Quantcast

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

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 25 2014 4:21 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Patriot Jim
West Valley City, UT

I saw a comment about the 14th Amendment in one of the remarks. Apparently they do not know that the Utah Supreme Court has ruled the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional and has no effect ore power in the State of Utah. The reason for the ruling is that the US Congress sent the Amendment out to the States for ratification and the Southern States said "NO!!" So Congress declared Martial Law in those States and replaced the lawfully elected Legislators with what are called "Rump" Legislators, who then ratified the Amendment. These people did not speak for the Citizens of those States and therefore their actions are null and void. That is why the Utah Supreme Court ruled the way they did. Also, Judge Perez of Louisiana ruled the 14th Amendment to be Unconstitutional and Representative Rarick of Louisiana posted all of this in the Congressional Record. All of this information can be found at www.constitutionalconcepts.org and click on the link to the 14th Amendment.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@zmillion2,

"Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always will be. I'm surprised that atheist's and same sex couples would even want to take part in a ceremony that is so religious."

Not the least bit true. The state owns marriage. One cannot be married anywhere in the US without the states blessing. Religious wedding ceremonies are performed at the will of and with the permission of the states. A religious wedding without a state marriage license is not a marriage. I am a married atheist who married in city hall 32 years ago. Rest assured, my marriage is just as legal as any other.

John Locke
Ivins, , UT

IMO, the ultimate "legal" issue for the LDS Church will be whether they will allow the sealing of such marriages in the temple.

In the case of a same sex couple becoming married to one another in a state which allows it, while regularly attending Church, and being temple recommend holders at the time they were married, what would the Church do? Personally, I believe, and would concur, that they would not allow this to happen.

The doctrine of the Church (not "policy") will either have to change through revelation, as in the case of Blacks receiving the priesthood, or the Church will have to enforce the doctrine with the possible result of a law suit that will overturn this precious right now existing for the true definition of the "Family," as being a marriage between a man and a woman.

For LDS people, this is an extremely difficult question; similar, to Sharia Law now in limited use in England. The Brits are struggling with utilizing "limited" Sharia Family Law Courts for disputes for Muslims, where it does not conflict with or affect English Law.

JimmyJackJohnJones
Jonestown, TX

Quoting scripture in a newspaper comment section is the cheesiest thing I've ever seen. It doesn't lend credibility, it makes people sound like nut jobs, disconnected from reality. It's like showing up at a science fair with a replica of Noah;'s Ark, or a diorama of the Garden of Eden. Seriously.

abtrumpet
Provo, UT

Kindred, thank you for stating the truth.

Good Mojo
Tooele, UT

Confusion is becoming a national norm enforced by law.

The Scientist
Provo, UT

"This ruling does not force Churches to accept same sex marriages..."

That's too bad. It should.

zmillion2
West Jordan, UT

@my_two_cents_worth

While you're right that the states own marriage. You're missing my point. Government only has a hand in marriage because they want to make money. But marriage was not created by governments. It was created by God, and used in religion for a long time before government decided it belonged to them. THAT is my point.

Good-Heavens
Salt Lake City, Utah

LDS Church releases official statement against SSM. What a shocker!

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

It strikes me as odd that the Mormon church, who was persecuted and driven out for allowing non-traditional marriages (polygamy) are now standing against other people doing what they feel is right. They are doing exactly what was done to them back when polygamy was going, and that is trying to define marriage for others.

GD
Syracuse, UT

I think it has nothing to do with judging.

CDL
Los Angeles, CA

Civil Ceremonies will become the out come of this as in some other countries. All people will need to seek Civil Ceremonies first to avoid legal issues over Churches that don't acquiesce to marring gay couples (Judges will make a fortune). Then those that want to marry in the Church can have a separate ceremony, In the LDS Church it would be the Temple.

Texann
Midlothian, TX

Living in the latter days isn't for sissies, and we know it's going to get worse. Hold to the iron rod.

