Quantcast

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

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
klangton
Akiachak, AK

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!

EstoPerpetua
Holden, MA

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.

Aggie238
Logan, UT

@ 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.

truthistruth
SPANISH FORK, UT

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.

New to Utah
PAYSON, UT

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.

ElmoBaggins
Escalante, UT

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!

FT
salt lake city, UT

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.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@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.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

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?

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

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."

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.

@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".

U-tar
Woodland Hills, UT

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

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

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

koseighty
The Shire, UT

@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.”

truthistruth
SPANISH FORK, UT

@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?

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

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.

koseighty
The Shire, UT

@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.

JOANOFARC
SAN LUIS OBISPO , CA

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"..

04/13/2014
S. Jordan, UT

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!

Lia
Sandy, UT

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.

to comment

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