Reader comments
Readers' forum: Shame on LDS Church
489 comments | Read story
random guy | 2:41 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
i agree people should have the right to love who they want because its there
choice not the governments choice its not the religous leaders choice its theres
and if the government wants to make a law to ban gay marriages i saw we should
protest.
Oh boy where do I start .... | 2:43 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The LDS Church HAS EVERY RIGHT to actively campaign for passage of this marriage
protection bill in California - EVERY RIGHT! Homosexual marriage is POISON to
the traditional family unit and especially where children are involved. Take a
look at the suicide rate of gay's and you will quickly see how this
abhorrent life style can and will infect all those who are innocently attached
to it. Church's are a major part of our society and have not only the right
but the moral duty to FIGHT for morality - especially in a culture which is so
much in the gutter. No one is forcing anyone in California - ONLY INFORMING THEM
so they can make an intelligent vote. It is interesting how the liberal left
reserves for themselves the right to organize and promote their twisted far left
views but the moment Christian folks attempt to the do the same the liberals all
cry fowl. What a total DOUBLE STANDARD!! The bottom line here - the LDS Church
along with other Christian churches will continue to organize to outlaw this ill
conceived law until the job is complete and families are safe.
Hooray for the LDS Church! | 2:58 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Isn't it GREAT to belong to a Church that is not afraid to step into the
political fray when needed to stand for something. I applaud the Church for
being so active and organized to protect marriage on a national level! The very
foundation of our culture is based on the "healthy" and
"normal" family unit with a mother and a father. This is not a matter
of opinion but is supported by ALL behavior studies in Psychology. Those who
choose to be gay can do so - it is certainly lawful- but please don't try
to force your way into marriage.
Comments continue below
re Joe Moe | 3:09 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Last time I checked, Utah is a state, part of the United States of America, open
to everyone and not a religious theocracy. Am I wrong?
Shame on Barack/Biden | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
In the VP debate both contestants were asked whether the nature of marriage
should be changed.
Biden first made it clear both he and Obama believed all the rights given to heterosexual couples should be given to same sex couples.
When he was pressed to explain his view on changing the nature of marriage he clearly answered that both he and Obama felt the nature of marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
This question is far from being a mormon dilemma or even a religious one. To be critical of mormons, Utah or this paper is close minded.
The LDS church is often criticized by other religious groups for being too tolerant with same sex issues. It is not even the LDS church leading this charge. The Catholic Church in California came to the church for support, in a multi church effort.
The LDS church works to build the strength and integrity of Marriage and family, whether it fights same sex marriage, divorce, adultery, pornography, child abuse or whatever. The LDS faith believes family is the #1 issue.
And if Biden was correct, the church and his campaign are on the same side on this issue.
Biden first made it clear both he and Obama believed all the rights given to heterosexual couples should be given to same sex couples.
When he was pressed to explain his view on changing the nature of marriage he clearly answered that both he and Obama felt the nature of marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
This question is far from being a mormon dilemma or even a religious one. To be critical of mormons, Utah or this paper is close minded.
The LDS church is often criticized by other religious groups for being too tolerant with same sex issues. It is not even the LDS church leading this charge. The Catholic Church in California came to the church for support, in a multi church effort.
The LDS church works to build the strength and integrity of Marriage and family, whether it fights same sex marriage, divorce, adultery, pornography, child abuse or whatever. The LDS faith believes family is the #1 issue.
And if Biden was correct, the church and his campaign are on the same side on this issue.
Frank | 3:13 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
re: YBU
I wish are legal system was a little more like Britains. I cant say for certain whether lawsuits will happen in the US but I think its likely. I can tell you why they dont happen in the UK though. There if you lose a lawsuit you pay not only for your lawyer and court fines but the expenses of the other person you filed against. Makes you think twice, unlike here. The USA is the most lawsuit friendly place in the world.
I wish are legal system was a little more like Britains. I cant say for certain whether lawsuits will happen in the US but I think its likely. I can tell you why they dont happen in the UK though. There if you lose a lawsuit you pay not only for your lawyer and court fines but the expenses of the other person you filed against. Makes you think twice, unlike here. The USA is the most lawsuit friendly place in the world.
Degradation of Society | 3:21 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Homosexuality and its acceptance is simply another step in the degradation of
society. This proposition is an attempt to stop that degradation.
As the degradation progresses, eventually predators will want the age of consent lifted, sicko�s will want laws against incest and bestiality purge from the books, murders will want murder to become legal, so on and so forth.
Sounds absurd doesn�t it? Well so did gay marriage about 50 years ago.
