Reader comments
Calls about Prop. 8 not imminent
243 comments | Read story
re: stephen | 10:55 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Your state, California, is a blueprint for how the rest of the country will go
if prop 8 is voted down. It is everyones business!
concerned in OR | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Why should the LDS Church involve itself in matters political?
"To those who have strayed because of doctrinal concerns, we cannot apologize for the truth. We cannot deny doctrine given to us by the Lord Himself. On this principle we cannot compromise." Joseph B. Wirthlin, Apr. 2006 General Conference Address
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the General Authorities have rallied the "Title of Liberty" in your state. I am quite sure it will be our turn, soon. Remember, "...Whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them." Alma 46:20
Please also consider Alma 45:16, and D&C 128:22
"To those who have strayed because of doctrinal concerns, we cannot apologize for the truth. We cannot deny doctrine given to us by the Lord Himself. On this principle we cannot compromise." Joseph B. Wirthlin, Apr. 2006 General Conference Address
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the General Authorities have rallied the "Title of Liberty" in your state. I am quite sure it will be our turn, soon. Remember, "...Whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them." Alma 46:20
Please also consider Alma 45:16, and D&C 128:22
Common Sense | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Dear Members of the Church,
When the church strongly opposed the removal of prayer in school many members wondered why. Now that we see how that ruling has led to attempts to remove God from nearly every public location. Clearly these men are inspired.
The homosexual rights movement is threatening to legitimize that behavior and criminalizing the speaking out against it. I know our leaders are inspired beyond their own wisdom here.
Common sense also tells us that someone with homosexuals have every right we have. They aren't told to sit in the back of the bus, they aren't told they can't marry members of the others sex, they are told the same thing everyone in America is, you can't marry others of the same sex. I can't marry a rock, neither can they. We are all on the same standing.
Clark
When the church strongly opposed the removal of prayer in school many members wondered why. Now that we see how that ruling has led to attempts to remove God from nearly every public location. Clearly these men are inspired.
The homosexual rights movement is threatening to legitimize that behavior and criminalizing the speaking out against it. I know our leaders are inspired beyond their own wisdom here.
Common sense also tells us that someone with homosexuals have every right we have. They aren't told to sit in the back of the bus, they aren't told they can't marry members of the others sex, they are told the same thing everyone in America is, you can't marry others of the same sex. I can't marry a rock, neither can they. We are all on the same standing.
Clark
Comments continue below
Gus | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
People commenting here need to realize that this is not a political issue,
it's a moral and societal issue. So the LDS Church has every right (and I
believe an obligation) to voice their opinion and encourage members to work to
pass prop 8. The Church won't tell us which candidates to vote for because
that would be crossing the line. However as a side note, isn't it
interesting that McCain, Obama, Palin, and Biden all support traditional
marriage and believe it should remain between one man and one woman?
See my next post for more enlightenment.
See my next post for more enlightenment.
Gus part 2 | 11:06 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Those of you who don't want rights taken away from anybody or any group of
people (gays) need to know that I'm right there with you on that. No
American should have fewer rights than another. However on thing that anti-prop
8 people don't know (or refuse to acknowledge) is that in California gays
already have EVERY SINGLE right, privilege, and benefit that married couples
have. There is nothing a married couple gets that a gay couple does not get.
HOWEVER, this is not the case for federal rights, or rights granted by our federal government. So yes, a gay couple still must file separate federal income tax returns, which is unconstitutional in my opinion; yes, gays are still being discriminated by our federal government in that regard.
What I'm saying is that gays are fighting the wrong fight here. They need to be in Washington lobbying for equal rights under federal law, because they already have equal rights under California law. I am active LDS, married with kids, but I completely sympathize with gays on a federal level. I would go to Washington to support gay rights if ever invited. Wake up gays! Go to Washington! Get rights!
HOWEVER, this is not the case for federal rights, or rights granted by our federal government. So yes, a gay couple still must file separate federal income tax returns, which is unconstitutional in my opinion; yes, gays are still being discriminated by our federal government in that regard.
What I'm saying is that gays are fighting the wrong fight here. They need to be in Washington lobbying for equal rights under federal law, because they already have equal rights under California law. I am active LDS, married with kids, but I completely sympathize with gays on a federal level. I would go to Washington to support gay rights if ever invited. Wake up gays! Go to Washington! Get rights!
waste of time | 11:23 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Sorry neocons.
You've tried to pull this sort of moralizing stunt before. I.e., Stem-cell research, Roe v Wade, censorship, prayer in public schools ...
