Quantcast
Utah

Mormon Church joins other faiths in signing letter on marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Dekka17 Sydney, NSW
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:47 a.m.

    I find it very sad that Bishop Burton would sign a document that supports discrimination against gay couples and their children. As the GLBTI Community works to achieve the same rights as all families, the activities of far right wing groups and sadly my Church, the LDS Church, continues to be fearful of something that doesn't exist. The gay community don't want to rid the world of marriage, this is a delusional thought by old men from many faiths who claim to talk for God.
    I'm still to have anyone articulate to me in a clear and concise manner why a gay couple joining as one in what some would like to call marriage in any way denigrates the same activity by heterosexuals. Do you feel less married because ther are gay couples in some countries married? I don't think so.
    I'm almost tired of writing comments at the end of these ludicrous articles. But, I feel a voice for sanity needs to be heard, so I continue to comment.

  • Arithon Provo, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 3:40 a.m.

    The vast number of people represented by the 26 signatures on this document is staggering. It is refreshing to see the issue of marriage written in clear and simple language. I agree that there is a unique love between husbands and wives but I believe there is a lack of recognition of the unique love between homosexual men and women. For this issue to move forward, religious and civil leaders need to address the reality of this unique love in the same clear and simple language. The love between homosexual men and women also deserves to be recognized and expressed in a legal manner. All Americans are entitled to the pursuit of happiness and to me, love is the ultimate expression of happiness. To deny someone's love based on sexual orientation goes against this principle. A lasting resolution to the issue of marriage can only be achieved if we as individuals seek a clearer and more knowledgable understanding to both sides of the issue; not simpy the side we are on.

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 6:14 a.m.

    I applaud this inter-faith action.

    We cannot, and we must not turn our backs on the institution of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman.

  • Progressive Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 7:33 a.m.

    Did Bishop Burton pencil in "in this life at this time"? If not the LDS commitment is disingenuous.

  • Edmond Dantes West Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 8, 2010 7:51 a.m.

    Would this document invalidate Abraham's marriage to Hagar? Was she a wife or a concubine? What about Jacob (Israel)? Does this invalidate his marriage to Rachel? Historically, there have been many types of marriage. Most prominent is marriage between one man and many women. It is still very common in the world today. What about Brigham Young's wives? I'm not saying these churches are wrong, but I am saying that their stances have changed in the past. Marriage between one man and one woman is and has been the standard, but there has also been another standard for a few others in the past.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Dec. 8, 2010 7:56 a.m.

    To all those who opposed marriage equality for Gay couples: Is it just the word "MARRIAGE" that you are concerned with? Often I hear it said, "Let Gay couples have their legal benefits, just don't call it MARRIAGE."

    OK, then. Let's suppose there's either a Supreme Court decision or a Constitutional amendment saying that Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples can get "married," and Gay couples can have "civil unions," but otherwise all the legal benefits would be the same at all levels of government.

    Would you support that? And if so, what you have you won? All you have for yourself is a word, whereas Gay couples have essentially all the legal benefits that go with that word. And they will say, "We got married in Cancun," or "We got married in Niagara Falls," because there won't be any language police roaming around forbidding them from using the word in conversation.

    And if you can't support "civil unions," what Constitutional justification can you make for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted?

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 7:58 a.m.

    Just as the Deseret News editorialized that the demise of marriage has been exaggerated, so it is with the notion that marriage is under attack and in need of protection, given the desire for same-gender couples to become married. But you all don't get it. You all don't get it that homosexual couples are not a threat to marriage or anything.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:09 a.m.

    Arithon
    I enjoyed reading your sentiments. I also have empathy for the plight of homosexuals. Having said this, I don't believe that God has ever said that marriage between homosexuals is acceptable. We cannot make God in our image, rather, he has made us in his image. So he makes the rules, not the other way around.

  • Marty22 salt lake city, Utah
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:22 a.m.

    The Church's removal of the phrase "same-sex relationships 'distort loving relationships'" was a step in recognizing that homosexual relationships are about more than sex. Some are--as are some hetero marriages by the way--but many, if not most, are about the same deep feelings of love and intimacy than we expect to see in marriages between a man and woman.

    As I recently read statistics on LDS divorce rates and marriage dissatisfaction among the young I couldn't help wondering how many of those are due to the shortened courtships and quickie marriages to avoid sinning and becoming "unworthy" thereby often marrying someone who is little more than a stranger and with whom they have little in common save the Church and a desire to be "good Mormoms" and marry in the temple.
    Reports of engaged BYU co-eds dancing in their apartments singing "I'm gonna have s*x; I'm gonna have s*x" make me wonder what the true goal of those temple marriages is.

    Maybe we'd better quit questioning other people's motivation in their desire for marriage and examine our own.
    Martine Smith

  • Marty22 salt lake city, Utah
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:24 a.m.

    I meant the statement "distorts loving relationships" was removed from the Church's Handbook of Instructions.

  • Seek to understand Sandy, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:30 a.m.

    Arithon didn't say anything about homosexual marriage. He/she was speaking about the love between homosexual people and the need for acknowledging it, and perhaps coming to understand it, instead of rejecting it based upon our own beliefs.

    It is not a conflict for faithful LDS people to love, support and acknowledge homosexual people and their relationships. We should view those relationships as choices made using the agency we treasure and based upon conditions we certainly do not yet understand.

    We are commanded to love, show charity, and refrain from judgment. As long as we are living up to our own covenants, we really should not be judging about others and how they choose to live their lives. In fact, I believe it is required of us that we love, support, and honor those decisions without rancor, judgment or contention.

    My dream is a world where faithful LDS will see they are not asked to judge in these cases. We should support the church's position on marriage, AND civil unions should be common in every state, encouraging homosexuals and allowing them to create the best life they can with our love and support.

  • JLFuller Boise, ID
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:32 a.m.

    Supporters of homosexual rights may legitimately claim American law protects the life style. I think most Americans agree on that score. However to claim it is authorized in Christianity ignores the biblical prohibition of homosexual behavior. Practitioners are on their own and under our current law, marriage is not an option. Most people will acknowledge that legitimizing long term homosexual relationships as a civil union is about as far as they are willing to go. Calling a marriage raises homosexuality to a level equal to what God has ordained and that is too far for most people.

  • Ann Amberly Greenbelt, MD
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:33 a.m.

    This is a very important document, and the LDS Church is to be commended for signing it. (Especially since it commits the Church to a definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.) Marriage was meant to be the symbol of peace between the two halves of humanity. That is a special good offered to human society, obtainable in no other way.

    That having been said, Why are there NO women signatories of this document? Why isn't Sister Beck's signature o this document? If we are to support marriage, our support must mirror that marriage was meant to be an equal partnership between men and women. Until the men that support marriage "get" this, their efforts will be less than effective.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:35 a.m.

    DEAR KM:

    I just wish that GOD, in His wisdom and omnipotence, would be just a bit more media-savvy in this day and age. I mean, were talking about the same God that allegedly created the Universe (just 6,000 years ago, according to some people), flooded the entire Earth, parted the Red Sea, and whose Earthbound avatar came back to life after having assumed room temperature for three days. Why does He insist on taking such a hands-off approach? We have one Book which has been translated and re-translated, interpreted and re-interpreted, until hardly anyone can agree on what it means. We have dozens of Christian denominations, each with its own unique take on what God expects of us. Wouldnt God be a little more effective in getting us to behave decently toward one another if He would just put together a website or a television channel or at the very least a 1-800 number? There is a wide variety of contemporary social and economic issues (including Gay marriage) I sure would like to get His opinion on.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:36 a.m.

    For your consideration...

    how can one 'defend' marriage (one man and one woman), and then deny it to others? (gay couples)

    Discuss....

  • sky2k1 Saint George, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:40 a.m.

    Simply stating my opinion here... but could it be that religions are protecting marriage (apart from religious beliefs) so that they won't be forced to change in the future by the government? Taking the LDS church into account, the government was going to take away the temples had they not discontinued polygamy. And the Lord took away polygamy to keep temples (read the official declaration). Couldn't it be that some day, if Gay marriage was legalized that they would take legal action against religions and threaten to do something to them? So not only are religions protecting their beliefs, they are protecting themselves too. And don't say gay's wouldn't take legal action against the laws and religion, they already have. It would and will happen again in my opinion.

  • Demisana South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:42 a.m.

    Got a question. A husband and a wife have a child, that child gets automatic protection, because the law recognizes the relationships of mother and father automatically.

    So if a legal gay marriage is in effect, and the couple gets a child (infertility assistance through surrogacy for men, or one partner's pregnancy for women), how will the legal protections work for the child? Will both men automatically get father status? Will the second woman automatically get mother status? Or will every couple have to go to court to register the second parent, and cut off the natural parent? What if, years down the road, the child wants the mother or father relationship that the law or the courts ignored/denied in the first place? What if the natural parent wants their relationship back to the child? On what logical basis can the natural relationship be denied? What a tangled mess will be created. Let alone after the inevitable divorces, and resultant realignment of relationships.

    Society's interest in marriage has nothing to do with love or romance. It's because of the protections offered to the family, as the most stable, basic unit of society.

  • mammalou Somewhere in the USA, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:50 a.m.

    BRAVO!!!!

