Reader comments
Foes of same-sex marriage mobilize
323 comments | Read story
Joe | 2:44 p.m. Aug. 28, 2008
That we have regulated rights is undeniable, but it goes back to our founding
fathers. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Declaration of Independence further states that governments derive
"their just powers from the consent of the governed."
In other words, we have certain rights (given by God, not the government), and we have agreed to give to government some control or regulation over those rights for the common good i.e. cannot yell fire, no human sacrifice, etc.
The pursuit of happiness is pretty nebulous, but it encompasses most everything we might do to be happy and make our lives worthwhile. Again, we regulate what is and isn't allowed based upon what is best for the common good.
Children should go to a loving home; I believe in most cases that should consist of a mother and a father, but there may be exceptions. If gay marriage becomes law, no preferences can be given. I agree with preferential treatment, because I think it is generally better for the children.
In other words, we have certain rights (given by God, not the government), and we have agreed to give to government some control or regulation over those rights for the common good i.e. cannot yell fire, no human sacrifice, etc.
The pursuit of happiness is pretty nebulous, but it encompasses most everything we might do to be happy and make our lives worthwhile. Again, we regulate what is and isn't allowed based upon what is best for the common good.
Children should go to a loving home; I believe in most cases that should consist of a mother and a father, but there may be exceptions. If gay marriage becomes law, no preferences can be given. I agree with preferential treatment, because I think it is generally better for the children.
Dreamer | 9:23 a.m. Aug. 29, 2008
The LDS religion, or any religion for that matter, should not be able to
legislate its own agenda into the laws of the land. We do not live in a
theocracy. If churches step into the realm of politics then their tax free
status should be revoked. You may think that homosexuality is wrong, but I and
lots of others do not. I should have the right to marry the one I love just
like everyon else. In fact I did marry the woman I love. We drove to California
and tied the knot and our marriage is just like any other.
Comments continue below
Good for you dreamer! | 10:16 a.m. Aug. 29, 2008
It's you and others like you that will change our world to be accepting of
all people. This is what needs to happen (people not caring what other
organizations think of them).
Thanks but no thanks | 3:21 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Thanks for the support Utah...yea right.
We'll just handle this ourselves like in 2000. Go deal with your ABC issues and traffic congestion. We'll do the fighting for morality for you.
We'll just handle this ourselves like in 2000. Go deal with your ABC issues and traffic congestion. We'll do the fighting for morality for you.
LDS Perspectives | 3:39 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Born into the Church, I am an active, temple-recommend-holding Latter-day Saint
for over 26 years. I have never had reason to question my local or general
Church authorities until now. Based on everything I have been taught and have
come to know my entire life, I cannot express strongly enough how wrong I
believe it to be for the Church to try to influence Proposition 8 and
legislation against same-sex marriage. In the Church we are never asked to obey
blindly, but to �prove all things� and
�see spiritual confirmation for
yourself� and that is what I have always done. In the same
way I have received spiritual insight, confirmation, and assurance about my
mission, my Temple marriage, my children, my profession, and everything
spiritual I have ever experienced�in that same way and by
that same Spirit, I am overwhelmingly convinced that the Church should not
support Proposition 8 or anything like it. Historically, only the most inhumane
results have come from religious influence and control over civil law. This
country was founded on a principles that declared our independence from and
revolution against a religiously endorsed king and religious tyranny in the
civil law. Vote NO on Prop8.
Re: LDS Perspectives | 5:25 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Sounds nice, but you're forgetting one key:
The Prophet AND 14 other "prophets, seers and revelators" have unitedly said the Lord wants us to push for the passage of Proposition 8.
Now, does that mean that we shouldn't ask the Lord to confirm that to us? Of course not.
But, if you find yourself believing that FIFTEEN of the Lord's most spiritually aware, hand-selected servants, all "got it wrong", you are beginning to walk on the road to apostasy.
Harsh? Yes. Who would say that? Christ.
"And wo be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus, and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent receiveth not him; and therefore he will not receive them at the last day;
And it would be better for them if they had not been born...." - 3rd Nephi 28: 34-35
The Lord doesn't pull any punches but at least He calls it the way it is.
The Church IS "protecting families", NOT "hurting homosexuals".
ALL our country's laws are founded on "religious influence"; law pertains to "right" and "wrong".
The Prophet AND 14 other "prophets, seers and revelators" have unitedly said the Lord wants us to push for the passage of Proposition 8.
Now, does that mean that we shouldn't ask the Lord to confirm that to us? Of course not.
But, if you find yourself believing that FIFTEEN of the Lord's most spiritually aware, hand-selected servants, all "got it wrong", you are beginning to walk on the road to apostasy.
Harsh? Yes. Who would say that? Christ.
"And wo be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus, and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent receiveth not him; and therefore he will not receive them at the last day;
And it would be better for them if they had not been born...." - 3rd Nephi 28: 34-35
The Lord doesn't pull any punches but at least He calls it the way it is.
The Church IS "protecting families", NOT "hurting homosexuals".
ALL our country's laws are founded on "religious influence"; law pertains to "right" and "wrong".
Anonymous | 8:29 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
The proposed California amendment does absolutely nothing to protect any family.
Same sex couples are the only people affected by the proposed California
Amendment. The only thing it does is eliminate the right of same sex couples to
have equal protection under the law.
Val Seegmiller | 10:22 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Quotes from homosexual-rights activists:
Clinton Fein, in an article titled �The Gay Agenda�:
Concerning marriage: �Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.�
�Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.�
From the 1972 Gay Rights Platform:
�Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.�
From �After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90�s� (considered the handbook for the �gay� agenda) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen:
�...conversion of the average American�s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media...First let the camel get his nose inside the tent � and only later his unsightly derriere!�
�Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of �Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,��
�...undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches...by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters��
�[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.�
Suddenly everything that's happened in recent decades begins to make sense, doesn't it?
Clinton Fein, in an article titled �The Gay Agenda�:
Concerning marriage: �Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.�
�Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.�
From the 1972 Gay Rights Platform:
�Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.�
From �After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90�s� (considered the handbook for the �gay� agenda) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen:
�...conversion of the average American�s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media...First let the camel get his nose inside the tent � and only later his unsightly derriere!�
�Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of �Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,��
�...undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches...by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters��
�[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.�
Suddenly everything that's happened in recent decades begins to make sense, doesn't it?
To Val | 11:50 p.m. Aug. 29, 2008
Man, that's disgusting!
Homosexuals...not a doubt in my mind there will come a day when you'll all regret your choices. Love the sinner, HATE the sin.
Whine all you want, but the LDS church will never, ever relent in their standards of rejecting homoexual behavior.
To those who truly do love the Savior, stand strong!
Homosexuals...not a doubt in my mind there will come a day when you'll all regret your choices. Love the sinner, HATE the sin.
Whine all you want, but the LDS church will never, ever relent in their standards of rejecting homoexual behavior.
To those who truly do love the Savior, stand strong!
LDS Perspectives | 9:34 a.m. Aug. 30, 2008
To Re: LDS Perspectives | 5:25 p.m.
I am forgetting nothing.
YOU seem to be forgetting the following:
The Prophet AND other "prophets, seers and revelators" also refused the priesthood to blacks for over 100 years. The Lord has confirmed to me they were wrong.
The Prophet AND other "prophets, seers and revelators" also instituted and practiced polygamy for over 60 years. The Lord has confirmed to me they were wrong.
The Prophet AND other "prophets, seers and revelators" also put the Lectures on Faith into the canon of LDS scripture in 1835, then other �prophets, seers and revelators� took it out in 1921 because it said God is a Spirit. The Lord has confirmed to me one or the other of them were wrong.
Historically, the road to apostasy is paved by institutional corruption, not personal belief.
There is nothing about same-sex marriage that will hurt families. There is nothing about Proposition 8 that will "protect families". ALL it does it hurt homosexuals, but more importantly, it destroys the principles of individual liberty and equal protection under the law upon which this nation was founded.
Morality is NOT the sole purview of "religious influence.�
I am forgetting nothing.
YOU seem to be forgetting the following:
The Prophet AND other "prophets, seers and revelators" also refused the priesthood to blacks for over 100 years. The Lord has confirmed to me they were wrong.
The Prophet AND other "prophets, seers and revelators" also instituted and practiced polygamy for over 60 years. The Lord has confirmed to me they were wrong.
The Prophet AND other "prophets, seers and revelators" also put the Lectures on Faith into the canon of LDS scripture in 1835, then other �prophets, seers and revelators� took it out in 1921 because it said God is a Spirit. The Lord has confirmed to me one or the other of them were wrong.
Historically, the road to apostasy is paved by institutional corruption, not personal belief.
There is nothing about same-sex marriage that will hurt families. There is nothing about Proposition 8 that will "protect families". ALL it does it hurt homosexuals, but more importantly, it destroys the principles of individual liberty and equal protection under the law upon which this nation was founded.
Morality is NOT the sole purview of "religious influence.�
Anonymous | 10:30 a.m. Aug. 30, 2008
I truly love the Savior, so I will stand strong in defending people's
rights to marry whom they choose!
Vote NO on Prop 8.
Vote NO on Prop 8.
Joshua ben Yosef | 11:21 a.m. Aug. 30, 2008
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's (civil marriage for anyone)
and unto God that which is God's (religious marriages)"
Simple.
Simple.
re: to Val | 12:17 p.m. Aug. 30, 2008
Interesting that the emphasis is on HATE the sin, not "love" the
sinner
Why would you think | 7:01 p.m. Aug. 30, 2008
That the minority of gay people would cause there to be a lack of children born
in the world? We are six billion and counting and there have always been
homosexual people on the planet (as well as infertile couples). Gay people are
standing up for their rights now, but people act like they just started to exist
and want to undermine families. This is not true! Coupling and mariage is not
just about having children....it is also about commitment and love. If you are
against gay people then don't participate in their lifestyle. But leave
them alone as citizens of the United States of America.
Val Seegmiller | 11:49 p.m. Aug. 30, 2008
To the dishonestly named "LDS Perspectives":
Interesting that for your entire life you had no reason to question the prophets, and it apparently brought you happiness; suddenly all that is wrong, and you'll throw it all away because you think homosexuals have the right to force society to sanction their relationship?
To the bravely named �Anonymous�:
Marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. The owner of a private Massachusetts bed and breakfast was sued, or threatened, by your individual-rights-loving, tolerant friends because they wanted to force him to lend his property for their perverse ceremony. Parents have been arrested for protesting the homosexuals' brainwashing of their elementary-aged kids public schools. And you �victims� want to preach to us about rights? The hardcore radicals want marriage as a wedge to further force their agenda into schools, churches, etc. (See my post of 10:22 p.m. Aug. 29).
If a same-sex couple can demand from society monetary benefits for, and the sanctioning of, their relationship, simply because others have those benefits, then it renders the societal concept of marriage to be defined as, �a benefit any person or group can demand because other people possess it.�
Interesting that for your entire life you had no reason to question the prophets, and it apparently brought you happiness; suddenly all that is wrong, and you'll throw it all away because you think homosexuals have the right to force society to sanction their relationship?
To the bravely named �Anonymous�:
Marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. The owner of a private Massachusetts bed and breakfast was sued, or threatened, by your individual-rights-loving, tolerant friends because they wanted to force him to lend his property for their perverse ceremony. Parents have been arrested for protesting the homosexuals' brainwashing of their elementary-aged kids public schools. And you �victims� want to preach to us about rights? The hardcore radicals want marriage as a wedge to further force their agenda into schools, churches, etc. (See my post of 10:22 p.m. Aug. 29).
