Reader comments
Calls about Prop. 8 not imminent
243 comments | Read story
freedom whaler | 9:33 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
does those other item deny U.S. citizens guaranteed by the constitution? nope.
Selective Outrage is right | 9:34 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
We would say that but they won't post our complaints. They don't want
to look stupid.
Comments continue below
Joseph Atwater | 9:42 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
What about the religious opportunity of the "right not to fight in
wars" instead of sanctioning and glorifying wars as Patriotic?Or the right
of a child to grow up and choose religious freedom to say "No to war",
wars mandated by politicians and approved openly by church leaders. Where is the
call against current actions? Why such a deafening sound of silence, when a
shout for freedom of choice is suppressed. Let us turn our attention to the LDS
Bible Dictionary under the heading of "Jonah". Quote "The writer
is apposing a narrowmindedness that would confine the Love of God to a single
nation. He shows that Jehovah reigns everywhere,over the sea and the land;even
in the heathen world ..." I suspect we doubt that as a pepole. The role of
the ancient prophets were to warn the pepole of impending disasters and
calamities.Where are our spokensmen today? Are they silent on these issues?We
seem to get the message after events have taken their toll on the people.
Iraq,Katrina,the Depression etc. Bring back Paul,James and John, give us those
who once taught in boldness and in truth not leaders who participated in wars
with biased political views.
GodlessHeathen | 9:58 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Yes, unfortunately you are right. People only champion views of their
preferrances. I personally believe that Prop 8 is a bad idea not because I
approve of gay marriages. No, I believe no religious or secular body should make
hate mongering and a disinfranchisement of any group into a good thing. The only
thing Proposition 8 protects is intolerance and bigotry. Before you flame me as
an "evil godless creature" know that by choice I follow no religion
however my lifestyle is indistinguishable from any group mormon or otherwise. I
do not pray, however I am all for protecting children, I do not drink or smoke,
I use only the milder curse words such as "darn". I disapprove of prop
8 because it is wrong to decide that your way is right for any one besides you
person.
GodlessHeathen | 10:00 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
pardon. No religeous or secular body should NOT make hatemongering into a good
idea
none of our business | 10:03 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I just do not agree with Brethren on this one.
My neighbors when I was in grad school in Cambridge Mass were a gay couple. When one of the guys lost his job, he was able to go on his partner's health insurance. I just don't see the problem with that.
There are gay people in SLC who contribute to our society, pay taxes, etc. And there is no such thing as a second-class US citizen.
This matter is none of our business. I wish the Church would stay out of it.
My neighbors when I was in grad school in Cambridge Mass were a gay couple. When one of the guys lost his job, he was able to go on his partner's health insurance. I just don't see the problem with that.
There are gay people in SLC who contribute to our society, pay taxes, etc. And there is no such thing as a second-class US citizen.
This matter is none of our business. I wish the Church would stay out of it.
Vazquez | 10:08 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
i agree selective outrage!!!
Selective | 10:09 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I guess I'm 'left'. I don't mind that the church has an
opinion. I don't mind that the church has an expectation that its'
followers and believers go along with whatever the old white guys in salt lake
dictate. But, I don't want to have the church in the public arena. Whether
they are doing something I agree with or not. In the end, they're just
mormons. They're not society as a whole. They don't speak for me. I
want freedom of, and most decidedly from, religion. If we're going to have
religious dictates as public policy, I want more say as to which one wins, and
which mormons lose.
Reasonable | 10:09 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
The Church made a reasonable statement when it said that they were more
concerned about the impact on children, and freedoms of speech and religion
being impacted. The church doesn't hate someone becuase they are gay (which
is what the church is accused of in most of these threads).
Do we really want gay pedophiles to be able to adopt children? (I didn't say that all gays are pedophiles, but MANY MANY pedophiles prey on children of the same sex). Do we want government sanctions on church programs because we refuse to marry gay couples in our church? Do we want judges legislating from the bench and forcing us to do something we voted against? Democracy is at stake here...
Proposition 8 seems to be more like protecting our beliefs and our rights than it does about wheather or not gays get to wed.
Protect our rights. Protect our children. Protect marriage. Protect democracy. Vote yes on proposition 8.
To all of you that plan on posting hateful things to my response all I have to say is... you're entitled to your opinion, even if it is WRONG.