As the degradation progresses, eventually predators will want the age of consent lifted, sicko�s will want laws against incest and bestiality purge from the books, murders will want murder to become legal, so on and so forth.
Sounds absurd doesn�t it? Well so did gay marriage about 50 years ago.
Jon | 3:21 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I think it�s disingenuous to claim to be a member of The
Church in your post while also claiming to be against The Church. If you truly
are a member and against The Church, then you are either:
A--a non-believing member mentioning his membership for purposes making your post more authoritative; or
B--uninformed as to what your Church teaches and therefore, the fact that you�re a member has absolutely no bearing on what you believe, and should therefore be left unmentioned in your post.
You can�t believe in The Church and also believe the prophet is wrong, it�s contradictory.
A--a non-believing member mentioning his membership for purposes making your post more authoritative; or
B--uninformed as to what your Church teaches and therefore, the fact that you�re a member has absolutely no bearing on what you believe, and should therefore be left unmentioned in your post.
You can�t believe in The Church and also believe the prophet is wrong, it�s contradictory.
Why Gay Marriage is Bad | 3:22 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
(Q) How does it hurt anyone if I have a gay marriage?
(A) A marriage between a man and a woman is at the core of a strong family.
Strong families are at the core of a strong society. When we have a deterioration
of families, we see a deterioration of our society. It is a true fact that
all marriages between men and women are not strong. However, it is also a fact that
even weak marriages between a man and a woman produce children with far less problems
then either single parent homes, or at the bottom of the list, families with gay
parents. What kind of problems? Higher suicide rates; Higher high school drop out rate;
Higher degrees of learning dificulties. Need I go one? That's how it hurts.
It hurts the familes, kids, and that in turn hurts our society.
(A) A marriage between a man and a woman is at the core of a strong family.
Strong families are at the core of a strong society. When we have a deterioration
of families, we see a deterioration of our society. It is a true fact that
all marriages between men and women are not strong. However, it is also a fact that
even weak marriages between a man and a woman produce children with far less problems
then either single parent homes, or at the bottom of the list, families with gay
parents. What kind of problems? Higher suicide rates; Higher high school drop out rate;
Higher degrees of learning dificulties. Need I go one? That's how it hurts.
It hurts the familes, kids, and that in turn hurts our society.
Humm | 3:22 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Maybe one should look past their very short stay here on earth and think about
what will happen to you after this life. I don't think the gay thing will
continue to work.
Danny C. | 3:23 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but don't civil unions afford
pretty much the same legal rights that a marriage does? If that's the
case, then why aren't gays content with a civil union? Why call it
marriage? Marriage is for traditional families and always has been. If I want
to call an apple an orange, doesn't make that apple an orange.
If the word "marriage" is extended to apply to gay unions as well, another word will always pop into my mind synonymously: "farce".
If the word "marriage" is extended to apply to gay unions as well, another word will always pop into my mind synonymously: "farce".
Why do they want marriage? | 3:23 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Why does the homosexual movement seek so hard to push for same sex marriage?
We allow them currently to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes and
private lives. Because they seek so hard for the acceptance of society and others. They
want someone to tell them that what they are doing is ok, normal, totally acceptable.
Well guess what, its not. They say its because they don't have rights such as visiting
a sick companion in the hospital, etc. Well how about we pass a law to give them such rights
as those. Nope, not ok by them. They want us to tell them we approve of their lifestyles.
Sorry. We don't!
We allow them currently to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes and
private lives. Because they seek so hard for the acceptance of society and others. They
want someone to tell them that what they are doing is ok, normal, totally acceptable.
Well guess what, its not. They say its because they don't have rights such as visiting
a sick companion in the hospital, etc. Well how about we pass a law to give them such rights
as those. Nope, not ok by them. They want us to tell them we approve of their lifestyles.
Sorry. We don't!
Sodomy=fornication not marriage | 3:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Anonymous 2:17
Let's define gay marriage. Gay used to mean happy. Marriage means a matrimonial union between a man and a woman. In that respect, yes there are some places where happy or gay marriages exist. So that is a fact.
But I think you were actually referring to how the term Gay as a noun can be changed to refer to persons who have an attraction to the same gender, or when put into practice, the verb, refers actually to having sex with a person or persons of the same gender. Now if that is your definition(s) of Gay then there can be no such thing as gay marriage, because the word marriage involves the union of a man and a woman.
Now, I know all the places you mentioned have inaccurately called unions between same gendered individuals gay marriage, but they are mistaken in their use of the word marriage, because again by historical definition it involves the union of one man and one woman.
