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

This ruling DOES NOT Force churches to accept gay-marriage. Read the opinion, p. 60: "We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s decision relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (“[T]he court notes that its decision
does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express
their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”). Plaintiffs
must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious
institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and
traditions as they see fit. We respect the views advanced by members of various religious
communities and their discussions of the theological history of marriage. And we
continue to recognize the right of the various religions to define marriage according to
their moral, historical, and ethical precepts. Our opinion does not intrude into that
domain or the exercise of religious principles in this arena. The right of an officiant to
perform or decline to perform a religious ceremony is unaffected by today’s ruling."

Salt Lake valley, UT


I just realized I didn't address your last paragraph. Sorry for that. Yes, thousands of regulations of marriage do exist, and it would be a colossal task to remove government from marriage. And, the longer government regulates marriage, the more difficult it would be to remove government from marriage. Men, women, and children need protections provided by government, but those protections should, in my opinion, be provided because those persons are members of a state/country not because those persons are members of a marriage. For example, individuals shouldn't be allowed to abuse others, regardless whether those individuals are members of a marriage, are neighbors, or whatever.

West Jordan, UT

Whatever religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. you are, unfortunately we all have been created equal and everyone has the the right to choose how they want to live as long as they abide by the laws of the land, the laws of men. There is a higher law and we can disagree but can not be the judge of those who want to live thier lives the way they want to. Yes, we can express our opinion and politically try to change things but we have to follow the law. Thier is a higher court for that at Judgment day. The separation of church and state is key but so are the rights of a states sovereignty. That separation from state and federal is getting thinner and thinner because of the ego's in D.C. Remember people we are not a democracy but a "Republic" of sovereign states.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Eagle78" that is always a funny thing to say when your ilk says "God loves the gays". Of course he does. God loves everybody, from Hitler to Mother Teresa. God loves everybody, and that is never a question.

The questions that your ilk have to think about are tougher. Do you personally love God? If you love God, why don't you keep his commandments?

To "Dixie Dan" the LDS church will probably not allow their Bishops to perform gay wedding ceremonies. You would be asking them to do something that is in direct opposition to LDS doctrine.

To "Maudine" in England there was a gay couple that sued the Church of England to force them to perform a gay marriage despite it being against their doctrine. This happened to the Methodist Church in New Jersey when a lesbian couple sued them.

To "SlopJ30" if we make laws to legitimze gay marriage because of a chemical imbalance in their brains, should we also make laws to allow bi-polar people to act out violently because they have a manic urge to punch somebody?

BYU Track Star
Los Angeles, CA

@ Sloppyjoe,

A reasonable person would have interepted my hyperbolic comment as it was "I who coverted,and No, The Presbyterian Elders did not hold a middle-of-the-night tribunal to decide if it were for me to attone for my apostasy at the stake via a cleansing fire.


Early on in this discussion someone posted the caveat "(obviously persons of consenting age)." What everyone needs to realize is that the basis for that "obvious" position has no more intrinsic merit that the basis for arguing against same-sex marriage. It is a social convention that could be swept aside for exactly the same reasons that are being applied to the same-sex situation. Just because almost everyone agrees today about the idea of the age of consent, and that it should be in the late teens, doesn't mean that 12-year-olds couldn't rise up and argue that they have rights. Why should early teens (or preteens) be subjected to the discrimination and tyranny of a bunch of old people? Same argument. You can rattle on all you want about the differences, but you will just be repeating the arguments of the man-woman marriage side of today's issue.
Either there are some things that have a moral standing independent of public opinion, or everything is a social convention that is subject for negotiation. Choose wisely.

Springville, US-UT


You continue to prove a point that was mentioned earlier by Eagle and some others. You make a comment like "If you love God, why don't you keep his commandments?". Missing the point entirely that not everyone that believes in God believes in YOUR God. You don't have a monopoly on spirituality. It has been pointed out many times that the LDS church is not the morality police. They also don't get to dictate what God really means, or what his commandments are. You are welcome to believe what you want, but stop trying to force it on everyone else like it is some undeniable truth.

