Quantcast
Faith

Religious leaders wonder what's next after gay marriage court rulings

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 29, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    It's important to remember that many religious Christians and Jews SUPPORT gay marriage. "Pro-civil rights" does NOT mean "anti-religion".

    Here's a partial list of denominations that support gay marriage, or allow each diocese to decide independently. Not a complete list, but it'll give you an idea of the widespread support for equal rights amongst the religious:

    Anglican Church of Canada

    Lutheran and Reformed Churches
    --Church of Sweden
    --Church of Denmark
    --Church of Iceland
    --Danish Church of Argentina
    --Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada
    --United Church of Canada
    --Protestant Church of Germany
    --Protestant Church of the Netherlands
    --Church of Norway
    --Evangelical Lutheran Church of America

    Presbyterian
    --Presbyterian Church USA (blesses same-sex unions, but does not perform marriages)

    Congregational polities
    --Quakers -- in several countries
    --United Church of Christ
    --Canadian Unitarian Council
    --Unitarian Universalist Association
    --Metropolitan Community Church
    --Mennonite Church of the Netherlands
    --Affirming Pentecostal Church International

    Mixed-polity and other polities
    --Swedenborgian Church of North America
    --Uniting Church of Australia
    --United Church of Canada (individual ministers)
    --New Apostolic Church

    An LDS offshoot -- Community of Christ

    And in Judaism:
    --Reform Judaism
    --Reconstructionist Judaism (individual rabbis)
    --Conservative Judaism (USA)

  • Daniel Leifker San Francisco, CA
    June 29, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    How quickly things change. I remember one presidential debate in 2000 when Gore and Bush were in chummy agreement in their opposition to same-sex marriage. After last week's SCOTUS ruling, same-sex marriage will spread to all 50 states pretty fast, and the whole thing disappears as an issue for the 2016 election... when the GOP candidate, I predict, will finally support same-sex marriage. But from what my gay and lesbian friends tell me, the GOP has lost the GLBT vote for the next century.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 29, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    I left these out of my previous list -- they bless same-sex unions, and in some areas perform weddings:

    Episcopalian polities
    --Anglican Church of Canada
    --Episcopal Church of US
    --Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic, and Liberal Catholic Churches

  • Scott1 Quiet Neighborhood, UT
    June 29, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Does anyone know how to find online the statement read from LDS pulpits a few weeks ago concerning the LDS church planning to continue working with the boy scouts? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 29, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    "Religious leaders wonder what's next after gay marriage court rulings".

    If you are not LGBT the answer would be, Nothing really! Your life will continue being the same as now.

    If you are LGBT then you have an opportunity to start enjoying a bigger degree of freedom and feel more recognized as a member of the American society. However, we know, that the road toward equality is long and we need to do more.

    Hopefully, religious leaders will choose to follow the higher spirit of their laws. In a country that some claim to be a Christian copuntry. Perhaps, more churches will realize the mistake of their ways and will become more inclusive and accepting of nature, God and all his children.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    June 29, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    Scott1: No letter was read in my ward

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 29, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    These rulings are about CIVIL marriage. They provide equal treatment under civil law for same sex citizens, something guaranteed by the Constitution. They do NOT affect church marriages in any way, nor will they, as the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state is actually strengthened by these decisions.

    How? As Contrarius points out, many faiths DO support same sex marriage; to deny them the right to perform them not only violates same sex individual's guarantee of equal treatment under civil law, it imposes religious beliefs of the anti gay marriage churches' upon those who believe differently.

    Freedom of (and from) religion was a founding principle of our country. All churches and people of faith should well remember this principle as it protects their religious liberty as well. No one will be forced to have or perform a gay marriage. Until they can prove otherwise in THIS country, they should realize that as times change, if it weren't for our secular government, they could see their religion denied it's beliefs by a popular vote or legislative action. In the meantime, everyone is free to live by their god's law as THEY believe it to be.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 29, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    This isn't the loss for traditional marriage that some suppose it is. The Sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west and traditional marriage is what continue to go on as it always has.

    It's good that gays have come out of the closet. No longer because of societal pressure will they be marrying unsuspecting heterosexuals this in itself is good for many traditional marriages.

    For fairness sake it wasn't necessary that gays be given the ability to marry, civil unions would have been enough but what has happened does not mean the sky is going to fall. this won't hurt my traditional marriage and it won't hurt yours either.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    June 29, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    Religious leaders should fully understand what comes next.

    The radical left activists will begin to disrupt religious activities, picket, file frivolous lawsuits, write nasty letters to the editor, and otherwise harass and intimidate any denomination that does not cave into their politically correct notions, and abandon the traditional family as the very foundation of western civilization.

    Any resistance will be fought with attacks on tax exemptions for churches, the deductibility of contributions to churches, etc. (Except those "approved" religions which preach the liberal party dogma.)

    Their ultimate goal is that which the left has been pursuing for a long time, "Freedom FROM religion" not "freedom OF religion."

    In our brave new Orwellian world, bad has become good, and neither black nor with is good, only rainbows. Equality will truly mean that "some or more equal than others."

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 29, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    There is no 'next'. There has only been the now. "You will never be satisfied with what you don't need because what you don't need will never satisfy you." It is a momentary 'victory' for the Gay rights crowd, because they have to wake up again, to find out that political victory didn't do anything but make them more frustrated. The truth is 'hard' for those who refuse to accept it. No amount of reasoning can enlighten anyone that is 'hardened' against it. Would you have it any other way? There is only one form of marriage and you are either for it or against it. It is awesome!

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    June 29, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    The elites of our country will be for polygamy once it passes the 50 percent approval mark; just do what is popular, that is how Messrs. Obama, Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Cheney and Rob Portman lead. Do anything to avoid crucifixion.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 29, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    @dn sub

    "Orwellian?" .

