Quantcast
Opinion

Greg Bell: Defenders of religious freedom need to walk the walk

Comments

Return To Article
  • ECR Burke, VA
    July 18, 2014 6:14 a.m.

    Well said Mr. Bell. Your essay reminds of the founding principles of our nation. Thank you for doing that.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 18, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    "Principled opposition to California’s Proposition 8 brought retaliation against donors and activists."

    --- It wasn't "opposition" to Prop-8 by religious orgs, you supported Prop-8. Denying others the legal benefits you enjoy; based on your religious beliefs, isn't "principled", it is discriminatory.

    "Political correctness says that opposing same-sex sexual relationships and marriage on religious grounds is intolerant, bigoted and homophobic. "

    --- It isn't "political correctness" to say that bigotry is bigotry. You can oppose something all you want in your church; when you try to force others to adhere to your beliefs by legislating them, then you are practicing bigotry.

    Additionally you aren't "defending religious freedom" by passing anti-marriage laws; you are violating someone elses religious freedom when you prevent them from performing their own rites legally.

    "Nor is it an excuse..., for distortion ";

    --- You mean like distorting the truth about homosexuals? We're not out to "get your children"; we're not the "boogey man" you've made us out to be. You can't claim to be religious and then turn around and vote away someone else's rights.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    July 18, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    The problem with religion is that there seems to be such a weak correlation between ethical behavior and religious enthusiasm.

    One of my devout neighbors wouldn't dream of mowing his lawn on Sunday, but seems to have no problem moving his SUV to my side of the street before an impending snow storm.

  • Michael Hunt Murray, UT
    July 18, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    "Religion properly understood and practiced civilizes believers; it curbs selfish impulses; it makes better people"

    False. Religion is a human construct in which people's selfishness can be exhibited more fully with the benefit of seeming noble or righteous. Even if the Hobby Lobby folks spend more money or miss out on tax incentives in order to avoid the appearance of supporting abortifacients, they have already positioned themselves as moral crusaders which is arguably the whole point. There's very little incentive in choosing the right unless an audience is present.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 18, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    Agreed!

    If Hobby Lobby is as religious as they claim they are, then why do they get all of their junk from China? Does god support Communism? Is Communism consistent with the lessons taught in the New Testament? Is murdering political dissenters encouraged by the Savior? Is abusing little children and paying women pennies consistent with the principles of the gospel?

    If Hobby Lobby really wants to be consistent then they must change their suppliers immediately.

    Otherwise, they're just full of it.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 18, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    Religious freedom means that you have an absolute right to live your religion. It does not mean that you get to force everyone else in the country to live by your religion.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 18, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    Greg, heres the thing. Religious people have an obligation to not hate, due to their religious principles. Non religious people have no such obligation. Therefore, if the hate is coming from the secular left, it is considered OK, because there is no moral imperative to not hate. If religious people hate, it violates the basic tenants of their moral position. Now. Would it be OK for a religious person to hate Hitler? Certainly hating what he did would be OK, but hate the person? I myself would admit that I hate Hitler the man and would not feel any qualms about that even though I am a religious person. Maybe some would say I'm wrong, but I believe hating evil is in fact a good thing. And I find it hard to seperate the people who commit evil from the act itself. I think every Nazi killed in WW11 was a good thing until the evil was stopped. Today I think every terrorist killed is a good thing for the same reason. To kill an enemy and yet say you love them, because God tells me to love them, is to me, absurd.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    It would be nice if our current president, didn't spend his time vilifying anyone that opposes his agenda, stir and play the race card whenever he can't rebuttal an argument, budgeted conservatively rather than talking about it. That would go a long way in moving this country forward. Instead he talks about his dislike of white people that have a religion and own a gun. Same with Eric Holder. While at the same time they praise the Black Panther party for showing up in military fatigue and batons, standing outside of election locations. Praise the occupy movement and democrat controlled cities used tax dollars to support them, while using the IRS to attack and intimidate anyone conservative.

    Yes there are things that go the other way around. But, when you control the "bully pulpit" you should at least control your own crowd.

    Harry Reid supports the slaughter of millions of unborn children using tax dollars. Calling it womens right to choose. Yet fundamentally denies in most cases the woman made the choice to engage in an act to begin with. Yet he complains about children being bombed. Does that make sense?

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    July 18, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    Just because you don't agree with someone does not mean you hate then. It is the liberal media that handles most of the hating, conservatives are starting to stand up for what they believe in and for some reason they call that hate.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    July 18, 2014 7:39 a.m.

    Liberal Larry said, '...wouldn't dream of mowing his lawn on Sunday, but seems to have no problem moving his SUV to my side of the street before an impending snow storm."

    I'm puzzled by your analogy. I'm not sure why your neighbor would move his SUV to your side of the street in a snow storm or how that might benefit him or how it would burden you. After all, it is 'the street', it's not your street or his street, it is owned by the public.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 18, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    My religous friends, neighbors and relatives are no better people than any agnostics or aethist I know. The only difference is a lot think they are.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 18, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    @U-tar;

    "Standing up for what you believe in"? If you don't believe in something, YOU don't participate in it. If you don't believe in drinking, you don't drink; but you don't prevent others from drinking. If you don't believe in abortion, you don't have one; but you don't prevent someone else from having one. If you don't believe in marrying someone of your gender, you don't; but you don't get to tell someone else they can't.

    You're NOT "standing up for what you believe in"; you're attempting to force others to live by your beliefs. There is a vast difference between the two.

    @ECR; the plow can now plow the neighbor's side of the street but not Larry's. If not unethical, at least pretty selfish behavior.

