Reader comments
Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site
170 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Martin from CALI! | 10:55 p.m. Nov. 15, 2008
We need to put an END to this NOW!!I am sick and tired that we (LDS Members)
have to always turn around and give the other cheek!!!!We need to STAND UP, GET
UP and fight for OUR RIGHTS!
Jed | 4:25 a.m. Nov. 16, 2008
Wow. I an grateful that the Church took a stand on this.
Paul said he gloried in his sufferings that he suffered for Christ, and I feel to rejoice with him.
God bless all who stand up for what is right and are persecuted and scorned for it!
Paul said he gloried in his sufferings that he suffered for Christ, and I feel to rejoice with him.
God bless all who stand up for what is right and are persecuted and scorned for it!
An LDS Mom | 8:18 a.m. Nov. 16, 2008
To: Love gays too.� Try being the Mom of a daughter, raised
in the church, married(I'm Canadian) to her lesbian
lover.� I love my daughter, love her mate, but cannot
condone their relationship.� If one reads the Bible with an
open mind, they will understand that Heavenly Father condemms ALL sexual
activities outside marriage, by His definition, between a man and a
woman.� I don't hate gays, but do hate the sexual
garbage that we are being inundated with.� I work in a
public serving job.� Many times I can feel the love that
the Lord has for his children, just by being in their
presence.� How can I do any less than the Lord, I would be
a hippocrit.I am dismayed by the public hatred and lack of understanding
expressed by those who feel that we must agree with their ideas or we hate
them.� Perhaps the shoe needs to be put on the other
foot.� They don't agree with
us...hummm� Hate the sin, love the
sinner.� Living with that motto would bring a lot of peace
into the world.��
Comments continue below
Vi Kanavel | 8:32 a.m. Nov. 16, 2008
No matter what is going on at this time, we know who is at the bottom of it and
it is NOT The Lord.
The old addage of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me" is still true.
Why do we need to do anything to people who don't know any better? Of course if it will make anyone happier, go ahead. As for me, I know what is right and what is wrong as many of us do.
This too shall pass. Heavenly Father is still in charge and we are all just renting space here on earth.
Keep the faith and follow the Prophet and all will be well!
The old addage of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me" is still true.
Why do we need to do anything to people who don't know any better? Of course if it will make anyone happier, go ahead. As for me, I know what is right and what is wrong as many of us do.
This too shall pass. Heavenly Father is still in charge and we are all just renting space here on earth.
Keep the faith and follow the Prophet and all will be well!
Barbara | 11:45 a.m. Nov. 16, 2008
We must stay strong and stand together. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
A choice of behavior" does not equal a "right". That would be like saying people who commit adultery deserve special rights and privileges because they choose to engage in a certain behavior.
A choice of behavior" does not equal a "right". That would be like saying people who commit adultery deserve special rights and privileges because they choose to engage in a certain behavior.
thiaCyn | 2:03 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
YES!! Thank you Richard Adams for all the businesses that supported YES on 8!!!
I will now give my loyal best to support them! And you all can go to
ElectionTrack.com and see who supported NO on 8! And I agree with one post that
we should turn off the TV's and start BOYCOTTING HOLLYWEIRD! As for the
governator of Cali, he was given a large amount of money by the RINOs, The Log
Cabin Republicans, the gay politicians. Just remember when we BOYCOTT these
people, we don't give monies to their movements, the liberal agenda.
