Reader comments
Prop. 8 foes file complaint against LDS
47 comments | Read story
1Observer | 6:12 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
It would seem that free speech and tolerance is a one way street for the Prop 8
foes. They are exposing themselves for what they are.
uncannygunman | 7:43 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Nobody is saying the church can't have its own opinions. However, the
church does need to 1) follow election laws, 2) comply with the requirements of
its tax-exempt status, and 3) accept that being a religion doesn't prevent
others from judging it based on the decisions it makes.
Comments continue below
@uncannygunman | 8:09 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Your correct. However can you detail even 1 example where a law was broken ?
(Pro Tip: Supporting an issue, and urging or even telling your members to do so
and suggesting that members should donate time / money to the issue breaks
neither election laws nor invalidates its tax exempt status )
Didn't think so.
Didn't think so.
Davesocal | 8:38 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
How does the 'gay community' get over being relegated to status of
second class citizens. The passing of Prop 8 by a narrow margin, after a
Mormon-funded campaign of lies, fearmongering and outright bigotry, was a hollow
victory. I personally will not rest until Prop 8 is thrown onto the scrapheap of
history like so many prejudical laws that have blighted our past.
Geezer | 9:28 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Prop 8 will be a short-lived law. Trying to hold back civil rights is
mug's game.
madison | 10:04 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
to: Davesocal
the gay community is not being considered second class. marriage is a man and a woman, thats what the definition is. you can no more continue to claim the can marry each other than you can claim a woman can marry a married man. it is not illegal for them to sleep together, it is just not considered marriage.
the gay community is not being considered second class. marriage is a man and a woman, thats what the definition is. you can no more continue to claim the can marry each other than you can claim a woman can marry a married man. it is not illegal for them to sleep together, it is just not considered marriage.
Jdude | 10:06 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
The only right Prop 8 took away was the 'right' to call it a marriage
- California offers domestic partnerships which gives the same rights as
'married' couples.
297.5. (a) 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, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
297.5. (a) 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, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Jdude | 10:09 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
The only 'right' Prop 8 took away was the 'right' to call it
a marriage. California offers domestic partnerships that give the same rights
as married couples.
297.5. (a) 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, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
297.5. (a) 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, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Zonal | 10:13 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Hey "These People", the only reason Californians voted for it was
because fell for the lies spewed by your church.
Get over it.
Get over it.
deseretnews.com moderator | 10:18 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
In addition to our stated rules, any comments containing threats or references
to violence of any kind will not be posted. If the trend continues, all comments
will be barred from this story.
Anonymous | 10:35 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
I pay taxes your church does not!!!! Stay out of my government and I'll
stay out of your church.
U.S. or Iran ? | 10:35 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
This is America. Who cares if two adults chose to get married? We are not a
theocracy like Iran, and if this country had been founded as such, the LDS
church would have been stamped out of existence last century. In a society with
reality TV marriages and chapel drive-thoughs, is it really a big deal if a
same-sex couple weds? It seems the LDS church learned the wrong lesson on their
way westward.
Understand the constitution | 10:48 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Geezer marriage is not a civil right. Under the constitution marriage rights are
defined by state law. Prop 8 may be short lived but that decision should be
determined by the legislative process in California. I just hope it is not
influenced my the intimidation tactics that are currently being deployed, which
are wrong and unamerican.
whatsinaname | 10:57 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Prop 8 doesn't prohibit behavior, access, or rights. It defines a term.
Marriage, between a man and a woman. This is not in any way related to civil
rights in the 1960's. At that time the laws limited access and rights.
Prop 8 is not limiting rights, it is not preventing gays from living and being
together. Prop 8 doesn't even to attempt to limit the lifestyles of gays.
We should call it what it is, gay unions. I would argue that giving gay unions
the same tax exemptions and powers of attorney that the law provides for married
couples is not an objection. The church objects to calling something like
marriage between a man and a woman the same as between and man and a man, or
woman and a woman. We need to define marriage and gay unions and not try to
classify them as the same.
Athena | 10:59 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Oh for HEAVEN'S SAKE!