  • Healthy Skeptic Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 18, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    "...they must speak and act consistent with the moral tenets they believe in."

    Really? You are telling a free people that they "must speak and act" a certain way? Sorry, this simple statement exposes the author for what he is...the antithesis of anything "freedom".

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 18, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    The premise that religion exists independent of the human mind is where belief goes wrong for me. All this does is conveniently remove it from responsibility. Any harm done in the name of one's religion can simply be dismissed as "improper understanding and practice" on the individual's part. It also creates the room for the claim of "the one, true religion," which of course never causes any disagreements or conflict.

    Religion can be beneficial for some, but it certainly is not required to live a principled, virtuous, and self-sacrificing life. It is only required to live a religious life.

    BTW, "we were mentioned first so that means we're the most important" sounds a little juvenile to my ears. It's also a fatuous claim. I imagine someone facing criminal prosecution finds Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 pretty important, too.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 18, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    As a defender of religious freedom, I do walk the walk. That's why I rail against any dilution of my rights by such actions as giving them to inanimate corporations.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 18, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Some people would punch a "religious person" in the nose and then expect that person to turn the other cheek. That's exactly what Obama did when he told Nuns that they had to pay for contraceptives. That's what Obama did when he told Hobby Lobby that they had to pay for abortifacients.

    Should we refrain from telling others that Obama is breaking the law by writing legislation just because we are Christians? Stating, "Obama is a crook" is different from stating, "Obama is writing and signing legislation into law, which is not authorized by the Constituion; therefore, Obama is a crook". Both statements would be correct, but the first statement could be considered a personal attack while the second statement could be seen as a simple statement of facts followed by a conclusion that Obama is a crook.

    Elder Oaks served as a justice on the Utah Supreme Court. Surely no one would suggest that he not find someone guilty because a Christian should not judge.

    Some posters delight in personally attacking other posters. Some of those who do that even claim church affiliation. What should be done?

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 18, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    re: "Some posters delight in personally attacking other posters. Some of those who do that even claim church affiliation. What should be done?"

    I am one of those who "claims church affiliation" (note: I am fully affiliated in every way) and has been concerned by the tone of your comments, though I hope I have never personally attacked you.

    What should be done? Live our religion. Welcome people to join us instead of pushing people way. Turn the other cheek. Show true compassion--meaning being willing to suffer together with those who suffer. Follow the tenets explained in this article. Be magnanimous.

    Assume the best about people. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Give equal importance and respect to another person's feelings and experiences as your own.

    Listen to and accept other people's feelings. Don't tell other people what they do or do not feel. Don't ridicule or shame them for their feelings. Accept that you do not have a right or responsibility to control another person.

    Those are things I learned at church that have helped me engage in more meaningful and productive conversations.

  • Atlas Smashed Santa Monica, CA
    July 18, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    It's time to impeach Justice Roberts. All he is is a shrill for corporate welfare.

    Corporations are not people, no matter how much loud the right screams.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    Liberal Larry

    Furthermore, if your neighbor parked his SUV on your side of the street during a snowstorm, it would be towed away before the snow plow came thru. In any case, like ECR, I don't get your point.

    FT

    How do you know that your religious friends are not better than the non-religious. Your not being judgemental now, are you?

    Hutterite

    Yeah, all those inanimate corportations being run by all those inanimate people.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    Hear hear, excellent essay by Greg Bell. Two thumbs up!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    SCfan says:

    "I find it hard to seperate the people who commit evil from the act itself."

    --- And right there is your problem. You look at a gay couple and all you see is "the evil act itself" (sex). Just a note, our love is no more evil than your love and if you'd stop thinking about the sex act every time you see a gay couple, you just might start to realize that.

    @Mike Richards:

    "Some people would punch a "secular person" in the nose and then expect that person to not punch back. That's exactly what the religious people did with Prop-8 and Amendment-3. They "punched" us in the nose and expected us to just lie down and bleed silently.

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    July 18, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "

    Slavery, wars, women as property, Flds.......

    I have watched members of my own family, good people, with good hearts, lose their minds since Obama was elected (twice!)and the fight for marriage equality came to my state. I have been 'exed' from my own family for even supporting SSM,(except for my crazy Aunt Peaches, love ya!) which really only served to confirm my opinion on religion in general.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 18, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    @Tiago,

    Again you claim that my posts upset you. This time you cite "tone" as the reason. As I stated before, I am not a diplomat. I don't believe in trying to pretend that something isn't wrong, just to be politically correct.

    If my posts upset you, don't read them. They are clearly marked with my name. There is absolutely no reason for you to be upset, just skip over them.

    When we look at the Master and the way that He confronted problems, He did not "beat around the bush". He braided a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple. Did he lose His temper? Of course not. He knew exactly what they were doing and He knew exactly what He should do.

    There is no reason that anyone should bow to PC pressure when society mocks eternal truths. A real Christian stands as a witness of Christ and of Christ's doctrine at all times and in all places, even if those to whom he addresses his comments don't like the message or the tone of the message.

    Meek means teachable, not cowardliness.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    July 18, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
    ~ Mahatma Gandhi

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    I was opposed to the Iraq War, for reasons of conscience.

    Yet I was forced to pay for that war, to subsidize the deaths of many, many innocent Iraqis, and too many of my fellow Americans.

    I presume in the future I won't have to pay for wars I disagree with, morally.

