Quantcast
Utah

Sen. Orrin Hatch says gay marriage inevitable but religious rights being lost

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 2, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    @christoph
    "Those for equality under the Constitution need to be out there promoting polygamy next"

    That's as logical as if I were to expect you to support bans on interracial marriage because you don't support same-sex marriage. These are separate issues.

  • Stable thought FORT MORGAN, CO
    June 2, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    @ Tiago......Non consenting?

    The future of the definition of marriage is now in flux and will be tested in the courts, it shall interesting.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 2, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    @Stable thought
    A lot of people have already responded in these Deseret News comments explaining exactly why the slippery slope argument is invalid and unconvincing. You will notice that none of the lawyers arguing against same-sex marriages are relying on the slippery slope argument and the dozens of judges who have now confirmed that same-sex marriage is a legal right recognize that it will not cause marriage to slip into ruin.
    If you are really concerned of same-sex marriage inevitably leading to the legalization of marriages to multiple partners or non-consenting partners, I encourage you to spend some time reading about the topic. I think you will find the opinions of legal scholars and the actual results in places where SSM has been legal for a long time very reassuring.

  • Stable thought FORT MORGAN, CO
    June 2, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    These comments are always fascinating to me. I noticed comments that note the next great social debate " can I not marry any one (including multiples ) that I love" are largely being ignored by my progressive friends. Oh the hypocrisy!

  • Pitchfire Petersburg, AK
    June 1, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    The idea that it is inevitable but wrong, when viewed alongside the other changes to our government in just my lifetime, let alone Orin's, reminds me of the news reports where somebody continues to live with their dead spouse's corpse.

    When the things that made America great (having Christian morality and the natural law as the highest law of the land), when those things are stripped off, all we have left is an empty lifeless corpse.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 31, 2014 9:23 p.m.

    @wrz

    As long as opponents persist in talking about pets and trees they won't be take seriously, as they shouldn't be. Laws dealing with most rights refer to adults, as in the case of the right to own guns, and the right to vote. Consenting adults are necessary for marriage. No children, no pets, no trees. No forced marriage.

    Now polygamy in my opinion should be legal as long as the details of taxation and divorce can be worked out. Marriage of close relatives is sticky as long as they can breed.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 31, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    Aggie238
    "And yes, polygamous marriage ought to be allowed between consenting adults."

    What about incestuous marriages. What about child/adult marriages. And what about you and a group of your fiends, both male and female, all tying the same knot with each other? Maybe toss a pet and a favorite tree inro the mix.

    And why did you throw in 'consenting adults?' Is that not discrimination against children?

    I think you'll find that the best set-up for marriage to preserve it from eventual obliteration is to limit it to one man/woman.

    klangton:
    "Now if the government were to force any church, the LDS church, for example to marry gay couples in its temples, that would be an gigantic infringement on religious rights."

    You can count on that very thing happening with legalized SSM. There's your First Amendment religious rights down the drain.

    Rocket Science:
    "If SSM is inevitable these questions are relevant: Will churches maintain tax exempt status if they do not conform?"

    NO! There goes your freedom of religion.

    "Will public schools teach that SSM is the same as traditional marriage..."

    It's currently a requirement in alotta schools.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    May 31, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    Those for equality under the Constitution need to be out there promoting polygamy next; I want to see Senators Schumer, Biden, and all the others promoting this next, if they are consistent.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 31, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    koseighty
    "No one will force you into a homosexual marriage against your will."

    Schools are already required to teach impressionable kids that homosexuality is normal. If that ain't force, I don't know what is.

    "The idea that traditional marriage is under attack is ludicrous."

    Marriage is under attack. If/when SSM is OK'd all other types of marriage combinations will have to be approved to avoid unconstitutional discrimination. Then it's good-bye marriage.

    JOANOFARCL
    "I notice that no gays have gone after a Muslim baker to get a gay wedding cake."

    Why would the author of the dark side want to interfere with two very well working parts of the plan?

    Aggie238:
    "First of all, Hatch needs to pick a position. His politician-style waffling is sickening."

    Politicians rarely if ever take positions... Avoids the change of getting pinned down on an issue.

    giniajim:
    "with all due respect to the Senator, I don't see how my religious rights are being degraded."

    That condition is down the road. If/when SSM is OK'd churches will not be able to discriminate by denying marriages as a church ritual. And that would include Hatch's church.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 31, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    @SignsoftheTimes: "Religious people who believe the Old Testament teachings that homosexuality is an abomination are being labeled by people such as you as being bigoted."

    so… You have the religious freedom to call me an abomination. If I point out that that attitude seems to be bigoted, then I am taking away your religious rights. Is that correct? You can call names, but responding to your name-calling is discrimination? Pointing out your name calling and saying it's not acceptable in public is oppression?

    Just want to make sure I understand the rules.

  • spector Tranquility, UT
    May 31, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    @SignsoftheTimes
    "Religious people who believe the Old Testament teachings that homosexuality is an abomination are being labeled by people such as you as being bigoted."

    But they are still free to hold their beliefs. Freedom doesn't include the right not to be criticized for your beliefs, just the freedom to hold, teach and preach them.

    The KKK considers itself a "Christian organization." And they hold their beliefs in white superiority to be god given. They are free to believe such, free to teach it, and recruit others who feel the same. That doesn't make them any less racist. It just makes them "racists for god."

  • daehder1 Parker, AZ
    May 31, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    I think it is wonderful that same sex couples can now marry and live their chosen lives out in the open and not as second class citizens. Now I hope they will support atheists who are more discriminated against, more hated, and the very least represented in public office in this country.

  • SignsoftheTimes Apo, AE
    May 31, 2014 12:51 a.m.

    @Ernest Bass--

    You answered your own question. Religious people who believe the Old Testament teachings that homosexuality is an abomination are being labeled by people such as you as being bigoted. Attitudes such as yours are removing religious freedoms from believers by using such hateful language toward those who are practicing their right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. The whole gay movement is one of bullying anyone who disagrees with them by using hateful words to describe anyone who disagrees with them. That's sick.

    Eventually you'll likely win in this anything goes society. The next step is the mind control of our children when the gay movement insists on teaching it's "normality" in the schools. The issue of same sex marriage goes far beyond the church and courtrooms. This is about redefining an entire belief system.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 31, 2014 12:37 a.m.

    Bob K
    "Many who believe in God do not believe he created your Gay sons and daughters to be 2nd or 3rd class citizens..."

    God created men and women with imperfections and foibles that He asks be overcome. Same sex attraction seems to be one such imperfection.

    "...not able to marry who they love."

    Sounds like you favor a variety of marriage combinations such as polygamy, incest, etc.

    Darrel:
    "So, please Mr. Senator, name 1 religious right that was lost with Judge Shelby's ruling?"

    The Shelby ruling will be the eventual downfall of marriage. If the SSM push succeeds, all other types of marriages must be approved to avoid the claim of discrimination. Therefore, marriage will become undefined and worthless.

    Jeff in NC:
    "...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."

    What rights? If marriage, all citizens have the right to marry... provided they meet certain State requirements such as: not currently married, not closely related, not children, not same sex, etc.

  • spector Tranquility, UT
    May 30, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    @truthistruth
    "But yes, the laws of this country ought to reflect the majority, especially when having been voted upon, including the laws that regulate business and commerce (also including the associated definition of marriage)."

    So, should Arkansas be able to vote to disallow Mormons the right to marry? or to do business?

    Keep in mind that LGBTs make up 3-5% of the population. While Mormons make up 0.2%.

