Deseret News | LDS Church backs marriage measure on California ballot

Reader comments
LDS Church backs marriage measure on California ballot

699 comments | Read story

Anonymous | 1:15 p.m. June 25, 2008

I guess the First Presidency has blown the doors off "nice", huh?

Anonymous | 1:23 p.m. June 25, 2008

I know that some of you feel that Mormons have been bashed in this thread. I am sorry that you feel that way. It is only what you are doing that we want to contend with. We love you individually. It is your actions that we hate. You know, love the sinner, hate the sin.

Mormons need to chill out | 1:25 p.m. June 25, 2008

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away. - Henry David Thoreau

Comments continue below

Re: Str8 saint in the Golden Sta | 1:32 p.m. June 25, 2008

You have my full support. I walked out when they read over the pulpit the letter to support an amendment to the U.S. constitution. I cried for days, but my life is so much better and so much happier since that day. I would rather burn in hell knowing that I stood up for those without a voice than to live eternities knowing that I compromised my beliefs out of fear of punishment.

Prophecy coming to pass... | 1:38 p.m. June 25, 2008

Why did the Church issue this statement? Just like the prophets of old, the Prophet of today is issuing a warning.
Romans 1: 27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Also:
2 Ne. 1: 9, 20
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land;...
...but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

Also, yes, the Church is ALL about families, but, the Lord does come first, and therefore the Church, After all, "Salvation is a personal thing." See:
Matt. 10: 37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

One more though, the Church does greater humanitarian aid than any organization of its size in the world.

Steve - Re: Matt 6/24 6:09 pm | 1:39 p.m. June 25, 2008

Why should the LDS Church or any other church for that matter lose tax exempt status just because they voice their opinion on political matters publicly or privately among it's members? Though some may disagree with their stances I think it's within a church's rights to speak in the political arena just as much as it is for any regular individual.

To Sarah @ 1:15 | 1:39 p.m. June 25, 2008

Appreciate your comments, but feel the need to disagree. So many members of the Church in my generation WERE "led astray". We were taught things about blacks that later proved to be untrue.

Many people, who were ahead of the Church leadership in their understanding, actually left. And some chose never to return.

I can't help but wonder if the Church will end up re-canting what it is teaching now about gays. Just feels like a case of deja vu. Get back to me in about twenty years, and we'll see what has happened.

to "Just one question...WHY?" | 1:48 p.m. June 25, 2008

Have you considered that in this nation of laws and rights that the LDS church has a right, just as another other organization, group, or individual, to voice their views on a particular topic? They have made their position clear on this issue. Within these shared rights, they have expressed a viewpoint and have "ASKED" their members to consider this and support it. LDS members are of course entitled to their own opinions and they have free will to choose what they will do.

To answer your question of "WHY?" would they do that? I guess if you are not a LDS, or perhaps if you are, you may not realize or have forgotten that a LDS believes and has committed to certain religious principles. The LDS church does not twist anyone's arm to join or to remain a member. They can only express their beliefs, ask you consider them, and leave it to you to decide what course to take. This is free agency which has consequences. Standing your ground for a principle does NOT mean you stop loving someone that chooses to do the opposite, and the LDS church has said just that. from altec90210

My 2 cents... | 1:51 p.m. June 25, 2008

"The toothpaste is out of the tube." Gay people ARE living together, openly. Gay people DO have children. Gay people ARE adopting. Gay people HAVE gotten married in many, many places. Too late to undo what has already been done.

Steve - Re: Glad to See It | 1:51 p.m. June 25, 2008

I'm on the Lord's side and I support freedom of choice in all things (as does God and Christ).

Something to remember here: Marriage does not automatically equal "sex". There are plenty of straight couples who go for years without sex in their marriage. Just because people are married doesn't mean sex is happening.

So if a gay or Bi couple get married to the same gender as themselves, don't assume sex is going on. The two men (or two women) could very well be active Christians who understand that God doesn't recognize the union, so any sex between them would be a sin (fornication) and as such purposely choose to abstain from sex... just be married as a symbol AND mainly to use the legal benefits that come with it (so that for example hospitals can't ban them from decisions about their partner).