    It may take litigation that reinforced by the Supreme Court, but freedom of conscience is a fundamental to our nation.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    @SCfan
    "Furthermore, if your neighbor parked his SUV on your side of the street during a snowstorm, it would be towed away before the snow plow came thru"
    Um no, if Larry lives in SLC it wouldn't be. There are to many area's that rely on street parking, so you are allowed to park on the street, even during a snowstorm, unlike many of the suburbs of SLC.

  • cachedout Centerville, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    "Political correctness says that opposing same-sex sexual relationships and marriage on religious grounds is intolerant, bigoted and homophobic."

    Perhaps if you didn't dismiss the majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage as merely being motivated by political correctness, you might better understand this issue.

    "Sneering disrespect"? Indeed. But the source of that disrespect goes both ways, as you've illustrated quite plainly.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    It does not matter how lovingly the religious speak, if they do not agree with the progressives their words will be characterized as hateful.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    When we look at the Master and the way that He confronted problems........Mike, huge problem here. You aren't even close to Jesus. So you don't get to do things the way he did. Unless you are claiming that you're Jesus. Then i'm pretty sure your bishop would want to have a conversation with you.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 18, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    After reading this LTE, and then reading many of the comments, I am struck by how many who defend conservative religious traditions fail to pay any attention to the message of this LTE.

    Which only proves the point that many (not all) religiously conservative people are predisposed to intolerance as defined by Webster (Tolerance: "willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own: the ability to accept, experience, or survive something harmful or unpleasant". Intolerance being the opposite).

    No one advocates that a person be legally obliged to marry someone of the same gender. Advocates for SSM ask that their faith or lack thereof guide the decision of same sex couples to pursue legal marriage. This is the opposite position of opponents to SSM. Those religiously conservative refuse to admit that another faith tradition or lack of faith tradition might be as religiously valid is is theirs, and that in a secular society such things as SSM must be permitted if we are to avoid theocracy.

    This position by the religiously conservative is, by very definition is intolerance. And it is a very short step indeed from intolerance to bigotry.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    To go along with if you don't believe in abortion don't have one, if you don't believe in gay marriage don't participate.

    That's what Hobby Lobby is saying. They don't believe in abortion in most cases and don't want to participate in paying their employees abortions also known as the "day after pill". If they don't believe in it, then don't force them to pay for it. Right?

    If you don't believe in gay marriage, then why should your children be forced to accept it at school?

    The left argues that values shouldn't be forced on them. But, when they force their values on others, it's acceptable. Sounds hypocritical to me.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    This is a good article. Well done!

    I stopped listening to conservative talk show hosts because they offered the same thing as the liberal ones, contention and devisiveness. Their points are lost in their name calling and broad sweeping generalizations.

    You CAN disagree and be Christ-like. Many people mistake respect or kindness for weakness and therefore become shrill when championing their cause. On the other hand, some mistake disagreement with disrespect and turn to name calling to defend their position.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    Ranch Hand

    Where did you get that? Here I'm talking about Hitler, evil, killing, and you somehow make a case that I'm saying sex is evil? Perhaps you and the 4 other very misinformed people who like your post should re-read what I said. My point had absolutely NOTHING to do with sex or homosexuality. It was about far more important things than that. Like war and killing bad people. Yes, believe it or not, the gay and lesbian agenda is not the most important thing facing this country today. In fact I'd put it at about number 27 on the list. Talk about projection. I sure am learning a lot today about the illogical thinking of todays liberals.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    Noodlekaboddle
    I didn't know that. Sure glad I live in the 'burbs.

    Now, you say that Mike Richards does not get to do things the way Jesus did because he is not Jesus? Do I understand you correctly? Are you serious? What then does Jesus mean when he asks us to "Come Follow Me"? From everything I understand about the gospels, doing as Jesus would do is exactly what we should be doing, and the time we should visit our Bishop is when we have strayed far from that. You don't agree? Maybe you are the one that needs a visit. And yes, Mike is not Jesus, but you can't say he is not close to Jesus. He may in fact have a very close relationship with Him. But you certainly can't be the judge. Unless of course you happen to be his Bishop.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    @ Tiago -

    Excellent comments, as usual. I also have tried to not directly attacked another poster. If I have, I apologize.

    Mr. Bell's essay is well done. Too many use religion as a basis for their political beliefs without understanding the principles that underlie it.

    Christ told us that following in His steps would not be easy. To live as He lived while others around us mock and jeer is a challenge. The great and spacious building is filling up, and it is hard to not attack back sometimes. But we will be blessed for following His example....

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 18, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    "For example, the Christian God forbids his adherents from hating anyone, including their enemies."

    Can I get chapter and verse on that?

    For some nuance on the point, see Psalm 139:21-22: "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies."

    The problem I have here is that left-liberals define "hate" as nearly any opposition to their doctrines. If you are not left-liberal, then by definition, you're a "hater." For the same reason I don't play Vegas games with the odds in the house's favor, I don't play rigged political games.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 18, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    I believe in taking the moral high ground. In my book, that means being at higher elevation than the enemy. Since the enemy has no fidelity to truth and honor whatsoever, that's not a terribly high bar to clear.

    All I have to do is keep my standards higher than the Left's, distorting, ad-homineming, and kneecapping less than they do. I can do that without breaking a sweat.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    @Liberal Ted
    "If you don't believe in gay marriage, then why should your children be forced to accept it at school?"

    All the schools ask on the matter is that children learn that different types of families exist and that kids not throw out homophobic slurs or bully kids who are LGBT or have same-sex parents. Is that really that much to ask?

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 18, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    @ Mike
    Don't worry. As always, there is a double standard involved with the left. The "tone" of your comments are unacceptable because they disagree. Their "tone" is ok however. You should consider it a badge of honor.

