Quantcast
Faith

Same-sex marriage advocates launch 'southern strategy'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 1, 2014 9:04 p.m.

    @ Tyler D

    Thank you for the generous compliment. You set an excellent standard for all of us and I appreciate it.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    @ 1.96: Please reread the article and the law being contested. This is in no way about government recognition of the ceremony being performed.

    The law in question specifically states that ministers cannot bless marriages where there is not a marriage license present - in other words, if Joyce and Jane want to have a commitment ceremony (a "marriage" without a marriage license - no government recognition, just recognition between them and God) and they ask their minister to bless it, their minister can go to jail.

    Many churches have some kind of baptism or naming ceremony for babies - imagine what an imposition it would be on those religious rites if a law was passed saying only a Judge could name a baby. Imagine if Jews were told they had to have a doctor perform the bris. These are religious ceremonies with absolutely no civil/legal bearing - what right does the government have to interfere in them?

    Why should voters and the government get to dictate religious rites for commitment ceremonies?

    As to your polygamy reference, that already happens - ministers of polygamous congregations perform religious polygamous marriages that have no legal impact.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 1, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    1.96 Standard Deviations wrote:

    "Also, this article is about using religious freedom to have the government recognize gay marriage. Some religions also allow polygamy. Do you think the state's definition of marriage should include multiple [human] partners? For example, allow 3 men getting married together?"

    See Reynolds v. United States.

    Unfortunately for your argument, 135 years of significant stare decisis considerations would need to be overcome before your slippery-slope scenario would be an actual problem.

    In this country religious freedom is not absolute.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    May 1, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    @ Jeanie: The key word in your sentence is "believe" - you believe something to be true. However, that "belief" is not founded in fact and, absent any supporting proof of a harm, is not a valid reason for codifying your belief into law.

    On that same note, it is not your belief that makes you a bigot - it is the actions you take that determine whether or not you are a bigot. There are many things that are considered "sins" by one religion or another or even multiple religions - and yet, there is no push to deny civil benefits to other groups of sinners. Why the emphasis on this issue for this group?

    Additionally, when it comes to the children the choice is not heterosexual or same-sex parents - the choice is married or unmarried same-sex parents. Prohibiting marriage does not prohibit child rearing. How do you use procreation as a basis for denying marriage to couples who already have children?

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    May 1, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    equal protection:

    "It's not the gender of the parent that's the key. It's the quality of parenting that's being offered by whoever is there."

    Nice. I think you just made the case to allow sophisticated robotic overlords to raise human children. Robots are gender neutral and also cannot reproduce. Robots can be programmed to give quality parenting, express love, and be citizens in the community. Technology is coming to a point where this may just be possible. Should we allow them to marry as well, or is this an imitation of a real thing?

    Also, this article is about using religious freedom to have the government recognize gay marriage. Some religions also allow polygamy. Do you think the state's definition of marriage should include multiple [human] partners? For example, allow 3 men getting married together?

    Keep in mind these 3 men may be your neighbors, have feelings, are good citizens, have honorable employment, and are positive contributors to their community.

    Do you think gay-marriage advocates really want to embrace freedom of religion to justify same-sex marriage? This opens up a lot more possibilities -- probably more than they intended.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 1, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    @jeanie;

    Another test as to whether or not your disagreement is based on bigotry, Jeanie, is to apply this test to it:

    You say that an opposite sex couple is the optimal environment for children. Along with preventing LGBT marriages, do you also propose to prevent murderers, pedophiles, druggies, child abusers, wife abusers, etc. from marrying because they don't provide "the optimal" environment? If the only group you're going to deny marriage to, due to "not optimal" is LGBT couples, then you can probably conclude that the reason for your disagreement is based in bigotry.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 1, 2014 12:29 a.m.

    @Jeanie, taking your optimal parenting rationale to a logical conclusion, empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians can marry while excluding all other heterosexual couples. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident. Moreover, why target just homosexuals for discrimination, if your "genuine" concern is for child welfare?

    Every major professional organization in this country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples, including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption, and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to): American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the Donaldson Adoption Institute. It’s not the gender of the parent that’s the key. It’s the quality of parenting that’s being offered by whoever is there.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 30, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    Jeanie asks: "What reason could be given to disagree with gay marriage and not be considered bigoted? Or is there no room for any other conviction?"

    When talking about gay people, a good trick to use to see if itwill sound bigotted is to try the same argument substituting a different minority class--like black people, the elderly, Mormons, or the disabled. If your argument sounds off when applied to those people, carefully consider if you should say it about gay people.