Being LDS and supporting the freedom for a gay couple to choose to be married or not is NOT condoning sin, it is supporting free agency and God is all about us having free agency.

Steve - Re: Follower of Christ | 2:01 p.m. June 25, 2008

God/the Bible doesn't ever use the word "homosexuality"... nor does it refer to the attraction (something within the mind only) specifically that I'm aware of. All the Bible states is something along these lines: "For man to lay with another man is an abomination".

If you'll note it speaks of the ACT of sex, and NOT the attraction. The Bible is stating that only the sex act itself is the sin, not the attraction (being gay or Bi). This is also the official stance of the LDS Church.

So according to LDS doctrine and teaching you can be gay or Bi (have the attractions) and you're fine... but if you act on them then that is where sin enters in, the act itself is the sin (not the attraction).

God and Christ are not against being gay or bi, so if you're being hateful towards someone who is gay or Bi but isn't sexually active, then it's YOU who isn't being a true Christian and not following Christ's example of showing love to everyone.

Steve - P.S. to my 6/25 2:01pm | 2:16 p.m. June 25, 2008

After submitting my last reply (refered to in my subject line) I realized I made a slight error. In the last paragraph I didn't mean to imply it's OK to be hateful towards a gay or Bi person who is sexually active. It's NOT OK to be hateful towards anyone period, that is Christian doctrine... that is what I should've said.

Christ requires that we love and show love towards everyone (that means no matter what sin they've done or what their sexual prefference might be).

I meant to say if you are shunning someone simply because of who they love or what sins they've commited, then you're not being a good/true Christian.

Frank | 2:25 p.m. June 25, 2008

When to people get married many dont consider it a full or legal "marriage" till they consummate, otherwise its a farce and can be annuled, so yes; A marriage implies sex at least once.

Help! | 2:29 p.m. June 25, 2008

Is there no one here that feels the cognitive dissonance that I feel? I love my church and want to obey the leaders, but I love my country and feel that this is most UNAMERICAN. We do not have the right to limit the privileges of any minority group, even if we think they are sinners! They have only broken the law of God, not the law of the land. We have no right. HELP ME!

To Frank | 2:35 p.m. June 25, 2008

Frank, Frank, Frank!

Sex is not what a marriage is about. It is about committing yourself to one person. Gays do not want to marry to be able to have sex. They want to legitimize their relationship and gain the legal rights and privileges that other committed couples have through marriage.

PS Many marriages have been annulled even after it has been consumated.

to Frank | 2:48 p.m. June 25, 2008

A marriage can be annulled for the following legal reasons:

Didn't know spouse was a close relative
Mental Capacity lacking
Below legal age
Threat or force used
Fraud
Bigamy

It has nothing to do with comsumation. Sorry.

Marriage is not just about sex either. It is the legal recognition of two people who love and commit to each other. There are many marriages that have to forgo sex for medical, physical or emotional reasons, but they are still considered a marriage. That is true love and commitment.

Frank | 2:58 p.m. June 25, 2008

I never said that marriage was only for or about sex. My point is that marriage DOES imply that sex happens or happened. And YES I agree you can get an anulment for a whole Variety of Reasons ONE OF WHICH is never consumating the marriage.

I can understand an exeption for medical reasons.

re: Help! | 3:04 p.m. June 25, 2008

I'm a bit torn myself, but from what I've understood we arent talking about the privilages of a minority group, we are looking at California redifining the definition of marriage.

From what I understand gay couples who fufill the right conditions have the same legal rights as a married couples, but they aren't called "married" its called something else. What the law changed was not the benifits they already could recieve but that they can now be called and considered a "married" couple.

But I might be wrong, thats just what I've understood from the discussions so far! So if anyone wants to add or clarify.

To Frank | 3:10 p.m. June 25, 2008

Even if a marriage has been consumated, it can be annulled for the reasons listed above. But if children have been born to the couple, courts are generally going to push for divorce.

