Mormon Media Observer: Gay marriage debate shows threat to religious freedom

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Marsha N. SANDY, UT
    July 13, 2011 10:25 a.m.

    The gay rights movement certainly has its sights on the temple because of the eternal principle of families and personal progression to exaltation taught there. Were they to succeed it would set the world back to the dark ages when mankind had no concept of a higher existence than pawns and power. Existentialism has never produced a civilization much higher than animal instincts. Christianity has raised the hope of all mankind to a kinder, gentler existence. And the hope of eternal families is the capstone of Christianity.

    July 11, 2011 10:34 a.m.

    It is laughable that I ever seriously thought the Mormon Church and its "news" organ might really allow an open and fair dialogue on this issue. I returned here after receiving an email that my initial comment attracted 11 "recommendations" for being "particularly insightful or enlightening," and inviting me to "continue to participate in the dialogue."

    I have now failed in at least five attempts to respond to a direct personal attack ridiculing me as "uninformed."

    In response to vague, emailed form-letter "guidelines," I can state that my careful response never used vulgar or offensive language, and was precisely on-topic. I excised anywhere I might have violated terms with capital letters or multiple punctuation (even though I was allowed to use it in my initial post). Where I mentioned a brand name, I excised it. I am not directly addressing or aiming to provoke any particular reader by name. Still, my comment is "denied" for no apparent, valid reason.

    It is abundantly clear to me that this articles real purpose was merely to provoke by using "gay" and "threat" in the same headline, and not allow reasoned responses to this ridiculous, sky-is-falling "essay."

  • timpClimber Provo, UT
    July 10, 2011 6:38 p.m.

    The unceasing negative campaigns against those with differing views on homosexuality will not be happy until they have rewritten and edited the scriptures to support their views. It does not matter to them that their way of life is clearly called sinful in the scriptures by God, Jesus and the prophets. As my dad used to say; just because you can do it doesn't make it just or right.

  • LeftBehind SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    July 10, 2011 3:09 a.m.

    Could someone please give me an example of a another historical movement they admire that predicates its rights on the denial of those same rights to others?

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2011 5:01 p.m.


    "I'd call the hysteria being expressed here delusional, but let's call it for what it really is: LYING. Pure and simple. When that lying is done by an organ of an organized religion, that is truly despicable."

    A threat to religious freedom is real, and the nation's top law school, Harvard Law, allowed an analysis of that threat to be published in their journal. Read the 2007 Harvard Law publication "OR FOR POORER? HOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY".

    "delusional" and "LYING" are simply words used by the uninformed.

  • So-CalAggie Anaheim, CA
    July 9, 2011 9:12 a.m.

    The argument is a logical fallacy of the slippery-slope. "If we allow Gay's to marry, the next thing you know, they'll be suing to marry in our churches and temples." I believe this excuse is used as a "just" way of arguing why Gay's shouldn't marry without trying to sound un-compassionate or homophobic. There is no legal base for this argument, in fact quite the opposite. Churches have long been able to discriminate in many ways. Churches are not required to hire non-members or people not of their own faith. Churches can legally ex-communicate a member for virtually any reason. The boy scouts of America is a prime example, they won a legal battle to prohibit Atheists and Gay's to join. So you see, there is plenty of case law to back-up not allowing Gay's to marry in LDS Temples and other "holy places" as those organizations see fit. The argument that the government allowing Gay's to marry is like arguing that because cigarets and booze is legal, that people might be bringing those things into the Temple as well, and therefore they should be banned everywhere as a result.

  • LeftBehind SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    July 9, 2011 7:44 a.m.

    So if all churches cannot agree on whether or not homosexuals can marry, than NO churches should allow homosexuals to marry? Is this the way we guarantee religious freedom?

    I don't see the Catholic Church being compelled by law to marry divorced couples.

    To be clear, I don't think the law should require any church to marry homosexuals. Neither do I think than anyone should say their own rights are jeopardized by granting those same rights to others.

  • Hawkyo SYRACUSE, UT
    July 8, 2011 9:57 p.m.

    CHristy 9:10
    I think you mistook "progress" for "regress" What the world is becoming is not progress. ALthough, if EVIL like this continues on its current course and speed, it can only bring the Savior here to set things right for a final time. BOy will he be disappointed at those who support and encourage evil. He probably won't be too happy with those who stood by and let this happen either.

  • Hawkyo SYRACUSE, UT
    July 8, 2011 9:19 p.m.

    LDS4gaymarriage, the very sad and scary thing is you either don't care about, or don't realize the REAL EVIL that is connected with the group you are supporting. Being gay doesn't make you evil, but there is true evil at the basis of this movement. You affiliate with groups that are definitely not in harmony with the gospel.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    July 8, 2011 9:10 p.m.

    @Globetrecker -

    Throughout history, people like you have tried, and failed, to throw a wrench into the wheel of progress. To get so worked up over something that personally affects you, nor harms you in ANY way, is really sad. It's a waste of your energy and time. Of course, so is it a waste of mine trying to convince you of that.

  • Globetrecker Arlington, va
    July 8, 2011 2:59 p.m.

    The issue is not really about the legality of same sex relationships as much as the legitimizing in the public mind the "normalcy" of homosexuality. Let us be quite clear, homosexuality only barely exists in a tiny proportion of the population; homosexuality is intrinsically dysfunctional and deviant (deviant as in deviating off the norm).

    Do we want to be manipulated by a small number of disordered people or put our energies into supporting the basis of society - the family consisting of one man and one woman.

    The gays are certainly making enemies on this one, the claws come out when people disagree that their sexuality is not normal. Never has been. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    July 8, 2011 2:02 p.m.

    To firstamendment | 12:15 p.m. July 8, 2011

    You said: "They don't need to announce sexuality."

    My answer:

    When my husband (of almost 42 years) and I walk hand-in-ha­nd, or with our arms around each other's waists or kiss (chastely), or when we talk about our children and grandchild­ren, or where we are going on vacation as a family, we are publically declaring that we are straight. When I have a picure of my husband and family on my desk at work, I am publically declaring that we are straight. When my husbnad and I attend company parties or clients' parties together, and introduce each other as spouses, we are publically declaring that we are straight. Those are just a few of myriad examples concerning how my husband and I declare publically that we are straight. Are you claiming that I am out-of-lin­e for doing so? That I don't need to "announce my sexuality?"

    Sorry -- you're the one who is out of line for seeking to deny gay couples the right to do the above-refe­renced things that my husband and I do as a mater of course.

    July 8, 2011 12:33 p.m.

    Tell me true, Mormon Church and Deseret News: How do you get from this..."The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong" this inflammatory headline: "Gay marriage debate shows threat to religious freedom"??? This is called fear mongering by an organized religion.

    The Mormon Church, through its extension the Deseret News, chooses fear-mongering over human respect and compassion. I say again, this statement is unequivocal: "The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong."

    I'd call the hysteria being expressed here delusional, but let's call it for what it really is: LYING. Pure and simple. When that lying is done by an organ of an organized religion, that is truly despicable.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    July 8, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    My family is also multiracial. We agree with the vast majority of blacks that gay marriage is not a right and comparing sexual preference to race is offensive.
    Gays vote, work, are protected, etc.

    They don't need to announce sexuality.

    Extreme activists are powerful enough to scare normal gays, and are often the antithesis of Civil Rights. They bully religious minorities, "vilified" blacks for overwhelming support of 08 (before focusing attacks on less popular Mormons), override voting rights, refuse rights of the religious to be involved in decisions affecting our children, hide truths about homosexuality etc.

    We can't throw Mormons off bridges and exterminate anymore (although some activists call for it) but "Special Interest Mafias" manipulate media (read Crafting Gay Children), threaten APA (see Former APA President Supports NARTH's Mission Statement, Assails APA's Intolerance of Differing Views (he is gay)), litigate against free speech and call centers, overturn constitutions, mock minorities in musicals, BigLove etc, promote hatred, fire based on religious beliefs, and admittedly terrorize (imitation anthrax, rocks etc) etc.

    Worse, activists increase the destruction of marriages through promoting abandonment of heterosexual spouses for homosexuality.

    Voting and safety are rights.

    Marrying everyone isn't.

    Keeping heterosexual marriage sacred preserves America.
    : )

  • dice1899 West Jordan, UT
    July 8, 2011 11:08 a.m.

    @Bill McGee

    Elder Oaks is a former state Supreme Court judge with decades of Constitutional law scholarship behind him. He was on the shortlist of possible USSC nominees for a decade, under two different Presidents, before he was called to the Apostleship. He also clerked for USSC Justice Earl Warren. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure he's more than a little better versed in what the Constitution guarantees than you are.

    July 8, 2011 11:01 a.m.

    honestly, many of you are seriously delusional. You think that a country populated by, governed by, and completely controlled by an overwhelming majority of Christians is going to be forced by a tiny percentage of the population to teach homosexuality in your churches and turn your schools into homo factories or something.

    yet you don't hesitate to demand legislation to tell them what they can't do, or to prevent other people from getting abortions, or to stop doctors from developing cures for diseases using stem cells.

    hypocrisy and lunacy.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2011 9:15 a.m.

    Utah Blue Devil,

    Civil Rights are not only for race, age, disability or other overt signs of being different. They also are for differences that can be hidden, such as religion. Any citizen is protected from being discriminated against because of their religion here in the good ol' USA. I guess you could argue that no one needs to know about your religion, so it shouldn't be protected, but, like sexual orientation, it is part of who a person is. It is a choice that a person makes but is still protected.

    "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," Coretta Scott King. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

  • Al in SoCal BURBANK, CA
    July 8, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    I love everyone saying "just hide it" so then you won't be beaten, taunted, harassed, picked on - even murdered. First off, the rights. That's the ticket that gays are looking for. We certainly are not asking nor do we care about you "accepting and approving" our relationships. Honestly I could care less what you think about it. Secondly, as to hiding it. It's quite obvious many of you have never had a water cooler conversation at work: "what did you do this weekend". A question as simple as this. Pictures at your desk. You can have your wife's picture, or your husband's picture but what you're asking us to do is stuff all that in a drawer, and lie to your coworkers about who you really are. No wait, then when it all comes out you proclaim your disgust at our propensity for lying. Truly hypocritical ....

  • Al in SoCal BURBANK, CA
    July 8, 2011 9:02 a.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil: "A gay child can go through school - picked upon if they choose to disclose their preferences - but they have a choice"


    Scary, you don't even condemn the bullying. Blame the victim. Sad ...

  • Al in SoCal BURBANK, CA
    July 8, 2011 8:56 a.m.


    Being a bonfide member of the "gay rights" team let me first say 99% of us don't care if churches don't want us to get married in your churches - all we want are the rights afforded by marriage.

    What happened here is that the churches went too far in trying to restrict gays, and then (yes you know it's true) even saying gays were unfit parents. Truly sad and not inline with the religious values you espouse on this board.

    Why shouldn't a woman be able to sponsor her same-sex partner for immigration purposes? Why shouldn't a man be able to visit his partner in the hospital, make decisions for him, and if he should happen to die receive the survivor benefit from social security or federal pension if there is one?

    For all the talk and judgements everyone is doing here on this board, we all know there is only one true judge of right and wrong and sorry but you are not it.

  • DoubleJay LONGVIEW, WA
    July 8, 2011 2:42 a.m.

    ~shrugs~ I don't know what this guy's problem is... He just found a soap box to stand upon. I personally don't see how being able to "choose any church or temple" would be considered all the "bells and whistles" of marriage. You can have a very nice ceremony pretty much anywhere you like (aside from those few sacred buildings) and have an independent pastor preside over the wedding (in the lucky states that are now starting to allow same-sex marriage at all).
    I am gay, I was raised LDS, and I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to enact a same-sex marriage in the temple, or any other church that didn't support my decision... I personally wouldn't feel comfortable. but I guess that's just me...

    July 8, 2011 1:07 a.m.

    Ridiculous. Gay Marriage does NOTHING to religious "freedom". At no point ever is any religion forced to marry gay people. And in fact, religions are fully 100% free to argue that Gay Marriage is against their teaching and immoral. Nothing about about a government's willingness to recognize a marriage performed by a County Clerk impacts religious freedom in any way. All religions are free to reject gay marriage if they chose. Noting about the government forces them to do otherwise.

  • Dolmance LIVINGSTON, MT
    July 7, 2011 11:38 p.m.

    Churches already have all the right in the world to deny performing marriages to whomever they want for whatever reason they want, or no reason at all. And so, this article about gay marriage being a threat to religious freedom is pure unadulterated drivel.

  • Civil Rights SANTA ROSA, CA
    July 7, 2011 11:35 p.m.

    @loaf said,
    The reason why so many came to this nation was FOR religious freedom. We have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, just as you have the right to believe otherwise
    But you are trying to prevent mainstream churches and synagogues from exercising their beliefs. You have the right, under the 1st amendment, to restrict religious marriages in your church, not his or mine.
    You can believe anything you want. Civil marriage equality won't change that.
    I've been with my wife for over 20 years and frankly I would be outraged if someone had prevented, interfered with, or destroyed our marriage. That is what you are doing to the many good couples I know. Please forgive them if they occasionally lose their temper.

  • ThosB ALMA, MI
    July 7, 2011 9:51 p.m.

    In my church (Roman Catholic) marriage is not a right, it is a holy sacrament. To speak of marriage as a right is to regard it only in a civil context, not a religious one. I believe I speak for most Christian churches when I say the church draws its authority for celebrating the sacrament of marriage through sacred scripture. There is no authorization found in sacred scripture for performing a "gay marriage," hence it cannot be done. The church has no authority to perform such a ceremony. There is no way it could be valid. Legislatures can pass laws, but there is no way they can write new scripture. God loves gay people. People who love God, love gay people. Love or hate are not the issues here. Proper authority is. God ordained marriage in scripture as a covenant between man and woman. This is in accord with His purpose for marriage as the foundation of family life, and especially for the care and nurture of His divine creation, His children, who need both a father and a mother, united in holy sacrament. This is integral to the meaning purpose of the estate of matrimony.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 7, 2011 7:45 p.m.

    Lane - you clearly didn't understand. No one is saying this issue at the topic level is not about civil rights..... but the "civil rights movement" was something much greater.

    A black child could not hide his or her blackness - and was legally prevented from attend schools with white kids in his or her town.

    A gay child can go through school - picked upon if they choose to disclose their preferences - but they have a choice. Black children had no choice.

    Black men were prevented from holding most any decent job, by virtue only of their skin color, something they could not choose to disclose or not. Gays have never faced this same immediate judgement - they could chose not to disclose their views.

    As an LDS, you can have gay feelings, but so long as you didn't act on them, you could enjoy all the blessings of the temple. A black man had no such option, regardless of actions.

    What those you quote are talking about is something quit different. Most of the gays around you, you have no idea who they are, as it should be. It is their personal life. "Blackness" is more obvious.

    Its at deeper level.

  • loaf Boise, ID
    July 7, 2011 5:22 p.m.


    Ironic that you mention freedom and clamming up in the same breath. The reason why so many came to this nation was FOR religious freedom. We have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, just as you have the right to believe otherwise.

  • mgr63 DALLAS, TX
    July 7, 2011 2:51 p.m.

    I'm am so grateful that our country is getting closer to affording freedom for all. The religious zealots need to clam up or leave this nation.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 2:24 p.m.

    Herbal Tea Partier | 12:24 p.m. July 7, 2011
    Kearns, UT
    I believe in gay marriage--a happy marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and is a big tool of satan to destroy the family.


    Tell that to the child that a gay couple adopted because no one else wanted him. Tell him that if his parents are allowed to marry and be able to provide the most stable environment that government can offer for him to be raised in - it will only allow Satan to destroy other families.

    He will look at you like I do and say you have absolutely no proof that it will do anything but be a boon to those who want to bind their partner and children together legally. Look at MA. Seven years of gay marriages and still the lowest state in the nation for divorce. Where is your proof that same-sex marriages will destroy marriage? I think it will just add another layer of success on the word "marriage."