You would be better served minding your own sanctimonious business.
You've tried to pull this sort of moralizing stunt before. I.e., Stem-cell research, Roe v Wade, censorship, prayer in public schools ...
You would be better served minding your own sanctimonious business.
Jeff | 11:24 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
SHEEEESH! what a bunch of condemning judgmental people on here. However,
I'm one who is definitely for traditional marriage between a man and a
woman. If we all turn to homosexual marriages, then we as humans will eventually
GO EXTINCT. God did not make ADAM and EVE as homosexuals. Nonetheless science in
all it's brilliance and greatness needs to find the missing gene and link
in these people and their abnormal behavior... and I don't mean this in a
mean way.
M in Nash | 11:29 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
It's well-known in mainstream scientific circles that there is no empirical
connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Let the "innocent
children" argument rest.
Marriage equality is the right thing to do and is simply a matter of time. Is it not better that your children remember you as someone who stood up for the human dignity of all people before you were required to by law?
Marriage equality is the right thing to do and is simply a matter of time. Is it not better that your children remember you as someone who stood up for the human dignity of all people before you were required to by law?
NY Josh | 11:31 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
If marriage is not defined as a union between mand and women, how then should it
be defined? Can two men be married? Two women? Roomates at college? If the
arguement is about granting specific rights to two consenting adults, i.e. a gay
couple, what about granting those rights to first cousins? A sibling? If we
allow the state to define marriage as anything except betweeen a man and a
women, how then should it be defined?
Non-LDS trolls | 11:38 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I wonder how many of the "I'm LDS but I don't support this
proposition" are actually LDS and not just liberal trolls.
I'm guessing 95%.
For the other 5%, you are not disagreeing with the "church", or even the "brethren." If you have any semblance of a testimony, you understand that this is coming directly from God.
What is the point in having a church with modern revelation if we simply choose to disagree with God's will because it runs counter to our imperfect views of "fairness" or "equality?"
And to the guy claiming to have gone to Harvard Law (if you really did go to law school, and if you really are LDS): I'm sorry that your liberal law professors have brainwashed you into your inconsistent, indefensible position. Perhaps you should refer to 2nd Nephi...
"When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."
I'm guessing 95%.
For the other 5%, you are not disagreeing with the "church", or even the "brethren." If you have any semblance of a testimony, you understand that this is coming directly from God.
What is the point in having a church with modern revelation if we simply choose to disagree with God's will because it runs counter to our imperfect views of "fairness" or "equality?"
And to the guy claiming to have gone to Harvard Law (if you really did go to law school, and if you really are LDS): I'm sorry that your liberal law professors have brainwashed you into your inconsistent, indefensible position. Perhaps you should refer to 2nd Nephi...
"When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."
davidutefan | 11:42 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
to vote for 8:
Who are you to decide what is deviant behavior? According to you, it must be gays and their "deviant" lifestyles bringing down our economic system. What a ridiculous argument. Freedom of religion includes the freedom FROM religion. Is the behavior deviant because the bible say so? what about those who do not believe in the bible or even God for that matter? By the way, I am male , heterosexual, and married with 7 children and 3 grandchildren with some of my oldest and dearest freinds that are gay. I am also LDS.
Who are you to decide what is deviant behavior? According to you, it must be gays and their "deviant" lifestyles bringing down our economic system. What a ridiculous argument. Freedom of religion includes the freedom FROM religion. Is the behavior deviant because the bible say so? what about those who do not believe in the bible or even God for that matter? By the way, I am male , heterosexual, and married with 7 children and 3 grandchildren with some of my oldest and dearest freinds that are gay. I am also LDS.
No Choice | 11:43 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Liberal government mandates proclaimed:
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming of same-sex marriage: "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not!"
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming of same-sex marriage: "It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not!"
Anonymous | 11:48 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Enough of the Hype - I think you nailed it. The Church does not even have
consistent message on it's own docrtines regarding marriage. There was a
time about 100 years ago when the National debate on marriage was in regards to
the non-traditional polygamy practiced by the Mormons. The irony is that many
of the civil arguments agains prop 8 being peddled by the homosexual community
today, are the same legal defenses that Mormons used 100 years ago. "The
State has no right to interfere on marriage/ religion, etc".
Honest question | 11:50 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I heard the sound bite from the church: "We don't know what the
consequences will be..." What does this mean? I am seriously asking for
information here not just baiting someone into a fight. I want to understand the
church's perspective. I always applaud them for their humanitarian efforts
worldwide and have no real issues with their operations. So after hearing the
"consequences" comment I now want to hear their rationale on
consequences or effects on society and humanity. They stated the effects or
unknown but what do they think they might be and what is the concern? Again I am
not looking to debate anyone here but rather get an intelligent answer since the
news didn't answer this for me. Anyone?
