Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints releases statement regarding the Respect for Marriage Act

Headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

SALT LAKE CITY — In anticipation of the United States Senate’s vote on the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement supporting amendments in the bill that protect religious freedom.

Tuesday’s statement began, “The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged.

The RMA bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, it would repeal and replace provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law.

The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. The bill would also allow the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

Tuesday’s statement from the Church concluded: “We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

“We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.”


[email protected]

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!

36 Comments

  • Jordan Funk November 15, 2022 at 6:16 pm Reply

    But there is no “right to marry” a person of the same sex any more than there is a right to marry a dog or a horse. Or rather, insofar as there is any such “right”, it is a creation of positive, not natural law and therefore it is an entirely idiosyncratic “right”. But this nation was founded free and independent on an appeal to the unalienable rights created by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” A right that is “contra naturam” is not a “right” at all, properly understood. The positive law of the ante-bellum south recognized a “right” to own other human beings as if they were horses or dogs, yet nature and reason tell us that black men and women are human beings, not chattels. Nature and reason tell us that a man is not an ox or a dog or a horse and with the very same voice they also tell us that a man is not a woman and that the right ordering of sexual relations is between men and women, not men and men or women and women. If some future majority creates a “right” to sexual intercourse between adults and children—-perhaps a right of marriage between adult men and 8-year-old girls, will the church fall all over itself recognizing that “right” too? Some have utterly lost the ability to distinguish what is in the world from what ought to be in the world—to distinguish between real “rights”—which are intrinsically moral and good and spurious “rights” which aren’t. It is one thing to “tolerate” sodomy. It is quite another to accommodate it as a “right”.

    • Jerry Jensen November 16, 2022 at 8:27 am Reply

      Spot on my friend !!!

    • Pete November 16, 2022 at 2:28 pm Reply

      No one cares that your religion taught you to have a problem with gay people

    • skeetr November 16, 2022 at 2:39 pm Reply

      Lot of words to say “i’m a bigot” who tries to blur lines to make consenting adults seem like monsters
      Is that a copypasta from some far right wife-beater forum?
      in case reason really has escaped you, there are rights to unions aka marriages that should be available to all in a free country. period.

  • Joseph Smith November 15, 2022 at 7:28 pm Reply

    We live in a land where all men and women are and should be equal. People should also be free to believe what they want, so long as it doesn’t impact another.

    Churches: do what you want. Government: take away their ridiculous tax exemption.

    One of the greatest con jobs in human history.

    Make believe shouldn’t limit others and definitely shouldn’t be free.

  • Jordan+Funk November 15, 2022 at 7:39 pm Reply

    To elaborate: “Man is a social animal, and no one can secure what is desirable for himself except in partnership with others. According to Aristotle, if a man had all the health, wealth, freedom and power that he desired, but lacked friends, he would not even wish to live. But the root of all friendships, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman. As nature is the ground of morality, the distinction of the sexes is the ground of nature. Nature—which forbids us to eat or enslave out own kind—is that which has within it the principle of coming-into-being. Mankind as a whole is recognized by its generations, like a river which is one and the same while the ever-renewed cycles of birth and death flow on. But the generations are constituted—and can only be constituted—by the acts of generation arising from the conjunction of male and female. The root of all human relationships, the root of all morality, is nature, which itself is grounded in the generative distinction of male and female…..Abraham Lincoln once said that if slavery is not unjust, then nothing is unjust. With equal reason it can be said that if homosexuality is not unnatural, nothing is unnatural. And if nothing is unnatural then nothing—including slavery and genocide—is unjust”

    Harry V. Jaffa, Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question.

  • KA November 15, 2022 at 9:18 pm Reply

    I graduated high school in the late 80s in Cache Valley. At our ten year high school reunion, which would have made us 27-28, I couldn’t believe the number of divorced Mormons and Mormons who were already on their second marriages there were. Sacred, my A!

  • KJN November 15, 2022 at 9:49 pm Reply

    This isn’t a surprising response. There are no religious liberty protections for the individual in this bill. Good ole Mitt worked up one just for those who don’t want to perform marriages but what about the florist, baker or the worker who doesn’t want to celebrate pride month at work? Just more to destroy the Traditional family by the radical left. You’d think a church world lean on the word of God to stand up to this but it’s always about appearing tolerant. Just like the very luke warm response by the church to abortion. If they speak out too loudly do they lose their tax exempt status? Business Is business.