Arizona Transplant | 3:36 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I voted by early ballot in AZ before moving to Utah just before the election. I
voted YES on prop 102 in that state. I had already made up my mind about this
issue BEFORE I was encouraged to help get the prop passed. However, I did not
actively participate in the passage of the prop except to vote for it. Just
because the LDS church encourages its members to do something doesn't mean
we automatically do it. 1 pm poster to Nigel said "but your leadership
told all mormons to donate - so it's the same thing." I did not
donate either time or money to the campaign, however, I did let friends and
family in AZ and CA know that I was voting for the prop and that I hoped they
would, too. All donations of money and time by members was voluntary and I can
tell you no one will be asked what they did or how they voted. Following church
leaders is a matter of faith and conscienious. We do it because it is the right
thing to do. In this case, I had neither the spare cash or time to do more than
I did.
re: a right? 3:17 PM 11/14 | 3:45 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
said: "The Edmunds-Tucker act, as upheld by the US Supreme Court, affirms
that the government may determine which types of marriages are acceptable. This
issue was over in the late 1800s folks. "
I'm glad someone brought this up. Didn't the Supreme Court (the court of last resort) define marriage when it upheld the anti-bigamy statute of Edmonds-Tucker? Why are we having to make this part of each individual state constitution? Love to hear from the lawyers out there. Oh, one more question: what would it take to repeal the ammendment to the CA constitution? Is it just a simple majority again, or a different type of outcome? thanks!
I'm glad someone brought this up. Didn't the Supreme Court (the court of last resort) define marriage when it upheld the anti-bigamy statute of Edmonds-Tucker? Why are we having to make this part of each individual state constitution? Love to hear from the lawyers out there. Oh, one more question: what would it take to repeal the ammendment to the CA constitution? Is it just a simple majority again, or a different type of outcome? thanks!
Anonymous | 5:36 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
The supporters of Prop 8 acted in a group-up responsible way (if they
hadn't, the media would have been all over it). Now that Prop 8 has been
passed, we see how horrible the supporters of same-sex marriage can be.
Intolerance and hate has overflowed from them. I don't see or hear anyone
on the pro-gay-marriage side decrying the terrible actions being carried out by
their allies and comrades. The pro-gay-marriage folks lost, and they are acting
like babies about it.
Marriage and same-sex just makes no sense. It would be like feminists demanding that they be allowed to have fatherhood. It's a crazy idea.
Marriage and same-sex just makes no sense. It would be like feminists demanding that they be allowed to have fatherhood. It's a crazy idea.
John Campbell | 5:55 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I'm not associated to the LDS church, but I do admire their family values
and standing strongly on not according acts of abomination to become part of
government. The Bible denounces such acts and no less than 7 times in the new
testament. I'm not even of a religious nature and make no claims to such,
yet I can figure out right from wrong when it comes to homosexual acts. I
certainly don't want this taught as a norm in schools and such.
My hat is off to the LDS church for their efforts. In California the homosexual individuals already have laws in place for their desire to "domestic partner" with one another. I see no need for them to attack the sanctity of marriage. In fact, to view this from a religious history would easily align such an attack with an undergrowth of evil pushing it. How many times throughout history have Christians been persecuted in every way imaginable? Is this yet another chapter in that history unfolding?
Pray for the homosexual mind to receive God's help in overcoming their affliction. Pray they remove the chains of their ways.
My hat is off to the LDS church for their efforts. In California the homosexual individuals already have laws in place for their desire to "domestic partner" with one another. I see no need for them to attack the sanctity of marriage. In fact, to view this from a religious history would easily align such an attack with an undergrowth of evil pushing it. How many times throughout history have Christians been persecuted in every way imaginable? Is this yet another chapter in that history unfolding?
Pray for the homosexual mind to receive God's help in overcoming their affliction. Pray they remove the chains of their ways.
maplegal | 8:43 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but its totally unfair of those who were
against Prop 8 to come to places of worship ( particularly LDS) and vandalize
and have rallies outside those places. The LDS church is not the only church or
organization which cares about traditional marriage values. We are but 1 of many
and the majority voted Yes. Furthermore, we are not going to gay bars or clubs
or organizations and breaking their windows, sending envelopes with powder to
them and other things. We are not for what they want but we dont act like
hooligans. What would Jesus do? 1) he would of voted yes also 2) he would not
use violence to make his point. It wont make people accept people of that
lifestyle sooner, they will be seen as not only against what we are for, but
thugs and vandals and very poor sports also.