Anonymous | 11:51 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
This just part of the culture wars being promoted by the extreme rigth-wing.
They believe they have the "God-given right" to dictate morals, tastes, ways of life, etc. to EVERYBODY.
Like prayer in public school, Roe w Wade, censorship and stem-cell research, imminent failure of this sort of nonsense will always occur in a FREE society.
It is not "Clear" | 11:52 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The Bible has been clear on things that used to be believed and that we
don't practice anymore.
Yes, you do "pick and choose" what you want to believe!
Yes, you do "pick and choose" what you want to believe!
to "just the facts" | 11:52 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
You said: "Do not pretend that the law in Utah treats gay people
equally...Only on this issue I disagree with Brethren. I testify that the Church
is taking a stand that it will soon regret."
You were right on with your argument up until the last couple sentences. Yes, Utah treats gay couples as second class, that is easy to see. But where your argument fails is that you assume the Church is taking a stand against rights for gays, when it clearly is not. In fact, I would argue the opposite.
The Church simply wants to protect marriage right now and that is its main focus. Many people are getting mixed up here because they think the Church doesn't want gays to have rights like you suggested in your post. Quite the contrary. The Church has never said that gay couples should not have all the rights that a married couple has. I was at the broadcast last night and it was clear that the Church's focus is on protecting marriage. The only "stand" the Church is taking is to protect marriage. They are not taking an public stand on gay rights, however, I believe we should.
You were right on with your argument up until the last couple sentences. Yes, Utah treats gay couples as second class, that is easy to see. But where your argument fails is that you assume the Church is taking a stand against rights for gays, when it clearly is not. In fact, I would argue the opposite.
The Church simply wants to protect marriage right now and that is its main focus. Many people are getting mixed up here because they think the Church doesn't want gays to have rights like you suggested in your post. Quite the contrary. The Church has never said that gay couples should not have all the rights that a married couple has. I was at the broadcast last night and it was clear that the Church's focus is on protecting marriage. The only "stand" the Church is taking is to protect marriage. They are not taking an public stand on gay rights, however, I believe we should.
Cali-resident | 11:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
So far all the comments I have read are very interesting. Aren't we glad
we live in a country of free speech?!
No one is trying to take away the rights of same sex couples. They have them and they know they have them. My question is this.......Why are these couples trying to take away OUR rights? Why are they and government dictating to Religion what they will and will not do or they will lose their tax exempt status? Isn't that a form of extortion....blackmail? Wasn't our country founded by the pilgrims who came here for religious freedom? So why are homosexual people trying to take away our freedom to worship how we choose? Why do they insist on marrying in any church when they can be married in a civil ceremony? If Prop 8 is defeated what next?! ANY church has the right to speak out on issues when it has a direct impact on what they hold true. Not a hard concept people. I believe that every person, regardless of their beliefs, knows what is right and wrong in their hearts.
No one is trying to take away the rights of same sex couples. They have them and they know they have them. My question is this.......Why are these couples trying to take away OUR rights? Why are they and government dictating to Religion what they will and will not do or they will lose their tax exempt status? Isn't that a form of extortion....blackmail? Wasn't our country founded by the pilgrims who came here for religious freedom? So why are homosexual people trying to take away our freedom to worship how we choose? Why do they insist on marrying in any church when they can be married in a civil ceremony? If Prop 8 is defeated what next?! ANY church has the right to speak out on issues when it has a direct impact on what they hold true. Not a hard concept people. I believe that every person, regardless of their beliefs, knows what is right and wrong in their hearts.
Anonymous | 11:58 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To Ted,
How very "egalitarian" of you to assume YOU are the OLDER person and gays are the CHILDREN!
It is just this kind of attitude of superiority and arrogance that is sickening.
How very "egalitarian" of you to assume YOU are the OLDER person and gays are the CHILDREN!
It is just this kind of attitude of superiority and arrogance that is sickening.
@anon 9:13 | 12:02 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
"Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services
altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place
children with same-sex couples. "
I'm so sick of this lie being told over and over!!! The Catholic Charities were not forced to close because they wouldn't adopt to gay couples. They WERE NOT FORCED to close at all. They were faced with the choice to either continue to take STATE FUNDING and abide by state anti discrimination laws, or to stop accepting state funding. It's that simple. Otherwise gay couples would be being discriminated against by their OWN tax dollars.