Do we really want gay pedophiles to be able to adopt children? (I didn't say that all gays are pedophiles, but MANY MANY pedophiles prey on children of the same sex). Do we want government sanctions on church programs because we refuse to marry gay couples in our church? Do we want judges legislating from the bench and forcing us to do something we voted against? Democracy is at stake here...
Proposition 8 seems to be more like protecting our beliefs and our rights than it does about wheather or not gays get to wed.
Protect our rights. Protect our children. Protect marriage. Protect democracy. Vote yes on proposition 8.
To all of you that plan on posting hateful things to my response all I have to say is... you're entitled to your opinion, even if it is WRONG.
Henry Drummond | 10:18 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I agree that the Church has the right to express its opinions and to encourage
its members to vote a certain way. I even think its appropriate to voice fears
that members of the Church will find themselves in trouble for claiming
homosexuality is a sin. That is also why I think it is somewhat curious that the
Church leadership is so harsh on those members who publicly disagree with the
Church's official position on this and other matters. Isn't freedom
of political expression a two way street?
ACORN | 10:20 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Speaking of "tax exempt" status, somebody should look into the tax
exempt status of B. Obama's group, ACORN--clearly a partisan group claiming
non-partisan status.
Reason | 10:20 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Though I generally agree with Selective Outrage, this is really not a right vs.
left issue. It's about the best interests of children, and the right and
the left should care about that. Any church has not only a right but a
responsibility to weigh in on that.
In Support of Freedom | 10:24 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I applaud the LDS Church for excercising its rights under (and in support of)
the Constituion.
Mormon Democrat | 10:24 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Just so you know, I am an attorney, a member of the Church, and I am proud to be
a Democrat, and I support many of the issues that you listed (although not all),
but I am strongly in favor of the Church position on this issue. This is not a
Democrat or Republican issue - but a moral, gospel issue. I have gone out and
walked door to door on many Saturdays to support Proposition 8. So I ask that
you do as we were asked: contact your friends and family members who can vote in
California to vote for this initiative. But don't use this to attack those
of us in the Church who have different political beliefs from you.
Cali Girl | 10:31 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I attended the broadcast. It's very powerful knowing the church supports
this and touched on the most important aspects of this campaign. I just
don't understand how people don't get the FACT that we are all male
& female C R E A T E D by a male and a female. ???? My kids get that.
No matter how much someone try's to justify it, find loopholes, change it
or re-define it - it is still the same.
THIS IS the churches to fight - political or not. And it's not all about religion either. Education is KEY here to understand the consequences that will happen and the importance of voting YES on November 4th.
THIS IS the churches to fight - political or not. And it's not all about religion either. Education is KEY here to understand the consequences that will happen and the importance of voting YES on November 4th.
response | 10:37 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
None of our business----- You miss the point. As it stands right now, gay
couples HAVE all of the civil rights you point out, they just don't have
the right to use the word MARRIAGE. They can have civil unions and get
healthcare, hospital visits, etc.
I suppose you think we should stay out of abortion too? After all, I know some good people that have had abortions, and they too pay taxes and contribute to our society, so who cares if they have abortions. We should just stay out of it. If not for religious truth, where would we be? I'm not comparing homosexuality with abortion, merely pointing out that we CANNOT stand by and do nothing.
I suppose you think we should stay out of abortion too? After all, I know some good people that have had abortions, and they too pay taxes and contribute to our society, so who cares if they have abortions. We should just stay out of it. If not for religious truth, where would we be? I'm not comparing homosexuality with abortion, merely pointing out that we CANNOT stand by and do nothing.
Moessers | 10:38 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Did anybody during this broadcast quote this from the LDS scriptures by the way?
Doc & Cov 134: 9: We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
Doc & Cov 134: 9: We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
Old Fashioned | 10:50 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I am a Mormon and I totally agree with Proposition 8. In 2000, Prop 22 passed
only to have the 4 Judges in Calif deem it to be wrong. The will of the people
being voted down? Hmmm...interesting. Prop 8 now is on the ballot to restore
and protect marriage as being between a man and a woman. Restore..bring
back...and protect..make sure its position is secure.