  • LeftBehind SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    June 29, 2013 4:54 p.m.

    Many comments here remind me of the early days of the Civil Rights movement. Remember when some religious leaders said the Civil Rights movement was part of a vast left wing conspiracy of Godless Communists?

    Then, as now, people said that racially mixed marriages offended the 'natural order'

    In rendering his decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court, Judge Leon Bazile said: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

    Spencer W. Kimball wrote: "When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children."

    So you can't fight prejudice because of prejudice?

    Then, as now, some people said that their own definition of traditional marriage was predicated on denying the rights of others to marry.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 29, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    Me dear DN Subscriber 2;

    I would admire your ability to predict the future. Unfortunately, your predictions have a logic flaw and border on (or is) paranoia.

    The question has been asked a million times and remains unanswered. In what way same sex marriage affects "your" heterosexual marriage?

    In twenty, forty or a hundred years from now heterosexual marriage still will be the majority or marriages. Same sex marriage still will be a minority. This follows the historical percentage of homosexual population in any society.

    We may see that less heterosexual marriages go into divorce. See, less homosexuals will enter into heterosexual marriages just to fulfill somebody else's expectations.

    More children will live in two parents families. More children will be adopted and live in families who really wants them. As somebody remarked in this paper, children of LGBT are not caused by accidents. They are wanted and loved.

    Your religion beliefs will be protected and respected as long as you don't attempt to create a tiranny of any particular religion, as many have tried.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    Well now that gay people can marry each other I don't see the point of myself getting married anymore. -no straight person ever

  • Ophelia Bountiful, UT
    June 29, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    DN Subscriber 2

    Just a bit confused? Orwellian? George Orwell abhorred orthodoxy and tyranny -- whether big government, big business, or big religion. Orwell would have welcomed marriage equality.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    While I generally support the legalization of gay marriage as a civil rights issue, it should not be perceived as an unmitigated blessing. Divorce has produced more messed up kids that ever before in history. Gay marriages are even more fragile that heterosexual ones. This means even more divorce. So there is clearly going to be some collateral damage among children. This is something to think about.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 29, 2013 6:13 p.m.

    @marxist --

    "Gay marriages are even more fragile that heterosexual ones. "

    Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we have so far.

    "In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples ...ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or ***1.1% on average***, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually."
    -- from "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States", published in 2011 by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

    If you oppose promiscuity, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage ENCOURAGES monogamous, stable relationships.

    If you oppose divorce, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage.
    --1. Legal gay partnerships appear to break up at roughly 1/2 the rate of straight marriages.
    --2. In 2011, 4 out of the 10 states with the **lowest** divorce rates allowed gay marriage.
    --3. NY, CT, IA, VT, NH, and MA all have **lower** divorce rates after legalizing gay marriage than just before.

    Gay marriage is GOOD for "traditional" marriage. It enables people who want to HONOR the tradition of stable monogamous relationships to do so.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 29, 2013 6:32 p.m.

    Whats next is full acceptance in all 50 states. And the LDS church is there..whether they know it or not. Their statement on all boys should be in the boy scouts put them down the correct path.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 29, 2013 6:40 p.m.

    One post suggests that *Hopefully, religious leaders will choose to follow the higher spirit of their laws. In a country that some claim to be a Christian country. Perhaps, more churches will realize the mistake of their ways and will become more inclusive and accepting of nature, God and all his children."

    To the contrary, the spirit AND letter of the law of chastity always has been, and will remain, abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage. The Lord puts particular emphasis on this in all His scripture, teaching that breaking this law is one of the most serious of all transgressions and will lead to unhappiness.

    It isn't my law nor is it yours. It is His. We can't wish or legislate it away. We need more churches who will hold the line on this important doctrine.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 29, 2013 6:57 p.m.

    DNSubscriber2:

    Your post about "radical left activists" is nothing more than chicken-little fear mongering and wild speculation. Although I do expect as time goes by, more denominations will join the already long list of those which support gay marriage, largely because more people will come to understand how irrational and wrong the stereotypes and fears about gay people are. Since no one has been able to show how gay marriage can cause one shred of harm to heterosexual marriage - and the best lawyers and experts the opposition could muster tried their darndest and failed abysmally (read the transcripts)- I can only conclude this will be a good thing.

    As far as Freedom of and from Religion, any logical person should be able to understand that you cannot have the former without the latter. We are a country which was established in large part to escape the tyranny of what was felt to be the "right" religion.

    Freedom of and from religion allows everyone to practice their OWN religion-or none at all- and observe THEIR god's laws without interference from sanctimonious holier-than-thou's who want to impose their beliefs upon everyone else.

  • justme001 Salt Lake, UT
    June 29, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    Marxist,

    Please explain how same se x marriage is more fragile than hetero marriage? I really am curious how you came to this conclusion.

  • steph1968 Daytona, FL
    June 29, 2013 7:04 p.m.

    Contrarius...

    First, to use the word "Catholic" and the phrase "Same-Sex-Marriage" in the same sentence is simply wrong. True Catholics (those not swayed by popular opinion or press and dedicated to their Faith) will NEVER vote for Lesbian or Gay "marriage". This would be akin to abandoning our Faith altogether... Please do not confuse TRUE Catholics with would-be pretenders or "Cafeteria Catholics" (who choose what they want to believe from TRUE Catholic teachings).

    I personally cannot condone same sex marriage because it precludes the possibility of naturally born offspring; which is by the way, necessary to continue our fragile Human Race! I am to assume that you are also for Abortion, Euthanasia, Forced (State controlled and enforced) Birth Control, etc? Given your comments, I have to wonder what you would draw the line at? If the Government decided to start (as China has for years...) to limit the number of children a family can have, would you also get behind it? Just wondering?