    Basically the opinion piece supports the idea of two standards for society. If you claim to be religious, you can just sit down shut up and keep your ideas to yourself. Be happy and thankful when your told to shut up and participate with the degenerating of society that goes on around you, and just pretend it doesn't effect you or your family.

    Sorry, but I don't need anyone to explain my religion to me and how to act. None of us would agree about it anyway. Besides I would only act perfect, if I were perfect, so again I don't really care how you judge me.

    Tone this! If you are going to force me and my family to be exposed to your gayness, or your inability to be honest or not be a thief, or deny anyone their rights to act on their religious beliefs, then you will get resistance from me.

  • ThornBirds St.George, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    ECR,

    In cold weather, snowy states, it is typically known as a "Snowplow".
    Does that make easier for you to understand now?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    @SC Fan
    "How do you know that your religious friends are not better than the non-religious. Your not being judgemental now, are you?"

    To answer your question, yes I am being judgemental. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. As an old man living with many different people of religon and those who are not, I have found the agnostics and aetheist to be more tolerant and respectful of others. Many religous people tend to think of themselves and their values as superior. I would put a lot of Mormons I have known as the most self righteous of the religous people I have encountered. That has not stopped me from becoming friends with those or disassociating from many who are my relatives. It's just an observation or in your words a judgement from my life expeience.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    @LiberalTed;

    HobbyLobby doesn't believe anything. It's a corporation not a human.

    "If you don't believe in gay marriage, then why should your children be forced to accept it at school?"

    If one doesn't believe in religion, why should their children be required to pray in school? Conservatives are trying to bring prayer back.

    Nobody is "forcing" you to have a same-gender marriage? If they were, your argument could be taken seriously; since they aren't you can't.

    @jeanie ;

    Show me how voting away my rights displays "respect or kindness". I'm interested how that works.

    @SCfan;

    Reread my comment; including your own words which I quoted. If I'm wrong, then why not support marriage equality?

    Brian Fisher's remarked the other day: "Who wants to think about gay s.e.x. when they go out to eat a burger"; referencing BK's support of LGBT. Many on the DN reference the act when they comment against marriage equality. If you're not one who sees the act when you see a gay, I apologize.

    @RedWings;

    People wouldn't "mock/jeer" if Christians acted like Christ.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    Liberal Ted Re Comment @ 7:20

    I'm just curious. After you make a statement do you go back and find out if it's fact or not or do you just run with it?

    Just a suggestion, maybe you should have another Diet Coke before you post in the morning. You seemed a little groggy today.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 18, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "Some people would punch a "religious person" in the nose and then expect that person to turn the other cheek."

    Not true. The truth is you routinely "punch" those who do not believe as you do in the nose and then DEMAND that they "turn the other cheek".

    "That's exactly what Obama did when he told Nuns that they had to pay for contraceptives. "

    And this is dishonest. Neither Obama nor the congress EVER told any nuns they had to pay for contraception.

    "Should we refrain from telling others that Obama is breaking the law by writing legislation just because we are Christians? "

    Yes but because it's misleading, disingenuous, and deceitful.

    The simple truth is your religious rights are only absolute in their application to YOU. You have NO religious right to impose your religion on me through the force of law. An even simpler truth is defending the rights of ALL Americans is not an attack on YOU or your religion and the cloth of martyrdom claimed by so many is ill-fitting.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Defenders of religious liberty would gain credibility if they would defend all infringements on religious liberty, even those that are against their own religious tenets. That would show a commitment to the principle and not just self-interest. The ACLU has often defended the first amendment rights of people and causes it finds repugnant (Nazis marching in predominantly Jewish Skokie, IL is the standard example). How about this paper standing up for the North Carolina clergy who are suing that state for their right to perform same sex wedding ceremonies in accordance with the dictates of their faith? That would be a good start. Sauce for the goose...

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    There's a lot of talk about conservatism being equivalent to religiosity. It's not. I have friends who are Mormon and are liberal. I have friends who are Jewish and are liberal. I have friends who are Catholic and are liberal. Etc, etc. Some of them think God is ok with same sex marriage and would treat the prohibitions against homosexuality in a way similar to the way we all currently treat the passages that tell us to stone sassy kids or adulterers. Some think same sex marriage is not ok, but also believe that there are lots of things they don't think are ok that aren't prohibited by law. For those whose churches teach that gay marriage is acceptable, it is the conservatives that are denying them the right to practice their religion.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    I agree that religious people should walk the walk. That hasn't been the case regarding SSM, especially Prop. 8. The Bible (1 Cor. 10:29) has Paul condemning the idea that one group can limit/restrict the rights of others based/justified on the religious/moral beliefs of the former. D&C 1134:4 talks about those who let their religious beliefs prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Despite the above, LDS and other Christians did exactly that. They let their religious beliefs regarding SSM prompt them to infringe upon the rights of gays (at least in California re Prop. 8) to marry.

    Uzzah in the old testament likewise knew not to steady the ark but did it anyway because he perhaps believed that God would forgive him not walking the walk of obedience in order to do something good. He was wrong. He rejected the idea behind the concept that obedience is better than sacrifice (obedience is better than any good that comes from disobedience).

    regarding Prop.8 at least, too many Christians ignored the scriptures. IOW, they didn't walk the walk.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 18, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    There is only one question a Christian need ask: " What think ye of Christ?" Those of us who have been baptized and confirmed a member of His church will have no problem answering that question. We will not twist His statements for our own political purposes. We will not "use" Him to convince others that they should embrace doctrines foreign to His purposes. We will not be used as "meek" drones to promote anything that redefines marriage or that redefines the family. We will stand with Him as those who oppose Him tell us that we should embrace practices that God declared to be an abomination. Those who support those practices will denounce us. They will pretend that they have accepted Christ as their master even as they stomp all over His doctrine. Being a Christian does not require that we abandon Christ's doctrine.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 18, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    "For those whose churches teach that gay marriage is acceptable, it is the conservatives that are denying them the right to practice their religion."