Anti-Prop 8 people, get over yourselves! You lost, ACCEPT THAT. If you really are as politically correct as you say you are, WHY DON'T YOU GROW UP?
Anti-Prop 8 people, get over yourselves! You lost, ACCEPT THAT. If you really are as politically correct as you say you are, WHY DON'T YOU GROW UP?
Brian | 11:00 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
There were no rights taken away. Every man still has the right to marry any
woman who is of age and consents to the marriage. The same goes for a woman
desiring to marry a man. Prop 8 did not destroy any "rights" and this
is not an issue of "equal rights." Equal rights means having rights
that are equal. I have the right, as a man, to marry any consenting of-age woman
I want. The same goes for any man in California. Our rights are equal.
Nothing But The Truth... | 11:14 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Elder L. Whitney Clayton, a California attorney and member of the church's
Presidency of the Seventy should check with his superiors. As reported by the
AP, "Campaign finance records show the Utah-based LDS Church has made its
first financial contribution in support of a Nov. 4 ballot proposition that
would ban same-sex marriage in California.
The in-kind donation of $2,078.97 from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was made on Oct. 25 to ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of faith organizations and conservative groups supporting Proposition 8."
They made another contribution for almost the same amount a few days before the election. To say they didn't contribute is simply false. Is there a communication breakdown here, backpeddling, or a flat out attempt to cover the facts?
Prop 8 would not have even made it to the ballot without the support of the Church.
The in-kind donation of $2,078.97 from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was made on Oct. 25 to ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of faith organizations and conservative groups supporting Proposition 8."
They made another contribution for almost the same amount a few days before the election. To say they didn't contribute is simply false. Is there a communication breakdown here, backpeddling, or a flat out attempt to cover the facts?
Prop 8 would not have even made it to the ballot without the support of the Church.
Right | 11:30 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does things on the up and up.
They are sagely thorough in staying within their bounds.
Anonymous | 11:33 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints should also file a formal
complaint with California elections officials, alleging the L. A. Gay &
Lesbian Center failed to detail and report "non-monetary
contributions" to the campaign
The L. A. Gay & Lesbian Center was the Headquarters of No on Prop 8, organized phone banks, sent direct mail to voters, used the L. A. Gay & Lesbian Center website to send news releases to non-members, distributed thousands of lawn signs and produced commercials opposing Prop. 8.
The L. A. Gay & Lesbian Center also:
� Walked precincts.
� Ran a speakers bureau.
� Organized a "surge to election day."
� Set up Web sites
The L. A. Gay & Lesbian Center was the Headquarters of No on Prop 8, organized phone banks, sent direct mail to voters, used the L. A. Gay & Lesbian Center website to send news releases to non-members, distributed thousands of lawn signs and produced commercials opposing Prop. 8.
The L. A. Gay & Lesbian Center also:
� Walked precincts.
� Ran a speakers bureau.
� Organized a "surge to election day."
� Set up Web sites
John Pack Lambert | 11:54 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
If the Church's conducting of satelite braodcasts and other actions in
the campaign for Prop 8 violated California ELection laws, then they have
overbearing laws.
How can California election law make actions in Utah illegal?
Beyond this, the church did not operate phone banks in Utah. The setting up of the preservingmarriage website can not be illegal. We have freedom of speech rights like everyone else.
How can California election law make actions in Utah illegal?
Beyond this, the church did not operate phone banks in Utah. The setting up of the preservingmarriage website can not be illegal. We have freedom of speech rights like everyone else.
John Pack Lambert | 11:56 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
To uncannygunman,
How can California Election laws regulate what the Church does in Utah?
Secondly, the Church has reported its expenditures.
Communications by the church should not be regulated by law. This violates both the principal of religious freedom and the principal of freedom of speech.
However, as Brother Tortter pointed out, the church has reported its activities.
How can California Election laws regulate what the Church does in Utah?
Secondly, the Church has reported its expenditures.
Communications by the church should not be regulated by law. This violates both the principal of religious freedom and the principal of freedom of speech.
However, as Brother Tortter pointed out, the church has reported its activities.