    If you enjoy this legal benefit, why shouldn't this family?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 2:10 p.m.

    SoCalChris | 1:55 p.m. July 7, 2011
    Riverside, CA
    Marriage has always been a union of opposite sexes throughout all of recorded history, throughout the entire world.


    You need to read history a little bit more and make sure that what you have been told is the truth.

    Gays married in China, and Rome. This is not the first time in the history of the world that this has happened. Read the history of marriage. It might surprise you.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 2:08 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil | 11:42 a.m. July 7, 2011
    Durham, NC
    Civil Rights - as the parent of a multi-ratial family, I am really tired of the Gay crowd comparing themselves with the civil rights movement. While at the subject line, the issues look the same, the impact and implications are completely different.


    Many in the black community disagree with you, ie, Coretta Scott King, Mildred Loving, Al Sharpton, and Julian Bond for example.

    "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I dont think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some peoples religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies peoples civil rights." Mildred Loving

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    July 7, 2011 1:55 p.m.

    Marriage has always been a union of opposite sexes throughout all of recorded history, throughout the entire world. I find it amazing that the argument is now gaining so much traction that this definition has actually been about bigotry and discrimination all along. Only now have we reached such a degree of enlightenment that we can declare that, of course, gender is irrelevant to marriage? Sorry I don't buy it.

    I'm in favor of domestic partnership laws. My heart goes out to gay people. I can't imagine being told I should change my sexual orientation. It must make life difficult to be inclined to homosexuality. But I stop short of saying that there is no legal or moral difference between a gay union and a traditional marriage.

    Society has every right to recognize that there are important differences in the sexes and give special recognition to the age old institution of marriage.

  • Herbal Tea Partier Kearns, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:24 p.m.

    I believe in gay marriage--a happy marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and is a big tool of satan to destroy the family.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    July 7, 2011 12:11 p.m.

    I repeat that I love my wonderful gay family members, friends, coworkers and all.

    Love for gays and all requires that we speak out against legally binding into homosexuality.

    Bullying is repeatedly denounced.

    The arguments presented to support gay marriage are misinforming, and others (even pedophiles) use similar unsound arguments to support many harmful things (claiming it hurts no one, they were born that way, comparing opposition to racism, etc see narth "On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known").

    Gay marriage is no more necessary than polygamy currently is, most gays do not want to marry, and research indicates gay marriage is harmful, gays are not born gay, traditional parents are better for children, and many gays can change (although if they do not change we still love them, but I am very much opposed to mainstreaming homosexuality, teaching children it is normal and as sacred as heterosexual relationships. I oppose those assaulting gays and gays attacking religious minorities and faith, controlling the APA and media, pressuring politicians, trying to shut down narth, and blaming others for homosexual problems such as suicide, violence, addiction etc).

    See my comments on previous pages for studies, research, references.

  • spaghetti Boise, ID
    July 7, 2011 11:56 a.m.

    @ Christy OR

    I am by far not perfect, but try to teach my children to love everyone, no matter who they are or what they choose. I hate bullying. It's wrong to hate another human being.

    But it's also wrong to teach them that sin is okay and that it hurts no one. Race isn't a choice. CHOOSING to ACT on homosexual urges is a BEHAVIOR that is morally wrong. (I know others disagree with this and they have that right).

    It is not accurate for you to accuse those who oppose homosexual marriage as being automatically bigoted or hateful. I am neither.

    I realize some feel they are born this way. I believe they have urges that are unbidden. But I think every human being has urges that aren't good, that if acted on not only harm themselves and loved ones but society in general. IMO I think every human being has heart-rending challenges that we go through in this life and we should help one another.

    But love isn't always just smiling and saying anything goes. Love has limits to help us be happy in the long run, even though challenging in short terms.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 7, 2011 11:42 a.m.

    Civil Rights - as the parent of a multi-ratial family, I am really tired of the Gay crowd comparing themselves with the civil rights movement. While at the subject line, the issues look the same, the impact and implications are completely different.

    A gay person can go about their business never having to disclose their preferences in life. It need not impact one item of their lives, if they so choose. On the other hand, a black person can't hide their blackness... the judgement is instance without any other ques.

    Do all people deserve the right to be treated fairly, absolutely. I support many peoples rights to believe and act as they will so long as they don't try to dictate to me how I should feel or believe. So in that sense, I see gay marriage as a protected right - eventually.

    But please don't go down the road that you all suffered the same as those who were held in bondage, with no rights, for generations. It is an order of magnitude different. It would be likewise if gays tried to compare themselves to european jews.

    I wish all people would keep their love life choices private.

  • Resistance Lehi, UT
    July 7, 2011 11:33 a.m.

    I agree.

    Comparing homosexuality to race is wrong.

    And, children need parents of both genders. Legitimate research supports this.

    Also we should love gays but can't justify homosexual marriage with claims that animals do it, thus it is natural. Animals do many things that we should not do, they practice cannibalism, and eat waste, these things may be "natural" but are unnatural for intelligent cultured societies.

    I know activists frequently claim that animals are gay, but I've never seen a strictly homosexual animal. I've seen bisexual animals, but I don't believe bisexuals are seeking marriage are they? But has anyone seen a strictly homosexual female cat that engages only in sexual activity with other female cats and maintains a long term relationship worthy of marriage?

  • Civil Rights SANTA ROSA, CA
    July 7, 2011 11:23 a.m.

    On gay marriage:
    "Make no mistake: This is an argument about the socialization of homosexuality, not the homosexualization of society. It demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays."

    Some religions get it. Some don't.
    The ones that do are the same ones that supported civil rights when it mattered.

    Unitarians and reform Jews were martyred in the South while others spouted nonsense about blacks having damaged souls to child and adult alike. The people who believed this nonsense were not evil. They were misled.

    There are tens of thousands of teens that are assaulted because they are gay. I haven't heard of those religious leaders lifting a finger to discourage bullies.

    Worse, some followers spread blood libel putting gays in the same category as child molesters, etc. My survey of headlines show more opposite-sex child rape than homosexual. No one should conflate pedophile behavior with hetero or gays. The core of morality is that individuals are responsible for their behavior and to bear false witness against people is bad. 9 out of the ten commandments is not good enough.

  • spaghetti Boise, ID
    July 7, 2011 11:06 a.m.

    @ alt1234

    "all you people against gay marriage would realize you're using the same arguments as those against interracial marriage used."

    Please someone explain logically how the color of someones skin is akin to a person's sexual preference. I don't see how they are related. As far as I understand, those who are gay HAVE civil rights- can have civil unions and the benefits that come with that. It seems that what is wanted is approval of their BEHAVIOR. Race isn't behavior, it just is.

    @ Pagan

    "However, since heterosexual couples are NOT held to the very same ideal (creation of children) that some wish to use as justification to deny gay marriage...?"

    You are missing the point- being that a homosexual union does not have even the POSSIBILITY of creating life. This isn't a punishment, but is the way things are DESIGNED. A heterosexual marriage has the POSSIBILITY of creating life, even though individual situations vary.

    Yes, there is divorce/abuse and things that should not be in heterosexual unions. But that's not an excuse to justify sexual behavior that is wrong. Children need a Mother and Father.

  • spaghetti Boise, ID
    July 7, 2011 10:40 a.m.

    charlie 91342

    "Since most mammal species have a gay population, I don't understand why you don't think it is a normal occurence."

    So we should start acting like animals? Just because someone has urges does not mean those cravings are morally right. That doesn't mean the person is bad, but it also does not mean that we should just think that any urge or feeling we have is okay and that we should justify or act on it.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    July 7, 2011 9:40 a.m.

    Homosexuality disgusts me. So do alcoholism, obesity, MLMs, used car salesmen, atheists, people who like rap music, and people who don't clean out their refrigerators regularly, not to mention people who get grotesque body piercings and tattoos.

    But that isn't the point. This isn't about what I find disgusting. It isn't about what a majority might find disgusting or "unnatural". From an evolutionary perspective, monogamy and fidelity are "unnatural", as are wearing suits and ties to Church.

    But people who do "disgusting" things are still Americans. They should have every right to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. They should be treated as equals under the laws of this land, not segregated and separated into second-class status.

    I will continue to support equality in the exercise of the legal rights associated with marriage, for ALL US citizens. I strongly encourage my fellow Latter-day Saints to stand up for the principles of liberty and equality upon which this country is built.

    If you do not, the day may come when you are deprived of liberty and equality, and who will stand with you then?

    I give same-sex couples benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

  • Mr.Glass Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2011 9:24 a.m.

    Someone posted the following: "The next step is to bring legal action against any church which teaches the practice of homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God." Given that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps homophobic hate demonstrations at funerals, I think the poster's opinion is not supported by any substance. Free speech is strong in America. If you want to say hateful things about gays, you are person without character, but it's your right.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    July 7, 2011 8:02 a.m.

    Hawkeye79 | 9:27 a.m. July 6, 2011

    This is the difference when it comes to differentiating between different groups -

    Unlike LGBT people, polygamous groups are not born polygamous neither do they claim to be. Neither are people who enter into incestuous relationships.

    How is that deceiving? You are widening an argument with premises that are never made.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 6, 2011 9:32 p.m.

    Hey Jeff, Temple City

    What is being taught in LA School District?

    Are you suggesting every school in the district is teaching the same thing? How would you know?

    BTW, there are over 50 high schools in LAUSD.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    July 6, 2011 8:59 p.m.

    Jeff | 4:20 p.m. July 6, 2011

    The issue is not the quality of individuals, but the definition of the core of humanity.


    What is the 'core of humanity'? The family, I'm assuming you'd say, and I'll agree. I know you don't think that gay people were born and raised in gay families. Gay people aren't some new species, it isn't some new 'trend'. Gay people have ALWAYS been a part of the 'core of humanity', part of a family, just like you and me, and they ALWAYS will be a part of the 'core of humanity', just like you and me. My daughter, or your son, say they were gay. Are they not a part of the 'core of humanity'?

    Gay people make up about 4% of society, always have. I'd hardly call that the ability to knock the 'core of humanity' off it's over-populated axis. Hardly. These people are A PART of our families, of our core - they are our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, daughters and sons, NOT just 'acquaintances' held at arm's length.

    How can you look them in the face and tell them they don't deserve the happiness you enjoy?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 6, 2011 8:08 p.m.

    BobP.... I agree with you... not a fan of gay marriage. But that is not the point. The point is does the government have a place in decided what kind of relationship two consenting adults can have. As a point of law, on a constitutional basis, this will ultimately end in a decision that the government does not have the right to decide who gets to love who - male or female, white or non-white.

    That doesn't mean you can't teach your kids that you don't accept that life style - choice or predisposition.

    You can't be for a limited small government and at the same time feel government has the right to decided who falls in love with whom, or what people do in their own privacy. It just doesn't work.

    I personally cherish my freedoms, and the price I have to pay for that, is equally granting others freedoms to believe in things I do not. It secures the freedom of conscience for all of us.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    July 6, 2011 7:33 p.m.

    Like the Energizer Bunny the gay marriage debate keeps going and going . . .

    Gay marriage is simply wrong and an endorsement of a gay lifestyle as normal, which it is not.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 6, 2011 7:15 p.m.

    The Deseret News is way out of line here. You've completely taken the Time Magazine article out of context. You left out these important lines:

    "The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here, we will have to continue to march in parades"

    The article does not advocate forcing churches to marry gay people. It points out the obvious and that is that laws do not change people's hearts. That has to come through patience and education.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    July 6, 2011 7:06 p.m.

    I'll second what mcbillay posted. The New York law has religious exemptions included and it's already been well established that no religious group will be forced to perform or recognize any same-sex union (Not the ones that don't take government money, anyway.) No LDS temple will ever have to perform a gay wedding.

    This is about your own bigotry, pure and simple.

    (And why does the DN keep picking at this topic over and over again? Guess it's easier to keep playing the victim than having to deal with something that actually matters...)

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    July 6, 2011 4:20 p.m.

    @ a number of questioners: I know what is taught in the LA Unified School District about homosexuality because I've witnessed it first hand. I know about the increase in same-sex relationships among latino girls in LA because I've witnessed it. I know about recruiting done by homosexuals because I've witnessed it.

    The question of rights being taken away from homosexuals is a euphemism for a non-existent right that was never granted and would not be granted by most homosexuals: the right for anyone to marry the person they love. This is not a right, nor should it be. Most homosexuals would not grant the rights for incestuous couples or couples with an underage partner or even larger groups to marry. The line is being drawn at perversion of natural sexuality.

    @ Christy in Oregon: I'm not sure why you would assume that opposition to same-gender marriage is simply arising from not knowing enough gay couples. It is possible to have a vast acquaintance with homosexuals (both positive and negative) and still be adamant that marriage remain between men and women. The issue is not the quality of individuals, but the definition of the core of humanity.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    July 6, 2011 3:22 p.m.

    re - Jeanie b. | 3:09 p.m

    tell that to the 4% of the entire animal population that is gay. And tell it to your God that created man (and gays) in His image.

  • Jeanie b. Orem, UT
    July 6, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    GLobetrecker - no flack here. I agree with you.

    Setting religion aside, anatomy does not support the normalcy of same sex unions. That is not something any law can change.

  • ClarkKent Bountiful, Utah
    July 6, 2011 3:03 p.m.

    To be honest, what is at issue here is possibly the tax exempt status of some religions. Let's just be honest about that.

  • MormonDemocrat Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2011 2:58 p.m.

    So, assuming, as the gay writer in Time magazine clearly states, that (most) gay people are not trying to force churches to perform gay marriages if they do not want to, how is gay marriage by another church or by the state, a threat to religious freedom? I understand the argument that it is a threat to the institution of marriage or to the family. But, religious freedom? If no one is telling your church what to do?

  • Globetrecker Arlington, va
    July 6, 2011 2:49 p.m.

    Same Sex Unions are un-natural. We were NOT designed to propagate our species by having sex with someone of the same sex. What people do in their own bedrooms is their business, I have no problem with that, but Homosexuality should not be paraded as normal. Men are NOT designed to have sex with men, just as women are not designed to have sex with women. The world has gone PC mad, it now seems to be a proud moment when announcing to the world, one is Homosexual.

    I know, I know, There are many out there who'll call me "homophobic", I accept that, as there is nothing wrong with being so. I guess I'll sit back now and dodge the flack! But, you did ask for comments.

  • MormonDemocrat Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2011 2:48 p.m.

    Lane is setting up and argument that is not really fair and not really there. Here is what Lane did not quote from what the gay writer said in Time Magazine: "The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong." I think his point is that all of us who belong to Churches that would not allow gay marriage should understand should be sensitive to the fact that such a doctrine/policy will always make gay members of those Churches feel like second class citizens. I think he is hoping for the day when all churches fully accept and recognize gay relationships. I am not saying that will ever or should ever happen, but Lane is setting up an argument that the writer clearly did not put forward. Probably to generate a lot of hysterical blog comments.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    July 6, 2011 12:46 p.m.

    There are many wonderful people who call themselves gay, but a few seek to control and alter the very fiber of our country, which is the family.

    As they do this they also sue to take rights of the religious minorities that they have long bullied, especially singling out Mormons (some of the activists commenting here are unmonitored on the Tribune and call for violence, to destroy Mormons, drive them into the ground, exterminate, bomb, and persist in name calling and defamation, etc.
    Nationally activists also manipulate media (read Crafting Gay Children), alter studies, even manipulate and intimidate the APA (the former APA president, who is gay, received a "warning" phone call from what he called the "special interest mafia," who seek to control therapists. His crime? He spoke the truth to narth, that gays can change. From Former APA President Supports NARTH's Mission Statement, Assails APA's Intolerance of Differing Views By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH)

    If the people dont vote their way, some activists will go above government by the People.