    No.

    No conservative is telling a liberal church that it can't hold a marriage ceremony for two men, two women, three ducks, or any combination thereof. It's their business, and their right to practice whatever religion they choose.

    The issue is *state* recognition of the arrangement. Whatever you think of the merits, that's a separate question.

    Be precise.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    July 18, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    "Certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, Roe v. Wade, and the rapid legalization of same-sex marriage by courts and legislatures have pushed religious freedom proponents to the center of the public square. It feels to many that religions, and the religious, are under attack."

    Religions are not under attack. What is under attack is the notion that religion can dictate what is "right" to those who don't follow any religious tenet, or even those who don't follow the same religious tenet.

    Being a somewhat religious person, I couldn't care less if two men get married. Neither should those who are "pro family". Nor could I care if some person terminates an unwanted pregnancy. Once again, that situation is nobody's business except the woman's and maybe the bay's father. The Affordable Care Act doesn't force any body to violate any religious code more than any other law in the country. I am forced to pay for things that "violate" my religious code every day. It seems that some people feel persecuted simply because those whom they persecute are no longer willing to be persecuted.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 18, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    The purpose of religion is to enslave the minds of men, women and children. The reason for such enslavement is the same as any other giant business organization, the control of the wealth of the world. None the less, its product, the hope for a better and never ending life, is the most valuable product in the world of human beings.

    If enslavement is too harsh a word, perhaps we should simply call it control. It is the desire of religion to control the lives of people from the instant of conception to the very last rights of death. Religious control often has good effects, it helps people live together in peace. But sometimes the control seems to go too far. For the most part sin is the natural, built in, parts of being human. Sex is probably number one.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    @TheProudDuck
    "No conservative is telling a liberal church that it can't hold a marriage ceremony for two men, two women, three ducks, or any combination thereof. It's their business, and their right to practice whatever religion they choose. "

    Actually that is against the law in North Carolina and some other states (I think it's even a misdemeanor in Utah). Texas tried but failed recently to pass a law criminalizing it. Whether these states enforce those laws is a different matter of course.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    July 18, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    @ Liberal Ted

    "If you don't believe in gay marriage, then why should your children be forced to accept it at school?"

    I don't believe in the LDS religion, yet my kids are forced to accept it at school. Especially since LDS kids get "free time" to attend seminary during school hours. My kids don't get "free time" to attend religious instruction "off campus" during school hours.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    July 18, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    @Hahahaha

    "If you are going to force me and my family to be exposed to your gayness, or your inability to be honest or not be a thief, or deny anyone their rights to act on their religious beliefs, then you will get resistance from me."

    Yet you and other "religious" people have no problem exposing others to your religiousness and some even deny myself and others our right to act according to our religious beliefs. So does that mean you should expect and accept resistance from me when I see LDS people around? After all, I don't believe in the LDS church.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    July 18, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    Ranch,

    I think we need to agree to disagree. You champion same sex marriage, I don't. We both have our reasons. In other discussions with you I have gotten the clear message that, for you, there is no acceptable reason for someone to be against SSM. I think further discussion on this topic ends there.

    However, if we were neighbors and you needed to borrow some eggs or have us watch your pets while you were gone on a trip, I'd be happy to help.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    July 18, 2014 2:46 p.m.

    @Ranch,
    Let's look at your argument from the other side. From your previous posts, I understand that you are in favor of same-sex marriage, and Prop 8 wasn't your favorite ballot measure. OK, so while you complain about being "forced" to do something, and accusing the LDS church of trying to force their beliefs on others; aren't you doing the same? By accusing others of "Hate" for not jumping on your bandwagon and leading the parade for what you espouse, aren't you doing the same thing you accuse others of doing to you? I know that this may surprise you, but lots of folks just don't want to enthusiastically embrace your position. It doesn't mean there is hatred involved, or the boogy-man is coming or anything else. We just don't endorse your position. We don't want it forced upon us and we don't "hate" you. We just don't want it.

    So, try to understand that other don't hate you when we disagree, we just disagree.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 18, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "We will not twist His statements for our own political purposes."

    But you do, all the time, just look at California Proposition 8 and Utah Amendment 3.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 18, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    @Jack,

    "We don't want it forced upon us "

    And what on earth is granting same sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage forcing on you? What impact on you will occur with same sex marriage that is so horrible you must continue to fight to force gay and lesbians to live as second class citizens?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 18, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Some posters delight in personally attacking other posters. Some of those who do that even claim church affiliation. What should be done?
    8:27 a.m. July 18, 2014

    [I delight in calling others on their "holier-than-thou” attitudes and hypocrisy.
    Jesus did the same thing to the Pharisees who should have known better.]

    ---

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    He braided a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple.

    [Jesus did not whip the homosexuals, adulterers, prostitutes, lepers, blind, or sick -- like 'some' who claim Church affiliation do when they verbally attack these folks.
    In Fact,
    Jesus had dinner with them, walked and talked with them, healed and blessed them, FORGAVE them, lived with them, and LOVED them.

    FYI - The money changers were working in the Temple, they must've been "members", and they obviously were Capitalists, and were taking advantage of others.]