If a same-sex couple can demand from society monetary benefits for, and the sanctioning of, their relationship, simply because others have those benefits, then it renders the societal concept of marriage to be defined as, �a benefit any person or group can demand because other people possess it.�
Val Seegmiller | 12:17 a.m. Aug. 31, 2008
Legal marriage is not about getting benefits because you want them, or think you
deserve them because others have them. It's about the absolutely
indisputable fact that a man-woman relationship benefits society. You can
believe homosexual relationships benefit society all you want, and you can live
how you want thereto, but you have NO RIGHT to force your beliefs upon two
thirds of the population, and force us to give you our money, or to force our
kids to be indoctrinated, or to force private citizens to take part in your
ceremonies (besides the bed and breakfast owner, a private photographer has been
legally harassed in an attempt to force her to photograph a same-sex ceremony.)
Gee, you don't hear about that from the media, do you? Maybe because it
would warn us all of what's in store if we allow the innocent-sounding
�gay marriage, equal rights,
fairness,� or whatever disingenuous euphemism you want to
mask it with. Mark my words: The more
�gay� marriage is approved, the more
the radical homosexual-rights activists will unleash a torrent of lawsuits,
boycotts, and other acts of tyranny to to beat us all into submission.
LDS Perspectives | 6:49 a.m. Aug. 31, 2008
Val Seegmiller
�dishonestly named �LDS Perspectives"? What is that supposed to mean?
�you'll throw it all away�? I am throwing nothing away. You presume too much.
�because you think homosexuals have the right to force society to sanction their relationship?� Whether you like it or not, gays and lesbians are part of society. They are also citizens of this nation. I believe drinking alcohol is a sin, too, but I don�t force �drinkers� to live by my beliefs. This country guarantees them the liberty to live by their own beliefs.
You spout off the same, hateful rhetoric that makes the Church and religion an embarrassment. It is the same religious extremism and political activism that is behind terrorism. In your case, it is also compounded by ignorance. �Civil Unions� already exist in most states. They provide gays and lesbians all the �benefits� others receive with �marriage�. In this way, society already sanctions their relationships. But they are sanctioned as separate and different and, therefore, lesser than �marriage�. That is not equal protection under the law. For this reason, Proposition 8 is a direct violation of the founding principles of this nation: �All men are created equal.�
�dishonestly named �LDS Perspectives"? What is that supposed to mean?
�you'll throw it all away�? I am throwing nothing away. You presume too much.
�because you think homosexuals have the right to force society to sanction their relationship?� Whether you like it or not, gays and lesbians are part of society. They are also citizens of this nation. I believe drinking alcohol is a sin, too, but I don�t force �drinkers� to live by my beliefs. This country guarantees them the liberty to live by their own beliefs.
You spout off the same, hateful rhetoric that makes the Church and religion an embarrassment. It is the same religious extremism and political activism that is behind terrorism. In your case, it is also compounded by ignorance. �Civil Unions� already exist in most states. They provide gays and lesbians all the �benefits� others receive with �marriage�. In this way, society already sanctions their relationships. But they are sanctioned as separate and different and, therefore, lesser than �marriage�. That is not equal protection under the law. For this reason, Proposition 8 is a direct violation of the founding principles of this nation: �All men are created equal.�
LDS Perspectives | 7:10 a.m. Aug. 31, 2008
I don't have to agree with someone's lifestyle to protect their
equality and civil rights. And I don't have to abandon my own beliefs in
God and the Church, either. Proposition 8 is wrong. I know it is wrong in the
same way that I know the Church is true and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is right.
Anonymous | 12:34 a.m. Sept. 1, 2008
Dear Reader,
Concerning Anti-LDS Perspectives, she attacks the prophets on four doctrinal or policy issues, like typical anti-Mormons, then follows it up with �I know the Church is true.�
She calls me ignorant, then says that federal law guarantees the right to drink alcohol. The states have control over drinking laws. She says most states have civil unions; the latest info I could find (from April) said that only �more than 10� states have civil unions.