Your use of gay marriage being defined as a matrimonial union of persons of the same gender when they have sex with each other would more appropriately be called sodomized fornication.
Let's define gay marriage. Gay used to mean happy. Marriage means a matrimonial union between a man and a woman. In that respect, yes there are some places where happy or gay marriages exist. So that is a fact.
But I think you were actually referring to how the term Gay as a noun can be changed to refer to persons who have an attraction to the same gender, or when put into practice, the verb, refers actually to having sex with a person or persons of the same gender. Now if that is your definition(s) of Gay then there can be no such thing as gay marriage, because the word marriage involves the union of a man and a woman.
Now, I know all the places you mentioned have inaccurately called unions between same gendered individuals gay marriage, but they are mistaken in their use of the word marriage, because again by historical definition it involves the union of one man and one woman.
Your use of gay marriage being defined as a matrimonial union of persons of the same gender when they have sex with each other would more appropriately be called sodomized fornication.
:) | 3:30 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
LDS church isn't anti gay they're pro family
ExMo | 3:32 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The church is still upset that the federal government called BS some 100+ years
ago and wouldn't let them change the definition of marriage to one man and
a woman and a woman. So this is a great opportunity to claim moral high ground.
Anne | 3:33 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
to at BYU in the 80's...
Children raised in a single parent home are at a huge disadvantage. Unfortunately, in the 1980's society was just beginning to see the damage that had occurred because of the free love 70's and the soaring divorce rate. I was raised by a single mother and although she did her best, nothing she did could make her a man and therefore a father. We suffered for the lack of a loving/consistent male influence.
Children raised in a single parent home are at a huge disadvantage. Unfortunately, in the 1980's society was just beginning to see the damage that had occurred because of the free love 70's and the soaring divorce rate. I was raised by a single mother and although she did her best, nothing she did could make her a man and therefore a father. We suffered for the lack of a loving/consistent male influence.
bob | 3:36 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Absolutely not. Greece - the superior model of government and who we based ours
on saw its decline over these same matters. Lowering the standard on any sexual
behavior, tolerated itself into ruin because of it. We are strong as a country
because there things that we absolutly view as wrong and strive to uphold -
religous freedom, blatant pornography, ponzi schemes - (okay I'm all over
the map). I lived in Venezuela for a time and there were things they definetly
did not try to uphold. It seemed like the only thing the police ever acted on
was if someone got killed. If your house was burglarized, if you were mugged, if
you ran a fraudulent operation, it seemed you were not touched - not to mention
the way that many men ogled women as if it were expected - can't say
allowing pornography helped with that problem. I feel for those dealing with
those feelings just can't agree.
John Pack Lambert | 3:38 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
No one is being forced to live anything. Proposition 8 will send no one to
jail, will cause no government to try and prosecute people and on and on and
on.
However if it passes the ability of churches to fire ministers who enter into same-sex marriage may be curtailed, especially if they have hiered a minister not of the faith.
Colleges might be forced to allow same gender couples to reside in their married student housing. Religious schools might be blocked from removing students for dating members of the same sex. There is a pending suit against a Lutheran school in California involving such a case. However in that case, it may be that the people in question actions would have been in violation of the schools rules even if the people were of different genders.
However if it passes the ability of churches to fire ministers who enter into same-sex marriage may be curtailed, especially if they have hiered a minister not of the faith.
Colleges might be forced to allow same gender couples to reside in their married student housing. Religious schools might be blocked from removing students for dating members of the same sex. There is a pending suit against a Lutheran school in California involving such a case. However in that case, it may be that the people in question actions would have been in violation of the schools rules even if the people were of different genders.
re 2:43pm | 3:55 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Why do you think so many gay people have committed suicide? If you want to talk
POISON, it is a fact that some religions and their adherents have been POISON to
some gay people. They have persecuted gay people for centuries.
Pack This John Lambert | 4:08 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Just as an individual's sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis on
which to deny housing or a job, it is not a legitimate basis on which to deny
individuals the right to marry. The LDS Church should butt out of the state of
California's ruling that gays should have the right to marry civilly.
Mormons and all other religions can still exclude them from their religious
wedding rites if they wish to do so (until they become more enlightened like
they finally did with blacks and the priesthood).
Reverse Discrimination | 4:13 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Should gay couples be given tax exemptions, hospital visitation, inheritance,
and property rights just like married couples? YES! Absolutely!
Should a church and its people be forced by the government to recognize something that they don't believe in such as gay marriage? NO!
It is true that gay couples have suffered much due to discrimination and we must strive and continue to protect their rights. But without a religious exemption for those churches who don't believe in same-sex marriage attached to a recognition of same-sex marriages, it will no longer be equal, but is reverse discrimination against those churches.
Why should places like Catholic Charities of Boston in Mass. be forced to close down their adoption agency because they don't believe in allowing gay couples to adopt children? Now that marriage has been redefined in that state, it is required of them to recognize something that is contrary to their beliefs. Couldn't gay couples go to a different agency that would allow them to adopt and places like Catholic Charities of Boston be allowed to operate their charity according to their own beliefs?
Should a church and its people be forced by the government to recognize something that they don't believe in such as gay marriage? NO!
It is true that gay couples have suffered much due to discrimination and we must strive and continue to protect their rights. But without a religious exemption for those churches who don't believe in same-sex marriage attached to a recognition of same-sex marriages, it will no longer be equal, but is reverse discrimination against those churches.
Why should places like Catholic Charities of Boston in Mass. be forced to close down their adoption agency because they don't believe in allowing gay couples to adopt children? Now that marriage has been redefined in that state, it is required of them to recognize something that is contrary to their beliefs. Couldn't gay couples go to a different agency that would allow them to adopt and places like Catholic Charities of Boston be allowed to operate their charity according to their own beliefs?
Re: ExMo | 4:14 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
So funny...yes, the Bible says Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Eve and Sarah and
Evelyn. We're so lucky to have a moral watchdog like the LDS church.
Anonymous | 4:34 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
If you read in the Declaration of Independence,'All men are created
equal," meaning we all have the same ability to be successful.It also
states that we have "unalienable rights" given to us naturally not by
our founding fathers. And if we are given these rights naturally wouldn't
you think that we should follow the laws of nature like marriage between man and
women only. If we go against these natural laws we would forfiet these
unalienable rights in someway.
To; Danny C | 4:37 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
"Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but don't civil unions
afford pretty much the same legal rights that a marriage does? If that's
the case, then why aren't gays content with a civil union? Why call it
marriage? Marriage is for traditional families and always has been. If I want to
call an apple an orange, doesn't make that apple an orange".
Let's take your question a step further to illustrate the absurdity behind the whole issue. What are we going to do "if" proposition 8 were to pass, and the GLBT community, still consider amd refer to their "civil unions" as marriages. Despite how we dress up the language, "preserving the sanctity of marriage, or the traditional family", the law only affects the title of various unions. In other words, for all intents and purposes the GLBT will possess all of the rights of married partners, just not the name. This cannot be enforced even it passes.
Let's take your question a step further to illustrate the absurdity behind the whole issue. What are we going to do "if" proposition 8 were to pass, and the GLBT community, still consider amd refer to their "civil unions" as marriages. Despite how we dress up the language, "preserving the sanctity of marriage, or the traditional family", the law only affects the title of various unions. In other words, for all intents and purposes the GLBT will possess all of the rights of married partners, just not the name. This cannot be enforced even it passes.
John Pack Lambert | 4:37 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To the person who claims the LDS Church sticks its nose in other people's
lives,
The issue is the church advocates political action on a moral issue. Other religions have also urged their members to act. However there has been a general attempt to focus all the opposition against the LDS Church.
No one has tried to malign Catholic candidates on the grounds of their religion, yet the Catholic and LDS Church hold the same position on this issue which many people claim is the basis for their hate.
No one would dare tell the Catholics to "get out of California" or to "stop being carpet-baggers" yet that is what has been told to the LDS Church.
The issue is the church advocates political action on a moral issue. Other religions have also urged their members to act. However there has been a general attempt to focus all the opposition against the LDS Church.
No one has tried to malign Catholic candidates on the grounds of their religion, yet the Catholic and LDS Church hold the same position on this issue which many people claim is the basis for their hate.
No one would dare tell the Catholics to "get out of California" or to "stop being carpet-baggers" yet that is what has been told to the LDS Church.
Why do you get to draw the line? | 4:40 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Gay people claim that they are born that way.
I used to work at the prison where a lot of people think that they were born with the need to have sex with a child.
Gays say that is a perversion and that they are not like that.
Why do they get to draw the line between themselves and a pediphile?
I choose to draw the line between hetrosexuals and gays. Call it what ever you want. I get to draw the line for me and my family!
I used to work at the prison where a lot of people think that they were born with the need to have sex with a child.
Gays say that is a perversion and that they are not like that.
Why do they get to draw the line between themselves and a pediphile?
I choose to draw the line between hetrosexuals and gays. Call it what ever you want. I get to draw the line for me and my family!
Richard | 4:40 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
This debate is very shallow on this blog.