    Another good rule is to do unto others as you would have done unto you. If an argument would be hurtful when applied to you, carefully question if you should apply it to others.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2014 5:32 p.m.

    jeanie: "Many people believe the most simple, healthy configuration of a family is a mom and a dad, given the complimentary functions of our bodies and the complimentary nature of our dispositions."

    Your are basically reprising the "optimality" argument, that SSM should not be allowed because children do best with a married mother and father. That is one of the state's arguments in its appeal (they refer to the "gold standard" in the argument). The "Mom+Dad=Best Child Outcome" is true, but it by itself does not provide a rational basis for opposing SSM. The law allows for many different family structures, including unmarried single parents, unmarried hetero couples, and divorced single parents. In order for the optimality argument to hold, you must demonstrate that married same sex parents produce worse outcomes for children than all of the other legal family arrangements. This is unlikely, in my assessment, because the benefits to children of two parents (regardless of gender) compared to single parents are greater than any potential drawbacks to those two parents being same sex. As to complementarity of parental disposition, children get plenty of gender modeling from extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles) and the broader community.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 30, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    jeanie asks;

    "Ranch,

    What reason could be given to disagree with gay marriage and not be considered bigoted? Or is there no room for any other conviction?"

    Answer: The problem isn't that you "disagree with gay marriage", thats your opinion and its fine (but you can't use your opinion or religious beliefs to tell others what they may or may not do), the problem is that your arguments are not consistent.

    If you're going to deny LGBT couples marriages because they can't procreate, then you MUST apply that same criteria to heterosexuals who can't procreate, otherwise your reasoning is suspect (probably bigoted). ("complimentary nature" - garbage!)

    Bigotry doesn't have to manifest in huge, 15-minute fame ways (Cliven Bundy's type). It can also manifest in the little ways. You can smile and say "I disagree", but you have to examine your motives. Why do you disagree? Why can't you disagree and tolerate our marriages? "God says" isn't a valid reason, and if that is your reason, its probably bigotry cloaked in religion. If your LDS, you disagree with alcohol use yet you tolerate it, right? This is no different.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 30, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    @Liberty For All: "Except only our religion is blessed with special access to moral truth for which other religions are not privy. Sorry to disappoint."

    I read this and laughed before I realized that you are probably serious.

    Perhaps you are not aware that all the religions say this? All the religions say they are the special one and every other one is fake, or a copy, or a corruption. In fact, untold misery and bloodshed has happened through history over which religion is right and which is wrong.

    Sorry to disappoint, but your little operation in Utah has no more claim on the truth than the Vatican, Islam, Wicca, or the Dali Lama.

    Actually, on the whole of it, I think the Dali Lama may have the edge on truth.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    April 30, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    Ranch,

    What reason could be given to disagree with gay marriage and not be considered bigoted? Or is there no room for any other conviction?

    Do we demand that all people believe the same or give them a hateful label? I believe it is possible to passionatly disagree with someone and still respect them - and even be their friend.

    As far as biology goes, it is not only our physical make up it is our male and female natures as well, you know "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". Infertile heterosexual couples still offer their complimentary nature to the raising of children.

    A Quaker,

    I am well aware of the statistics. I deal with children who live them. It is my experience that children who are born within the bounds of a strong marriage with a dad and a mom thrive.

    Your statistics are why many organizations devote untold resources to strengthing marriages and teaching moral behavior. For every shocking failure story in the news I could give you many success stories from my own neighborhood.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    People get angry with us! They bash whatever we do! They say we have an agenda! Well, I guess if wanting a better life is an agenda, then we do have one! We also have religious freedom. We have beliefs, despite the fact that so many people don't acknowledge it!
    You know what, if somebody has the need to degrade me and treat me like dirt and use God as an excuse, more power to you!
    I grew up Mormon and I was happy and I am grateful for it. The day they let me know I wasn't wanted was one of the worst days of my life! I love my Mormon family and honestly will care about Mormons as long as I live! Always.
    We do not have to accept the degrading way in which people treat us! What do we do? We do our best to stand up for ourselves! Yes, we dare believe in ourselves! Whatever happens will be! We can't make people care! I have had enough of constantly trying not to offend family and friends! I realize that what I wished for will never be! You can't make people care!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 30, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    @donn: There are 613 commandments in the Old Testament. Christians have rejected most of them. There are 21 "abominations" in Leviticus alone. Christians flatly ignore almost all of them. Paul explains why in Romans 14. Now, if you have a copy of a Bible handy, I'd like you to turn to Leviticus 15:19-30, and then read Leviticus 20:18. Now, explain to me why no one in your family obeys these particular laws. Should you and your wife be cast out of your community?