I do not believe in your gospel. Like I said earlier your scriptures may as well be Lord of the Rings as far as I am concerned. I am also not homosexual in case you were wondering. I believe that people have basic human rights and that you don't get to step on those rights because you choose to believe something you read in a book.


@ Redshirt: The Methodist Church in NJ was not sued to perform a same-sex marriage - they were sued because they had a Gazebo that they allowed people to use for events in order to pay a lower property tax on it. NJ, which at the time did not allow SSM, has a non-discrimination law. Refusing to allow a gay couple access to the Gazebo violated the non-discrimination clause.

Your points would be more effective if your facts were correct.

As for the Church of England case - when England legalized SSM, they stated that it was up to individual churches to decide if they would perform SSM but the Church of England is prohibited from deciding to have SSM. Now, as you know, the CoE is run by the English government (part of the reason the Founding Fathers wanted a separation of Church and State). So, by suing the CoE the couple is actually suing the British government in an effort to get them to treat all churches equally and let the churches decide which marriages to perform. Some CoE ministers want to perform SSM and, according to British law, this is the way to challenge that restriction.


Actually, GeoMan, the age requirement is based on developmental science and there is a provable difference between adults and adolescents. There is also a provable harm to removing the protections placed on children.

This is something that many opponents of same-sex marriage seem to fail to understand. The government, local, state, or federal, can limit rights if that limitation serves a compelling government reason, such as protecting children from harm. Many states, including Utah, argued that the right of marriage should be limited to opposite sex couples because allowing same-sex marriage would harm opposite sex marriages. No state has been able to provide compelling proof of that claim which is why the same-sex marriage bans keep getting struck down.

It is very easy to provide compelling proof that children are not developmentally the equivalent of adults and need to be protected from entering into contracts, including marriage contracts.

Arguments against same-sex marriage would be more compelling if those arguing against it seemed to understand basic Constitutional principles.

Patriot Jim
West Valley City, UT

In a recent e-mail I saw where Denmark was about to tell the Mormon Church they had to perform gay marriages in the Copenhagen Temple. I'd bet the Church closes the Temple before that happens, or may even tear it down so it cannot be desecrated. Closing the Temple will be a real blow to the Saints in Denmark.

Pasedena, CA

To "Maudine" you just asked for a case where a church was sued to do something against its doctrine. The CoE case is a point where a church was sued to do something against its doctrine. It doesn't matter that it is the State church in England. The fact remains that they were sued to do something they don't believe in.

Even in the Methodist case, they were being forced to take part in a ceremony that they said was in violation of their beliefs.

You wanted one instance, I have given you 2. Dismiss them if you want, but they are history and will set a bad precedent.

Tranquility, UT

"We the people of Utah have the right and responsibility to choose our laws collectively…"

Very close, but completely wrong. We can pass laws that are Constitutional. And it is the judicial branch's responsibility to determine when we've crossed the line. (We can save a lot of time, money and aggravation if we try to pre-judge constitutionality before we pass laws, but in the end it is judges who will decide.)

For example, Utah can't pass a law against being Baptist. They can't pass a law that says accountants can't have lawyers at trials. Or that blonds must pay a special tax.

And they can't pass laws that counter federal laws. Utah can't pass a law allowing guns past security points at airports because federal law supersedes local law.

Every case that has been decided since Windsor has found laws (or state amendments) banning marriage equality are unconstitutional.

You can still make this happen. But it can't be by law or state amendment. You would have to pass a Constitutional amendment, making it constitutional.

Tranquility, UT

@Patriot Jim
"In a recent e-mail I saw where Denmark was about to tell the Mormon Church they had to perform gay marriages in the Copenhagen Temple."

Close. But completely wrong.

Denmark has a state church, the Danish National Church. And Denmark has passed a law that all Danish National Churches perform same sex marriages. Individual (Danish National) priests may opt out of performing the ceremonies. But the the (Danish National) churches must provide someone to perform the ceremonies upon request.

This makes sense, since all citizens should be guaranteed access to a state church.