I am an old fashioned guy and I adhere to what the Brethren in SLC have said...that Marriage is ordained of God and is to be between a man and a woman only. Why shouldn't The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints take a position that threatens the sanctity and the very definition of marriage.
I am an old fashioned guy and I adhere to what the Brethren in SLC have said...that Marriage is ordained of God and is to be between a man and a woman only. Why shouldn't The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints take a position that threatens the sanctity and the very definition of marriage.
Stephen | 10:51 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Hi, as a californian, I would like to say: mind your own business utah.
Seriously. Do you want us to start pouring money into utah politics because we
disagree with your supreme court? We live in a federal system. Get your own
house in order.
Californian | 10:52 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
With all of the evil, killing and problems of war, poverty and oppression in the
World, the LDS church finds this as the best use of its resources. It is
pathetic and full of hate. I'm sorry I do believe that if the church wants
to become a political party then they should be regulated as such and not as a
religious institution.
apxer | 10:53 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Well I guess it is not a suprise to see that everyone jumps to the idea that
this is hate mongering or that it is disinfranchisement. Honestly if that is
what you think it is, then we have no debate. Clearly this is about the attack
on the sanctity of the family and the innocense of children.
We all know gay individuals, and probably we all know a close friend or family member that lives this way. They are great people for the most part, but that is not the issue.
We need to realize why the church is doing this and why it is important, especially to the church and its members.
We all know gay individuals, and probably we all know a close friend or family member that lives this way. They are great people for the most part, but that is not the issue.
We need to realize why the church is doing this and why it is important, especially to the church and its members.
Surprised | 10:56 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I have to say I'm a little surprised by the negative reaction that some
members of the LDS Church have had against this effort to defend traditional
marriage.
The parable of the 10 Virgins comes to mind.
The parable of the 10 Virgins comes to mind.
Anonymous | 10:58 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
These calls are obscene! I didn't know the Church engaged in deliberate,
institutional obscene phone calls!
Leave others' rights intact. Stop forcing your religious views onto others. Vote NO on Proposition 8!
Leave others' rights intact. Stop forcing your religious views onto others. Vote NO on Proposition 8!
Confused in California | 11:06 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Could someone please explain to me how a church whose founder and prophet had
30+ wives (some as young as 14 when married and several who were already married
to other men) can lecture on the 'sanctity' of marriage? How a church
which still has God-ordained polygamy in it's scripture (Doctrine &
Covenants:132) tell me whom I can or can't marry? I simply don't
understand the basis for your 'moral standing'.
Mark at the U | 11:07 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I can easily see this discussion degenerating into something as irrelevant as
the Mountain Meadows Massacre or slanderous as liberal fascism. It does no good
to attack the other side on personal matters. So what I say, I say without
vilifying either side.
Do homosexuals have the agency (right to choose) to act in accordance with their desires? Absolutely, just as much as you do! But in a purely secular manner, both your right to act and their right to act ends where the law dictates.
It may be argued that morality should not be legislated, imposing one group's views upon another. However, this is faulty logic. ALL legislation is moral in basis. We have laws making theft or lying under oath a crime, but there are people who believe that occasional or even overt lies are acceptable. Moreover, people may believe that stealing is just a matter of society compensating them for what the world didn't freely give.
These may seem like extraneous or tangential examples. But please do not miss the point: just because a group believes something is right, does not make it so.
Then who does?
Do homosexuals have the agency (right to choose) to act in accordance with their desires? Absolutely, just as much as you do! But in a purely secular manner, both your right to act and their right to act ends where the law dictates.
It may be argued that morality should not be legislated, imposing one group's views upon another. However, this is faulty logic. ALL legislation is moral in basis. We have laws making theft or lying under oath a crime, but there are people who believe that occasional or even overt lies are acceptable. Moreover, people may believe that stealing is just a matter of society compensating them for what the world didn't freely give.
These may seem like extraneous or tangential examples. But please do not miss the point: just because a group believes something is right, does not make it so.
Then who does?
Re: Reasonable | 11:08 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Actually, the large part of those who molest (regardless of the gender of the
victim) are heterosexual males.
Feel free to keep trying, though.
Feel free to keep trying, though.
Re:Cali Girl | 11:11 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
And what if you don't believe in God? The freedom of no religion is just as
important as the freedom of religion. So claiming it is right because it is a
matter of "doctrine" that we were created by God is a religious
belief, not to be influential on the matters of basic human rights.