I'm so sick of this lie being told over and over!!! The Catholic Charities were not forced to close because they wouldn't adopt to gay couples. They WERE NOT FORCED to close at all. They were faced with the choice to either continue to take STATE FUNDING and abide by state anti discrimination laws, or to stop accepting state funding. It's that simple. Otherwise gay couples would be being discriminated against by their OWN tax dollars.
Richard G. | 12:03 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The Mormon Church's bigotry against gay people is reprehensible.
As long as Mormons keep persecuting gays and trying to deny them fundamental human rights, the rest of us are perfectly justified in HATING the Mormon Church.
As long as Mormons keep persecuting gays and trying to deny them fundamental human rights, the rest of us are perfectly justified in HATING the Mormon Church.
Now or Later | 12:04 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To 10:14 a.m.,
YOU need to read the Constitution again! There is NOTHING in the Constitution anything like what you have claimed! Nothing.
What IS in the Constitution, the 9th Amendment, is an explicit statement that any and all "rights" that can possibly be imagined belong by default TO THE PEOPLE. In other words, just because a "right" is NOT specified or enumerated in the Constitution (U.S. or State) does not mean that there is no such right!
Now if you had the capacity to reason logically, you would be able to see that the 9th amendment guarantees that the "right to marry" is a right that belongs to gays and lesbians already and cannot be infringed by any amendment to a state constitution! That is why if Proposition 8 passes, the group in which I am a member will take this fight to the U.S. Supreme Court!
So, you can concede the rights of gays and lesbians now by voting against Proposition 8, or you can concede their rights to marry later when this goes to the US Supreme Court.
You choose how much sacred Tithing money and time you want to waste on this hopeless cause.
YOU need to read the Constitution again! There is NOTHING in the Constitution anything like what you have claimed! Nothing.
What IS in the Constitution, the 9th Amendment, is an explicit statement that any and all "rights" that can possibly be imagined belong by default TO THE PEOPLE. In other words, just because a "right" is NOT specified or enumerated in the Constitution (U.S. or State) does not mean that there is no such right!
Now if you had the capacity to reason logically, you would be able to see that the 9th amendment guarantees that the "right to marry" is a right that belongs to gays and lesbians already and cannot be infringed by any amendment to a state constitution! That is why if Proposition 8 passes, the group in which I am a member will take this fight to the U.S. Supreme Court!
So, you can concede the rights of gays and lesbians now by voting against Proposition 8, or you can concede their rights to marry later when this goes to the US Supreme Court.
You choose how much sacred Tithing money and time you want to waste on this hopeless cause.
Jokie | 12:04 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The issue of children shouldn't be worried about. I work in San Francisco
for the public school system. I can assure you that kids here are no different
than anywhere else. They are not more tolerant and many are homophobic, very
much so! And, just so you know, teachers have a professional ethic against
trying to push their personal values onto children. I see this every day. I
think that many conservatives would be highly impressed with the professionalism
of teachers here. Also, many faculty are religious. So, we have a broad spectrum
of beliefs.
Also, most same-sex couples just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. If Prop 8 fails, everything will get quiet and life will go on as before. You'll barely notice the difference in your lives before June 16th.
Also, most same-sex couples just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. If Prop 8 fails, everything will get quiet and life will go on as before. You'll barely notice the difference in your lives before June 16th.
Religious Liberty of Whom? | 12:08 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The reason that religious liberty is so laudable is that it allows people to
believe different things, act according to those beliefs, and continue to
co-exist.
The argument that eliminating the right of gay couples to marry will protect religious liberty is incorrect. LDS people are allowed to live and worship and marry in Oakland and in Boston. the "gay influence" on those cities has not eliminated the religious liberties of the Mormons. However the LDS church can not abide by people believing differently and is attempting to eliminate the rights of individuals who they have already cast out of their church.
The LDS can leave the gays behind, but they can't leave them alone.
Well I claim the privilege of establishing my family according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them marry how, where, and with whom they may.
The argument that eliminating the right of gay couples to marry will protect religious liberty is incorrect. LDS people are allowed to live and worship and marry in Oakland and in Boston. the "gay influence" on those cities has not eliminated the religious liberties of the Mormons. However the LDS church can not abide by people believing differently and is attempting to eliminate the rights of individuals who they have already cast out of their church.
The LDS can leave the gays behind, but they can't leave them alone.
Well I claim the privilege of establishing my family according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them marry how, where, and with whom they may.
Anonymous | 12:08 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
What happened to free agency, and the Devil telling people what to do? Does this
still apply?