I realize that LDS people are passionate about the family, but we all need to realize that the USA has not defined the "Family", and we are discriminating on a group of people off of our definition.
We should be very careful how we debate such spicy topics, I understand both sides of the issue, but what scares me is that no matter what happens on Nov. 4th we are all going to have to live with that.
Jesus taught LOVE first and foremost, I for one on Nov 4th will still love my neighbors whether they are Gay or LDS.
I Hope we find a way to make this not so ugly. Life is too beautiful to waste it hating a group of people.
I realize that LDS people are passionate about the family, but we all need to realize that the USA has not defined the "Family", and we are discriminating on a group of people off of our definition.
We should be very careful how we debate such spicy topics, I understand both sides of the issue, but what scares me is that no matter what happens on Nov. 4th we are all going to have to live with that.
Jesus taught LOVE first and foremost, I for one on Nov 4th will still love my neighbors whether they are Gay or LDS.
I Hope we find a way to make this not so ugly. Life is too beautiful to waste it hating a group of people.
While we're at it... | 4:42 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
...why don't we let kids drive whenever they want, legalize marijuana and
pot for everyone that wants to use it, let people get married to their pets, let
people of any age have the right to drink, let anyone at any age vote in
elections, and legalize polygamy. If we're gonna have equal rights for
some, we might as well make EVERYONE completely equal. If someone wants to love
their dog, great...let them love their dog. If someone wants to drink at age
14, go ahead! If someone loves more than one person, why, they should have more
than one spouse, right?!
I hope you're getting my sarcasm. If you're gonna go an inch, why not go a mile and just take this country to hell faster.
I hope you're getting my sarcasm. If you're gonna go an inch, why not go a mile and just take this country to hell faster.
Shame... | 4:46 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
on the LDS church for joining a COALITION of other religions and groups to
protect one-man/one-woman marriage? The institution that is based on natural
law? It still requires one man AND one woman to create life. No more, no less.
That is what MARRIAGE of one man and one woman protects...the innocence of
life.
John Pack Lambert | 4:47 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I would urge people to listen to again or read Elder Hales talk on defending
the faith.
We have to do it in a Christlike way. Saying "I am glad you left Utah" is the most un-Christlike thing you could say.
We need to desire to save all our brethren and not just the ones who are currently in full felloship with the church.
I am saddened that Christina left Utah because her chances to interact with good members who know how to defend the truth in a Christlike manner is lessened.
I know at times comments are frustrating. However we need to respond in a Christlike matter. The point is not to make our egos feel good, but to lift all of God's children to a greater good. We need to love everyone enough to want to see them in the Celestial Kingdom, even if we 100% disagree with their current philosophy.
Please show forth more love. Please read and apply Elder Hales great counsel.
We have to do it in a Christlike way. Saying "I am glad you left Utah" is the most un-Christlike thing you could say.
We need to desire to save all our brethren and not just the ones who are currently in full felloship with the church.
I am saddened that Christina left Utah because her chances to interact with good members who know how to defend the truth in a Christlike manner is lessened.
I know at times comments are frustrating. However we need to respond in a Christlike matter. The point is not to make our egos feel good, but to lift all of God's children to a greater good. We need to love everyone enough to want to see them in the Celestial Kingdom, even if we 100% disagree with their current philosophy.
Please show forth more love. Please read and apply Elder Hales great counsel.
God will ulitimately judge all | 4:51 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I have no problem with any church making its position against gay marriage,
after all scripturally it is sin (belief). However, why churches have to go to
the extreme to think that it would threaten other marriages is beyond me. I am
LDS and am opposed to gay marriage but I would never waste my time or money
trying to ban it. I would think trying to fix our own marriages would serve
much better. Besides I find more people hurt and lives destroyed by horrible
ward members who treat others like garbage at church on Sunday. It is just as
republicans due if there backs are against the wall scare everyone with abortion
and family values (whatever that means).
Follow the money... | 4:54 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
While I know that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes
the moral issues in this bill, I understand potential future lawsuits against
them could cost lots of money if the California bill is defeated. What are the
real issues???
John Pack Lambert | 4:56 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To educated person,
A suit against LDS Family Services against the church's adoption rules is almost certainly going to fail.
I hate to deflate the arguments for propostion 8, but LDS Family Services only places children with couples who have been sealed in the temple. This is a much more stringent rule than merely married couples, so the alteration of California marriage law will not effect the operations of LDS Family Services directly.
What we do have to worry about is the effects of positive public policy endorsement on government actions. My biggest fear is mandated curiculum including same-gender marriage. This is even more disturbing in light of the fact that the right to homse-school children is currently under assult in California.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8.