    A very, VERY Concerned Catholic and VOTER!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2013 7:55 p.m.

    "Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we have so far. " This is interesting and something I am going to look into. So should the rest of us. This could be important analysis.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    June 29, 2013 7:57 p.m.

    @steph1968 --

    "to use the word "Catholic" and the phrase "Same-Sex-Marriage" in the same sentence is simply wrong."

    Sorry, Steph, but you don't get to dictate what those churches call themselves.

    The "Old Catholic" and "Reformed Catholic" churches broke away from the Catholic church back in the 1800s, and the "LIberal Catholic" church was founded by Anglicans and Catholics in about 1904. None of them are "johnnie-come-lately", and they are all in full communion with the Anglicans.

    "it precludes the possibility of naturally born offspring"

    Gay couples can have children in exactly the same ways that any other infertile couples do. Unless you are willing to ban all infertile marriages, this argument holds no water at all.

    @very concerned --

    " the spirit AND letter of the law of chastity always has been, and will remain, abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage."

    Oddly enough, there is no commandment that says "thou shalt not be homosexual".

    In fact, adultery and divorce are mentioned in the Bible a lot more than homosexuality is.

    How many divorced people do YOU know? Are you ready to go stone them? People who divorce and remarry are adulterers -- and adulterers deserve death.

    Right?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 29, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    Giving a certain group of people the same rights that the majority share is nothing but a great thing.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 29, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    Steph1968,

    I have good Catholic friends and good Catholic family --- I am not a Catholic myself, but I believe I find your representation of Catholics inappropriate. I don't consider any one Catholic "truer" than another, or "true" and "not true."

    If anything, through the years, I have come to realize that Catholics, like most other members of other religions, have opinions/beliefs/faith that somewhat differ from orthodoxy. In fact, even clergy sometimes disagree and I would not call anyone Catholic priest not a true Catholic by any means. It's human nature to have an opinion.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 29, 2013 10:17 p.m.

    Marxist,

    You wrote, ""Legal gay partnerships actually appear to break up at roughly HALF the rate of straight partnerships, from the data we have so far."

    Someone corrected you on your claim and you cannot come up with substantial studies --- in fact, because there are none. Your claims are ridiculous.

    MSN Living publishes that among heterosexual couples, "Seventy-three percent of couples said a lack of commitment was the main reason their marriage didn’t work" in their article "The 8 most common reasons for divorce."

    According to another source in The Huffington Post, among other reasons: selfishness, forgetting to love, lack of commitment, being incompatible, not growing together, etc."

    Among them, I do not see the gay factor you speak of...

  • Alfred Stansbury Concord, CA
    June 29, 2013 10:53 p.m.

    I don't know what religious leader will choose to do, but I do know a couple of relevant facts:
    1) If no one over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would never have passed in CA in the first place. The controlling factor was not race but age, in the end.
    2) Around the nation as a whole, gay marriage is "overwhelmingly" approved by people under 30.
    So, long term as has already happened in the once-segregated South, an older bigoted generation will die off; and a new, more open generation will emerge and find its own religious voice and leaders.
    As Sondheim wrote so memorably in Cabaret, "Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!"

  • Way of the Warrior ARLINGTON, WA
    June 29, 2013 10:55 p.m.

    Instead of "wondering", religious leaders should be asking themselves, "have I been treating my neighbor as myself?" "Have I been treating others how I would want to be treated?" "Have I been un-Christlike in the manner I have treated others, and if so, should I not expect to be treated that same way by those I have abused?" Oh it is interesting to see the bewilderment of the persecutors when the tables turn.

  • sirald66 SLC, UT
    June 29, 2013 10:57 p.m.

    Its rather simple.

    The public has civil-marriage, and the church has religious-marriage.

    If the church is so aching to have the word marriage to its self, then would its members be happy to convert their 'marriage license' to a 'civil union license' that all can obtain?

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    June 29, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    "This gives Christian churches the opportunity to do what Jesus called us to do with our marriages in the first place: to serve as a light in a dark place," Moore wrote. "Permanent, stable marriages with families with both a mother and a father..." Hello? Hello? Pastor? I always thought that WAS the goal. That's what you should be concentrating on but haven't been. Divorce and broken homes is almost the rule and not the exception. Where have you been? Did it really take expanding marriage to same sex couples for that light bulb to go off in your head? And guess what, those of us who are gay and want to marry our same sex partners hope to achieve the same thing. My same sex partner and I have been together for twenty-one years; we're monogamous, as well. That's never been an issue for us. We just did it because we're committed to each other. Just as you should have been in your own marriages. Did it really take gay marriage to show you the way?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    June 29, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    The lord never has or ever will approve of a same gender marriage situation are you smarter than an all powerful and knowing God who only wants the best for his children? What right does a judge have to overturn the will of a majority of people. Same gender things called marriages will always be wrong and people that use there legal authority to try to authorize them will one day have to answer to a higher power.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    June 29, 2013 11:41 p.m.

    I don't care that two homosexual marry. What bothers me is that so many Americans celebrating the supreme court decision seem to have casually brushed aside God's laws.

    They are celebrating in the streets and on the web. Well, the people who lived at the time of Noah were probably living happy lives not knowing that they had offended God. The people living in Soddom and Gommorah were probably happy and feeling just fine even though they did not realize that they had offended God.

    Ignorance is bliss until the judgements of God come calling on nations that intentionally ignore moral laws.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 30, 2013 12:11 a.m.

    @aislander

    "Freedom of and from religion allows everyone to practice their OWN religion-or none at all-"

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Where is the freedom from religion part?

    "We are a country which was established in large part to escape the tyranny of what was felt to be the "right" religion."