    • Pete November 16, 2022 at 2:31 pm Reply

      Hahaha no one is forcing anyone to celebrate pride at work. You traditional marriage dummies are awful hateful for claiming to believe in your god who tells you to “love one another”

      • KJN November 16, 2022 at 8:33 pm Reply

        Who would be the hateful, judgmental ones if I refused to wear the rainbow shirt and refuse to march with the company in the pride parade in SLC? Ostracized and name called just like they said they were. Yet, heterosexuals never had parades and a month every year to celebrate the natural relationship God intended. Civilization depends on procreation but abortion and gay marriage insure our demise. Love one another yes, accept a “right” to depravity, and spread it in our school curriculum, no.

        • Lindsay November 17, 2022 at 3:35 pm Reply

          You should sue if all of this discrimination you are facing at your work place is real (and not just in your head). You could be rich!

          I see no problem with starting a Straight Pride celebration. It looks like a lot of people in the comments here would probably show up.

          I’m pleased to report the world’s population is now 8 billion people strong! Woohoo!!!!! I can’t wait for it to double. Thank goodness the homosexuals and pro-choice advocates haven’t destroyed our ability to overpopulate the planet. Seriously, where do you get your information? Do you really think the world has too few people? Cache Valley alone is doing a fine job in the population department with its huge percentage of people who have over four children in one family. I think it will work out just fine.

  • Da bare November 16, 2022 at 1:00 am Reply

    The thing to understand here is that the law will be passed regardless of the LDS church. However, and unfortunately the only thing that can be done is to support a variation of the law that tolerates the right specifically afforded by the constitution of religious liberty. Looking for a protection built in, not perfect but the only way to play the game at this point.

  • Jerry+Jensen November 16, 2022 at 8:27 am Reply

    Spot on my friend

  • Lindsay November 16, 2022 at 9:53 am Reply

    Jordan Funk, I’m having a hard time parsing your comment. Are you equating same-sex marriage to pedophilia? Are you equating it to a human marrying a dog? If you are, you are woefully misinformed and a bigot to boot. Trying to virtue signal by pointing out slavery was wrong and against God is humorous given it was the Bible that was used by pro-slavery folks as evidence that in fact slavery is correct and moral in the eyes of God. I get the feeling you would have been one of the white people who would have been throwing slurs and objects at the black students trying to integrate schools in the 1960s. Why do I think this? Because your opinion demonstrates you think all American citizens are in fact not created equal and should not have equal rights. Why? Because your God says so. What about people and churches who do not believe same-sex marriage is immoral or wrong? Why does the LDS Church hold higher authority than say the Unitarian Universalists or Buddhists?

    It is undeniable that Utah is a theocracy where the LDS Church interferes with laws and legislation. In the early ’90s I remember a letter from the LDS Church leadership being read by the Bishop in sacrament meeting telling members to vote no on parimutuel gambling. This interference in laws has continued. I feel if the LDS Church is going to interfere with laws and legislation then it should lose its tax exempt status. The Church admitted to trying to sway politics in California on Proposition 8. https://www.deseret.com/2009/2/2/20378050/lds-church-spent-about-190-000-on-prop-8-campaign

    In addition to my point why has the state of Utah and the LDS Church turned such a blind eye to forced plural marriage of underage girls in the FLDS? It wasn’t until there was international spotlight put on this issue that anyone here cared. The forced marriages are human trafficking and yet the institutions have been allowed to flourish here. Ironically, the founders and early leaders of the LDS Church like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both had over 40 wives and some of them were shockingly young. So maybe your example of an adult marrying a child hits a little close to home. No?

    • Jordan+Funk November 16, 2022 at 11:56 am Reply

      This nation was founded free and independent on an appeal to a non-sectarian moral law embodied in the laws of nature (unassisted human reason) and nature’s God. (the revealed Word of God). Both are in agreement in their condemnation of homosexuality. Nature and reason tell us that a man is not an ox or a horse or a dog and that to treat a black man as if he were a beast of burden is wrong and if slavery isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong. With the very same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman and that the right ordering of sexual relations is between man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman. Every human being who has ever lived on the face of the earth has done so in consequence of the sexual dimorphism of male and female. To reiterate Jaffa: “….[b]ut the root of all friendships, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman. As nature is the ground of morality, the distinction of the sexes is the ground of nature. Nature…is that which has within it the principle of coming-into-being. Mankind as a whole is recognized by its generations, like a river which is one and the same while the ever-renewed cycles of birth and death flow on. But the generations are constituted—and can only be constituted—by the acts of generation arising from the conjunction of male and female. The root of all human relationships, the root of all morality, is nature, which itself is grounded in the generative distinction of male and female…”

      Once one accepts the proposition that the generative distinction between male and female (upon which the very existence of humanity depends) is arbitrary (of no moral authority in ordering relationships between and among the sexes) then there is no argument against bestiality, incest, genocide or chattel slavery that is not equally arbitrary.

