Comments about ‘LDS Church issues statement regarding overturned Utah marriage amendment’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 25 2014 12:55 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Here, UT

ulvegaard says:
"I shall continue to advocate traditional marriage, to resist same sex marriage - but through peaceful means and with mutual respect and common courtesy for all involved."

I ask you this in all honesty, is it "mutual respect and courtesy" to deny others the legal benefits you enjoy?

The Shire, UT

"Apparently we're also the cause of global warming."

You're Hot, Hot, Hot! :o)

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Appreciate the kind words…

@samhill – “The only reason the notion of homosexual "marriage" has gained any traction…is because of the reciprocal diminished and devaluation of marriage in general.”

This statement appears to violate the logical law of non-contradiction.


I can’t imagine growing up and constantly being told my left-handedness is a mistake and a sin in the eyes of God. Probably would have spent years trying to do everything with my right hand all the while knowing deep down I was not living my best and most authentic self.

Guessing once I realized that I was simply living in a family/culture of conformists to a particular set of beliefs I would be tempted towards great anger, but would hope that later maturity would turn that anger to pity (“forgive them, they know not what they do”) as I came to understand that these right-hander conformists are living a collective delusion, at least from everyone else’s perspective.

Remember - all religions viewed from the inside are true, and all religions viewed from the outside are false.

St Louis, MO

@Redshirt1701 (from another thread where I'm capped out):

"So, do we make laws to permit people to act out on their urges caused by an altered brain chemistry or do we look for ways to fix the altered brain chemistry?"

Lots of things can be considered "abnormal" depending on who's evaluating matters. To answer your question directly . . well, I can't, because people are ALREADY acting on their urges. This legal matter isn't allowing anyone to have sex that wasn't having it before. That's one of the primary problems with your side of this debate . . you've got sex, sex, sex on the brain. That part of the relationship is already happening, regardless of the SSM debate.

But still, I'll give it a go . . a free society can't specifically prohibit people from acting on their nature, or urges, their desires, or whatever you want to call it, unless it demonstrably harms others. Whether you think it's "unnatural" is irrelevant. Whether you think it's gross is irrelevant. Whether you believe God doesn't like it is irrelevant. Whatever you think the Founding Fathers would think is irrelevant.

Abinadis friend
Boise, Idaho

Lucifer is really working hard at this point in our Second Estate. We need to stand strong against him forcing his agenda. To those of us that have a testimony of the Lords plan, it is unbelievable what is transpiring. Just remember that the lords plan will win out in the end. Have faith and keep the commandments.

Goddess Divine
Orem, UT

I agree with Deseretina, continuing the fight doesnt make any sense. I think is a waste of time, money and resources. I wish the church would ask their members if they agree on continuing using the church money and resources for this. If they asked me, I would say NO. Invest that money in the poor, temples, etc.

I also agree with Kindred, whatever the position of the federal government, the meaning of marriage cannot be changed. At the same time, I don't like to impose on others my beliefs. Everyone should,use their free agency to make their own decisions. I was told by someone that the consequences of allowing gay marriage could affect our society and we don't know what those are yet. I don't know where she got that idea from. Gays and lesbians have lived among us since biblical times and to this day, the word hasn't changed much because of them. Heterosexuals continue being heterosexuals and gays continue being gays. The bad effects on society are brought upon us mainly by those politians that get everyone into wars.

Salt Lake valley, UT

It will not happen soon if at all, but get government at all levels out of marriage. Let governments focus on civil rights via civil unions or similar things. Let social groups decide what form of marriage (or no marriage) they will honor.

The Shire, UT

Just this year, a church in the south refused to marry an interracial couple. Both had been members of the church for some time and had dated and been engaged while attending that church. The church refused, not because they didn't like the couple or that they wouldn't continue to welcome them to attend their church. It was tradition. They have never allowed interracial marriages at their church and they didn't want to start making exceptions.

This 47 years after Loving v. Virginia.

While anti-discrimination laws will apply to florists, they do not and cannot be applied to churches. Churches are protected by the 1st amendment to be as racist, misogynistic or homophobic as they wish. No same sex marriages will be forced on the Mormon church. The scare tactics are ridiculous.

Sandy, UT


My opinion (not church doctrine) is that yes, some may have the propensity to be gay. That there may even be a set percentage who do. There may be a set percentage who are prone to all sorts of various and sundry sins. We ALL have weaknesses. We all sin in different ways. One could name many sins that different people may be prone to. I certainly sin. I don't know if GOD made us that way or not. I really don't. But I do know he wants us to overcome those weaknesses and has prepared a way to do so.

So, even though you may have come to earth with some propensities, I don't agree that they are uncontrollable or healthy for society or the individual. Homosexuality is a serious transgression or sin, like any other. God loves His children indeed, all of them, but he does not like all that they do. Just my opinion.

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

SS Marriage is not a threat to our or My Hetro-Marriage(s). SS Marriage is not to threat to our Children's socialization and will not spawn a generation of socio-paths. Other countries haven't collasped into chaos nor will ours. The biggest threat to Marriage today is D-I-V-O-R-C-E. I read the Church's brief on why the Status Quo should be maintained regarding SS marriage. I was not impressed. The findings of California 10th Circuit Court previously found in so many words that "Religious objections do not trump the rule of law". I am glad we don't live in a Theocracy where Churchman set the rules of law for the land. Currently, in the Sudan, a marriaed Christian woman was sentenced to death for being an Apostate Muslim. Would we be okay with Presbyterians burning former members at the stake for converting to to Mormonism, like I did some 40 years ago? I think not...