    Under our Constitution, people have rights. And the majority can't vote on those rights, however much they would like. The Supreme Court has found 14 times since 1888 that marriage is one of those rights protected by the equal protection clause. And judge, after judge, after judge has found that that continues to be the case.

    We cannot vote away a group's rights without compelling secular reasons to do so. And so far, the anti-gay groups have failed to provide any good reasons whatsoever.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 30, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    @ Rustymommy,

    Hoo boy! -- what a list.

    "1) You get to teach big bang and evolution THEORIES but I can't teach creationism."

    I encourage you to consider what you're saying very carefully, with all the implications. When a student at, say, UCLA medical school or Harvard medical school, raises his hand and informs the class that "my mommy says the kidneys are located in the feet", that student can very quickly expect to be disabused of that notion. You can teach your children anything you want but since you're not the gatekeeper of knowledge in specialized fields in which you have no expertise, you're ideas, if they are demonstrably false, will not fly. And consider who will eventually pay the price if you do successfully mislead your children.

    Finally, in a scientific context, the word "theory" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 30, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    DN mods have disallowed my response to a post upstream, most likely for the inclusion of one word, and yet Rustymommy's post gets through.

    Ultimately I accept the rules of the board and the judgement of the mods, but if ever a word applied to a set of remarks, it would have be to Rustymommy's list of 8 items. We all have our opinions and our unique take on things, but this list practically refutes itself.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    May 30, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    Rustymommy,

    I respectfully suggest that you're confusing "rights" with "impunity." You've lost no rights, but now seem aware that others are criticizing you. That happens when holding disputatious positions in the public arena. Meanwhile, you criticize your opponents. Freely.

    1) Nonsense. You can teach your children any gibberish you want. Just don't expect professional public educators to do it for you.

    2) Who says you can't? Mob rule? I thought you favored that.

    3) Not true.

    4) They're residents of the state.

    5) Who says you can't? Many districts do, despite public health surveys showing it doesn't work.

    6) They're employees, not chattel. No one has to USE benefits that violate their morality, but all should be entitled to the same benefits.

    7) Conservatives excoriate liberals ALL THE TIME. Just listen to the radio.

    8) Some religions are failing because people reject the falseness in them. Others, like mine, are growing. Meanwhile, I fully respect atheists. Personal ethics trumps mindless dogma every time.

    9) [2nd 8] There is a rock-solid Constitutional wall that protects your religion from that, just as it protects the unwilling public from your religion.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    May 30, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    It is interesting to watch the progression of the American Citizens when they become more informed about issues such as SSM. The states that voted to ban SSM did so several years ago when they knew less about the LGBT community. Now that they are more informed about LGBTs they realize that SSM is simply a desire of LGBTs to have equal rights. These rights do not affect the religious rights of those who want to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. There are people who have children and do not get married and there are people that get married and do not have children. If equal rights are not permitted for all U.S. Citizens then perhaps only the people who have rights should pay taxes and those who don't have rights do not have to pay taxes - :>). I say kudos to all of the people who are stepping up to the plate and are supporting equal rights for all U.S. Citizens.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 29, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    Mormon Christians also believe the collapse of society is inevitable, so maybe these two things go hand in hand.

  • billmosby Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    Just keep ignoring LGBT people the way you probably always have, Senator, and you'll do fine. Out of mind, no worries.

  • truthistruth SPANISH FORK, UT
    May 29, 2014 7:53 p.m.

    @koseighty "In one breath you claim defining marriage as a religious right and in the next you say the voters should by legislation. So, which is it? a religious thing or a governmental thing?"

    That's a good point. I guess all freedoms are religious in some way... And perhaps the first marriages of human kind were more religious than governmental... who knows. But yes, the laws of this country ought to reflect the majority, especially when having been voted upon, including the laws that regulate business and commerce (also including the associated definition of marriage).

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    May 29, 2014 5:51 p.m.

    If you don't think rights are being taken away from conservatives, you are wrong:
    1)You get to teach big bang and evolution THEORIES but I can't teach creationism.
    2)You can burn American flags at a Hispanic gathering, but I can't fly the American flag at that same event.
    3)Muslims can talk about the Qu'ran in school,but Christians can be disciplined for reading the Bible during free time.
    4)Illegal aliens can get special breaks on tuition while out of state citizens pay full price.
    5)You can teach about condoms, abortion, etc, but I can't teach abstinence.
    6)You can demand that employers pay for medical benefits that violate their morals because employee morals count and employers don't.
    7)Tolerance is a one way street where liberals can say anything and expect tolerance while conservative can say almost nothing without being called bigots.
    8)Not acknowledging the influence of religion is a clear way of promoting a very rapidly growing religious viewpoint: ATHEISM.
    8)Coming soon to the slippery slope, you will be stepping on my freedom when you ask courts to demand that churches perform marriages that violate their religious policy.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 29, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    @RedWings
    Your post here about Massachusetts is full of hyperbole and unnecessary divisiveness. I've read about some of the events you mention and the reality is not how you characterize it. I'm not sure why you are determined that same-sex marriage and religion cannot peacefully co-exist. SSM will be legal in the whole US and it doesn't need to divide us.
    I live in Washington state where SSM is legal. I am devoutly religious and very open about my faith. I also experience SSA and know many gay people in a variety of life situations. We all live peacefully. SSM in Washington has not affected my faith in any way. I am still celibate because of my belief. My friends who are in committed relationships now have the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. Religious rights in Washington are protected today like they were 2 years ago, only now gay people also have the right to marry. There are some ways the world is getting worse, but recognizing the legal rights of our GLBT brothers and sisters is not one of them.

  • IDSpud Eagle, ID
    May 29, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    @ Laura Bilington. The LDS Church has openly declared support for extending social benefits to same-sex couples, and for laws that don’t discriminate. What the church has stood firm on was the definition of marriage and family. But LGBT wanted their union to be referred to as a marriage. The LDS Church didn’t take their current stand on this issue necessarily to prevent other churches/clergy from performing same-sex unions, but they realized that eventually they would be forced to comply. It’s coming.

    Because the very definition of marriage and family is being altered by judicial decree, and those whose religious conviction/tenets prompt them to oppose that redefinition, adoption agencies run my religious groups are already being shut down. LDS Bishops will be required to perform marriages for LGBT, so will likely end up discontinuing the practice. The same will be required in the temples, so marriages will no longer be part of the sealing ceremony. There are already examples of folks being forced out of business (they “deserve it” is not an answer). People have been forced to step down from their jobs for support of Prop-8 in California. The pendulum is swinging.

  • Pujols4mvp Lehi, UT
    May 29, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    For those wondering what "religious rights" are being lost...You think the former CEO of Mozilla lost something for exercising his beliefs? You may not like that he exercised his beliefs, you may even think him a bigot. But he has the right (hey, a right!) to support what he believes in, *just like you do*. Those campaigning for equality demand tolerance, but can't seem to tolerate an antithetical position based on religious convictions. For many, it's an automatic disqualification of that person's views. That close mindedness and subsequent knee-jerk shouts of bigotry point to an erosion of the right (hey, another right!) for those with religious convictions to share their position. Surely there's place for that.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 29, 2014 4:43 p.m.

    @ Redwings

    "I really hope all the posters here who are so vocal about equality will stand with the religions when those rights are attacked. Equality is for everyone after all...."

    As long as you are willing to be HONEST and use the TRUTH as your arguments, I think most of us would help you to protect your rights....About religious rights? Well, if they are "ever really threatened" and are not just a dramatic outburst.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 29, 2014 4:35 p.m.