BTW: I am a grassroots republican, if you remember what that means; little or no involvement of government in the matters of human rights and economics. Human rights are what they are, rights. There is a difference between right wing and republican. How do you think the father of the republican party (Jefferson) would think about this?
BTW: I am a grassroots republican, if you remember what that means; little or no involvement of government in the matters of human rights and economics. Human rights are what they are, rights. There is a difference between right wing and republican. How do you think the father of the republican party (Jefferson) would think about this?
Perplexed | 11:11 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Question for freedom whaler: Where in the constitution does it guarantee U.S.
Citizens the right to marry people of the same sex? In fact, where does it
guarantee the right to marry at all? The right to have a strongly held belief
(i.e. freedom of religion) and the right to communicate belief (i.e. freedom of
speech)--those are fundamental and protected rights. I, for one, believe
"those old white guys" are called by God (this is my constitutionally
protected strongly held belief). I support their constitutionally protected
communication of belief.
Californian | 11:12 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
�none of our business,� you really
went to grad school? For an educated person, I�m surprised
at your degree of naivete.
�When one of the guys lost his job, he was able to go on his partner's health insurance. I just don't see the problem with that.�
Neither does anyone else. That isn�t what Prop. 8 is about. It has no impact on health insurance, property or contractual rights, inheritances, etc., which are already guaranteed by California to domestic partners. Prop. 8 would not change or take any of that away. The activists are well aware of that. They aren�t after anything monetary; they are after the definition of marriage, to turn it inside out and force the world to accept and approve their concept of what marriahge is.
It�s truly none of my business who lives with whom, who is on the deed to their house, and who visits them in the hospital. Those are lifestyle issues. It is most certainly my business when it transforms the nature of marriage and family relationships, and society�s attitude toward them. Those are not mere lifestyle issues, but the pivot points on which civilizations turn.
�When one of the guys lost his job, he was able to go on his partner's health insurance. I just don't see the problem with that.�
Neither does anyone else. That isn�t what Prop. 8 is about. It has no impact on health insurance, property or contractual rights, inheritances, etc., which are already guaranteed by California to domestic partners. Prop. 8 would not change or take any of that away. The activists are well aware of that. They aren�t after anything monetary; they are after the definition of marriage, to turn it inside out and force the world to accept and approve their concept of what marriahge is.
It�s truly none of my business who lives with whom, who is on the deed to their house, and who visits them in the hospital. Those are lifestyle issues. It is most certainly my business when it transforms the nature of marriage and family relationships, and society�s attitude toward them. Those are not mere lifestyle issues, but the pivot points on which civilizations turn.
Random | 11:17 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
None of our business: We are not taking away anything from a domestic
partnership, i.e. benefits, insurance, wills, etc. What we are doing with Prop 8
is defining marriage. "Tolerance" goes both ways -- I can respect you
and your neighbor, but I expect the same from you regarding my beliefs.
Re: Reasonable | 11:20 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Here's my "hateful" response...
What if I were to rephrase your question as follows:
"Do we really want heterosexual pedophiles to be able to adopt children? (I didn't say that all heterosexuals are pedophiles, but MANY MANY pedophiles prey on children of the opposite sex)."
"Do we want government sanctions on church programs because we refuse to marry gay couples in our church?"
Might I ask if this has happened to the church in countries that have already legalized same-sex marriage?
Pro-Proposition 8 groups have been twisting facts regarding cases in the US where religious groups are losing lawsuits because of discrimination. The truth is all of these cases involved religious organizations receiving government funding while offering public services.
"Do we want judges legislating from the bench and forcing us to do something we voted against? Democracy is at stake here..."
Forcing you to do what?
Thank you republican appointed "activist" judges for standing up for the minority against the majority.
What if I were to rephrase your question as follows:
"Do we really want heterosexual pedophiles to be able to adopt children? (I didn't say that all heterosexuals are pedophiles, but MANY MANY pedophiles prey on children of the opposite sex)."
"Do we want government sanctions on church programs because we refuse to marry gay couples in our church?"
Might I ask if this has happened to the church in countries that have already legalized same-sex marriage?
