Comments about ‘Sen. Orrin Hatch says gay marriage inevitable but religious rights being lost’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, May 28 2014 5:50 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
get her done
Bountiful, UT

Hatch is right.

Ranch
Here, UT

"We need to be very, very careful before we overturn religious belief," he said."

--- No. No. NO!!! We need to be very, very careful before we put religious beliefs into law in the first place!

""We're in danger of losing our religious freedom and our rights."

--- What about the religious freedom of those who support marriage equality? What about the rights of LGBT citizens?

"Even if same-sex marriage were to become legal, it will never be fully accepted by many..."

--- So? No big deal.

"There is a question of whether it should be able to tell the states what they can or cannot do with marriage, he said. "

--- Are you still married when you cross state lines, Senator?

Bob K
Davis, CA

Good for Senator Hatch to tell the obvious truth about the outcome! He is a great American, whether I find him too conservative or not: he is not part of the "let's jam things up until we get our way" current republican generation.

As I have been saying for some time, someone needs to be preparing DN readers for the inevitable, not encouraging division and hatred and separation by denying that it will happen.

All those Gay folks, including those who are mormon, are citizens of the USA and all are God's children. Most Americans, now, including a super majority of the under 40s, accept marriage equality. Most Christians feel that the interpretations of the Bible which come down hard on the Gays are antiquated and wrong.

Many who believe in God do not believe he created your Gay sons and daughters to be 2nd or 3rd class citizens, not able to marry who they love. Many wonder why there is continual slander of Gay folks.

DN, how about some articles on how Utahns can learn to accept civil marriage equality, whether or not the lds and other churches ever permit it religiously?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

It seems a little strange for Senator Hatch to say the he believes the states should be the ones to define marriage yet he supports DOMA and a Constitutional Amendment to define it for them.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

So, please Mr. Senator, name 1 religious right that was lost with Judge Shelby's ruling? Just one. If you can, I will immediately and without hesitation join your fight.

Just one.

Jeff in NC
CASTLE HAYNE, NC

"Is the federal government constitutionally going to take away all the rights of the states?" No, the states can keep all their rights, but the fed gov't should continue to protect the rights a state tries to deprive unreasonably to a small minority of its citizens.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Senator Hatch: Name just one religious right, besides bigotry, that is being lost.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

I keep hearing religious rights are being eroded. Where? How? If you believe this please post how this is so. I'm very curious.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

"We need to be very, very careful before we overturn religious belief"

Religious belief has not been overturned.

"We're in danger of losing our religious freedom and our rights. People are moving away from going to church on Sundays. People are starting to find fault with religions and their beliefs"

Finding fault with religion is itself a constitutionally protected right. People are free to join, leave, lose faith in, and gain faith in any religion they wish. Nothing has changed.

"Is the federal government constitutionally going to take away all the rights of the states?"

The states never had the right to single out a group of people and deny them rights in the first place.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

Our entire legal system was built upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. Should be legalize murder because prohibiting murder is part of the ten commandments? How about theft, lying, and a whole laundry list of other prohibitions?

Ben Franklin said; "Things are not harmful because they are forbidden, they are forbidden because they are harmful."

The first amendment was written to protect religion from the state, not the other way around.

waikiki_dave
Honolulu, HI

Let's see . . . what was the name of that song Dandy Don Meredith used to sing on Monday Night Football?

Oh yeah, I remember "Turn out the lights, the party's over. It's time for all good things to end. Turn out the lights, the party's over . . . . ladee dah".

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@The Rock
Our entire legal system was built upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. Should be legalize murder because prohibiting murder is part of the ten commandments?

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

False. Very few of the Founding Fathers were Christian/Jewish.

The foundation was "live and let live" As long as what I am doing does not interfere with your rights, I should retain that freedom.

Murder is forbidden not because it is in the ten commandments, but because it infringes on one's right to life. Theft deprives one of their right to property. Harm has been shown, and thus we are protected from those actions.

If this Nation was founded on the Ten Commandments, mandatory attendance of religious observances would be codified into law (Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy), Freedom of Religion would very restricted (Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me) and since many people consider the LDS church not Christian, our religion may not have been permitted under law.

Our rights as Mormons in no way have been restricted with this ruling. None of our doctrines have needed to be changed, our preaching has remained the same. Really what right has been lost?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Troubling quote:

"We're in danger of losing our religious freedom and our rights. People are moving away from going to church on Sundays. People are starting to find fault with religions and their beliefs," he said."

=======

Are you kidding me?

