Published: Thursday, June 19 2014 8:23 a.m. MDT
"These groups have believed that marriage is a spiritual contract between a
man, a woman and God, and that this contract is part of an eternal
process"In the Old Testament and even the New, religion and
government was one and the same. So, it is not correct to say that marriage was
only a spiritual contract back in the day.
Perhaps those of us (including me) who are above the age at which we are still
likely to marry ought to keep our opinions to ourselves, and listen to the
younger generations, who are yet to marry.This article would make
sense if it were factually correct, which it is not.I know the DN
must push itself to print anything that vaguely agrees with the official mormon
views, so I was not surprised to see this, but most of it is fantasy, at
best.Maybe 10 years ago, this piece would be worthy of discussion --
or even 5 years ago -- but now, to anyone who sees what is going on, I compare
this to "Let's keep the buggy whip factories open, because the
horseless carriage is a fad"Many people of the same sex,
particularly if raised mormon, feel that God has given them their partners to
love and be family with forever. I think that Jesus would be the first to urge
us to honor that.
"Marriage has never been a government granted right"I was
married in Utah and my Marriage License was issued by the State of Utah and the
ceremony was performed by a Circuit Court Judge. Try getting
legally "married" without that and then tell me that it is not a
"government granted right"
"For thousands of years, marriage has been defined by religious culture and
has been practiced functionally as a religious contract between man, woman and
God. Marriage has never been a government granted right, but a god-given
commandment..."Lost me right there.If we are going
to have an honest debate about gay marriage then we need to honestly describe
history the best we can and not look at it through Mormon glasses. We've
tried this tainted argument before and it just hasn't worked well in the
Respectfully, you need to check your history. While it was never seen on a large
scale, polygamy was practiced in Hinduism for thousands of years and it has no
principle forbidding it.
If Adam and Steve who are good members of the Congregationalist Church (which
approves of gay marriage) wish to get marriage, what gives you the right to
thwart their intentions? Is your religion superior? Because that is what you
are saying.Secular government serves as a means to protect
minorities in religion from the tyrannies of the majority religions. In this
way we prevent open hostilities. Witness the Middle East and the endless
intra-secular conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.And
besides, Utah voted to prevent even civil marriages with its vote. In this way
the people of Utah showed animus to homosexual marriage or civil unions. And
animus to those who follow different religious beliefs.Your option
may have been a good one when the debate started. However, the determination of
the religious fundamentalists in sync with the bigotry of many to kill any
public recognition of the inherent right for gay couples to be treated equally
before the law put the issue where it is now. You reap the whirlwind when you
refuse to compromise or acknowledge other's rights to equal treatment and
claim a religiously superior belief system.
For thousands of years, marriage has been defined by religious culture and has
been practiced functionally as a religious contract between man, woman and God.
Marriage has never been a government granted right"Government
and religion were often the same back in the day.
Yes, take the libertarian approach and get government out of marriage
completely. The license fee hardly raises revenue. People could have whatever
organization or religion they want to take care of marriage and divorces by
Marriage is a legal contract. The sacrament portion is a religious rite. They
should be completely and entirely separated. That is the only solution. Why do
many Americans want to keep mixing government and religion? They are best when
I think that is the way we will need to go since the government seems to want to
tell religious organizations and everyone else what is right and what is wrong.
Let's take a vote on morality. All in favor of killing this
group say AY, opposed Nay. AYs have it. Civil protections seems to be going by
the wayside in favor of the "voice of the people". Seriously, many foreign countries already have this practice and it seems to
work out well enough.
The only way religious freedom is protected is by a secular society with secular
laws.Otherwise, we lose religious freedom. One religion will
ultimately win out, and other beliefs will be crushed into insignificance. Either we have a secular society with religious freedom, or we have a
State Church. It is truly a binary choice with no alternative. My religious
freedom is only as protected as the least popular religion's rights. Our
laws must be religiously neutral.Laws need to be based on if harm
can be demonstrated to another person, or society as a whole. My freedoms
cannot trump another's; nor can theirs trump mine. That is equal
protection under the law.Unless harm to someone else's life,
liberty, property or rights can be shown we have no legal basis to deny same sex
This article hurts my head. Even though Mr. Woolley and I live in the same
country and belong to the same church, his view of history, law, and religion is
completely foreign to me. I do not understand his defensiveness and fear.In my view religious rites and truths cannot be changed by law and will
not fall to secular "attacks." To believe that the government can change
religious truths suggests that religious truths are weak and changeable. Loyalty
to God does not require a rejection of secular society--in fact, secular society
is a foundation of religious freedom. Living in a secular world requires
tolerance and respect for all sincere beliefs. Loyalty to God requires us to
love our neighbor as ourselves.I am glad that Mr. Woolley at least
recognizes the importance of ensuring civil protections for every citizen,
including same-sex couples. The best way to provide equal protection for
same-sex couples is through the government legal contract we call marriage.
This is reaching. You can say marriage is the domain of religion when divorce
is, too. Otherwise, it's a legal contract. Religion is a very optional
veneer on it.
My previous comment was seemingly denied as it hasn't appeared. My
comments on other articles have been pulled after-the-fact for some reason,
maybe I shouldn't comment at all moderators?In any case, the
author of this opinion piece doesn't know his history of marriage.
Thousands of years ago same-sex marriages were recognized, right along with
opposite sex marriages, in many cultures. If he's going to make broad
statements he should at least learn some of the facts first.
Do we really want our country to be ran by religions?How has that
worked for the middle-east?As someone who has been to other
countries and studies history for a living, I grow increasingly weary of the
vocal minority desiring that religion control our government. We
indeed live in scary times. Do we really want to become a theocracy? Is that
what the FF imagined?
Those who oppose same sex marriage and want to be taken seriously must cease the
spewing of completely false statements, beginning with this one:"Yet today, religion is being attacked by the secular world."There is no "attack" on marriage. Same sex couples simply seek
marriage equality - to have the same legal and social status as their opposite
sex couple counterparts.If that is an "attack", then the
"sharing" of the gospel is an "attack" on the LDS faith by
trying to extend its benefits and blessings to those who are not members!
This is already being done. There are quite a few "spiritual" marriages
all over the west. It's only legally binding under the "law."
There is where it gets tricky.
Whew, that was some first class pearl clutching.
@Ranch Hand: "In any case, the author of this opinion piece doesn't
know his history of marriage. Thousands of years ago same-sex marriages were
recognized, right along with opposite sex marriages, in many cultures."Well that is news to me. Can you go into more detail?(I am
skeptical, about 20 years ago someone made the 'discovery' that in the
first few centuries of Christianity that there were religious blessings of same
gender friendships and so they extrapolated and concluded that same gender
sexual unions were being blessed.)
Apparently the author failed to pull the Wooley (pun) over the eyes of most
readers judging by the posts here. Of course the author is trying to support the
position of a religious organization with this "unbiased" editorial.
There would be no debate if the religious organizations accepted the LGBT
community as equals and not sinners.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments