Reader comments
Foes of same-sex marriage mobilize
323 comments | Read story
aaron | 4:05 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
the article incorrectly states that this is the first time that voters will be
asked to weigh in on the issue. Voters in california passed Prop 22 by 61.4% at
the March 7, 2000 primary election. Prop 22 explicitly defines the union of a
man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in the State
of California.
RV SWEDEN | 4:29 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
This issue is about long term religious freedom. Anyone who thinks that gay
marriage has no effect on other marriages does not understand the long term
effect of the issue. This issue will open many more doors to the gay and
lesbian movement to the detrement of all religious faiths that believe in the
sanctity of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Living in Northern
Europe after many years in the US has shown me that long term marriage US style
is far better for society than the free love style of Europe. Faith based
people need to keep their marriage/religious rights or they will be re-writing
the freedom of religion clause in the constitution over to the gay/lesbian
movement.
Comments continue below
Dan | 5:24 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Here's the thing. Marriage was created as, and is, a promise to God to
allow for procreation without sin. Since homosexuality is a sin and procreation
is impossible in a homosexual relationship, what is the need for marriage? If
people of that type wish for similar benefits for health, taxes and what not,
let it be called civil unions. All they are doing by calling it marriage is
stirring the hornets nest when it is not needed.
Sevet | 5:31 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
There is nothing about hate or bigotry in this initiative. The main point is
that marriage was instituted and ordained of God to be between a man and a
woman. It is not man's perogative to change the natural order of
humanity.
Also, it doesn't take a lot of brain power to notice that if gay marriage becomes normal, children would become instinct in one generation. No more children, no more humanity.
Also, it doesn't take a lot of brain power to notice that if gay marriage becomes normal, children would become instinct in one generation. No more children, no more humanity.
Richard E. | 5:46 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Theodore Roosevelt declared "Aggressive fighting for the right is the
noblest sport the world affords." Every second we spend to declare that we
are on the same side of this issue as God is time well spent.
It is naive to think that same sex marriage proponents will stop at legalizing nuptials. Be assured they will not stop until all voices of opposition are silenced and theirs the only voices heard from the classroom, pulpit and everywhere else.
Their actions have proven time and time again that they start with something that sounds reasonble and move from there until there is no opposition. What they propose has been declared by God to be wrong. The only thing left to be decided is whether or not we are on the same side as God or his opposition. (Regardless of the outcome of an election.)
It is naive to think that same sex marriage proponents will stop at legalizing nuptials. Be assured they will not stop until all voices of opposition are silenced and theirs the only voices heard from the classroom, pulpit and everywhere else.
Their actions have proven time and time again that they start with something that sounds reasonble and move from there until there is no opposition. What they propose has been declared by God to be wrong. The only thing left to be decided is whether or not we are on the same side as God or his opposition. (Regardless of the outcome of an election.)
Anonymous | 6:06 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It's not paranoia; it's keeping marriage the way God intended to be
between one man and one woman. And it's keeping same sex couple from sueing
churches to get access to their facility to perform marriage ceremonies.
It's already happening in New Jersey. Whatever you do is your business
but,keep marriage, a sacred ceremony out of it.
Not hate | 6:12 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
No, Tom, it's not hate that's the motivator, that's an easy claim
for you to make.
Prop. 8 is the right thing to do, for society and for our children.
Has nothing to do with hate...
Prop. 8 is the right thing to do, for society and for our children.
Has nothing to do with hate...
Keep it up! | 6:13 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It's great to see people standing up for what is right in the face of
growing opposition.
I encourage all to give this a try and the world will be a better place.
Thankfully, many with a truly large capacity to think and analyze can see the true dangers and serious consequences that legalization of any form of super-sexual (be it gay or not) will have on society. Small minds are those that are unable to think beyond emotion.
I encourage all to give this a try and the world will be a better place.
Thankfully, many with a truly large capacity to think and analyze can see the true dangers and serious consequences that legalization of any form of super-sexual (be it gay or not) will have on society. Small minds are those that are unable to think beyond emotion.
re: keep it up | 7:08 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
gee, mr. keep it up, I wish my mind was as big as yours.