    I'm glad to see all faiths standing together on this one. Those of us that share these beliefs have just as much right to band together and fight our cause as the GLBT society. No longer can we or should we remain passive about something that is equally important to us. Politicial corrects is going to far.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:59 a.m.

    Line One: "Marriage is the permanent and faithful union of one man and one woman". OK, that's a nice sentiment but how many actual marriages ever live up to that ideal?

    What's notable about this open letter (which is clearly aimed at the gay and lesbian community without ever mentioning them) is what it doesn't say. Primarily how will this group organize against, or punish those who don't fit their exclusionary vision of "marriage" or "family".

    If this is just another dog whistle call for anti-gay political organizing by religious groups, then the LDS Leadership is going to eventually have to explain where they draw the marriage line in the sand (with clarity instead of flowery abstractions, and how far they are willing to go to impose their views on others outside of the LDS Church.

    Judging from the jumbled statements coming from LDS politicians, blogs, and writers (Richard Eyre, Des. News 12/3/10) recently, they should start with a concrete statement on civil unions.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:03 a.m.

    This is an affirmation of marriage as defined in holy writ and secular experience. Other commitments (gay commitment) are not excluded, but they are not marriage. Calling a duck a goose does not make it so. And failure to specifically note the LDS subset of marriage is not disingenuous.

  • Sneaky Jimmy The Biggity-Biggity O, CA
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:03 a.m.

    I need to know why God wants heterosexual people to practice fidelity and live chaste lives but not homosexual people. What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage? Would God prefer that an abandoned baby languish in an orphanage in Romania or be adopted by a loving gay couple?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:07 a.m.

    Excellent.

    No one is denying anyone's right to love. It is only protecting the institution of marriage and families.

    Dear Progressive: I have a really important question for you......HUH!

  • Where's Momo? Sandy, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:11 a.m.

    I would like to offer my thanks to all parties that signed this document. Thank you for standing up for what is right. I'm behind you 100%

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:10 a.m.

    re: Edmond Dantes | 7:51 a.m. Dec. 8, 2010

    Thank you for some great examples.

    re: Pagan | 8:36 a.m. Dec. 8, 2010

    When it comes to Equal rights/Equal protection under the law, its kind of like Animal Farm... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:24 a.m.

    @PolishBear 7:56

    You bring up a good point which I wish to address. I appreciate your civility and I will make sure Im just a civil.

    In my opinion, recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage would likely bring up a flood of lawsuits against any church or clergyman who refused to marry a gay or lesbian couple.

    Of course, some would immediately say this thought is total paranoia, but think about it. Could you honestly say if or when same-sex marriage is recognized in all 50 states, there would be no pressure at all put on the Catholic, Southern Baptist or LDS Church to policy?

    Im not just talking about polite protests either. Im talking about the IRS and/or law enforcement used against churches that dont fall in line with government demands.

    It happened during the 1880s after the Edmonds/Tucker Act passed, so what would prevent it from happening again?

    One more quick point; there are some who are using the same-sex marriage debate as a means of wanting age of consent laws eliminated, as well as allow group marriages, yet whenever these topics are brought, theyre simply ignored. Why?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:30 a.m.

    @Pagan 8:36

    Should there be any person or group of people that marriage can be denied to, or should it just be an open ended contract?

    What if I want to marry an 11-year-old? What if I wanted to marry three or four women who were already married to other guys?

    The question I have is, where do we draw the line?

  • Laser Iowa City, IA
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:30 a.m.

    Sounds good to me. Nothing better than to unite all faiths across the board.

    re:pagan. The issue is much, so much deeper than who qualifies for marriage. First of all, it is a religious issue that is interwoven and embodies strong religious practicies and beliefs. Since this nation protects religion and it's practice, religious groups have a huge interest in what is at stake here. Second, marriage operates on the strict guidelines of fidelity and commitment and is the seminal union that strengthens society, civilization and protects children. No other union in the history of the world accomplishes that, none. History itself, of any society of consequence, vindicates that point. Third, the same sex community isn't really interested in marriage at all. Time will prove the third point. The marriage front is just that, a front, but the sanctity of marriage stands directly in the way of what is really wanted, so it must be attacked.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:35 a.m.

    In the early 1900's the Church was forced to abandon polygamy, in favor of traditional marriage. 100 years later the Church is vehemently pursuing a law which defines marriage in direct defiance to the holy order established by the Church's founder? Has the Church officially denounced the polygamist marriages of its forebearers? It is time for smug Church leaders to be accountable, if they are going to be authorities on the matter. The LDS Church needs to take a stand on its own marriage issues before it takes a stand on gay's and lesbians.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:36 a.m.

    Churches should lose their tax exempt status.

    GLBT taxpayers are being forced to subsided those who discriminate against them.

    GLBT couples are families every bit as much as heterosexual couples.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:42 a.m.

    Thanks for the replies so far.

    Demisana | 8:42 a.m., I would say your arguemnt (what happens to a family?) is a straw man argument.

    As 1) there is no limit to divorce for straight marriage, and the 'adopted' children have the same odds for their natural parents to fight for custody now.
    2) Adoption is the same situtation, (no naturalized parents) with no argument.

    You would have to fix these two situations, who CAN marry, before you would deny them to gay couples, who cannot marry (in all 50 states).

    Wally West | 9:10 a.m., if you think some 'animals' are not AS equal, I would say you do not truly believe in equality.

    Sneaky Jimmy | 9:03 a.m., Civil unions factually do NOT offer the same legal protections as marriage. My example?

    Recognition across state lines.
    Adoption of children.
    Inheritance.

    There are more.

    As a gay man, I would be fine with fidelity and monogamy.

    It does seem however that some would rather deny all legal rights and protections with marriage, an institution that promotes, monogamy.

    Therefore, 'defend' marriage, by promoting promescurity. (i.e. No monogamy)

  • darjen cleveland, oh
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:48 a.m.

    I would be much more interested in getting the government completely out of marriage. There is no conceivable reason why two dudes getting married would affect the marriage between me and my wife.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:56 a.m.

    @Mormoncowboy 9:35

    I'm just a little confused by your comment. If I read it correctly, I do not believe the LDS Church needs to denounce the early church's practice of polygamy in order to speak on traditional marriage today.

    Polygamy was practiced for specific reasons which are no longer relevant to today's society. Also, the early LDS Church never attemted to force polygamy onto other churches.

    @RanchHand 9:36

    Are you saying ALL churches should lose their tax-exempt status, or just the ones you personally disagree with?

    In the future, should the IRS be used as a weapon against churches which choose not to conform to societal demands?

  • Rexburg Reader Rexburg, ID
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:07 a.m.

    To ClarkHippo: I think you're scratching the surface of one of the reasons the LDS Church, and all churches, are concerned about non-traditional marriages. Besides the spiritual and social concerns, which are significant, I can see churches losing their tax exempt status over this issue, which would be HUGE. Also I can see church schools losing their ability to get federal grants for their students. I've heard that at BYU-Idaho alone, students receive tens of millions annually in federal tuition assistance. ...just two problems I can think of if church clergy won't perform a gay marriages.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:09 a.m.

    I'm not sure what the point is here. of course people that think the bible or other books are the word of God would be against same sex marriage. They believe they are God's army and must force everyone to comply with their rules.

    re - KM | 8:09 a.m
    "I don't believe that God has ever said that marriage between homosexuals is acceptable. So he makes the rules, not the other way around."

    So what you are saying is that your view on God's "rules" is what everyone must comply to. So if you were muslim you believe we should have Islamic law, right? Do you really think that is how this country should be? Or have you not considered it in that context?

    re - JLFuller | 8:32 a.m
    "However to claim it is authorized in Christianity ignores the biblical prohibition of homosexual behavior."

    no one is claiming it is authorized by your religion. But your religion is exactly that - YOUR religion. So either you only force your views onto people in your religion, or you are forcing an entire population to adhere to your religious principles. Is this America or Afghanistan? You decide.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:10 a.m.

    Sky2k1: Very insightful.

    It should be pointed out that in spite of the Constitution stating that our government cannot make laws abridging anyone's religious rights, the law which was passed regarding polygamy (or more accurately bigamy) was aimed directly at the Mormons. Its intent was to abridge their religious freedom. To be clear, all church property would be confiscated unless the LDS church ceased practicing polygamy. If it can happen once, why assume it can't happen again?

    Ridgely: for the record, mine has.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:12 a.m.

    "Churches should lose their tax exempt status."

    If churches lose their tax-exempt status, they become taxpayers and thus have skin in the game, which means they can endorse and oppose candidates for office, and they have every right to do so. With skin in the game, there is nothing to stop them from getting involved more intimately in politics than you can possibly imagine.

    Tax-exemption gives religious groups incentive to stay out of electoral politics. Religion has no obligation to stay out of electoral politics if they are not tax-exempt. Do you really want to get rid of that exemption and open the flood gates?

  • Jax Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:19 a.m.

    These churches are entitled to discriminate if they so choose. They are also entitled to write as many letters as they want making their discrimination clear. I only ask that when it comes to making secular laws for governing this country that they do not try to codify their religious discrimination.

    Previous attempts to extinguish gay marriage rights are no different than the implementation of sharia law in Islamic countries. Such enforcement of religious principles without separate and distinct secular reasoning is wrong and is contrary to the principles of equality and freedom that make this country great. Please do not go further down the road to theocracy and oppression.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:20 a.m.