Consumation | 3:14 p.m. June 25, 2008

I would like to cite for the pleasure of the forum a famous case of annulment due to lack of consummation. The case of famous artist/writer John Ruskin who was married to Effie Gray in 1848, their unhappy marriage led to an anulment (not a divorce) 1854 due to the fact that he never sucessfully had relations with Effie (major impotence).

Teresa | 3:32 p.m. June 25, 2008

Although I'm not in California anymore, I fully support the first presidency of the church. They will never lead the church astray. Whose on the Lord's side who? Now is the time to tell. We ask it fearlessly who's on the Lord's side who??

to Teresa | 3:50 p.m. June 25, 2008

You may be on the Lord's side, but the government can't. That is against the first amendment. Please understand that the government is what is at stake, not the church.

Tejano | 3:56 p.m. June 25, 2008

To Help!

Of course we have "the right" to limit the privileges of any group, minority or otherwise.

It is a privilege to be able to drive on our public roads, yet we don't issue driver licenses to 12-year olds or blind people. So, yes, we do limit the privileges of minority groups and it is quite reasonable to do so. (In this case the reason is public safety.)

Pedophiles may claim we are restricting their privilege to seek sexual gratification with whomever they choose. Society's answer is, "Yes, we are going to restrict your privilege in that regard. Even if the child is "willing", we are going to say emphatically NO!, we are not going to allow it in our society."

We should expect that our government and laws should UPHOLD our values, and while we do value freedom we also place restrictions on that freedom to provide the framework within which we raise our families and go about our daily business.

Don't get caught up in the buzzspeak of this "enlightened" era that wants you to believe freedom means never telling anyone NO.

To Tejano from Help! | 4:14 p.m. June 25, 2008

I can't believe that you just equated gays with 12-year olds, blind people, and pedofiles. Please. My brother is gay and I know that he is hurting no one. He is a contributing member of our society and my family.

Reasons for this? Rational reasons. I understand why blind people cannot drive and 12 year olds too. Pedofiles are using sex to dominate and control, not for sexual gratification. That is a crime with victims. This is not a crime nor are there victims. Now, give me some real reasons. I am feeling torn apart by this. How can we do this? They have only broken the law of God, not the law of the land. We have no right. HELP!

Steve - A Solution / Solutions | 4:18 p.m. June 25, 2008

I have a solution to this whole problem...

Why not rather than restructure the institution of marriage, we instead fix the laws in regards to couples commited to each other even if they're not married? For example, if no immediate family is forthcoming then let the gay man's partner speak for him at the hospital? Also, don't restrict visitation at hospitals to family only.

Perhaps all a gay couple (or any straight couple living together) need obtain is a form signed by say 3 people who are willing to testify that the two people in question are indeed in a long-term commited relationship and this causes all rights given to married couples to be given to them.

OR, let the rules of common law marriage apply to everyone (not just straight couples)? And let those who are "married" under this common law rule reap the legal rewards of those who've actually had a marriage ceremony.

OR Give all this marriage rights also to those who are united by Civil Union.

Who cares | 4:41 p.m. June 25, 2008

12 million lds members, 6 billion people on earth. You are not even a fly on an elephant's backside.

Classicalmusic | 4:54 p.m. June 25, 2008

... In passing, allow me to observe that after I read each and every posted comment, here's what was evident: every (non-emotional) comment that was directed in opposition to the "LDS Church position statement," (that is, comments stating that the marriage ballot issue was NOT a moral one), tacetly employed a moral argument to back their position! I ask candidly, how could this basis be defended logically (e.g., using a moral argument to defend a supposedly non-moral issue?). The greater question here seems more like a mental health issue, to a casual observer like me.

En Hedu' Anna | 5:02 p.m. June 25, 2008

Mmmmm, did anyone else just get a hankering for freshly baked brownies and vanilla ice cream?

I have the ingredients so I'm going to crank up the A/C and make a batch. Later it's brownies a' la mode for everyone who'd like some.