If it was, I might be able to come up with a non-bigoted statement like a sister in our ward who said in church we need to see gays for "what they really are".
She has a really big mind (and open) like yours. She also has the large capacity to think. She has been able to lump all gays in some basket that deserves prejudice and condescension. We all know that takes a real large capacity to think to do that.
If it was, I might be able to come up with a non-bigoted statement like a sister in our ward who said in church we need to see gays for "what they really are".
She has a really big mind (and open) like yours. She also has the large capacity to think. She has been able to lump all gays in some basket that deserves prejudice and condescension. We all know that takes a real large capacity to think to do that.
To Tom | 7:11 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
You are right. Let's go further on this: say I am a party and a gay
couple tell everyone they are married.
So? Do we pelt them with ice cubes? Grab the children and hide them in the closet? Uninvite them to the party? Call 911?
Ps-- we do nothing. If people want to call themselves "frogs" or "Martians" or "Smartest people in the world" they have the freedom to do that. Period.
As to gays sueing churches, that is a red flag, no evidence story. In fact, churches have consistently won every court case on any such issues. Total fabrication.
But it does appeal to the ignorant of the facts.
So? Do we pelt them with ice cubes? Grab the children and hide them in the closet? Uninvite them to the party? Call 911?
Ps-- we do nothing. If people want to call themselves "frogs" or "Martians" or "Smartest people in the world" they have the freedom to do that. Period.
As to gays sueing churches, that is a red flag, no evidence story. In fact, churches have consistently won every court case on any such issues. Total fabrication.
But it does appeal to the ignorant of the facts.
Anonymous | 7:25 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I guess I'm small minded. Please elaborate on the true dangers and
consequences that legalisation of any form of super sexual (your term) will
have. Maybe I'm just a bundle of emotion, but the dangers are escaping me.
Bumgarner | 7:26 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
*snicker*
Cats | 7:28 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I love the way gays always claim that anyone who disagrees with them is
motivated by "hate." That is such a cheap shot. Those are the sort
of things you say when you don't have any good arguments.
Hatred has nothing to do with it. This is a measure to protect the sanctity of marriage and the family.
I applaud all those citizens in California who are trying to do the right thing. They voted on this once and four people who were not elected have completely overturned the will of the people. This is wrong and needs to be fixed.
Hatred has nothing to do with it. This is a measure to protect the sanctity of marriage and the family.
I applaud all those citizens in California who are trying to do the right thing. They voted on this once and four people who were not elected have completely overturned the will of the people. This is wrong and needs to be fixed.
To Sevet | 7:30 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
You honestly think children would become "instinct" in one generation
if a few thousand gays got married? These same people are already not
procreating, yet humans continue to overpopulate the earth. Replace the word
"gay" in this arguement with "black" or "Jew" or
any other group descriptor and you would call it completed biggoted and hateful.
ello | 7:31 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I support the courts decision to allow Gay marriage, and all the people on this
comment board that say "God ordained marriage really need to study the
foundation of marriage.
It was started by the pagans as fertility ceremonies. Not by the Abrahamic god that most on this board claim.
Gay marriage does not threaten humanity or instinction like on reader commented, maybe in his/her mind everyone will turn gay if this passes, but that is just no the reality, and just because the commenter is too insecure with their sexuality does not mean that everybody on the planet is.
God has spoken on this issue when God said that we need to Love everyone and treat everyone equally.
It was started by the pagans as fertility ceremonies. Not by the Abrahamic god that most on this board claim.
Gay marriage does not threaten humanity or instinction like on reader commented, maybe in his/her mind everyone will turn gay if this passes, but that is just no the reality, and just because the commenter is too insecure with their sexuality does not mean that everybody on the planet is.
God has spoken on this issue when God said that we need to Love everyone and treat everyone equally.
nosugrof | 7:36 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It is unconvincing to say that you dont hate gays when you wish to deny the same
right that everyone else has.
Anonymous | 7:42 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I'm glad to see that most of the comments here are in the affirmative for
Prop. 8. Now if you truly believe in this cause take it one step further and
donate some money to the cause so that we can go further to ensure that we get
the right vote!