    When did congress pass a law supporting the right religion?

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 30, 2013 12:26 a.m.

    @Alfred Stansbury

    "As Sondheim wrote so memorably in Cabaret, "Tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs, tomorrow belongs to me!"

    For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
    And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away(Matt 24:38-39)

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 12:45 a.m.

    Very concerned,

    Two things:

    1) We do not live in a theocracy.

    2) Who appointed you to be God's spokesperson?

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    June 30, 2013 5:06 a.m.

    I am bothered by some of the feelings out there.
    I am straight and married but I do not feel threatened by gay marriage.
    Saying that divorce is always an attack on traditional marriage isn't necessarily correct.
    Some divorces are frivolous and do have a negative effect, but others are necessary if a spouse has become abusive.
    Whether it be physically abusive or psychologically abusive. Neither environment is a good one for kids. Sometimes the mother/father move on to healthier marriages which become better examples for the kids.
    And there are plenty of married couples out there who don't have children together. Whether because they married as older adults or due to infertility. To look down on them because they don't procreate is callous in my opinion.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 5:26 a.m.

    You who believe that same-sex marriage is inevitable in Utah, don't understand the influence of LDS members, here, who vote for those who would make that decision. You're naive if you believe that legislators, the majority of whom are conservative and many of whom are LDS, would "buckle" simply because liberal states have gone down a different path. And, if you believe that the LDS Church is influenced in the slightest by the stance of other religions, you might want to re-read "The Family: A Proclamation To The World," especially the last three paragraphs. Does the Proclamation sound like a "suggestion" to you? To me, it is clearly a mandate and a warning.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    June 30, 2013 6:02 a.m.

    I am baffled still by the anguish that many profess at the progress that the LGBT movement has made especially in terms of same sex marriage. I am also inclined to think that if those who support "traditional" marriage had set the standard they seemingly claim to have instead of dishonoring marriage by divorce infidelity etc., we might be looking at a different scenario today. You can't claim to be the defenders of an institution when those (the LGBT community) whom you would attempt to deny access to the institution of marriage are doing a better job in defending it in the short time they have been able to marry than the "traditionalists" have in the millennia they have had to set the example they should have, but did not.

  • Abinadis friend Boise, Idaho
    June 30, 2013 6:40 a.m.

    It is not up to us mortals to decide if same sex marriage is the right thing to do. Those of us who believe that we have a creator that gave us direction in how to live a life that is acceptable.
    Marriage with a person of the same sex is not accepted in his plan. We of course now have the legal right, due to 5 people who think it is. Personally I believe differently. I will live my life as I believe we should. I have pity for those who choose otherwise. We will face our creator at some point with how we lived our lives. I will be glad that I didn't choose that path.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    June 30, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    I think what will come next is affection in public. Holding hands kisses will be band.

  • LittleStream Carson City, NV
    June 30, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    We never discuss the fact that there are babies born out of wedlock. We never discuss the fact that fully half of all traditional marriages end in divorce. Even if traditional marriage was the greatest example of civil relationships, that is not going to end gay relationships. Those relationships have stood 40 and 50 years without being married.

    The religious groups would be better off hating the sin, but loving the sinner. I believe that is what Christ taught us. We have made a judgement about these relationships and it is not our job to judge; "Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone". We need to only worry about living our lives as sinless as possible. Each person is going to have to come before God, he will judge each of us.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 30, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    What should come next? Application of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution to same-sex marriaes in all states. If a person is legally married in one state, that person should be considered legally married in ALL states regardless whether the marriage could legally be entered into a given state (example -- first cousin marriages are recognized and accepted in all states, even if they couldn't be contracted in a given state). The Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constituion should apply to same-sex marriage, just as it applies to "traditional" marriage.

    First cousins who are legally married in one state (like Utah) are still married if thy move to a state that does not allow first cousin marriages. It should be the same for same-sex couples. Once they are legally married in one state, they should be able to have their marriages considered legal in ALL states, and have all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage in whatever state to which they may move. Once married, always married, unless that marriage is dissolved by an order of the court in an action they bring to terminate their marriage.

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    June 30, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    ‘Religious leaders wonder what's next after gay marriage court rulings’

    Join the 21rst century and do what thay are supposed to do ie provide comfort and service to all peaple?

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    June 30, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    One thing I think is really interesting:

    I hear every day how nowhere in the Constitution does it say the words, "Separation of Church and State," so it is my pleasure to remind some people on this forum that nowhere in the Constitution does it state, "Freedom of Religion."

    Oh, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" but what these people need to understand is one of the inherent logic structures within the Constitution is reciprocity. This means no laws can go against religion or religious beliefs but also that no laws can be in favor of religion or religious beliefs. It sounds obvious, but you might be surprised at how many people get irate when they are confronted with the Constitution protecting the people from religion just as it protects us from the non-religious.

    Gay marriage does not in any way lessen the sacred bonds of religious marriage.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 30, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    For most I think it will be business as usual. For a few, those that feel entitled to push themselves onto a society that they refuse to believe is right to ignore them entirely, they will be ever angry and disappointed, and left behind

  • Mr.Glass Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    Religious conservatives use of the term "family values" is both limited to their own terms and insulting. I know two lesbian couples, both of which have children, and they're family is no worse than those who arrogantly claim they and others like them are living "family values." Their children are psychologically healthy and well adjusted.

    Religious dogma is the wrong way to approach this issue.

  • Angelica D. Chow USA, AL
    June 30, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    thats great

  • Meadow Lark Mark IDAHO FALLS, ID
    June 30, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    I just find it interesting that we think we can legislate morality. We make a law and then think that all is ok. Does that mean that if we pass a law that says murder or stealing is ok then is it? There are moral absolutes. Some are just not willing to accept that.

