Hatch is right.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
"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.
Senator Hatch: Name just one religious right, besides bigotry, that is being
I keep hearing religious rights are being eroded. Where? How? If you believe
this please post how this is so. I'm very curious.
"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.
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.
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 RockOur 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?
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!
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
The RockFederal 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.
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.
How does the Supreme Court "overturn religious belief"? How does a US
Senator make such a risible comment?
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
@ Darrel, Ernest T. and cjbI 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?
@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.
higvDietrich, 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"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.
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!
What are the odds Hatch will stop voting to confirm every leftist federal judge
that is nominated? Absolutely zero.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
At last Sen.Hatch says something that makes sense.
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.
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
@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.
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.
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
"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.
@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.
"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.
@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.
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
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
@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).
Doug Wright will be thrilled
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.
"....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.
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. PLEASE
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.
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?
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
@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).
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.
@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
"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".
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.
@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.
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.
@IcarusWe're talking about employers refusing to serve customers, not
customers refusing to buy from employers. Completely different context.
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.
Hatch is smart well educated, experienced, and seasoned. He sees the
handwriting on the wall.
@1978Then 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.
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
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.
"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.
@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?
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.
@CleetornIf 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.
@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 AmendmentAnd yes, polygamous marriage ought
to be allowed between consenting adults.
Laura BilingtonMaple 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.
@ RanchHandBecause 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.
@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.
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!
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.
@ 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.
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.
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
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!
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.
@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.
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?
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
@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".
Homosexuals preach tolerance and acceptance, so that means they will need to
tolerate and accept those who do not agree with them.
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
marriage; plural noun: marriages1. 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
@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.”
@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?
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"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.
RanchHere, 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
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
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.
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?
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"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
@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.
@ 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.
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.
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....
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"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.
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.
@ 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.
@RedWingsYour 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.
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.
@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).
Just keep ignoring LGBT people the way you probably always have, Senator, and
you'll do fine. Out of mind, no worries.
Mormon Christians also believe the collapse of society is inevitable, so maybe
these two things go hand in hand.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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"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."
@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.
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
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.
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.
@wrzAs 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.
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
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
@Stable thoughtA 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
@ Tiago......Non consenting? The future of the definition of
marriage is now in flux and will be tested in the courts, it shall interesting.
@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.