Jeremy | 7:39 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
***This article has incorrect info*** "It's the "first" time
voters will be asked to weigh in on the issue in either California or
Massachusetts � the states where gays have won the right to
wed" The reason why people are so angry about this is because California
voters already passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a
marriage in California is between a man and a woman. In 2008 all there votes
were thrown in the garbage by the San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and a few
other govt leaders and courts. It's amazing that we already voted for it
and it passed. Why the heck do we have to vote for it again? Because our votes
didn't count the first time!!!
Go California! | 7:40 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Go Californian Saints, Catholics and other Christians! Keep up the good work. If
I were there I would gladly join your efforts to make marriage between only one
man and one woman.
And Tom, remember in the begining God created Adam and Eve. Not Steve and Steve or Eve and Eve.
And Tom, remember in the begining God created Adam and Eve. Not Steve and Steve or Eve and Eve.
Svoboda | 7:53 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
California...always on the edge of weirdness.
Real marriage can only between a man and a woman no matter what stupid laws are passed.
Real marriage can only between a man and a woman no matter what stupid laws are passed.
I'm Tired | 7:52 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
No, make that sick and tired...
I'm sick and tired of homosexuals pushing their agenda down our throats. If they want to choose to act in homosexual ways, let them. That is their God-given right. However, it is NOT their God-given right to continually push so hard for the public acceptance of lifestyles that the MAJORITY of their countrymen have repeatedly said they DON'T want.
Latter-day Saints, Baptists, Jehova's Witnesses, Pentacostals, Seventh-day Adventists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and even agnostics or athiests who can see the destruction awaiting a society that formally sanctions homosexual actions need to unite and CLEARLY tell homosexuals that we will not tolerate their obvious agenda. "Love the sinner?" Sure, but NOT the sin.
Silence is acceptance, and the good and decent people of America have been generally quiet for far too long.
If you're reading this and you are against the legalization of gay marriage in California or in any part of America, take a minute and join with us and voice your disapproval of their actions by saying so now.
United we stand. Divided we fall.
God bless America and all those who love her AS SHE WAS INTENDED TO BE.
I'm sick and tired of homosexuals pushing their agenda down our throats. If they want to choose to act in homosexual ways, let them. That is their God-given right. However, it is NOT their God-given right to continually push so hard for the public acceptance of lifestyles that the MAJORITY of their countrymen have repeatedly said they DON'T want.
Latter-day Saints, Baptists, Jehova's Witnesses, Pentacostals, Seventh-day Adventists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and even agnostics or athiests who can see the destruction awaiting a society that formally sanctions homosexual actions need to unite and CLEARLY tell homosexuals that we will not tolerate their obvious agenda. "Love the sinner?" Sure, but NOT the sin.
Silence is acceptance, and the good and decent people of America have been generally quiet for far too long.
If you're reading this and you are against the legalization of gay marriage in California or in any part of America, take a minute and join with us and voice your disapproval of their actions by saying so now.
United we stand. Divided we fall.
God bless America and all those who love her AS SHE WAS INTENDED TO BE.
hms | 7:53 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Please don't let hate rule your life. Please don't allow a
fundamental right to be taken away from good people. Can't we just enjoy a
world filled with loving people? Haven't members of the LDS church been
treated badly in the pats for their beliefs? Why would we want to make people
who simply love each other and just wish to have the same legal rights as all
others the target of such bitterness and animosity? There is so little love in
this world to begin with. Let gays have marriage and it will strengthen society
with them accepting responsibility for their daily lives. Vote for equal rights
and not for discrimination.
Matilda | 7:54 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
When same-sex couples seek California's approval and all the benefits that
the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone.
According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that
millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state
would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the
civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.
Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, "it is force". An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as "marriage" would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. The California Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality
Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, "it is force". An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as "marriage" would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. The California Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality
Matilda | 7:55 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two
sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not
alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral
and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social
anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations,
any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called
"expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's
will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has
loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture�s acceptance of homosexuality.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture�s acceptance of homosexuality.