    Laser | 9:30 a.m.

    You bring up many points. It is my hope to address them.

    1) If marriage is a 'religious' issue, then why does goverment give legal recognition to them? It seems religion lost any grounds to try to defend marriage, after religion asked federal goverment for legal protections of that marriage.

    i.e. marriage can be done at any city hall, for around $75. No religion required.

    2) I agree that marriage promotes fidelity and monogamy. And yet, some try to deny marriage to gay people.

    3) You claim to be against marriage for gay people...

    and then claim to know 'they' don't want marriage.

    How is that?

    'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - By Bruce Wilson - 08/24/09 - Alter net

    'Now, we have 4 consecutive years of data. According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940...'

    The National Center For Vital Statistics vs. your opinion.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:22 a.m.

    DEAR CLARK HIPPO:

    You write, "In my opinion, recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage would likely bring up a flood of lawsuits against any church or clergyman who refused to marry a gay or lesbian couple."

    Why would you say this? Churches have NEVER been forced to marry anyone they didn't want to marry. Catholic churches have never been forced to marry LDS couples, any more than Jewish synagogues have been forced to marry Muslim couples. But then again, the only thing a church can provide (or deny) to any couple is a ceremony. None of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church. They come from government.

    In any case, Gay couples wouldn't wish to have wedding ceremonies in churches where they are met with hostility. On the other hand, there are many churches which are now willing to provide Gay couples those ceremonies. Isn't it conceivable that the government's prohibition on Gay marriage infringes on their religious rights?

  • SSMD Silver Spring, MD
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:26 a.m.

    The "one man and one woman" concept does not rule out plural marriage in and of itself. Under the LDS practice in the 1800s and in temple sealings, each union is between one man and one woman as a separate marriage. It's not like it's all one big union with one man and multiple wives in a single sealing.

  • Zadruga Guy West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:27 a.m.

    PolishBear, to answer your question, I would support completely removing civil governments from being involved in "marriages" and thus having everyone, gay and straight, get a civil union from the government and then go to whatever willing celebrant to get "married."

    This is already how it is for LDS members in some countries (such as the UK) and it seems to work there.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:33 a.m.

    Pagan: your 9:42 post is presented much better than many of your previous posts I've read. Very even keel -- avoiding name calling and other emotionally laden verbiage. Much improved! Please keep providing us with insightful alternate views. It is beneficial for all of us, whether we can admit it or not.

  • klangton Akiachak, AK
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:35 a.m.

    One man and one woman. This statement holds the sound of something that is eternal. That has always been and will always be.....

    Hmmmmm.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:43 a.m.

    It's very simple. On the one hand we have clergy who are willing to submit to God's will. On the other hand we have gay activists who demand that God submit to their will. They vilify God. They mock his prophets. They march naked in the streets. They want us to respect them and their ideas.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

  • SoItGoes Sandy, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:54 a.m.

    Are you gay supporters kidding, or is your reality really that skewed?

    One post refers to a law making Marriage between a man and women the equivalent of Sharia law. Another, asks if this is America or Afghanistan.

    That is the equivalent to saying, is this Babylon, are you all Anarchists?

    Defining marriage is not similar to stoning individuals to death, the Taliban is a terrorist organization not a Church.

    However, I do agree on the tax exempt status of "The" Church, and all Churches for that matter, it should be stripped. I would very much appreciate the ability of the organization I belong to, to begin to actually dictate some policy rather then be blindly accused of it.

  • bigsoccer Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:13 a.m.

    Did you all know its the LDS church's fault that this is happening, even though other religions have spoken up on the issue also, its amazing how one religion gets picked on all the time.

  • Utah Dem Ogden, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:14 a.m.

    Ranchhand wrote - "GLBT taxpayers are being forced to subsided those who discriminate against them."

    Please explain.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:14 a.m.

    @metamoracoug 10:33

    I would actually say most of the posts so far have been civil.

    In other countries where same-sex marriage has become law, churches have shifted from advocating government action to establishing stronger emphasis and marriage commitments within their own congregations. Perhaps that might happen here in the U.S. at some point, but it still remains to be seen how the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually rule.

    All of us, no matter our view, need to find optimism in the future. e also need to make sure civilty and open dialouge win out.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:17 a.m.

    Zadruga Guy writes, "I would support completely removing civil governments from being involved in marriages and thus having everyone, gay and straight, get a civil union from the government and then go to whatever willing celebrant to get married."

    Fine with me, as long as law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples are treated fairly, as the 14th Amendment would seem to demand.

  • Fed Employee Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:36 a.m.

    For your consideration, pagan...

    how can one 'defend' marriage (gay couples), and then deny it to others? (brothers and sister of legal consenting age)

    Discuss....

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:35 a.m.

    ClarkHippo:

    The Church needs to clarify it's position on Marriage orthodoxy, not just orthopraxy, if it is going to be a voice on "traditional" marriage. I am not asking them to denounce polygamy, rather, signing this petition sounds like a denunciation of polygamy, so they need to clarify. The reasons, per the historical record were doctrinally defined as Eternal marriage, ie, that God is a polygamist. Polygamy lost "relevance" when it was outlawed and threatened the Church's continuity. It was not outgrown however, such as you are implying.

    As for forcing, the Church never forced polygamy on broader society, you are correct. That is a moot point however, seeing as how nobody is trying to force heterosexuals into homosexual relationships.

    I'm not certain you understand the issues here.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:40 a.m.

    SoItGoes:

    "However, I do agree on the tax exempt status of "The" Church, and all Churches for that matter, it should be stripped."

    I understand your point, but I'm willing to bet if you really saw it, you wouldn't want it. I prefer to keep religion independent like it is now, with the only caveat being that religious groups stay out of electing candidates and endorsing parties.

    Look, politics eats up time and can divert churches from weightier matters. Tax exemption is a fair deal that serves the interests of both government and religion. Don't mess with it.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:40 a.m.

    SoItGoes:

    "However, I do agree on the tax exempt status of "The" Church, and all Churches for that matter, it should be stripped."

    I understand your point, but I'm willing to bet if you really saw it, you wouldn't want it. I prefer to keep religion independent like it is now, with the only caveat being that religious groups stay out of electing candidates and endorsing parties.

    Look, politics eats up time and can divert churches from weightier matters. Tax exemption is a fair deal that serves the interests of both government and religion. Don't mess with it.

  • Laser Iowa City, IA
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:50 a.m.

    re:pagan
    I knew your post was a bait and you're a gay man. Therefore you really don't want to be educated but to argue. You haven't addressed any reply with sense of logic expect by citing expectpion and narrow windows of time. However you have been civil. I will be the same.

    Excpetions do not justify socially destructive behaviors. We would never let 8 year olds have drivers licsences just because one 8 year old drove through town successfully. We must be intelligent enough and rational to always look at the big picture, not narrow glimpses.

    Marriage is a religious issue, you'll have to consult the government why they got involved. I would refer you to the bible for your other research.

    You're "4 years" of statistics pales in camparison to thousands of years of history.

    And I still stand by my opinion that for the gay and lesbian community, it's not about marriage. Because it's not is the very reason I oppose it.

    But just so you know, I'm also opposed to adultery, fornication, pornography and everything else that degenerates from those behaviors.

  • IdahoCoug Meridian, ID
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:49 a.m.

    Congrats to the 26 signatories for standing for something! I wholeheartedly agree with the document.

  • Janca salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    I am a married woman with three beautiful children. My WIFE and I are legally married in California. We have been together over 15 years. Marriage is a beautiful recognition of our relationship and it confirms our relationship to our friends, and families -- and even to strangers. We have no desire to be married in the LDS temple, and we know many, many gay couples who likewise do not have that desire. That is an argument used by those who have nothing else better to bring to the discussion table besides fear. There is not an underlying "gay agenda" here. Sorry, to burst that little bubble-lie too. We are just people. We are families -- YUP, healthy FAMILIES. You may have your marriage and that doesn't hurt me, I kindly suggest that you allow me to enjoy mine. very sincerely, Janca

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    Let's drop religion from this...that will make a lot of people cheer.
    Let's just use evolution.
    In the beginning single cell division was the only marriage.
    As life developed into forms of gender neutral types it was a step up.
    Then life evolved and genders developed.
    Procreation between genders became the dominate form in evolutionary progress.
    Gender neutral species failed to progress.
    Eventually man developed.
    Those individuals who had offspring dominated those that did not.
    Eventually pairing off proved to be beneficial.
    As cognitive processes developed societies developed.
    Societies developed forms of rule (Some religious and some secular but we are leaving that out)
    An early rule was to protect/make legitimate the breeding population. Marriage.
    The young were protected.
    Rules became governments.
    Governments followed society and protected what society had found important.
    Eventually individuals became important.
    They were given protections.
    Those protections did not impinge on protecting producing offspring.
    Marriage's only purpose is to protect the continuation of the species.
    Governments only interest in marriage is continuation of the species.
    Evolutionarily speaking homosexuality is a dead end.
    Love, Equality, Rights, Fairness, Religion, are moot.
    Now you have a reason. No homosexual marriage.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:05 p.m.

    Marriage fails about 50% of the time. We all know people who have failed at it multiple times. Of the 50% who have not divorced, probably half of them are just going through the motions or feel that divorce is not an option due to children and financial commitments.