...when was the last time you said "a' la mode?" :o)

Dianne | 5:07 p.m. June 25, 2008

I want my children and grandchildren, to grow up in a country that has a constitutional ammendment stating the fact, that marriage is only between a man and woman.God didn't create George and Thomas,and tell them to go have children. He created Adam and Eve,and that is the way it should stay.

Arthur | 5:39 p.m. June 25, 2008

RE: Steve
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the first solution you gave is actually in practice. Hospital, insurance, taxes and all, its just not recognized with an official legal ceremony till now. If I'm wrong I think that would be a nice solution but I dont think it would last for long.

It no seems to be about equal rights so much as including homosexuality as part of the definition of real civil marriage. To be the same 100%

The only two effects | 6:08 p.m. June 25, 2008

When same sex marriage is finally legalized, and constitutionally protected, as it most certainly will be, traditional heterosexual marriages will constitute no less than 90% of all marriages, and probably closer to 95-97% of all marriages. Hardly a threat to traditional marriage, which will continue to thrive.

There will be no increase in the incidence of homosexuality.

What will happen?

1. It will become harder for traditionalists to indoctrinate their children into believing that homosexuality is some heinous sin when those same children see homosexuals and homosexual couples, with or without their children, living in loving, committed, nurturant relationships and families (including children) of empathic, responsible and law abiding people. Many of whom will enjoy committed relationships to their churches and religions. And which same-sex marriages will succeed or fail in approximately the same proportion as traditional ones. Nevertheless, Mormons, like all Christians, can continue to preach & practice whatever they chose.

2. Polygamy will then also eventually be legalized, the totally political Manifesto can be rescinded, and Mormons can finally go back to practicing and enjoying their plural marriages consistent with the New & Everlasting Covenant of D&C 132. HAPPY DAY!

To Agki | 6:18 p.m. June 25, 2008

If behind closed doors someone teaches it's ok to commit adultery, it's ok to lie, it's ok to be completely lazy and live off of the governement, etc. It does affect me. What I'm saying is whether criminal or not, immoral behavior can impact society as a whole. Thought processes are changed by movements such as this and some of those movements are extremely dangerous. If everyone turned gay, the human race would end. If everyone committed adultery, trust, integrity, & love would suffer. Immoral behavior is wrong regardless of who is involved and where it occurs. My opinion of what is morally wrong is just as valid as your opinion of what if morally ok. My current opinion is that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Changing the definition | 6:24 p.m. June 25, 2008

What if Harvard decided to start giving out Bachelor degrees to people who just attended one semester? Now those people could put the same degree, that took me four years to earn, on their resume too. How would that change everyone's perception of a Harvard degree? It would lessen the meaning and make it worth less. Gay marriage does likewise to those of us who realize how important real marriage is.

Resume plural marriage ? ! ? ! ? | 6:26 p.m. June 25, 2008

Perhaps that is the main reason why the LDS are so afraid of legalized same-sex marriage? They fear the resumption of polygamy? Is polygamy still a matter of scripture for the Mormons? D&C 132? Was the Manifesto really nothing but a matter of political necessity, forced as an adaption to the times? Does the Manifesto say "Thus sayeth the Lord", and is it a matter of scripture for the Mormons, just like D&C 132? Is the Manifesto part of The New and Everlasting Covenant?

If a covenant of an unchanging God (the same today, yesterday and tomorrow) is really "Everlasting", then can it really be dismissed by a Manifesto of political and temporal necessity when something like D&C 132 is still the revealed mind and word of God?

So, then, is this really the biggest reason the Mormons oppose same-sex marriages? I mean, will that legal recognition force the Mormons to engage in same-sex marriages against their will? Or merely allow same sex couples to marry while Mormons practice and preach what they want?

Fabric Breakdown | 6:38 p.m. June 25, 2008

You can do what you want and I can do what I want. I'll just take my thread in the intertwined fabric of society and yank it out, and you can take yours and pull it from here to there. That wont effect the whole fabric will it? It doesnt matter what Bob does either, whatever he does to his threads wont effect society if theres no direct victim. Lets just hope nobody puts any stress on the fabric.

