Deseret News | LDS Church officials urge California members to support marriage amendment

Reader comments
LDS Church officials urge California members to support marriage amendment

492 comments | Read story

Separation of Church and State | 8:43 p.m. June 23, 2008

Yes, I agree with anon: separation of church and state.

I also think all church's should be taxed.

Imposing your beliefs | 8:44 p.m. June 23, 2008

I love when people try to say that gays are the intolerant ones that are imposing their beliefs on everyone else. I have hetersosexual beliefs imposed on me everyday. I have to watch straight couples touch each other in public. I see straight couples on TV all the time. I'm told that only heterosexual marriages are right. If I don't act hetersosexual enough people make fun of me. My church tells me that I have to be straight to go to heaven. I'm so sick of all you heteros forcing your lifestly on me. I don't care if your straight, just don't force that lifestlye on me!

Evil good and good evil | 8:51 p.m. June 23, 2008

Dear Something Possive,

I too am saddened by beliefs that call evil good and good evil. For example, God in the Bible states that disobedient children should be killed, which is one of the best examples of the Bible of an evil act that is called good by a mean and nasty God, who is clearly evil (it's a good thing it's fiction!) I know that selling one's daughter to slavery is evil, and yet God says in Exodus 21:7 that it's okay, yet another example of an evil God who called good in the Bible.

Your example of marrying your Dad is pathetic and stupid. It's about as intelligent as saying calling inter-racial marriage and equating marrying your mother as an act equal to marrying someone of a different race. Grow up and learn to think for yourself with a little intelligence.

Comments continue below

Creepy Crawlers | 8:50 p.m. June 23, 2008

I can't believe how the Creepy Crawlers come out of the woodwork when the church takes a stand on something that is terribly and totally out of order.
That is what the church does, always has, always will. If our creator says it's wrong then it is wrong. That is what Prophets are for in all ages of time...nothing can change that. California was once a great place to go...look at it now. San Francisco used to be a beautiful place..look at it now. Depravity rules!!!! My cousin went down there, got aids, and came home to die. California did that for him and so many others. It is like a disease spreading around the communities...Kiss up to the facts of life...gay is not gay!

To Tom in Houston 5:54 p.m. | 8:58 p.m. June 23, 2008

You say:
Just curious, but if the LDS wanted to celebrate marriage between one man and one woman, shouldn't they change the name of their University so that it doesn't endorse Brigham Young? Wasn't he a polygamist?

I am a fellow Houstonian. Perhaps Rice University should change its name as well. Its founder had written into the articles for the creation of the school that blacks should never be allowed to attend it.

Annoying Hypocrites | 9:00 p.m. June 23, 2008

The gays and lesbians do all they can do to justify their lifestyles - and try to push their agendas on heterosexuals. What if I don't like their homosexual lifestyles and don't want my family to be exposed to it either? Well in that case, I will be even more happy to follow the LDS church's advice. There is - and will be increasing evidence that gay lifestyles are destructive to all associated. I get sick of the hypocritical, homosexual agenda. Don't the homosexuals understand that not everyone likes what they do? And what's with the gay accent anyway?

hoppin on the band wagon | 9:02 p.m. June 23, 2008

If gay marriage is allowed you know that polygamy will be next.

And when it is I'm going to start collecting husbands. A lawyer, a doctor, a mechanic, a carpenter, an accountant, a cook, a janitor, a butler. It can go on & on.

If they separate church and state does that mean that the state can't force the church to preform gay marriages?

Smith Kennedy | 9:02 p.m. June 23, 2008

I thought Churches because they were tax exempt. Could this be BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FREAKING PLACE IN POLITICS

Seperation of Church and State Kids - Keep them Seperate everyone is happy.