    I think if gay marriage were legalized, gay men would pretty much keep in line with the currently dismal heterosexual marriage statistics. But I think gay women who married would probably put the rest of our marriages to shame as I would bet all I have that they would divorce at a MUCH lower rate than current hetero and potential gay male marriages.

    Perhaps we need to do a better job ourselves with this institution of marriage before trying to exclued others from it.

    One positive from this - I look at this very strong LDS stance on marriage of one man to one woman as final closure to the speculation and past personal opinions of Prophets and GAs that plural marriage would one day be reinstated. It was NOT established by God but rather was a mistake by JS.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:05 p.m.

    Clarkhippo: I agree that most here have been civil. Pagan, however, i consider a friend. Although we have significant differences in opinions, I have hoped to help him express his opinion succinctly but not virulently -- as he has on occasion in the past.

    The complex nature of this difficult question requires on-going civil dialog. Thanks to all who have posted so far, because I have gained several new insights, including, Clark Hippo, your 9:30 post.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:11 p.m.

    Why should we give tacit or outward approval of a lifestyle that is detrimental to the individuals involved as well as destructive to the health of the host society as well? Discuss.....

  • CTguy30 Colchester, CT
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:12 p.m.

    Re: Pagan - you make it sound like gay marriage helped Massachusetts with the lower divorce rate, yet in 1994 (a whopping 10 years before gay marriage was legal) guess which state topped the charts? MA. Gay marriage has not contributed to lower divorce rates, nor does it contribute to higher divorce rates.
    No valid argument to use divorce rates since MA had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 92-94 before gay marriage was legal.

  • Janca salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:35 p.m.

    "marriage's only purpose is to protect the continuation of the species"

    I truly have never understood this argument.

    1) What about people who marry who do not or cannot procreate?

    2) What about gay and lesbian couples who DO have children? (I have 3 children to prove this happens and has happened many tens of thousands of times across the country)

    3) Will allowing gay people to marry someone STOP heterosexuals from procreating? Is the argument there that it will somehow turn everyone gay?, or that heterosexual people will just stop procreating as some sort of a defiance measure?

  • ADN Weiser, ID
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:34 p.m.

    Dear PolishBear:

    You are trying to make a point that can't be made. God very much is in the details of our lives, just because you can't see or understand that doesn't mean He's not there. It's almost as if we need a prophet who can lead and guide us isn't it. It's almost as if we need a representative who can help us understand. Oh, wait there is one--he's called a prophet. It's almost as if we need a member of the Godhead who can help us make decisions and see error and truth--oh wait, we have that too--He's called the Holy Ghost. It's almost as if we need scripture to help us, but you're right the bible has many errors and is up for interpretation, its almost as if we need something to reveal the truth--oh wait, we have that too--The Book of Mormon.

    The Lord seems to let us work things out because we came to this earth for that very purpose--to be tested. He is ensuring your ability to choose. I thank Him for it.

  • Coyote Westminster, CO
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:38 p.m.

    Laser--

    It should be pointed out that though you are opposed to them, it is still legal for adulterers, fornicators, and pornographers to marry.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:40 p.m.

    Coach Biff | 12:11 p.m. Dec. 8, 2010
    Lehi, UT
    Why should we give tacit or outward approval of a lifestyle that is detrimental to the individuals involved as well as destructive to the health of the host society as well? Discuss.....

    ------------------

    Coach,

    First off, it is a LEGAL activity, supported by the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Can you please explain how it is detrimental to the individual? Is that your belief or do you have statistics to back up that statement?

    How is it destructive to society? Is that your belief or do you have any studies proving your point?

    Please reply.

  • ADN Weiser, ID
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:42 p.m.

    Dear charlie91342,

    What you are saying isn't very logical considering that all laws have some moral backing. So if what you are suggesting is true, then that opens up the view of saying: "I can murder, because that is what 'my god' wants me to believe in" If people can claim anything then they will, and we will be no better than Al Qaida, who are doing that very thing.

    I am grateful that America has used the good christian values to make laws. The values that have been around a lot longer than you have. They have proven themselves over and over and over. I will support those values because they are real. Unlike some people's opinions.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:42 p.m.

    "I'm still to have anyone articulate to me in a clear and concise manner why a gay couple joining as one in what some would like to call marriage in any way denigrates the same activity by heterosexuals."

    Okay, how about because the leaders of your church that presumably you raised your hand to sustain said so?

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:51 p.m.

    As I have stated before and will again. Churches see this as a moral issue not a civil rights issue. This in no way compares to what took place in the 60s. Gender is important to our Father in Heaven.

    Some say we are forcing our beliefs. Really so when I go to voting booth and vote for or against someone or some issue I'm forcing my beliefs on someone. If I had lived in California I would have voted for Proposition 8 as it was the right thing to do. I lived in Nebraska and when this came before us I voted for it to be added to the Constitution. Why, because it was the right thing to do. No one is forcing anything at all. No one is going down the street and holding anyone at gunpoint to vote a particular way.

    However, when a group goes and protests a Church, tramples down elderly individuals as they enter, protest a person at their place of work forcing them to either resign or look elsewhere for work THAT IS FORCE. That is what the LGBT has done across this country and continues to do.

  • ThePinkFloydian Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:52 p.m.

    Our politicians ignored we the people, The LDS Church and other faiths joined on the immigration issue. Someday or already they may also ignore us all on marriage. They already have in some states. Politicians only care about re-election. It is embarrasing to me how many people in this state support politicians and belong to political parties that speak against everything we believe in. That would be both parties. I am glad LDS church leaders and leaders of many churches are doing the right things. I hope we the people will do the same. When you take God out of the picture everything else falls apart and we lose our freedom and end up in bondage.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:57 p.m.

    ADN: "I am grateful that America has used the good christian values to make laws. "

    --------------

    Would you please list those christian values that they used? It looks more like they used the Magna Carta and democracies in Rome and Greece for their ideas than anything from the Bible.

    Even the 10 commandments have only 2 of 10 as laws in the US.

    It looks more like the golden rule was used AND the idea of protecting everyone's liberties, but never at the expense of another persons rights. In other words, "your rights end where my nose begins," as my mother used to say.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:57 p.m.

    It is very uplifting to know that there are so many people from different religious backgrounds in the United States that support this document and the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman. It's very encouraging.

  • Demisana South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 12:59 p.m.

    @Pagan, no straw man, you answered the question. So every child of a gay couple will be adopted, and stripped of one or both of their natural parents. They still get two parents, could be worse I suppose - but they either don't get a mommy or a daddy. And contrary to gay opinion, those aren't interchangeable as parents. Any more than men and women are interchangeable as romantic partners.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:02 p.m.

    >>Line One: "Marriage is the permanent and faithful union of one man and one woman". OK, that's a nice sentiment but how many actual marriages ever live up to that ideal?

    The fact that many marriages don't live up to the ideal doesn't invalidate the ideal. Many marriages do live up to it; and the whole point behind having an ideal is to strive to reach it even when we fall short. And this particular ideal is one that has been proven through the ages to be the most stable foundation for building lasting relationships for individuals and societies. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, has no track record of evidence it can point to that suggests "it won't harm society" as it's supporters claim. The fact is that we just don't know whether that's true (though it might be).

    So it's a logical non-sequiter to say that because some heterosexual marriages fall short of the stated ideal, that we should abolish the ideal and allow for a total redefinition of the concept.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:10 p.m.

    Laser | 11:50 a.m., your post cites no source but your belief.

    i.e. your 'thousands of years of marriage', more like 6.

    Polygamy, 1890
    Interacial marriage, 1967
    Gay marriage, 2004, MA

    And: You refer me back to your faith (the bible), to support your claim that marriage is a religious issue.

    Should I refer you to the Advocate to prove gay marriage?

    No. I reffered you back to the National Center for Vital statistics. An impartial source.

    Also: you claim gay marriage is a: 'socially destructive behavior', after 1) ignoring gay marriage did NOT factually harm (that CTguy30 | 12:12 p.m. supports) the divorce rate in MA and 2) offer zero points that support your own claim.

    You want logic. Ok.

    i.e. your very much opinion, should not dictate anothers life, when you ignore someone else's opinions.

    metamoracoug | 10:33 a.m., hey thanks!

    Lots of reply questions, not many reply facts.

    Demisana | 12:59 p.m., your ignoring adoptions to straight parents. Has the same risk of natural parents comming back and 'breaking' that family.

    Same risk.

    But only denial to gay adoptions.

    Gay adoptions have zero parents before hand.

    2 after.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:13 p.m.

    Demisana

    Are you ready to adopt all the children being raised by single parents in the country to be able to give them a mommy and daddy?

    The amount of children being raised by gay couples pales in comparison to the number being raised by single mothers. I suppose we need to take these children away from these mothers and give them to families that have both genders as parents, right?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:18 p.m.

    "Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, has no track record of evidence it can point to that suggests "it won't harm society" as it's supporters claim. The fact is that we just don't know whether that's true (though it might be)."

    ------------

    We have almost 10 years in the Netherlands. Belgium has allowed gays to marry since 2003.

    Since then we have Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, and Iceland.

    Israel is on their way to accepting gay marriage too, along with Slovenia, Luxemburg and Argentina.

    We have 5 states and DC that allow gay marriage and plenty more that have civil unions for gays.

    I think we have plenty to study and figure out if it "harms society" or not.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:25 p.m.