      • Lindsay November 16, 2022 at 1:14 pm Reply

        You have literally answered NONE of my very direct questions to you. This “word salad” of a response demonstrates you have no real argument here.

        Answer me this: Why is there evidence of homosexuality in ancient Greece that predates your buddy Aristotle? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

        Why are there examples from ancient cultures from all over the world (including our Native American tribes) of people who were cross-dressers or what we would consider trans today?

        Why are people born intersexed? That’s the natural world isn’t it? There are examples in science of same sex animals copulating. What about that? Did God mess up? If you are born both male and female (intersex which used to be called hermaphrodites) who are you supposed to have relations with, in the eyes of God?

        You think you can throw a bunch of words at things and prove your point, but really you are highlighting the fact that you have no real argument against any of the points I am making. Try harder, please.

        • Media-sponsored homosexuality November 16, 2022 at 4:32 pm Reply

          Lindsey, God did not make a mistake; those who believe they’re homosexual, transexual etc, etc, etc, are the ones who are mistaken. They’re complicit in their own gender manipulation aka brainwashing imposed by the media. Plain and simple. You are correct that there’s miniscule evidence, yet evidence nonetheless of homosexuality being practiced throughout the ages, yet their numbers were extremely small and remained so until just recently when homosexuality started being hyper-promoted in the media. People can accept others for who they are and still be repulsed by the sexual activities in which they choose to engage. People are not necessarily the culmination of their actions, people have worth irrespective of whether or not they’re homosexual, straight, etc, etc, etc.

          • Lindsay November 17, 2022 at 1:29 pm

            I asked Mr. Funk, but he ignored my question, so I’ll ask you. Who are intersex people supposed to have sexual relations with, according to the Mormon God? The ability to perform surgery on an infant born with two sexes is relatively new…So what? Did God mess up? Is that person then homosexual if they have relations with either gender? Are they going to hell?

            What about men and women who are infertile? Should they not be allowed to marry? After all, they can’t procreate.

            Why does God give LDS men two wives when they get to the celestial kingdom? Women in the church are nothing more than chattel, they always have been and always will be. It’s truly sad they’ve been brainwashed into being complicit in this stuff.

            Why in the heck were the founders of the Church marrying all of these women? Some were already married to others when your dear leaders decided to add them to their harem. Why was God cool with that? Why was God cool with Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year-old child? That’s simply gross.

            Here’s the thing, living outside of the LDS culture and also studying US History made me realize the Mormon pioneers were persecuted because most of civilized society looked at them as a corrupt sex cult with a con man who consulted golden plates and magical stones for his “revelations”. Now that’s a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s true. In my opinion, they kinda’ were a weird sex cult. Brigham Young had a thing for the pretty ones, and he amassed over 50 wives when all was said and done. He also was the only one to operate an LDS distillery here in Utah. Of course booze was made for “medicinal” purposes. Haha. You should read more about your own religion. The internet has exposed a lot of historical “truths” that the Church has had to do PR damage on and create a web of lies to cover. Why didn’t Sunday school teach me about all of the other wives of Joseph Smith, instead of just Emma Smith? Was the church ashamed of the truth? They can’t spin it the way they used to because a few key strokes on Google will allow people to see the true history of the church…And it’s kinda’ creepy. There’s a lot of “God-sanctioned” pedophilia with the marriages of these girls to these creepy old men.

            By the way, I myself am not a LGBTQ+ person. I am a straight middle-aged woman. I just can’t stand hate being packaged as anything other than what it is. The people I have admired most treated others with love and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation. This fascination the LDS church has with the sexual relations between consenting adults is disturbing. Why aren’t they focused on real human rights issues? They have invested BILLIONS of dollars in land and the stock market while not giving money to humanity. What kind of God-loving person who truly believes in “loving one another” agrees with this?

            There are few Christian religions that do not have dubious things in there histories, this I will concede. But I don’t remember learning in history class of all of the LDS abolitionists who fought slavery. Why? Oh yeah, black people were “cursed” according to Mormon dogma. I have personally witnessed the Quaker’s attending anti-war protests and Gay pride parades. They are the kind of Christians who practice what they preach and try to emulate the teachings of Christ. I respect that.