I think however what each person is and does irreversably effects us all, whether the intention was that or not. No one is alone.

Maureen | 6:53 p.m. June 25, 2008

No matter how one feels about the issue itself, it cannot be ignored that the will of four individuals on the California Supreme Court overturned the will of millions of California voters. Proposition 22 passed in 2000 with 61.4% of the vote, a clear mandate from the people.

nes | 7:01 p.m. June 25, 2008

We are born on Earth to be tested and to overcome many temptations. One can be tempted to drink or to take drugs; another to gamble; someone else to show his or her temper; even to kill. Sexual temptations are the most powerful. The easiest way is to yield because "you are born different". Yet, in fact, you are not more "different" than any other sinner. It is easy like that. Children in gay "families" is another issue. Broken lives. I know what i am talking about. Any church supposed to be a moral institution, and it's responsibility is to warn the society. Don't see any problem with this.

John Lambert | 8:05 p.m. June 25, 2008

This debate is not as some people want to make it about what actions should face criminal penalties. This debate is about what actions will recieve the proactive endorsement of the law.
To endorse same-gender relationships and put them on the same legal footing as real marriage is very different than the question of whether a state should have sodomy laws.
This is not an issue of freedom of choice, it is an issue of what the government will make a positive goal of public policy.
On another issue, the President of the church does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" for him to be pronouncing the word of the Lord. If the first presidency issues an official statement they are pronouncing the word of the Lord.

GrimmieMD | 8:05 p.m. June 25, 2008

The same thing happened with sodom and gomorrah ... hasn't society learned anything? And to think that just because we live in these times that we are more "forward thinking" .. perhaphs we should first seek to learn from the past.

John Lambert | 8:14 p.m. June 25, 2008

Where in the statement did the First Presidency say anything against homosexuality. They just spoke in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a women.

to Maureen | 8:19 p.m. June 25, 2008

You don't seem to have any concept of what "unconstitutional" means.

If the CA electorate passed a referendum that gross polluters could be built next to elementary schools or Mormons could taxed at a higher rate than their neighbors it would be unconstitutional or not permitted because these things violate people's right to be secure and not discriminated against. Prop 22 was unconstitutional because it violated one groups' right to equal protection under the CA constitution.

It's simple. It's consistent. It's logical. And it's correct. There was no "activism" involved and, in fact, the Justices who reached that conclusion were overwhelmingly conservative jurists appointed by Republican administrations. Their willingness to protect the rights of ALL Californians is what assures every other Californian that our constitution is alive and well. ...even when hysterics go passing hateful or discriminatory referenda.

John Lambert | 9:02 p.m. June 25, 2008

To Eowyn,
I could not have said it better. I agree with you 100%.
For the person wh brought up pogroms, crusades and inquisitions. Evidently you do not know about the LDS teaching on the apostasy. We believe that by 150, and probably before that, the primative church had rebelled against God. President Grant in either the 1920s or 1930s clearly denounced anti-semitic feelings by church members.
Many of the aspersions cast on the Catholic Church, especially related to events in the last hundred years are more based on the hate of ex-seminarians and communists than any real event. In general pogroms have happened more despite than because of the Catholic Church, with the Popes long being defenders of the Jews of Rome. I hope we can find ways to work with the Los Angeles diocese and other groups to put through this constitutional admentdment.

John Lambert | 9:08 p.m. June 25, 2008

To Steve at 6:00,
Personally I think Freud was a confused individual, whose thought was based on a study of disturbed Austrian males in the early 20th century and should not be interpreted to have revealed eternal truths.
However, if the theory that virtually everyone is born "bi-sexual" is true than a main argument for creating same-sex marriage is exploded. If sexual orientation is not fixed but is environmentally and socially determined, than it can change and thus is not a fixed category that deserves legal rights.
What is most clear from your comment though is that there is not a universal agreement on the causes of variation in sexual orientation among scientists.

