'Does Mormonism have a marriage problem?' New York Times columnist asks


Return To Article
  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    June 14, 2012 1:37 p.m.

    We may have issues in Utah with taking care of our less fortunate, certainly something we should change and become as charitable as we profess to be, but to draw any conclusion that it is linked with marriage is just silly. Mormons shouldn't be attacked for keeping to a standard and the rest of the country shouldn't attack anyone, Mormon or not, for holding to a value.

  • TheWalker Saratoga Springs, UT
    June 14, 2012 7:27 p.m.

    'Mainstream acceptance'? 30 states have ratified one-man - one-woman marriage amendments, and EVERY TIME it has been presented to the people, same-sex marriage has been rejected.

    Sounds more like 'Mainstream rejection' me.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 14, 2012 10:12 p.m.

    @ TheWalker: Yes, several years ago when same-sex marriage was on the ballot in those states, it was voted against.

    But that is why the story uses the phrase "increasingly accepts" - to indicate that those attitudes and opinions are changing.

    Recent polls indicate that more than 53% of the US population supports same-sex marriage.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    June 15, 2012 12:11 a.m.

    Irony indeed.

  • Kramer's Corner Penryn, CA
    June 15, 2012 12:32 a.m.

    I doubt the validity of those polls. This nation is still a moral one. It's people will never give up the fight for decency. Homosexual activity will always be viewed as a dark practice that leads a society down the road to distruction and if everyone practiced that life style human life would cease.

  • the_lobotomist PORTLAND, OR
    June 15, 2012 12:45 a.m.

    I used to get really excited about DN articles that had to do with social issues such as gay marriage... But now I feel that the DN journalists are beating it into the ground.

    Gay marriage will eventually become "mainstream", (as some like to put it); and there isn't anything that anyone can do about it.

    Just get over it, and move on. It doesn't affect your marriage, so leave it be.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 15, 2012 6:36 a.m.

    A person almost has to be low I.Q. to believe that same sex marriage is a threat to normal marriage. This doesn't mean however that same sex marriage is a good thing. If the relationship between gay people is allowed to be called marriage, with all the rights that married people have, what is to prevent gay people from standing in line and being successful in adopting children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 15, 2012 7:37 a.m.

    @Johnny Triumph;

    Same-sex marriage is a "value" to me. I'm holding to it. Should I be praised or castigated?

    @The Walker;

    Can we put your marriage up to a vote?

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    June 15, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    Mormonism may or may not have a "marriage problem". If mormonism does have a "marriage problem" it would be interesting to see where it falls on the problem list.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 15, 2012 9:34 a.m.

    I’ve often wondered the twisted irony of this myself…

    Polygyny [one man - plural wives],
    Polyandry [one woman - plural husbands],
    Spiritual Wifery,
    hundreds of women had themselves “Sealed” to the martyred Prophet Joseph?

    I wish I had the answers [hence my pondering]
    And I’m not rationalizing, justifying, or trying to stir the pot of the marriage controversy – But our Mormon history regarding marriages remains a fact and we need to deal with it.

    Since it’s going to come to light, we need to be prepared with the answers – and stick our heads in the sand or ignore the truth.

    Things to consider, that's all I'm saying...

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 15, 2012 10:21 a.m.


    They're being given up for adoption, so clearly, their "traditional" mother and father didn't want them. Why is it so bad for a gay couple to adopt them?

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    June 15, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    What is ironic to me is that the mormon church is doing EXACTLY what was done to them when they were practicing polygamy. They wanted to do it, and everybody else persecuted them for how they wanted to live. Now the church, oddly enough, is trying to prevent gay marriage. Double standard?? Do they not remember what it was like to be persecuted for living according their beliefs?? It is like telling somebody they can't drink, or smoke. If you don't like it, don't do it. but don't tell somebody else not to do it.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 15, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    To "Brahmabull" actually it is different. Gay Marriage Advocates are using the hype to force other to accept their way of life. Just look at all of the lawsuits that go on because a person does not approve of the gay lifestyle and does not want to do something to promote it. People like fertility Drs, photographers, to wedding planners have been sued because they do not approve of gay marriage.

    There is no persecution going on. The LDS church has said that the gays can do what whatever they want, just don't call it marriage. If gays went after the same rights, but called it something different, and unique, they probably could get what they are after. As it stands, they have an adgenda that ultimately devalues marriage, and like europe has found, makes marraige so unimportant that few people actually get married.