Warren | 7:57 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
poygamy si, gay marriage no
Observer | 8:00 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I find it interesting that so many people invoke the name of God when arguing
their political or moral points. No one, not the pope, not the leader of the LDS
church, nor the man on the street can speak for God or tell anyone what God
intended. The argument that marriage was instituted and ordained by God is
ridiculous. That argument is based on religious belief, faith, not fact.
It's based on a book written by men who claim that it's the word of
God. If you believe it, fine, but don't claim it to be a fact that everyone
does, or should, subscribe to.
Instereo | 8:12 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Nothing like getting one group of people worked up to deny another group of
people basic rights. It warms my soul to see such passion and clear thinking,
kind of like Germany in the 30's and 40's or the Middle East today.
Live and Let Live, an American founding principle, seems to be lost in a religious haze of rightousness; or is it fear.
Live and Let Live, an American founding principle, seems to be lost in a religious haze of rightousness; or is it fear.
Anonymous | 8:24 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It's Extinct not Instinct
Re: Go California | 8:21 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Do you really believe that God created Adam and Eve?
I am so sick of that saying "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve".
Are you serious? You do realize that not everyone believes in that dogma, so you cannot make LAWS based on religious dogma.
The whole reason that American exist like it does today is because of religious freedom, and the lack thereof in Europe.
Why are you trying to change the basis of this great country and go backwards? We need to embrace our constitution and give equal rights to everyone!!!
Please keep your hatred to yourself, you are entitled to the right to hate, but that does not mean that we have to change our laws so that you can hate and discriminate.
Please pick up a book or academic journal sometime, it would really do you so good.
I am so sick of that saying "God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve".
Are you serious? You do realize that not everyone believes in that dogma, so you cannot make LAWS based on religious dogma.
The whole reason that American exist like it does today is because of religious freedom, and the lack thereof in Europe.
Why are you trying to change the basis of this great country and go backwards? We need to embrace our constitution and give equal rights to everyone!!!
Please keep your hatred to yourself, you are entitled to the right to hate, but that does not mean that we have to change our laws so that you can hate and discriminate.
Please pick up a book or academic journal sometime, it would really do you so good.
Joe | 8:23 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that doctors must treat gays
equally, including providing fertility treatments, even if it conflicts with
their religious views "guaranteed" under the First Amendment. In this
case, doctors are not given the option to refer them to other doctors who may
have no objection to providing treatment; the doctor has no choice.
Thus it is clear that your freedom to practice your religion may indeed be impacted by the continued push to legalize and legitimize gay marriages.
The stage is set. What will happen to those churches who refuse to perform gay marriages, and thus engage in discrimination?
Certainly the People's Republic of Kalifornia will do all within its power to continue to promote its agenda, regardless of whether it goes contrary to your personal religious beliefs or not.
They already have significantly infringed upon their resident's 2nd Amendment rights. Now, they will move forward to nullify your First Amendment rights, too.
Well, what if you aren't religious? Should you be concerned?
Only if you value your right to speak you mind without fear of reprisal. You don't think this will stop with simply trampling religious beliefs, do you?
Thus it is clear that your freedom to practice your religion may indeed be impacted by the continued push to legalize and legitimize gay marriages.
The stage is set. What will happen to those churches who refuse to perform gay marriages, and thus engage in discrimination?
Certainly the People's Republic of Kalifornia will do all within its power to continue to promote its agenda, regardless of whether it goes contrary to your personal religious beliefs or not.
They already have significantly infringed upon their resident's 2nd Amendment rights. Now, they will move forward to nullify your First Amendment rights, too.
Well, what if you aren't religious? Should you be concerned?
Only if you value your right to speak you mind without fear of reprisal. You don't think this will stop with simply trampling religious beliefs, do you?
CougarKeith | 8:23 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Dan: They Want To Stir the hornet's nest, that is what it is all about,
"IN YOUR FACE!" It is called radicalism. To Tom: This is not a SMALL
ISSUE, nor for small minds. Civil Union is fine, "marriage" between
two people of the same sex IS NOT FINE and NEVER WILL BE! Wrong is wrong and
minority or majority or a law cannot change the fact of it. Think of it this
way, The Plumbing Doesn't Fit! To Observer: You don't even have to
"invoke the name of God" here, it is common sense and biological
sense. Show me one other species on the planet which have two sexes where two of
the same are joined together for a life long "Union" for the sake of
"Creating Family" this isn't Theological it is Biological, it
just so happens God "Fearing" and "Respecting" people are
"Christians" and "Muslims" and believe in a "God".