Pro-Proposition 8 groups have been twisting facts regarding cases in the US where religious groups are losing lawsuits because of discrimination. The truth is all of these cases involved religious organizations receiving government funding while offering public services.
"Do we want judges legislating from the bench and forcing us to do something we voted against? Democracy is at stake here..."
Forcing you to do what?
Thank you republican appointed "activist" judges for standing up for the minority against the majority.
CA Prop22/8 | 11:21 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I lived in California when Prop 22 was passed. I felt that the church applied a
lot of pressure on my ward to get us to canvas neighborhoods in support of
Prop22. I found it difficult, but did walk neighborhoods to talk to people
about supporting Prop22. When California�s high court
struck down Prop22 as unconstitutional this year my first reaction was pleasure.
I realized then that I resented all the pressure I felt from the church.
I�m glad I don�t live in CA anymore
because I have very mixed feelings about supporting Prop 8. My best friend from
my BYU days is gay. He was a great home teacher but he left the church after
the church pushed so hard for Prop 22. He was very upset about the Stuart Matis
suicide. I have wondered if the church is following a principle found in 1
Nephi 4:13. � It is better that one man should perish
than that a nation should dwindle . . . in unbelief.� I
hope the church does not think this issue is more important than a gay mormon
suicide. I wish practicing homosexuals were welcome in our wards and there was
more open dialog.
Dave | 11:22 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
First off, the idea of separation of church and state is not what the
constitution says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." means government
butts out of religion, but preserves the right of religion to influence
government.
Second, I worry that if marriage is redefined, how will that affect the church's definition of the law of chastity. The church says sex is wrong unless its with someone with whom you are legally and lawfully married. If a state suddenly defines marriage as just two people, then you aren't technically breaking the law of chastity. We, as a society, fall on a slippery slope of calling evil good, and good evil.
Even after Constantine established Christianity in the Roman empire, that great society fell when homosexual activity became an accepted behavior.
Second, I worry that if marriage is redefined, how will that affect the church's definition of the law of chastity. The church says sex is wrong unless its with someone with whom you are legally and lawfully married. If a state suddenly defines marriage as just two people, then you aren't technically breaking the law of chastity. We, as a society, fall on a slippery slope of calling evil good, and good evil.
Even after Constantine established Christianity in the Roman empire, that great society fell when homosexual activity became an accepted behavior.
CA citizen | 11:22 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
This is just one of those issues that will separate the wheat from the tares.
It's time to decide which side you want to be on.
RE: ACORN | 11:26 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
ACORN is hardly "Obama's group." He was one of the attorneys that
represented them in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois over a federal
voting access law in 1995 (The Department of Justice was also involved with
filing the ultimately successful lawsuit), but that's it. He's never
worked with them in any other capacity.
Nice attempt to change the topic there...
Nice attempt to change the topic there...
aaron | 11:38 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
As a member of the LDS church, I don't see the urgency for the church to
get involved.
Although gay marriage may be a reflection of moral decay in society, I do not see how it would be the cause of it.
Even If gay marriage were legalized, there would be absolutely no way the laws could revoke any church's freedom to deny performing a gay marriage or the teaching of homosexuality as a sin.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Although gay marriage may be a reflection of moral decay in society, I do not see how it would be the cause of it.
Even If gay marriage were legalized, there would be absolutely no way the laws could revoke any church's freedom to deny performing a gay marriage or the teaching of homosexuality as a sin.
Is there something I'm missing here?
Cali Girl | 11:52 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
By an egregious act of judicial activism, the California Supreme Court, by a 4-3
decision, has overruled Proposition 22, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense
of Marriage Act, passed in 2000 by 61.4% of voters, explicitly amended the
California Family Code to limit marriage in California to one man and one woman.
Prop. 22, was approved BY THE PEOPLE in 2000 and overturned by the state Supreme
Court in May. Prop 8 is the new constitutional ammendment to Prop 22, that
simply defines marriage between a man and a woman. That's it. Simple
definition.
This is not rocket science. It's simple. We are all male & female - CREATED by a male and a female. No matter how hard you try to change it - you can't. Period.
The final issue here is protecting the DEFINITION of marriage as it has been from the beginning of time. Anyone with a brain can understand that. It's not MEANT to be any other way, no matter how much you justify it, look for loopholes or re-define it yourself.