    I found amusing and clever Senator Hatch's assertion. On one hand he agrees with those asking for change and on the same breath states that religious rights are being threatened. The perfect statement from a seasoned politician, agrees with those looking for equal rights and appeals to the sense of paranoia of his LDS constituency opposed to SSM. A real master!!

    Through out all this process I have been deeply impressed and touched by the many people who have questioned their up-bringing and social mores to support equality for all. As an LDS (Yes, I still consider myself one)makes me happy to see that so many of my brothers and sisters are valiant enough to stand for what their intelligence and sense of justice tells them instead of just following blindly.

    I am grateful to the DN and the church for providing this forum to exchange ideas and see the magnificent social and spiritual change that is taking place.

    May God continue blessing all his children with the ability to learn and the humility to accept
    that God does not discriminate against love.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    May 29, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    Take an honest look at Massachucets now that gay marriage has been the law for 10 years.

    - GLSEN conducts training in Junior Highs that includes booklets showing boys how to perform gay acts and a list of bars they can go to for their first "gay experience".

    - Churches that hold group meetings on overcoming SSA are viciously protested, including having gay rights advocates trespass and use a bullhorn siren directly outside the window to disrupt the meeting.

    - Parents who object to cirriculum that advocates homosexuality are not allowed to remove their students from class. On at least one occasion, the parent was arrested.

    All of this is available on the web and youtube if you care to see reality.

    The fact is, the gay rights movement and the far left have no tolerance for those who disagree with them. Religious rights have not been taken yet, but stay tuned.

    I really hope all the posters here who are so vocal about equality will stand with the religions when those rights are attacked. Equality is for everyone after all....

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    May 29, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    Rocket Science asks, "Will public schools teach that SSM is the same as traditional marriage, that it is perfectly normal, acceptable and should be embraced by all? "

    What if they do? You're still free to teach your children the morality of your own church, and your own beliefs. Schools have taught about racial civil rights for decades now. Still, there's no shortage of racial prejudice, so any purported influence of the public schools must be seriously overrated.

    The influence of the family is usually stronger than the influence of either schools or churches. Your children will most likely follow your example. So, fear not. If you want your children to grow up with contempt towards others, there's an excellent chance you'll succeed.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    @ Rocket Science: Here is an easy way to answer your 2:09 pm question: Every where you use "SSM" substitute "Interracial".

    Last year or the year before that, there was a church that refused to allow an interracial couple to marry in their church building because no interracial couple had ever been married there before and they wanted to keep it that way - even though the both of the individuals in the couple attended church in that building on a regular basis. Guess what? That church had the right to have that rule and the couple had to find a different place to marry.

    A church recently refused to perform a marriage for a black couple, even though they attended that church regularly. This was held to be the province of the church and its minister.

    The LDS Church does not rent out its churches or any part thereof to non-members - they are not forced to do it now, they will not be forced to do it in the future.

    That is the difference between a church and a business.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 29, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    @Rocket Science
    "Will churches maintain tax exempt status if they do not conform?" Yes. No worries.
    "Will LDS Cultural Halls still be allowed to have receptions if they do not include the same availability to SS couples?" Yes, as long as they don't charge rental fees to the public.
    "Will LDS bishops have state recognition of marriages performed if they will only perform traditional marriage ceremonies?" Yes.
    "Will public schools teach that SSM is the same as traditional marriage, that it is perfectly normal, acceptable and should be embraced by all?" Probably not in those words, but yes they will teach that same-sex marriage is a reality. They will also teach about human sexuality based on current scientific understanding. I hope you can see this is a positive thing.
    "Will the LDS church be allowed to have marriages performed in temples recognized by states if they dont also perform SSM?" Yes. See the many states and countries where SSM has been legal for years for evidence.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 29, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    @Rocket Science
    "Will churches maintain tax exempt status if they do not conform?"
    Yes. The only reason that churches can lose exempt status is if they participate in politics. But in practice, the IRS ignores political activities by churches.

    Will LDS Cultural Halls still be allowed to have receptions if they do not include the same availability to SS couples?
    Yes.

    Will LDS bishops have state recognition of marriages performed if they will only perform traditional marriage ceremonies?
    Yes.

    Will public schools teach that SSM is the same as traditional marriage, that it is perfectly normal, acceptable and should be embraced by all?
    Yes. But only to the extent that they talk about marriage. (So: health class, civics.)

    Will the LDS church be allowed to have marriages performed in temples recognized by states if they dont also perform SSM?
    Yes.

    Churches' status won't change. Mormon bishops aren't forced to perform ceremonies for Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc. They set the rules within their own faith. Equality has been law for 10 years in Massachusetts and Canada, how have churches been affected there?

  • woodysworld Sandy, UT
    May 29, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    For those who have asked Senator Hatch to respond, do you really believe he reads these posts? He doesn't even personally return phone calls, letters and emails. And when he does it is a form letter from one of his staff. Not likely you will see a response in the DN.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 29, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    If SSM is inevitable these questions are relevant: Will churches maintain tax exempt status if they do not conform? Will LDS Cultural Halls still be allowed to have receptions if they do not include the same availability to SS couples? Will LDS bishops have state recognition of marriages performed if they will only perform traditional marriage ceremonies? Will public schools teach that SSM is the same as traditional marriage, that it is perfectly normal, acceptable and should be embraced by all? Will the LDS church be allowed to have marriages performed in temples recognized by states if they dont also perform SSM?

  • Lia Sandy, UT
    May 29, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    Funny that Hatch would berate and call out Senator Frank Moss for trying for a third term, and yet, here HE is at 7 terms.
    Hatch's worth to the progressive world has run it's course...several terms ago.

  • 04/13/2014 S. Jordan, UT
    May 29, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    Historically Homosexuality was considered bad behavior and punishable by law, not a civil right! What a change of attitude in our society. Gods laws were held as America's standard to be aligned with by governments, now it appears Gods laws are being ignored, forgotten or maybe worse unsupported by our leaders!

  • JOANOFARC SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA
    May 29, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    Ranch
    Here, UT
    @JOANOFARC;

    When a business owner CHOOSES to run a business, they make a CHOICE at that time to obey the laws relating to their business; including anti-discrimination laws. Since they CHOSE to abide by the law and open the business they've lost no religious freedom.

    Frankly, if you're going to complain about persecution, you should look in the mirror first.
    Now that's a piece of Orwellian logic for you, as if there was never a time when a private business wasn't regulated by political conditions making a farce out of the idea of law.
    So this deeply enshrouded law you are citing, that law is based on what? The sacred law of "public accommodation"..

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 29, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    @truthistruth
    "The lost religious freedom is that of people defining what marriage means. ... The voters should..."

    In one breath you claim defining marriage as a religious right and in the next you say the voters should by legislation. So, which is it? a religious thing or a governmental thing? If it's not a governmental thing, you have your work cut out for you cutting thousands of governmental laws and regulations dealing with marriage.

    "Forcing everyone to legally call all homosexual unions and heterosexual marriages the same thing is a loss of freedom..."

    No one is forcing you to call anything "marriage." Call it "pudding" for all I care. But the government and private institutions regulated by those thousands of laws will be required to recognize legal marriages -- just as they always have. The hospital has to recognize my rights as a spouse. But the receptionist isn't "forced" to recognize my marriage in any way. People miss the fundamental difference between someone's legally organized business and the individuals who work for or own them. The business, by virtual of its business license, is regulated by law. The individual can be as bigoted as they like.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 29, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    U-tar says, "Homosexuals preach tolerance and acceptance, so that means they will need to tolerate and accept those who do not agree with them."