They have perhaps higher scruples, higher faith, and higher knowledge or belief
that what is desired here is "WRONG". I am not saying "Gays"
who desire marriage don't have faith, I am saying they are less worried
about the Moral Standard of God and Society.
Cats | 8:31 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Go Matilda. Your blog is fantastic.
Cats | 8:33 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Observer: All God's children are subject to the laws and commandments
of God--including atheists.
Mark | 8:34 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Observer,
It is impossible to adequately argue a moral point without implying some higher power (God) or absolute principle.
I've heard many supporters of same-sex unions claim that to deny homosexuals the benefits of marriage is "unfair" or "immoral." Unfair and immoral according to what or whom? If we are unfair to gays what is the penalty? Will society crumble if gays never have the right to marry? Are those who oppose gay marriage somehow evil or weak? Who really started the name calling on this issue?
The only way to justify gay marriage is to adhere to moral relativism and to chose that path is inherently illogical. There is no reason to respect the rights that gays now enjoy unless there are absolutes in this existence, which implies there is a God. And God has given no signal through religion or natural law that gays need to be married.
Gays have not benefitted from marriage in those countries which have adopted the practice in the last decase, they still exhibit very high rates of mental illness and suicide.
It is impossible to adequately argue a moral point without implying some higher power (God) or absolute principle.
I've heard many supporters of same-sex unions claim that to deny homosexuals the benefits of marriage is "unfair" or "immoral." Unfair and immoral according to what or whom? If we are unfair to gays what is the penalty? Will society crumble if gays never have the right to marry? Are those who oppose gay marriage somehow evil or weak? Who really started the name calling on this issue?
The only way to justify gay marriage is to adhere to moral relativism and to chose that path is inherently illogical. There is no reason to respect the rights that gays now enjoy unless there are absolutes in this existence, which implies there is a God. And God has given no signal through religion or natural law that gays need to be married.
Gays have not benefitted from marriage in those countries which have adopted the practice in the last decase, they still exhibit very high rates of mental illness and suicide.
Beth | 8:34 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
If you are going to be completely and utterly unbiased, all laws are based upon
subjective morality. Laws never have been and never will be objective, they are
based upon the moral codes of the voting majority. There is no irrefutable
natural law stating the right way to proceed in situations like this, you cant
test it using the scientific method like you can the laws of energy and gravity.
That said, ignoring the will of the majority in making a decision that will
greatly affect the organization of families, homes, and ultimately society is
unacceptable.
It's not bigoted to think that certain behavior is immoral, it's also not bigoted or homophobic to try to protect values and morals that you think are important.
Quit using the bigoted and homophobic labels. If Calfornia does vote to accept the amendment they are simply seizing their rights to protect the values of their society in the way that they deem most appropriate, it doesn't mean that they hate or are afraid of gays.
It's not bigoted to think that certain behavior is immoral, it's also not bigoted or homophobic to try to protect values and morals that you think are important.
Quit using the bigoted and homophobic labels. If Calfornia does vote to accept the amendment they are simply seizing their rights to protect the values of their society in the way that they deem most appropriate, it doesn't mean that they hate or are afraid of gays.
PV | 8:34 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The claim that opposition to so-called "gay marriage" is fundamentally
hateful or bigoted is not correct. Ancient civilizations that were more open to
homosexuality than our own still had marriage as the union of a man and a woman;
were the ancient Greeks "hateful" or "bigoted"?
This is not about the "right to marry", it is about the definition of marriage. Marriage has always been the social union of a man and a woman (check the dictionary; that is, literally, its definition); what is under way is an attempt to redefine it as a gender-neutral romantic union. Anyone who thinks that romantic unions will form a more stable basis for society than traditional marriage has not seen the divorce statistics from the last fifty years, and this will only make the situation worse.
