Comments about ‘Pelosi to San Francisco archbishop: Don't march for marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 18 2014 6:40 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Columbus, OH

It is well beyond time to send Pelosi packing. If the tables were turned there would be such an outcry from everyone on the left. She does not support the law of the land. Nor do the others of her circle. Enough o this already!

Leesburg, VA

>>You're right, if my claim is perceived as an opinion and you possess a right to disagree, then please grant that same right to others that disagree with your religious interpretation and allow adults of the same gender to marry one another without cruel harassment.

No one should ever be subjected cruel harassment, but you err on conflating opinion with action. Your position is, essentially, that because everyone should be able to *believe* what they want, they should also be able to *do* what they want. Opinions hurt no one, but actions might. That is why we allow anyone to believe whatever they want, but pass laws regulating actions.

And that is also why those who support SSM should have to offer evidence that the practice at least wouldn't be harmful to society; and why those who oppose it must offer evidence that it would be harmful. Opinions either way (whether based on religious teachings or an inability to foresee negative consequences) aren't evidence.

Washington, DC

I support the position of the Catholic clergyman. Those attacking him by calling him a "bigot" are engaging in hate speech.

Those who oppose the march discussed in the article seem to be opposing traditional, scientific marriage, and advancing non-traditional, non-scientific marriage. Scientific observation clearly demonstrates and optimal, scientific marriage. It the coming together of xx and xy. Modern gender theories are not based on biochemical scientific evidence. Though the march is based on moral grounds, as a scientist I prefer to look at the real biochemical evidence, which clearly shows the primacy of xx and xy.



Your claim is an opinion. Just as mine is.

I never denied you a right to disagree with me. Your statement was a denial of religious opinion because you do not believe the argument is valid. You are illustrating the "my way ot hte highway" attitude that is the problem with the Left.

People can join or leave religions at will. Not true with the LGBT indoctrination. I am inundated through the media with one-sided reporting, tv shows which include gay characters, etc. Kids are taught in school that homosexuality is acceptable, and their parent's belief on the issue is wrong.

Are you inundated with religious programming and media in your home? Are your kids being taught religious doctrine at school? I hardly think so....

Leesburg, VA

"Leader Nancy Pelosi has written to ... Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone asking him to skip a controversial "March for Marriage" to be held in Washington Thursday"

Mrs. Pelosi is a Catholic political leader. Salvatore Cordileone is going to participate in a political event.... I don't see where is the incongruence in her asking this spiritual from her church to skip this march. The Archbishop refused as is his right.

Guys let me tell you a secret.... This is not the first time that Catholic Leaders are asked to lean one way or other because of politics. Shhhh!

I agree with Mrs. pelosi that is contradictory to be pro-marriage and pro-family but exclude a whole segment of the population from those benefits.


slcdenizen -

Your sideways insult to my intellectual capacity aside, I agree that we should all respect each other's opinions and beliefs and act accordingly. This was the basis of my first post to you.

Neither of our opinions should have more weight than the other. But neither should be summarily dismissed because one of us disagree. That is precisely what is happening in the argument between gay rigths vs religious rights. There are many ways to recocile the two in a civilized society. Unfortunately we do not live in one.

And for the record, I support the concept of civil unions administered by the government for any couple - gay or straight. All couples would then have the same secular rights. "Marriage" should return to a religious ceremony and each church can adminsiteer according to their beliefs or doctrines without interference.

Edwardsville, IL

@ Big Bubba
Californians of course. No other explanation needed. Remember the last time Utah imported a California Governor. That’s what they do, that’s who they are, and they want desperately to share with the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Leesburg, VA

@ RedWings
You wrote:
""Marriage" should return to a religious ceremony and each church can adminsiteer according to their beliefs or doctrines without interference."

Would you mind providing some historical foundation to your statement?

You see, marriage as works in the United States and in most countries around the world is already a "civil union" called "marriage". The power to create this union is hold by the state.
The state in the U.S. allows religious entities to finalize the union through a religious ceremony "after" the stae has provided a license.

In other countries it is customary that couples marry twice, the first time "civilly" (court House)and then through a religious ceremony (church). However, the "only valid marriage" is the one in the Court House, the one at church is an act of faith with no legal binding.

Do you know of any country without marriage? Even Cuba, China, the old U.S.S. R. had/have marriage, a secular yet legally binding marriage.