//* SK

I want proof | 9:09 p.m. June 23, 2008

Can somebody give me proof that gay marriage is destructive to society? I have not seen one iota of proof on this, just a lot of thoughts and conjecture. I believe the Church leadership is correct on most fronts but they have been wrong in the past and they will be wrong in the future. Civil rights did not ruin our country. Interracial marriage did not ruin our country. And I don't see any evidence that gay marriage will ruin our country. It doesn't make sense to me that if we legalize gay marriage we will suddenly be overwhelmed with homosexuality and gay activities. It has been here since the beginning of time and I don't see any evidence that the more accepting of it we are, the more common it becomes. Can somebody provide some concrete proof on this?

Ken, to Old Guy | 9:07 p.m. June 23, 2008

You are so, so wrong. This country is based on the PROTECTION of the CIVIL rights of its citizens, whether majority or minority. The California judges were not legislating, as so many here seem to think. They were protecting the rights of citizens (consenting human adults) to marry the person of their choice. They were CORRECTING an existing wrong. Got that? YOU, sir, are advocating that these rights be limited to your own kind, while I am advocating that they be extended to ALL citizens.
For an Old Guy, you still have a lot to learn.

To charles clark 7:53 p.m | 9:12 p.m. June 23, 2008

You say:
Please show me one gay man who has been changed. You cannot do it.

I can show you several. I am having lunch with one later this week.

Same-sex attraction is a developmental disorder. It is not in the genetics, and has little to do with biology. It's all in the research if you care to read up on it.

It does not mean the person cannot have terrific, wonderful talents, and that he/she cannot and is not cherished by others. I loved my ex-gay friends before they realized they had SSA, while they were giving life to it, and after they changed.

But I fail to see why we should normalize something resulting from a fundamental developmental disorder.

I have much more to add, but it will go to waste in these comments sections.

The best thing I can do is continue to work with those I love and care about.

how about the kids? | 9:12 p.m. June 23, 2008

It seems to me if one of the priorities for the LDS Church is to support safety and stability for children that addressing the ills of all the marriages which have already taken place and been dissolved including those which were sealed would take precedence over the defining marriage activity. It appears to me that the quality of the marriage relationship is a key factor in raising healthy, well-adjusted children. Perhaps tougher requirements for getting married such as taking classes in parenting and fiscal responsibility would help. Perhaps demanding proof of sufficient, stable income to support a family would be of benefit. Perhaps having a two-part marriage process: 6-months to a year of living together after making 1st stafe vows then if that is successfully completed and maturity, financial, and relationship criteria met then the couple receives final approval to be married under the law and may then commence procreating should that be part of their plan.

Providing a safe and secure home environment should not even be part of this discussion, in my opinion. We're talking about creating legal partnerships, not families per se.

Mistereks | 9:15 p.m. June 23, 2008

My goodness -- such anger. And on a issue about love.

Here are my questions for all of you opposing same-sex marriage: how will passing this amendment reduce the amount of homosexual activity? Will it reduce the number of children being raised by two men or two women? If you have gay people living in your neighborhood (and you live in California or Massachusetts), what affect does it have on your life if the cohabiting couple has a marriage license?

For those of you who are expressing the slippery slope argument, saying polygamy is next, that's simply wrong. Why? Because polygamy creates an inherent INequality. With more than one spouse, that's more than one person to receive Social Security survivor benefits, among other benefits. Gay people are looking for EQUAL rights, and polygamy creates inequality.

There is No Proff | 9:18 p.m. June 23, 2008

There is no proof that homosexuality is destructive to society. It's an irrational belief, pure and simple.

Call the wahhmbulance | 9:19 p.m. June 23, 2008

The gays and lesbians will always try to force their agenda on the heterosexuals. They want to be accepted by those around them - and they try to prove that their incompatible lifestyle is OK. It's not - it's against nature. I for one, do not accept their lifestyle and will do all I can to keep it away from my family and I. I will follow the advice of the LDS church and vote against any sort of law that makes homosexual unions legal or accepted. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone had the the gay accent? How annoying!

to Silliness, Seriously | 9:24 p.m. June 23, 2008

Perhaps if you look into it further you will find an option 2 near-at-hand church which receives donations in blue and heather gray envelopes rather than passing a donation plate has changed often enough to no longer warrant status as one of your option 1 churches.

jbsolis.blogspot.com | 9:25 p.m. June 23, 2008

Our heart reaches out to those who are inclined to like the same sex, and we know the Lord knows the desires of our heart. But there are certain laws irrevocably decreed in Heaven, and one of them as part of the eternal plan is to be married and have posterity.