    It's not enough to reject most of the OT and embrace one line out of it. Either it all makes some contextual sense or the context requires examination. Either you must ritually sacrifice every animal you eat, dispose of every piece of meat more than two days dead, avoid swine, mollusks, crustaceans, catfish, and most game animals, bury your dead before the second sundown, not eat mixed grain or wear blended fabrics, or you can't pretend to be following the OT.

    Embrace the New Covenant, accept God's love, love thy neighbors, and leave judgment to the Lord.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    April 30, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    @donn – “Others, were moral codes, and are timeless… murder”

    The Amalekites will be happy to hear this… if they were any around, that is.

    @Dan Maloy – “You don't want "peace". You want "acceptance"

    If by “acceptance” you mean equal rights, then ya.

    @Karen R.

    Great posts as usual… you’re fast becoming one of my DN heroes.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 30, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    @ Dan Maloy

    Sir, your acceptance is not required. Never has been. Perhaps some are seeking it, but that's a personal issue on their part. What ALL on my side are seeking is equal protection under the law. What I want is to provide my nephew with the power to allow religion to play a part in his life to the extent that HE sees fit, not the other way around.

    @ donn

    "Others, were moral codes, and are timeless. Incest, murder(child sacrifice), homosexuality, bestiality, adultery are still abominations before God."

    So when your god redefined what is moral, these are the ones that made the list. Okay, question: If they're all abominations, why are only those who engage in homosexual sex deprived of the right to marry? Is your god saying that two adults of the same gender wanting to marry is worse than a man with a predilection for incest being allowed to marry a woman with young children? Or worse, creating his own victims with this woman? Seriously?

    Maybe your god needs to hit the reset button again.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    April 30, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Those of you with a personal, special, elite relationship with God, and those of you who feel confident enough to speak in is behalf.......
    Please give the rest of us a heads up when he shows up to destroy all the rest of us.
    Might be nice to have a little chat with him first, so we can really hear, from his mouth, how he truly feels about all of this.

  • donn layton, UT
    April 30, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    @A quaker, My question for you is, isn't it more moral to make honest gays out of them, and let them settle down with one partner, or do you prefer to just encourage them to sleep around for the rest of their lives?

    The O.T. Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the N.T. (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, were moral codes, and are timeless. Incest, murder(child sacrifice), homosexuality, bestiality, adultery are still abominations before God.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    April 30, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    Can someone give a rational answer to: "How does my legal same-sex marriage diminish your straight marriage in any way?"

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 30, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    @ atrulson: The definition of marriage has long been a matter for the courts - just look at inheritance and divorce cases.

    As for best friends marrying each other, that situation already exists with the caveat that the best friends must be opposite gender. All that allowing same-sex marriage will change on that front is allowing best friends of the same gender to marry also.

    Throughout recorded history there have been stories of men and women who have married for reasons other than procreation and stories of men and women who married solely for procreation and once that one little heir was born they were never intimate with each other again. There is even a story in the Bible of a man who procreated with someone other than his wife because he didn't think she could have children.

    There are also Biblical stories of polygamy and all forms of incest.

    As far as what you and your spouse feel for each other or whether or not you are intimate with each other - no one has cared until now, and no one is going to care once same-sex marriage is legalized.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 30, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    @ 1.96: One of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that same-sex couples can access all the rights and benefits of marriage without marriage (all one has to do is look at tax law to see the obvious falseness of that statement, but I digress) and that if same-sex couples wish to live together there is no reason for them not to do so and they can even celebrate it if they wish, just as long as they don't call it "marriage" and expect state sanction of their relationship.

    Another argument against same-sex marriage is that same-sex couples should have civil unions or domestic partnerships or some other name for their relationship - just not "marriage."

    You apparently not only oppose same-sex marriage, but oppose any option for any relationship between same-sex individuals - going so far as to compare non-marital same-sex relationships to slavery.