It's easy to respond to facts and logic by screaming the usual Liberal line about �hate� and by attempting to link me to Osama bin-Laden. This is exactly what radical homosexuals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen said to do:
�Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of �Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,��
�[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.�
(See previous post for referrence.)
She talks about �equal protection under the law,� but probably has no clue where that's from. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to prevent blacks from being mistreated. If it had been about homosexuality, same-sex marriage would've been legal about 100 years ago.
Concerning Anti-LDS Perspectives, she attacks the prophets on four doctrinal or policy issues, like typical anti-Mormons, then follows it up with �I know the Church is true.�
She calls me ignorant, then says that federal law guarantees the right to drink alcohol. The states have control over drinking laws. She says most states have civil unions; the latest info I could find (from April) said that only �more than 10� states have civil unions.
It's easy to respond to facts and logic by screaming the usual Liberal line about �hate� and by attempting to link me to Osama bin-Laden. This is exactly what radical homosexuals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen said to do:
�Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of �Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,��
�[O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.�
(See previous post for referrence.)
She talks about �equal protection under the law,� but probably has no clue where that's from. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to prevent blacks from being mistreated. If it had been about homosexuality, same-sex marriage would've been legal about 100 years ago.
Val Seegmiller | 12:56 a.m. Sept. 1, 2008
PS That last post was mine. I apologize if I was contentious at times, but you
are frustrating to talk to. Though I wish you well, I'll not return to this
page.
Farewell
Farewell
woodsy140 | 4:12 p.m. Sept. 7, 2008
Since 2006 Merriam-Webster's definition of marriage is as follows: "a
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or
wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the
state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of
a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c
: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
louis | 5:27 a.m. Sept. 27, 2008
Americias greatest promise is freedom and liberty for all. My sister, who has
been recently been "allowed" to get married, has served in the
military and would have fought and died for this great promise. Now there are
those who would deny her children, for whom she made great sacrifices to bring
into this world, the asset of married parents. Country clubs can and have
discriminated, allowing admittance only to the elite, America
shouldn't...too many brave people have died to preserve it's great
promise.
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.
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime 1:11 a.m.
- UVU beats SUU; USU wins big 12:57 a.m.
- BYU spikers end season with a loss 12:55 a.m.
- Iverson may be headed to 76ers 12:34 a.m.
- Credit Coug defense for win 12:33 a.m.
- Aggies blow away T-birds 12:32 a.m.
- Mo steals show in Cavaliers' victory 12:31 a.m.
- Editorial: Facilitate Big Brother? 12:22 a.m.
- Mom befriends wife of PTSD vet 12:21 a.m.
- Political clash over U.S. debt 12:21 a.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset
- Cougars turn back Wildcats'
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Running game key to BYU offense
- Woods, wife unavailable for interview
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
396 - Hall mouths off about hate of Utah150
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Cave to be sealed with body inside115
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies115
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
- Hall's legacy measured today75
- Y. focused on 10-win season73
- Letters: C02 causes warming70
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
watch out for next year for sure, the negatives are just closet (and...
And something else, I generally follow players from the state schools when...
I could care less that Max Hall said what he did. The feeling is mutual BYU...
Dear Max, probably could have done without that comment. Probably would've...
As a Utah fan, let me first say congratulations to Max Hall, the Cougars, and...
Geno's and Pat's are good.. but, they are mostly for tourists, the real...
(You even got a middle initial... how's that for 'ya Max) It's nice to see...
Even today, I still cannot get enough of this movie or Charles Gitonga Maina....
...disappointed with Max Hall's comments that he hates everything about UofU....
Over the last few days I read comments of people complaining about tasteless...
Advertisements
Sorry Joe, rights are regulated too. Free speech: cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Arms: Cannot own a bazooka. Worship: Cannot harm another (human sacrifice.) Drive a car: Must be able to see and pass tests.
Children should go to a loving home. Period. Sometimes that might mean that a gay couple is better suited than a heterosexual couple. That is a fact. Each couple should be considered on their capacity to care and love the child, not if they have the right gender.