This effort is an attempt to change the very concept of marriage; it will change not just who marries whom, but will change what marriage is, and will result in a weakening and cheapening of the most important and fundamental bond in society.
This is not about the "right to marry", it is about the definition of marriage. Marriage has always been the social union of a man and a woman (check the dictionary; that is, literally, its definition); what is under way is an attempt to redefine it as a gender-neutral romantic union. Anyone who thinks that romantic unions will form a more stable basis for society than traditional marriage has not seen the divorce statistics from the last fifty years, and this will only make the situation worse.
This effort is an attempt to change the very concept of marriage; it will change not just who marries whom, but will change what marriage is, and will result in a weakening and cheapening of the most important and fundamental bond in society.
Dear Observer (8am post) | 8:39 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
You are wrong. With the liberties guaranteed me by the constitution, I have
every right to vote my conscience at the polls - and that includes what me or my
faith interpret as God's will.
That's not ridiculous, that's democracy. To a believing person, faith is fact. You say that I am taking your rights away, but it is really you who are oppressing me!
That's not ridiculous, that's democracy. To a believing person, faith is fact. You say that I am taking your rights away, but it is really you who are oppressing me!
Hatuletoh | 8:51 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It's good that the people are motivated enough by faith and a desire to
improve society that they are acting upon their convictions. By their own
admissions, this is the first time some of these people have become politically
involved. Citizen involvement is a positive thing for the Republic.
And since this class of heretofore uninvolved Christians have now become engaged with their communities in defense of Christian values, I will look forward to their future acts of Christian charity, such as: efforts to feed the hungry; protect the indigent; educate the less affluent; etc.; etc.;. I think it will be great having a group of volunteers who go door to door getting people to mobilize on behalf of impoverished families and mentally ill homeless people.
Because that's what they are going to do, right? Their faith and desire to shape society in a righteous way doesn't end with foiling the Gay Agenda, does it? These people surely aren't so unbearably hypocritical that they will cease with their Christian volunteer work once they have achieved a single political goal.
Right?
And since this class of heretofore uninvolved Christians have now become engaged with their communities in defense of Christian values, I will look forward to their future acts of Christian charity, such as: efforts to feed the hungry; protect the indigent; educate the less affluent; etc.; etc.;. I think it will be great having a group of volunteers who go door to door getting people to mobilize on behalf of impoverished families and mentally ill homeless people.
Because that's what they are going to do, right? Their faith and desire to shape society in a righteous way doesn't end with foiling the Gay Agenda, does it? These people surely aren't so unbearably hypocritical that they will cease with their Christian volunteer work once they have achieved a single political goal.
Right?
WC | 8:56 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The gay marriage issue will be the undoing of the LDS church unless they change
their ways...some of us can't wait for either one.
Leo | 8:57 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
US law developed out of the concept of "common law" - the idea that
regular people know what is ok and not ok. What is right and what is wrong is
still understood by the average person in our society. It is absured that a
court can "decide" a right exists in a document that was written by
individuals who would have NEVER considered gay marriage a right. Homosexual
behaviour creates problems for the individual and for society, that is why it
has been shunned, outlawed, and considered imoral in most societies since the
begining of time. To say the person is "born that way" does not
justify supporting or encouraging the behavior. The same argument can be made
for pedophiles and hetrosexuals. They both claim they were "born that
way" as well, but as a society we see the problems of allowing pedophiles
to act out their behaviours and have said "NO". Same with
heterosexual behaviour. Just because you have the urge, does not mean that
adultry, out of wedlock pregnancy, spreading STDs, etc. is considered OK.
Homosexuality is not good or healthy for society, just look at history, and
should not be promoted. Vote for traditional marriage.
Mitch | 8:59 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Why do people think its okay to crate and enforce laws based on their own
religious ideals? Isn't that what's being done in the fundamentalist
Arab countries? We look at Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan and we cringe at their
extremist views, and how they allow their religious acumen to govern not only
their churches but their country. Isn't that what's being done here?