    Comments like yours are why your side is losing.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 30, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    To Liberty For All: "Except only our religion is blessed with special access to moral truth for which other religions are not privy. Sorry to disappoint."
    First Karen of Houston responded to this as well as anyone could. Please reference her remarks.
    Secondly your statement is your belief. I plain and simply do not share your belief. And if the treatment of the LGBT community in Utah reflects your moral truths I'm all for a little less morality and a whole lot more tolerance.
    Lastly the only thing that disappoints me is your closed minded "I'm right end of discussion" approach to life.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 30, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    @DanMaloy: I won't argue that you consider homosexual affection sinful. I'm sure you find things as simple as hand-holding deeply offensive. None of us really knows what a given couple does in the privacy of their own bedroom, and whether they are gay or straight, I don't really want to know.

    But here's the thing. That's already legal. Whatever physically affectionate activity a couple wishes to engage in in the privacy of their home is a protected right which has been emphatically affirmed by the Supreme Court (Lawrence v. Texas). You may not like it, but that part of gays' and lesbians' existence is now officially accepted by our society.

    So, whether or not we allow them to marry, the "behavior" is here to stay, and by "here" I mean legally accepted.

    My question for you is, isn't it more moral to make honest gays out of them, and let them settle down with one partner, or do you prefer to just encourage them to sleep around for the rest of their lives?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 30, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    @Jeanie: I hate to disillusion you (or maybe I don't), but procreation has very little to do with marriage. How else could anyone explain that women get pregnant whether or not they're married? Have you seen the statistics? Currently, some 41% of births in the USA are to unmarried women. And this doesn't speak of children born to "shotgun weddings."

    And marriage has very little to do with good child-rearing. Plenty of horrible, opposite-sex couples make a complete mess of it. Recently in Utah news, we see a woman who allegedly killed 6 of her newborns, and a 3-year-old who killed her baby brother after her parents let her play with firearms.

    Marriage is about love and commitment. It doesn't always work. The divorce rate is 50%. But we should allow people to try. If Mickey Rooney and Liz Taylor's 17 total weddings didn't ruin marriage, I don't see how a committed lesbian couple's one wedding will.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 30, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    re: "With gender out of the equation, couldn't we just as well be talking about friendship?"

    What is the legal definition of friendship, and why should the state care about a commitment between me and my friend?"

    How is gender "out of equation?"

    Do opposite sex couples lose their gender when same-sex couples civil marry? Same-sex couples are well known to have a gender before and after they civil marry. What happens to the gender of opposite-sex couples?

    Do heterosexuals sometimes marry their best friend? Marriage usually has a presumption of intimacy and establishes a legal relationship that does not already exist with siblings or parents. Social security, pensions, spousal health care are dependent upon that relationship (about 1138 benefits in all).

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 30, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    @ Liberty For All

    "Except only our religion is blessed with special access to moral truth for which other religions are not privy."

    And there it is. "Mine is better than yours." Nothing human about that, right?

    Nope. Nothing divisive about religion...

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    April 30, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    BJMoose "I would think these 1.21 billion would defer to their leader rather than to your leader of 15 million plus."

    Except only our religion is blessed with special access to moral truth for which other religions are not privy. Sorry to disappoint.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 30, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    @ Dan " You want to push your agenda down the throats of those who believe acting on homosexual desires is sinful. You want to quell the speech of anyone and everyone who disagrees with you in any and every circumstance. You don't want "peace". You want "acceptance", not so much of you, but of your behavior."

    The same arguments were used against integration and full support of anti-misegenation laws. We have seen these beliefs still play out in the far right 'Sterling and Bundy' public comments recently. They still share the same answer as you: "NO!"

    My answer: "The marriage equality train has long left the station, despite deep and ugly claw marks all over the caboose."

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    Schnee (in response to jeanie): "Ability to procreate is not a precondition on marriage."

    Not only that, but under Utah law, the INABILITY to procreate is a mandatory precondition for certain marriages (first cousins). The link between procreation and marriage is broken and the procreation argument fails.

    This paper has made a cause celebre out of Hobby Lobby based on that company's very indirect infringement on religious practice under the ACA. The law does not force the company or its employees to buy or use the suspect contraceptives. The company is only required to pay insurance premiums into a pool from which some small portion MIGHT be used for contraceptives. Contrast that to the North Carolina case, where ordained clergy of recognized churches are threatened with jail for performing religious rites that are within the dictates of their faith. One is trumpeted in the editorial pages. The other is completely ignored.

    Some legal restrictions on religious practice is necessary-- we don't allow human sacrifice or Warren Jeffs to wed twelve-year-olds. However, there needs to be a compelling public purpose to the regulation. The NC lawsuits will hinge on this.