        • Jordan Funk November 16, 2022 at 7:03 pm Reply

          The fact that something occurs “in the world” is no evidence whatsoever for its desirability. Suttee, cannabalism, coprophlia, genocide and slavery all existed before and after “Aristotle” but that is no evidence whatsoever for their morality or desirability. From Plato to Paul, the greatest moral legislators of Athens and Jerusalem have condemned homosexuality. Blackstone called it a “vicious sexual perversion” and a felony punishable by castration. In a criminal code written for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Jefferson also made it a felony. Whether we today should regard homosexuality with the same abhorrence as in former times is certainly open to question. I happen to think homosexuals deserve compassion and an effort at understanding their obvious psychic distress (which, by the way, research shows to be intimately bound up with their homosexuality, at least as far as male homosexuals are concerned and for which biology is a necessary but not sufficient explanation. Environment is determinative. What is utterly unacceptable however is to call someone a “bigot” because they accept the moral authority in the laws of nature. Indeed, the very idea of “bigotry” as an intelligible concept is impossible if one’s premise is that the generative distinction between male and female is merely idiosyncratic because by definition, “bigotry” (like tolerance) implies a non-relative ground for distinguishing bigotry from its opposite. What might that ground be if one’s premise is that there are no morally authoritative distinctions (no intentionality) in nature? Please see the Jaffa quote I referenced above for elaboration.

        • Jordan Funk November 16, 2022 at 7:07 pm Reply

          Murder, rape, genocide and untold means of torture are behaviors that have existed in one culture or another, at one time or another. The existence of a thing in the world is no evidence whatsoever that it is desirable or moral. Are you prepared to argue that murder, rape and torture should not be prosecuted because they have existed in other cultures, places and times?

          • Pete November 17, 2022 at 8:22 am

            the fact that you’re comparing two people loving each other to murder, rape, genocide, and torture shows how absurd your stance is

    • Jordan Funk November 16, 2022 at 12:51 pm Reply

      It most assuredly is deniable that Utah is a theocracy. It clearly is not. Any church has every right to attempt to influence public policy. Attempting such influence does not make any state (where such attempt is successful) a theocracy. That assertion is analytically silly.

      • Pete November 16, 2022 at 4:42 pm Reply

        Your use of big words doesn’t make you sound smart when your argument is not supported by any sort of understanding of Utah

      • skeetr November 16, 2022 at 5:00 pm Reply

        care to comment on why top church officials refer to local politicians as “church broke” in their leaked meeting recordings?

      • Lindsay November 16, 2022 at 7:49 pm Reply

        I will admit I was being hyperbolic with the “theocracy” thing, but the thing is, we are, in fact, protected from religion.

        “The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

        I would also like to address your obsession with the founding fathers. If we kept things the way they were in the 1700s, only white land-owning men would have the right to vote. And you, my friend, would likely be Puritan or Quaker. So please stop with all of this founding father nonsense. There are reasons our beloved founding fathers built in the ability to change the constitution as the country grew and society changed.

        As for your weird and perverse examples of societies devolving into incest and bestiality without Christian laws, please learn more about ALL cultures and their needful adoptions of cultural norms and mores. You seem to think history began in the 1700s, or maybe with the first copy of the Book of Genesis? I’m not sure…The reason societies adopt these norms and mores is to prevent such acts as incest, bestiality, cannibalism, etc. The argument that an absence of Judeo-Christian values means people will be uncivilized is silly and ethnocentric at best.

        Why did I bring up all of those ancient cultures with examples of LGBTQ+ people? I am trying to demonstrate to you that homosexuality and LGBTQ+ people have existed long before the Bible. My POINT is that homosexuality is natural and is just as much a part of being human as having brown eyes or being left-handed. Please stop with this natural law nonsense. Natural law proves MY point and disproves YOUR point. Sorry, but its true. By the way, Joseph Smith had a 14 year-old wife!!!! among his 40 some-odd wives. Talk about unnatural… https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/11/11/363324816/mormon-church-admits-founder-joseph-smith-had-up-to-40-wives

