -- they are taxpaying citizens of the USA.

-- BUT: We all know that the issue in Utah is the many thousands of Gay kids born into mormon families each year, and the fear that they will want what their siblings have.

Presently, their choices are:
A-- Go against who God made you, and lie, in order to marry in the church. Hope you are strong enough to fake desire for your unfortunate wife, who has settled for half a loaf.
B-- Remain celibate, becoming something like a pet cat or dog in your stake, but ruffling no feathers.
C-- Take the first bus, and lose your family, church, and community.

In other churches, members can insist that the leaders find better solutions.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@Snapdragon 6:54 p.m. March 18, 2014

Personal stories may attempt to pull at heart strings, but there is still an obligation we have to protect and defend traditional marriage.

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

Of course we should work to protect and defend traditional marriage. That does NOT mean we deny those "wired" for same-sex marriage the right to marry according to their sexual and affectual affinity. Traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are not mutually exclusive. Both can be, and should be, protected and defended.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

Any 'defense" of "traditional marriage" was surrendered long ago by those who ceased to live its "traditional principles". Hopefully those entering into same sex marriages will do a better job of honoring the "traditional principles" then those who protest against same sex marriage so vehemently.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ Tim in Dallas

There is no marriage requirement to produce children. Further, gay couples can reproduce in the same way that infertile hetero couples can reproduce.

But this isn't what makes my nephew equal to you. What makes him equal is the simple fact that he is alive. Just as women were always equal to men, and black people always equal to white people, homosexuals have always been equal to heteros. We're all made by the same process. We each have the same input into how we're made: none.

So I'm happy to hear about this plan to further introduce gay couples to society. I think visibility has been and will continue to be the most powerful factor in changing minds. Kudos to these leaders.

UTAH Bill
Salt Lake City, UT

It's confusing to hear supporters of "traditional marriage" rail against same sex marriage. For, if marriage is a stabilizing force in our society that (in particular) benefits the children - then it's logical to support marriage in general - even if it's non-traditional. In other words, if a marriage between a man and a woman is good for society, so is marriage for same sex couples. We want children to be raised in a more stable environment, right? So, we should be rooting for these changes. It just makes sense.

Grandma 20
Allen, TX

Int'l Businessman
SLO, CA

If a man marries a woman who is married to another man (polyandry) then aren't the two men participating in a marriage together? Hardly seems "traditional" to me.

It's called adulteryl

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@tim_the_tool_man_taylor 8:33 p.m. March 18, 2014

What I have never understood about this is the equal rights claim.

If a man and woman enter into a marriage relationship, then they are able to reproduce.
If two people of the same sex enter into a "marriage relationship", then they are not able to reproduce.

How is this equal? Do they really expect to be treated as equal after having chosen to enter into an inferior relationship. (Inferior in the sense that they cannot reproduce)

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

So you're saying that because my husband (of more than 44 years) and I are unable to reproduce, our marriage is an inferior relationship? Sorry -- you're wrong.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

If you're basing your opposition to equal rights for same-sex couples on your religion, when may we expect to see you call for state enforcement of all the other equally cruel and absurd rules set forth in your sacred scriptures? You're somehow OK with other Biblical "abominations" such as eating shrimp and women wearing trousers, so why the inconsistency here?

If you're basing your opposition to equal rights for same-sex couples on your belief that marriage must be restricted to couples capable of procreation, then when may we expect to see you calling for laws prohibiting infertile women or impotent men from marrying? When will you announced your intention to nullify my own marriage, which has produced no children?

When will you demand that marriage licenses only be granted to couples who have passed fertility tests?

When will you demand that divorce involving couples with children be made illegal?

When will you demand that foster children and adopted children being raised by same-sex couples be taken from their homes?

Seriously, you folks are not making any sense.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@KJB1

Why should get to vote on a person's rights? According to the Supreme Court, marriage has been affirmed as a "right" 14 times.

What gives you the authority to take away another person's rights? Majority (mob) rule?

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

Schnee,

The gravity of this issue is a serious one... few sins are more serious. However, I believe many do things they don't really understand fully. I believe forgiveness is still possible for many. That is not a message or feeling of hate. It's one of hope. I don't believe people who struggle with this are monsters, anymore than the vast majority of mankind that has dealt with some kind of struggle or addiction, sexual or otherwise.

It's understandable that people make mistakes. Everyone does! All we care about is helping people to repent and be forgiven. That's a wonderful thing.

topofutpatriot
Logan, UT

One only need look to Utah's History to determine what happens to a religious people who have a different definition of "Marriage" than their fellow countryman in the United States.

My pioneer ancestors were jailed, driven from the nation to Mexico, Canada, had to hide in Wyoming to avoid Federal Marshals and not allowed basic civil rights like voting in Idaho because they had a different definition of Marriage.

Furthermore the LDS Church was threatened with disenfranchisement (Loss of all Property including the SL Temple) if they did not conform to "Society's" definition of Marriage.

Why will it be any different with society's new definition of marriage this time around? Basic civil religious rights will be violated for those who's religion deems SSM as immoral. The civil "right" of the minority will trump the religious rights of the majority. Many court cases around the nation have already proved that recently.

Therefore the only solution for our society is to get the State out of the business of defining marriage (marriage licensing). The LDS Church will be forced to stop performing marriages. They will only perform "Sealing s" in their temples.