    For more info, check narth, Trayce Hansen, and many articles on the internet. Remember, many people at narth are truly wonderful gays.

  • Resistance Lehi, UT
    July 6, 2011 12:26 p.m.

    You have me thinking again, perhaps unintentionally.
    There are far more gays than Mormons, and gays and heterosexuals both defame, mock, harass, and even hate Mormons. They misrepresent us in musicals, TV big love, and other media. There is name-calling, portrayals of Mormons as bigots, uneducated,extremists, imbeciles with a persecution complex, blaming for national respect for marriage, and some even want to violently destroy Mormons.
    Mormons rarely get the love and media attention that gays do, not that gays dont deserve attention and love, yet Mormons have relatively low suicide rates and high happiness. So the habit of blaming Mormonism for gay depression (even justifying hating Mormons for it) is perhaps a form of bigotry itself.

    It is sad that heterosexual marriage is becoming less sacred. Homosexuals marrying will not cure this.
    Promotional studies are often used to support claims that gay parents are equal or better than traditional families, but more neutral research disagrees.

    Keeping heterosexual, adult, non incestuous marriage sacred is a "right." Polygamist, incestuous, gay, and child marriages are typically not necessary, and thus not a right.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    July 6, 2011 11:54 a.m.

    Pagan: Without verification, how can we know this was threats, or simply vilification?

    Response: Interesting that you want to minimize what gay activists say and do to simply vilification, but the gay activists immediately label anyone who says a negative word(no matter how true it is) about gays as hate speech, homophobic and bigotry.

    The quotes from the affidavits that are listed in the Motion for Summary Judgment are all documented and submitted to the Court. There are documented incidents of vandalism to houses of worship by gay activists, assault, hate speech and hate symbols painted on churches by gay activists.

    The Mormon church (just like most churches) is a cesspool of filth. It is a breeding ground for oppression of all sorts and needs to be confronted, attacked, subverted and destroyed.

    If you were afraid that your kids learning about homosexuals would corrupt them, you have no IDEA what Im going to do to them.

    Evidence of at least one physical assault against the thirteen year-old child of a prominent supporter

    Even more telling is the lack of public condemnation of these acts by gay activitst leadership

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    July 6, 2011 11:08 a.m.

    re - O'really | 8:40 p.m
    "yes some animals display gay behavior, but humans have a far superior brain with the ability to reason, and hopefully use restraint where necessary"

    why should gay people "restrain" from who they are? Your type has forced them to do that for 1000s of years and I guess they got tired of it. If gays were attracted to the opposite sex none of this would even be an issue.

    Haven't you noticed that many people you would never have thought were gay are now admitting it. Do you think they are just faking it? why should those people not be as happy as you are?

    re - Bill in Nebraska | 9:38 p.m

    Bill - do you understand how far-fetched your beliefs sound to the average person? and yet you would impose them on everyone on the planet. please try to be rational and stop saying your leaders talk to God and whatever they say is "sealed in heaven". I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but you simply sound like a crack-pot to us non-mormons. You need to use logic rather than trying to force your beliefs onto everyone.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    July 6, 2011 10:52 a.m.

    re - tonyloaf | 7:25 p.m
    "People are born without limbs too, but we don't consider it normal or desirable"

    then the question is - do you withold rights from those people just because they have no limbs? and no one said anything about desirable. Certainly it is more desirable to be born with limbs (or heterosexual, to get back to the subject). and being born with no limbs is a VERY rare occurance, while gays have been around since the beginning. In fact, prior civilizations found it to be perfectly normal and accepted, because they understood that some people are simply that way. Which is pretty smart considering they didn't have animal planet to watch and explain it to them (as you do).

    "All nature drives to reproduce"

    not true. gay animals don't try to reproduce - they are gay. And the only people that make constant reproduction a major part of their goal are religious people (muslims and mormons), the duggars, and octomom.

    "The homosexual life style is a rejection of procreation and is therefore both contrary to nature and antisocial."

    I would say continually pumping out massive qtys of children is about as anti-social as you can get.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    July 6, 2011 10:35 a.m.

    I am intrigued by the way worldviews of religious people (primarily LDS) are formed and maintained throughout life. It is fascinating to observe how the majority of LDS never question a word uttered by a living Prophet or Apostle. Being LDS my whole life I absolutely understand why that occurs but it is fascinating to notice how LDS opinions must fit with the current teachings and position of the Church.

    For me, this argument rests on the fact that I believe same sex atttraction is based on genetics. And for me that ends the debate. Because God would not create one of his children a certain way and then expect society to treat that person differently because of that. It is the reason I know the restriction of Priesthood blessings for black members was absolutely a MAN MADE policy.

    I knew the author, Lane Williams, growing up. Very nice guy. But I think we need to realize he writes for the purpose of defending the LDS Church. And he does a good job of that. But let's not pretend he is trying to impartially offer information for the reader to make an informed decision.

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    July 6, 2011 9:52 a.m.

    The underlying premise of this article is simply incorrect. In fact, the 45 words of the First Amendment do not anywhere guarantee, or even imply, special privileges to religions, any more than it guarantees them to the press, those who peaceably assemble, or those petitioning the government for redress of grievances. The freedoms to worship and speak and act are not listed to propose that certain groups should enjoy "special" rights, but are identified because those groups had been particularly oppressed in the past, and protecting these behaviors were of special concern to the Constitutional framers. I have the right to start or join a church, speak in public, write for a newspaper, peacefully protest, and sue the government, and neither churches nor the press enjoy "special" privileges over and above those I enjoy as a citizen.

    Unfortunately, Elder Oaks' assertion quoted in this article is consistent with his other public statements on this topic, which have overstated the rights of churches to behave in ways that the Constitution simply does not support. Basing an article on such a false premise is a slippery slope, and often promotes baseless speculation, prejudice, and fear where none is called for.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    July 6, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    For those who claim they are fighting for some kind of "universal rights,"

    While the euphemistic language sounds nice, I can't help but question whether that is truly what you're after. After all, those posters who call for "universal rights," but for only two people to be able to enter into the contract, are already excluding people of one preference from inclusion. Additionally, there are people with several other preferences who would not qualify for your "universal" approach.

    Bottom-line: At least present your position with honesty. There are several groups that you feel are not fit for marriage (those involved in incest, for example). Your approach is far from "universal" and is akin to fighting for equal rights for one race, but not another. You are deceiving yourself if you claim any more than simply serving a narrow interest group.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 6, 2011 9:19 a.m.

    Again and again we read the same old and tired arguments about the dangers of same sex marriage.

    Mr. Lane Williams and the DN are not only distorting the "intent" of the opinion of an unknown (at least to me) gay activist. But promoting incendiary feelings in the hearts of those who are already corrupted by fear, hate and bigotry.

    The Deseret News would do well in presenting all issues in a balanced manner. All issues have at least two sides. Present all sides and allow the reader draw its own conclusions.

    Of course, as is usual with organized religion, it is easier to give its followers information that is censored, and tailor made for their ears. After all they blindly in "their truth".

    One of the things I admired the LDS Church is the idea that "the glory of God is intelligence". Intelligence doesn't mean we have to be in agreement, it only means we can reach conclusions (although different) based on facts, analysis, objectivity and a desire to reach the truth regardless their consequences. We cannot achieve a healthy dialog if we come to the table with fears based on the differences of others.

    Journalist should inform.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    July 6, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    Bill - you appear confused again on what is and isn't revelation. It is typical for apologists like yourself to twist statements to fit your own agenda and opinions. You simply are trying to deceive by saying it is a revelation. I hardly think that god was required to "reveal" this proclamation to the twelve and the three, respectively. It simply is not the case.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 6, 2011 8:51 a.m.

    Jeff says:

    "...but it is well within our rights in this country (and other countries as well) to allow this proclamation to guide us in our actions and activities in elections."

    You have the right to vote any way you wish. What you do NOT have the right to do, even following your proclamation, is to DENY the rights that YOU possess to other individuals, even if you don't like them. Period. You do not have the right to vote on the rights of others.

    Bill in Nebraska says:

    'THE FAMILY: A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD.... but it is binding on you."

    Uhm, No. Your 'prophet' speaks for a fictional being, it is not binding on anybody, actually.

    UtahBlueDevil says :

    "If you want a Catholic wedding you live the Catholic standards. You want a Mormon or Jewish wedding, you live those life styles."

    I couldn't agree more.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 6, 2011 5:38 a.m.

    I don't agree with gay marriage, but I don't feel that the law should prohibit two adults from entering into a relationship of their free will. The is a big difference between constitutional law and religious law.

    That said, the idea that a group should have the ability to compel a private organization such as a church to conform to their way of thinking just because they want the benefits of association of that group without having to live their lives in agreement with the beliefs of that group is craziness. If you want a Catholic wedding you live the Catholic standards. You want a Mormon or Jewish wedding, you live those life styles. But you don't tell those groups to chance simply because you can't live their standards.

    If you think religion should be based on popular trends and beliefs, start you own or join one that shares your beliefs.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    July 6, 2011 12:33 a.m.

    Universal rights

    The City University of New York, among other nation's universities bring back to history a time in the 19th century when women had to subjugate to The Cult of Domesticity and True Womanhood. This was the "God" argument, which among other things, kept women from achieving full marriage rights equal to men, the right to own property, the right to vote, and the right to equal employment. Women were taught that the four "pillars of domesticity" were - piety, purity, submisiviness, and domesticity - all good traits - but in today's age - we call domesticity - if it is the woman's choice to stay at home.

    Similarly, advocates against marriage between races also used the "God" argument and such literature abounded in church circles as late as fifty years ago.

    Whose God are we talking about? Or was the rhetoric more in line to achieve political ends?

    Gays aren't anymore asking for "special rights" as much as for universal rights - and this country's constitution proves that it is a living and breathing constitution and that the essence of Thomas Jefferson's words "all men (and women) are created equal" was not, in fact, a reality, in 1776, but an ideal to work towards

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 5, 2011 11:07 p.m.

    I'm curious as to what you found so objectionable about the book "Molly's Family." The Midwest isn't usually thought of as the bastion of "liberal" values. Perhaps in Idaho your child won't have classmates like Molly, but I wonder what you would teach your child if he/she did have a classmate with 2 mommmies or 2 daddies. Would you forbid your child becoming friends with Molly? What would you do if your child was invited by Molly to come to her house to play?

    You've got to be taught
    To hate and fear,
    You've got to be taught
    From year to year,
    It's got to be drummed
    In your dear little ear
    You've got to be carefully taught.

    You've got to be taught to be afraid
    Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
    And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
    You've got to be carefully taught.

    You've got to be taught before it's too late,
    Before you are six or seven or eight,
    To hate all the people your relatives hate,
    You've got to be carefully taught!

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 11:07 p.m.

    The whole church doesn't have to approve revelation. It wasn't so with the revelation on pologamy. It wasn't so with the revelation on all worthy males getting the priesthood and it isn't so with the proclamation.

    KJK - Sorry Bill.

    "General conference convened on 4 October 1890, and on the third day, 6 October, Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, presented the Manifesto to the body of the Church. It was unanimously accepted." (Institute manual)

    "September 30, 1978, in General Conference by the common consent of the members of the Church. N. Eldon Tanner stated, "Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign." (Conference Report)

    The previouslt posted quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and Hugh B. Brown all show that Common Consent IS required to make ANY statement official and binding. Plenty of other First Presidency statements are ignored w/o any recission.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    July 5, 2011 9:38 p.m.

    To Kirkam: Sorry but not all revelations are given to the people for a vote. The President of the Church has the sealing power. Thus what he states is sealed in Heaven as well as on Earth. The Family - Proclamation on the family is binding to all of us. It was so because the brethern you speak of unitedly and unanimously signed the Proclamation. The vote was the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency. That is all that is required. The whole church doesn't have to approve revelation. It wasn't so with the revelation on pologamy. It wasn't so with the revelation on all worthy males getting the priesthood and it isn't so with the proclamation.

    It is binding to the world. It is binding to us as members of the Church and it will not be changed. The Lord has defined marriage and nothing man does will ever change that.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    July 5, 2011 9:36 p.m.

    I'll bet that those of you who'd like to see our society's laws based on the Bible are the same Constitution-lovers who wail and gnash about 'encroaching Sharia law'.

    I'll also bet that not a one of you strident 'traditional marriage' defenders, who are so afraid that a gay couple's marriage will erode your own, do not personally know any families with gay parents.

    My husband and I have been married 17 years. We have 2 kids.

    Our good friends, a lesbian couple together for 17 years, also have 2 kids. These women are two of the best parents I know, miles above and beyond some straight parents I know.

    There is nothing to fear. People don't want 'special rights', they want equal rights. That's it, nothing more.

    Those of you who 'teach' your children that it is wrong to be gay are no different than the people who taught their children that people of color were inferior. No different at all.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    July 5, 2011 8:40 p.m.

    @ my slc

    OH how clever to check up on me. First of all, my family moved to Idaho only recently. The book was checked out at a public school library in the midwest. The book wasn't the one you talk about about. It was "Molly's Family". When I complained to the librarian that I thought it crossed a moral line and that parents should be able to approve the book before it's sent home from school with a 6 yr old, I was given such a run around with forms to fill out and official complaints to send to the city school board, I gave up. Not because I didn't care, but because school was ending in a week and we were moving to Idaho. I wish I had inserted my own "review" of the book before returning it to the library to at least warn other parents of it's content.

    @ charlie91342 yes some animals display gay behavior, but humans have a far superior brain with the ability to reason, and hopefully use restraint where necessary. Also, there is no evidence to a genetic link for homosexuality. No parent is to blame unless they teach it by example.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 8:12 p.m.

    let me give my 2 cent's worth.

    tooelemommyof5 - lds4gaymarriage: you are severely mistaken. Getting married in an LDS temple is absolutely recognized and you do not need to be married in city hall or have a public ceremony first.

    KJK - You misunderstood his point. LDS4 was saying that if the courts forced those authorized to perform state-reconized marriages to perform gay marriages, the Church could simply refuse to perform legally recognized marriages in the temple and LDS here would be like those elsewhere who get married at city hall and THEN are sealed in the temple. If temple sealings aren't legally recognized, gays have now legal cause to demand them.

    tonyloaf - @lds4gaymarriage: "Again, this so-called nightmare won't happen because the citizens won't allow it and would pass a constitutional amendment to prevent it."

    LDS4 - "We already have a constitutional amendment protecting religious freedom. If the one we have doesn't protect freedom of belief and practice what makes you think another one will. "

    KJK - They one we have now is very vague/ambiguous. Any new one would be VERY specific and therefore VERY effective.

    There is NO WAY gay marriages are going to performed in the temple.

  • tonyloaf New York, NY
    July 5, 2011 7:25 p.m.

    @lds4gaymarriage: "Again, this so-called nightmare won't happen because the citizens won't allow it and would pass a constitutional amendment to prevent it."

    We already have a constitutional amendment protecting religious freedom. If the one we have doesn't protect freedom of belief and practice what makes you think another one will.

  • tonyloaf New York, NY
    July 5, 2011 7:13 p.m.

    @charlie91342 Sylmar, CA: "Since most mammal species have a gay population, I don't understand why you don't think it is a normal occurence [sic]."

    People are born without limbs too, but we don't consider it normal or desirable. All nature drives to reproduce. The homosexual life style is a rejection of procreation and is therefore both contrary to nature and antisocial.

  • tooelemommyof5 TOOELE, UT
    July 5, 2011 6:52 p.m.

    lds4gaymarriage: you are severely mistaken. Getting married in an LDS temple is absolutely recognized and you do not need to be married in city hall or have a public ceremony first. You have to have a marriage certificate, that's it. You bring the certificate to the temple, they perfom the marriage, sign the certificate and you are legally and lawfully wedded. You may get married civilly first, if you are not worthy to enter the temple, then go back and get sealed later.