Sandy, UT

Some recommend that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints should change its views as a strategic move. Being what it is, the church OF Jesus Christ, it can do no other thing than what its Lord and Master requires.

Tranquility, UT

"It will not happen soon if at all, but get government at all levels out of marriage. Let governments focus on civil rights via civil unions or similar things. Let social groups decide what form of marriage (or no marriage) they will honor."

It amazes me how many people misunderstand marriage. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults which brings with it certain rights and responsibilities. Only the government can issue licenses for marriage. And only the government can grant a divorce, ending a marriage. It is also the government that extends the right to perform marriages. Whether it's a priest, pastor, rabbi, bishop, or temple president -- they all get permission to perform marriages from the state.

As such, the definition of marriage is a matter for the state to decide. In the U.S. that means that the right to define marriage rests with "We the People" through our representatives and, yes, as constrained by our Constitution.

Thousands of laws exist at the state and federal level pertaining to marriage. To take the government out of marriage would be a colossal task. Doing so would leave husbands, wives and children without vital legal protections.

St Louis, MO

WRK says: "I wish that some would stop equating this with Civil Rights that the African Americans had to bo through. There is no way that this is similar."

Missouri loves BYU (who doesn't speak for all BYU grads in Missouri) also dismisses the racial equality analogy and says: "Legal and moral are not the same thing and never will be."

Of course they are not exactly the same. Each issue involving what citizens get what rights comes with its own arguments, nuances and inherent biases. However, saying there are no similarities between the two is impossible for any honest, thinking person. "You're different than I am in some way that makes me uncomfortable, therefore you can't do the same stuff I can" is never a rational, defensible argument.

And, yes, legal and moral are not the same thing. One is personal and highly subjective. The other is in black and white and not only subject to limited interpretation . . by people much more qualified than you or me. If you want rule based on morality, who gets to be the morality police? The LDS Church?

St.George, Utah

We are hearing such desperation is the tone of those who are against SSM in these comments.
We also hear anger, fear, and premonitions of doom/the end of the world, as we know it, from traditional marriage/anti-gay commenters on these forums.
Hoping the LDS Church leaders will be able to put together a message that will help calm their flock. They must be praying that a message of Peace and Good Will might be accepted by their LDS membership. Other faiths are also hurrying to calm their congregations, as well.
We know other religions have already, successfully, shared the word of love and acceptance..
Otherwise, it would appear that all the words of love, kindness, and acceptance being taught by Mormon missionaries around the globe...... young LDS missionaries sharing the LDS message.....

lindon, UT

I agree with the thinking of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr who dissented - he stood in defense of state rights. He wrote: "If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head," he wrote. "Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this is inevitable."

A judge that understands the US constitution and the limited roll of the federal government. We the people of Utah have the right and responsibility to choose our laws collectively and we chose amendment 3 to protect traditional marriage and morality.

Here, UT


Amendment 3 does nothing to "protect traditional marriage". Nothing at all. The ONLY thing Amendment 3 accomplishes is to deny marriage to LGBT citizens. That is the ONLY thing it does.

Clark D
Houston, TX

It is inteesting to me that the idea of the terminology, gay, instead of homosexuals is the way society determined to lighten the identity of this type of a person. This was first promoted by sex magazines such as penthouse, hustler, and playboy along with the movie industry. Then the news media captilized on it because it was controversial. If you view a nude picture of man and a woman side by side a normal evaluation should apply. To continue to support the idea of gay is OK is just not realistic.
Homosexual activities may be acceptable to some, but they are and will always be outside of a normal so called sexual activity. So, how can we support the idea of a marriage of the same sex? Marriage is a system designed for the joining of a man and woman and cannot be modified just because some of societies modifications of values.

St Louis, MO

BYU Track Star says: "Would we be okay with Presbyterians burning former members at the stake for converting to to Mormonism, like I did some 40 years ago?"

You burned Protestants-turned-Mormons at the stake back in the 70's? Is there a statute of limiations on that sort of thing?

HENELSON: I see myself as an American before a native Utahn and current Missiourian, and I'm guessing you only hide behind the curtain of states' rights when it suits your personal feelings. If you lived in a more progressive state (all 49 of them), your tune would be different.

This is a civil rights issue, something the stuck-in-the-1800's conservative side seems to deny with vehemence. I do not support on any level a state passing or enforing laws that infringe on any US citizen's rights to choose whom they marry. The state can't deny basic rights that our nation allows, and marriage is one of those rights, whether it's literally in the constitution or not.

Holden, MA

Perhaps those who speculate that -

" the African Americans had to go through. There is no way that this is similar. Those individuals had to go through hardships that the LGBT community can not even fathom. "

should research NAZI Germany when LGBTs were not only persecuted like the Jewish, but were not freed from the NAZI prisons by the USA.

Same gender marriage is a CIVIL ISSUE, not a religious one, and LGBTs work, pay taxes, serve their country just like everyone else and should be given equal marriage rights.

Salt Lake valley, UT


You've given a good overview of the role of government in regulating marriage. Thank you for doing that. I'm suggesting that this regulation of marriage stop and that social groups, such as churches, define marriage however they wish.

to comment

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