  • LelandTC West Valley City, 00
    June 15, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    I read an article about a study done at a Texas University that showed statistics between children raised in heterosexual families and homosexual families. The study showed a considerable increase of homosexual tendencies and teen suicide in homosexual families vs. heterosexual. This study should in no way reflect upon any individual union, but shows a trend we should be aware of. A simple internet search of such studies should provide more information to anyone who is really interested in facts rather than conjecture.

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 15, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    @ Leland: Actually, what the study showed was that children whose parents divorce suffer problems - regardless of whether the divorced parent then participates in heterosexual, homosexual, or no additional relationships.

    A recent article in this paper had a link to the study.

    Of course, the study also raises a lot of questions - primarily based on the funding of the study and the method in which the study was conducted. The most telling thing about the study is the title - before the data was even examined the author of the study assumed there would be differences. And he arranged the data to make sure those differences were found.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    June 15, 2012 1:33 p.m.

    Redshirt - get real. A person cannot be sued because they do not approve of gay marriage. You can be sued if you refuse service to somebody because they are gay, it is called discrimination. It is like turning somebody down because of their race, rediculous right? And who cares if they call it marriage?? Polygamy was called plural MARRIAGE. Oponents of plural marriage thought that it devalued marriage too, hence the persecution.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2012 1:51 p.m.

    "To "Brahmabull" actually it is different. Gay Marriage Advocates are using the hype to force other to accept their way of life."

    That's not true at all but hey I understand you need to legitimize your total hypocrisy since I imagine you think Smith and company were persecuted.

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    June 15, 2012 11:59 p.m.

    Agreed: Mormonism is headed towards a huge fight over what defines "marriage"....male/female or are homosexual relationships included in the definition?

    As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I say, bring it on. Pushed into this battle of morality by militant pro-homosexuals, it has been brewing for quite some time. (and don't even try to claim it was the LDS church who started this fight with Prop 8 because if homosexuals had not tried to have homosexual relationships defined as "marriage" in CA then the LDS church NEVER would have had a cause/fight to take up)

    Although, I must warn you, it won't be a fair fight. It never is when God is on your side.

  • trueblue87 Provo, UT
    June 16, 2012 1:52 a.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    Spiritual wifery was a false doctrine used by apostates to justify their sins. Joseph Smith Jr. nor any of his contemporaries practiced nor taught this doctrine.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2012 5:26 a.m.

    Societies which honor traditional marriage will ultimately prevail. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    Too many politicians are myopic, and fail to see the long range implications of their actions.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    June 16, 2012 5:50 a.m.

    Of course Mormon marriages have problems. Priesthood holders aren't home enough to keep an eye on the family and their spousal relationship, the expectation of "perfection" plays havoc with our heads and generally Mormons marry too young and are not ready for the experience and make far too many mistakes. Outsiders wouldn't know this but those that live in the culture know exactly what I'm talking about.

  • Gregorio Norco, CA
    June 16, 2012 2:53 p.m.

    Who is the mainstream that says they accept the word marriage to mean woman and a woman or a man and a man. Marriage is between a man and a woman. PERIOD. California voted on this twice and both times the voters said MARRIAGE IS between a man and a woman. Do we have to vote the third time for a three times and your out?! Let others call their committment something other than the word a man and a woman use for their committment to one another. WHATS WRONG WITH THAT?

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    June 16, 2012 10:42 p.m.

    per Dan Maloy 11:59 p.m. June 15, 2012

    "As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I say, bring it on."

    So much for blessed are the peacemakers, eh?

    "Although, I must warn you, it won't be a fair fight. It never is when God is on your side."

    Isn't that from the upcoming Osama biography?

    Last & most importantly; Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  • TwoBitsWorth Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2012 1:59 a.m.

    From the point of view of one who has a traditional male/female marriage, my objection to Gay marriage is not that they are gay or that they want to live together. The problem is that they are trying to steal my identity.

    They want to claim that they are "married" because they live together. I do not believe they are "married" just because they live together, any more than a man and a woman who live together without a marriage contract. The original concept of marriage, biblical or otherwise, includes the presumption that the marriage would (or at least "could") product children, and that children are an essential element of society.

    If they want to live together, "OK". But I prefer that they leave the definition of "Marriage" alone and find another word to define their "childless" union. Oh, I know someone will scold me and say they can have children. But that argument is on thin ice from the get-go because they must adopt or one of them has to be "unfaithful" in the original definition of marriage, in order to have children. I believe that a child deserves to have a father "and" a mother.