Related to this, remember that a Yes vote on proposition 8 can be done while voting for any presidential candidate. In fact, if you want you can just vote yes on prop 8 and not case any other vote at all.
I would recommend voting in the other elections, but ballots are still valid when not filled out in full.
A suit against LDS Family Services against the church's adoption rules is almost certainly going to fail.
I hate to deflate the arguments for propostion 8, but LDS Family Services only places children with couples who have been sealed in the temple. This is a much more stringent rule than merely married couples, so the alteration of California marriage law will not effect the operations of LDS Family Services directly.
What we do have to worry about is the effects of positive public policy endorsement on government actions. My biggest fear is mandated curiculum including same-gender marriage. This is even more disturbing in light of the fact that the right to homse-school children is currently under assult in California.
Vote Yes on Proposition 8.
Related to this, remember that a Yes vote on proposition 8 can be done while voting for any presidential candidate. In fact, if you want you can just vote yes on prop 8 and not case any other vote at all.
I would recommend voting in the other elections, but ballots are still valid when not filled out in full.
Shame on Biden | 5:01 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Biden represented himself and Obama in his answer but he is either misinformed
on Obama�s view or he blatantly lied.
Obama does not support prop 8 and wrote a letter to those who got married in California after the court ruling to congratulate them.
He also wrote: �... (W)e also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) families. Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it�s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom.
�That�s why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That�s why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that�s why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws,�
Biden however does know his own view and he blatantly lied.
In an interview with Tim Russert in April he made it very clear he would not stand in the way of same sex marriage and voted no on the 2006 Marriage Protection Amendment.
Obama does not support prop 8 and wrote a letter to those who got married in California after the court ruling to congratulate them.
He also wrote: �... (W)e also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) families. Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it�s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom.
�That�s why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That�s why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that�s why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws,�
Biden however does know his own view and he blatantly lied.
In an interview with Tim Russert in April he made it very clear he would not stand in the way of same sex marriage and voted no on the 2006 Marriage Protection Amendment.
John Pack Lambert | 5:04 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To the person who mocked my name,
I am glad that my statements are hitting close enough to home that people a need to mock my name in response.
You are wrong. People are not being denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not a considered issue.
What is considered is whether the marriage involves a man and a woman. The lessening of the marriage options for some people is incidental to the goals of the law. The law has to goal of establishing marriages that have the potential to produce children, connecting child bearing with marriage and emphasizing to all people that child bearing is the goal of marriage. Even when couples do not themselves produce children, since a man woman marriage is inevitably associated with producing children the goal is preserved. Anyway, the ban on non-man/woman marriages is the least intrusive way to further a legitimate government goal, so the fact that some marriages do not directly further government goals in the matter is irrelevant.
This is one of the reasons that Prince and Prince is such a bad book. Producing a legitimate heir has always been a goal in royal marriage.
I am glad that my statements are hitting close enough to home that people a need to mock my name in response.
You are wrong. People are not being denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not a considered issue.
What is considered is whether the marriage involves a man and a woman. The lessening of the marriage options for some people is incidental to the goals of the law. The law has to goal of establishing marriages that have the potential to produce children, connecting child bearing with marriage and emphasizing to all people that child bearing is the goal of marriage. Even when couples do not themselves produce children, since a man woman marriage is inevitably associated with producing children the goal is preserved. Anyway, the ban on non-man/woman marriages is the least intrusive way to further a legitimate government goal, so the fact that some marriages do not directly further government goals in the matter is irrelevant.
This is one of the reasons that Prince and Prince is such a bad book. Producing a legitimate heir has always been a goal in royal marriage.
Anonymous | 5:21 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The key lies in leaving the terms and conditions of marriage to the various
religions, and having all couples enter into a contract recognized by the state.
That way, churches can say who in their faith is eligible for church recognized
marriage, and a person can exercise his or her freedom of religion by choosing
whether or not to be part of that religion. The legal relationship would be
governed by the state and gender would not be an issue. The LDS Church is not
going to stop same gender relationships. They can teach the Gospel and let
people decide whether to accept or not. Besides, the LDS Church needs to
address the roots of same gender attraction rather than just fight it. There
are too many questions as to its origins and nature, and a blanket condemnation
is an inadequate response.