  • dtlenox Olympia, WA
    June 30, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    "Pro-civil rights" also does NOT mean "pro-gay marriage". Without exception, all pro-same-sex people that I see expressing their views, try to equate same-sex marriage with "Civil Rights" to make it sound inevitable, saying that anyone who is against same-sex-marriage is a "homophobic bigot". Given this, and the vindictive and mean spirit that goes along with it, make it impossible for the people who are pushing for same-sex marriage to simply ignore those who don't believe as they do. Oh yes, it certainly will affect everyone, as they will try to force everyone to wholeheartedly accept same sex marriage by bringing all sorts of frivolous lawsuits against any person or organization who shows any semblance of not accepting same-sex marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage. It is happening now, and how could anyone think that it won't increase in frequency and intensity in the future? And what is to stop some judge somewhere from saying that it violates someone's civil rights to not allow 2 men to marry 1 woman, or 3 men to marry, or whatever combination whatsoever. Anyone who doesn't see all of this coming is in major denial.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 30, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    Out of wedlock births are a major cause of poverty and the political leaders are not trying to strengthen traditional marriage which is society's way of promoting that men should be responsible for their reproductive actions.

    Somewhere along the line I used to talk with socialists and I did buy into their vision of a society with no rich or poor, but I don't think that the government is able or even willing to do this. (Refer to Pelosi's comment about having to pass the Obamacare bill se we can know what is in it with people getting their hours cut below 30 hours a week).

    The idea of society with no poor is good. But the government is not the solution. We'll have to do it without them. I just hope that they don't interfere too much. (I wonder what will happen with society's respect for human rights like freedom of conscience?)

    Who here has ever participated in inner city tutoring programs? Gone to Decker Lake youth detention center to tutor or tell stories? The new liberals in our society are those who strengthen traditioanl marriage rather than redefining it.

  • DavidJ Branson, MO
    June 30, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    What a mess:)

  • my two cents777 ,
    June 30, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    @marxist: hogwash.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    June 30, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    As a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, here is my view. In the Book of Genesis God commanded our first parents Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Churches who support gay marriage are saying they don't support this law of God. Because of my belief in God I support this commandment and believe that marriage can only be between a man and a women because our first parents were Adam and Eve.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    June 30, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    I seriously question any reported statistics which speak to the success rate of gay marriages and children in those situations. There aren't enough samples to draw a legitimate conclusion nor enough time to base it on. Once gay marriage has been around for thousands of years, then we can start to tout the benefits of it when compared with heterosexual marriages.

    Its a nice rosy outlook to think of this 'movement' as a benign one in which only peace and tranquility and equality for all is the objective. Already wars on religious organizations which oppose same sex marriage in their doctrines have been waged; even when such religious groups have offered no violence or retaliation against the opposition.

    The LDS church supports traditional marriage but does not preach hatred or violence from their pulpits against those who support a different view point. Stating their policy and living their doctrine is not hate speech.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 30, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    Abinadis friend:

    You wrote;
    "Personally I believe differently. I will live my life as I believe we should. I have pity for those who choose otherwise. We will face our creator at some point with how we lived our lives. I will be glad that I didn't choose that path."

    That is your right to do. You can count on me an thousands of other LGBT who would defend your right to do so.

    You will live your life as you think you should, we just expect to have the same right.

  • kosimov Riverdale, UT
    June 30, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    The LDS Church bases its doctrines on direct revelation from God, which cannot be altered or intellectually interpreted by man, and on decisions made by Church officers with authority from God to act in His name.

    Other church's doctrines are based on the ideas and opinions of men/women, who create those doctrines by logic and interpreting scripture intellectually. They deny modern revelation exists, so it is OK for them to define and change doctrine by logic and reasoning; I’m sure they are prayerful when doing so.

    LDS doctrine comes directly from God. It can be obeyed or rejected, but it cannot be changed. LDS members cannot debate whether or not SameSexMarriage (SSM) is God's will, because God has told them it is not, period.

    Condemning LDS members for not accepting SSM is pointless, because LDS doctrine, which every member sustains as part of being LDS, is that God has defined “marriage” already, by revelation, to the Church. The Church conveys what God has revealed to His prophets in these times.

    The only way an LDS member can change that is to debate God about it. Good luck with that!

  • kosimov Riverdale, UT
    June 30, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    It appears to me that some people who defend LGBT lifestyles and relationships are making a "guilt by association" error when they defend their ideas.

    LGBTs certainly have the right to complain that they have not been treated well and fairly by many who oppose LGBT lifestyles. Truth is, they have not. That is one issue which has been around for a long time. I lived and worked in California with LGBTs daily, but I am pleased to say I didn't give much thought to it and did not treat them badly.

    Now, LGBTs are defending the rulings about SameSexMarriage, which they are pleased and proud to have won. In doing so, the mistake is being made when LGBTs assume that heteros who oppose SSM are also condemning them as has been done for many years, just for being LGBT. While they are sometimes right, they are often wrong; I, and others I know who aren't in favor of SSM, are not condemning LGBTs at the same time.

    LGBTs should not assume that heteros who oppose SSM necessarily hate LGBTs, i.e., "guilt by association". They are separate issues. There is plenty to work out without doing this!

  • Contrariuser USA, TN
    June 30, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    @dtlenox --

    ""Pro-civil rights" also does NOT mean "pro-gay marriage"."

    I was wondering when someone would remark on my choice of words there. ;-)

    "Pro-gay marriage" does NOT mean "anti-traditional family" -- yet the anti-gay folks keep trying to frame the argument that way.

    Equal rights for gays IS about civil rights -- and that means civil rights for ALL.