Dave | 12:10 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Reasonable:
You're statement is a terribly incorrect AND hateful stereotype: In actuality more victims of sexual abuse are of the opposite gender than the perpetrator(i.e more pedophiles are heterosexual than homosexual).
You're statement is a terribly incorrect AND hateful stereotype: In actuality more victims of sexual abuse are of the opposite gender than the perpetrator(i.e more pedophiles are heterosexual than homosexual).
Dave | 12:14 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To Sam:
Your facts are skewed: The Mormon church will not lose their tax exempt status. Religious groups are not in any way compelled to perform gay marriages if they choose not too. By the way, no gay couple would want to get married in the temple anyways.
Your facts are skewed: The Mormon church will not lose their tax exempt status. Religious groups are not in any way compelled to perform gay marriages if they choose not too. By the way, no gay couple would want to get married in the temple anyways.
Ryan | 12:17 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Let's be clear. The United States Constitution doesn't guarantee
anyone the right to marry anybody else. Correct me if I'm wrong - is it in
the bill of rights? Any of the amendments? Articles?
The answer is no - Marriage is not a constitutional right. Whenever anything offends someone's sense of fairness, they say it's unconstitutional; that's demonstrably false. Marriage is, however, spelled out in state constitutions. This should be a matter for states to decide for themselves. Ah, the virtues of federalism...
The answer is no - Marriage is not a constitutional right. Whenever anything offends someone's sense of fairness, they say it's unconstitutional; that's demonstrably false. Marriage is, however, spelled out in state constitutions. This should be a matter for states to decide for themselves. Ah, the virtues of federalism...
Get over it | 12:19 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Marriage.
It's a word.
Only a word.
A constitutional ammendment to decide who owns the word?
This is what everyone is up in arms about?
The easiest way to handle this...
Change the definition in the Proclimation to the world from "Marriage is between a man and a woman" to "Eternal Marriage is between a man and a woman" or "Traditional Marriage is between a man and a woman"..
So much easier to add "Eternal" or "Traditional".
I realize eveyone would need to buy new plaques for their homes, but way cheaper, and more civil than what is going on now.
It's a word.
Only a word.
A constitutional ammendment to decide who owns the word?
This is what everyone is up in arms about?
The easiest way to handle this...
Change the definition in the Proclimation to the world from "Marriage is between a man and a woman" to "Eternal Marriage is between a man and a woman" or "Traditional Marriage is between a man and a woman"..
So much easier to add "Eternal" or "Traditional".
I realize eveyone would need to buy new plaques for their homes, but way cheaper, and more civil than what is going on now.
Jerry"G" | 12:23 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Hey people in the beginning it was ADAM & EVE ! Not Adam & Steve. God
himself set the standard. Homosexuality is an sin and we should not help it in
any way
payback | 12:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I propose that Californians should start campaigning to force Utahns to allow
the sale of wine coolers again and change other Utah laws. California should
start pouring time and energy into changing Utah....turnabout is fair play! And
the Californians have tons more money and resources than bitty little finger
waving tut-tutting Utah! This could get fun!
Anonymous | 12:30 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Render unto Caesar ... (you know the rest)
When the lines are blurred, trouble is sure to follow.
When the lines are blurred, trouble is sure to follow.
re: BYU 96 | 12:32 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The second-class citizen argument holds no water. What gays want is special
protection. Why do you feel those who follow the word of God hate gays? That
makes no sense. How do you know our hearts? I have gay relatives I love as much
as before they were gay. Are you calling me a liar?
I know you are trying to be loving and tolerant to gays and that is good. I am also. But it is not helpful to enable someone to change laws that will damage society. Many gays who are not extremist have warned us about the agenda to muzzle and disenfranchise churches who refuse to give up their first amendment rights to believe homosexuality is wrong. To ignore the ample evidence of this agenda is being disingenuous. In addition, God can see the outcome of this issue if the radical agenda works. For this purpose He inspired the Proclamation on the Family.
I know you are trying to be loving and tolerant to gays and that is good. I am also. But it is not helpful to enable someone to change laws that will damage society. Many gays who are not extremist have warned us about the agenda to muzzle and disenfranchise churches who refuse to give up their first amendment rights to believe homosexuality is wrong. To ignore the ample evidence of this agenda is being disingenuous. In addition, God can see the outcome of this issue if the radical agenda works. For this purpose He inspired the Proclamation on the Family.
Anonymous | 12:34 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Do you people agree with everything that is taught in the public (or even
private) schools?
How many of you good LDS even have a clue what your children are being taught by their professors at BYU?