The GOVERNMENT isn't taking the right to attend church away!
People are moving away from going to church BECAUSE Churches have taken a very un-Christian position of bigotry, intolerance, Anti-Science, and Anti-Social Justice.

The GOVERNMENT isn't taking the right to attend church in anyway!

btw- WWJD?

He was crucified himself for not condemning and stoning the sinners.
But he sure threw out those money-changing capitalists at the Temple!

higv
Dietrich, ID

Since so called same gender marriage is a fairly recent social experiment. Like Communism will fall under the weight of it's own iniquity. And it does not matter how many people accept it it will still be wrong. Hopefully an eventual constitutional amendment will be here to keep marriage between one man and one woman. Why are people now finding a right to marry someone of the same gender? Why are judges just now finding things in the constitution that seem to permit so called same gender marriage. Gay people ask for right that does not exist. People vote to keep it like it has been and they sue, when Governer and AG fight for voters rights get told how much it costs and waste of time. Who is the bully there. Gay people are not denied right to live or work where they want and are protected in matters of law. Just want to change millennial old institution.

Bob K
Davis, CA

The Rock
Federal Way, WA
"Our entire legal system was built upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. Should be legalize murder because prohibiting murder is part of the ten commandments? How about theft, lying, and a whole laundry list of other prohibitions?"

-- Actually, our legal system is based on English Common Law, partly evolved from Roman law.

"Ben Franklin said; 'Things are not harmful because they are forbidden, they are forbidden because they are harmful.'"

-- Of course, marriage equality causes no harm, except that it puts some noses out of joint, and forces some churches to explain why their kids are not all equal.

"The first amendment was written to protect religion from the state, not the other way around."

-- Absolutely backwards! Just read the Amendment. And, in History class, they taught you that the Founders feared copying England where the Anglican church was the established religion.

In my view, the DN has some pretty amazing comments.

Icarus
Dallas, Texas

This is a misleading headline. When I first saw the headline I thought it was another incompetent Republican negotiator finding some one in the press to surrender to. The Hatch quotes in the article do not reflect the

Maybe it is inevitable with so many unwise federal judges. Too bad they can't see the rationality in keeping an institution that has served civilization well for at least 2,000 years. The Supreme Court itself said that in their ruling overturning DOMA that states did not have to accept other states' so-called marriages. How so many federal judges can disregard a year old ruling is puzzling.

One religious right that is gone in New Mexico is wedding services companies are forced to serve anyone, no matter how personally objectionable the owner may find same-sex "marriage". Apparently gays can refuse business to customers they disagree with but religious people are not given the same latitude. If you think that is a good thing, you should remember the thing about pendulums is they swing.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

How does the Supreme Court "overturn religious belief"? How does a US Senator make such a risible comment?

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Icarus--slavery served the world well for a lot longer than 2000 years. That is, it served the slaveholders well--the slaves, not so much. Eventually people woke up to the fact that they had dehumanized a million of their fellow beings--and slavery was legally abolished. Believe me, some of the former slaveholders (and their descendents) lamented this decision for decades.

And so it shall be with civil rights --which, yes, includes the right to marry the person of your choice---for all our citizens, regardless of gender orientation.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ Darrel, Ernest T. and cjb

I think Sen. Hatch described the lost "right" when he said, "People are starting to find fault with religions and their beliefs."

I really think this is the crux of it. Until recently religious belief has been viewed as sacrosanct. It was very, very poor form to criticize it. And while this special status does not make it a right, it's easy to understand how it could have come to feel that way after going unchallenged for...ever.

"We need to be very, very careful before we overturn religious belief."

Did the Senator know he said this out loud?!

Re: DOMA, he both lamented its demise and asserted that the issue of SSM should be left up to each state. Classic!

BTW, did you ever notice that many of those most opposed to "big government" and intrusion from "Big Brother" are those who worship a god that imposes all manner of rules upon them and does so via a chosen few who determine what this should look like and when?

higv
Dietrich, ID

@LDS Liberal did you read Jeffrey R Holland's talk about making Jesus after our own image? He condemned and still does condemn sin right and left. Don't even look at a woman or you have committed adultery, He gives sinners plenty of time to repent. Did not stone them on spot. Crucified because he testified of iniquities. The money changers they were doing it in the temple place they had no right to. Did he ever chase money changers away from the streets of Jerusalem? Easy to use Jesus to defend any position you already chose to take. More of manipulating the words of Jesus to gain a following than honestly trying to follow him.

Jesus is the one that gave us the law of chastity, Civil to people however sin is sin and he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Stern with unrepentant sinners, before, during and after mortal ministry.

to comment

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