    "what is to stop some judge somewhere from saying that it violates someone's civil rights to not allow 2 men to marry 1 woman, or 3 men to marry, or whatever combination whatsoever. "

    We've covered this bit of hysteria many, many times already.

    Gay marriage is already legal in 13 countries around the world, and will soon become legal in several more.

    Polygamy is not legal in ANY of those countries.

    Of special interest is Canada, which has had gay marriage for years now. In 2011 the Supreme Court of British Columbia easily REAFFIRMED the constitutionality of their polygamy ban, based on public safety (risk of harm) arguments. I've quoted parts of Judge Bauman's decision in many other threads, so I won't repeat them here.

    Polygamy is NOT bound up together with homosexuality rulings.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 30, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Hopefully more ministers will realize this doesn't have to be a "win/lose" situation. Religion is always more powerful when people follow it willingly, rather than because the State Legislature says you have to.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 30, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    @morganh;

    The "Book of Genesis" in the bible is fiction, start to finish.

    @dtlenox;

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You don't believe in Jesus? That's what he told you to do.

  • fredsgirl1 usa, MA
    June 30, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    My problem with a lot of Christians is that won’t be happy until they force everyone to believe what they believe and be controlled to behave as they behave. That isn’t what the Constitution of United States of America is all about. They will have to come to understand that other people can choose to believe what makes sense to them and do what they think is right for their lives.

    Not everyone in this country is Christian. In fact I would challenge that they are even the majority. I don’t want to change Christians and I implore them not to try and change me.

    Abortion and gay marriage: no one is forcing them to do either thing. They must understand that they do not have any right at all to deny other people of the opportunity.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    June 30, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    The scripture teach us that there are "save two churches only, the church of the Lamb of God and the church of the Devil." (1 Nephi 14)

    In my opinion, any church that supports Same Sex marriages, is not part of the Church of the Lamb of God.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 30, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    "It is not up to us mortals to decide if same sex marriage is the right thing to do. Those of us who believe that we have a creator that gave us direction in how to live a life that is acceptable."

    Nice way to stereotype anyone who views this issue differently as being non-believers who lack faith!

    "Marriage with a person of the same sex is not accepted in his plan. We of course now have the legal right, due to 5 people who think it is. Personally I believe differently. I will live my life as I believe we should. I have pity for those who choose otherwise. We will face our creator at some point with how we lived our lives. I will be glad that I didn't choose that path."

    Perhaps those who believe differently will have lived a kinder, nobler life that you. What if they spent more time serving others and doing the best to bettering the lives of others? Will the God you believe in really condemn them to an eternity without Him? I guess we won't really know until judgment day, but I will let HIM be the judge.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 30, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    Finally, to anyone who claims to know and love "gays" or "LGBT's" but don't think they deserve marriage rights, I would ask you to do something the next time you post or read a comment on here to replace that vague, generic reference with their actual names. Instead of saying, for example, that "the gays are just trying to advance their own selfish agenda for their own pleasure," say "Gary and Paul are just trying to advance... Do you really think that about your friends and neighbors? If so, I would ask you to do some soul searching and pray to be more empathetic to their stations in life.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 30, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    What's next is, open season will be declared on religious people, whether it be in the work force, military, college campuses or public schools.

    Gays know full well they can not legally force their way into churches, so they'll do the next best thing which is intimidation.

    On Bill Moyer's PBS show, Tim DeChristopher recently stated that one should follow their conscience, even if it means disobeying the law. This will become the new credo for the LGBT community.

    After all, do you really think the ACLU, HRC or Equality Utah will care if LDS, Catholic or Baptist people are harassed or mocked or intimidated?

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 30, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Mugabe

    I couldn't disagree more.

    It is the Church of Jesus Christ, not the Church of Prop 8 - so take the politics out of it and start living the gospel of love.

  • Scott Sherman springville, UT
    June 30, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    It is high time that all of you just learn to accept us gays.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    June 30, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    What's next? That's a no brainer. The Dear Leader will attempt to force religions who stand against immorality by "recommending" they perform homosexual marriages. When they refuse, the IRS will pull their tax exempt status since this would be violating the civil rights of the homosexual community.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    June 30, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    The great Creator of the universe and Father of mankind has been removed from American schools, rejected in the courts and now excluded from marriage. How long can our nation thrive after abandoning the source of our strength and inspiration? After all He has done for us? It breaks my heart and I am experiencing separation anxiety. It will be more imperative now to keep Him close to our hearts and love Him with fierce loyalty.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 30, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    @fredsgirl1

    You said, "My problem with a lot of Christians is that won’t be happy until they force everyone to believe what they believe and be controlled to behave as they behave. That isn’t what the Constitution of United States of America is all about."

    The same argument can be made regarding the LGBT community.

    You said, "They will have to come to understand that other people can choose to believe what makes sense to them and do what they think is right for their lives."

    Fine, you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. But we both know the LGBT community is just getting started.

    You said, "I don’t want to change Christians and I implore them not to try and change me."

    That may be true with you, but you're in the minority.

    You said, "They must understand that they do not have any right at all to deny other people of the opportunity."

    And yet, the LGBT has every right to butt their lifestyle into all facets of our society?

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 5:23 p.m.