A child's right to a mom and dad | 9:30 p.m. June 23, 2008

The church doesn't step in politically very often, if at all. This one must be pretty important to God

Mistereks | 9:32 p.m. June 23, 2008

"The gays and lesbians will always try to force their agenda on the heterosexuals."

How?

RLP | 9:33 p.m. June 23, 2008

Hard to believe such troublesome coments by so many anti LDS in Utah and elsewhere. I did not hear you speaking out when the other churches, and same sex marriage and abortion. Yes, the LDS church is trying go protect its stand on moral issues for our society as well as it's members. One question. How are gay's born? Don't they have a Mother and Father? Is gay's trying to push their lifestyle on society as being normal and acceptable. If they want to live together, so be it. Don't rub it in our face. Use some respect for your fellow beings who do not believe as you do. Please have the same respect for other's that you are seeking yourself.

lacatholic | 9:35 p.m. June 23, 2008

Ok, The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles just released statement opposing Gay Marriage. As in the past, the LDS will join forces with them. Right? OK, now explain to me all the posts awhile back where you detested anything Catholic because they won't let you use their records to do proxy baptisms. Are you going to join forces and forget that whole geneaology thing? Remember these are Papists and "the Great Abominable Whore". Oh wait, you changed your mind about that. I can't keep up. Anyway. Going to join forces to pass the amemedment?

impose? | 9:38 p.m. June 23, 2008

I truly do not understand all of the comments about gays imposing their lifestyle on anyone else. Seems they are just looking to live their lives the way most of us take living ours for granted. Blacks weren't imposing "blackness" on everyone by seeking equality under the law. Women weren't imposing "femaleness" on everyone by seeking equality. Did anyone already enjoying their pursuit of happiness lose anything other than having their PC for the times morally superior attitude readjusted when the civil rights and feminist movements bore fruit?

What are people thinking?

anom | 9:42 p.m. June 23, 2008

If it gets to the stage when the majority of people will choose evil over good,then amen to those people. I hope that the Californians will have more sense than style than to vote for something completley evil. Then again maybe not. If they do vote for it and the majority wins to support gay marriage, then all I can say is that I hope that they can swim...goodbye CA

Dear Call the wahhmbulance | 9:42 p.m. June 23, 2008

I don't accept the lifestyle of LDS members, but I think they are free to believe in an imaginary belief system, and even if they walk around in 100 degree weather near the church office building in dark suits and tie. LDS member want to be accepted by those around them- and they try to prove that their incompatible lifestyle is OK. It's not-- against nature. However, unlike you, I believe in freedom.

If you want to believe in an irrational, superstitious belief system, I believe you should be free to do so.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone walked around in 100 degree weather in dark suits and ties with ridiculous haircuts? Oh well, they are free to do as they like.

Bert | 9:48 p.m. June 23, 2008

This little decree from 50 E. South Temple just sent the work on the religious divide in Utah back about 20 years.

for freaking pete's sake | 9:48 p.m. June 23, 2008

Let's throw out the word "marriage" in all legal instances. If couples want legal recognition then get a civil union. If couples would like their church to sanction their civil union then if the church is willing, be married, sealed, bound, united, whatever.

Can it really be so difficult?

This is like the churches with distinct and often conflicting doctrines all claiming to be "Christian." They contend one with another because they are using the same word, but defining it differently. Of course they will never agree on points of doctrine because they ARE different.

Figure out that the same verbage is being used to talk about different concepts and there might be a return to a modicum of civility in this discussion. Perhaps there will actually not be anything to talk about.