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    April 30, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    Pro-homosexual crowd: "We just want to live our lives in peace. We want EVERYONE to be happy."

    No. You want to push your agenda down the throats of those who believe acting on homosexual desires is sinful. You want to quell the speech of anyone and everyone who disagrees with you in any and every circumstance.

    You don't want "peace". You want "acceptance", not so much of you, but of your behavior.

    Here's my answer: "No."

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 30, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    According articles in other papers, the current North Carolina law allows clergy to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars clergy from performing "religious blessings and marriage rites" for same-sex couples, and that "if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments."

    The issue is that the government has tried to prohibit churches from blessing couples. Anytime the government starts telling churches what rites it can and can't do, we should be worried.

    In America we value and protect freedom of religion. No matter what our definition of marriage is or what type of relationships we think are good and honorable, we allow religions to practice according to the dictates of their conscience. In this case, the UCC honors the commitment of same-sex partners and wants to perform commitment ceremonies. The government constitutionally cannot interfere in this. The challenge to the law is justified and all of us who support religious freedom should support this challenge.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 30, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    To bj-hp
    "Only one man speaks for the Father on this earth and he speaks for all of the Lord's children, including you, and that is President Monson, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

    According to the Census of the 2013 Annuario Pontificio (Pontifical Yearbook), the number of Catholics in the world was about 1.21 billion at the end of 2011.

    I would think these 1.21 billion would defer to their leader rather than to your leader of 15 million plus.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    April 30, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    Schnee,
    ...so that's where opinions differ. Some of us believe that marriage is the beginning of the creation of families which naturally include children, that it is not just a ceremony to signify commitment to another individual. If that is the basis for one's belief, as the standard for marriage, biology would matter greatly.

    Laws may very well be inacted otherwise, but it won't change what many people believe. And, disagreement can coexhist with respect for individuals without being labled bigotry. It is impossible for everyone in a society to be like-minded on all issues. That there are many from every side of disagreements that cannot manage to disagree respectfully is abundantly clear, but it doesn't mean we don't champion our causes we believe in by participating in the dialog and it doesn't mean we are bigots.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 30, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    @jeanie;

    Interesting that the DN moderators wouldn't print my comment last night responding to your comment.

    LGBT people CAN reproduce in exactly the same manner as infertile heterosexual couples.

    You said, and I quote: "...it becomes abundantly clear two of the same sex cannot procreate."

    Guess what, jeanie, it is also abundantly clear that two infertile heterosexuals cannot procreate, nor can two elderly heterosexuals, yet you have absolutely NO PROBLEM with their marriages. This indicates that you don't really care about "biology" or whether or not a couple can "procreate"; all you care about is that the couple your against is LGBT. (That's called bigotry).

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 30, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    I ran a search looking for this story and one of the hits was an August 2013 article titled, "North Carolina becomes 7th state to ban Muslim Sharia law."

    The irony is indeed rich. I can't stop smiling.

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    April 30, 2014 6:24 a.m.

    Since the definition of marriage has become a court matter, can anyone tell me what the legal definition of marriage IS?

    What is the legal definition of love and how will the state determine that? If my sense of love for my spouse had waned because I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, then would I be breaking the law? Do I need to be sexually attracted to my spouse?

    With gender out of the equation, couldn't we just as well be talking about friendship?

    What is the legal definition of friendship, and why should the state care about a commitment between me and my friend?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2014 1:19 a.m.

    @jeanie
    "All we have to do is look at the male and female body and it becomes abundantly clear two of the same sex cannot procreate"

    Ability to procreate is not a precondition on marriage. If we were talking about reproduction it'd be biology, but we're talking about marriage so...

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    I find it ironic that those of you who regularly cry "religious freedom is being infringed" are so willing to infringe upon the religious freedom of those who believe differently than you do. Ironic indeed.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    April 29, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    Tiago, if you are LDS you might want to read Elder Neil Andersen's talk "Spiritual Whirlwinds" from this last General Conference. If you are going to invoke LDS leaders, be clear where they stand on marriage.

    Schnee, All we have to do is look at the male and female body and it becomes abundantly clear two of the same sex cannot procreate. Some member of the opposite gender had to be involved for a same sex couple to have kids. Many people believe the most simple, healthy configuration of a family is a mom and a dad, given the complimentary functions of our bodies and the complimentary nature of our dispositions. I am sure you are aware that this is the meaning behind the saying that "Biology is not bigotry". This understanding is not just "skin deep".

