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

Return to article »

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

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


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.


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


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.


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.

Paul in MD
Montgomery Village, MD

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.


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.

Seattle, WA

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."

cohoes, NY

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.

Paul in MD
Montgomery Village, MD

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.

Ron Hilton
Holladay, UT

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.

Syracuse, UT

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.

Dallas, TX


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


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?

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

"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).

Woodland Hills, UT

Doug Wright will be thrilled

Meadow Lark Mark

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.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

"....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.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

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.


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.


Logan, UT

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.

King George, VA

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?

Glendale, CA

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.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA


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.


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).

to comment

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