Quantcast

Comments about ‘Ad campaign advocating same-sex marriage in Utah launches Tuesday’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 7 2014 9:10 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

greatbam22 says;

"Just because some states have redefined marriage in a certain way doesn't mean all states have to redefine it in those ways as well."

Are you married when you cross state lines? Why shouldn't the LGBT couple married in MA or CA be married when they cross state lines? There's also the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.

@RedWings;

When you wrote that Civil Unions wouldn't be recognized, right along with marriage into Amendment 3, you basically wrote it's death warrant as Unconstitutional. Now that you're losing, you're willing to concede Civil Unions? Not on your life; why should we settle for less?

@O'really;

Please provide your sources for your claim that most LGBT marriages are in their first relationship. Those I'm aware of have dated similar numbers to straights.

Has it ever occurred to you that the earlier deaths and mental disorders you claim about LGBT couples could be due to the discrimination we've faced since, forever?

rusty68
Cathedral City, CA

The Torah, the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and proclamations of popes, prophets, presidents, bishops, overseers, etc. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECULAR LAWS OF OUR SECULAR REPUBLIC.

See the First Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution for details (and also the 14th).

The subject under discussion is CIVIL MARRIAGE.

I'm not aware of ANY GLBTQAI person wanting to be married in any ANTI-gay synagogue, church, mosque, temple, etc.

There is a long list of bonafide religious organizations who include marriage equality in THEIR doctrines, canon laws, constitutions, etc.

OUR First Amendment rights (I'm an Episcopalian) are being trampled by the State meddling in OUR doctrines.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice. Since 1888, the Supreme Court has consistently held that marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right of every citizen. The last case being two women (Windsor).

Because marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, marriage discrimination by race or sexual orientation is a prohibited action for Congress, state legislatures, and public referendums.

While there are those who have opinions that oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, those opinions have NO rational or scientific or legal basis. While the expression of those opinions is protected by the 1st Amendment, such opinions have no validity and no weight and deserve no consideration.

Specifically, the Supreme Court has never excluded same-sex marriage. Instead, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the universal nature of this fundamental right. There is no constitutional, no rational, no objective basis for any person, because of their sexual orientation, to be rejected, excluded, stigmatized, discriminated against, or in any way have their constitutional rights denied or restricted.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

OK, You don’t like the “gay lifestyle”.
What part do you disapprove of? :

Getting up
Going to Work
Having lunch
Reading the Sports section
Goiong back to work and then leaving for the day
Going to the grocery store
Fixing dinner
Helping kids with homework
Paying bill
Doing laundry
Watching a movie

Somedays even
Go to the little league ballgames
Helping a neighbor
Travel
Laugh/cry
Go to Church

Repeat for 40-60 years

Get sick, Grow old, and die.

If you are talking about s-e-x,
Then you are talking about s-e-x and not lifestyle.

And
If anyone [male/female, gay/straight] gets married just for s-e-x
Then you got married for all the wrong reasons.
See my list above…

higv
Dietrich, ID

@Equalprotection and others you are looking for a church that agrees with you. The Book of Mormon talks about people that will donate to someone that tells them what they want to hear. Samuel the Lamanite. Why not find the mind and will of God and agree with him?

To the person at BYUIDAHO are you willing to follow the prophet or not? We have been repeatedly told to support legislation that defines marriage between a man and a women. As for polygamy if you believe in revelation no hyporcrisy there. Most Lds men did not want to have more than one wife and glad we don't practice it. Several patriarchs practiced polygamy and the Lord commanded it or had no problem with it at certain times. Our time as restitution of all things. But same gender marriage never has and never will be allowed. To those that claim church leaders were wrong Do they ever admit to being wrong themselves? If you read the words of the Prophet you know the will of the Lord on the matter. Why not suit your views with his.

Demiurge
San Diego, CA

IF you believe SSM is immoral, don't enter into one. Nobody will make you.

Bob K
portland, OR

jsf
Centerville, UT
"All gay and lesbian people deserve to have the rights and the privileges that we've had," Marge Bradshaw says.
The next step in this argument, if the Bradshaws had a temple marriage do they expect the church to capitulate for temple marriages for SSM because they had the privilege.
They say they don't advocate for forcing the churches but ... "the rights and privileges that we've had." Growing up LDS, children are taught about eternal marriage, and that takes place in the temple. Unless the church capitulates the concept of those espousing to be mormon, eternal marriage and eternal love of SSM couples can not be.
.....

Thanks for reminding us of the true reason the lds church and many members are "doing the ostrich thing"
-- they are afraid Gays born into mormon families will press for the same rights as their straight siblings.
-- they are afraid the love and logic of what the Bradshaws say will be accepted.

LDS people should be imploring the prophet to look harder to God for an answer.

--- the revelation about Blacks came an embarrassing 15 years late

Young members are not going to countenance the inequailty

higv
Dietrich, ID

@Bob K does the prophet need to look harder for the answer you want to hear? Or should you be willing to follow the prophet on the matter? If you read the words of General Conference and the prophet for a long time you will know what they have said on so called same gender marriage. Don't need to pray about item already revealed. Since the Lord already revealed it and Joseph Smith said the Lord does not give a new revelation when he already revealed his will. Something to that effect.

David Mohr
Victoria/BC/Canada, 00

As has been pointed out by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and by some of the comments here - legalizing something does not make it moral. We have two choices and only two choices, from my point of view - we can follow God's laws or we can be refused the opportunity to enter the Celestial Kingdom. God loves each and every one of us and wants to see us return to live with Him but He has clearly stated that there is only one way to do that. He also realizes that we would could not bear to be in His presence if we do not earn it. To that end go ahead and quote any man that you want - it will not make SSM moral or acceptable. Quote God, with source material, if you want to have me agree that SSM is moral. I love my gay friends as my brothers and sisters but in keeping with God's teachings, I sorrow for the life style they have chosen. Being gay is not a sin but a test God has given them. Acting on those feelings means they are failing the test.

to comment

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