  • New Yorker Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 5, 2011 6:44 p.m.

    This is certainly one of those culture wars issues that it seems almost impossible to debate. No one is talking about the same thing. I believe we need a new paradigm for addressing these very hard issues in a productive manner. Traditional debate, politics, and war aren't cutting it. We need our brightest and best to focus on new ways to address these tough ones--not just choosing up sides and brawling as I see here.

  • my slc Newport Beach, CA
    July 5, 2011 6:31 p.m.

    O'really | 1:24 p.m. July 5, 2011

    I am questioning your statement that your kindergarten daughter checked out "Heather has two Mommies, at the school library!

    I checked the catalog at the Idaho Falls Library and it is not listed there. Unless your elementary school is extremely progressive (which I doubt) they don't carry it either.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 5:47 p.m.

    standfan - " word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled. Wheather by my own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. .."

    "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as a revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."
    Harold B. Lee

    Bill - "Since, the First Presidency and the Quroum of the Twelve signed the proclamation, it makes it binding.."

    "..(Something) does not become binding ...until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people."
    Hugh B. Brown

  • Resistance Lehi, UT
    July 5, 2011 5:21 p.m.

    It's not just the right to practice religion freely that some seek to take, they also are trying to keep the religious from voting, donating, being politically active etc.

    They have been attacking religion in general since long before prop08.

    It really bothered me when Elder Oaks was voted "worst person" by the Tribune after speaking out for religious rights and mentioning the intimidation tactics going down. I didn't know at the time that the Trib is very much involved in misinforming us about homosexuality.

    After hearing Elder Oaks speak I began educating myself about these issues, and it is apparent that activists aren't seeking for "Rights" or "truth" but for power. They actually threaten those who speak the truth.

    There are some very interesting articles on narth showing the tactics of these activists.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    July 5, 2011 4:49 p.m.


    It took me all of 60 seconds to find a PDF copy of the Motion for Summary Judgment, so I dont know that the problem is. Perhaps this will help Case 3:09-cv-05456-BHS Document 209 Filed 06/29/11. This is a legitimate legal document that clearly spells out a pattern of threats, hatred and vandalism by gay activists against those who do not agree with SSM and most particularly against religions.

    Pagan: "You also say the Los Angeles Times reported those quotes...

    Response: I made an error, the article and quote are from the New York Times and not the LA Times. Here is the article

    Prop 8 Donor Web Site Shows Disclosure Law Is 2-Edged Sword New York Times Brad Stone February 7, 2009

    Here is another article on the subject of the hate displayed by gay activists

    John Diaz, The Ugly Backlash Over Proposition 8, S.F. Chronicle., Nov. 23, 2008,

    From the days of Stone wall the gay agenda has been to attack on three fronts: repeal all laws prohibiting homosexual sexual relations, force psychaitry to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and to pressure and intimidate religions.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    July 5, 2011 4:44 p.m.

    I suggest many of you go and read an article written by Henry B Eyring of the First Presideny written in 1998, three years after THE FAMILY: A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD.

    First he states that it is written to the WORLD. That means every living soul who lives or will live on the Earth since it was given. Secondly, that only the President of the Church is authorized to speak for the Lord where this is concerns. Since, the First Presidency and the Quroum of the Twelve signed the proclamation, it makes it binding on the world as they are sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Third, whether it is by the voice of the Lord or his servants it is the same. So, yes it is revelation. It doesn't have to say this is revelation to be binding. All it has to be is come from the Prophet of the Lord. Since, in Relief Society and as President of the Curch, Gordon B. Hinkley read this proclaimation it became then revelation and binding on the world as a whole. That means if you don't believe, that is your right but it is binding on you.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 5, 2011 4:42 p.m.

    RE: LDS4 gaymarriage. As I regularly ask, Will someone PLEASE tell me how gay marriage bans (Prop.8) doesn't violate 1 Cor. 10:29. OK

    The Pericope is helpful or, The Believers freedom. The exercise of ones personal(conscience) freedom is governed by whether it will bring glory to God in the Christian church and to encourage the unsaved to receive Christ as Savior and Lord. Sin does not bring Glory to God.

    RE:Janca, The sanctity of the family. God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve. Eve was to bear children of the couple, who in turn were to fill the earth with descendants. Thus the family unit is a part of creation and the Adamic Covenant.
    Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved(*reprobate) mind, to do what ought not to be done.(Romans 2:28 Greek N.T.)
    *adoikimos, Greek #96, A mind God cannot approve(homosexuals).

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 5, 2011 4:35 p.m.

    I am for full human and full religious rights. I don't think many of you understand what it is to truly love a religion and its teachings while dealing with a personal issue that you were taught was wrong. I don't think you really know what it's like trying to hide a secret because of the hateful comments you have heard people say at church, school, and even home. I don't think you know what it's like to hear for years that you can change, but it requires hard work. Do you have people telling you that you are the way you are because you didn't pray hard enough or have enough faith? Have you had suicide thoughts because of it? Have you had friends or family tell you that you aren't welcome any more because of your "choices?"

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    July 5, 2011 4:32 p.m.

    Only if the practice of your religion involves societal, institutional, and legal discrimination against those who believe differently than you, does same-sex marriage create any conflict with your religious "freedoms".

    I think most reasonable people agree with these kinds of statements:

    "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;"

    "We believe...that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

    "We do not believe it just to amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

    "We believe that all religious societies...can only excommunicate [their members] from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

    To my thinking, these are perfectly consistent with the legalization of same-sex marriage, and cannot be used to support denial of same-sex marriage.

  • Mike W Syracuse, UT
    July 5, 2011 4:24 p.m.

    To charlie91342, just wanted to say thanks, your post was excellent and one of the few on this board in touch with reality.

  • standfan HELENA, MT
    July 5, 2011 4:23 p.m.

    What we as Mormons hold sacred as scripture say's this. The voice of the Lord is unto all men, and their is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated. And the rebelious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the houstops, and their secret acts shall be revealed. And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disiples, who I have choosen in the last days. And also "What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and earth pass away, my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled. Wheather by my own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. So you see simply "The Family a Proclomation to the World" to us is from God thru his servants, and we will not excuse it. Nor will He. Believe as you will, and so will we.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 5, 2011 4:17 p.m.


    The threats you cited in your 11:00 comment appeared in World Net Daily as coming from blogs, not the LA Times as you stated.

    World Net Daily was one of the leading publishers of Obama's citizenship conspiracy theories.

  • Laser Iowa City, IA
    July 5, 2011 4:09 p.m.

    Does the author of the Times article recogmnize that religion also got an exemption in the Constitution? There is a huge reason why religion is listed first in the 1st amendment.

    The battle is clear now. Gay marriage and rights is a religious issue not a civil one. The gay and lesbian community clearly wants to destroy religion. We've been lied too by them for years.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    July 5, 2011 4:03 p.m.

    re - Jeff | 2:29 p.m
    "In California schools, gay activists are frequently invited into classrooms to teach our children that homosexuality is good and normal (!), and that people who are against it are evil hatemongers."

    not true. they teach that it is normal... because it is. and they teach that if someone bullies gays they are a hate-monger... because they are. But at no point has anyone ever said being gay is good. Nor is it bad, regardless of how many times you people say it is. It is neither good nor bad. Race is neither good nor bad, gender is neither good nor bad. etc, etc, etc.

    Since most mammal species have a gay population, I don't understand why you don't think it is a normal occurence.

    "We would like to stop that teaching, and preventing "gay" marriage is one way to help do it"

    why would you want to stop that teaching? shouldn't your children understand gay people? are you actually afraid one of your children will turn gay because of it?

    if one of your children becomes gay, you have only you and your wife to blame, since it came from your genes.

  • Mike W Syracuse, UT
    July 5, 2011 3:48 p.m.

    I fully support Gay Marriage, but I agree with this writer... why should religions have to support it? A marriage from a judge in a courthouse is every bit equal to a marriage in any church... if the "bells and whistles" are what you're worried about I'd have to ask if you're getting married, regardless of sex, for the right reasons.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 5, 2011 3:15 p.m.

    @ Jeff | 2:29, Do you have documented cases of gay activists actively teacher California school children about homosexuality? I suspect that to be a current urban legend. You know, the type where a friend of my uncle's second cousin's boss told me that it happened.

    I do believe it is important to protect all students from bullying, and that is probably what is actually happening. Do you have a problem with that?

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    July 5, 2011 2:29 p.m.

    @ Ranchhand: As a former Latter-day Saint, you know that the purposed audience of a proclamation from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve is to be to the world, not just to Latter-day Saints. Proclamations are rare in the Church, and are always addressed to a large audience outside the immediate range of believers. Of course, the leaders as well as a the rank and file of the Church know that many will reject a proclamation, but it is well within our rights in this country (and other countries as well) to allow this proclamation to guide us in our actions and activities in elections.

    In your response to o'really, you say that we should teach our children to marry the opposite gender. We want to do that; our desire to do so is one of the key arguing points of the debate over "gay" marriage. In California schools, gay activists are frequently invited into classrooms to teach our children that homosexuality is good and normal (!), and that people who are against it are evil hatemongers. We would like to stop that teaching, and preventing "gay" marriage is one way to help do it.

  • Clemdane SCOTTSDALE, AZ
    July 5, 2011 2:25 p.m.

    @Allen If you don't want government involved in marriage then you need to make sure marriage no longer confers any legal or tax benefits in the eyes of the law. If marriage is a social and not a legal status then spouses should not have legal exemption from testifying against each other in court. They should not be able to file join tax returns or automatically inherit money from the spouse if there is no will. They should not automatically be allowed to visit a spouse's bedside in the hospital if non-family visitors are restricted and they should not be able to make decisions about whether to resuscitate a spouse who is on the edge of death.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 2:24 p.m.

    Bill / Jeff - The Proclamation on the Family ... is Revelation...and binding upon the Church

    KJK - Sorry Bill, but the proclamation wasn't a revelation. It was written by a committee and wasn't approved by GBH until the 3rd draft.

    "The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as a revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."
    Harold B. Lee

    "I do not doubt that the brethren have often spoken under inspiration ..., but that does not become binding upon the Church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people."
    Hugh B. Brown

    The proclamation has never been declared a revelation nor sustained and therefore is NOT binding. Its call to infringe upon others rights also violates sustained scripture.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    July 5, 2011 2:15 p.m.

    I really don't see where the problem is. If a church's viewpoints do not support homosexuality then don't marry gays in the church. You can go to any number of places and have a very nice non-religious ceremony, or you can find a church that supports homosexuality and marry there.

    Again, this is why I believe the government should have no place in marriage PERIOD.

    Marriage is a contract between two persons and whatever deity they worship. If a couple wants to be joined in the eyes of the law there should be a completely different process for that. One that does not discriminate against anyone.

  • Clemdane SCOTTSDALE, AZ
    July 5, 2011 2:06 p.m.

    The easy solution is for churches not to have any legal authority to perform marriages. Anyone who wants to get married should have to go to a Justice of the Peace to make it legal. If the couple has completed the legal formalities and they want to have a separate, non legally binding religious ceremony for their own personal reasons then the church in question can decide whether or not they will perform it for that couple. Also, if a church can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation then a gay group should also be allowed to exclude members based on religious beliefs.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 5, 2011 1:57 p.m.

    Another article and another reminder to many Utah residents that they are still considered second-class citizens and sinners by their neighbors. It's time to find a newspaper that has more uplifting stories.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 5, 2011 1:52 p.m.


    Then perhaps it should be better labeled "A Proclamation on the MORMON Family". It doesn't, and shouldn't apply to Non-Mormons.


    Then you should teach your children to marry the opposite genders and leave other people to make the decision whom they will marry to them. Who better to know who they love then the people involved? Certainly not you, an uninvolved bystander.

    And fyi, the religious agenda creates and contributes far more confusion and danger to the world than gays getting married. You all can't even agree on which god is god, much less if the god someone else worships even exists (and you go about killing them for it - again "you" as in "you religious folks", not "you" individually).

  • Janene Pearce LINDON, UT
    July 5, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    Oh, if everyone knew just how high the stakes really are. How do we get across to people that our happiness and well-being as individuals and as a society are tied up in that which lies at the very core of life and existence itself - the divine creative power. Can you not sense the depth and greatness of it's capacity for creation and joy when channeled in paths divinely designated for its use? Conversely, can you not grasp the greatness of its power to damage and destroy when perverted and misused outside of those designated paths? Why does this argument of the obvious even go on? Are we not supposed to be the superior species? When will the human race start using their supposedly superior brains?!! When will we start listening to our hearts and souls and just do the right thing?!!

    You are a being of truth because your source is truth. You don't have to take anyone's word for anything. Just ask yourself. Just ask your mind, your heart and your soul where the truth lies in this matter. Let the truth within you tell you what is true.

  • CaballeroKid Meriden, CT
    July 5, 2011 1:45 p.m.

    Finally, someone in the media points out the TRUE gay rights hidden agenda. It's not just gay marriage that homosexuals want. It's social acceptance and spiritual relief from feeling guilty of what most of society considers sinful/taboo. This does not stop at marriage rights my friends!
    Whenever they ask, "so how will my marriage affect you?"...remember Mr. Chua-Eoan's comments.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    July 5, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    @ Janka Here is how your marriage hurts my family. I feel it is in the best interest of my children to marry someone of the opposite gender and raise children in a traditional home. My kindergarten daughter checked a book out of the school library about a girl with two mommies very pro lesbian. It told the story of two mothers who loved the girl very much. Sweet. But it didn't explain anything about how the girl was conceived, who her real father was or why the mommies don't want to be married to men. My daughter asks these questions. I must (according to my conscience) tell her that I don't believe these two mommies are following the commandments and that God punishes this kind of union in the next life. My children have to be exposed to the knowledge of a type of intimacy that I believe is unnatural and potentially harmful physically and psychologically. I am labeled a bigot and a hater by the LGBT community and I'm supposedly raising little bigots. MY children have to grow up in a world that is confusing and dangerous. The LGBT agenda contributes to this confusion and danger.

  • standfan HELENA, MT
    July 5, 2011 1:08 p.m.

    First not one place did I say it was a sin. And yes you have your freedom to choose how you live, as do I. But it still doesn't change what God says about it. Or what he could do about it. But to say your choices or mine don't affect others? Come on. You could not possibly believe that? That's like standing in an elevator full of people and having someone pass gas and pretending noboby else can smell it. That is the oldest of Satan's lies. Yes what you do and say, for good, or bad, has an effect on others. The most hurt I have ever experienced in this life was a mistake a friend made. This issue effects a lot of us because we can't turn on our TV's, or our radio's. or open a magazine, or walk the mall, without having it crammed down our throats. Where are our rights to not have to see it, or listen to it? Many don't seem to realize to a lot of us it's repulsive. So don't try to make me stand in the elevator and tell me it's rose's I'm smelling.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    July 5, 2011 1:04 p.m.

    @ Ranchhand: I'm sorry, but you can read Wilford Woodruff's reasons for stopping polygamy. It was a revelation. While the Proclamation on the Family has not been publicly called a revelation, it has been repeatedly emphasized as binding on the the members of the Church, and it was stressed during the Prop 8 campaign in California (I know, I was there). Blacks getting the priesthood was a long-awaited revelation (previous prophets had said that it should be expected at some time). Whatever President Kimball's intial motivation might have been, all who were present in the subsequent meetings with the First Presidency openly state that there was a revelation given to all. As with polygamy and the Proclamation on the Family, in the Church, one man's inspiration (or revelation, if you prefer that word) must be ratified by the other general authorities and the Church membership.

    Revelation in the Church, in order to be accepted as binding on the Church membership must go through exactly the processes that the Manifesto, the Revelation on Priesthood, and the Proclamation on the Family went through, which is why those are, currently, binding on the Church.

  • dice1899 West Jordan, UT
    July 5, 2011 12:54 p.m.