    @ Lane Myer,

    The fact that you don't recognize the horrific effects of the homosexual lifestyle on the individual and its danger to the health of his or her environs tells me you are either willfully ignorant or in complete denial. Adopting a homosexual lifestyle, for a male, is tantamount to forfeiting 20 years of your life. How's that for starters?

  • sharrona layton, Ut
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:28 p.m.

    SLCwatch said, Let's drop religion from this? [You didnt]...that will make a lot of people cheer. Let's just use Evolution In the beginning.True,
    the Universe had a beginning. The beginning of the Universe was caused. The cause for the beginning of the universe was personal,or In the beginning God(Genesis 1:1). The beginning is linear not circular.

    As cognitive processes(evolution) developed.
    Begs the question? How could consciousness have evolved from matter? Can matter think? If we are simply material beings.
    And the spirit returns to God who gave it.(Ecc 12:7),And for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and the shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall be one flesh (Mt 19:5)

  • Demisana South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:35 p.m.

    @Lane and Pagan - for the record, I am adopted. A single mother decided it was in my best interest that I have both father and a mother. I will be forever grateful.

    And all those other kids being raised by single mothers? They have fathers out there, maybe not in their homes, but they have them, and the right to them. If a gay couple has a child, then they are removing the CHILD's right to both a father and a mother. A lot of them are having them through infertility treatments, not just adopting foster children or children who are otherwise orphans. Or adopting each other's children. And in any of these cases, it's the child's rights and needs that are being subordinated to the adults' wants and desires.

    As for adopting children myself, I'd love to. Can't afford to. In real dollars, it's about 10 times more expensive than when I was adopted, among other impediments.

  • rogerdpack Orem, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 1:49 p.m.

    good 'on 'em for re-iterating values.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    Dec. 8, 2010 2:00 p.m.

    Lane Myer @ 12:57: Our nation was founded on the idea that a majority of our citizens subscribed to one set of moral beliefs. Consequently, the founders were relying on the fact that the majority would be self-regulating, that every minute detail of their lives would not need to be governed by law. Thus, while it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it was well discussed in the era -- see especially Madison's portion of the Federalist Papers.

    Furthermore, the Golden Rule is derived from Judeo/Christian background. The Magna Carta and Britain's unwritten constitution were marginal in their roles -- especially the MC because it was an archaic document which dealt with the relationship between nobles and royalty rather than the governed and the government. Greek democracies were very limited in scope and were not a model for the founders. Rome initially was a republic -- like ours -- but its government was overthrown and a dictatorship implemented. Thus, the founders did not use Rome as a model either.

    Their real hope was that limited government would be necessary because of shared values and beliefs.

  • Just1sThought Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 2:14 p.m.

    Let's pose this hypothetical as an answer to why defending marriage between a man and a woman is good for all of us:

    One, God exists.

    Two, God made man and designed them in His image (meaning the way he intended for them to operate).

    Three, Marriage is an institution which God established as His approval and acceptance of the operation of procreation.

    Four, God does not like it when man uses His creations in a way he did not intend.

    Five, God destroys communities/nations who stand for/are OK with item four.

    If this hypothetical is true, then do we need any other reasoning to protect marriage as being between a man and a woman? We can bring all other factors into this discussion until we're blue in the face, but when it boils down to this "hypothetical" being true, there is no other reasoning to consider.

    Prove this wrong if you want to make your case. Since you can't without proving religion/God wrong, leave marriage decisions up to the God fearing, not the State.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 2:20 p.m.

    idaho coug
    Whew! I sure am glad to know someone who knows the mind and will of God himself. I think you are a bit arrogant to have the audacity to tell us that you have talked with God and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and JS were wrong about their opinions concerning marriage. I think I will stick with the prophets and you can stick to your assumptions.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 2:30 p.m.

    I'm so thankful that the LDS Church still dares supports sacred marriage. I have gay family members, and as I have studied these issues, trying to understand, I've learned that there is no reason to legally enforce homosexuality through marriage, but protecting heterosexual marriage is crucial for humanity and children.

    There is so much misinformation propagated by activists that it was difficult to find what is really going on (read Crafting Gay Children for mainstream media activism, a little extreme but interesting, and we see it here in comments, and Trib is dominated by activists etc), and Ive learned that places that have gay marriage still have increased homosexual promiscuity, prostitution, domestic violence, depression, addiction, etc.
    Studies are often misrepresented, check narth for more info (children raised by gays do show significant differences etc).

    One fact is interesting above others: straight children raised where homosexuality has been mainstreamed are more likely to become gay.

    As I educated myself I've learned that, if not for misleading activist propaganda (doesnt hurt anyone, you can't control, must abandon families for happiness if inclined, etc), my family members would probably be happily involved in eternal procreative marriages.

  • MHS Buckaroo Monticello, Ut
    Dec. 8, 2010 2:31 p.m.

    I'm so glad to know that all you LDS members think you know better than Bishop Burton. The church doesn't take actions like these unless they've sincerly prayed about it. Shame on you for thinking that you know more than prophets of God.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Dec. 8, 2010 2:39 p.m.

    Idaho Coug | 12:05 p.m. Dec. 8, 2010:

    "One positive from this - I look at this very strong LDS stance on marriage of one man to one woman as final closure to the speculation and past personal opinions of Prophets and GAs that plural marriage would one day be reinstated. It was NOT established by God but rather was a mistake by JS. "

    Final closure? We don't arrive at our doctrine by a jointly drafted letter. The fact is, we have no way of knowing either way whether plural marriage will be reinstituted in this life or not, or at least there is no official statement on the matter. What you just said is as much pure speculation as those who would publicly declare its future reinstatement.

    Now, if you say plural marriage was a mistake, then you have to throw out the Book of Mormon provides for it when commanded, 2 Samuel 12 wherein the Lord is caught in the act of enabling it, and last but not least, Doctrine & Covenants 132 which gives the laws governing plural marriage (when commanded).

    Our law now is one man and one woman unless commanded otherwise.

  • We the People Sandy, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 2:58 p.m.

    The Church again makes its stance on marriage clear. This letter should not be a surprise to anyone who has followed the Church on this issue. I always scratch my head when the Church affirms its stance on marriage and people act like they are shocked.

    I support the Church in its belief and promotion of marriage as an institution of one man and one woman.

  • realitycheck247 Sylmar, CA
    Dec. 8, 2010 4:00 p.m.

    re - Coach Biff | 1:25 p.m
    "The fact that you don't recognize the horrific effects of the homosexual lifestyle on the individual and its danger to the health of his or her environs tells me you are either willfully ignorant or in complete denial. Adopting a homosexual lifestyle, for a male, is tantamount to forfeiting 20 years of your life. How's that for starters?"

    what part of "gay" do you not understand. That is how they were born. They didn't choose it - it is just the way it is. It is not a disease, but would you say the same thing to someone born with a defective heart? would you blame them?

    what don't you understand?

    your problem is you think that by allowing gay marriage, you create more gays. and that is about the most ridiculous thing you could think.

    re - metamoracoug | 2:00 p.m

    The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at the thought of law-abiding tax-paying citizens of the US being denied the same rights as everyone else. So how do you justify it?

  • bigsoccer Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 4:17 p.m.

    You are not born gay, it is a choice.

  • Cubicle Dweller Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 4:25 p.m.

    I commend all of the religious leaders from signing this declaration even though it makes this seem to be a religious issue. The truth of the matter is that the distinction between the heterosexual union and the homosexual union is very scientific in nature, and the relevance of same sex intimate relations with respect to the future of society doesn't even start to compare with the relevance of opposite sex intimate relations. Any demand that society pretend that the two are equivalent is a mockery of science. Those who would demand equal treatment are denying the wonder of their own existence. Society depends on a steady supply of workers, soldiers and taxpayers; so of course society should be concerned about where those come from. Same sex intimate relations have yet to produce a single human being. The demand for marriage status on the basis of love alone reduces the marriage institution to nothing more than a series of greeting card moments. Live with whoever makes you happy, but please stop trying to make the rest of us embrace your own ignorance of the scientific "facts of life".

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 4:26 p.m.

    RanchHand: GLBT taxpapayers are not being forced to subsided anything the church does.

    metamoracoug: polygamy and bigamy are two different things. And polygamy was used for different reasons when it was started and it was never like the polygamist groups of today.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Dec. 8, 2010 4:27 p.m.

    I am grateful for the clarity the Church provides on issues such as same-gender marriage.

    I find that the more I read comments opposed to the very common sense idea that heterosexual marriage ought to be stengthened, not redifined, I become more individually committed to the need to support those that are defending traditional marriage.

    I voted for Prop 22. I campaigned for and voted for Prop 8. If it comes to it, I will support an amendment to the US Constitution that forbids same-gender marriage.

    Why do I feel so strongly about it? Even if I set my religious beliefs aside, there remain basic common sense, basic human biology, and a lot of history to speak in favor of restricting marriage to heterosexual unions.

  • Resident Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 4:30 p.m.

    My younger brother is studying at UVU and was asked by the school's media if homosexuality is ok. He said, "No." They asked, "Why do you say that?" He replied, "Cause it doesn't 'work.'"

    I appreciate the church in its defense of traditional marriage. I undserstand that it would be very difficult for those opposing the church to understand the true meaning of their doing so. That said, the only people painting a target on your back are yourselves.