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    April 29, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    To Ranch and others: What you are saying is wrong. This is just a temporary victory for you but the total victory will be those who stand by the Prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ. To say otherwise really doesn't matter. Prophets have stated for thousands of years what would happen in the last days preceding the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This attack is nothing new it is another means to mock our Heavenly Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. It is wrong to assume that this battle will have no other outcome except that righteousness in the end will prevail where same-sex marriage and the destruction of families will cease that the ordinances of the temple will be open to all of the Father's children. The Proclamation on the Family will live and stand as a witness against all who have failed to heed its warnings. Only one man speaks for the Father on this earth and he speaks for all of the Lord's children, including you, and that is President Monson, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. No one else has that responsibility.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    April 29, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    Ranch,
    It may become legal but I'm sure you understand there will be no laws to force anyone to call anything they choose not to. And some will choose not to call you "husbands".

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 29, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    @1.96 Standard Deviations;

    You're losing. Get used to calling my partner and I "husbands".

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    Tiago:

    If gay marriage is now considered a religious practice, but will now become under consideration to affect the state's definition of marriage, where is the outcry from those who want separation of church and state?

    If there is a religion that allows marriage between animals and humans, should the state allow this too for everyone, to accommodate exercise of religion? One can teach a parrot to say, "I Do," to a marriage proposal.

    Don't you see that gay marriage advocates are being purely opportunistic and really don't care about religious freedom? It still boils down to what is right/wrong, nature, the definition of marriage, state's rights, the role of federal government.

    Marriage between man and and woman is the best definition and the optimal institution for child rearing.

    On an aside, the federal government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business in an idea world. Its role is extremely limited and it shouldn't have come to this. The 14th amendment has been abused by gay marriage advocates. It was never intended to be used for re-defining marriage.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 29, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    @1.96 Standard Deviations
    "Biology is not bigotry. "

    Skin color is biological. Doesn't stop people from being bigots about it.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    @1.96 Standard Deviations
    I don't think it is sneaky. Gay marriage advocates are advocating for the rights of their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters to be able to live a committed, moral life. These ministers in NC are advocating for the right to publicly celebrate the commitment of two people in front of their community and, in their view, in front of God.
    They are not out to get you or to hurt you. They have faith in things they know are true. They feel love and a sense of community. They are trying to protect their children. In America, we let people worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.
    If you are LDS, I recommend you look at Elder Zwick's talk from the last General Conference. When his wife jumped from a moving truck, he thought it was irrational, but asked her "What in the world were you thinking?" Her answer: "I was just trying to save our son."

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    April 29, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    I've heard about this lawsuit but I thought it was frivolous until I learned of the law regulating what marriages a minister can perform. It kind of depends on how it is worded but if its directed strictly at the clergy, I can't imagine it surviving a constitutional challenge.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 29, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    This is absolutely the way this should play out. You cannot allow any kind of argument for religious liberty without allowing all arguments for religious liberty. Religious liberty, after all, does not exist in a 'pick and choose' vacuum. Or, as I've also heard it expressed, you cannot embrace religious liberty for anyone unless you're prepared to embrace it for your worst enemy. That's the way liberty combines with the absolute subjectivity of religion. Long live religious liberty and same sex marriage; your argument has just bitten you.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    April 29, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    Gay marriage advocates love to have their cake and eat it too. Very sneaky strategy. If this were used on another subject, say using the free exercise of religion to bring back slavery, how far would that go? Gay marriage advocates are so opportunistic and fair-weathered to twist whatever good there is into something that is wrong.

    I am for time-tested marriage - marriage between man and woman. Biology is not bigotry. Male and female genders are supposed to complement each other. Marriage between man and woman promotes this wonderfully, and this marriage is the optimal institution for raising children.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    April 29, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Yesterday the Deseret News published a Q&A with Ryan T. Anderson from the Heritage Foundation who opposes same-sex marriage but supports religious liberty.
    In that interview, Mr. Anderson seemed to recognize that importance of allowing individuals and churches to practice their beliefs concerning marriage--even those churches that support and honor committed same-sex unions.
    Mr. Anderson said "In all 50 states, two people of the same sex can live with each other and love each other. If their house of worship recognizes same-sex marriage, they can have a wedding there."
    It would seem that Mr. Anderson would support the United Church of Christ ministers and the ACLU attorneys in this case. I would be interested to hear his specific comments on this case.