Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage advocates launch 'southern strategy'’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, April 29 2014 9:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Seattle, WA

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.

1.96 Standard Deviations

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.

American Fork, UT

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.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

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.

Seattle, WA

@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."

Salt Lake City, UT

@1.96 Standard Deviations
"Biology is not bigotry. "

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

1.96 Standard Deviations


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.

Here, UT

@1.96 Standard Deviations;

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

orem, UT

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".

Maryville, MO

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.

orem, UT

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".

Huntsville, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

"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...

cohoes, NY

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?

Karen R.
Houston, TX

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.

Here, UT


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).

orem, UT

...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.

Syracuse, UT

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.

Seattle, WA

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.

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

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."

to comment

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