    Actually, if you read the Church missives from that time period, the LDS church was preparing to leave the United States again, rather than give up polygamy. They had a new location in Mexico picked out, they had plans in place, and the people were directed to store up food and supplies. They'd already left their homes multiple times over the years, and they were fully prepared to do it again. It wasn't until they received revelation to stay that they put those plans to rest.

    No, the Proclamation to the Family has not been called revelation. But it IS a summary of all previous revelations on the subject. You don't have to agree with it or follow it if you don't want to, but it does contain the LDS church's doctrine about the family unit. You're just splitting hairs on that one.

    President Kimball also said the revelation about blacks getting the Priesthood came about because he'd prayed long and hard over the matter and knew that it was time. Just because President Benson also knew that it was time doesn't mean that the answer didn't come from our Heavenly Father.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 5, 2011 12:28 p.m.

    @Bill in Nebraska;

    1) Polygamy was stopped because the US was going to take LDS property.
    2) The Proclamation on the Family has never been called a "revelation" by the LDS Church or its leaders.
    3) The Blacks getting the Priesthood wasn't a revelation either. Check out Kimball's journals (his son published them). He writes that he did it because he knew his successor (Benson) would not because he was a racist.

    The LDS Church does like it when the members start calling these things "revelation" (it helps with the indoctrination), but they've never called them thus themselves.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    July 5, 2011 12:20 p.m.

    Religion continues to poison everything.

    Mark it down, Brother Brigham.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    July 5, 2011 12:20 p.m.

    The real threat to marriage is no-fault divorce. If marriage is kept strong with the real consequences of being sued for divorce for promiscuity than only a minority of the same-sex community will actually marry. And these will be the ones that are committed to a relationship.

    Through no-fault divorce people can marry for their own political agenda rather than for life-time love and mock the marriage institution.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    July 5, 2011 12:18 p.m.


    As Cats stated in the beginning: GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!

    As such as President Packer so vividly stated, man can by the courts and legislation make laws here on Earth. Man can't change the Laws of God. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. The fact is we are in the image of our Heavenly Father. Any sin, cohabitating outside the bonds of marriage, the Lord has set (between man and woman) is a grievous sin. Your judgement will come from that. As the world gets more and more wicked and further from the truths of the Gospel, the closer we get to the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It will be then that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

    Our rights to worship as we please has been under attack and one of the great minds of the US Constitution has continued to say and give revelation to that effect. If you want to reject this then that is your choice, but remember whether it be from the mouth of God or his servants, it is still the same.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    July 5, 2011 12:10 p.m.

    To Idaho Coug and others: The Proclamation on the Family as stated by many in General COnference and Priesthood Leaders through out The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is Revelation. THat is plain and simple. You stated that if the law had not been passed the LDS Church would still be practicing pologamy and blacks would not be holding the priesthood. This is utter nonsense as President Woodruff stated emphaticially that if the Lord had not revealed to him what would happen and such if pologamy was not stopped. THis means that the Lord ended pologamy not the courts. The same is said of the blacks holding the Priesthood. This was also received by revelation. The courts had never intervened in the so called civil rights issue of blacks holding the priesthood. Your logic would thus make it that women should have the priesthood because of the equal rights for women. Again nothing is further from the truth.

    Revelation, modern day has stated that marriage is ordained of God and is between man and woman. It was ordained as such from the first parents, Adam and Eve. Our Heavenly Father performed that marriage.

  • Central Texan Buda, TX
    July 5, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    We all know that there are many gay couples who would jump at the opportunity to be married in an LDS temple. And we all know the only reason: to stick it in the eye of the LDS church.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    July 5, 2011 11:34 a.m.

    When you create God in your image, you can do what you want...turnips marrying cabbages, potatoes marrying carrots, cats marrying dogs...and the list goes on. However, when you are created in Gods image, you had better follow his marrying women and that is where it far as marriage is concerned

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 11:18 a.m.

    22ozn44ozglass | 10:35 a.m.,

    Thank you.

    I've only heard bits and peices of this case. Now I have some reasearch to do.

    While I, as a gay activist, have never supported the use of death threats, 'brow beating' or any other form of intimidation (heck, I don't even support 'glittering.')...

    dosen't your post CONTRADICT the principle of this story?

    That goverment is 'infringing' on religion...

    but those who supported Prop 8, primarily religious...

    are not ASKING for the goverment to protect them?

    I think that summary is accurate. Public opinion is changing. And it has nothing to do with the goverment vs. religion.

    *'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    It's the people's concience vs. religion.

    i.e. you cannot use justify discrimination.

    People who follow the Mormon faith should be able to relate.

    Missouri executive order 44, October 27, 1838.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    July 5, 2011 11:07 a.m.

    Stand fan - You claim that god will not be mocked.. That is true, but has no point here. If they are the ones committing the so called sin, then what do you personally have to worry about? I hardly think that you need to worry about another persons sin or sins. Their sins, like mine and yours will have to be answered to. But mine don't affect yours and so forth. So to say it is a sin and should be banned doesn't make sense. With that reasoning there would be no porn, no alcohol, no tobacco, no rated R movies etc. So just because something is a sin doesn't mean it should be banned. If you don't agree with it that is fine, but others do and should be able to do as they please just as you do what you please. If it has no direct affect on your life then who cares.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    July 5, 2011 11:00 a.m.


    As you wish. All these threats/incidents were taken from signed affidavits submitted to the US District Court in Tacoma Washington. The Los Angeles Times also summarized some of these documented incidents of threats, violence, intimadation and vandalism by gay activists agains those who disagee with SSM:

    I will kill you and your family.

    "Im going to kill the pastor"

    If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter"

    "a sacred text was burned on the front steps of achurch, and in another case, a militant homosexual group took over a church service while it was in progress, while two women kissed each other near the podium

    I fully support violence against churches who are politically-active as anti-gay . . . .

    Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean
    seriously. DO IT.

    YOU LOST!!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha Get ready for retribution all you bigots!!!!!!

    Affidavits docuenting physical assaults, keyed cars, slashed tires,swastikas left on lawns and walls of houses of worship and bricks thrown through their
    windows and glass doors

    There are many more documented incidents of intimication and political terrorism by SSM advocates

  • Janca salt lake city, utah
    July 5, 2011 10:42 a.m.

    @Donn - It really isn't anyone's business but I will answer your question. Yes, I STUDY (not just read) The Bible. Likewise I have studied (along with my wife and children) many other religious texts and guides, including, but not limited to: The Book Of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, The Qur'an, The Book of the Dead, A Course in Miracles, Dianetics, The Divine Principle, The Book of Formation, and Zohar....(I admit I have not finished them all) I have a great love for all the different words that God has made available to us in this day and age. I wish I had more time to study more scripture - there are so many beautiful and inspired words out there.

    Likewise, I also plant my pea seeds and my bean seeds in the same plot of land, and I wear cotton/polyester blends at times. I won't ask you if you have done the same because I think it is a very personal issue that is between you and your God.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    July 5, 2011 10:40 a.m.

    I do not agree with the actions of gays. I agree that it is a sin. But government preventing them from doing what they choose to do is eerily similar to the government stating that the mormons must be driven out because of polygamy. Those leaders felt it was wrong, so they drove them out. That was wrong of the government to do then, and it is wrong for the government to do now.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    July 5, 2011 10:35 a.m.

    My previous post on this subject was blocked by the moderators, and once again the PC police prove that you can not say/post documented facts that portray the gay community in a negative light no matter how true and how well documented these facts are.

    Currently there is a case before the US District Court with Judge Benjamin H. Settle presiding in Tacoma Washington John Doe #1, et al vs Sam Reed, et al. The crux of this case is gay activists demand the names of those who vote and or sign petitions against their SSM objectives. The Motion for Summary Judgement contains a lengthy list of affidavits documenting intimidation, hate speech, death treats, and vandalism, and more than just a few of these acts of political terrorism are direted at the LDS and LDS members because of the LDS position against SSM.

    "Some groups and individuals,certainly a minority, have resorted to advancing their cause, not by debating the merits of the issue but by discouraging participation in the democratic process through acts calculated to intimidate.
    What has emerged, in short, is an established pattern of overt political browbeating designed to cow the opposition into silence"

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    July 5, 2011 10:32 a.m.

    I didn't read the article or the comments, but to me it is sad that people spend more time commenting and obviously reading the controversial articles and they don't take the time to read and comment on the ones that are of a spiritual nature. Or the ones that tell of some inspiring person and so forth.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 10:31 a.m.

    'No matter how many protesters block the entrance to temples, no matter how many protesters burn churches, no matter how many protesters commit acts of violence against church members, the government cannot force a religion to change its doctrines.' - Mike Richards | 10:00 a.m.

    I'm glad we agree.

    Now, can you please give me EXAMPLES of gay persons 'burning down churches?'
    Acts of violence?

    Dates, names, places, etc.

    If not, your making those examples up. To incite violence against the LGBT community. It's call 'incite to riot.' And we already have examples of this being done in SLC alone.

    *Survey shows some LGBT residents dont feel safe By Rosemary Winters SL Tribune 07/12/10

    A gay man arrested for kidnapping after being severely beaten by his neighbors. (sic) A kiss between two men on the LDS Churchs Main Street Plaza that resulted in trespassing charges.

    *'Charges filed against neighbors of gay man acquitted of kidnapping - By Linda Thomson DSNews 03/03/10

    *'5 plead guilty in beating of South Salt Lake man and his partner' - By Spencer Garn - DSNews - 03/21/2011

  • oldschool Farmington, UT
    July 5, 2011 10:11 a.m.

    The Mormon Church does not consider homosexuality a sin. The church considers homosexual activity a sin. Big difference. Writers should be careful to keep it in mind.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 10:06 a.m.

    You have to remember one thing, the government cannot force a volunteer temple worker to show up and perform a temple marriage for a gay couple.

    BINGO! The worse that could happen would be that the state could revoke the worker's license to perform state recognized marriages. LDS couples could, like they do in Europe, get married at city hall and then sealed later in the day. We LDS have no need to fear being forced to perform same-sex ceremonies in the temple.


    "Should Evangelical photographers be permitted to refuse to photograph LDS temple weddings because they think we're a satanic cult?"
    Absolutely! Yes! And I say that as a life-long active LDS woman.

    Being a Libertarian, I agree 100%, but our society requires us to treat all equally and business owners agree to be subject to kings, rulers and magistrates when they open their businesses.


    As I regularly ask, Will someone PLEASE tell me how LDS support gay marriage bans (Prop.8) doesn't violate 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4's condemnation of using religious opinions as justification to infringe upon the rights of others. Thanks.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 5, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    So many posters know so little about the Constitution.

    Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

    The Federal Government cannot force any church to do ANYTHING! Every church can set its own doctrines. Every church can perform any ordinance as it pleases.

    No matter how many protesters block the entrance to temples, no matter how many protesters burn churches, no matter how many protesters commit acts of violence against church members, the government cannot force a religion to change its doctrines.

    Has government interfered with churches? Yes, it has. Members of Congress who pass laws dictating religion automatically take upon themselves the responsibility for any transgression caused by their prescribing religious doctrines. They will answer directly to God for interfering in His domain.

    The right to worship God as we please also contains the total responsibility to account for our choice of worship. No one can blame government unless government dictates to churches. Everyone will account for every minute of life, for every thought, for every choice.

    In America religious freedom means eternal accountability.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    July 5, 2011 9:44 a.m.

    Gay people are going to have to get in line behind women because many churches practice discrimination against women by denying them the priesthood, and having leadership positions. The LDS church discriminated against black men long after the Civil Rights Act, and churches are permitted to perform/deny marriages for whomever they choose. This article is pure fear-mongering.

  • Janca salt lake city, utah
    July 5, 2011 9:44 a.m.

    @O'really: I appreciate reading your point of view and respect your personal opinions. I especially like that you feel gay people are "unknowingly" trying to get "special clout and privileges". Can you please let me know what special clout or privileges those would be? I haven't found any. Not one.

    My head is certainly up high (not in the sand), and my children were certainly not created by "tampering" with "nature and life itself". And how is my family creating "angst"? Am I causing you angst? I apologize, then. I did not have any idea that my family could personally hurt you so much.

    Perhaps you should actually meet, and get to know a gay family. I dare say that if you were to meet my family and spend time with us, your ideas/misconceptions on gay families would be changed in many ways. I have many (in fact most) friends and relatives who are very staunch LDS faithful, and ALL OF THEM love and respect my family. All of them. They may not agree, and they may not understand, but they all respect me and my family. Love and respect. It goes both ways.

  • standfan HELENA, MT
    July 5, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    While this current trend does trouble me, I would think it should trouble those who are mocking God's commandments more. God will not be mocked. I seem to recall Sodom and Gomorrah. And for similar reasons. If they continue to push Him, I know He is perfecly capable of a repeat peformance. History bears out He will only turn his head for so long. Noah and the flood are another perfect example. I think one should ponder on those things and maybe reconsider ones course.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    "Can't we turn time back to the 50s and 60s? "

    Actually that might be useful, then all you people against gay marriage would realize you're using the same arguments as those against interracial marriage used.

  • donn layton, UT
    July 5, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    Janca said, we are active in our local church. Do they read the Bible?

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. 1 Cor 6:9 NIV.

    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:26-27.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    'They are messing with the fundamentals of science and procreation.' - O'really | 9:08 a.m.

    I disagree.

    If creating a child is REQUIRED to be married, why is that standard ONLY applied to...


    Not, heterosexuals.

    Octo-mom. 14 kids. No husband.

    Kate Gosselin, from 'John and Kate plus 8'. Six children created through artificial incimination.

    According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised by gay parents.

    Where will they go, if stripped away from their gay parents?

    40% of all children in the US are being raised by single-parents. Source? CDC.

    *'Single mothers less accepted than gay or lesbian parents' - By Marjorie Cortez - DSNews - 03/16/11

    An IDEAL, is one thing.

    However, since heterosexual couples are NOT held to the very same ideal that some wish to use as justification to deny gay marriage...?

    Then it is not a requirement.

    It is an ideal.

    That 50% of traditional marriages, fail to adhere too.

  • Janca salt lake city, utah
    July 5, 2011 9:21 a.m.

    @ JNA: I would really like to know how MY marriage and MY children and MY family -- how are they "destroying the very moral fiber of this country"? Exactly. No rhetoric or one-liners please. Exactly how is my family destroying the moral fiber of this country? If you met my family, and my extended family (all LDS); you would be quite surprised, I think, to find that we are quite normal. We work, we pay bills, we are great neighbors, we serve on the PTA, our children's teachers love us, our children are in Boy Scouts-swimming-Karate-summercamp, we attend church weekly, we pay taxes, we shop at the grocery store....etc, etc. How, EXACTLY are we destroying the moral fiber of this country? It seems that "ignorance", "fear", "hate", "distrust", "disgust", and "rhetoric" are more likely the villians bringing on moral decay. Wouldn't you agree?

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    July 5, 2011 9:08 a.m.

    @ Janca

    I don't think the gays are "scheming" to take over the rights of the religious. But unknowingly they are foisting their lifestyle (which has been something that has been disapproved of since the beginning of time) into the faces of those who prefer to live the traditional lifestyle. They are demanding that all children growing up on the earth today recognize the gay community as "special" with clout and privileges, simply because of their sexual preferences. They think their gay marriage isn't harming the rest of the world. But those in gay marriages cannot sit back and think their actions and lifestyle aren't touching and influencing the lives of people around them. In fact they are causing tremendous confusion and angst in the world, all religious belifs aside. They are messing with the fundamentals of science and procreation.

    Whether gays want to acknowledge it or not, it takes male and female to create life. To marginalize the role of men and women (one of each) in a marriage and the creation of a family is to tamper with nature and life itself.

    I think the homosexual community is the one with their heads in the sand.

  • JNA Layton, UT
    July 5, 2011 8:59 a.m.