    Do us a favor --
    Do what Greg Bell suggested in this wonderful article and
    WALK the WALK,
    Walk the Talk.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 18, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    "Principled support for California’s Proposition 8 brought retaliation against donors and activists."

    "Principled" support that involved demonization, lies and fear-mongering.

    As an LDS member, having served in several different bishoprics, I was not in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage--until I saw the campaign and the tactics used to defeat Prop 8. It made me sick, shocked and embarrassed that the Church I belonged to would sign-on to such a disgusting campaign. The Church is capable of producing nice "ads" and "commercials" to get their point across but this was not that. No doubt, the kind of "feel-good" ads wouldn't have been as effective as the fear-mondering/demonization type ads that were used in defeating Prop 8, but they would've been more in line with the Gospel.

    Religion has become the ends instead of the means to an end. I've learned that whether one is religious or not has very little to do with the content of one's character. Some of the most Christ-like people I've met have no religious affiliation at all, while some of the most mean-spirited, dishonest, judgemental people I know are devout followers.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 18, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    re:Jack
    "We don't want it forced upon us and we don't "hate" you. We just don't want it."

    Don't want it?

    Fine. You don't have to marry someone of the same sex.

    The fact that my gay neighbors are married has had no impact on my life whatsoever. I treat them with the same courtesy, kindness and respect that I do everybody else.

    Soon, this won't be an issue when same-sex marriage becomes legal in most/all states and people see there really is no boogey-man afterall. Life will go on, and once again some religious institutions will find themselves on the wrong side of history......

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 18, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    The religious conservative in their comments seem to believe they are being accused of hatred for their abhorrence of all things gay.

    Well, when you tell people they are going to hell, when you deny them personal dignity in the conduct of their personal affairs, when you accuse them of sinful behavior, when you assume they can not raise adjusted children, when you lump them together with child molesters, when you seek to have their personal liberties be circumscribed, when you expel them from your church, when you fire them from their jobs, and when quote a few Biblical text calling for all kinds of barbarisms...well I think you got the point.

    Demonizing people thusly is not a particularly loving attitude. Very few conservative religionists vary from the above enumerated "party line". Is it a wonder that most of us find these religiously based opinions to be a form of intolerance or worse, bigotry? And if you truly believe that stuff, you should be proud to be known as intolerant or bigoted at worst. Making a victim of yourself for holding intolerant or bigoted views is rather childish. Own it or discard it, make a choice.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 18, 2014 4:40 p.m.

    The Proud Duck -- Ok, how's this: Conservative politicians are denying those believers who support same sex marriage the right to practice their religion. Not sure how that is different from what I said before, but you are correct, it's state action I'm talking about.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 18, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    Mike Richards -- No one is asking you to embrace gay marriage. I completely and totally support you in not marrying another man. I also support you in not drinking alcohol, not smoking tobacco, not having an adulterous relationship, keeping the Sabbath holy, paying your tithing, etc. However, I can't imagine that you would think that there should be laws requiring or prohibiting citizens from those actions. YOU do not have to do anything or support anything other than what you want to do and support. However you should not (and in most cases I assume do not) believe you can dictate to others that THEY must live your religious beliefs. Promote your religious beliefs? Yes, please do. Tell the world. But do not require others to live your beliefs by force of law.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 18, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    Wonder, if you need state action to practice your religion, you're doing it wrong. Read the Establishment Clause.

  • stevan madrigal murray, UT
    July 18, 2014 7:29 p.m.

    RE: Mike Richards
    "Obama is a crook" is different from stating, "Obama is writing and signing legislation into law, which is not authorized by the Constituion; therefore, Obama is a crook". Both statements would be correct, but the first statement could be considered a personal attack while the second statement could be seen as a simple statement of facts followed by a conclusion that Obama is a crook.
    Wrong- both statements are opinions.
    "Some posters delight in personally attacking other posters. Some of those who do that even claim church affiliation. What should be done?"
    I think you answered your own question.

  • G.S. Austin, TX
    July 18, 2014 8:02 p.m.

    Despite what many have indicated, standing up for one’s beliefs does involve limiting others’ ability to engage in certain behavior. Indeed, democracy allows the majority to “force others to live by [the majority's] beliefs”—we vote for laws according to our moral viewpoint, whatever that may be, and the majority’s viewpoint becomes law. Consider laws prohibiting murder, rape, child pornography, etc. Each of these laws—and every law we enact—requires a moral judgment. So yes, I do get to tell others what they cannot do.

    For this reason, our government has checks and balances. The judicial branch is responsible for ensuring that the majority does not tread on the minority’s fundamental rights. And that’s where the real problem is—who decides what is a fundamental right?
    Currently, courts believe they have unfettered power to decide. I disagree. I believe the majority should decide whether inherently moral issues—same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.—are a fundamental right, while the court should decide inherently objective issues—race, national origin, etc. The State of Utah decided through democratic process that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right. The Court should recognize that decision.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:05 p.m.

    Roland Kayser

    "Religious freedom means that you have an absolute right to live your religion. It does not mean that you get to force everyone else in the country to live by your religion."

    Exactly: therefore those who demand government force a third party to provide products or services, in violation of the third party's religious beliefs, and/or which the government may facilitate without violating religious beliefs; then that person is perpetrator NOT a victim

    If a person believes that they (and unions and associations ) have first amendment rights, but a family business loses that right with business license - then that person is a perpetrator, NOT a victim

    H0bbt Lobby critics ARE the very religiously intolerant perpetrators that they claim to despise

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:23 p.m.