Anonymous | 9:12 p.m. June 25, 2008

If you make it your business to deny basic human rights to gays and lesbians...be aware that there will be a backlash. You have NO right to dictate what we can do in our lives. This is Mormon gay bashing at its height. Leave us alone and we will leave you alone. Amazing that you have not complained that gays and lesbians, too, pay taxes...shouldn't you start that crusade? Saying that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage is like saying that the taxes gays pay will destroy the IRS!!! Grow up people and get a life...your own...and leave mine alone!!!

to John Lambert 9:02 | 9:21 p.m. June 25, 2008

You're wrong about the Catholic Church's relationship with Jews. It wasn't until 2000 that Pope John Paul II apologized to Jews for the variety of sins committed against them such as a long tradition of anti-Semitism and the Inquisition during which Jews were persecuted, horribly tortured and had all their property confiscated by Rome and Catholic Spain.

At that time, to the disappointment and disillusionment of Jews everywhere, they did not include remaining silent and giving tacit acceptance as one of the major ecclesiastical powers in Germany to the Holocaust of WWII.

John Paul's apology was an effort to resolve a major rift that had existed for some 400 years to that point.

Anonymous | 9:22 p.m. June 25, 2008

I think that it is amazing that in the supposedly free nation of the United States where there is suypposed to be Freedom of speech and press, Mormons can voiced their hatred of gays and lesbians and even claim to have the right to dictate what rights other Americans can have or not have. This Mormon run press allows for continued homophobia but silences those who would speak against Mormonism. Mormons continuously moan and groan about how they have been mistreated in history. So what gives them the right now to mistreat another part of society. "with liberty and justice for all" NOT...at least not in Utah

re:Maureen | 9:32 p.m. June 25, 2008

You cite the 61% prop 22 vote against same sex marriage in CA as the reason it shouldn't be legal. I guess that means when that % reverses itself, you will agree that it should be legal.

That percentage will soon reverse itself, if it indeed has not already.

John Lambert | 9:53 p.m. June 25, 2008

Sarah at 11:53,
I think the person who made the comment you responded to thinks "The Mormons" by Helen "I am making a respectful production (although it spends half the time talking about MMM and Polygamy)" Whitney is a truthful and accurate portrayal of fact.
It is not, but is riddle with inacuracies, lies, misrepresentations and distortions. One of these is the claim on what Elder Packer said in a meeting aout 15 years ago. The person who makes the claim was not even at the meeting. Elder Packer did say that intelectualism, homosexuality and feminism as ideologies were a threat to the church. However he also addressed how to reach out and help people who were being lead astray by these false Gods.
The images men worship are not just of stone and wood.
Stop reading Michael Quinn and his unending lies and start reading the scriptures and the words of the Living Prophets, and you will not be confused.

Re:Anonymous | 10:00 p.m. June 25, 2008

"This move is absolutely stupid.

1) They will never effect the amendment in CA. CA voters have become very tolerant on this issue in 8 years and 51% are in favor of the Supreme Court ruling as opposed to 42% disapproving of it.

2) Mormons are only 1.79% of the CA population. Their votes will be statistically insignificant,"

Why is it stupid. When other Christian churches see the position the LDS Church is taking they will be encouraged to do the same. Not only them but Jews and Muslims or any religion that believes in the sanctity of marriage between an man and a woman. Maybe one small religion cannot do it alone, but when they all unite, they become a formidable force.

John Lambert | 10:01 p.m. June 25, 2008

The prophets did not lead people astray on African Americans. The First Presidency issued a statement in favor of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.
That there were members of the church who taught wrong doctrines does not mean that the president of the church was teaching false doctrines.
Personally I think that most of the real hard core supporters of same-sex marriage in the church are not a rising generation, but a dieing one. They are people who grew up around people who would say "to be a homosexual is almost as bad as to be black". They realized that hating blacks was bad, so now they think this means that we have to accept homosexuality as real behavior.
Those of us who have grown up in the days since the prophet of the Lord has boldly declared that every man is worthy to recieve the priesthood of God without regard to race or color have seen that what matters is not race but righteousness. Homosexuality always has been and always will be an unrighteous behavior.

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.