TetonMike | 5:32 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Just a thought here for members of the LDS church to think about...Hasn't
your church ALREADY endorsed sam-sex marriages? Stick with me here...the 33
(34?) women who were married to Joseph Smith- can they be thought of as also
married to each other? And wouldn't that have been a same-sex marriage? I
know I've heard the term "Sister-Wives" used...it's that
"Wives" part I'm asking about. Your thoughts?
to Richard | 5:46 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Richard, you still don't get it. Those who oppose gay marriages don't
hate gay people. I agree with you that Jesus taught LOVE. You can still
disagree with a person and love them. I disagree with my wife on certain issues
but I still love her. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery that He
didn't condemn her but he still told her to "go and sin no more."
I have relatives who are gay. Do I agree with their lifestyle, no, but I still
love them and there is no hate involved.
Shame on Gays | 5:57 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Get over yourselves, if you want to bring the church into this, then realize
that it isn't just gays that are commanded to live the law of chastity. I
resent gays thinking that they have the right to bend the rules or get upset if
they engage in immorality and get angry at the church for taking discipline
measures. I was excommunicated for nine months for fornication, I never
questioned it or resented it, and it only happened three times.
I believe that the oldest set of scriptures, The Bible, is a good definer of marriage and it doesn't say a man should leave his mother and a man should leave his home, it mentions women on the 2nd part. I am sorry that some people really honestly do have strong same-sex attractions, some people have strong opposite sex attractions. I do respect both cases that have the spiritual maturity to not give into those feelings, but it is selfish and self indulgent to resent when the breaking of a commandment lies only on your shoulders. I can only blame myself for my mistake and I wanted to show my Father in Heaven that I loved Him more than anything.
I believe that the oldest set of scriptures, The Bible, is a good definer of marriage and it doesn't say a man should leave his mother and a man should leave his home, it mentions women on the 2nd part. I am sorry that some people really honestly do have strong same-sex attractions, some people have strong opposite sex attractions. I do respect both cases that have the spiritual maturity to not give into those feelings, but it is selfish and self indulgent to resent when the breaking of a commandment lies only on your shoulders. I can only blame myself for my mistake and I wanted to show my Father in Heaven that I loved Him more than anything.
Matt | 6:03 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Shame on you!
The problem with the issue in California, and most other states, is that the PEOPLE voted AGAINST GAY MARRAIGE!! Hello, can't do it! Well, until 4 Supreme Court Justice Judges thought it was in THEIR BEST INTEREST to OVERTURN WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD VOTED ON!! WHAT A CROCK of CRAP!! Talk about executing ONE'S POWER!!
VOTE YES IN CALIFORNIA...Next thing they will be taken away are my GUNS!!
The problem with the issue in California, and most other states, is that the PEOPLE voted AGAINST GAY MARRAIGE!! Hello, can't do it! Well, until 4 Supreme Court Justice Judges thought it was in THEIR BEST INTEREST to OVERTURN WHAT THE PEOPLE HAD VOTED ON!! WHAT A CROCK of CRAP!! Talk about executing ONE'S POWER!!
VOTE YES IN CALIFORNIA...Next thing they will be taken away are my GUNS!!
For the sake of the children | 6:04 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
...don't let rapists, drunkards, junkies, pedophiles or convicted murders
get married. Countless studies (not to mention common sense) shows that children
raised by such people are in far GREATER danger than they ever would be from any
homosexual person.
Yet I don't hear ONE SINGLE PEEP from anyone saying we should prevent those people from getting married.
Yet I don't hear ONE SINGLE PEEP from anyone saying we should prevent those people from getting married.
Even wrose | 6:05 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
...we actually let LAWYERS get married. Help, we MUST protect the family from
such people. Stop lawyers from getting married!!!
Shame on the Bible | 6:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
After all, it only calls homosexuality a sin in 12 different places!
What part of abomination are you not seeing????
What part of abomination are you not seeing????
Connecticut | 6:35 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
It is very simple people: Homosexual marriages do not benefit society in any
way. Therefore, society should not extend any special recognition or benefits to
homosexual unions.
Pretty cut and dried.
Pretty cut and dried.
Brian | 6:37 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Marriage is ordained of GOD, living a homosexual life is not.
Why should the definition of a word be changed just because a group of people wish it. Is it because they desire it, therefore it should be so?
If a dog uses a litter box, it doesn't become a cat, it's still a dog.
Gay people are not allowed to adopt children, what does that tell you?
I'm sorry people but marriage is between a man and a woman and marriage between two people of same sex is simply wrong.
There's only right and wrong there's no in between.
Why should the definition of a word be changed just because a group of people wish it. Is it because they desire it, therefore it should be so?
If a dog uses a litter box, it doesn't become a cat, it's still a dog.
Gay people are not allowed to adopt children, what does that tell you?
I'm sorry people but marriage is between a man and a woman and marriage between two people of same sex is simply wrong.