There will always be stuff taught "out in the world" that you will not want your children to believe or agree with. So what? That will never change.
When your child comes home with an idea that you disagree with, you simply teach them in love and kindness what you believe to be the truth. No big deal.
Then prepare yourself when your child begins to live his or her OWN life and chooses to believe what they want to believe, even if it is not the same thing YOU believe!
They will live their own lives independent of you.
Or are you all so insecure as to want to control even the very thoughts and feelings of your children's souls?!
Are all Latter-day Saints such paranoid control freaks?
Get a clue. Your children are already being exposed to ideas that are contrary to your beliefs, even without Proposition 8. The amendment will do NOTHING to solve that problem.
How many of you good LDS even have a clue what your children are being taught by their professors at BYU?
There will always be stuff taught "out in the world" that you will not want your children to believe or agree with. So what? That will never change.
When your child comes home with an idea that you disagree with, you simply teach them in love and kindness what you believe to be the truth. No big deal.
Then prepare yourself when your child begins to live his or her OWN life and chooses to believe what they want to believe, even if it is not the same thing YOU believe!
They will live their own lives independent of you.
Or are you all so insecure as to want to control even the very thoughts and feelings of your children's souls?!
Are all Latter-day Saints such paranoid control freaks?
Get a clue. Your children are already being exposed to ideas that are contrary to your beliefs, even without Proposition 8. The amendment will do NOTHING to solve that problem.
re: Donovan | 12:35 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
You missed one important part - God doesn't have Gaty children. He has
children that choose a gay lifestyle in opposition to his laws. And there are
no "American rights" that guarntee them anything other than they are
free to choose sin or not to sin.
The foundation of society is families founded by one man and one woman, not gay men or gay women. The very concept of society perpetuating is contrary to that.
The foundation of society is families founded by one man and one woman, not gay men or gay women. The very concept of society perpetuating is contrary to that.
Prop. 8 is Anti-Discriminatory | 12:47 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I agree with Anonymous, who posted at 9:13a.m., October 9.
The GLBT community is VERY good at using litigation to chip away at the rights of others (fertility doctors, adoption agencies, etc. being sued and shut down because they did not want to perform services for GLBTs, even though they are private companies/individuals). The long term goal of the GLBT community is to either force the religions to change their belief system or to remove their tax-exempt status and right to marry.
In California, there is NO difference between the rights that GLBT individuals have and the rights of everyone else. Don't believe me? Go look at California Family Code section 297.5. Section 297.5(a) provides, "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, ... as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
Proposition 8 is about anti-discrimination against straight individuals who have the "audacity" to believe that the definition of marriage should not be changed. I am voting Yes on Proposition 8.
The GLBT community is VERY good at using litigation to chip away at the rights of others (fertility doctors, adoption agencies, etc. being sued and shut down because they did not want to perform services for GLBTs, even though they are private companies/individuals). The long term goal of the GLBT community is to either force the religions to change their belief system or to remove their tax-exempt status and right to marry.
In California, there is NO difference between the rights that GLBT individuals have and the rights of everyone else. Don't believe me? Go look at California Family Code section 297.5. Section 297.5(a) provides, "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, ... as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
Proposition 8 is about anti-discrimination against straight individuals who have the "audacity" to believe that the definition of marriage should not be changed. I am voting Yes on Proposition 8.
Prop. 8 is Anti-Discriminatory | 12:58 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To BYU 96 HLS 01:
You are actually NOT winning the argument that you began with. You switched from discussion of Proposition 8, which is a proposed amendment to the California Constitution and have changed the subject to a discussion of laws applicable in Utah.
Stick with the subject at hand. If you would like to propose some modifications to Utah's laws or constitution, then we can have that discussion. California Law is clear that registered domestic partners have all of the same rights as married individuals. Here is there reference if you care to check: California Family Code section 297.5(a).
There are NO extra steps in California to register as domestic partners. Domestic Partners have to register with the County where they reside. Married individuals must obtain a marriage license prior to the ceremony, which must be filled out and returned by the person with legal authority to perform the marriage to the County where the marriage was performed. In other words, both groups must register.
You are actually NOT winning the argument that you began with. You switched from discussion of Proposition 8, which is a proposed amendment to the California Constitution and have changed the subject to a discussion of laws applicable in Utah.
Stick with the subject at hand. If you would like to propose some modifications to Utah's laws or constitution, then we can have that discussion. California Law is clear that registered domestic partners have all of the same rights as married individuals. Here is there reference if you care to check: California Family Code section 297.5(a).