    As a too often openly-despised minority, homosexuals are quite used to tolerating negative opinions, stereotypes and cruel treatment. Their skins are thick enough to put up with it for at least another 100 years after gaining their rights.

    They are not "preaching" tolerance and acceptance. They're not preaching anything. They don't need you to love them. They are simply insisting on being treated like human beings, which is fully their right. They are demanding their days in court to assert those rights, and they are succeeding only because right is right. Justice, liberty, freedom... These people are being liberated from severe societal oppression. Like slavery, legalized oppression of homosexuals was once pervasive, but our laws have evolved enough to see it as unjust, unAmerican, and immoral. Equality is the essential American dogma.

    No one is taking your opinions from you. Others will be free to scold and label you for them, but stick fast to your beliefs. Just grow a thicker skin.

  • truthistruth SPANISH FORK, UT
    May 29, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    @Understands Math "The voters never had the right to deny marriage to same-sex couples in the first place."

    Nothing is denied. Whos place is it to lawfully define what marriage is? Sure, marriage should be available to all (given one can find a willing companion), but by definition- what is marriage? Until recently it has almost universally been accepted as union between a man and woman.

    Again, nothing is denied. Anyone can marry given a set definition of marriage, even though a homosexual man/woman wouldn't usually choose to marry (given the traditional definition of marriage).

    Marriage was never denied- though to same-sex couples I'm sure it feels like they are being denied because they want to be accepted. Isn't that really what this is all about? But is it right to force acceptance through the judicial system?

    If the belief/opinion of the majority of the people/voters isn't allowed to define a cultural/legal aspect as basic as marriage then isn't our whole belief system, legal system, culture, society, and the freedom thereof in jeopardy?

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 29, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    @Paul in MD
    
"If a child bows his head and prays on school grounds, he can be suspended. How is that not "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"?"

    This is not true. Students are allowed to pray in school. Students are allowed to lead other students in prayer at school. What has been found unconstitutional is for the school, teachers, coaches, etc. to lead prayers at school, because it is essentially a government agency "establishing" a religion.

    @atrulson
    "Religious rights will be lost when religions or religious people are forced to recognize same-sex partnerships as marriage."

    No religious right will be lost. You are still free to believe, teach, and preach that such is sin. Al that is lost is religious privilege to dictate your religion on others. And high time too.

    @Macfarren
    "Firstly,

Marriage is not a constitutional right."

    The Supreme Court has found 14 times, going back to 1888, that marriage IS “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

  • brotherJonathan SLC, UT
    May 29, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    Equal rights must be protected. Having to change dictionary word meanings show there is a problem. The solution is simple. Civil Union/marriage contract, side by side with Marriage Contract. Both correctly worded and recognized as equal under the law with both sides of the issue beliefs intact. Not forcing one's beliefs on another.
    This is the best solution and protects the rights of religious beliefs and equality under all laws between citizen members.
    Having to change dictionary meanings of a word should not be necessary to achieve equality.
    mar·riage
    /ˈmarij/
    noun
    noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages
    1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
    "a happy marriage"
    synonyms: wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union More

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    May 29, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    Homosexuals preach tolerance and acceptance, so that means they will need to tolerate and accept those who do not agree with them.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 29, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    @JOANOFARC;

    When a business owner CHOOSES to run a business, they make a CHOICE at that time to obey the laws relating to their business; including anti-discrimination laws. Since they CHOSE to abide by the law and open the business they've lost no religious freedom.

    Frankly, if you're going to complain about persecution, you should look in the mirror first.

    @Aggie238;

    How many people do you think are going to be willing to change their marriage into a 'civil union'? Would you? Additionally, since there are religions that will marry LGBT couples, do they still get to use the word marriage? Nothing about the debate changed; except who officiated the "marriage".

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 29, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    Poppycock, Senator!

    More people are GAINING religious rights than are losing them!

    As noted above, by several commentators, no one can point to a loss of religious rights. No churches are being ordered to change doctrine, to perform rites, to limit speech, to cease proselytizing their beliefs. NONE!

    On the other hand... Churches, synagogues, temples, and meetings of our denominations which believe in equality and seek to solemnize the marriages of our same-sex members /parishioners /congregants /worshipers NOW HAVE THAT RIGHT! We didn't have it before. We couldn't perform our rites to equal effect before. In some states, it's still illegal to solemnize a marriage as solely a religious affair even without the unavailable civil registration.

    NO, NO, NO! No one is losing rights. Some are GAINING religious rights!

    But, what do we expect from a Senator, who among other penchant quotes, is famous for saying, "Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life."

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 29, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    Joan, there are federal and state restrictions on why you can discriminate. Most have language forbidding discrimination based on gender, race, and ethnicity. We have had rental property since 1967. We have rented to blacks, to whites, to Samoans, and to couples of mixed ethnicity. We have rented to Mormons, to Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and mainline Protestants. I'm sure we've rented to atheists too--I don't know; I don't ask people what religion they are. We have rented to married couples, single parents, unmarried couples, and gay couples. Also some singles and, once, to two Catholic nuns. I don't care what religion they are if they pay the rent and keep the place clean. Renting to them is not "condoning" their religion / lifestyle / whatever. If they get married or conceive a child while in that house, I'm not part of it--my relationship with them is a business one. And so it is with wedding photographers, cake bakers, and the like.

    Do YOU want the mail carrier to be able to refuse to deliver your mail to your church if s/he disapproves of your religion?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 29, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    @truthistruth wrote: "The lost religious freedom is that of people defining what marriage means. Why should the federal court get to define this? The voters should, and they already have (in Utah and California alike), but the courts have unjustly overturned it. Forcing everyone to legally call all homosexual unions and heterosexual marriages the same thing is a loss of freedom, especially when the majority of voters don't believe its the same thing."

    The voters never had the right to deny marriage to same-sex couples in the first place.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 29, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    Hatch is right, he, Govenor Herbert, most of Utah's political leaders, the Mormon Church and the majority of Utahns are on the wrong side of history. Over time they'll see the error of their ways and realize how foolish they were.

  • ElmoBaggins Escalante, UT
    May 29, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    Religion has no place in government or law...separation of church and state is a basic premise of our democracy...how nice that Sen .Hatch finally gets it even if he doesn't like it!

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    May 29, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    Utahans made a mistake in keeping Orrin Hatch in the senate. He is left of the values of this great state. He has drank deeply of the waters of the Potomac and is a beltway bigwig.Mike Lee embraces the values of Utah and goes to bat for common sense solutions. Orrin Hatch has been a fixture of DC for far too long. He goes along to get along and thus he is part of the problem and not the solution.

  • truthistruth SPANISH FORK, UT
    May 29, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    The lost religious freedom is that of people defining what marriage means. Why should the federal court get to define this? The voters should, and they already have (in Utah and California alike), but the courts have unjustly overturned it. Forcing everyone to legally call all homosexual unions and heterosexual marriages the same thing is a loss of freedom, especially when the majority of voters don't believe its the same thing.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 29, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    @ Laura Bilington

    "The Muslim religion forbids the reproduction of images (by photography or painting or sculpture), so a Muslim is unlikely to be in the photography business."