During the 1980's the religious right kidnapped the term "Christian" for themselves. Remember when Mormons were Less Christians than today?

Now, people opposed to SSM are attempting to kidnapp the term "marriage" for them.

The Skeptical Chymist

To those who say Nancy Pelosi is interfering with the Archbishop's right to free speech, I say "Nonsense!". She is making an argument for him not to march. She is asking him not to march. She is not calling out the Federal Marshals to stop him from marching. That would be a violation of his freedom of speech. She is merely exercising her own freedom of speech, a perfectly legitimate action.

Neither is she interfering with the Archbishop's freedom of religion. He is free to interpret his Catholic religion as he sees fit, and so is she. He is in a position of some authority, but she is free to disagree with him as she sees fit. If there is a conflict and the Catholic Church decides to excommunicate Nancy Pelosi, that is its right. But none of this in any way impinges on the religious freedom of either individual.

Salt Lake City, UT

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle.

Mchenry, IL

I don't believe Ms Pelosi is in communion with the church. I'm don't understand why she is calling herself catholic. Politicians are excommunicated for voting for abortion. I'm not saying she can have that view, or vote that view. Just that calling yourself catholic is a problem when you publicly behave this way.

This letter writing is perfectly fine, he can do so or ignore her. But the fact that it's news suggests she simply is trying to get herself in the news for her own perspectives.

Springville, UT

For those of you who are attacking Pelosi, she is expressing her wishes and views, not denying the Archbishop from anything. Don't distort. You are OK if churches influence government leaders, so why can't government leaders try to influence church leaders? You accuse Pelosi of the same thing that you yourselves are guilty of.

seattle, WA


Sorokin has been dead for almost 50 years. He was a refugee from Leninist/Stalinist Russia, and must of his thinking is a reaction to the early communist regimes. And his thinking was a great deal more nuanced that what you present here.

And finally, I think that sociological thinking has evolved greatly from the works of a long dead sociologist.



You can't "kidnap" something that is already yours. Marriag has only been between one man and one woman. If there is a kidnapping going on, it is by the LGBT.

Marriage is ordained of God (see the Book of Genesis). Adam and Eve were the first married couple. YOu prove my point by showing that other countries have separate civil and religious ceremonies. I am honestly fine with that. Go to the courthouse and become civilly united, then (for LDS couples) go to teh Temple and be sealed for time and eternity (religious ceremony).

Why is that not a viable option to protect everyone's rights? For all the bantering from the LGBT about their rights, I have not heard on concern for the rights of others....

Leesburg, VA

You wrote:
"I have not heard on concern for the rights of others...."

How your rights or marriage are bein affected? Please do tell.

I will not accept forecast of doom unless you provide some coherent reasoning to arrive to that conclusion.

I read the book of Genesis and I don't see any wedding taking place. Actually is very much a couple living together type of thing. Yes, I acknowledge that many Chrisitans and Jewish scholar have "inferred" a wedding. But Gnesis never comes out and state it as such.

Besides, do you take Genesis literally? I love the Bible and the book of Genesis, but I consider it an allegory about creation and other myth attempting to explain human nature. Nothing more nothing less. I go more for Big Bang, evolution, even the idea of an intelligent designer has merit in my opinion.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Why is that not a viable option to protect everyone's rights?"

Because there is no reason to pursue that. There are no rights of yours that would be protected with "civil unions for all" that aren't protected with "marriage for all". The only reason to do that would seem to me to prevent the government from labeling same sex couples as married (even though they would totally be married anyway since it's not like there aren't churches that do that).

Logan, UT

This Archbishop has his right to speak out. But other people, including Pelosi,also have their right to speak, including make a petition to Archbishop not to march.

She did not use government power to force Archbishop not to go, just practiced her own free speech.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Marriage is a religious institution that the government is trying to take control of.

If the government wants to create something different and call it something else, so be it. But you will not redefine marriage. Marriage is one man and one woman period. Everything else is just that, everything else.

Leesburg, VA

@ Liberal Ted

" Marriage is a religious institution that the government is trying to take control of."

Trying??? Remember when the US Government forced Deseret to get rid of Polygamy as a legal form of marriage?

It seems that the US Government and the States have had control of marriage for a long, long time.

to comment

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