History | 11:57 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
History will judge the Prop 8 supporters through the same lens we view those
once opposed to interracial marriage. You only have to look at the demographic
data to know that this is true. Indeed, in just the couple years since the last
vote, the margin went from 61% to 52% against gay marriage, and they only got
52% because of the Mormon money-printing ad juggernaut.
John Pack Lambert | 11:59 a.m. Nov. 14, 2008
To anonymous at 10:35,
The Church actually does pay takes on many of its operations. Among others Deseret Book pays taxes, as does the organization building City Creek Center. So actually the church does pay taxes.
Also, the members who donated the money to help the Yes on 8 campaign pay taxes.
The Church actually does pay takes on many of its operations. Among others Deseret Book pays taxes, as does the organization building City Creek Center. So actually the church does pay taxes.
Also, the members who donated the money to help the Yes on 8 campaign pay taxes.
Dan Savage said on CNN | 12:22 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Part of the democratic process is that if you're going to throw a punch,
you're going to have a punch thrown back. You don't get to march into
the public square, slime people, malign people, demagogue against people and
then jump behind the bushes and say "Oh god, we're a church. You
can't criticize us. You can't bring it back to our front doors and say
'We have a problem with what you've been saying about us and doing to
us in the public square.'" The Mormon church has politicized itself
with this movement in California to ban same-sex marriage. And it wasn't
just that the Mormon church encouraged its followers. The prophet of the Mormon
church had a letter read in every Mormon church in the land instructing its
members as a religious duty to donate time and money to this campaign. You
cannot campaign against a vulnerable minority group in this country in the
political realm without expecting some sort of response.
Shameful | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
I can't believe that these little kids keep throwing thier tantrums. I can
garantee that if Prop 8 had failed that the Church of Jesus Christ wouldn't
be marching towards thier sacred places and protesting. It is shameful, that
the people spoke and yet, the Church is the target. The Church will continue to
grow like it always has, it is the kingdom of God on earth. PATIENCE.
Civil Rights? | 1:05 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Way back when blacks had no right to vote, they they had no way to cast thier
vote. This was a full on vote for vote contest, dont try to tell me it is a
civil rights deal! Both sides have the right to vote, and the contest was fair.
Blacks fighting for civils rights couldn't even vote!
ich dien | 1:16 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Heap on the coals, guys, gays and girls, pile it up. When young Elder Pratt
went to Scotland in 1840 trying to recruit new members he got nowhere until some
anxious that the crowds in front of their pulpits might shrink, began to pile on
him and the things he was teaching. He left there after a few months with 200
or 300 converts. Like I say, pile it up, higher and higher. Somebody'll
get burned in the fires and you ought to be bright enough to worry that it might
be you. Love you, anyway. And as C. S. Lewis's Screwtape might have said,
we need more down here to stoke our fires below. Go to work. Keep working.
Fire up.
Anonymous | 2:12 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
would like to reply to the author of One party system from Nov. 10's
Readers' Forum. Am I against abortion except for certain circumstances like
date rape? Yes. Am I against gay marriage? Yes. Does that mean that I voted
ignorantly for my party instead of considering the issues? No! Remember, I could
also accuse you of voting your party, but I know better. First off, there were
many factors that contributed to why the economy crashed and no single hand or
entity can or should be blamed. Secondly, the Republican Party is not the only
one that has shown its incompetence in the past, so please
don�t pretend that the Democratic Party is so saintly.
What is it I�ve heard liberals say recently? Don�t add to the hate? Well, I tell that to you now. Don�t add to the hate yourself. Did I vote for Obama? No, but now that the election is over, the time for debate is over. The time for name-calling is past. It�s time to unify under our new president-elect. To the best of my abilities, I will support President-elect Obama.
What is it I�ve heard liberals say recently? Don�t add to the hate? Well, I tell that to you now. Don�t add to the hate yourself. Did I vote for Obama? No, but now that the election is over, the time for debate is over. The time for name-calling is past. It�s time to unify under our new president-elect. To the best of my abilities, I will support President-elect Obama.
