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

Return to article »

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

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@zmillion2

"Government only has a hand in marriage because they want to make money."

Evidence to support this please.

"But marriage was not created by governments."

Marriage was not created, it pretty much happened on it's own. It has, over the centuries evolved from a strictly private/family thing to being recognized as a value to society by both churches and governments. It is managed and regulated by governments now, though.

"It was created by God"

Which ones?

Benedito
Beijing, PRC, 00

The problem is wider and deeper. Regulations and laws upholding such "same sex 'marriages'" actually mean the dilution and even extinction of the family, as defined. It also means further "advancements" in the near future, as soon as the growing generation passively accepts such unions. There will come other promiscuous arrangements, group marriages, marriages between humans and animals, etc., etc. It is part of a plan, which has been carefully engendered and activated for some 100 years now. As it comes in homeopathic doses, we tend to accept it as natural evolution of society. Well, we all know how the story will end, right?

Yorkshire
City, Ut

Eagle 78 said: "Politics should NOT be influenced by religious beliefs....Keep your practices, and beliefs to yourselves which is where they belong."

Can't the very same be said about gays, lesbians and SSM??

Politics should not be influenced by LGBT beliefs....Keep your practices and beliefs to yourselves which is where they belong.

David Lloyd-Jones
Toronto, 00

The Church's statement expresses the hope that the Supreme Court will "uphold" traditional marriage.

Nobody is questioning or attacking traditional marriage.

Thus "the Church," i.e. whoever crafted this rather foolish statement, is wrong to suggest by implication and misdirection that anyone is.

-dlj.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

HENELSON
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."

KJK
How about this version – "If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize MIXED RACE 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."

I guess Judge Kelly has some doubts about the Loving decision too. The South would have agreed with the latter version wholeheartedly. How is the logic and therefore the conclusion different between the two?

coltakashi
Richland, WA

Judges who claim that the Congress and state legislatures who created the 14th Amenment were contemplating overturning state constitutions upholding traditional marriage as the only form that would be recognized, are lying to us. They certainly did not see the 14th Amendment as overturning laws prohibiting polygamy, even though polygamy is a form of marriage that has been in continuous observance for thousands of years, including among the people who are honored in the Christian Bible as examples of godliness. That was made clear in US v Reynolds. How then could the 14th Amendment have intended to override state constitutions that drew the same line?

This ruling is profoundly an action of oligarchy overriding democracy. When judges depart from the law and claim power to throw out democracy, they have acted unlawfully, and we do not owe them obedience when they do so. Judges are not the guardians of democracy. The people are. The 10th Circuit has announced that government of the people by the people has now perished from the earth.

Gregg Weber
SEATTLE, WA

Someone says that a dog's tail is now a leg.
How many legs does the dog have?
What is the authority for that person to say that?
What is the highest authority in that matter?
What is that highest authority say about that matter?
When these can be answered in relation to this question then the matter will be basically settled.

RBB
Sandy, UT

I think the Church could see the writing on the wall long before most. It is not just about a gay couple being able to marry. (Honestly who cares?) It is about a gay couple being able to force others to participate in an event celebrating conduct which most major religions believe to be sinful. They will use the power of the state through anti-discrimination policies which are always applied in one direction. They can discriminate - we cannot.

In the UK an American minister was arrested for teaching that homosexuality if a sin. Bakers and photographers have been successfully sued for refusing to participate in gay marriages. There are even decisions against churches now for refusing to allow their property to be used for gay marriages because such marriages violate the teachings of that church.

In this country we have lost the right to not participate in something we find morally objectionable. The state can force us to participate at the cost of losing our businesses, property, etc. The left can force us to do what they think is right. Sounds like a plan I once heard about. I am sure they came from the same play book.

Kaladin
Northern, CO

@enfantanongrata - What in the world are you talking about? The LDS Church is not against adoption in any way shape or form. My dad and his siblings were adopted and never had any sort of lower standing in the Church because of it. Again, I have no idea what you are talking about

djofraleigh
raleigh, NC

Will those who support being able to marry whomever you love also allow those to love and marry more than one? Remember when Mormons in Utah first had the 'rules of marriage' forced on them?

to comment

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