This is not rocket science. It's simple. We are all male & female - CREATED by a male and a female. No matter how hard you try to change it - you can't. Period.
The final issue here is protecting the DEFINITION of marriage as it has been from the beginning of time. Anyone with a brain can understand that. It's not MEANT to be any other way, no matter how much you justify it, look for loopholes or re-define it yourself.
just the facts | 11:53 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
In response to the responses:
Yes, I really did go to school, BYU '96, Harvard Law '01. Maybe I naive as you claim: I believe in the Constitution I have sworn to defend, I believe that equal protection of the law is the basis of the American way.
Gay people in Utah have none of the rights claimed: no rights to health insurance, to deed or inheritance, no rights to hospital visitation, health proxy or tax equity. Not only do gay couples in Utah not have these rights as people here falsely claim, our state constitution as amended prevents them ever having these or other rights.
If your dislike of homosexuality reaches the point where you want to make gays into second-class citizens, then at least you should have the decency to admit that. Do not pretend that the law in Utah treats gay people equally.
I am not gay, I am married +2 (and another on the way.) I sustain the Church and am proud of being 5th-gen LDS. Only on this issue I disagree with Brethren. I testify that the Church is taking a stand that it will soon regret.
Yes, I really did go to school, BYU '96, Harvard Law '01. Maybe I naive as you claim: I believe in the Constitution I have sworn to defend, I believe that equal protection of the law is the basis of the American way.
Gay people in Utah have none of the rights claimed: no rights to health insurance, to deed or inheritance, no rights to hospital visitation, health proxy or tax equity. Not only do gay couples in Utah not have these rights as people here falsely claim, our state constitution as amended prevents them ever having these or other rights.
If your dislike of homosexuality reaches the point where you want to make gays into second-class citizens, then at least you should have the decency to admit that. Do not pretend that the law in Utah treats gay people equally.
I am not gay, I am married +2 (and another on the way.) I sustain the Church and am proud of being 5th-gen LDS. Only on this issue I disagree with Brethren. I testify that the Church is taking a stand that it will soon regret.
Patrick Kimmons 666 | 11:55 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I am all for gay marriage. Who is anyone to say who I, as an adult male, can and
cannot marry?
I have a college degree, and a master's degree, make enough money to buy a home, support a boyfriend and his kids, throw the occasional carne asada feast attended by straights and gays alike.
Sure, a woman is nice, but why not allow me to find the true love I am looking for?
Why do I need your permission?
Get back on your bicycles and ride.
I have a college degree, and a master's degree, make enough money to buy a home, support a boyfriend and his kids, throw the occasional carne asada feast attended by straights and gays alike.
Sure, a woman is nice, but why not allow me to find the true love I am looking for?
Why do I need your permission?
Get back on your bicycles and ride.
Cali Girl | 11:57 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
YES!! This is what people aren't understanding.
YES the laws could revoke church's freedom (any religion) and it is happening RIGHT NOW - to deny performing a gay marriage. It's called "Church & State Laws." The state law (if passed) WILL overrule church law. IT WILL HAPPEN AND IS HAPPENING!!!
YES the laws could revoke church's freedom (any religion) and it is happening RIGHT NOW - to deny performing a gay marriage. It's called "Church & State Laws." The state law (if passed) WILL overrule church law. IT WILL HAPPEN AND IS HAPPENING!!!
Sam | 12:02 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
If this does not pass, the church will loose its tax exemption, eventually
because the church will not support gay marriage in temples. Come on people
think!!! Also, who wants their children going to school leaning that Gay
marriage is a normal form of life style and marriage. Not fair to our
children. Who wants children to be legally adopted into Gay unions. Also not
fair to the children, they deserve to be raised with a MOM and a DAD!!
to Aaron | 12:04 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
You asked, "Is there something I'm missing here?"
Yes, you are missing that bigotry, hate and fear of homosexuality is so powerful it takes over reason and rationality. In that sense, anti-gay attitudes are structurally similar to anti-Mormon attitudes. You are probably missing this because you yourself are not a bigot.
Your excellent point is worth repeating: No law can ever force the LDS to perform or accept gay marriages in our own church. But that does not mean we have the right to tell others they are legally inferior as Americans.