Kyle Miller | 2:15 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
There are two prominent voices in the same-sex marriage debate. The banners are
waved most vigorously by two people you may have never heard of. In defense of
traditional marriage is a woman named Maggie Gallagher, and in support of
same-sex marriage is a man named Jonathon Rauch. Maggie is the president of the
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (marriagedebate.org) and Jonathon is a
nationally syndicated columnist and widely published author.
We can learn a lot by listening to each of their mature arguments. Neither party employs petty ad hominem attacks. Nor do they resort to sappy pathos. And when you listen to them argue, if you�re not careful, you may think they are on the same side. See, they agree on nearly every issue: marriage is in trouble, children need good homes, all Americans deserve civil rights, love and family stabilize society and so forth. The fundamental difference is Jonathon believes allowing gay marriage will lead to the reconstruction of the marriage institution, and Maggie believes it will lead to the deconstruction of marriage.
We can learn a lot by listening to each of their mature arguments. Neither party employs petty ad hominem attacks. Nor do they resort to sappy pathos. And when you listen to them argue, if you�re not careful, you may think they are on the same side. See, they agree on nearly every issue: marriage is in trouble, children need good homes, all Americans deserve civil rights, love and family stabilize society and so forth. The fundamental difference is Jonathon believes allowing gay marriage will lead to the reconstruction of the marriage institution, and Maggie believes it will lead to the deconstruction of marriage.
Clark Monson | 2:19 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Reading the post-election letters to the editor for fun, I noticed the
continuation of a humorous trend that I observed during my five years at BYU. I
don�t know whether anyone else has noticed, but a plurality
of the people who write left-leaning letters put their hometown as
�Provo.� Now, I know that there are
Democratic voters native to Provo, but the Democratic Party is thriving in Provo
about as well as the Republican Party is thriving in Manhattan.
That leads me to four possible conclusions: 1) most BYU students from Provo are liberal, 2) just about every Democratic BYU student from Provo is very vocal about their politics, 3) there are a number of liberal students giving Provo as their hometown when that�s not the case or 4) a large number of Provo residents read The Daily Universe for lack of a better local paper and the liberal ones tend to write in.
The liberal's made em do it.
That leads me to four possible conclusions: 1) most BYU students from Provo are liberal, 2) just about every Democratic BYU student from Provo is very vocal about their politics, 3) there are a number of liberal students giving Provo as their hometown when that�s not the case or 4) a large number of Provo residents read The Daily Universe for lack of a better local paper and the liberal ones tend to write in.
The liberal's made em do it.
Mike Christensen | 2:20 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
My proposal is to separate church and state. Why not allow just church leaders
to perform marriages and allow judges to perform domestic partnership
ceremonies. Keep the religious institution out of the courthouse. In addition,
we should not force atheists to enter into a religious institution when they do
not believe in God. We should allow them to enter into domestic partnerships as
well, in addition to anyone who wants a civil partnership and not a religious
institution. (As of now, straight couples cannot enter into such a partnership
in California.) Keep the laws, and now California�s
constitution, as they stand, but separate the church and state. Let the church
marry couples and let the state allow couples to enter into domestic
partnerships. They will all have the same rights, but different institutions.
What do you think?
Luv U.S.A. | 4:25 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
The voice of the people voted in support of Prop 8.
That is what is great about America. The voice of the people have the final say.
That is what is great about America. The voice of the people have the final say.
Happy Valley Hillbilly | 5:39 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Expect Prop 8 to be overturned by the ultra-liberal California supreme court.
Then expect it to be upheld by the conservative-leaning US supreme court.
End of story.
End of story.
Matthew | 11:40 p.m. Nov. 14, 2008
Religious organizations, particularly the Mormons, used their members'
money and manpower to revise the state constitution to reflect their personal
religious beliefs. The United States is not a theocracy; we separate church and
state.
While it is true that California's constitution can be *amended* by a majority vote, it can only be *revised* with the approval of two-thirds of both houses of the legislature and then submitted to voters. This vote was a revision that removes the constitutional guarantee of equality. A majority is not granted the power to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution.
It is unjust and unconstitutional to discriminate against a category of people in the United States of America. Voters disenfranchised American citizens by denying them their constitutional civil right to marry. Marriage is a a legal right.
