Comments « Meridian Magazine
April 11, 2021

Comments | Return to Story

Voin CampbellFebruary 10, 2014

There is a reason why, from the beginning, God biologically required a pair, of opposite sex, to create a new living soul. Some get it. Obviously, some don't. Fortunately, what one thinks does not alter either the reason or that requirement.

JacobFebruary 8, 2014

Their rationale is based upon the effects of same-sex marriage on children. The problem is that there are no proven negative effects on children. Furthermore, if marriage were only about children then I would hope that we would not see any infertile couples or any couples with no desire to have children get married.

Kelvin February 8, 2014

Here it si.

TimFebruary 5, 2014

Very interesting. I read the entire submission online. Thanks for the link.I used to be of the same opinion as Calvin, but having read the submission in its entirety I have now changed my mind. He is right that marriage has always been a religious institution, but it is also true that governments have also always regulated that institution. It is a very well presented and well reasoned court document. I cannot imagine the plaintiffs being able to argue half so well, but would be interested in reading that as well if it ever becomes available online.

MSJFebruary 5, 2014

Thank you for the update and valuable information! Let us pray.

CalvinFebruary 5, 2014

What is the Federal Gov doing getting involved in marriage anyway? It's a religious institution, always has been. Goes contrary to "Seperate of Church and State".

herm olsenFebruary 5, 2014

Sorry to raise a different topic, but I don't know how to share a thought outside the "comment" venue: The other day an observation was made that Mike Lee was perhaps the first Mormon to Keynote the National Prayer Breakfast. Actually, Gunn McKay was very involved back in the '70's, and spoke to the group, and hosted the group on a number of occasions. Fyi.

Harold RustFebruary 5, 2014

Well stated and well supported. It has always seemed so unreasonable to me that the definition of marriage could ever be considered a civil rights issue or a constitutional issue to be debated within a court of law. If any other individuals believe they should share similar treatment for taxes, for medical visits, for insurance, etc, then let the focus be on changing those laws and public policy and not by taking away from marriage the essence of how it has always been defined.



    Daily news, articles, videos and podcasts sent straight to your inbox.