Comments about ‘Sen. Orrin Hatch says gay marriage inevitable but religious rights being lost’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, May 28 2014 5:50 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tranquility, UT

"But yes, the laws of this country ought to reflect the majority, especially when having been voted upon, including the laws that regulate business and commerce (also including the associated definition of marriage)."

So, should Arkansas be able to vote to disallow Mormons the right to marry? or to do business?

Keep in mind that LGBTs make up 3-5% of the population. While Mormons make up 0.2%.

Under our Constitution, people have rights. And the majority can't vote on those rights, however much they would like. The Supreme Court has found 14 times since 1888 that marriage is one of those rights protected by the equal protection clause. And judge, after judge, after judge has found that that continues to be the case.

We cannot vote away a group's rights without compelling secular reasons to do so. And so far, the anti-gay groups have failed to provide any good reasons whatsoever.

Phoenix, AZ

Bob K
"Many who believe in God do not believe he created your Gay sons and daughters to be 2nd or 3rd class citizens..."

God created men and women with imperfections and foibles that He asks be overcome. Same sex attraction seems to be one such imperfection.

"...not able to marry who they love."

Sounds like you favor a variety of marriage combinations such as polygamy, incest, etc.

"So, please Mr. Senator, name 1 religious right that was lost with Judge Shelby's ruling?"

The Shelby ruling will be the eventual downfall of marriage. If the SSM push succeeds, all other types of marriages must be approved to avoid the claim of discrimination. Therefore, marriage will become undefined and worthless.

Jeff in NC:
"...states can keep all their rights, but the fed gov't should continue to protect the rights a state tries to deprive unreasonably to a small minority of its citizens."

What rights? If marriage, all citizens have the right to marry... provided they meet certain State requirements such as: not currently married, not closely related, not children, not same sex, etc.

Apo, AE

@Ernest Bass--

You answered your own question. Religious people who believe the Old Testament teachings that homosexuality is an abomination are being labeled by people such as you as being bigoted. Attitudes such as yours are removing religious freedoms from believers by using such hateful language toward those who are practicing their right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. The whole gay movement is one of bullying anyone who disagrees with them by using hateful words to describe anyone who disagrees with them. That's sick.

Eventually you'll likely win in this anything goes society. The next step is the mind control of our children when the gay movement insists on teaching it's "normality" in the schools. The issue of same sex marriage goes far beyond the church and courtrooms. This is about redefining an entire belief system.

Parker, AZ

I think it is wonderful that same sex couples can now marry and live their chosen lives out in the open and not as second class citizens. Now I hope they will support atheists who are more discriminated against, more hated, and the very least represented in public office in this country.

Tranquility, UT


But they are still free to hold their beliefs. Freedom doesn't include the right not to be criticized for your beliefs, just the freedom to hold, teach and preach them.

The KKK considers itself a "Christian organization." And they hold their beliefs in white superiority to be god given. They are free to believe such, free to teach it, and recruit others who feel the same. That doesn't make them any less racist. It just makes them "racists for god."

Cleveland , OH

@SignsoftheTimes: "Religious people who believe the Old Testament teachings that homosexuality is an abomination are being labeled by people such as you as being bigoted."

so… You have the religious freedom to call me an abomination. If I point out that that attitude seems to be bigoted, then I am taking away your religious rights. Is that correct? You can call names, but responding to your name-calling is discrimination? Pointing out your name calling and saying it's not acceptable in public is oppression?

Just want to make sure I understand the rules.

Phoenix, AZ

"No one will force you into a homosexual marriage against your will."

Schools are already required to teach impressionable kids that homosexuality is normal. If that ain't force, I don't know what is.

"The idea that traditional marriage is under attack is ludicrous."

Marriage is under attack. If/when SSM is OK'd all other types of marriage combinations will have to be approved to avoid unconstitutional discrimination. Then it's good-bye marriage.

"I notice that no gays have gone after a Muslim baker to get a gay wedding cake."

Why would the author of the dark side want to interfere with two very well working parts of the plan?

"First of all, Hatch needs to pick a position. His politician-style waffling is sickening."

Politicians rarely if ever take positions... Avoids the change of getting pinned down on an issue.

"with all due respect to the Senator, I don't see how my religious rights are being degraded."

That condition is down the road. If/when SSM is OK'd churches will not be able to discriminate by denying marriages as a church ritual. And that would include Hatch's church.

Brigham City, UT

Those for equality under the Constitution need to be out there promoting polygamy next; I want to see Senators Schumer, Biden, and all the others promoting this next, if they are consistent.

Phoenix, AZ

"And yes, polygamous marriage ought to be allowed between consenting adults."

What about incestuous marriages. What about child/adult marriages. And what about you and a group of your fiends, both male and female, all tying the same knot with each other? Maybe toss a pet and a favorite tree inro the mix.

And why did you throw in 'consenting adults?' Is that not discrimination against children?

I think you'll find that the best set-up for marriage to preserve it from eventual obliteration is to limit it to one man/woman.

"Now if the government were to force any church, the LDS church, for example to marry gay couples in its temples, that would be an gigantic infringement on religious rights."

You can count on that very thing happening with legalized SSM. There's your First Amendment religious rights down the drain.

Rocket Science:
"If SSM is inevitable these questions are relevant: Will churches maintain tax exempt status if they do not conform?"

NO! There goes your freedom of religion.

"Will public schools teach that SSM is the same as traditional marriage..."

It's currently a requirement in alotta schools.

San Diego, CA


As long as opponents persist in talking about pets and trees they won't be take seriously, as they shouldn't be. Laws dealing with most rights refer to adults, as in the case of the right to own guns, and the right to vote. Consenting adults are necessary for marriage. No children, no pets, no trees. No forced marriage.

Now polygamy in my opinion should be legal as long as the details of taxation and divorce can be worked out. Marriage of close relatives is sticky as long as they can breed.

Petersburg, AK

The idea that it is inevitable but wrong, when viewed alongside the other changes to our government in just my lifetime, let alone Orin's, reminds me of the news reports where somebody continues to live with their dead spouse's corpse.

When the things that made America great (having Christian morality and the natural law as the highest law of the land), when those things are stripped off, all we have left is an empty lifeless corpse.

Stable thought

These comments are always fascinating to me. I noticed comments that note the next great social debate " can I not marry any one (including multiples ) that I love" are largely being ignored by my progressive friends. Oh the hypocrisy!

Seattle, WA

@Stable thought
A lot of people have already responded in these Deseret News comments explaining exactly why the slippery slope argument is invalid and unconvincing. You will notice that none of the lawyers arguing against same-sex marriages are relying on the slippery slope argument and the dozens of judges who have now confirmed that same-sex marriage is a legal right recognize that it will not cause marriage to slip into ruin.
If you are really concerned of same-sex marriage inevitably leading to the legalization of marriages to multiple partners or non-consenting partners, I encourage you to spend some time reading about the topic. I think you will find the opinions of legal scholars and the actual results in places where SSM has been legal for a long time very reassuring.

Stable thought

@ Tiago......Non consenting?

The future of the definition of marriage is now in flux and will be tested in the courts, it shall interesting.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Those for equality under the Constitution need to be out there promoting polygamy next"

That's as logical as if I were to expect you to support bans on interracial marriage because you don't support same-sex marriage. These are separate issues.

to comment

About comments