Yes, you are missing that bigotry, hate and fear of homosexuality is so powerful it takes over reason and rationality. In that sense, anti-gay attitudes are structurally similar to anti-Mormon attitudes. You are probably missing this because you yourself are not a bigot.
Your excellent point is worth repeating: No law can ever force the LDS to perform or accept gay marriages in our own church. But that does not mean we have the right to tell others they are legally inferior as Americans.
Seems Clear | 12:06 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
My gosh, how much more clear can the Bible be that homosexuality is a sin?
It's in there 12 times that I know of. When did we start picking and
choosing what is and isn't in the Good Book?
And before someone lays those same lame arguments on one obscure verse no one has ever heard of, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 12 pretty clear passages that are impossible to misinterpret.
God is the same today, yesterday and forever. What was wrong then is wrong now. Ignore it if you wish, but don't try to tell me I'm not really reading what I can read in plain English.
And before someone lays those same lame arguments on one obscure verse no one has ever heard of, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 12 pretty clear passages that are impossible to misinterpret.
God is the same today, yesterday and forever. What was wrong then is wrong now. Ignore it if you wish, but don't try to tell me I'm not really reading what I can read in plain English.
Anonymous | 12:25 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
This discussion is great! God thrives on documentation. Also, Jesus Christ
taught to hate the sin NOT the sinner.
re: aaron | 12:26 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Yes, there is something you are missing. God can see the future and he has told
us in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is wrong and we should lovingly work
to keep it from destroying our society. Read Proclamation on the Family. Also
read D&C 1:38
What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself.....whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
He has spoken by the voice of His servants, Latter-Day Prophets. It is the same. So it comes down to this, do we believe our prophet is the Lord's servant? We can't have it both ways.
What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself.....whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
He has spoken by the voice of His servants, Latter-Day Prophets. It is the same. So it comes down to this, do we believe our prophet is the Lord's servant? We can't have it both ways.
from the OC | 12:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I don't buy all these posters who say they are LDS and against prop 8. I
have yet to run across any LDS against it down here in CA. I guess if you were
baptized and you don't go to church now you might be confused, but anybody
who goes knows which side to be on. I think most of these anti prop 8 people are
just antimormon and not LDS at all. I am sure many are homosexuals also. This
prop doesn't change anything for you. You can still have civil unions. You
just won't be able to push your agenda into schools. You won't be able
to limit my free speech. Prop 8 is logical. remember it is Adam and Eve, not
Adam and Steve!
dsore1218 | 1:05 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Aaron -The court in CA made gay marriage a protected class by using equality to
make it happen which makes gay marriage a protected class. Ask the LDS bishops
and other church leaders in Canada and European countries. They no longer
perform them because of the equality aspect that is eerily similar to the CA
court ruling. If they do Hetero, they have to do Gay, so say the courts using
equality clauses. Several counties in CA have stopped issuing marriage licenses
precisely because of this, they don't want to do gay marriage.
Back to the religious part, the bishops no longer marry couples. The couples get married (sign a contract) civilly and then go to the temple or synagogue for the religious part of the ceremony.
The equality part that makes this a protected class is exactly what makes the gay and lesbian community excited and why it can reach into the classroom and the churches and the homes and any business and your personal opinion and most aspects of life (think hate speech among others). If the court did not make it an equality issue it would not represent the very slippery slope that it currently represents.
Back to the religious part, the bishops no longer marry couples. The couples get married (sign a contract) civilly and then go to the temple or synagogue for the religious part of the ceremony.
The equality part that makes this a protected class is exactly what makes the gay and lesbian community excited and why it can reach into the classroom and the churches and the homes and any business and your personal opinion and most aspects of life (think hate speech among others). If the court did not make it an equality issue it would not represent the very slippery slope that it currently represents.
vote for 8 | 1:11 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
to aaron:
You said "Is there something I'm missing here"
You mean besides logic and commonsense. Yes, accepting deviant lifestyles always hurts society. Look what all the lying and greed have done to our financial system. Also take Canada for instance. You can be prosecuted for saying negative things about homosexuality. I know we are not Canada yet, but people who post here use all sorts of hate speech against those of us who will vote yes on prop 8 and support our church's position. They would love to shut our mouths if they could. They don't really believe in freedom of speech or religion for that matter. They are just haters.