TX | 9:49 p.m. June 23, 2008

No matter what it is called by the state of CA, a same sex union is not MARRIAGE. It may be legally recognized under state law, but it is not recognized under God's law, and no legislation can change that.

kathyn | 9:50 p.m. June 23, 2008

Dear Kelly Miller stated that her brother wasn't happy when he was married and had two children. But now he's with his partner, he's never been so happy. Well, good for him, but what about his wife and children? Didn't they deserve better? I see it as selfishness on his part. It's all about him and his wants and nothing for his family. And many commentors say there's no harm in homosexual behavior!

Re: RLP | 9:54 p.m. June 23, 2008

Read your last four lines. The irony of what you are saying is hilarious. You ask for respect and tolerance yet show nothing of the sort in both the tone and words you use.

It makes me sad to see so much anger from members on this issue. I can now understand how it was in the 60's with African Americans and The Priesthood. My grandfather was a racist man who I loved dearly. That racism was taught to him in large part because of the teaching of The Church at the time.

I am not comparing the issues nor taking a side but the venom and anger seen on this board and what I hear from people on Sundays makes me quite sad.

forDearCall@9:42 | 9:54 p.m. June 23, 2008

Based on your rationale is the terrible tragedy of the flooding in the midwest due to Gay Marriage? Name me one midwestern state so hit by this terrible tragedy that supports gay marriage. Perhaps the God you worship just has a realy bad aim.

To Dan 3:50pm | 9:56 p.m. June 23, 2008

If you consider not being in a plural marriage that goes on forever as second best, you might find many of your fellow saints who disagree.

Have you considered that if the eternal reward for being a faithful LDS is such a union that most of the LDS fellows are going to get something else? Common birthrate statistics show there's not even one woman for every man let alone multiples.

AZ Thinker | 9:57 p.m. June 23, 2008

If all this stuff was natural? How come gays and lesbians can't reproduce?

The Devil | 9:59 p.m. June 23, 2008

If it's not gang bangers than it's gay bangers. Hummmmmmmmm? What's the world coming too?

They learn "give me sex or else" | 9:59 p.m. June 23, 2008

There is No Proff | 9:18 p.m. June 23, 2008

"There is no proof that homosexuality is destructive to society. It's an irrational belief, pure and simple."

It's not irrational to believe homosexuality is destructive to society and undermines the moral fabric of a society.

Homosexuality operates on basis that all things revolve sexual intercourse and that we are nothing but sexual animals. Marriage ceases to be about families, about a husband and wife marrying and rearing children they bring into the world and instead becomes about sexual gratification. That's destructive to the moral fabric.

What purpose is there for the relationship between two persons of the same sex? It debases those involved in the practice of homosexuality and leads our children who are heterosexual to view sex as being about their gratification. Homosexuality destroys the person spiritually, mentally and emotionally. They become a "sex object" whose purpose in the relationship is the sexual gratification of another.

This is the role that many women play and that is very unfortunate but that isn't what God intended and that isn't the law of nature. Homosexuality teaches children that it's about gratification and that will certainly lead to women being abused.

IF | 10:02 p.m. June 23, 2008

If the leader of the Mormon church is truly a prophet of God, then those who disagree are disagreeing with God's will. If the leader of the Mormon church isn't a prophet of God, then don't concern yourself with what he believes. This day and age isn't for the faint of heart. Core values, ethics, morals are far from popular. Christ and his followers were murdered for what they taught. The reigning philosophy today is let everyone do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. True prophets have always spoken out against evil and what they have to say isn't popular.

For Pete's Sake You're Right! | 10:02 p.m. June 23, 2008

Let the government treat all equal and make unions for all. Let the churches marry and discriminate as they please.

Kelly Miller's Brother | 10:06 p.m. June 23, 2008

Kathyn, the unfortunate part is that Kelly Miller's brother married in the first place...