There's only right and wrong there's no in between.
who's forcing whom? | 6:45 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
If I could be assured that those "committed gay couples" out there
would not bring lawsuits into the civil courts to force me to allow them to be
married in my church, or force my children to receive "sensitivity
training" at my local school, or force adoption agencies to allow same-sex
couples to adopt on equal footing with heterosexual couples, then perhaps I
could adopt this position of "tolerance" being pushed with such zeal.
But the gay-rights lobby is aggresively on the offense and is pushing me to not
only to accept, but support their agenda.
M Bolton | 6:50 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Get real kind sir, shame on you. How dare you judge me for NOT being gay and
supporting it..... the audacity some have in society is quite incredible.
Anonymous | 7:02 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To those who believe this will have no ill effect on the LDS church or other
faiths are either lying or miss informed.
Churches who offer social services to the public will no longer be able to discern their religious standards.
For example, the Catholic Church in Boston no longer has an adoption agency. Rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children, they closed after over 100 years of service.
Government will be able to force feed its social standards on religion.
Second graders in Massachusetts are taught by their teachers same sex marriage is normal and appropriate. Parents can not have a say in this matter. What if that teacher does not agree? That teacher will either teach against their religious and social beliefs or be forced to leave. Isn�t that employment discrimination? Families will begin to withdraw their children from public schools. Politicians with religious beliefs will choose to leave office, rather then support wayward social change. And ultimately religion will change to fit government social agendas, or lose its right to exist.
Prop 8 is not a vicious attack, but an important survival measure.
Churches who offer social services to the public will no longer be able to discern their religious standards.
For example, the Catholic Church in Boston no longer has an adoption agency. Rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children, they closed after over 100 years of service.
Government will be able to force feed its social standards on religion.
Second graders in Massachusetts are taught by their teachers same sex marriage is normal and appropriate. Parents can not have a say in this matter. What if that teacher does not agree? That teacher will either teach against their religious and social beliefs or be forced to leave. Isn�t that employment discrimination? Families will begin to withdraw their children from public schools. Politicians with religious beliefs will choose to leave office, rather then support wayward social change. And ultimately religion will change to fit government social agendas, or lose its right to exist.
Prop 8 is not a vicious attack, but an important survival measure.
Matthews | 7:07 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Ms. Larsen,
You must not be aware of all that will happen if Prop 8 is voted down. Why don't you actually talk to a member of the LDS Church to see what the result would be if prop 8 is voted down! You must not be very knowlegable about it and you must be listening to the critics only. Stop being so one sided!
You must not be aware of all that will happen if Prop 8 is voted down. Why don't you actually talk to a member of the LDS Church to see what the result would be if prop 8 is voted down! You must not be very knowlegable about it and you must be listening to the critics only. Stop being so one sided!
Christina is a bigot | 7:17 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Is is sad to see anti-Mormon bigotry thinly disguised as pro-gay advocacy. The
LDS church has every right to stand up for morality. Homosexual conduct is
immoral and all the whining and self-righteous grandstanding does not change
that fact.
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.
- Overweight pets have health problems 10:46 a.m.
- Eastwood, Freeman back in 'Invictus' 10:44 a.m.
- Party security? Come down South 10:43 a.m.
- Treasures: From Paris with porcelain 10:41 a.m.
- Nature themes popular in decor 10:40 a.m.
- S.L. grant for smoke, CO detectors 10:37 a.m.
- No-pull leash is a hit 10:34 a.m.
- 101 Ideas: Great holiday ideas 10:32 a.m.
- Make your own holiday centerpiece 10:29 a.m.
- Obama: Troop drawdown gradual 9:29 a.m.
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Psychologist: Mitchell schizophrenic
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
236 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall186
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil147
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax140
- Max Hall wants to look ahead121
- Palin signs books, chats with fans117
- Revive full food tax?101
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill99
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Roland Kayser | 9:08 a.m. England's traffic fatality rate is lower than...
Husband took two preschoolers on impromptu camping trip in the winter? A...
So Sick of the Establishment and their expensive parties with their little...
Bathing nude?!? I've never heard of such a thing! That's just crazy!
WOOWH!! HONORABLE MENTION. RIGHT ON!! :)
Stop with the racism accusations. It's not racist to disagree with the...
Wow, one of the Flash major sponsors is also saying it was just in good,...
Ah yes- spreading the wealth- in a very appropriate way. So unlike the...
Winning the BCS Trophy is like winning the Nobel Peace Prize......you claim...
'Sometimes pagans, you make me sick.' - 9:21a 'Pagan - sometime you make me...
Advertisements