There are NO extra steps in California to register as domestic partners. Domestic Partners have to register with the County where they reside. Married individuals must obtain a marriage license prior to the ceremony, which must be filled out and returned by the person with legal authority to perform the marriage to the County where the marriage was performed. In other words, both groups must register.
Anonymous | 1:00 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
My comment was NOT POSTED!
Anonymous | 1:05 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Kevin in the Terrace | 10:05 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
"We have many things that are outlawed because they are wrong. For example stealing, murder, assault, lying under oath, sodomy, prostitution, drug use, are all wrong morally and are thus outlawed."
FYI - SODOMY is not against the law per the Supreme Court (Nov 18, 2003 Lawrence v. Texas).
"We have many things that are outlawed because they are wrong. For example stealing, murder, assault, lying under oath, sodomy, prostitution, drug use, are all wrong morally and are thus outlawed."
FYI - SODOMY is not against the law per the Supreme Court (Nov 18, 2003 Lawrence v. Texas).
@Cali bro | 1:07 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
"All of you that against Prop 8. Let me ask you this. How did you get into
this world?"
Careful, you're one step away from the conclusion that gay people are born of straight parents and are *GASP* still actual human beings and deserve to be treated as such!
Careful, you're one step away from the conclusion that gay people are born of straight parents and are *GASP* still actual human beings and deserve to be treated as such!
to: re:Freedom Whaler | 1:13 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
" What is there is the protection to exercise your religious beliefs in protecting the family as a core of society. "
Please state Article and Section. I do not see that in my copy. I see only an Amendment protecting every American's right to exercise freely their own beliefs.
Prop 8 (by the way is titled: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act) is un-American.
awsomeron | 1:20 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The Good Citizens of California can and will take care of their own business,
without any help from the rest of us. On November 5th Gay Marriage will not
longer be legal in California.
Sadly Abortion still will be.
Sadly Abortion still will be.
re:ExMoWeHoMo | 1:24 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Sir, as an active LDS member, may I commend you and your husband on your
generous gift of love.
Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of thee...
You have my respect.
Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of thee...
You have my respect.
To "STEVEN" | 1:41 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The problem with minding our own business is that "it's soon coming to
Utah" - that's the problem. Even if Prop 8 didn't affect us now,
it soon would. Because one rotten apple will spoil the whole bunch!!! We need
to protect our children, our morals and our standards as Americans.
Many religions are involved with this decision, not just LDS>
Many religions are involved with this decision, not just LDS>
SS | 1:48 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
In California, prior to the decision from the California Supreme Court, gays had
every right the state could give--domestic partners are the legal equivalent of
spouses for all purposes, including insurance. The Supreme Court case gave gays
status as a protected class entitled to "strict scrutiny" for the
first time ever--putting them in the category of race, religion and gender.
This is more than gay rights. It is also a child right issue. In CA, where I
live, the state is required to teach children abt marriage. It is now between
any 2 people, instead of a man and woman. More importantly, children now no
longer have the right to a father and mother. They only have the right to 2
parents. Until gay marriage became politically popular, it was proven and well
accepted that children need a father and mother. This was not addressed in the
Supreme Court case, but the 3 dissenting justices said the Court was
overstepping its authority.
re:Common Sense 10:57 | 1:55 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
re"Common Sense | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Dear Members of the Church,
When the church strongly opposed the removal of prayer in school many members wondered why."
"Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000),
The Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD), a school district in Texas between Houston and Galveston) allowed students to read Christian prayers at graduation ceremonies and over the public address system at home football games. These prayers were read by an elected student chaplain.
Two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers�one Mormon, the other Catholic�objected to this practice and filed a suit on the basis of a violation of the Establishment Clause."
The case was brought by a member of the LDS church.
Once again, the case was brought to the court by a Mormon, because we all know in the south that Mormons and Catholics are not CHRISTIAN.
The intent of people to impose their religous views upon others is repugnant to both the ideals of this great country and The Plan of Salvation.
Common sense implies an educated opinion, rather than a guess at facts based upon gut feelings.
Dear Members of the Church,
When the church strongly opposed the removal of prayer in school many members wondered why."
"Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000),
The Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD), a school district in Texas between Houston and Galveston) allowed students to read Christian prayers at graduation ceremonies and over the public address system at home football games. These prayers were read by an elected student chaplain.
Two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers�one Mormon, the other Catholic�objected to this practice and filed a suit on the basis of a violation of the Establishment Clause."
The case was brought by a member of the LDS church.