    To all those who are posting anything that says gay marriage would never be forced upon a religion are perpetuating a lie. The whole gay rights agenda have never been about equal protection, it has always been about power and coercion. They will try and lull us all asleep and then as we become apathetic they will slowly but surely destroy the very moral fiber of this country. Wake up! The constitution is "hanging by a thread"

  • RShackleford Saint George, UT
    July 5, 2011 8:46 a.m.

    Why should the government have any laws regarding Marriage? What if a couple (hetero or Homosexual) doesn't get a marriage licence...are they subject to arrest once they either live together or engage in sex? The State (Gov.) has not really had a dog in this fight for a long time, because there is no penalty for not buying a so called State Marriage (revenue) license. They have given up any claim as far as the "State" license having any legitimacy except as a business contract between two people.

    The same (type of) legal contract can be written up between any two or more people regardless of their relationship, if they are having sex or living under the same roof.

    just take the word "marriage" of of the (state) form and be done with it.

    A religious organization would not be forced to marry anyone. The "Real" Marriage according to LDS beliefs (and mine) is a marriage (sealing) in the temple and it is between a man and a woman (as one party) and God as the other party. My wife and I are converts, and were sealed in the temple. didn't require another state license.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    At this time the state cannot for a religion, any, to preform marriage. As it is, for all intensive purposes, a civil union until federal recognition is granted at city hall for around $75.

    This is even supported in the article.

    "The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here, we will have to continue to march in parades and sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up Saturday morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore."

    Bias against homosexuals aside, it is not the intent of marriage equality to FORCE religion to preform gay marriage.

    Just to make gay marriage legal.

    You are free to have you belief's, faith and all manner of your religion, intact.

    But, unless you are gay, this is not even about you.

    As self-identified 'us' in the 'us vs. them', you are identifying as a religious, heterosexual person.

    Ergo, you will NOT be getting a gay marriage...

    will you?

    As such, gay marriage has not, and will not harm you. 7 years and counting now.

    Propaganda article.

  • Janca salt lake city, utah
    July 5, 2011 8:07 a.m.

    This article is absolutely written to scare gullible people into thinking that "the gays" are scheming to take over their religious freedoms and rites. And from the comments, it appears to be quite effective. Let's sort some facts: Gay marriage will one day soon be legal in all states. The LDS church will never be required to perform gay ceremonies. Gay couples DO have children (point to earlier post that stated otherwise) - difference being that it takes a whole lot of planning and expense -- NEVER an oops. Gay people are not all athiests, or anti-religious. Gay people do not have an "agenda" to take religious freedom away from heterosexuals.
    I can speak to these truths because 1) I am a native Utahn and a lesbian; 2) I am legally (CA) AND religiously married to my wife of 17 years; 3) we have three beautiful (planned for) children in our family; 4) we are active in our local church and have a personal relationship with God that is very much like most of yours; 5) There is nothing at all about my family or my relationship that hurts you or takes anything away from you - and there never will be.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    July 5, 2011 7:16 a.m.

    The stakes over religious liberty

    If we look at the argument - that religious freedom is at stake - let's take the argument for what it's worth if "The stakes are high" - so to speak -

    The US Constitution grantes freedom of religion. If, in this case, gays, are jeopardizing freedom of religion and the state is more and more favoring the gays, to churches' right to practice religious liberty, then I think only one thing is certain. The state takes away rights from one group to give to another, in violation of constitutionally-granted rights.

    Then, I think there is only thing to do. Have the churches sue the state to give them back the right for religious liberty - a First Amendment protection.

    As it is, ever since gays have been the right to marry - i.e. in Massachusetts - I have not heard of churches suing the state over religious freedom, at any level. Has anyone?

    Examine the actions, though, and the litigation comes in the form of taking away gays' rights, never to demand churches' religious freedoms. I do not see coalition of churches forming to take back their rights, except in the form of campaign-laden misleading rhetoric.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    July 5, 2011 7:04 a.m.

    RantBully | 9:49 p.m. July 4, 2011

    Re: your comment "Gays know that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong and the more the push for rights, the more they attack religion"

    Where are you getting this information from? You have made an assertion that is utterly false -

    Do understand that the lawsuits, past and present regarding same-sex marriage are against the state, not against the church. Where do you see that gays sue churches over the right to coerce churches into performing same-sex marriages? Moreover, you are making the assumption that gays are, by definition, not religious. I venture to say you do not know gays, otherwise, you would know that gays come across all manners of faith and traditions.

    Further, the churches that do permit same-sex marriage within their congregations/organizations, are in fact, churches that do so from their own volition, and they have much to lose, sometimes causing schisms within churches among their members over the very issue.

    sfcretdennis | 6:15 p.m. July 4, 2011

    By way of letting you know - when you were married and sealed in the temple, you were in fact, also married civilly, check it out.

  • omahahusker Modesto, CA
    July 5, 2011 5:52 a.m.

    Here's the bottom line, if you want a hamburger don't go to Taco Bell and demand one. Go to Burger King and have it your way. To the Gay community, if you want your your marriage don't demand the Morman Church, or any other church that is opposed to Gay marriage give you something they didn't get into the business to make. If you wish to take God's authority, you'll have to square it away with him in the course of due time.

  • Livingstone Orem, UT
    July 5, 2011 2:55 a.m.

    I am very upset at the Deseret News' editorial judgement to publish this article. This is the type of stuff that fuels the irrational segment of the anti-gay marriage community. As one commenter noted: why would someone want to have a church bless his marriage if said church rejected him? Here's the answer: He wouldn't. There are many Christian traditions that have been quickly embracing of homosexual partnerships--the "liberal" part of American Christianity from the groups historically in quick support of women's suffrage and black civil rights like the Unitarian Universalism Association and the groups that would come to form the United Church of Christ. This is the type of Christian thinking that this Mr. Chua-Eoan is speaking in behalf of. He believes that true and desirable Christianity is that which embraces homosexual unions. His ideal wedding would be in conjunction with a spiritual connection--a view not shared with the majority of homosexuals in the US.

    This article is an attempt to defend gay marriage resistance as some way to protect religious freedom from persecution: a total reversal of what actually is the case so glass house stone-throwers can feel a clean conscience.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    July 5, 2011 1:25 a.m.

    I heard a quote on the radio the other day. The well known radio personality said, " When did liberals who are pushing for gay marriage start caring about marriage anyway? They have been saying that marriage is old fashioned and unnecessary for decades now."

    So it just seems to me that this upsurge in homosexuals crying out for marriage is all about getting their lifestyle validated...with benefits! And liberal politicians want it to gain support from their liberal followers. Vicious cycle. I wonder how many of these politicians really condone it in theri heart of hearts.

    Does anyone have stats on the rate of "divorce" or separation of homosexual couples? That would be interesting to find out. I would hope it's near 0% since they are making such a big deal about getting married in the first place.

    It's all so very tiring to read about. Can't we turn time back to the 50s and 60s?

  • crunchem Cedar City, Utah
    July 5, 2011 12:50 a.m.

    to clarify a few comments above, FWIW:

    At least in the U.S. (Arizona, specifically), a sealing in the LDS temple is concurrent/equivalent with a state sanctioned marriage. I don't recall any specific speech that stated "by the power of God and the state, I pronounce you....etc" or whatever, but I have a State Marriage License and a Temple Sealing Certificate. Both were obtained by participating in one ceremony, not two separate events. The sealer's signature appears on both certificates as the person authorized to perform the marriage.

  • crunchem Cedar City, Utah
    July 5, 2011 12:29 a.m.

    lds4gaymarriage: "Should Evangelical photographers be permitted to refuse to photograph LDS temple weddings because they think we're a satanic cult?"

    Of course! They should have the right to accept or deny any business opportunity that walks through their door. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY! If they don't want take the photos because it's too hot, or they're tired, or the bride is ugly or the groom is gay, IT DOESN't MATTER! Who are you, or the government, to tell a business how to run their business?

    If I want to *discriminate* in any way in how I run my business, it should be my right to succeed or fail based on whether I make good or bad decisions. If I want to put only Coke and no Pepsi in my vending machine and I lose the Pepsi customers, THAT'S MY PROBLEM, NOT YOURS.

    So, yeah, if the evangelical turns down an LDS wedding shoot, that's HIS business; maybe he gets more evangelical jobs as a result of his "sticking to his guns". That can be his business strategy, win or lose.

    Let the free market work, please, and stay out of my balance sheet.

  • Larry Lawton Wan Chai, Hong Kong
    July 5, 2011 12:00 a.m.

    I practiced law in California for the majority of my 40-year career. The first amendment only exists there for the politically correct.

    IMNSHO, we are on a constitutional collision course. Either churches have first amendment rights or gays have them. There is no middle ground -- not because the churches are too harsh, but because our opponents will not be satisfied with anything less.

  • RantBully Bend, OR
    July 4, 2011 9:49 p.m.

    This article discusses what is fundamentally wrong with gay marriage. The gay community is not going to be satisfied until religious rights are diminished by legal challenges in the courts. Gays know that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong and the more the push for rights, the more they attack religion. They want God out of the laws in our country or the concepts God has laid out to be modified to their liking. As long as the religious teachings against homosexuality are still valued by Christianity, homosexuals will feel uncomfortable (guilt understanding their actions are wrong), so rather than accept their sin, they would rather fight to get those religious concepts removed. Of course this is unacceptable to the LDS Church and to many other Christian religions as religious truths are not voted into agreement. What God teaches is not based on consensus, but homosexuals want to try to make it that way through popular opinion and the courts. In the end, homosexuals will never be satisfied with civil unions, so they push for marriage. Then they will push for forcing religion to accept it. That is when I can only imagine that the Lord will need to intervene.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 4, 2011 9:36 p.m.

    Thers's no problem. If you don't believe in the Mormon church, than gay marriage is no big deal. If you do believe, it's also no big deal, because of your beliefs.

    It's just that simple.

  • Buzzards LEHI, UT
    July 4, 2011 8:53 p.m.

    Never forget that "The power to tax is the power to destroy". No, gays will never be able to force religions to marry people, but once holding that homosexual conduct is sinful is "discrimination" becomes settled law, it will be childs play to eliminate the tax deduction for donations (tithing) to religions that won't get in line, as well as taxing, maybe even punitively, their property and activities. After Prop 8, lawsuits to do just that were filed to do just that in California.
    THAT is what religions who hold to moral standards have to fear, and based on recent events, they really do have something to fear.

  • rickdoctor Chandler, AZ
    July 4, 2011 8:05 p.m.

    Mormons only do 'civil marriages' in chapels or otherwise by Bishops, as a courtesy anyway -- I believe that temple ceremonies are 'sealings' anyway -- the vast majority of 'sealings' are for already married couples (if you include 'sealings' for the dead, as well as for those already married civilly) -- and as stated by another wisely above, the vast majority of the world requires a civil marriage outside the temple to comply with 98% of marriage laws of all the countries in the world --
    "Marriage" laws are just that, 'laws' to regulate what the society in each sovereign nation desires, including during that 'legal relationship' and upon its termination. No two nations have exactly the same 'marriage and post-marriage' laws -- how can any one of us dictate what is 'right' or 'wrong' with respect to civil laws related to civil marriage in every country?
    There is not one of us who agrees with every single law in our state and country, and the same goes for citizens in every other country.
    Come on folks -- please distinguish between civil laws and religious doctrines. We could all be more relaxed...peaceful..'without contention'...

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    July 4, 2011 7:44 p.m.

    If the government hadn't put pressure on the the LDS Church we would still be practicing plural marriage and withholding the priesthood from black members. Sometimes we all need a little reminder to do the right thing.

  • Ron Hilton Holladay, UT
    July 4, 2011 7:30 p.m.

    sfcretdennis | 6:15 p.m. July 4, 2011
    You either misunderstood my comment or confused it with another one. The issue is not whether a church has the right to perform a civil marriage. The issue is whether the government has the right to force church marriages to conform to a certain legal definition. In 1890, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US government to do exactly that. That established a clear legal precedent, well-meaning assurances to the contrary on this forum notwithstanding.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    July 4, 2011 6:23 p.m.

    Defense of "traditional" marriage is not just a religious idea, it is good government and good biology. The accusation that, because a number of religious organizations are working to maintain marriage as an opposite-gender organization, they are somehow taking away rights that have lurked in the ionosphere is ludicrous. Same-gender marriage, until recently, has never (or at most rarely) existed as an institution because--even in societies that tolerated homosexuality--the need for marriage to be what it is (the foundation of child conception and rearing) was clearly understood and not disputed.

    Churches have every right to enter the fray and work through democratic means to impose their beliefs on society. There is no possible argument that they must abdicate their rights of suffrage in a democracy simply because someone disagrees with their view.

    Embarcadero hints at what lies ahead for churches that are repeatedly promised that no one will touch their rights when s/he says, "Didn't the LDS learn this lesson the hard way in the wake of the Prop 8 debacle? Wasn't that enough?" What happened to Latter-day Saints after the Prop 8 triumph (not "debacle") is a taste of things to come.

  • sfcretdennis Nice, CA
    July 4, 2011 6:15 p.m.

    Ron Hilton | 9:52 a.m. July 4, 2011 Holladay, UT Mywife and I were married in the Oakland Tempale, married and seald, we were never married cively, you got your facts wrong.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 4, 2011 6:09 p.m.

    If religious action is to exceed other action in the first amendment, then my reaction is this: God says my religion trumps yours, which is all made up hooey. I don't have to prove it any more than you do, so get out of my legislature and keep it to yourself.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    July 4, 2011 4:46 p.m.

    This is a ridiculous article. Nobody seriously wants to force a church to endorse gay marriage if they don't want to. We just want them to not make it illegal. You don't have to allow a gay couple to get married in your church, but you shouldn't be allowed to prevent them from getting married in their own church, or in front of a civil judge.

    To say that your religion views it as a sin, and therefore it should be illegal is the real assault on religious freedom. My religion says same sex marriage should certainly be permitted. And who are you to tell me I can't have that viewpoint in my religious beliefs?

    The predominant religion in this area is the LDS church. They view alcohol consumption as a sin. But does that mean they should be allowed to make it illegal for everyone? Amish believe they should not use technology. Should they be allowed to ban it from everyone? If they want to live without it, fine. But don't push it on everyone. That's what religious freedom is.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 4, 2011 4:12 p.m.

    Hey Allen, I don't think it is a proper role of government to decide what is a sin and what isn't.
    True,but they did and do. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be grounded in a Christians essential beliefs as well as a Mormons. Bible believing Catholics and Evangelicals agree,no flip flopping here(Romney).
    For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mothers womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. ( Psalm 139:13-14 NIV).

    (Judgment) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least(elachistos*1646) of these, ye did it not to me.(MT 25:45). Applicable to*smallest least,in size,(abortion)

  • dotp POTEAU, OK
    July 4, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    It is unfortunate that people who commit sin seek to remove the sin, not by repenting and forsaking that sin, but by finding some way to make what they are doing no longer a sin. I don't know who decided that God had died and left someone else in charge, but I assure you God is NOT dead and He does see what is going on. Truthfulness of a given idea does not depend upon your belief of it's truthfulness. When a concept is true it is simply true and your not liking that fact does not make it any less true. The scriptures are not silent on how God feels about homosexuality and those who don't like what they have to say need to repent and learn just what God does say. Most of those who deny this concept have no idea just what the scriptures (and therefore God) DO say about the action of homosexuality. We WILL have to face God and explain our actions someday. This is definitely a fact some of us need to ponder -- seriously!

  • Larry Chandler CEDAR CITY, UT
    July 4, 2011 3:51 p.m.

    There is no threat to religious freedom simply because one gay person expresses his desire to be married in a church. Laws that permit gay marriage (as in New York) exempt churches.

    It certainly is this person's right to voice an objection, just as it is the right of the church to insist on not being forced to marry gay people.