    That's not actually true. First of all, there are as many varying sects of Islam which have varying beliefs as there are of Christianity. Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, that tenet usually only applies to images of Muhammad and is practiced mainly among Sunni Muslims while images of Muhammad are fairly common in Shia Islam.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    May 29, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    Senator Oren Hatch needs to concentrate on what is a civil issue and what is a religious issue. Same-sex marriage is a civil issue, not a religious one and it does not affect religious rights. Because there are many religious in the U.S. that have different beliefs it would be most difficult to make laws to serve all of our citizens. That is why church and state need to be separate so that civil laws apply to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs.

  • klangton Akiachak, AK
    May 29, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    We are losing religious rights? I thought we fought a war in heaven over "free agency." Now if the government were to force any church, the LDS church, for example to marry gay couples in its temples, that would be an gigantic infringement on religious rights. One of the guiding principles of our government is freedom of religion. The state should not come down on any issue that has a religious basis. Talk about a slippery slope!

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    @Darrel

    "Then I would simply ask for consistency."

    Fair enough. I do know of people who have refused to participate in marriages based on religous grounds that were not related to SSM. The difference is - and this is the key - they were not sued and forced by the courts to participate.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    @ RanchHand

    Because the State should have no say in private associations or relationships beyond protecting the right thereto. Basic 1st Amendment...

    If the State gets to say who can be married, it can also say who can't. LGBT folks have been on the losing end of that until now. No need to swing the pendulum to the other extreme, because it will probably swing back at some point. Better to just cut it from the ceiling.

  • JOANOFARC SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA
    May 29, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    Laura Bilington
    Maple Valley, WA
    @atrulson,

    If a business provides services for weddings (floral, photographic, food, or hall rental), it cannot pick and choose who it will service."

    This is certainly a new twist to law, private business owners don't have the right to refuse service. Tell us again how these people's religious rights are not being torn down?
    The real test of how sincerely you embrace freedoms and human rights is not by how much you whine about them when you are on the bottom, everyone does that, but how you act when you are in a position to trample the rights of others. As long as the LGBT community continues to sue and persecute Christian businesses who don't want to serve them in their agenda, their claim to human rights advocates is moot.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    @1 Voice

    "Many of those commenting err in their understanding. There is no constitutional right to marry. Those arguing that SSM should be allowed based on rights should also be advocating for polygamous marriage."

    --

    1 Voice, please cite the exhaustive list of enumerated rights which you are using as a basis for the assertion that there is no constitutional right to marry. The Constitution does not contain, nor does it purport to contain any such list. The Bill of Rights was included as a necessity for ratification, but one of the principle arguments against its inclusion was that people might interpret it to mean that these were the ONLY rights afforded to the people. This interpretation is clearly not consistent with the intent of the Founders, and they made that clear with the inclusion of the 9th Amendment:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --9th Amendment

    And yes, polygamous marriage ought to be allowed between consenting adults.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    @Cleetorn

    If that is the case, I would stand corrected on my position concerning their faith.

    However, I would reiterate that does not change the principles on which this nation was founded. It was not on Christianity, but freedom to choose.

    The words "God" and "Christ" are not mentioned in that Document. There have been numerous attempts to amend the Constitution to claim we are a Christian nation, but they have all been unsuccessful.

    We were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Our laws may reflect several similarities, but it is not the basis of those laws. We do not prosecute Sabbath Breakers, people who worship what we would claim to be false gods, and we do not answer to clerics for our transgressions in a legal setting, rather a duly appointed secular magistrate.

    We are not a theocracy. Rather, we are brothers and sisters and children of the Same Being all trying to do our best in this world to find happiness. We are each free to choose how best to achieve and pursue that goal. You and I may agree on several points on how that is best achieved, but not everyone does.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    I agree with the Senator that gay marriage will be the law of the land. The tsunami is overwhelming. However, for the life of me, I don't the argument that religious liberty is being affected. If anything, the opposite is true. No religion is being forced to accept the practice, and no one is constrained from affiliating with a church that opposes gay marriage or holding a similar belief. Further, Judge Shelby actually exercised judicial restraint and was not an activist judge in the matter, a practice that the Senator has opposed in the past. It seems to me that the Senator is revealing his willingness to play both sides of an issue, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    @Ron Hilton;

    "Freedom of religion includes freedom from religious persecution, either by the state or by other persons or entities. To be vilified, marginalized, and economically harmed simply because one is LGBT sets a very chilling precedent. The true "homophobes" are those who bully LGBT people and feel they should be free from the repurcussions of their actions. Tolerance and anti-discrimination should be mutual and reciprocal."

    @Macfarren;

    Your religion speaks against adultery, fornication, theft, murder, lying, etc. Do you bake cakes for ANY people who participate in these actions? Yes? Then your "religious conscience" argument is false and you're a hypocrite.

    @ Aggie238;

    Instead, how about we get religion out of the business of "marriage" and leave it to the state instead?

  • regis Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:12 a.m.

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

    Yes and no, Senator. The federal judges will take away all the rights of the states. But they will not do it constitutionally. They will simply ignore the constitution. Or contort its meaning and intent beyond all rationality.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 29, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    It's amazing that an experienced Senator would make the same error of conflating laws regarding civil marriage with religious doctrines concerning the same. The only people even bringing up religious marriage are those opposing changes in civil marriage, which is of no concern to churches any more than laws allowing Mormons to marry Catholics, whites to marry blacks, divorcees to marry again (all of which violate the religious doctrines of one church or another) should be of concern to them. None of this has any effect on religious freedom. Churches are still free to decide which couples they will marry and which ones they will send away. The standards for a Temple wedding won't change unless the LDS church itself decides to change them. Hatch's decision to wave a red flag in hopes of evoking fear is just politics as usual despite the fact that he's creating an issue that doesn't exist in hopes of pandering to those who oppose changes in marriage laws.

  • Cleetorn Fuaamotu, Tonga
    May 29, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    Darrel of Eagle Mountain,

    According to Wikipedia:

    “The phrase ‘Founding Fathers,’ applied to ‘an American statesman of the Revolutionary period, esp. a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787’ has been in use since at least 1894. A more generalized use of ‘founding fathers’ has been in place since at least 1886.

    Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics.

    A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians. Others were deists.”

    It would appear to me that most, if not all, of the “Founding Fathers” were Christian. I would like to know where you found information indicating that they did not adhere to some form of Chrisitainity.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    @1978

    Then I would simply ask for consistency. Those who would oppose SSM on religious grounds, should also refuse were both people aren't virgins, or where the bride is pregnant.

    Most weddings serve alcohol, so an LDS photographer should not attend.

    If one is Catholic I would expect them to not participate in a marriage where one of them is remarrying.

    Or one can be a good Christian and withold judgement, because in the end we are all sinners and are in the same desperate need of the Grace of Christ.

    To pick and choose where one draws a "religious line" is the definition in Revelations of being Lukewarm and not Hot or Cold.

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    Hatch is smart well educated, experienced, and seasoned. He sees the handwriting on the wall.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 29, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    What religious rights are being lost? The right to force your beliefs on other people through the law? There are churches that want to marry gay people and believe it's the right thing to do--what about their rights.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    @Icarus
    We're talking about employers refusing to serve customers, not customers refusing to buy from employers. Completely different context.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    May 29, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    Hatch says:
    "People are moving away from going to church on Sundays. People are starting to find fault with religions and their beliefs"

    Maybe the religious leaders should ask themselves why this is happening. People find fault because it's blatantly obvious there are serious faults that need to be fixed. The rising generation will demand that all God's children be allowed to be happy.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    @Darrel

    "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."

    How about the right of a privately owned business not to be forced into performing services for a Same Sex Marriage they disagree with on religous grounds.