AJK
Highland, UT

An argument that can be reduced to "I want what's fair." Seems right to be fair, right? Wrong. My mom, often told me growing up, "Lot's of things in life are not fair." Why? Because what is fair me is not always right or fair to another, or most importantly to God. Fairness is such a crafty argument, because it seems so "fair" on its face. How do you stand against people asking for fairness? One way only, do what is right before what is fair. What is right will never change, regardless of politics or popularity. And what about the opposing argument? Well it stands firmly on the principles of truth, centuries of wisdom, coincidentally the opinion of the great majority despite what you my read or hear, and mountains and mountains of statistical evidence that a mother and a father is critical to a thriving democracy, stable economy, and prolific society. And yet many are so incredible arrogant and easily manipulated to think in the last five years, we have figured out that, by golly, we were wrong all along.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@Sawmill, Patjan, Go-Big-Blue and others who so thoughtfully addressed this important issue with sensitivity and insight. Thank you for sharing your wise and balanced points of view. We do not hate those who struggle with same-sex attraction. We try to understand the depth of their concerns. We only ask that our gay relatives and friends try to understand our point of view.

Perhaps there is a way for society to provide some legal recognition of important rights such as hospital visitation, fair taxation and such for committed same-sex partnerships WITHOUT changing the unique definition and status of marriage between a man and a woman?
Please be sensitive to our rights and needs to allow our children and grandchildren to be taught that marriage between a man and a woman is a special and unique relationship distinct from any other relationship - not only at home and at church but in the public square too!

Please try to understand that it is not reasonable to try to manipulate society to believe that all things are equal when in fact they are not equal for biological, anatomical, religious and other commons sense reasons.

anotherview
SLO, CA

********************

Keep talking and telling your personal stories, your personal journeys. It is much easier to demonize those who are invisible.

I've also been on a journey.

I hadn't given much thought to same-sex marriage before the Prop 8 campaign, but deep in my soul I knew the campaign was not Christ-like.. It was not loving, it was not truthful. However, i wasn't ready to vote against Prop 8. But I didn't vote for it either. Today, i would definitely vote in favor of extending marriage rights to homosexuals.

Life here can be confusing at times but we were commanded by God to not judge and to love our neigbors as ourselves.
And so, I leave the judging to an all-knowing God, the creator of us all, to sort it out.

Peace and love.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@tim_the_tool_man_taylor

"Do they really expect to be treated as equal after having chosen to enter into an inferior relationship. (Inferior in the sense that they cannot reproduce)"

=============

I'll be sure to tell my sister and her husband (who cannot reproduce due to certain medical conditions) that their marriage is inferior to yours. Let's not worry about how much they love and complete each other, they cannot reproduce and are therefore inferior. Forget how they made commitments to each other in the Temple for eternity, they are inferior to your marriage, and certainly God must see it that way too.

Wilf 55
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

The most advanced countries in the world have had same-sex marriage for years, some now for more than a decade. It doesn't have any effect on family and society at large, but it does bring stability, legal rights, and happiness to a tiny minority of people. To those who oppose same-sex marriage, just let it go.

samhill
Salt Lake City, UT

To"KBJ1", who suggests my point would be valid only if I, "Let the people of Utah vote on whether your marriage is valid and promise to accept the verdict." You mean, honor Utah voters like Judge Shelby did?

If you carefully read my post you'll see that my point was to raise the question of whose "verdict" is most valid, that of a judge or that of the people.

Reading between the lines might have also raised the question in the minds of the more inquisitive as to the source of a judge's power and authority to arbitrate. If you believe it comes from some document, say, the Constitution, you must then ask from whence comes its power!?

My final point is that **final** power **always** rests with "the people". Even in societies not intelligent enough to formalize that power in law, such as done in democracies, the power still rests, ultimately, with the people. Many a tyrant had learned that lesson too late and in a hard way.

The greatest problem is when the people forget that **truth** rules all, and start to ignore the lessons of our history. I think that's what Shelby did.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

@Hugh1: "Both churches now concur that changing gay is impossible."

I haven't heard such a statement from the LDS or the Catholic leaders. Saying that we don't know if it is possible to alter an established sexual orientatiion doesn't translate to "it is impossible."

The legalization of Same Sex Marriage is inevitable, given the corrupted state of our laws. That doesn't preclude individuals from choosing for themselves whether to align their lives according to the divine plan.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

People who are controlled by dogma had better start asking their church to go have another "revelation" to soothe their cognitive dissonance, because this debate is over. Marriage equality is becoming the law of the land.

Stephen Kent Ehat
Lindon, UT

"No government has the right to tell people in love who they can and cannot marry." (Terry Wood on "Utah Unites" website linked to in this DesNews article.)

John is age 49; Mary is age 19. They love each other. They want to marry. The county clerk refuses to issue them a marriage license because John is Mary's uncle (Mary's natural father's full-blood brother).

Do the people of any state have an interest in the welfare of any children that may be born to John and Mary? Do the people of any state have an interest in whether John and Mary should be able to marry?

Don, Donna and Phyllis present themselves to the county clerk. Donna says, "Hi, this is my husband, Don, and our fiancee Phyllis. Please issue us a marriage license." The clerk refuses.

Do the people of any state have an interest in the welfare of any children that may be born to Don and Phyllis? Do the people of any state have an interest in whether Don and Donna may marry Phyllis?

A state's authority over marriage law is "of central importance." (U.S. Supreme Court, Windsor case (2013) 133 S.Ct. at 2692.)

to comment

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