    But the right of a gay person to marry someone of the same sex in no way interferes with anyone's religious beliefs or principles. Any religion has the right to say no to a gay church wedding. But some churches don't object, and they have religious rights too.

    Churches would definitely be correct in fighting any attempt to force gay marriage upon their own domain, but no law is doing so. And if one is proposed it can and should be fought. But no church has the right to speak for others outside the church.

    Marriage is not just a church function. It belongs to the government sphere as well and churches should stay out of that fight. People should be treated equally when it involves government recognition and benefits.

  • Demisana South Jordan, UT
    July 4, 2011 3:28 p.m.

    "Should Evangelical photographers be permitted to refuse to photograph LDS temple weddings because they think we're a satanic cult?"

    Absolutely! Yes! And I say that as a life-long active LDS woman. Just as we have the right to freedom of association, that INCLUDES the right NOT to associate. Just as we have the right to freedom of religion, that INCLUDES the right NOT to believe in any religion. Otherwise we live in a totalitarian regime.

  • GaboonViper67 GLENDALE, AZ
    July 4, 2011 3:28 p.m.

    You have to remember one thing, the government cannot force a volunteer temple worker to show up and perform a temple marriage for a gay couple.

    The government also cannot force a person to perform a baptism for an openly gay person.

    These ordinances are not performed for money. They are done voluntarily. I have performed these ordinances and I personally will refuse to perform them.

    We have freedom of association in this country. In fact, we can all just refuse to show up for church, or to a baptism for that matter. We will not be forced to associate our faith and our children to the likes of the depravity promoted by the gay community.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 4, 2011 2:47 p.m.

    I have no problem with churches performing gay marriages. Without ridicule of them, I choose to go elsewhere. If you disagree with the LDS church, just go somewhere else. It's your American right to chose and it's just that simple.

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    July 4, 2011 2:46 p.m.

    To Sharrona: The answer is no. The LDS Church will never, ever, ordain women to the priesthood. Holding the priesthood is the calling of righteous men. Women have the wonderful opportunity of co-creating Heavenly Father's spirit children here on the earth, to provide to them physical bodies, and caring for and nurturing them and maintaining the family as a cohesive unit along with their husbands. Picture the family of Jesus Christ, Joseph and Mary, with Jesus as a child. Mary bore, nurtured, and cared for the child Jesus, and later Joseph taught him the ways of the Jewish religion, such as studying the Old Testament scriptures, thus preparing him for His great calling as He who would restore the fullness of the gospel to the earth and atone for the sins of the world, and become our Savior and Redeemer, and great teacher and exemplar here in mortality. Picture also a righteous LDS family of the here and now. This is the way ordained of God. I believe that with all of my heart. Women have just as great a responsibility as do men who hold the priesthood, if not more so.

  • moniker lewinsky Taylorsville, UT
    July 4, 2011 2:45 p.m.

    People who try to argue that their religious liberties are in jeopardy are grasping at straws. This is a non issue.
    I was raised LDS and I wasn't able to marry in the temple because my husband didn't meet the church's criteria. He wasn't a Mormon and wasn't interesting in becoming one.
    Every religion will always be able to set their own standards. Why would any person want to get married in a religion that doesn't embrace them? Even as an LDS member, I refused to be married by a bishop because I wanted to spare myself and my guests of the mandatory lecture about getting sealed eventually. Crazy me, but I wanted it to be a happy day.
    I honestly can't think of one gay person I know who would want to force the LDS church to perform a ceremony. But I know that there are still those who are determined to look like the victim instead of persecutor in this battle for equality. If the day comes , I will write 50 letters of protest defending the church's right to deny temple marriages. On my honor. I'm opposed to anybody getting married in a temple for any reason.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    July 4, 2011 1:54 p.m.

    My partner and I were married religiously by a rabbi in a mainstream Jewish temple, before our family, friends, congregants and God. This was the same temple where my partner became Bar Mitzvah decades earlier, so having the ceremony there wad very symbolic for us, and something we both thought would be meaningful to his parents (mine had passed away a few years earlier).

    Before we made any plans, however, we contacted the rabbi and asked if he would marry us. He immediately responded with, "Of course. How wonderful!" Had he expressed any reservations whatsoever, we would have moved on to one of the many other religious congregations that do welcome gay couples--and asked.

    Our marriage is not recognized as legally-binding in our state. We seek that legal contract in order to protect our relationship under the law.

    I have never heard of Howard Chua-Eoan before, but no matter his status, he does not speak for me, nor can he speak for other gay individuals. I suspect Time Magazine published his opinion precisely because it is so unusual.

    I believe in the First Amendment, and would fight to protect it--even from individuals like Chua-Eoan.

  • Embarcadero SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    July 4, 2011 1:44 p.m.

    "Enrage them with lies so that they feel justified in their violence."

    Does anyone wonder why this article's sole source is an opinion piece that ran in Time? Is anyone asking why not a single gay-rights organization or representative of such an organization is quoted here? Isn't it odd that the authors of this article make it sound like the target is religion rather than the rights and privileges afforded to the legal designation "family"?

    Didn't the LDS learn this lesson the hard way in the wake of the Prop 8 debacle? Wasn't that enough?

  • ComSen1 Sandy, UT
    July 4, 2011 1:29 p.m.

    Sorry I don't have time to read all the other posts.

    Preachers have been arrested and jailed for preaching against homosexuality in Canada, Australia, and more than one in England. I believe there was another in Finland. I'd be surprised if it hadn't happened in Germany, also. There is no such thing as "free speech" in many other places, and it's endangered here in the US. Why does it seem that everyone else's freedoms are being protected EXCEPT Christians?

    I've had gay friends, I've had Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist friends, and probably some atheists. Jews, Muslims and Buddhists would not demand that a Christian preform a marriage ceremony for them. The bottom line is, if you don't adhere to the teachings of a religion, you have no "right" to force them to perform a ceremony through which you are asking them to bless your "union." Get over it.

  • JonathanPDX Portland, Oregon
    July 4, 2011 1:28 p.m.

    I believe that no religious organization has the obligation to marry any persons who do not live according to the dictates of that religion. To do otherwise would be forcing government regulation upon religions and the ability of adherents to freely practice what they believe.

    There are many churches that perform same-sex marriages; more power to them. But to legally rule that those churches that do not agree with such action must do so anyway is completely against religious freedom.

    Why would anyone who respects themselves want to be married by a church that believes their lifestyle to be sinful? By doing so, they are not marrying for love or commitment, but simply to spite such a religious organization and its ability to practice its form of worship.

    Civil law must be able to perform such unions without involving religious organizations, and should hold the same level of legitimacy as would a church wedding.

    To me, the concept of a same-sex marriage in a temple would be a complete mockery of God's plan and the purpose of temple marriage.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 4, 2011 1:12 p.m.

    @Mr. Bean

    "Marriage is both a social construct and a legal association. Social, as it involves joining two people through the emotion of love and appreciation. And legal as it involves ownership of possessions, property and the legal obligation of seeing to the well-being of children. "

    That's right. As I stated in my previous post, I'm suggesting that the legal association be removed from marriage, and that government withdraw from marriage and focus on the legal obligation via civil unions.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 1:01 p.m.

    "tax (btw, who's the head of household in a gay marriage"

    The male isn't always head of household in a heterosexual marriage.

    @Weston Journey
    "Every time I propose that, gay marriage proponents attack me."

    I support the civil unions for all approach as an alternative to legalizing gay marriage. Besides, many on the other side also attack those who hold that position.

    "I fully expect the government will inject itself into the LDS religion's ban against gay marriage... including in the LDS Temple."

    If a court ruled in that fashion it would be appealed and stayed (so it wouldn't go into effect until the higher court ruled on it). In the meantime congress would quickly (even if Democratically controlled since it'd be electoral suicide to do otherwise) pass a bill or even a constitutional amendment on the matter to protect churches.

  • Bro.D Cornelius, Oregon
    July 4, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    Marco Luxe wrote: "I bet none of these orphans were created through "accidents" of gay couples" couples can't have "accidents" ever......ever. Gay couples can't procreate......ever. I'ts one of the most powerful laws of nature and of God...."procreation"....Gay couples can not participate in this law.....ever. So, if nature and God both exclude gay couples from this law then how much more does nature and God exclude them from being parents?

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    zero_limits_33 showed that the DN article only told half of the truth when it failed to quote the last paragraph from Chua-Eoan's article where he stated that churches should be free to do as they please. Others who bring up the NM photographer and the CA fertility specialist who were forced to service same-sex clients likewise only tell half of the story. These people ran businesses in states that required businesses to not discriminate against same-sex couples and individuals. By opening businesses there, they agreed to be subject to kings, rulers and magistrates and to follow the law. Should Evangelical photographers be permitted to refuse to photograph LDS temple weddings because they think we're a satanic cult?

    We need same-sex marriage opponents to tell the WHOLE story and not just the half that promotes irrational fear mongering.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    July 4, 2011 12:42 p.m.

    What an elegant comment, "Civil Rights"! While this article is pure fearmongering, I'm impressed by the thoughful refutations of it.

    ElkBowhunter: your facts are just wrong. LDS adoption services in MA is up and running without state interference... because they don't take state funds. Massachusetts contracted with Catholic Charities to perform the secular job of adoption placements. The bishop wanted the state to change the state contract funds into an unrestricted donatation to the Church to use at its discretion... with discrimination against some MA citizens. This would violate the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. Many on the Catholic Charities board publicly resigned to protest the bishop's crazy politics.
    Thank the lord for those parents who gave loving homes to those children in need... I bet none of these orphans were created through "accidents" of gay couples.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    July 4, 2011 12:37 p.m.

    Leave the world alone for a season and they will prove their own foolishness; they become bored easily and rapidly seek to turn the world upside down. Boredom is the number one problem on the planet which comes from having too much money and idle time. Poor people perhaps are the most blessed people on earth----- so busy trying to put food on the table that they don't care about these silly rights and obsession with equality.

  • wosyd Herriman, UT
    July 4, 2011 12:32 p.m.

    America was established, in part, to prevent Government from forcing religions to conform to the desires of Kings. This is a non-issue today. We have a multitude of Lawyers to protect our rights in court so lets address problems in America that need focus. Like the only way Democracy and a Republic can survive is Honest People who will stand up to Criminal Acts committed by the lowliest Citizen to the most powerful.
    Honesty is the most important aspect of a persons right to own a Business or Run for Office. America needs more honest people holding office and willing to run for office. Lets pledge this 4th of July to investigate the people we vote for by watching what they said in the past and what they say they will do if elected., Find out who really lives up to our standards.
    Pray for your enemy's that their hearts will be softened. Pray that all of us receive the same blessings we ask for others. An easy way to keep our intentions worthy of our Father's Respect.

  • Demisana South Jordan, UT
    July 4, 2011 12:31 p.m.

    Gays will never stop until I can be arrested for child abuse because I told my child that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful. Until they have full marriage, adoption, tax (btw, who's the head of household in a gay marriage?), property and inheritance laws with special protections for them that not even heterosexuals have.

    If you think the ultimate goal is anything short of this, please keep drinking their Koolaid.

  • Mr. Bean SLC, Utah
    July 4, 2011 12:29 p.m.

    @Allen: "Marriage is a social construct, and social organizations should be free to define marriage in any way they wish."

    Marriage is both a social construct and a legal association. Social, as it involves joining two people through the emotion of love and appreciation. And legal as it involves ownership of possessions, property and the legal obligation of seeing to the well-being of children.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    July 4, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    It's very simple:

    Government can't tell you how to worship; Government can't stop you from worshiping; and Government can't demand that you must worship.

    That's it. That's all. Everything else is just fear mongering and slippery slope hypothetical s (like gays will demand Temple Marriages), that just don't hold up in reality, or under constitutional law.

    Given the amount of disinformation and rampant speculation going on, maybe its time for the LDS Church leaders to calmly educate their membership, and clearly address the confusion?

  • Weston Jurney West Jordan, UT
    July 4, 2011 12:04 p.m.

    I have suggested a number of times that there needs to be a distinction between civil (sanctioned by a government) and religious (sanctioned by a faith organization) unions. Since religion had the practice and the word "marriage" first (it's in Exodus and Matthew), I have proposed that all unions be performed by a religious body be called "marriage," and ALL those, straight or gay, performed by civil authority be considered "civil unions."

    Every time I propose that, gay marriage proponents attack me. One even said that it's the WORD marriage that they want, and if religions don't like that THEY should have to come up with a different term for their millennia-old sacred sacrament/ordinance.

  • camotim Council Bluffs, IA
    July 4, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    Re Ranch Hand, I have not seen any law, proposed far less passed, which prohibited any religious entity from performing same gender marriages. And I have never seen, unlike one sees with regard to plural marriage pre-Manifesto and by apostate sects today, any person or religious or other entity even threatened with prosecution for performing a same gender marriage ceremony even when the same was not sanctioned by law.

    Indeed, religious entities can refuse to admit members based on the color of their skin. And they can refuse to perform inter-racial marriages if they wish without sanction of law. Even as much as many racial minorities may find that offensive they have never sought, as the LGBT community has, to force those religious entities to change such discriminatory policies.

    The LGBT community indeed seeks special rights not afforded to others. And more importantly special rights they would not afford, indeed which they would deny, others.

  • Alfred SLC, Utah
    July 4, 2011 11:57 a.m.

    "Is this writer demanding that government compel religions to violate their beliefs?"

    The LDS Church has already experienced the government's intrusion in its beliefs. Plural marriage was, at one time, an LDS religious belief and practice. It's gone, due to government intervention. I fully expect the government will inject itself into the LDS religion's ban against gay marriage... including in the LDS Temple.

    Who woulda knowed that the government (state) would authorize gay marriage Contrary to the policy of probably all Churches and even most Americans? Perhaps the government should be concentrating on religious organizations (who shall remain nameless) who have as objectives, destruction of America?

  • Civil Rights SANTA ROSA, CA
    July 4, 2011 11:48 a.m.

    Straw Man Logic.
    Civil Marriage rights have never implied Religious Marriage rights.
    For 30 years in California after interracial marriages were allowed, the LDS refused to offer them. The same is true for gay marriage. You can even refuse marriages to people that eat shrimp cocktails or cheeseburgers if you wish. They do not have the right to keep others from marrying consenting adults for those reasons.
    Right now, there are Christian and Jewish churches that believe that civil marriage benefits society as well as the couple itself. The benefits to society and the individuals are the same as any non-procreating couple. Someone to lean on when you falter, without having to burden society. Human happiness is good for all.
    Also, please stop denigrating the first amendment. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. It is not just another statute open to the vicissitudes of public opinion.
    The UK has no Constitution or Bill of Rights.
    On this Fourth of July, we should all believe in the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 11:20 a.m.

    Everest: The "love" you talk of is based on religious doctrines, without taking into consideration the love required--physical as well as spiritual--by gays. Such love *is* derided by these religions. It's no love at all to demand that others practice what you believe and that you do so because you "love" them.

    JimHale: The fact that a minority of one, with a good lawyer, might be able to change society can apply to any policy. It's not the exclusive domain of gays. And your implication that gays are so demanding because they feel guilty for being gay has no basis in fact. Guilty people live in the closet, beg their religious leaders for absolution, or commit suicide. I doubt they fall in love and then seek to marry the person they love.

    July 4, 2011 11:13 a.m.

    The US Constitution established laws that guide the governance of social, cultural and political groups within our nation. It is a step forward in the fulfillment of Gods promise to Abraham, that he would the father over many nations. Unfortunately US politicians, in my life-time, have taken 2 steps backwards by exploiting the Constitution for their personal gain.

    The Holy Spirit has influenced our founding fathers to write the US Constitution for the specific purpose of honoring the Son of God and His words spoken at the Sermon of the Mount should have become the Law all of the land.

    Where have they gone wrong?

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 11:12 a.m.