    Father and Mother will no longer be used...it will now be Other. "Go talk to your other", or "Other, where did I come from?" How about "Your other, and I and some unknown donor love you and want you to know you are wanted and loved.". Future children will hear, "Someday you can grow up to be an other too" Next we will need "Others day" celebrations with "Other cards" "Other bouquets" and "Other day dinners".
    Why we can get rid of Husband and wife too.
    "I love my other so much." or "There has never been an other as sweet, thoughtful or caring as you..my dearest other!"
    We can be politically correct and get rid of son and daughter too.
    "That's a fine set of others you got there."
    How about Grandothers and Grandothers.
    Why religion could adopt "Other in Heaven". You could go to the church and say, "Other, I have a sin to confess"
    Electricians could get confused. "NO, give me the other end."
    Post office would have "Other Others".
    Pretty soon we can throw all the dictionaries away because none of the words will have relavence to reality anymore.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 30, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    Keep your religion to yourselves. Live it as you were told to do so by your big J. Do that, and we'll get along just fine; it's when you try to force others to live by your religious tenets that we have a problem.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 30, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    ClarkHippo says:

    "@fredsgirl1

    You said, "My problem with a lot of Christians is that won’t be happy until they force everyone to believe what they believe and be controlled to behave as they behave. That isn’t what the Constitution of United States of America is all about."

    The same argument can be made regarding the LGBT community. "

    ---

    Clark, guess what, nobody is going to make you "believe" anything; you're welcome to your beliefs. You're also welcome to understand that not everybody believes as you do and YOU should allow THEM to live their lives as THEY see fit. You should also understand, that just because someone does something you don't like, it won't kill you to accept that they do it. Time to grow up and smell the equality.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 30, 2013 7:13 p.m.

    @Ranch

    You said - "You're also welcome to understand that not everybody believes as you do and YOU should allow THEM to live their lives as THEY see fit."

    And yet, it's the LGBT community that continues to push their agenda on everyone. The Supreme Court hands you what you want on a silver platter and it still isn't enough. Everyone knows the intimidation and fear-mongering from your side has only just started.

    You say, "...smell the equality," But how can you say that? Equal rights mean equal responsibility. It means, equal punishment, equal taking of responsibility, equal respect. And LGBT's want none of that.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    June 30, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    It's sad. So many people showing how small they are--how terrified of The Big Bad Gays. Why one would believe these paranoid misconceptions did baffle me. The dire "predictions" are truly laughable were it not a serious issue. They obviously must not actually KNOW any gays well; therefore they believe anything.

    Unfortunately, previously most gay folks had to stay hidden because of fear of losing jobs, homes, families; that allowed people to have ridiculous misconceptions about gays. Many think we should still stay hidden to continue the status quo. Thankfully those days are almost over. That's why our poll numbers are rising dramatically.

    As has been discussed, many faiths and denominations support gay marriage. Why do some think THEIR particular religious beliefs should dictate how civil law treats us...someone please answer that!

    Contrary to what many think, we seek not your approval; you can hate us (and frankly I have more respect for those who admit it) all you want, but as tax-paying law-abiding United States citizens, we do demand your tolerance and equal treatment under the civil laws of our great free country.

    Get to know us! You'll be surprised!

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    June 30, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    Hey, drinking and smoking are legal but that doesn't mean the Mormon church can be forced to open a bar or allow smoking in their chapels.The court may say that gay marriage is legal, but can they force a church to perform gay marriages? Probably not. That would violate separation of church and state. Even if all states are forced to allow gay marriages, that doesn't mean that any minister can be forced to perform a ceremony against their own beliefs. If gays want to get married, they should have to go have it done by a church that supports gay marriage.Nobody is forced to belong to a certain church and no church can be forced to change their beliefs to suit the government. There has to be freedom both directions.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    Religions should stay out of politics.They do not need to perform such marriages. Does religious freedom mean religions should control everyone not in their denomination?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    June 30, 2013 9:39 p.m.

    DN Subscriber 2 is absolutely right when he/she says:

    Their ultimate goal is that which the left has been pursuing for a long time, "Freedom FROM religion" not "freedom OF religion."

    And if you want to know why the left wants to do away with religion in America, compare 'party votes by state' map to a 'church attendance by state' map.

    Highest church attending states vote almost exclusively Republican, and lowest church attending states vote almost exclusively democrat. States in the middle on church attendance split votes between the parties.

    All the voter rights, marriage rights, abortion rights, spying rights, etc, are really about suppressing the religious vote and voice in America. Read the threads. Hate of religious people is everywhere.

    So there is a war on religion, being waged by primarily by the DNC, to get control of the votes in more states. They have a lot of anti-religion bigoted red-necks on board too.

  • The Final Word Alpine, UT
    June 30, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    This is pretty simple really. Evil is never good regardless of how anyone wants/tries to spin it but it is a necessary component of the plan.

    Evil is real and it is expanding to surround us despite those who tell you the opposite of what your conscious tells you. Then again, those familiar with scripture are aware of this and the difficulties ahead.

    In the end all of this will be settled so just make sure you are standing in the RIGHT place when the time comes.

    Don't be distracted by the strategic incessant attempts at confusing what righteous behavior is.

  • MrTuscadero Houston, TX
    July 1, 2013 7:14 a.m.

    Look at Canada to see what will happen next. Anyone caught reading or teaching the Biblical teachings on homosexuality will be arrested. When Rome is burning, someone has to be blamed.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    July 1, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    I try to love all. It’s hard though when militant activists are pushing their agenda so strongly. But, if I am one who tries to follow Jesus Christ, I am obligated to love them in a brotherly way. I do believe there are sincere, dedicated people within the GLBT community. I am sure there are many fine people who work hard, and are loyal and honest. We just disagree on some things.

    But, I am convinced that the Church got it right though, when it said, in the Family Proclamation of 1995, that, *WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, . . . . will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

    WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.*
    But, might I wish for a more civil dialogue. I see The Church and the Deseret News asking all of us for more civil dialogue. The Churches’ voice is one of warning and even invitation.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    July 1, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    What's next for religious leaders? They go about their business like they always did.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    @ClarkHippo --

    "After all, do you really think the ACLU, HRC or Equality Utah will care if LDS, Catholic or Baptist people are harassed or mocked or intimidated?"