    While I generally agree with the opinion writer; the essay is inadequate and one sided.
    1) The problem is not merely for the religious: secular zealots who think they are tolerant merely because they are intolerant for all the fashionable reasons embarrass their own cause. It is precisely why I have so little regard for the illiberal left.
    2) The concerns of the religious are not limited to the religious. I belong to no faith but do not want my tax money bring squandered on misogynist, racist, abortion mills (planned parenthood)either. I support Hobby Lobby's right to have a conscience, regardless of the religious affiliation
    3) I am homosexual but those who use bullying, intolerance, shaming and outright lies to promote the cause do NOT represent me. I have a right to vigorously reject their hate in my name.

    Civil discussion is healthy but "Nice" has it limitations
    If I am being beat up by a thug in a dark alley - being "nice" is NOT the healthy response.
    Politically correct bigots need to be vigorously defended against, just like any other thug

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:31 p.m.

    ordinaryfolks

    "Demonizing people thusly is not a particularly loving attitude. Very few conservative religionists vary from the above enumerated "party line". Is it a wonder that most of us find these religiously based opinions to be a form of intolerance or worse, bigotry? And if you truly believe that stuff, you should be proud to be known as intolerant or bigoted at worst. Making a victim of yourself for holding intolerant or bigoted views is rather childish. Own it or discard it, make a choice."

    Interesting how rail against "conservatives" demonizing people then proceeded to do exactly that.

    Which IS exactly the point of much of the criticism of the politically correct left

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 19, 2014 1:20 a.m.

    The Proud Duck -- I don't need the state to help me practice my religion, but I need the state to not prohibit me from practicing my religion. (Figuratively speaking. My religion does not allow gay marriage. But for those whose religions do encourage it as a way to make the family more stable.)

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 19, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    @G.S.
    Austin, TX

    I believe the majority should decide whether inherently moral issues—same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.—are a fundamental right...

    ======

    Um,
    Don't look now,
    BUT
    The Majority already DOES support Same-Sex Marriage, a woman's right to choose, etc.

    in addition to banning assault weapons,
    increasing taxes on the wealthy,
    Pres. Obama, etc....

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 19, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    "...Harry Reid supports the slaughter of millions of unborn children using tax dollars. Calling it womens right to choose. Yet fundamentally denies in most cases the woman made the choice to engage in an act to begin with. Yet he complains about children being bombed. Does that make sense?...".

    Ronald Reagan signed into law an abortion bill that led to the murder of over 2,000,000 babies. Yet, no right-winger condems Ronald Reagan.

    Does that make sense?

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    July 19, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    Mr. Bell, on so many levels, what you've written is pure rubbish. Not the least of which was the prop 8 references. If the LDS church was arguing from superior moral high ground why did it go to such great lengths to bkeep it's involvement secret? Again rubbish!

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    "The issue is *state* recognition of the arrangement. Whatever you think of the merits, that's a separate question."

    So, why then should the state recognize the marriages of some religions and not those of others? Please explain how that is fair.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    I'm not sure what it means to be a defender of religious freedom. Does this mean one is free from being forced to subscribe to religious beliefs as imposed by others through a variety of means, especially political ones; or does it mean to be free to force others to subscribe to your religious beliefs through a variety of means, especially political ones?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    @Mike Richards 8:27 a.m. July 18, 2014

    "Some people would punch a "religious person" in the nose and then expect that person to turn the other cheek. That's exactly what Obama did when he told Nuns that they had to pay for contraceptives. That's what Obama did when he told Hobby Lobby that they had to pay for abortifacients. "

    There is no truth in your comments. The Poor Sisters had a way to avoi providing insurance for contraceptives -- all they had to do is sign a statement. No "abortifacients" were involved in the Hobby Lobby case, only contraceptives to provide a pregnancy from starting.

    "Some posters delight in personally attacking other posters. Some of those who do that even claim church affiliation. What should be done?"

    You must be talking about yourself, because you were obviously looking in a mirror when you made that comment. What should be done? Start being more Christlike, which you haven't been doing to this point.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    re:GS

    There are many problems with your proposal.

    First, there are wide-ranging opinions as to what is a moral issue and what one considers to be immoral.
    Contraceptives use--not using contraceptives is viewed as immoral by some, while others see contraceptive use as immoral. Race was/is a moral issue for some. Interracial marriage was considered to be immoral. Now, it is an "objective" issue? Other "moral" issues might include blood transfusions, women covering up--wearing burkas, people simply being homosexual (do you support housing discrimination based on sexual orientation?). Fornication and adultery (why no laws against these acts?) are considered to be immoral by many...and the list goes on and on.

    Secondly,
    Who will enforce such laws? The govt. So now, conservatives are arguing for a more expansive role of govt. to include what happens in our bedrooms and what happens between consenting adults.

    Thirdly,
    The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether laws violate the U.S. Constitution of equal protection.
    Since 1888 the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right.

  • G.S. Austin, TX
    July 19, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    @LDS Liberal:

    "The Majority already DOES support Same-Sex Marriage, a woman's right to choose, etc."

    Says who? Polls of public opinion? There's never a guarantee that they're accurate. Plus, which majority are you talking about? National, or at a state-level?

    The best evidence of what the majority supports or does not support is an amendment to a constitution. There has been no federal amendment legalizing same-sex marriage. In contrast, we all know that in Utah, the majority DID decide that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, via a constitutional amendment. And the same has occurred in a number of other states. Thus, at least in those states, the majority DO NOT support same-sex marriage.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 19, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    None of this is about religious freedom.

    It's about religious oppression.

    If Mr. Bell would just substitute the words "religious oppression" for "religious freedom" in his diatribe, then almost everyone could see how ridiculous it all is.

