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
1 Voice
orem, UT

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.

Dallas, Texas

@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.

Alexandria, VA

"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".

West Jordan, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT


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

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.

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

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.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

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

Los Angeles, CA

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.

get her done
Bountiful, UT

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

Eagle Mountain, UT


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.

Fuaamotu, Tonga

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.

Pleasant Grove, UT

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

Huntsville, UT

@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."


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?

Springville, UT

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.

Eagle Mountain, UT


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.

Logan, UT

@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.


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."

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.

Logan, UT

@ 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.

Salt Lake City, UT


"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.

to comment

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