    For a more thorough treatment of the subject, please see the article "OR FOR POORER? HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" that appeared in a Harvard Law journal in 2007.

    Please read it. It will take about 20 minutes of your time. Every person who has an interest in this subject MUST become familiar with the legal issues.

    For example, if you own a business, you could be sued for discrimination against gay people and not even know it - you could be sued. Like the photographer. Like the fertility specialist. You could be forced to change your business against your will. Like eHarmony. etc. etc. Unfortunately, the militant nature of the gay rights group will sue. Rather than let a Christian choose to not associate with them, such as with the photographer, they will force their agenda on you and sue you.

    To call homosexual relationships "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to force full social, legal, and even religious acceptance of homosexual conduct. With emphasis on the word FORCE. By force of law. By suing.

    This is why Californians voted Yes on Prop. 8.

  • ElkBowhunter IDAHO FALLS, ID
    July 4, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    We need to look at this debate from a diferrent angle, and a very important one at that. In 2004 the State of Massachusetts began to allow gay marriages, citing that it was unconstitutional to deny homosexual couples from "marrying". This was the first of the States to allow gay marriages. However, it didn't end there...

    The next step in the Mass. gay movement was to force social service organizations to perform adoption services for those gay couples who wanted to raise "their own families". Catholic, Evangelical, and LDS social service groups refused to perferm their adoption services, and would not place children into homes of gay couples. The State ruled that social service groups MUST include all "families" in their services. Thus, these religious groups shut down their adoption services rather than allow any child being placed in "unfit" surroundings.

    This will be the next step in the gay movement in California and New York. You can almost bet the farm that marriages of gay couples will also threaten the sacred nature of religious houses of worship and Temples.

    Its time for the majorty to take a stand against the minority gay rights...

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 4, 2011 10:49 a.m.

    Hi sharrona,

    I understand the Biblical teachings about homosexuality. I don't think it is a proper role of government to decide what is a sin and what isn't. Marriage is a social custom and should be left to social groups. Governments at all levels shouldn't be concerned with marriage. Governments should establish civil unions to protect property and other legal rights of people who enter into the unions.

    Of course, two people who want to have a relationship shouldn't be forced into civil unions. In deciding not to enter into legal civil unions, they would forfeit any legal protections established by those unions. Social groups could require the two people to enter into a legal civil union as a pre-condition of the people being married by that social group. Other social groups might not require legal civil unions.

    Proper role of government is to provide protection to citizens. Historically, this protection has been coupled with marriage. I'm suggesting that this protection be separated from marriage.

  • MickeyC New York, NY
    July 4, 2011 10:28 a.m.

    What about the rights of churches who perform same sex marriages as part of their faith to be free from government interference? Why is it always a one way street? If religions are allowed to practice their religions free from government interference, why does the government have the right to keep some religions from marrying the people they wish to? I completely agree that those who, for what ever reasons, don't wish to marry certain people and marry others, but let's keep it the same for ALL religions, not just those who oppose same sex marriage.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 4, 2011 10:23 a.m.

    @Ron Hilton, You may be right, and I may agree with you; but your argument will not wash in the long term because churches today (including LDS ) are more about politics than religion.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    July 4, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    "Free Agency" argues above that Howard Chua-Eoan was speaking for himself and not "the gay community".

    The gay community may well be diverse in its racial, political and religious make up. That is a part of its power.

    But it only takes a minority of one - with a good lawyer - to move our society.

    A generation ago gay leaders were content to claim Pride in a decision to adopt a lifestyle other found deviant.
    Now gay leaders say "we were born this way".
    They found they could sell "rights" for a conscious decision.

    A generation ago gay leaders ONLY wanted their "private" behavior decriminalized.
    Then they ONLY wanted employment and housing protections.
    Then they ONLY wanted civil unions.
    Then they ONLY wanted civil marriage in some states.
    Then they ONLY wanted civil marriage in all states.
    They will soon be demanding....

    After all, guilt is very demanding.

    The gay movement is composed of at least two groups: those that turn up the heat...and those who tell the frog in the pot that he is silly to worry about the rising temperature of the water in which he is clearly cooking.

  • zero_limits_33 Eagle mountain, UT
    July 4, 2011 10:17 a.m.

    If any of you bothered to read the article by Howard Chua-Eoan, you would realize it was wishful thinking from. Also I find it a little more than devious that Lane Williams could not be bothered to include the last paragraph from Howard....

    "The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here, we will have to continue to march in parades and sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up Saturday morning, I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore."

    I guess that is because it would have shown his article for what it is and what others have already mentioned, baseless fear-mongering.

  • Everest American Fork, UT
    July 4, 2011 10:09 a.m.

    Some in the LGBT community insist that churches that teach religious principles of exclusive sexual relations between a man and a woman are discriminating illegally against a certain protected class of people. We should all recognize that "some" of the LGBT community will likely become "most" or even "all" in the future, much as the portion of LGBT advocating for marriage rights, a small minority in the past, has grown to nearly 100% now. Within ten years, I'm sure gay marriage rights will be granted all across the country. At that point, I fully expect that "some" LGBT calls for religions to abandon teaching homosexuality as a sin will turn into "all" LGBT and their friends and families. Many more churches will liberalize their doctrine to accommodate gay marriage, but some will hold firm. The government will then be forced to decide: should those holdout churches be allowed to carry on their discriminatory practices, or should they not be allowed to make judgements on moral behavior any longer?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 10:08 a.m.

    Churches were even free to not have to marry interracial couples back in the day. There's only one risk a church has to worry about when it comes to people trying to get them marry gay couples and it doesn't actually involve forced gay marriage. A court cannot require a church to marry same sex couples, however, there might come a point in time when the public might condemn those who don't so you might get protests. This would be similar to what happened when some churches seemed to lag behind the general public when it came to racial equality. The church can't be forced to do something... but people can make it miserable to continue the course they were on thus possibly making the church change position.

  • Everest American Fork, UT
    July 4, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    @free agency and others. The institutions in question do not "deride the love" of gay couples. Most churches teach some form of "brotherly love" as a primary principle. Love of one to another is Godly in Christian, Jewish, and Moslem teachings. The issue is whether a church can continue to preach that sexual activities outside of a marriage between a man and woman are frowned upon by God, "sinful," or otherwise prohibited by that faith.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 4, 2011 10:01 a.m.

    Allen: The Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage.
    The Bible also teaches against polygamy: and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of ONE wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.(Titus 1:5,6) 1 Timothy 3:2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of ONE wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;(1 Tim 3:2).

    Will the Mormon Church evtually give women the Priesthood as liberal Christians do?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    The Constitution protects the rights of churches to not marry whoever they don't want to. That's why the LDS church is free to not marry... anyone they don't want to. Even unworthy LDS members aren't allowed to marry in the temple. So how would gay people accomplish something that has never been an issue? For that matter who would support it? The Constitution says churches can not marry whoever they don't want to. The vast majority of people support that position, including the majority of those who support same sex marriage.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    July 4, 2011 9:59 a.m.

    Why is government involved with marriage a social institution?

    Marriage is a contract that is enforced by making it binding in court. It allows you to sue for divorce if the contract is broken protecting not only the spouse but children too with property, alimony, child support, and visiting rights.
    Marriage changes the tax code since the contract is considered long term.

    It is essential that all religions are free to define marriage anyway they choose. Government should only be involved with making it binding in court.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 9:53 a.m.

    Fred Vader
    ..legislation was voted on to take the authority of performing marriages away from churches who refused to perform gay marriages in their churches and temples.

    See my comments above regarding a constitutional amendment. Also, outside of the US and Canada, LDS temple weddings are not recognized as legally binding and LDS couples must first be legally married in a public wedding or at City Hall and THEN be sealed in the temple. IOW, exactly as Fred's nightmare scenario envisions. So even if the nightmare becomes a reality in the US, it won't be the end of the world since most LDS live under it currently without batting an eye. Again, this so-called nightmare won't happen because the citizens won't allow it and would pass a constitutional amendment to prevent it.

    The Supreme Court cannot be depended upon to stop that last step. It opened the door to the temples the day it found that states could not make sodomy a crime.

    Gays makeup 2% of the population, women make up 51%. How successful have women been in suing the Church to be ordained to the priesthood?

    More baseless fearmongering!

  • Ron Hilton Holladay, UT
    July 4, 2011 9:52 a.m.

    The Mormon church was almost destroyed in the 19th century by the US government dicating what forms of marriage could be performed in LDS temples. It could absolutely happen again. Even if most gays don't have an anti-church agenda, the militant minority definitely does. Lawsuits are inevitable, and we are just one liberal swing vote away from it in the Supreme Court. The LDS is church is not anti-gay. It is merely trying to protect religious freedom from encroachment by anti-church forces masquerading as pro-gay.

  • Old Scarecrow Brigham City, UT
    July 4, 2011 9:45 a.m.

    It is true that in both the UK and Canada governments have come close to taking marriage authority away from churches to appease the LGBT activists. The actvists in the U.S. are gearing up for such attempts here by writing articles like the one quoted that separates belief, faith or obedience to any religious principles from the legal right to have a marriage performed that will be recognized by civil authorities. The Constitution's freedom of religion can be construed as only protecting believers from laws that would dictate which religious beliefs they must hold, or where they must worship, but not guaranteeing that religious believers are free to choose their beliefs and act on them. These are dangerous times for religious freedom.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    Howard Chua-Eoan was speaking for himself, not the "gay community." It was an *opinion* piece. And though there may be other gays who share his opinion, I wager that the great majority of gays--especially those who seek to marry--would want nothing to do with institutions which deride their love. They certainly wouldn't want to get married under the legally-compelled "blessings" of those institutions.

    The whole battle for gay marriage is predicated on separation of church and state. As more than one person has pointed out elsewhere, for gays to insist that government should force religions into performing gay marriages takes away the very basis for legalizing gay marriage. It breaches the separation.

    Your churches and temples will be inviolate, as long as you don't try to dictate public policy from within them.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    July 4, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    The "gay rights" movement has never been about equal rights under the law. It has been and continues to be all about forcing acceptance and societal approval - of activities that a generation ago were not only not called rights but were in fact crimes through out the nation.

    Participants in homosexual activity have never been an economically deprived minority grouping.

    The goals of the movement have grown ever more far-reaching, being redefined every decade: Legality. Employment. Housing. Public accommodations (e.g. Boy Scouts). School curricula. Civil unions. Gay marriage.

    The ultimate goal is forcing the Mormons, the Catholics, the Evangelicals and the Muslims to allow gay marriage in churches, temples and mosques.

    The Supreme Court cannot be depended upon to stop that last step. It opened the door to the temples the day it found that states could not make sodomy a crime.

    New York passed gay marriage with a religious exemption. Expect immediate lawsuits.

    Federal politicians who have avoided this issue by saying it should be left to the states are either fools or charlatans.

    This will come down to an amendment to the US Constitution...which takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    July 4, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    Before "pagan" and others come on here and tell us how wrong we all are and how this won't happen, please checkout what almost happened in the "progressive" UK recently: legislation was voted on to take the authority of performing marriages away from churches who refused to perform gay marriages in their churches and temples. Where is the outcry from the gay marriage supporters who swore this would never happen and they wouldn't support it? And the slippery slope just keeps getting slipperier.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    This article is a prime example of baseless fearmongering.
    Gays will never marry in the temple. The California Supreme Court decision invalidating Prop. 8 stated that no church or clergyman would be force to perform gay ceremonies. The recently passed NY law allowing gay marriage said the same.
    Even if by some miracle some court ruled that churches, we LDS, along with other groups would tie that decision up in court appeals until a constitutional amendment (state or federal) that would allow churches to marry whom they will in their own facilities could be passed. Such an amendment would get passed at light speed. Many gays would support it as well. No politician would dare oppose it. It would have overwhelming public support. The public may even support gays being allowed to marry civilly, but FAR FAR more people believe that churches have a right to deny marrying gays if it goes against their doctrine, especially since gays could go to City Hall, a Vegas wedding chapel or other gay-friendly churches to get married.

    Same-sex marriage in NO WAY threatens religion. Religion is FAR FAR more of a threat to the equal civil rights of gays.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 4, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    The biggest threat to religious freedom is religion itself.

    If you enact laws that prevent SOME religions from performing same-sex marriages, you are infringing on that religion's freedom of religion. If you are willing to deny another religion the freedom to practice it as they see fit, you run the risk of losing your own religious freedom.

    In the end, the freedom to practice your religion does not give you the right to infringe on anyone else's freedom - in any arena, civil or religious.

    The first Amendment does NOT give religion the right to infringe on anybody's freedom.

  • KvonMoses GLENDALE, AZ
    July 4, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    Howard Chuan-Eaton:Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?

    Quite simply because Homosexuality is " abomination..." in the Bible and the Talmud. This excludes the support of homosexuality.

    Were the Homosexual to repent and abstain, they would have the full support of any Church that teaches from Scripture. That abstention or celibacy would not require marriage.

  • 5 Orem, UT
    July 4, 2011 9:00 a.m.

    This is a goood example of the next step for the gay rights folks. Since we have enacted hate crime laws that make it a criminal act to even speak out against homosexuality as a minority, enforcement of that law will be combined with the legality of state laws for marriage. The next step is to bring legal action against any church which teaches the practice of homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. When that happens no church will be able to preach God's laws from the pulpit. That is the plan of gay rights folks to force not only acceptance of a deviant lifestyle, but total state and religious support of it. I
    If a person truly believes a church is of God, then doesn't it follow that We must follow the teachings of that God? If it be of man then it makes no difference what is taught. If it be of God then man can have no control of what is taught, if it is to remain of God. The gay rights folks should take it up with God. But only if they believe it is of God.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    July 4, 2011 8:59 a.m.

    It's too bad that government of any kind is regulating marriage. Marriage is a social construct, and social organizations should be free to define marriage in any way they wish. We would be better served if government got out of the marriage business and focused on regulating rights of persons who choose to enter into social unions. But, government is in the business of regulating marriage, and that isn't likely to change.

  • junkgeek Agua Dulce, TX
    July 4, 2011 8:46 a.m.

    Churches could simply refuse to perform ceremonies altogether and simply choose to solemnify the civil marriages of their congregants.

  • Lurchib washington, WA
    July 4, 2011 8:29 a.m.

    I am an Atheist (not gay, but that's beside the point) but I am all for the churches right to refuse to marry a couple that goes against their beliefs (just as much as I wouldn't expect a unemployed vegan to look for work in an abattoir) It's wrong (in my opinion) to force someone to do something they aren't comfortable with.

  • Brian Wasilla, AK
    July 4, 2011 7:38 a.m.

    The target is the temple.

  • wazzup Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 4, 2011 7:27 a.m.

    You saw this coming from miles away. It is the homosexual's 'in your face' moment to the religions who believe their behavior is deviant and wrong.

    if that were to occur, watch for a federal law exempting religions from having to perform gay marriages. so have the gays bring it on!

  • residualblue Chubbuck, ID
    July 4, 2011 6:52 a.m.

    I have no ill will towards the gay community, and I happen to have quite a few gay friends. I can understand their feelings in this issue to a degree, but this article does bring up a good point. If a church's doctrine specifies homosexual acts are a sin, why would a homosexual person want to be married in their church? The article also stated there are churches out there willing to perform marriages for homosexual couples, but the writer quoted in the article didn't seem to think that was enough. Why is it so important to force others into their frame of thinking? Is it just so they can be married wherever they please? Let religious practitioners believe what they believe. If the gay community wants to be treated in a certain way, they need to afford religious communities the same respect, and vice versa. No more anti-gay stuff from religions either. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But as long as people are going to do it, I still need and want to respect them and reach out in fellowship. I can't define a person by what I consider to be their most conspicuous sin.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    July 4, 2011 6:40 a.m.

    Excellent article. Right on target. Our society is on the precipice. I hope we can avoid going over the cliff. If we do, there isn't much time left for us. God will not be mocked.