  • Utefan4Lyf West Jordan, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    Macfarren:
    There is an important aspect to the right to freedom of speech that you and countless others forget. While you have the absolute right to say whatever you want, to whoever you want, whenever you want (excluding hate speech) the first amendment does not guard you against the reprecussions of such speech from non-governmental entities. Therefore, if you spout off about how much you dislike homosexuals and are against gay marriage and your employer fires you, that does not constitute an abridgement of your rights.
    Second, if you refuse service to a person based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. you are in the wrong. It is discrimination. If you do not want to serve all people equally, you should rethink owning your own business.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    May 29, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    "Religious rights" were never taken away - they were simply given up by the "religious" people who "talked the talk" but failed to "walk the walk".

  • Icarus Dallas, Texas
    May 29, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    @Marxist. To be lectured by liberals on good business practices is hilarious. The good thing about free markets is good business practices are self perpetuating. If it truly was a bad business practice to deny service the owner felt was immoral, he or she will soon be out of business. Why are you so afraid of freedom?

    @Frozen Fractals. It doesn't take long to find examples. Google Mozilla CEO or Prop 8 Supporters denied service.

    Apparently it is now the government's job to make sure I live a healthy lifestyle, from outlawing Big Gulps in New York City to making sure school kids eat fruits and vegetables. Since homosexual life expectancy is so much lower than hetero and society is paying billions a year to combat HIV (spread mainly through the homosexual community), if we are to be intellectually honest and consistent, it would be in society's interest to discourage homosexual behavior.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    Many of those commenting err in their understanding. There is no constitutional right to marry. Those arguing that SSM should be allowed based on rights should also be advocating for polygamous marriage. SSM may be inevitable but Marriage is society will become meaningless as a result. It is best for society that we define marriage as the union between one man and one women.

    Freedom of religion is under attack. We cannot believe what we do without persecution. Individuals are forced out of work and sued for having values that are not in line with the LBGT agenda. Individual service providers and Catholic adoption services for example are under attack for their values. If you don’t see it you aren’t looking.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 29, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    @atrulson,

    If a business provides services for weddings (floral, photographic, food, or hall rental), it cannot pick and choose who it will service. Your church might teaches that remarriage after divorce is sinful, or that SSM is not allowed. You, personally might object to a wedding of a 19 year old woman and a rich 82 year old that you suspect has dementia. But if you do weddings at all, you must provide your service for all weddings, whether or not you approve of them.

    @Joan,

    This applies to Muslim-owned bakeries. The Muslim religion forbids the reproduction of images (by photography or painting or sculpture), so a Muslim is unlikely to be in the photography business. A Muslim-approved cake could have decorative loops of icing, but no flowers or rings or "reproductive" type decorations (i.e. wedding rings, bells).

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    May 29, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    Senator Hatch...you must understand your religious beliefs are not the law of land and should not be enshrined into law. What about my religious rights? My church and faith marries gays, lesbians and their families. When you advocated and voted for these amendments you just spit on my 1st Amendment rights. Did you ever even pause to think of me? Probably not....Please stop this garbage about losing religious freedom. All you are losing is your dominance in controlling others beliefs.

  • giniajim King George, VA
    May 29, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    with all due respect to the Senator, I don't see how my religious rights are being degraded. I can still marry anyone I wish. How is extending that right to someone else debasing my right?

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    First of all, Hatch needs to pick a position. His politician-style waffling is sickening.

    Secondly, those of us who are actually interested in protecting religious freedom need to pick our battles very carefully. Instead of quixotic quests to deny the constitutional rights of a minority, we should build a legal wall around *actual* religious freedoms. For example, we might enact a law which removes the State from marriage altogether, and establishes civil unions instead for the purpose of affording the legal protections we currently associate with marriage to any association of consenting individuals of legal age. Such a law should also reaffirm and protect the right of any religious group to define its own standards for marriage (or anything else, for that matter) among its own adherents without legal consequences. In this way, religious freedoms are protected by a strong, constitutionally-sound barrier without abrogating the rights of those who choose not to espouse a religion or any particular religious tenet.

    After all, it wasn't so long ago that my church was persecuted and exiled because of it's non-traditional views on marriage.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    May 29, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    I See a lot of people wondering what I am wondering. What religious rights are being eroded? I'll be the first to fight for the rights of LDS folks if they are being taken away! I'm not LDS but I would not tolerate other's rights being taken away.

    But...no one here (and I doubt Sen Hatch knows) can say what rights are being eroded.

    PLEASE TELL US!

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 29, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    IDSpud, I don’t understand what you are calling “discrimination and persecution” against the LDS people (or any other religion) “for standing firm” on whatever position they chose to stand firm on. I have yet to see people in any state of the US propose laws which would force LDS people to drink coffee, restrict their choice of undergarments, open their temples to the public, or restrict temple building. When something like this happens (like the efforts to stop an Islamic Center from being built in NY), I’ll be the first to protest them.
    But tolerance toward religion and its adherents erodes in a hurry when said religion tries to make the rest of us follow its tenets. Many churches teach that they have “the truth” and that everyone else out there is a lost soul who needs to be told about this Truth. If you are a believer, it’s understandable that you see a mandate such as a restriction on SSM as coming directly from God and that it should have the force of law. But our Constitution says otherwise.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    May 29, 2014 7:51 a.m.

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

    I'm glad Hatch made that statement, not because I agree with his view but because that comment is so revealing as to how the religious right sees change that is not about religion at all.

  • Meadow Lark Mark IDAHO FALLS, ID
    May 29, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    We should love people. Saying that I have been taught and I believe that certain actions are sin. I cannot ever condone the actions some want to do. Keeping the commandments are right and sin will always be wrong. Making gay marriage "legal" will never make it right.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    May 29, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    Doug Wright will be thrilled

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    @RG
    "There's a right and wrong place for money changing/selling/profit making."

    Actually the Bible bans charging interest on loans. (Exodus 22:25-27, Leviticus 25:36-37, Deuteronomy 23:20-21).

  • financenco Salt Lake City, UT
    May 29, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Lets See Senator. That is why, you shouldn't be in anymore. You have no fire in your belly. You say "whats the use". I thought fighting for what is right, meant something to you. Apparently not. And no, being against an immoral issue, is not bigotry. It means you are against something that is not right. Trying to legistlate conscience, won't make it change. I don't agree with persecuting a person for what they believe either, whether they be for or against something.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    May 29, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Firstly,

    Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a personal contract sanctioned by individual states which should have the right to regulate it.

    Secondly,

    The right that is indeed being infringed upon now is the right of free speech by members of religious groups who do not support gay marriage, and yes among other things, I include baking cakes as a right of free speech. I shouldn't be forced to bake one for your same-sex wedding if my faith speaks against that behavior. (Nor should Hobby Lobby be forced to fund abortions, but that's another topic). I also shouldn't be punished by loss of employment by voicing a religious opinion contrary to others homosexual behavior. So in the end, the rights of those who do not support homosexual 'marriage' are now being infringed upon by those in the minority (less than 2%) who feel it should their lifestyle should not only be tolerated, but accepted as legitimate by the other 98% of the population who thinks otherwise.

    Rather ironic that that as a result of a heterosexual population, we are now having an argument about a lifestyle that can't reproduce itself naturally?

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 29, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    More hands. Never faces. Always hands. I don't know why the D-News is so afraid to humanize same sex marriage articles. Could it be that if people see the happy smiling faces they just might think? Please run a story on why sometime.

  • Ron Hilton Holladay, UT
    May 29, 2014 7:16 a.m.