        I hate to poke the bear too much, but I was raised LDS and was forced to be baptized into the religion at age 8, so I’m entitled to my opinions. US History has taught us Utah wanted to become a state, and ultimately wasn’t allowed to be a state until Utah gave up the practice of polygamy. Suddenly God changed his mind about polygamy and the LDS church put an end to polygamy. Same with the curse on the Lamanites. “After the two groups separated from each other, the rebellious Lamanites were cursed and “cut off from the presence of the Lord.” They received a “skin of blackness” so they would “not be enticing” to the Nephites.” In the 1970s many universities were refusing to play BYU in sports because of the LDS religion’s refusal to give men of color the priesthood. Once again, God spoke to the LDS prophet explaining he was now cool with people of color having the priesthood. Why does God keep changing His mind? I always thought God was perfect and all-knowing. Why is God so unsure about his own laws? Was he trying to be “woke” and pander to the leftists? I believe if Christ walked among us today he would weep at how his followers treat their fellow man. You do recall that Christ embraced all of those rejected by society, including prostitutes and leapers? I do, however, remember Jesus being furious at the commerce in the temple. He even upended a table. So why does the LDS church hoard hundreds of billions of dollars? https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/02/08/lds-church-kept-lid-its-b/

        Why in my travels have I never once witnessed an LDS financed and run soup kitchen or battered woman’s shelter that serves non-members? What is the church doing with all of this money? Why did it fire all of the janitors at its churches and require members to clean for free? That sure seems antithetical to what Jesus taught, doesn’t it?

        “I like your Christ, but not your Christianity.” — Mahatma Gandhi

    • skeetr November 16, 2022 at 2:45 pm Reply

      Yes, he is. If his masters get their way, they’ll serve him up in due time as well as a “false christian” but not until its too late for him, despite having served their interests his whole life. Nature’s God will let a male clownfish turn into a female in the absence of a female. Maybe be cautious what tidbids you pick out of context in ancient documents with an overall emphasis contrary to your context. Just because a document references another man’s God, does not mean the author recognizes it the same.

  • Lisa Admundson November 16, 2022 at 10:31 am Reply

    As usual the church wants to have it both ways. They teach that marriage is ordained of God, yet support the notion that it’s ordained by government. Another case of the church leadership protecting the kingdom’s bank accounts over any real moral direction.

    • Jordan+Funk November 16, 2022 at 12:06 pm Reply

      The problem isn’t that the LDS church recognizes that marriage is and should be protected (sanctioned) by government. It most assuredly should. The problem is that the definition of marriage implicitly embraced by the LDS church’s support for the subject legislation is utterly at odds with the actual meaning and definition of marriage, properly understood—-the union of man and woman. Why not man and dog? Or father and daughter? Is there any doubt that is where we’re headed? The very idea of tolerance as a virtue presupposes a non-relative ground for distinguishing the tolerable and the intolerable. We don’t call identify as possessing the virtue of “tolerance” the man who allows others to prefer chocolate over vanilla ice-cream because there is no rational (objective) basis for saying chocolate is preferable to vanilla. The position embraced by the LDS church implicitly but flatly denies any ground for distinguishing the tolerable from the intolerable. The Church seems utterly unaware of the logic (or rather illogic) of their position.

      • skeetr November 16, 2022 at 5:02 pm Reply

        You need to rid yourself of this asinine reasoning that two adults is akin to a human and an animal or non-adult. It makes everything else you say meaningless in your debate on this topic.

        Complete waste of (too many) keystrokes.

  • skeetr November 16, 2022 at 2:40 pm Reply

    stop being sex obsessed religious cultists and let consenting adults have the same rights under civil unions as you do. you already have a special word devised by a 19th century conman for your chefs roleplay marriages, leave everyone else alone

    • Jordan Funk November 16, 2022 at 7:11 pm Reply

      We were born into an order not of our choosing. Our duties to others are not only those we choose for ourselves, but those that are chosen for us by the of nature we were born into. Above all, we are not free to violate the natural equal rights of others. The so-called “right” of homosexuals to “marry” is not a natural right at all, but a creature of positive law. It can’t be a natural right because homosexuality is contra naturam. In fact, the idea of homosexuality as a positive moral good is the very negation of any intelligible idea of a moral absolute that argues in favor of any human right at all. See my first two posts above and the Jaffa quote.

      • Jordan Funk November 16, 2022 at 7:13 pm Reply

        Should read “We were born into an order of nature not of our choosing….”

      • skeetr November 22, 2022 at 11:25 am Reply

        homosexuality exists in nature, unless by nature you mean bigoted 1950s worldview

  • skeetr November 16, 2022 at 2:46 pm Reply

    The moment this bigoted stance threatens their 503(c) status, there will be some pretty damn fast revelation. Mark my words.

  • Joseph Smith November 18, 2022 at 1:39 pm Reply

    Attempting to have a civil, fact based conversation with someone whose foundation/decision making is rooted in supernatural/mythology is useless and tiresome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I agree to these terms.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.