RickLDS | 10:02 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I think LGBT community involved here are just looking for an easy target. So
many do not realize that Mormons make up 770,000 to 800,000 of the 38 million
people living in California and of those 800,000 people, maybe half of them
would be voting age. And even though Latter-day Saints tends to have a higher
turn-out to the polls than the average Americans, I seriously doubt they had
100% turn-out. And some will still not vote with the rest.
Sorry, to blame this on the Mormon Church seems to be just too convenient (at the very least).
Sorry, to blame this on the Mormon Church seems to be just too convenient (at the very least).
Keith | 10:41 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
If the proposition passed, then the constitution of California is changed by a
voice of the people, right?
How then can the judges in California act contrary to their own constitution?
I too am glad it passed. Any future requests for support for similar threats to true happiness will see me stand firm and steadfast in defense of truth and life.
How then can the judges in California act contrary to their own constitution?
I too am glad it passed. Any future requests for support for similar threats to true happiness will see me stand firm and steadfast in defense of truth and life.
You're missing the point! | 12:40 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Far from showing that California�s Supreme Court was wrong
to extend the right of marriage to gay people, the passage of Proposition 8 is a
reminder of the crucial role that the courts play in protecting vulnerable
groups from unfair treatment. Mormons should remember this, since you yourselves
are vulnerable.
Brother Chuck Schroeder | 6:13 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Do gays really push for equal rights for all or do they simply want more rights
for themselves? One of the big pushes against Prop. 8 before the election was
for "equal rights," claiming Prop. 8 discriminates against gays.
However, are gays also pushing for the rights of a brother to marry his sister,
for a human to marry an animal or for a man or woman to have multiple spouses?
All I see and hear is the push for the right for gays to marry each other. The
other relationships are forbidden by law because of societal beliefs, not to
mention Christian beliefs, upon which this nation and its constitution were
formed.
In addition, a straight couple in California cannot enter into a domestic partnership. I don't hear the gay community arguing for that allowance either. Where the line should be drawn for "equal" rights in forming marital relationships is being protested and argued. However, the gay community is merely focusing on getting only itself across the line of acceptance while leaving others behind. To me, they simply want preferential treatment. What do you think?
Remember; Romans, Chapter 1 ?.
In addition, a straight couple in California cannot enter into a domestic partnership. I don't hear the gay community arguing for that allowance either. Where the line should be drawn for "equal" rights in forming marital relationships is being protested and argued. However, the gay community is merely focusing on getting only itself across the line of acceptance while leaving others behind. To me, they simply want preferential treatment. What do you think?
Remember; Romans, Chapter 1 ?.
Cassandra | 7:55 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
"It's interesting that people of other races are never racist, right?
only white people. It's interesting that hate crimes are only committed by
white, straight people, and that anyone else could never be the instigator of a
hate crime."
Ellen: That's not true. I'm not sure where you are getting your information.
I am a third year law student and have studied some things (though not everything) about hate crimes. The vast majority of hate crime legislation states that hate crimes can be committed against any group by on the basis of certain characteristics (typically race, but often also includes religion, sexual orientation and gender, among others). Indeed, minorities have been prosecuted for hate crimes against other minorities, and also against whites. Further, most hate crimes are not separate crimes, but rather enhancements (that create longer sentences) for existing crimes (so a murder would have a longer sentence if committed on the basis of one of the above categories). Basically, the idea is that a hate crime is not directed simply against one person, but rather is intended to target and intimidate the victim's entire group.
Ellen: That's not true. I'm not sure where you are getting your information.
I am a third year law student and have studied some things (though not everything) about hate crimes. The vast majority of hate crime legislation states that hate crimes can be committed against any group by on the basis of certain characteristics (typically race, but often also includes religion, sexual orientation and gender, among others). Indeed, minorities have been prosecuted for hate crimes against other minorities, and also against whites. Further, most hate crimes are not separate crimes, but rather enhancements (that create longer sentences) for existing crimes (so a murder would have a longer sentence if committed on the basis of one of the above categories). Basically, the idea is that a hate crime is not directed simply against one person, but rather is intended to target and intimidate the victim's entire group.