A certain portion of the populace (conservative Christians) are trying to pass
laws based upon their own unique religious ideals. Governing in this fashion is
wrong...always has been, always will be. You can be against gay marriage
without governing against it. You can scream your religious beliefs from the
rooftops, but to allow a religious dogma to rule our country is completely
against the vision of the Founding Fathers. Whether you're against gay
marriage or not, voting to outlaw it in California or anywhere else puts us one
step away from a religion-run government like the Arab ones that make us cringe.
I'm Tired TOO !!! | 9:05 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
You are right on it.. We have been far to patient and tolerant with this GAY
agenda, it is going on everywhere we look, in schools, churches, cartoons,
etc,etc, and everyone tends to stay quite because any comment is usually
distorted in saying that we that oppose gay marriage are hateful and closed
minded. You can call me what you want, but i am pro ife, pro-marriage(the way
God has created) and i am pro this great country and consitution, our
forefahters whom have written this consitution are also probably rolling in
their graves to see all they that have done, fought and died for be distorted
towards a one sided gay agenda. Talk about hate.... the hatefull are all the
gays, that hate everyone that do not agree or simpathize with them. THIS MUST
STOP NOW !! and we must stop it IN CALIFORNIA, before it starts corroding other
states.
No more | 9:06 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
If any church want to be involved in POLITICS which this issue is, they should
no longer be tax exempt. Marriage is a CIVIL institution, only the ceremony has
anything to do with religion. All the churches involved in this political issue
need to be taxed. Then maybe they would keep their religion where it belongs.
In church.
And all of you who whine about the gay community "Forcing" their lifestyle on you, aren't you doing the same thing?? Oh, but wait...I forgot....that's different.
Isn't it funny how people against gaty marriage "hate", but theose FOR gay marriage are "sinners". Hypocrites.
And all of you who whine about the gay community "Forcing" their lifestyle on you, aren't you doing the same thing?? Oh, but wait...I forgot....that's different.
Isn't it funny how people against gaty marriage "hate", but theose FOR gay marriage are "sinners". Hypocrites.
The Rock | 9:06 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Marriage has had a specific meaning for all of recorded time. If the courts can
change the meaning of words then all law is transitory and we can rely on
nothing.
Every contract and legal protection will become subject to the whims of judges.
Even if the judges made the right decision (and they did not) such over reaching decisions must not be tolerated. Total instability shall surely be the result.
Every contract and legal protection will become subject to the whims of judges.
Even if the judges made the right decision (and they did not) such over reaching decisions must not be tolerated. Total instability shall surely be the result.
Anonymous | 9:09 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
i do not hate homosexuals, or my homosexual friends. What I am opposed to is the
acceptance of same sex marriage as an acceptable lifestyle when I, and millions
of others, believe it is a sin and morally wrong. I can be tolerant without hate
but failure to speak out against something so wrong would merely be a silent
acceptance. I refuse to accept and witness this abomination when my
responsibility and right to stand up for what is right. This is not based on
hate for a group of people, it's simply what i believe to be right. I
respectfully request that those of you who say were are intolerant consider that
we have the right to our feelings and opinions just as you do.
RE: Doctors & Religion | 9:10 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
TO: Joe
There's a difference between requiring doctors (who have chosen a service profession and taken an oath to "do no harm") not to discriminate in who they treat and forcing religions (which are guaranteed freedoms in the Constitution) into practices contrary to their beliefs.
The Catholic Church will not marry someone who has been previously married and divorced. They are guaranteed the right to decline to marry someone who has been divorced, as doing so would be against the tenets of their faith. How does this differ in any way from the LDS Church (or any other) from declining to marry a same-sex couple?
Opponents of same-sex marriage cite examples from European countries to prove that a loss of religious freedom follows the legalization of same-sex marriage, but fail to indicate whether or not those countries had the same protections of religious freedom that our Constitution provides.
I wholeheartedly support the right of two people to marry regardless of orientation, and I will just as actively fight against any efforts to force a religion to perform a marriage ceremony against its will.
There's a difference between requiring doctors (who have chosen a service profession and taken an oath to "do no harm") not to discriminate in who they treat and forcing religions (which are guaranteed freedoms in the Constitution) into practices contrary to their beliefs.
The Catholic Church will not marry someone who has been previously married and divorced. They are guaranteed the right to decline to marry someone who has been divorced, as doing so would be against the tenets of their faith. How does this differ in any way from the LDS Church (or any other) from declining to marry a same-sex couple?