  • emZ Rexburg, ID
    June 17, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    What government did not create, government has no right to change. Marriage as an institution pre-dates every government on this earth. How does the government presume to change the definition of such an institution?

    The part of this that scares me is that in my future career I can foresee a time when I will be sued for not providing certain services to homosexual couples. I would not deny just any service, bit if the service provided would violate my most deeply held beliefs, then to force me to provide said service would be a violation of my freedom of religion. If I had a restaurant, I would have no problem seating a gay couple. If I had an adoption agency, and were forced to adopt children to gay couples, then freedom of religion is dead.

  • emZ Rexburg, ID
    June 17, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    I live in the culture you refer to, but I'm not sure I know what you ar referring to. My wife and I married young, having a baby boy, and have never been happier in our lives.

    Sure, severe problems exist among our young married peers, but such is the result of an unwillingness of some to keep the commandments of the Lord and the counsel of our leaders.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 17, 2012 6:26 p.m.

    @ TwoBitsWorth

    "The problem is that they are trying to steal my identity".

    My dear, please come down from your white horse.

    If a heterosexual marriage of swingers call their relationship a marriage. Are they stealing your identity?

    If a heterosexual couple where there is abuse and whatever else, and they call their relationship a marriage, are they stealing your identity?

    I guess no rational person would agree that these heretosexual people in a far from "ideal"
    model of marriage would be stealing your identity.

    Yet, you claim that a loving same sex couple may steal your identity if they are " not Called" but they are legally married.

    It seems you have some serious identity and security issues. You may need a marriage counselor.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 18, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    That voters in many states have voted against same-sex marriage and civil unions cannot be definitive of civil rights. Back in the early 1960s, before the Civil Rights Act, how many Southern states would have abolished segregation by ballot initiative?

    Marriage is between a man and a woman and will continue to be so. Allowing same-sex marriage isn't going to impact that one bit. It's a bogus argument.

  • scojos Draper, UT
    June 18, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    Mormonism and Catholicism have the same problem with same sex marriage.They both have their religious scripture that preaches against homosexuals but they don't want the gays to have the rights to a "civil" marriage because they preach that Religions are the sole dispensers of the "scrament of marriage". What's divorce by the way? So be it. Let that be the LAW. Religions will not be forced to marry anyone in their temples that are not members of their faith, but , for Pete's sake, don't let religions claim the marriage grounds as their private dispensation. The ancient marriages were all political. Marriage ceremonies were never meant to tbe the domain of any religion. They just "stole " the idea and have brainwashed society into thinking that marriage originated through the church, regardless of what church you belong. Well marriage DIDN"T originate with religions. It was adopted by religions as a control over the flock and as a source of MONEY

  • Larry Lawton Wan Chai, Hong Kong
    June 19, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    I lived near San Francisco for nearly twenty years. As a result, I doubt all these reassuring words that same-sex gay marriage is not threat to my way of life. I supported the predecessor to Prop 8, Prop 22. That didn’t amend the California constitution like Prop 8, just enacted a law defining marriage in the traditional way. My yard sign didn’t last a week. Found it on the lawn of the local LDS chapel. Put it back in place. It was burned on the front lawn of the church, along with the rest in our neighborhood.
    Prop 22 was declared unconstitutional, so Prop 8 amended the California constitution. My friends who had the gall to donate to Prop 8 were hounded and persecuted. If you owned a business, you could stay open – if you contributed an equal amount to the gay causes “suggested” by the picketers blocking your entrance. Others were forced to resign from their jobs. From those observations, if same-sex marriage is held to be a constitutional right, you can kiss your first amendment religious freedoms goodbye.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2012 11:39 a.m.

    @Counter Intelligence
    "however they did NOT punish a stylist who refused to cut the Governor's hair based upon the Governor's opposition to gay marriage. "

    Did he even sue? You can't punish someone unless a complaint is filed.

    "Canada recently punished a public official who referred a gay couple to at least five other officials for marriage"

    If you take a job you probably should do your job.

    "Canada is being sued to allow polygamy"

    Stay on topic.

    "Denmark forces ALL churches to perform gay marriages."

    False. They forced the state church to perform gay marriages, other churches like the LDS church do not. Maybe that's a good reason to not have a state church.

    "Forcing an agenda is EXACTLY what the gay marriage debate is really about"

    I agree, you want to force your agenda on other peoples' lives.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 20, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    Describing same-sex marriage as a redefinition of marriage is an anguished word choice for extending the scope of marriage to include couples of the same gender.