    Those of us in support of marriage between one man and one woman are just trying to support what we feel is correct and true.

    Those members of the church that think they know better than their church leaders, remember what you are doing when you raise your arm to the square and sustain them.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    Dec. 8, 2010 4:51 p.m.

    KM - happy to help. Just let me know if you need any more answers!

    Actually it's interesting how we tend to point to the Bible when it conveniently justifies our beliefs and yet are quick to say "as far as it is translated correctly" when it may not.

    In reality, I completely understand how most LDS bristle at my comment that plural marriage was mistaken. Most LDS have no option but to somehow and in someway accept everything ever done and said in the church because if the church is not what it claims to be then your whole world would crumble. I honestly understand that.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 8, 2010 5:16 p.m.

    To Idaho Coug: Remember that President Hinkley when asked about pologamy kindly stated that we no longer practice it, end of story. He never apologized for nor did he condemn the practice of it. Yes, it is part of our history but only 5% of the brethern ever practiced it. That is a fact. One had to be called to practice it and it had to be counselled between husband and wife. It did not stop solely because the United States passed a law outlawing it. It stopped because the Lord revealed to President Woodrow that it was no longer necessary and to continue would allow things to fall that shouldn't. He further stated that if the Lord had stated that it must continue then he would have surrendered all to do so. Those are facts. When and if the Lord ever allows pologamy again, it will begin on his terms, not mans say so. It was not a mistake nor should we be ashamed of it.

    We no longer practice it and it is an excommunicable offense as of today. That is all that needs to be said. This letter in no way changes that.

  • FargoUT Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 5:45 p.m.

    I have to say ... I am impressed by the level of discourse in these comments. I was expecting a series of non-sensical arguments bandied about by both sides, but the comments I've read so far have been level-headed and understandable. Even if I disagree with the LDS Church's position, I understand it.

    By declaring that "one man and one woman" is a fundamental building block of the family unit, the LDS Church slights the family units of everyone else. What about single mothers and same-sex parents? Are their families less than that of others?

    I know this could just descend into a war of semantics, but the problem seems to stem from words themselves as opposed to the underlying philosophies. People are getting held up on certain words instead of the true meanings. I doubt gay couples would care if they were granted civil unions as opposed to marriages, but even changing the term to "civil union" seems to bring the wrath down from social conservatives.

  • FargoUT Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 5:52 p.m.

    Guess I spoke too soon. The comments later on did exactly what I feared would happen. Using religious dogma to support your arguments is not conducive to appropriate political debate, specifically because the First Amendment prohibits recognition of one religious set of ideals over another. Since some religions do recognize gay marriage, you cannot argue that gay marriage is wrong on religious principles, as other religions have differing principles.

    Debate this topic with political discourse, and you will have an actual discussion. Arguing over what God thinks is appropriate ... well, I might as well suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster says gay marriage is okay, and should therefore be allowed.

  • Idaho Coug Meridian, Idaho
    Dec. 8, 2010 5:52 p.m.

    Bill - I always appreciate your style and comments. It's helpful to a Doubting Thomas such as myself!

  • Paradise Correspondent Kapolei, HI
    Dec. 8, 2010 6:41 p.m.

    What happens if God tells the Prophet otherwise as he apparently did with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and as he does with men who even today may carry marriage vows with more than one woman into heaven? And don't say he won't, because you don't know.

    Where are the scriptures that say marriage must be between a man and a woman or that a child may not have two loving fathers or two mothers? And where does it say a child of such a bond or with only one parent has no family?

    The church needs to unshackle the faithful, as it has in acknowledging finally that a faithful Mormon may be a homosexual as long as he or she follows the same principle of celebacy outside of marriage that is required of heterosexuals. That, at least, was progress. This joining together with other misguided faiths who Mormons believe lack their direct communication with God is only tightening the noose.

  • sharrona layton, Ut
    Dec. 8, 2010 6:44 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska: Polygamy did not stop solely because the United States passed a law outlawing it.
    In Dec, 1891 President of the U.S.,pardoned the Mormon church for unlawful cohabitation. But in December of 1904 the senate committee on Privileges and Elections had proved most Mormon leaders had resumed plural relationships despite their solemn pledge. There must be exceptions?

    Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc were polygamist and Temple Mormons, perhaps eventually married same sex Mormons can become Temple Mormons? Would you agree if there was a new revelation?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 8, 2010 6:56 p.m.

    There is one thing that is required for a society to function. That 'thing' is obedience to law. ALL law must be recognized, both civil and religious. Those who believe in God and follow the laws that God has given have little need for civil law. They will respect each other, and themselves, without the jackboot of government on their necks.

    When people are disobedient to law, they demand that the law be changed. They demand that their disobedience be recognized and accepted. They demand that laws be written to allow their disobedience.

    Love for law does not come from disobedience to the law. When anyone refuses to submit himself and limit his actions to those things permitted by law, he is in a state of rebellion. He lives outside the law.

    Religious leaders remind us that eternal laws exists and that those eternal laws must be obeyed. The rebellious tell us that God does not exist, therefore, they say, there is no law, yet they demand that we pass laws to enable them to mock God.

    Why would we listen to those who mock the law? Why would we listen to those to will not submit to law?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Dec. 8, 2010 7:46 p.m.

    To SilasBrill, Pagan and others who think that legalizing Gay marriage would do no damage: Once gay marriages are legalized, what's to stop siblings from marrying each other? What about a father and his daughter? Or a father and his son for that matter? What's to stop legalizing polyamorous relationships? Is it possible that children will be seriously harmed in these relationships? Where does it stop? Once gay marriages are legalized, it's a steep and very slipery slope into social chaos. Do we have enough laywers to handle all the parental rights issues that will inevidibly occur? I'm not talking about church beliefs or what the Bible says or doesn't say. Gay marriages are a bad idea for society.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Dec. 8, 2010 8:02 p.m.

    Many of the comments and questions on this thread would be answered if everyone read the Church's 2008 statement that is linked to the article. It is very clear and specific-and official (there is no need to rely on those of us who cannot speak for the Church).

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:06 p.m.

    I am so sorry. I just can't see it. Albeit people of the same sex attraction can be in love with each other, that doesn't make their joining is a qualification for marriage. They cannot get together and have children, which is what marriage is basically for. They have to turn to someone to give them a child. When God created Adam and Eve, (yes, He did), He created a man and a woman and told them to multiply and replenish the earth. He made no exception for Adam by joining him with Adam or Eve with Eve. Marriage is basically for procreation and to name any other kind of union as "marriage" is a complete misnomer.

  • silas brill Heber, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:08 p.m.

    @JSB | 7:46 p.m. Dec. 8, 2010

    To Silas Brill...: Once gay marriages are legalized, what's to stop ... X?

    What's to stop anything? So many of our laws are arbitrary. What's legal, what's illegal. Over a legal age, under a legal age. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, other substances aren't. All our laws are judgement calls that we come together an agree upon. Over time, laws need to change.

    @Mike Richards | 6:56 p.m. Dec. 8, 2010

    What an utterly crazy statement you made. The whole thing, but especially, "The rebellious tell us that God does not exist, therefore, they say, there is no law, yet they demand that we pass laws to enable them to mock God."

    That's not at all what I and people like I am say. I reject your hocus pocus. I don't mock your god, because I can't mock something that doesn't exist. Rather, I mock you.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 8, 2010 9:49 p.m.

    Very good, Silas Brill. Great response to Mike Richards, who thinks that we must all believe in God and does not respect those of us who do not. I dare say, as an athiest, that I both believe in law, and quite frankly follow the law of God more than a lot of those who say they believe.

    Now to the letter: Yeah, please save us all from those terrible gays who want to get married. Up until now, I've had trouble sleeping because of the threat to my marriage, but now I can rest easier. (Insert sarcasm now!)

  • Captain Kanab, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:38 p.m.

    First of all to those who believe that you are born a homosexual and you compair someone who is born with a defective heart and someone who is "born" a homosexual is that is ridiculus. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Where can you draw the line next we are going to have alchoholics and drug addicts saying " Oh its not my fault im addicted to meth I was born that way". I support my church and my country and defend both to the death. Like it or not, believe in God or not this country was founded on religion by christians. Most of our founding fathers believed in the bible and would have defended it to the death. The bible says homosexuality is wrong. I support Bishop Burton and the rest of the church leaders on this stand against homosexual marriage. Also Paradise Correspondent go ahead and check out Leviticus chapter 18.

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:52 p.m.

    Janca-

    As you may have noticed this line of reasoning does not involve religion, moral values, emotional or personal reasons for marriage. If you try to understand this line of thinking involving any of these you may not understand it.

    Strictly speaking the only interest government has in specifically setting one group of people over another is to promote a common welfare point.

    Using that standard alone-

    1. A couple marrying to procreate but finding they can not is an anomoly not of their choosing.
    A couple marrying for other reasons would not enjoy government protection.

    2. Homosexual couples can not procreate children. Couples could not end up with children except through means outside of natural procreation. The governments interest to promote continuation of the species would have no interest in promoting any grouping other than male/female to promote evolutionary procreation. No adoption, no artificial means, no taking children from a male/female divorice to a homosexual marriage. Preserving male/female parenting alone would provide the wanted role model training

    3. Government has no interest in allowing homosexual marriage. The question is moot.

    Sharrona-As noted above this is strictly evolutionary and why government has interest.