Once again, the case was brought to the court by a Mormon, because we all know in the south that Mormons and Catholics are not CHRISTIAN.
The intent of people to impose their religous views upon others is repugnant to both the ideals of this great country and The Plan of Salvation.
Common sense implies an educated opinion, rather than a guess at facts based upon gut feelings.
*EXTRA, EXTRA!* | 1:59 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
* Extra, Extra, read all about it! *
We interrupt the broadcast of whatever you were doing and report the following:
It is now concluded that human beings walking on the earth are ALL male & female....CREATED BY a male and a female. Those opposing this actual FACT are trying to change that everyway possible. It has been reported by science that it is IMPOSSIBLE to alter this fact in anyway, whatsoever...no loopholes this time. An alarming rate of children understand this simple concept, however it is reported that "mature adults" are finding it difficult to understand.
Stay tuned as the campaign to protect and restore marriage hangs in the balance of a very ignorant civilization! It is highly suggested that everyone EDUCATE themselves before marking no on their ballot.
This concludes this test of the emergency system. Now we'll see who actually was listening.
We interrupt the broadcast of whatever you were doing and report the following:
It is now concluded that human beings walking on the earth are ALL male & female....CREATED BY a male and a female. Those opposing this actual FACT are trying to change that everyway possible. It has been reported by science that it is IMPOSSIBLE to alter this fact in anyway, whatsoever...no loopholes this time. An alarming rate of children understand this simple concept, however it is reported that "mature adults" are finding it difficult to understand.
Stay tuned as the campaign to protect and restore marriage hangs in the balance of a very ignorant civilization! It is highly suggested that everyone EDUCATE themselves before marking no on their ballot.
This concludes this test of the emergency system. Now we'll see who actually was listening.
TO JanSan | 10:47 a.m. | 2:00 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
"If this does not pass and gay marraige is approved as alright - how would that affect the missionaries in there teaching of gay marraige as not accepted in the church. Would this be considered hate speech and could they be arrested for this??any one with ideas that knows what they are talking about please feel free to respond.
JanSan: Gay marriage is happening right now in Cal., Mass, Great Britian, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, South Africa, Spain and Canada.
What the church believes and teaches will be treated differently in each country depending upon their laws. The US has a very strong First Amendment that allows the LDS to believe and teach whatever they want to, as long as it is not illegal (ie, human sacrifice, etc.) We were allowed to teach that we did not believe that blacks could be full members of the church with all privileges without the government stopping us. Yes, we received flak from others outside the church for this stand, but we were still ALLOWED to our beliefs. We will be allowed to believe that homosexuality is a sin and take church action against any member that practices it without government interference.
Donovan | 2:07 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Re 12;35
The important point you missed is this: In order for your point to be valid, you would first have to prove God is real, and then you would have to prove that gay people are in fact not born gay.
If you cannot prove either factor, your point is moot.
Thanks
kathyn | 2:34 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
to kathyn: 10:31. I understand perfectly the concept of Free Agency. What I
think you don't understand is the idea of consequences. No member of the
Church is forced to do anything. We all have our free agency. That still
doesn't change the morality of this issue. Either you follow the tenets of
the Church or you don't. That's totally up to you. No one is taking
away your free agency.
And no one is stopping gay couples. Just don't label it marriage.
And no one is stopping gay couples. Just don't label it marriage.
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.
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling 1:19 a.m.
- Brems outlasts 2nd round of votes 1:04 a.m.
- 2 families divided over slaying 1:04 a.m.
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper 1:03 a.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 1:03 a.m.
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend 12:31 a.m.
- 'Cyber Monday' sales top records 12:29 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game 12:26 a.m.
- No drugs in driver of Am.F. band bus 12:15 a.m.
- Governor Mansion to begin free tours 12:14 a.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Y. student vanished in China
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Max Hall issues apology
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology379
- Hall reprimanded by MWC370
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal316
- Utes won't respond to Hall257
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome110
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
There are some games I love not on your list. Arkham Asylum for one.
Our parents made my brothers help kill and clean our rabbits before we ate...
Why would you keep it open? I would understand if there was a lot of amazing...
The government will run our health care well? Read Reader's Digest, November...
TCU stomped on the MWC so they are naturally ready to crush Florida, Alabama...
could you understand Dave Locke any more than my mom does and she is not even...
Attending the ND/BYU game 3 years ago in south bend, a couple of things stuck...
I missed the game, actually i heard a little bit of Locke on the radio (man...
quotes were good: Article was dumb and unnecessary.
I believe the art depicting Joseph looking at the plates may possibly be...
Advertisements