    I was living in Knoxville a few years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church gathering there and SHOT NINE PEOPLE just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".

    Gay people in the US are still **EIGHT TIMES** more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.

    Another gay man was shot and killed in NYC just this past week -- WITH the shooter shouting gay slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime.

    We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.

    In some countries, homosexuality is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.

    Civil rights for homosexuals is **literally** a matter of life or death. But you're upset because you're afraid that a few gay activists may be RUDE??

    Get real.

    EVERY time you disparage or criticize gays or make them seem less than you, you are ENCOURAGING that ongoing hatred and violence. Those attacks -- those deaths -- are on YOUR heads.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 1, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    @ Contrariuser

    So by your reasoning, are all Muslims, or the country of Israel, responsible for Muslim terrorists acts?

    I think those who pull the trigger are responsible for the actions. Not everyone of their race, or gender, or orientation, or religion, the one who pulls the trigger only.

    To blame everyone of a certain classification is exactly the unfair practice this article is talking about.

    Thanks for proving the point.

  • WON84 PLANO, TX
    July 1, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    "But from what my gay and lesbian friends tell me, the GOP has lost the GLBT vote for the next century."

    This may be true for the Lesbians but, they're less than 2% of the U.S. population. This number pales in comparison to the courting the right needs to do with minority voters.

    Gay men however, are pleasant and gay because they want to be. They're definitely more forgiving.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger --

    "So by your reasoning, are all Muslims, or the country of Israel, responsible for Muslim terrorists acts?"

    Most Muslims don't advocate that Jews are evil. Any who do so are contributory to the extent of their advocacy.

    There's a reason why hate speech is often punishable by law -- and in many countries around the world, not just our own.

    "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that 'any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law'."

    In the US, SCOTUS Justice Frank Murphy in 1942 summarized the case law: "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words - those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

    We **know** what the consequences of homophobia are. Every time we hear of another gay-bashing or gay murder, we see those consequences with our own eyes.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 1, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    @ Contrariuser

    "... and the insulting or 'fighting' words - those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

    We **know** what the consequences of homophobia are."

    FYI 'Homophobic' (any form of the word) is one of those 'fighting' words.

    Just pointing out the double standard. You want civility for one group while you insult another. Civility is a two way street. Your own words convict you, and you only, as a hater. I believe there is a compromise that could be made that fully respects those on both sides of this issue **IF** insults and hate could be set aside. But, lumping those opposed to SSM as being homophobes, haters, bigots, halts the conversation.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 1, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    I am just guessing here but if you peer 20 years down stream I could easily see one of two things...

    1. Marriage in America disolved
    2. The LDS church forced to perform gay marriage in their temples.

    Either 1 or 2 spells further decline of our society which by the way is following ..not too far behind that of Godless and moral-less Europe.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    July 1, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger --

    "Just pointing out the double standard."

    It isn't really a double standard. "Homophobic" is a term with a specific definition -- "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" -- and we can see from the repeated failure of anti-gay-marriage people to come up with reason-based arguments that it does indeed apply in the majority of cases.

    But -- BIG but here -- **even if I were applying a double standard**, as you claim -- even if I were 100% guilty -- the consequences of my supposed "hate speech" are MUCH MUCH less significant than the consequences of yours (I mean the general "you" here -- the folks who are against gay marriage).

    Nobody is being killed or beaten just because they oppose gay marriage.

    But people ARE being killed AND beaten just because they are gay.

    With greater consequences come greater responsibilities. The speech that does the most harm is the speech that should be the most restricted.

    First we need to work on cutting out the speech that actually leads to people getting KILLED. THEN we can worry about the speech that merely ruffles a few feathers.

  • dLange Los Gatos, CA
    July 1, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    What should come next is opening our arms to everyone. We should follow Jesus' command to love our neighbors as ourselves, while continuing to preach faith, repentance and baptism. The Holy Spirit will be more powerful changing those within the Church, and those who do not believe the way we do, than any law suit, or hate filled sermon.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    July 2, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Marriage needs to be defined as a man/woman institution to preserve its proper form as an institution dedicated to the raising of children by their biological parents.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    July 2, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    "Homophobic" is a fluid term used to attack the statements, beliefs or otherwise of those who feel that God ordained sex only between a man and a woman lawfully married, and that all other forms of sexual action are wrong.

    It is used to malign people who feel a vested interest in preserving marriage as the institution it is and thus preserving the definition it has.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    July 5, 2013 3:30 a.m.

    I'm curious about a statement by Russel Moore. He said: we believe marriage is as resilient as Jesus says it is (Mark 10: 6-9).

    Doesn't that mean that "biblical" marriage will survive regardless of any change in civil laws? Doesn't that imply that this whole fight should be done without appeals to Biblical values, as the Bible seems to tell us that marriage will survive regardless, and that churches have no proper role in opposing the expansion of equality?

  • Sophie 62 spring city, UT
    July 5, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    I think what's next is legalizing polygamy.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    July 6, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    @Sophie 62 --

    "I think what's next is legalizing polygamy."

    That is very unlikely to happen.

    Here's a few reasons why:

    1. Roughly 15 other countries already have gay marriage -- and NONE of them have legalized polygamy.

    2. Canada recently reaffirmed their polygamy ban in court -- even though they've had gay marriage for 10 years.

    3. Multiple court decisions in the US have reaffirmed the distinction between gay rights and both polygamy and incest.

    Here's a couple of excerpts from US court decisions. In these quotes, "Lawrence" refers to the SCOTUS ruling overturning sodomy laws --

    -- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, (Mass. 2003): "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but this) DOES NOT MEAN that this constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR INCESTUOUS relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships..."

    -- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "the holding in Lawrence is actually quite narrow.....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.'"