The law does NOT affect any other denomination. The Mormon church cannot be made to perform same sex marriages in their chapels or temples under this law.

Again, someone is sharing misinformation to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

There are indeed many who do argue for traditional marriage that have an excellent understanding of constitutional principals. Judge Paul J. Kelly in his discenting argument disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment requires Utah to extend marriage to same-sex couples or recognize those marriages from other states. He said "We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment"

The "let's change marriage crowd" wants it imposed that their's is the only way the constitution can be viewed.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ RedShirt: It is not against the doctrine of the CoE - as I stated, some CoE ministers want to perform same-sex marriages and are prohibited by law from practicing their religion accordingly. This case is similar to the situations here is the US where some members of a particular sect want same-sex marriage and others don't. And the members are addressing it according to the rules of their religion. You may choose to ignore the reality, but this is not the same as someone suing to have the government force the religion to perform rites they don't support.

And the NJ case was not about church doctrine - it was about a special tax exempt status based on public accommodation. The Methodist church choose to use the tax exempt status but didn't want to follow the rules associated with having that status. They were sued to force them to follow the same law everyone else follows. Are you stating that obeying the law is not a Methodist value? They could very easily have given up the tax exempt status and not have to worry about letting people use the gazebo.

enfanta non grata
Traverse City, MI

The behaviour of the LDS church is not surprising, there is no shortage of hate within the church. Gays are not the only people the LDS look down upon - adoptees are also viewed as "less than worthy" by the church, which fights adult adoptees' right to own a copy of their own factual birth certificate. Persons intimately connected with the LDS have, and continue to steal children and hide pregnant teens from their families until the infant is born and sold to an LDS couple. Do your own Google search of this - you will be horrified.
The LDS church is an enemy of adopted persons nationwide, an enemy of all who posess any empathy at all.

Frozen Fractals
Salt Lake City, UT

"Some recommend that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints should change its views as a strategic move."

Well, I think there is one option. Considering all the court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage and the church article of faith about upholding the law, it should be simple for the church to change it's position on same-sex marriage with regards to those outside the faith, while maintaining their viewpoint inside the church (it'd be something like 'we don't approve of same-sex marriage, but we're not going to stop you from getting one in other churches or civil marriages'). While that could be considered a "strategic move" I don't feel that type of change would be in violation of church teachings since it preserves the doctrinal view and merely changes the policy view of additionally trying to stop them even outside the church.

Miss Piggie
Phoenix, AZ

"I do not support on any level a state passing or enforcing laws that infringe on any US citizen's rights to choose whom they marry."

I agree with you. Everyone should be able to marry whomever they wish... a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, father, mother, first cousin, and perhaps a sub-teen... or all of them at the same time.

I am happy to see that the day of rejoicing and equal protection has finally arrived.


Maudine, you miss my point. Yes, there is developmental science about changes in the physiology of human beings as they age. The point is that what social policies we choose to establish based on the objective science are another issue altogether. There is absolutely nothing in the developmental science that says early teens and pre-teens can't marry (in fact in some societies they do and I'm referring to teens marrying teens). You may interpret the objective science so as to arrive at such a conclusion, but the science doesn't intrinsically produce a social policy.
As to your compelling proof statement, I disagree. It is obvious to me that there is compelling proof that same-sex marriage is bad for society. The fact that you, or some judges, don't find it obvious doesn't make one opinion or the other more or less correct. Unquestionably, it does establish one opinion as the (immoral) law of the land. If you reduce this to nothing more than opinions, you can't take something like an age of consent as being "obvious" or as a "given."

Sugarland, TX

@Miss Piggie and @GeoMan

You can read the 10th circuit court decision, the ruling explained why it is constitutional right for same sex couples to marry, and specifically explained why it is not the same case for polygamy, incestuous and child marriage kind of thing.


Maudine is right. If Methodist Church opens its facility to general public for tax exempt considerations, then they have to abide laws for general public, including non-discrimination law, like all other organizations.

If they don't care about the tax exempt and keep their facility private, of course they can pick and choose, because no non-discrimination law is applied.

to comment

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