Marriage is about love; not sex | 10:07 p.m. June 23, 2008

kathyn: "Dear Kelly Miller stated that her brother wasn't happy when he was married and had two children. But now he's with his partner, he's never been so happy. Well, good for him, but what about his wife and children? Didn't they deserve better? I see it as selfishness on his part. It's all about him and his wants and nothing for his family. And many commentors say there's no harm in homosexual behavior!"

You struck to the heart of the issue. Homosexuality is about sexual gratification. It's not about love, or about the needs of others instead it's about sex and nothing more. Why wasn't her brother happy with his wife and children? Did he not love her because she didn't have male parts?

On the opposite it's saying men love women because they have female parts and are there for the sexual gratification of their husbands. Why would he be happier with his "partner" then with his wife? Did she not offer him companionship? Did she not bear him children? Did she not offer him her friendship and love? What is it that she didn't offer him? She couldn't give him "sexual gratification" because she's female. That's sick!

Sodom and Gomorrah revisited | 10:09 p.m. June 23, 2008

Hmmm. Wasn't it Lot a prophet of the lord who met the men of the city at his door and gave his two daughters over to be ravished in order to save his own skin and the skin of the two angels staying with him? Did not god then rescue this man for his good works? (KJV Genesis 19)

Which part of this do you consider moral? Which part of this has anything to do with being gay? Which part of this scenario would you comply with if it were your daughters and you were being threatened?

This is one of many such "moral" tales in the compilation of jewish tradition and law. Perhaps we've been learning the wrong lessons from such tales all along.

Against Gay Marriage | 10:10 p.m. June 23, 2008

The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. If you believe in the Bible, then you should support this amendment to outlaw gay marriage. It's pretty black and white. I don't see how members of the church and anyone who believes in God, can see it any other way.

CA Girl | 10:11 p.m. June 23, 2008

I'm supporting the Nov 8 Ammendment in CA.

First of all, that this ruling by activist judges does NOT affect religious marriages is a myth.

There are too many legal precedents in CA prosecuting churches, wedding photographers, and the like for not supporting the gay marriage community. No, this is not just about civil unions.

Celebration over diversity is important ---until you start including people whose thinking is founded in religious thought. If your thoughts are grounded in thousands of years of wisdom throughout all religions lasting more than a few months, then you are a thinker who needs to be marginalized!

I find the hubris and arrogance amazing. In a single generation, we have "arrived" at the age of enlightenment: we have more wisdom than Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and the Vedas combined. And therefore we can, with a single legislative move, rewrite what morality is for all humankind.

tax exempt status | 10:12 p.m. June 23, 2008

Churches and leaders may speak out on issues of public policy without jeopardizing their tax exempt status. They cannot support or oppose particular candidates for office. Why is this distinction so hard for so many of you to understand? It's really quite simple.

Let's be honest | 10:12 p.m. June 23, 2008

A church run by a hierarchical structure of white married men from Utah is not exactly a breeding ground for insightful ideas about how to counsel homosexuals. In the 60s the Church told gays they were perverts and to just go away. In the 70s and 80s the Church told them they were still perverts but that they could repent and get married and act straight and everything would be just fine. In the 90s they told them that maybe they shouldn't marry, but offered no viable solution as to how to live their lives other than celibacy. Single adult men are treated like pariahs in the LDS Church, now more than ever.

The Church says that gay marriage goes against the eternal plan of God. Then how come widower men can be sealed "for time and all eternity" to a second wife? Doesn't "exercising their procreative power" with someone other than their (first) celestial wife go against the laws of God? No, because the dirty little secret of Mormonism is that while they may have disavowed polygamy in 1890, they all believe it to be the proper order of things in the afterlife.

Marriage debased to sexual grati | 10:12 p.m. June 23, 2008

"Kathyn, the unfortunate part is that Kelly Miller's brother married in the first place..."