    Freedom of religion includes freedom from religious persecution, either by the state or by other persons or entities. To be vilified, marginalized, and economically harmed simply because one believes that a child should ideally have both a mother and a father sets a very chilling precedent. The true "homophobes" are those who give in to the bullying tactics of the militant homosexual movement, precisely because they fear such repercussions. Tolerance and anti-discrimination should be mutual and reciprocal.

  • Paul in MD Montgomery Village, MD
    May 29, 2014 7:13 a.m.

    An argument was made that morals are a secular issue, not a religious one. I disagree. I think morality is a religious issue we have borrowed to apply to the secular aspects of society to provide a basis for a framework of rules by which we are able to construct a civilization.

    If morality is left to secular control, morality becomes changeable, subject to the popular ideas of the day. What is moral today may not be tomorrow, or worse, what is immoral today may be perfectly acceptable tomorrow.

    Leaving morality as the purview of God provides a stable, unchanging foundation for it.

    Obviously not everyone has the same concept of what or who God is, or even recognizes that there is a God. But, what if the definition of right and wrong could be left to someone who knows everything, knows the consequences of every decision we could make, and could tell us, for our own best interests, what we should do and what we should avoid, wouldn't that be better than leaving that up to popular vote?

    Not to worry, God also gave us agency, so we can completely ignore His advice and do what we want.

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    May 29, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    Religious rights will be lost when religions or religious people are forced to recognize same-sex partnerships as marriage.

    It's that simple. I don't expect supporters of SSM to care about the rights of religion, but thats how it will be.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 29, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    Two weeks ago, the Desert News published an editorial headlined "The debate over the legality of requiring same-sex marriage has only just begun."
    Yesterday Senator Hatch said "The trend right now in the courts is to permit gay marriage and anybody who doesn't admit that just isn't living in the real world."
    On December 20, 2013, the DN called Judge Shelby's decision "Judicial tyranny." Yesterday Hatch defended Shelby saying "How do you blame the judge for deciding a case in accordance with what the Supreme Court has already articulated and in accordance with what most judges in the land are saying right now."

  • JOANOFARC SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA
    May 29, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    After we were all told it was just about tolerance, as soon as the balance shifted in favor of gay rights, certain people went right after Christian Bakeries and Christian photographers and pressed lawsuits to have their doors closed.
    I notice that no gays have gone after a Muslim baker to get a gay wedding cake.

  • Paul in MD Montgomery Village, MD
    May 29, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    There have been a couple of comments regarding this quote:

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

    Remember that many of our founders had experience with England's enforcement of the Anglican church as the official religion of the realm. Under that rule, if you weren't a member of the Anglican church, your rights were seriously curtailed. They felt that was wrong, hence the first amendment.

    The first amendment was written to protect citizens' religious freedoms from the state. The Bill of Rights codifies the recognition from the state that religious freedom is inherent, not something gifted to us from the state.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" There is more to the first amendment, but this is the part dealing with religion.

    If a child bows his head and prays on school grounds, he can be suspended. How is that not "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"?

    There are those who believe any exercise of religious belief anywhere in the public square constitutes the establishment of religion, when it actually constitutes not prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 29, 2014 6:41 a.m.

    @Icarus;

    1) Marriage between LGBT couples is not "so-called", it IS.

    2) Federal Judges are doing their job ruling on the constitutionality of laws; and they're finding these laws UN-Constitutional.

    3) Refusing service to LGBT couples is not a "religious right". Businesses are NOT people, they have no religious beliefs, practice no religion and don't actually even think.

    4) You're flying a bit too close to the sun there, be careful or your wax is going to melt.

    @higv;

    Isn't it time to open your eyes to reality yet? Let go of your fairy tales; its time to put aside childish things.

    @BYUalum;

    If you believe the bible, Eve was a CLONE of Adam (i.e., male), until God did a little magic (or a bit of gender-reassignment surgery). Is it any wonder then that we have so many transgender people today? It's just a result of God's fiddling with Adam and Eve's genetic material.

    @donn;

    Christians opposed to abortion, pornography, bestiality, polygamy are STILL FREE to not participate in any of those things. No right has been lost.

    @As If!;

    Let god worry about it.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 29, 2014 6:02 a.m.

    "People are moving away from going to church on Sundays", Hatch said. And whose fault would that be? New generations expect religion to be tolerant and caring, welcoming to all.

    As to "People are starting to find fault with religions and their beliefs", such criticism is already found among many philosophers in Antiquity. All through the Middle Ages and Modern Times wise people have criticized the bigotry, the condemnations, and the monopolies of churches that want to impose their peculiar rules on others. Religion and beliefs can be valuable as long as they respect their boundaries, but few churches are able to draw the line.

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    May 29, 2014 5:30 a.m.

    @BYUalum: "In family history, one can trace his heritage back through countless years through a father AND a mother."

    You don't seem to have done much family history, BYUalum. Information available about our female ancestors is almost non-existent because in European and settler North American cultures female identity was usually extinguished with the absorption of a female into a male line.

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    May 29, 2014 5:26 a.m.

    "We're in danger of losing our religious freedom and our rights," says Hatch. He continues:

    --People are moving away from going to church on Sundays.
    People are not losing their right to do with Sundays whatever they please, especially with the fading of blue laws that supported the Christian practice of 'keeping holy the Lord's day'. Poor attendance at church is not the result of the state's abridgement of religious freedom, Senator.

    --People are starting to find fault with religions and their beliefs," he said.
    People have been finding fault with religions and their beliefs since time immemorial. The US Constitution protects the freedom of its citizens to do so. Why does the Senator consider this good example of American freedoms to be evidence of the state infringing an individual's right to practice religion freely? The Hatch quoted and presented in this article seems to be quite ignorant.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    May 29, 2014 4:59 a.m.

    to LDS Liberal: "He was crucified himself for not condemning and stoning the sinners."

    No, by the time of Jesus they were not stoning people anymore. The Jews could not execute without permission of the Romans anyway. Rather, Jesus was crucified because he called himself the Son of God, and because he exposed the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders.

    "But he sure threw out those money-changing capitalists at the Temple!"
    Yes, he did. He did not condemn capitalism, however, but rather the desecration of the temple. There's a right and wrong place for money changing/selling/profit making.

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    May 29, 2014 1:45 a.m.

    If someone, three years ago, would have told me that Sen. Hatch would say that gay marriage is going to happen and that we should just accept it, I would have said you were talking about a different Sen. Hatch. My my my--crawfish pie! How the world has changed. I thank this man who I have so often opposed, for showing common sense. In three more years I would like him to admit that all opposition has proven to be defeated and that (as many have pointed out on this thread) no religious liberties have been violated or disrespected.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 29, 2014 1:22 a.m.

    @donn
    "The Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Roe versus Wade. The Christian conservatives are opposed to abortion, pornography, bestiality, polygamy."

    And people are still free to believe those things are wrong. Just as they will remain free to think same sex marriage is wrong, even after it becomes legal throughout the U.S. and most of the world.

    No one is asking you to change your beliefs. It's just that your beliefs cannot, without sound secular reasons, be the basis of law. No one will force you into a homosexual marriage against your will. Just as no one will force you to have an abortion against your will. Your freedom to believe as you wish and act accordingly remains intact.

    The idea that traditional marriage is under attack is ludicrous. Traditional marriages, such as my own, will not change in the least. The melodramatic rhetoric is getting old. And the nation is starting to see through it.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    May 28, 2014 11:36 p.m.