Opponents of same-sex marriage cite examples from European countries to prove that a loss of religious freedom follows the legalization of same-sex marriage, but fail to indicate whether or not those countries had the same protections of religious freedom that our Constitution provides.
I wholeheartedly support the right of two people to marry regardless of orientation, and I will just as actively fight against any efforts to force a religion to perform a marriage ceremony against its will.
Just a note | 9:17 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The CA Supreme Court decision grants gays and lesbians no additional civil
protections; CA has had civil unions for a long time.
This battle is just about the ability to call those unions marriage. Why do gays and lesbians want that so badly? Social acceptance. I find anyone that thinks this battle will end here naieve.
Standing for traditional marriage is critical to protect our society, our families, and our future.
This battle is just about the ability to call those unions marriage. Why do gays and lesbians want that so badly? Social acceptance. I find anyone that thinks this battle will end here naieve.
Standing for traditional marriage is critical to protect our society, our families, and our future.
hombre.de.steele | 9:19 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
THERE IS NO HATE or DISCRIMINATION HERE!!! Proposition 8 has the exact same
wording that proposition 22 had; "Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California."
Equal Rights? Every man or women is able to enter into marriage. For those that wish to afflilate with the same sex, Civil Unions, are available and provide the same economic/legal benefits that marriage provides.
Are we that naive to think that the destruction of the family is not the top priority of evil? Or are we so naive to think that there is no evil?
The 'fabric' which the judges found the 'right' for gays to married was a court case involving interacial marrige. If same sex marriage is left to stand, THERE WILL be a push to punish those that do not embrace this enlight view of humanity as being 'racists'.
Therefore, I will do all I can to protect my family, my childern's family, and my right to worship as I desire by voting YES on Proposition 8.
Equal Rights? Every man or women is able to enter into marriage. For those that wish to afflilate with the same sex, Civil Unions, are available and provide the same economic/legal benefits that marriage provides.
Are we that naive to think that the destruction of the family is not the top priority of evil? Or are we so naive to think that there is no evil?
The 'fabric' which the judges found the 'right' for gays to married was a court case involving interacial marrige. If same sex marriage is left to stand, THERE WILL be a push to punish those that do not embrace this enlight view of humanity as being 'racists'.
Therefore, I will do all I can to protect my family, my childern's family, and my right to worship as I desire by voting YES on Proposition 8.
Bryan Monson | 9:21 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I am proud of those standing up against homosexual marriage.
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that
same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary
schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations.
These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that
same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary
schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations.
These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
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.
- Today on TV 12:49 a.m.
- Wanted: Bank robber with bad breath 12:40 a.m.
- Philippine police clash with clan 12:28 a.m.
- Officer responding to call killed 12:28 a.m.
- Editorial: Fine-tune state workweek 12:18 a.m.
- Let's keep energy money in the U.S. 12:18 a.m.
- How to pay for the war 12:17 a.m.
- Feast of Guadalupe nourishes soul 12:17 a.m.
- Obama's strategy is a road map 12:17 a.m.
- Letters: 'Political priestcraft' 12:17 a.m.
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- BYU professor remembered
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Branch president without a congregation
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons
- Jazz upset by Wolves
- Urn of baby rests with sailors
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
257 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing214
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest113
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl110
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony97
- Harpring's NBA career is over95
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
Sorry earlier I meant to say that tracks seems to travel at 35 miles an hour...
'Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of...
The Non-BCS crowd ought to create their own title game...their own brand, and...
That's the whole of your defense of GOP resistance to badly-needed ethics...
Your criticism should hardly be focused on Bennett alone. What about all the...
'Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a...
The reality of climate change is supported by multiple lines of evidence and...
I had the priviledge of staying in the LeBaron home on severl occasions as I...
So the unemployment rate has dropped to "just" 10%, huh? I wonder what that...
Ahh for the love of money...what money can buy!!!
Advertisements
Most churches have their own marriage ceremonies, and thus this initiative would not even affect them. Small minds, I suppose, are driven by wedge issues.