    Religious oppression happens when a religion has the freedom to oppress others, and that's exactly what Mr Bell and other so-called "Conservatives" want.

    . . . And that's what they got when our Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme Court succeeded in in bastardizing and subverting America's long-held and very American principle of the Separation of Church and State.

    “Defenders of religious oppression need to walk the walk?’

    I don’t think so. It would be better for the nation if "Conservative" religious zealots simply stopped subverting the Constitution.

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 19, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    Since corporations are legal constructs designed to limit the liability of owners it seems improbable that they a) have free speech rights and b) have religious beliefs. Certainly when guaranteeing freedom of speech, the Founding Fathers did not conceive of businesses having equal rights with citizens. Corporations don't practice any religion and while their owners individually and corporately may to imbue these legal constructs with the ability to discriminate against real people based on the supposed "religious views" of a corporation is little different from those in the 50's who wouldn't serve African Americans.

  • G.S. Austin, TX
    July 19, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    re: 1aggie

    "There are wide-ranging opinions as to what is a moral issue and what one considers to be immoral."

    Exactly. That is why the voters within a state should have the power to decide whether something is a moral issue or not.

    "Secondly, Who will enforce such laws?"

    Yes, the government, but which government? Don't forget principles of federalism. The state government will enforce the laws. Conservatives have always resisted a larger centralized government, instead preferring that a state be permitted to decide issues involving police powers. So yes, a state government can, and often does regulate what goes on in one's bedroom. As long as the state is regulating, and not the federal government, such regulations should be permitted by majority vote.

    "Since 1888 the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right."

    In Utah, marriage is between a man and a woman. Between a man and a woman, yes, marriage is a fundamental right. But no, I do not believe that same-sex marriage is deeply rooted in our nation's history or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (the test for whether something is a fundamental right).

  • Just one more opinion Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 19, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Ya know, I really have to congratulate DesNews and Mr Bell on inciting yet another riot on this site, even if that wasn't the intention. Now if they really desire to help mend bridges, for one thing STOP running this subject on their site, it's only going to make (at least some) people more angry. I've learned from personal experience that when discussion becomes a fight, you can't have a civil conversation and people need to calm down until it can be discussed again. When will that be? I doubt much mending can be done until the issues is finally resolved and for some it never will be resolved. The Civil war was discussed and to this very day there are people in the South who say it was states rights and not about slavery and the North should have left them alone.

    Just my two cents worth, carry on.

  • nightowwl Folsom, CA
    July 19, 2014 5:54 p.m.

    What happened to common sense and logic? All these cries about the loss of religious freedoms. Which freedoms are those?

    The right to pray?
    The right to worship?
    The right to believe?
    The right to have faith?

    Let me spell it out for you. Religious Freedom is the freedom to continue to punish women for being sexual creatures, and this has been going in since Eve.

    A long time ago, a few power-hungry men hijacked and corrupted religion for their own benefit. They declared one of the most pleasurable experiences on earth vile and dirty. Then they laid the blame on women for causing them to feel those vile, dirty feelings. Why are we still letting dead men run this country?

    On a positive note, we aren't burned at the stake anymore so that's an improvement. We've come a long way baby!

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 20, 2014 6:12 p.m.

    @Roland Kayser

    Lets us not forget the corollary:

    NON-Religious freedom means that you have an absolute(???) right to live your secular views. It does not mean that you get to force everyone else in the country to live by your secular views.

    Religious people are citizens too, and equally so.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 21, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    @Jack;

    How is an LGBT couple marrying forcing my beliefs on any church? The fact that people drink alcohol doesn't force drinking on the LDS Church, for instance. Accepting that others do not believe the way you do, and act the way you do, is not "forcing" you to believe or act like them. A gay couple getting married doesn't affect you or your belief in the least. Much like drinking, you don't do it yet you know that others do. Unless someone is forcing you to marry your own gender, it isn't being "forced" onto you.

    You don't have to "enthusiastically embrace" my position; but you can't force me to adhere to (enthusiastically embrace) yours by legislating it into the law.

    @G.S.;

    We are a Constitutional Republic; majority does not rule. The laws you mention involve harming others. A gay couple marrying does you no harm. The Constitution says that you can't oppress a minority.

  • rushc centerville, UT
    July 22, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    "You can't claim to be religious and then turn around and vote away someone else's rights"

    First: Don't get the logical connection between the first and second halves of this sentence...

    Second: "Rights" that never existed before can't be "voted away".

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 23, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    RanchHand...
    "How is an LGBT couple marrying forcing my beliefs on any church? The fact that people drink alcohol doesn't force drinking on the LDS Church, for instance."

    While I understand your comment, I have to disagree just a bit here. While I think the majority if not 90 percent of the Utah's LGBT community are more tolerant of the Church and others viewpoints. They may not like it, but they remain respectful towards the church.

    However, I have friends that live in California where Gay Marriage is now legal. You say you are not forcing your beliefs on any church (I also assume you mean other people as well. In California the LGBT community is now forcing school systems to teach facets of the gay lifestyle. Whether or not your personal religious beliefs goes against it. One of my friends have pulled their kids out public education. They mind their kids, learning the issue about gay marriage, but don't want their teachers indoctrinating them with the belief that it is acceptable (based on their personal views).

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    @G.S.
    "Thus, at least in those states, the majority DO NOT support same-sex marriage."

    At the time those laws were passed. However, there's been votes in states where same-sex marriage won (including Maine which reversed their ballot measure from a few years prior) and there has definitely been a shift over the past dozen years.