Mormonmama0106
Phoenix, AZ

God made me bi-polar. Does that mean I'm allowed to act on my impulsive anger and claim I can't help it because I'm bi-polar and God must want me to be this way because I was born this way? Of course not!

We human beings are meant to control and overcome our natural urges, not give in to them. Just as with abortion, no matter what the secular law allows, somethings are and always will be against God's laws. Wrong is never right, no matter how many people say it is.

Lilly Munster
netherlands, 00

Of course, NO Church, Religion, Denomination or any Clergy member actually Marries anyone, ever. You get you marriage license from the State, not your Minister. You pay the State, they register it, just like any other License, and you are married. No Clergy is ever required. Thankfully, we do not leave Marriage up to any prevailing Clerical Majority, or we would need a Priest in Sacramento, or an Imam in Dearborn. Marriage is a Constitutional Right. If you have a problem with that, keep it to yourself. Actually, Mormonism, always a Crusade for Members, would be smart to keep their Gay and Lesbian Children in the Fold, rather than brutally shunning them and casting them aside.

GeoMan
SALEM, OR

YBH,
Reading the 10th Circuit's feeble attempt at explaining does nothing. Nor do any of the several other recent decisions. They all boil down to personal opinions and flawed logic to try and support their language that limits the extension of their rulings to similar issues. The same can be truthfully said of recent conservative rulings on other issues. If one dismisses the existence of a higher, moral law (that can be somehow discovered, i.e self evident truths), and the collective wisdom of human experience, then one is left with baseless, arbitrary, individual opinions. One is free to believe such a reality is acceptable, but one should have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that. Attempts to elevate personal opinions to some higher status are just offensive. Societies are free choose policies. Just don't try and vilify those that oppose the changes because they honestly believe they will produce negative results for everyone. There is a lot of real estate between approval and persecution (from both sides of any issue).

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Texann
"Living in the latter days isn't for sissies, and we know it's going to get worse"

Oh yeah, these days are what's rough... not the time of slavery and life expectancies in the 40s or when women were basically property of men or any of the host of other times in human existence or even other countries in the world today...

Harrison Bergeron
Holladay , UT

Once we accept redefining marriage based on one atypical sexual practice, there is no legitimate reason not to extend it to others (i.e. Pederasty, Polygamy, etc.)

If the Courts believe the States cannot refuse to recognize marriages based on gender, it logically follows that States cannot discriminate based on age or the number of participants either.

They have opened Pandora's Box. I hope the Supreme Court slams it shut.

AdJoRo
Kearns, UT

@Mormonmama0106

"God made me bi-polar. Does that mean I'm allowed to act on my impulsive anger and claim I can't help it because I'm bi-polar and God must want me to be this way because I was born this way? Of course not!"

You're absolutely right - because acting on your impulsive anger can cause harm to others. Someone acting on their homosexual desires causes harm to no one.

Who are you to say being homosexual is an "urge" that needs to be "overcome"? One acting on their homosexual desires is no different than you acting on your (presumably) heterosexual desires.

Love is love! Why squelch something that only creates joy?

ExTBird
Springville, US-UT

I'm not sure how often it has to be pointed out, but it has been addressed already by the law why things like incest, beastiality, pedophilia etc are not the same as SSM. Continuing to try and put them into the same category not only shows ignorance of the law itself, but also shows just how much scorn you really have for people who are not like you.

There are logical reasons to prevent the above mentioned acts. There has never, and will never be a logical reason why SSM should be made illegal. Saying "God doesn't approve" is the same thing as saying "Santa doesn't approve".

The only thing this does open the door for is polygamy. Though not the type that Warren Jeffs practiced. Trying to marry off 14 year old girls is going to get you thrown in prison. If everyone involved is a consenting adult, and the children produced are being taken care of? Again I say... stay out of other peoples lives. You have no business enforcing your will on others. Look out for yours and let other people do the same.

to comment

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