Cassandra | 8:05 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Wrong, Brother S: Straight people ARE allowed to enter into domestic
partnerships in California if they qualify under the statute.
And, how is equal treatment--wanting gay couples treated the same as heterosexual couples UNDER THE LAW--preferrential?
And, how is equal treatment--wanting gay couples treated the same as heterosexual couples UNDER THE LAW--preferrential?
to Brother Chuck Schroeder | 8:24 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
you must not know any gay people, 'cause the gay people i know care about
other people too, not just about themselves. they've been abused and
treated like second-class citizens or worse for so long they have more
compassion than most straight people i know.
maybe you should befriend more gay people.
maybe you should befriend more gay people.
CharlieBrown | 5:21 a.m. Nov. 18, 2008
Total absence of freedom takes place in a totalitarian system. Total absence of
restraint takes place in a society dominated by anarchy and chaos. Once you
take away the definition of mariage as the union of one man to one woman,
anything goes, and soon the world will be peopled with lonely individuals who
will only have sex as a solution to feel bonded to someone or something else.
The same applies to abortion. First, women were allowed to abort; next, the time allowed to have an abortion was extended; now, we are talking about whether it is OK for a mother to abort a six-month old, who would otherwise be viable with the help of modern medicine...
The same applies to abortion. First, women were allowed to abort; next, the time allowed to have an abortion was extended; now, we are talking about whether it is OK for a mother to abort a six-month old, who would otherwise be viable with the help of modern medicine...
Daryl | 3:47 p.m. Nov. 18, 2008
For those who believe there is a GOD who has given rules, commandments etc. we
have a choice to follow HIS teaching or turn against them. Those in society who
say we must comprimise and get along do not understand that if HE does exist and
if we do believe or know HE does, that they are asking us to tell our GOD that
he is wrong and that HE must change HIS rules. If that is the case then HE is
not GOD but a mans needs to worship some higher being real or not. They are are
asking us to choose betwwen there concept of life and the one GOD has given us.
Whom do ye fear GOD or man, do not ask us to turn on our beliefs so you can live
your life without anyone saying yea or nay to it. We have a moral obligation to
our Creator to stand up for HIS teachings if we are to say we believe.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
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.
Related content
- Mixed reaction for Obama's strategy 8:13 p.m.
- Men, women differ on fiscal outlook 8:08 p.m.
- New layoffs at USA Today 8:07 p.m.
- Execs make case for online fees 8:07 p.m.
- Duncan plans scaled-back facility 8:06 p.m.
- Most Utahns unhappy with Obama 7:55 p.m.
- Utah delegation split on plans 7:44 p.m.
- Teen girl killed in Kaysville crash 7:09 p.m.
- Plenty of H1N1 vaccine available 6:38 p.m.
- Obama orders 30,000-troop boost 6:37 p.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- MWC '09 season in review
- Jazz win 6th in 7 games
- Jazz ready to be without Harpring
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
901 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime482
- Hall reprimanded by MWC401
- Max Hall issues apology387
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal344
- Utes won't respond to Hall273
- BYU says Hall incident resolved229
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game154
- BYU is champion of the state142
- Religion in politics is tiresome128
My husband was teaching his 6th-grade class in Salt Lake last year when...
Latest comments
'Changing the definition of marriage will change its social functions.' -...
This reminds my of the group Monty Python who might write, "When danger...
I'm a BYU fan and I totally agree with the conference selections. How can you...
I too was a little disappointed that more BYU players weren't included. I...
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out...
Max did win a conference championship in 2007... but it was downhill from there.
LOL i hate both schools Go Aggies
...not proud of Max Hall's comments. In his classless and hateful comments,...
Is it any surprise after his stimulus plans to "prevent unemployment from...
...and neither will Whit. That is, unless he changes schools. Urban Meyer...
Advertisements