You said "Is there something I'm missing here"
You mean besides logic and commonsense. Yes, accepting deviant lifestyles always hurts society. Look what all the lying and greed have done to our financial system. Also take Canada for instance. You can be prosecuted for saying negative things about homosexuality. I know we are not Canada yet, but people who post here use all sorts of hate speech against those of us who will vote yes on prop 8 and support our church's position. They would love to shut our mouths if they could. They don't really believe in freedom of speech or religion for that matter. They are just haters.
Mark at the U | 1:17 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
[Continued from 10/08/07 11:07]
Obviously, the voter does not decide what is right. Truth cannot be subject to change, legislation, or societal definitions. If society wants to define marriage as something other than a man and a woman, it may do so. But it may not change whether it is fundamentally right or wrong.
Homosexuality is seen as one of those issues where there is such delineation. But if there is a separation to be made, it must be between the individuals and the actions. Sadly, homosexuals may be characterized in a negative way throughout these comments by short-sighted individuals, but this is NOT how it should be. The Church is not involved in a campaign against them nor their happiness and fulfillment.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands firmly to oppose everything that will inexorably lead to sadness and heartache, including the re-definition of marriage. God has set the definitions or commandments required to have lasting happiness for all of His children. Scoff or scorn at my belief as you may, watch the world redefine or reinvent what is acceptable as it will; but find there is only equality in the law of God.
Obviously, the voter does not decide what is right. Truth cannot be subject to change, legislation, or societal definitions. If society wants to define marriage as something other than a man and a woman, it may do so. But it may not change whether it is fundamentally right or wrong.
Homosexuality is seen as one of those issues where there is such delineation. But if there is a separation to be made, it must be between the individuals and the actions. Sadly, homosexuals may be characterized in a negative way throughout these comments by short-sighted individuals, but this is NOT how it should be. The Church is not involved in a campaign against them nor their happiness and fulfillment.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands firmly to oppose everything that will inexorably lead to sadness and heartache, including the re-definition of marriage. God has set the definitions or commandments required to have lasting happiness for all of His children. Scoff or scorn at my belief as you may, watch the world redefine or reinvent what is acceptable as it will; but find there is only equality in the law of God.
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.
- Oil falls below $79 7:53 a.m.
- Stocks open lower 7:53 a.m.
- Iranian Consulate fatally shot 7:49 a.m.
- AP poll: Family dinner survives 7:47 a.m.
- Palestinian election may be called off 7:45 a.m.
- Balloon boy parents to plead guilty 7:44 a.m.
- Intel to pay AMD $1.25B settlement 7:42 a.m.
- Jobless claims fall to 502K 7:40 a.m.
- Obama to want revised war options 7:39 a.m.
- Will state consider gay rights law? 7:11 a.m.
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
- Alta's Ohai is Ms. Soccer 2009
- Prep football: Felt's Facts Week
- BYU football recruit turning heads
- 'Love story' of crash victim ends
- Crash kills Utah County man
- Utah Jazz have a problem at point
- Will state consider gay rights law?
- 12 Utes return to Texas
- Cougars practice with urgency
- House passes health care bill
288 - SLC council OKs gay rights policies253
- TCU showdown has big implications195
- Senators want food tax restored157
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections109
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah101
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges101
One of my guilty pleasures is perusing the covers of celebrity magazines...
Advertisement
Latest comments
is on kjzz. 6 30 pm.
In AZ if you retire then go back to work you stop receiving your pension....
Well expect to see a large boom in LDS membership soon. The church has had...
And thus we see why lawyers are held in such disdain by honest Americans...
They should at the very least pay the costs of the police and other public...
Scientific evidence from whom exactly? Political or religious "scientists"?...
You are half right. In 1998 we scored two touchdowns no trick plays. In the...
I have been as frustrated with some of JT's ill-advised shots in the past as...
This is shocking! Tell me it is not true.
The argument that gays will sue to get married in the temple is almost as...
Advertisements
But you will never hear those arguments when any church supports a cause that the left agrees with. Whether it be environmental protections, better support for the poor, more compassion for illegal immigrants, or speaking against the death penalty; you will never hear those outcries when the church takes a position they support.