Why is that unfortunate? I dare you to tell his two children that it's unfortunate that their father married their mother and gave birth to them. I'm sure they would be glad to know that they are "unfortunate mistakes." Why did he marry her if he didn't love her? Your argument is that he shouldn't marry a woman who he loves because she is female and can't provide sexual gratification. I'm glad to know that the ONLY REASON HE SHOULD HAVE MARRIED HIS WIFE IS BECAUSE SHE COULD GIVE HIM SEX. Her giving him children, companionship, friendship, love, and providing for him meant nothing and the only reason he is with his current partner is because he unlike his former wife can give him "sexual gratification."

I'm glad I'm not married to you because I don't want to be a sex object. I could marry a woman who was unable to have sex because my love for someone isn't based on me having sexual intercourse with them or them being able to give me children.

Wrong | 10:15 p.m. June 23, 2008

Sorry, you are wrong. Homosexuality does not operate on the basis that all things revolve around sexual intercourse; it's not all about sexual gratification, though there is nothing wrong with sexual gratification. There are both gays and heteros who believe that their lives should revolve around sexual gratification only. You only demonstrate a profound degree of ignorance when you assume that all gays see sexual gratification as the only way to be happy.

Get over it. There is nothing wrong with sexual gratification! It's a part of life. Heteros and gays, no matter what their beliefs, want sexual gratification. There is nothing wrong with sexual pleasure. Grow up.

My gay brother tried marriage with woman and had two kids. Such arrangements is truly destructive, and religion contributes to this destruction. Back in the 70's and 80's, it was common practice for the LDS Church to suggest that gays get married to the opposite sex, that it would cure them. How did that work out? Hmmm..it looks like LDS Church leaders changed their minds. How human of them!

Wow! Did you actually suggest that homosexuality leads to women being abused. You truly an irrational creature.

Fact | 10:16 p.m. June 23, 2008

A once very active family in the Church one member even a Bishop. Bishops daughter reports that she is gay. Due to the Church's stand on the issue this one selfhish lesbian daughter has caused more than 25 individuals leaving the Church becoming a menace to society.

The Bible | 10:22 p.m. June 23, 2008

The Bible is the source of all that's evil with religion. Luckily, lots of religious folks choose the good parts and ignore the evil parts, the parts that make God look much worse than Saddam Hussein. The problem is that folks keep saying, "the Bible is the word of God", without knowing what they're talking about and relying on obedience to religious leaders to do their thinking for them.

Religion is clearly the source of evil in this world, not homosexuality. Take a clear eyed look at what religion has done in the name of God, and then take a look at the passages of the Bible that was used to justify the wicked behavior of the religious. It wasn't about mis-interpretation of the Bible. It's clear that the Bible has much as that is evil, and that God as the protagonist is an evil, egotistical, blood thirsty fool. All in the name of a work of fiction!

Does anyone here believe that selling one's daughter to slavery as condoned by God is a good thing? If so, why? If not, and you still accept that portion of the Bible, isn't accepting it a sign of mental illness?

The above Fact | 10:25 p.m. June 23, 2008

It's a Green fact.

"Exposed" | 10:24 p.m. June 23, 2008

In a couple of months a book will be published called "Exposed" that reveals social science evidence against any family unit other than the traditional family. The evidence is overwhelming, though it's sad that evidence is needed when the logic right in front of us is so simple.

A couple of questions for you pro-homosexuals:

1. The majority of sexual abuse is by adults of the same sex. The abused later show homosexual tendencies at many, many times the ratio of homosexuals in the population. If one is "born gay", then these predators just happened to prey on children who were born gay and didn't know it yet? What a coincidence.

2. If an adult has had a life-long sexual attraction to children, were they born that way? If so, then perhaps we shouldn't be discriminating against pedophiles? If not, what's the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles?

Of course the most logical argument against homosexuality is biological; it just isn't natural.

Look for "Exposed" when it comes out, and be prepared to be floored, no matter which side of the issue you fall on. In the end, as the traditional family goes, so goes society.

Reponse to Marriage debased to s | 10:26 p.m. June 23, 2008

Doesn't the mormon church encourage the lds kids to marry young so they can pop out kids? 10 to 12?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.