  • HerbSewell Las Vegas, Nevada
    Dec. 8, 2010 10:52 p.m.

    "..the nature of marriage (is) a 'one-flesh union' of sexually complementary spouses, and its value in ensuring that most children are reared with a biological mother and father bound to each other in a covenant shaped by moral obligations of fidelity and exclusivity."

    Robert P. George

  • Arynen Midvale, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 12:12 a.m.

    sharrona,

    "perhaps eventually married same sex Mormons can become Temple Mormons? Would you agree if there was a new revelation?"

    I think it's pretty safe to say that if you knew anything about the eternal nature of the family and the doctrines taught in scriptures and from the prophets, that there will never be any such revelation. God doesn't change his mind just to appease a few of his unruly children. The family is eternal in nature, not political to be redefined by the philosophies of man.

  • Man About Town Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 12:30 a.m.

    A couple thoughts:

    We all agree that a high percentage marriages do not live up to the ideal.

    This fact does not mean we should scrap the ideal of marriage and not try to attain that any more, nor does it imply that marriage is outdated.

    If we aim for perfection and fall short because of human frailties, I am sure we hit a mark far higher than if we had no ideal to strive for.

    Also, I agree with this statement: "Calling a marriage raises homosexuality to a level equal to what God has ordained and that is too far for most people."

    In a nutshell, that is the argument. Calling a civil union a marriage confers divine approval to these unions, which is prohibited in scripture. We are not willing to budge on this.

    This debate IS all about the word, because the word has a lot of meaning. Most heterosexual don't hate homosexuals and don't discriminate against them, even though we are portrayed as homophobic bigots. We are simply trying to follow our religious convictions.

    "Civil union" must remain different than "marriage." They are not the same thing, no matter what the name.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 12:41 a.m.

    "how about because the leaders of your church that presumably you raised your hand to sustain said so? "

    LDS members should feel free to disagree on the issue without fear of sanction. - Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy

    So... I'm going to go ahead and continue my support of gay marriage okay?

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 9, 2010 6:46 a.m.

    To atl134:

    Those with same gender attraction have a choice to act upon that attraction or not, just as we who are heterolsexual have the same choice to act upon our attraction to the opposite sex. It is a choice. We are not animals that act on instinct and instinct alone. We are here to act not to be acted upone. That scripture is very clear as to our nature. As Nephi states so emphatically in 1 Nephi, God gives no commandment to man that he does not provide a way for them to accomplish the commandment. It is a pure and simple as that.

    Our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ has condemned the act of Homosexuality since the beginning of life here on the earth. That has not changed. The Father and the Son have defined marriage solely between man and woman, plain and simple. That law has not nor will it change. Father has allowed certain styles to exist under his guidance, pologamy, since the beginning as well and may in the future. That we do not know about but that word will only happen through his mouthpiece here on Earth.

  • Janca salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 9, 2010 7:44 a.m.

    SLCWatch -
    I appreciate your thoughtful response. No one else seems to care about the "real life","happening NOW" part of this discussion. There is much pontificating on boths sides. As you may understand, I do not agree with your reasoning.
    1 You seem to be saying that a couple who marries with NO intention of ever having children, should not be recognized or gave governmental protection?
    2 And my question remains unanswered as to how allowing homosexuals to marry will somehow slow down or stop the heterosexual procreation going on now? Is the recognition somehow going to affect birthrates? How? Honestly, how will this change birth rates?
    3 And how is it the government's business in any way HOW a child is conceived? Will this become a question on our tax forms? (bad joke). So the government is going to provide "role-model" training on how to properly procreate?
    4 The goverment has many good reasons to be involved: I will state one. The many thousands of gay and lesbian couples and their children who are American Citizens and American families. Who will always be here. Underline American Citizens.
    Thanks - J

  • TearsTheWingsOffAngels Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 7:54 a.m.

    "Marriage is the basis for family" is not equivalent to "hetero marriage is the basis for family." And marriage is, in fact, not the basis for family. Love and commitment are the basis for family.

  • Thinkman Provo, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 8:59 a.m.

    I applaud the church defending marriage between one man and one woman but I question their true conviction to a marriage that is either a part member marriage at the start or is a part member marriage after several years because one spouse no longer believes in the church.

    I've heard of many marriages that ended because either a bishop or other church leader counseled the believing spouse to end the marriage or the believing spouse felt that she or he couldn't continue in the marriage because their spouse was now apostate. I hope the church defends those types of marriages too even in the face of one or both spouses' testimonies crumbling.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 9, 2010 9:04 a.m.

    >>We have almost 10 years in the Netherlands. Belgium has allowed gays to marry since 2003.

    A decade is a drop in the bucket for sociologists. It'll take at least two generations (i.e. 20-40 years) before the real effects--positive or negative--are measurable because you have to get data on the couples, the children raised to adulthood, and the larger effects throughout communities, etc.

    Ten years is a shorter period than some of the marriages themselves will last. So call me back in 2030 and let's see what's going in the Netherlands. That's when the solid data will finally be available.

  • Vanka Provo, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 10:28 a.m.

    Just1sThought,

    I suggest you think again:

    One, there is no clear evidence that God exists, and no reason to allow a fictional character into our courts or legislative processes.

    Two, God is made in mans image, just as Santa is. The Christian god is as bloodthirsty and bigoted as are those who invented him.

    Three, Marriage was established among tribes long before religion invented God. Religion did not invent marriage.

    Four, humans have been disagreeing and fighting over what God intends for most of human history. Until God appears to settle the issue, we are on our own.

    Five, even by your myths, God would not destroy two (actually 5) cities as long as there were 10 good people.

    The US has millions of (self)righteous LDS! So we are safe!

    And God did not destroy S&G for same-sex marriage. He destroyed them for: pride, gluttony, sloth, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy; And they were haughty, and committed abomination before Me. Therefore I took them away as I saw good." Ezekiel 16:49-50

    You have been proven wrong. Swallow your pride, repent of haughtiness, and support marriage equality.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 10:34 a.m.

    The LDS church really signed a letter saying marriage is between one man and one woman? Official Mormon doctrine still believes that polygamy will return to the world and will be practiced in the after life.

  • Jax Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 11:21 a.m.

    Since the DNews has decided to continue its viewpoint censorship agenda, I will just add a prediction that in 50 or so years from now, the LDS church will be saying that its fight against gays is in the past, that they have moved forward. They will pretend all of these comments on here never happened, that their political activism never happened.

    Those of you that are fighting against equality for gays and equal marriage opportunity will be viewed with embarrassment by your children. This battle is already over. Rational, caring people have already accepted freedom and equality all over the world and in some parts of the United States. As the older generations die off, we will be able to take one step closer to freedom and one more step away from oppression. For that, I thank God, and add my testimony that he loves gay people too and approves of their marriages. He has told me this in my heart and mind. Ask him and he will tell you too.

  • sharrona layton, Ut
    Dec. 9, 2010 11:41 a.m.

    Vanka said, God did not destroy S&G for same-sex marriage. Wrong,
    "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns gave them themselves up to sexually immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.(Jude 7)
    In (Ezekiel 16:49-50)Sin of your sister Sodom, Here social injustice, rather than sexual perversion is highlighted.
    But in the day Lot left Sodom, fire and Sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.(Luke 17:29)
    God is made in mans (Moral) image,(God is Spirit John 4:24)True, but Man lost his image in the Fall, Therefore sin, just as sin entered the world through one man(Adam)and death through sin and in this way death came to all men(Roman 5:12)

  • Jax Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 12:08 p.m.

    I doubt this gets through, but I think the DNews needs to be fair with the readers here and let them know that they are censoring comments to further their own agenda even if the comments are well within the rules of the site.

  • Jolter Northern, Utah
    Dec. 9, 2010 12:16 p.m.

    Everyone has the right to believe what they believe for whatever reasons they personally find to be true, but most arguments against same-sex marriage ultimately boil down to the idea that the government should protect the "sanctity" of marriage, or that marriage is a "sacred trust" handed down by God.

    But the truth of the matter is that the government has no business doling out sanctity and sacred trusts in the first place. Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is and must be a secular institution. The government can no more hand out a marriage certificate that grants a sacred union than it can hand out a death certificate that grants a place in heaven. The government does not hold the keys to the sacred nor should it make marrige strictly a religious institution.

    And just as the government does not hold the keys to the sacred, it should not make decisions that are based on the premise that it does. If the purpose of the Federal Marriage Amendment is to "protect the sanctity of marriage," then it has failed in theory even before it has had the opportunity to fail in practice.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Dec. 9, 2010 12:17 p.m.

    To Jax: You need to honestly read the Bible more carefully. God has condemned any marriage out side of male and female. He has ordained marriage from the beginning so your lies continue to be forced upon those who actually know the truth. Marriage is defined by God and was before the foundation of the World. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

    Your statements show your entire disqualification because the Spirit would never have told you what you said except Satan himself.

    Sodom and Gommorea was destroyed because of their own wickedness and abominations. The Bible is clear that any sexual relations outside of marriage is an abomination before the Lord. Janka you spell out basically that God doesn't even exist except in the minds of a few then call us to repentatance. How hypocritical is that.

  • Jolter Northern, Utah
    Dec. 9, 2010 1:03 p.m.