    I keep reading these stories that claim religious freedoms are being lost, but as I read them and see what the claims of loss are, it is not religious freedom being lost, but religious power. And the loss is not coming from external sources, but from internal sources.

    If your religion is losing its power to control its adherents, that indicates a problem with your religion, not a problem with those who adhere to a different religion.

    Perhaps if religions worried about putting their own houses in order instead of trying to order that over which they have no control they would be able to find some sense of power?

  • IDSpud Eagle, ID
    May 28, 2014 11:23 p.m.

    Very interesting trend thus far in the DN comments. Almost unanimous in support of same sex marriage. Tolerance is being plied in some very subtle ways. The LDS General Authorities have warned about the times ahead. There may not currently be outright religious rights that have been eroded or trampled because of this issue, but there most certainly will (overt or otherwise) be as time moves forward. This is the flash point. The Family, A Proclamation to the World is pretty clear regarding what the LDS believe to be God's position on the family unit. I'm all for 2 people, regardless of sexual orientation, being able to live together, and to have all the societal benefits that supports such a partnership; but that same-sex partnership shouldn't then be allowed to reconstitute/redefine the natural family structure. Religious organizations will certainly face discrimination and persecution for standing firm in their position that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the natural (God sanctioned)formation of a family unit that follows. Tolerance towards religion and its adherents is clearly eroding.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 28, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    At last Sen.Hatch says something that makes sense.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    Re: Bob K "Actually, our legal system is based on English Common Law, partly evolved from Roman law."

    Exactly, the Constitution enacted the English Common Law for our use.

  • As If! Layton, UT
    May 28, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    Unfortunately, I agree with Senator Hatch. What really bothers me is the fact that people believe they can tell God the rules. If you don't believe in God and the Bible, that is different, but you can't have it both ways. I cannot believe that gay marriage will ever be right as I believe God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and he declares it to be a sin. (Any sexual acts which should only be between a man and a woman.) Sometimes, I think that people who want gay marriage recognized as legal think that they can change my beliefs just by passing some laws. So not happening.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2014 10:18 p.m.

    Re: Icarus "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." Your last statement is completely false. Can you document cases where gay owned businesses have refused services to "straight" customers?

    One of the good things about the market is that if a customer's got the ability to demand a service, it doesn't make a dang bit of difference if you like him/her or personally despise him. In this sense the market is a "clean" mechanism. As a socialist, I shouldn't have to point this out to right wingers.

    If a gay or lesbian couple wants to buy services and they are not creating a public nuisance, they should be able to buy those services free and clear. I simply don't get why this concepts confuses conservatives.

  • Baker Boy Westminster, CA
    May 28, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    BYUalum states that anything different from a man and woman in a marriage is just living together. But BYUalum doesn't get to define marriage. Marriage is defined by the laws of the states/country. Several states have already defined same sex marriage as just that - marriage.

    I believe Orrin Hatch is right in that same sex marriage is about to become the law of the land.

    The aspect of it all that troubles me is that those opposed to same sex marriage will lose nothing as a result of two people of the same gender tying the knot. Nothing.

  • donn layton, UT
    May 28, 2014 10:07 p.m.

    RE: Cjb “I keep hearing religious rights are being eroded. Where? How? If you believe this please post how this is so. I'm very curious.” OK,

    The Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Roe versus Wade. The Christian conservatives are opposed to abortion, pornography, bestiality, polygamy.

    RE: LDS Liberal WWJD? He tells us what to do.

    “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male(Adam) and female(Eve), and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? (Mt 19:4-6)

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 28, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    Hatch is certainly correct about same-sex marriage being inevitable. As it should be.

    As far as religious liberty being lost, the reality is more that long-standing Christian privilege and entitlement is being lost. Also as it should be. Whose fault is that? If Bronze- and Iron-Age Biblical myth can't compete in the modern world of ideas, whose fault is that?

    If same-sex marriage is an affront to God we should all be content to let God worry about it and the consequences. I know I am.

    In the end, except for gay couples who wish to marry and their friends and families, this is a huge nothing that we're wasting a lot of time, money and angst over. Traditional marriage is not threatened (everybody supports it) and to the degree that marriage and family are the foundation of society same-sex marriage will only add to and strengthen it.

    The only hope for humankind is in cooperation, not in religion and not in confusing religion with true morality. If something doesn't have a negative secular consequence it's not even a moral issue. A religious issue, perhaps, but not a moral issue.

  • edgeoftheabyss OC, CA
    May 28, 2014 9:54 p.m.

    Gay marriage is the Trojan horse. Come to California to see the unfettered agenda in full swing. Homosexual indoctrination of school children in officially sanctioned state-mandated textbooks. It's the law of the land. Choose your restroom based on your perceived gender of the moment. It's in the law of the land. Non-profits that don't embrace the gay agenda lose tax-exempt funding. Pending in legislature (SB323). Harvey Milk Day, recognized by the state's government as "a day of special significance for public schools." Etc., etc.

    Connect the dots and chart the trajectory. Far more is at play here than just a ring on a finger.

  • Informed Voter South Jordan, UT
    May 28, 2014 9:52 p.m.

    What are the odds Hatch will stop voting to confirm every leftist federal judge that is nominated? Absolutely zero.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    May 28, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    Lots of crazy opinions given. I go back to the beginning in the Garden when Adam, a man, was given Eve, a woman. Ever since then male and female propagated the race and millions and millions of children have been born of a father AND a mother. That will never change.

    In family history, one can trace his heritage back through countless years through a father AND a mother. That part will never change. People may choose other co-habitation, but the fact is God mandated it so that a baby always has and always will have a father and a mother.

    I strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything different is not a marriage but just living together. Just because man wants to change God's law does not mean that God will change his law for the convenience of some people who live a different set of standards. Give them the free agency to choose for themselves, but don't impose that standard on the rest of us who believe differently!

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    @higv
    "Hopefully an eventual constitutional amendment will be here to keep marriage between one man and one woman. "

    Not to be a downer, but that's never going to happen at this point. There's too much support among young-people and in at least a third of the states that any attempt to do so would fall way short.

    " Gay people are not denied right to live or work where they want and are protected in matters of law"

    Neither Utah, nor the nation as a whole, have laws that prevent gay people from being fired just because they're gay.

    @Icarus
    " Apparently gays can refuse business to customers they disagree with"

    How do you figure? Like anyone else they can't discriminate based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, age, disability, or in some states sexual orientation.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    May 28, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    higv
    Dietrich, ID
    "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."

    --- The bullies are the Gov, the AG, and the people who force them to waste time and money, look foolish, make Utah look backward, and hurt others.

    "Gay people are not denied right to live or work where they want and are protected in matters of law."

    --- Not true in Idaho, not true in Utah, not true in about 30 more States.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    May 28, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    @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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 28, 2014 9:03 p.m.

    @ 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?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 28, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 28, 2014 8:58 p.m.

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

  • Icarus Dallas, Texas
    May 28, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    May 28, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    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.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    May 28, 2014 8:27 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 28, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    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!

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 28, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    @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?

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    May 28, 2014 7:39 p.m.

    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".

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 28, 2014 7:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 28, 2014 7:32 p.m.

    "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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    May 28, 2014 7:26 p.m.

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

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 28, 2014 7:25 p.m.

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

  • Jeff in NC CASTLE HAYNE, NC
    May 28, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    "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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 28, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    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.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 28, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    May 28, 2014 6:38 p.m.

    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?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 28, 2014 6:27 p.m.

    "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?

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    May 28, 2014 6:05 p.m.

    Hatch is right.