    In the final analysis, the single best reason to legalize same-sex marriage is not because it's benign, or because it is inevitable, or because it is what our legal history demands of us, or because it is more conducive to family life or because it should be an equal right issue. It is because legalizing same-sex marriage is the kind thing to do. Same-sex couples seeking marriage rights are obviously determined to stay together, or they wouldn't be trying to get married. So why make their lives more difficult? Why use religion as a reason to be unkind by denying them access to marriage/civil union? Why pass laws that will prevent them from being able to file income taxes jointly, or visit each other in the hospital, or inherit one another's property?

    The only thing denial of SSM can prevent is hospital visitation, inheritance, and the thousands of other small legal perks that ordinarily come with marriage. It can't prevent the loving unions of these couples and the symbolic ceremonies that already occur and will continue to occur!

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Dec. 9, 2010 4:07 p.m.

    sharrona: same sex marroages will never be allowed in the temple.

    Jolter: The only one who can prevent hospital visits in the patient themselves and you can leave whatever you have to anyone you want when you die.

  • Jolter Northern, Utah
    Dec. 9, 2010 5:11 p.m.

    @snowman

    Many gay couples have taken every known legal protection and they have still found it isn't enough to protect them! Those are the facts! Gays lack the automatic extensive legal protections available through marriage. Taxes, home mortgages, visits to children's teachers, health insurance, and just being able to see a hospitalized partner or child can become major issues that don't automatically happen to any couple unless they are married, but even more so for gays. Many have a desire to enjoy the security, protections, and cost savings which would flow from marriage, and the many state benefits automatically given to married couples.

    I guess religion wants to punish them though....so denying them rights is the only way they can openly do it while still preaching kindness! Otherwise, it would be the kind thing to do whether you agree with it or not!

  • vic Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 10, 2010 12:12 a.m.

    It appears to me that GOD, through his prophets, has provided the necessary instruction or rather revelation in the temple and for what God wants in the area of marriage. the end result is that God has said the gay life-style is a sin.

    It would be greatly appreciated if those that believe the gay-life style is ok, please provide the necessary revelations from God that there is nothing wrong with this kind of life-style.

    Either God is wrong or this type of life-style is wrong. Which if this type of life-style is acceptable, wouldn't it then make God, not perfect -imperfect?

  • Jolter Northern, Utah
    Dec. 10, 2010 9:30 a.m.

    @vic

    As much as many would like to make God applicable to all people....he/she/it is not applicable to all people. As much as religious people would like to be soldiers for their God and have religious beliefs apply to everybody....they cannot take away freedom of choice. Religious people often forget that religion is faith-based and subjective. People hold differing beliefs, and nobody can factually prove how God feels about homosexuality. No one has a monopoly on God, and using some people's religion to legislate for everyone is unjust, since it enshrines one religious belief above another.

    Some think laws should be determined by the majority's beliefs. When courts legalize same-sex marriage or overturn bans on it passed by voters, people accuse "activist judges" of undermining democracy and "imposing" same-sex marriage on the majority. But majority rule isn't the sole democratic principle. Our Constitution includes protection for minorities in the form of the judiciary, which exists partially to make sure majorities don't deprive minorities of civil rights.

    Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 9:41 a.m.

    Jolter,

    Kudos to you on your reasonable responses and logic.

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2010 8:54 a.m.

    Janca-
    If you are still following this line I will respond to your questions.
    As I stated, this is only following the lines of why a goverment(Any) has any business regulating marriage.
    1. Such a couple provides the state no benefit and would not warrant protection. Harsh but staying in the parameter.
    2. As a non-breeding pair a homosexual couple would also not warrant protection. What effect it would have on a breeding pair would be moot. The state would only be interested in promoting continuation of the species.
    3. Your question goes outside the evolutionary parameter of the line of thought. Within the line of thought: Promoting Male/Female coupling would provide children Father/Mother role models which breed.
    4. My only point in this line of thought has been to point out that outside of promoting the continuation of the species the state has no vested interest in regulating marriage.

    Let me note here I have not stated my opinion on any of the emotional, religious, personal, or economic variables of marriage.
    Perhaps the next question is: If marriage is solely a creation of mankinds religions, government recognition should not occur at all should it?

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Dec. 11, 2010 9:17 a.m.

    Jolter: We are all Gods children so all of Gods laws apply to everyone. God also gave us the freedom to choose what we do.

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2010 9:25 a.m.

    Janca-
    That should have read in the second sentence "evolutionary business regulating marriage".

  • Jiggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 11, 2010 12:21 p.m.

    @snowman

    The Buddhists, the non-religious, the atheists, the agnostics, the Taoists and several others are not your partculiar God's children. Why force his law on them unless it is a universal secular law? Your God does not require me to obey his laws because he doesn't consider me one of his children. God's law imposed on others is not free will to make our choices.

    The group that heard the laws read by Moses included non-Hebrews.(Genesis 12:37-38 and Numbers 11:4)

    It was indicated to them that the prohibitions did not apply to the non-Hebrews living among them. One great example is Deuteronomy 14:21 where it is specifically stated that the prohibition there did not apply to any non-Hebrew.

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    If the homosexual were as abhorrent to God as most fundamentalist religions imply, the homosexual wouldn't last a millisecond. Otherwise, God cannot be omnipotent. Why would an omnipotent God need someone else to persecute the homosexual for him?

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Dec. 11, 2010 4:13 p.m.

    Should there be any person or group of people that marriage can be denied to, or should it just be an open ended contract?

    What if I want to marry an 11-year-old? What if I wanted to marry three or four women who were already married to other guys?

    The question I have is, where do we draw the line?

    ================

    How about this -- one adult can marry another consenting adult.

    And that's it. We all go on about our lives, our own marriages, unaffected.

  • HCW Mesa, AZ
    Dec. 11, 2010 6:52 p.m.

    @mormoncowboy
    As for forcing, the Church never forced polygamy on broader society, you are correct. That is a moot point however, seeing as how nobody is trying to force heterosexuals into homosexual relationships.

    Let us take this a step further if you support gay marriage would you support a man having more than one wife if the women all consented and they were all of legal age? How would polygamy effect your marriage? Once you allow gays to marry, you cannot deny polygamists their right to marry. I am not certain you understand the issues here.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Dec. 11, 2010 7:27 p.m.

    Jolter: Again, thepatient has control over who sees them in the hospital, not the nurses not the doctors and certainly not the government. As for the tax issue, have you ever heard of married fileing jointly, married filing separately and filing single. it doesn't really matter if your married or not. If a child is living in your home you most certainly can see the childs teacher. You don't have to be married to do that. And you don't necessarily have to be married to put someone else on your health insurance either. I do know that home loans are different but why do you have to be married to buy a home?

  • HCW Mesa, AZ
    Dec. 11, 2010 7:32 p.m.

    @fargoUT

    "Using religious dogma to support your arguments is not conducive to appropriate political debate, specifically because the First Amendment prohibits recognition of one religious set of ideals over another."

    But only if congress gets involved. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof. Religion has as much right to give their opinions on gay marriage as does the individual who does not believe in God. If congress cannot make any laws forbidding the free exercise of religion why do judges, municipalities and school boards think they can create laws silencing religion in public forums, unless they have become a law unto themselves and are therefore greater than the Constitution.

  • Jiggle Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 12, 2010 11:15 a.m.

    @snowman

    Obviously you don't know much about these matters. Go educate yourself! I already know what can and can't be done. The advantages married couples have in many of the things already mentioned ARE NOT given automatically to unmarried couples....both homosexual and heterosexual. How do I know? I was an unmarried couple for many years before I got married. The automatic perks that married couples get I couldn't get because TECHNICALLY I was single. I couldn't be on my partners health insurance, we couldn't file a tax return as married filed jointly or married filing separate, he couldn't be involved at my children's school unless I gave permission, and the list goes on. I lived it. Have you? I couldn't legally do anything a married couple could do because we were not legally bound. Sometimes there are exceptions, but for the most part an unmarried couple does not get the advantages a legally married couple get. If my partner (now my husband) would've been in the hospital unconscious and was unable to voice his wishes...his parents could've banned me from seeing him and making any decisions concerning him.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2010 9:15 p.m.

    Bill in Nebraska As I have stated before and will again. Churches see this as a moral issue not a civil rights issue. This in no way compares to what took place in the 60s.

    Sorry, scripture says its a Civil Rights issue. D&C 134:4 says that were responsible only to God for obeying His law, but to both God AND man when our religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. In doing so, we cross over into that area rendered unto Caesar (Civil Rights). Prop.8 was ONLY ABOUT eliminating existing rights of gays and our religious opinions prompted us to do so. When we deal with legal rights, its objectively a civil rights issue, no matter what GBH, TSM or anyone else says.

    Someone stated.. Those members of the church that think they know better than their church leaders,
    We dont claim to know better than them. Scripture knows better, not us. NO ONE has even tried to show how scripture allows us to take away the rights of others. I wish SOMEONE would man-up and at least TRY to show how it does.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Dec. 13, 2010 3:01 p.m.

    re - SLCWatch | 8:54 a.m. Dec. 11

    "outside of promoting the continuation of the species the state has no vested interest in regulating marriage."

    that is a false statement. marriage makes for happier and more secure citizens. that is why states are involved in marriage. it has nothing to do with procreation.

    your argument is based on a false premise.