The California Supreme Court majority opinion did not affect religion. It stated that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
The guarantee of equality exists to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.
While it is true that California's constitution can be *amended* by a majority vote, it can only be *revised* with the approval of two-thirds of both houses of the legislature and then submitted to voters. This vote was a revision that removes the constitutional guarantee of equality. A majority is not granted the power to take away a right guaranteed by the constitution.
It is unjust and unconstitutional to discriminate against a category of people in the United States of America. Voters disenfranchised American citizens by denying them their constitutional civil right to marry. Marriage is a a legal right.
The California Supreme Court majority opinion did not affect religion. It stated that "no religion will be required to change its policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
The guarantee of equality exists to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.
Note to Gay Community | 8:18 a.m. Nov. 16, 2008
You are going about this all wrong.
You need to take advice from the LDS and Catholics and the Evangelicals...
you see, they went door to door and "campaigned".
You gay folks, all you do his protest, disrupt church meetings, and create caos in the streets... not a very good "image" to portray.
Try to take a few lessons from the LDS---they "know how to spread the word"
Most of all---if you want to win the votes of the religous right wingers---you need to behave much more civilized...stop acting like a cage full of of flaming monkeys.
You need to take advice from the LDS and Catholics and the Evangelicals...
you see, they went door to door and "campaigned".
You gay folks, all you do his protest, disrupt church meetings, and create caos in the streets... not a very good "image" to portray.
Try to take a few lessons from the LDS---they "know how to spread the word"
Most of all---if you want to win the votes of the religous right wingers---you need to behave much more civilized...stop acting like a cage full of of flaming monkeys.
Outside looking in | 3:02 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I just have to say that the most ridiculous, exasperating, and (dare I even say)
humorous aspect of this whole argument is that the LDS Church (along with
several other denominations and organizations mind you) were simply trying to
uphold the definition of the word "marriage" as something that occurs
between a man and a woman.
There was neither intent nor attempt to remove or limit the equal rights that are currently extended to gay-union couples. No hatred was shown, no laws were broken, no trespassing, vandalism, vulgarity or other web-trash was used in the effort to support this initiative.
In fact, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understands, cares for, and lends personal support to individuals with gay inclinations, and they certainly don't believe them to be any lesser of persons or that they are less-deserving of equal rights.
Ironically enough, however, we have now seen "wonderful" demonstrations of these types of inappropriate behaviors by many* of the individuals and groups who so adamantly cry for others' "acceptance, tolerance, and non-hateful behavior." (Note that I said "many," as I do recognize there are still a great number who have maintained their decency, civility, and self-respect.)
There was neither intent nor attempt to remove or limit the equal rights that are currently extended to gay-union couples. No hatred was shown, no laws were broken, no trespassing, vandalism, vulgarity or other web-trash was used in the effort to support this initiative.
In fact, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints understands, cares for, and lends personal support to individuals with gay inclinations, and they certainly don't believe them to be any lesser of persons or that they are less-deserving of equal rights.
Ironically enough, however, we have now seen "wonderful" demonstrations of these types of inappropriate behaviors by many* of the individuals and groups who so adamantly cry for others' "acceptance, tolerance, and non-hateful behavior." (Note that I said "many," as I do recognize there are still a great number who have maintained their decency, civility, and self-respect.)
Outside looking in (#2) | 3:04 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Now, I don�t doubt that in time we will likely see an
overturn of Prop 8 as this gets more and more attention. In the mean time, let
respectable organizations, businesses, and people (PEACEFULLY) support what they
may. None of them are attacking YOU for your views. (In fact,
wouldn�t doing so be
�unconstitutional?�)
They�re simply supporting their own views, and should be
extended the same courtesy. If it does get overturned, I highly doubt that you
will see respectable churches and organizations boycotting or otherwise
attacking those who may have helped bring it about.
The truth is, the passing of Prop 8 was decided by the voice of the people, and if the (majority) voice of the people end up calling for its overturn, then so be it. In the mean time, there is nothing that says that an organization, be it church or otherwise, should not be allowed to share and promote its own views with its own members and ask them to help support the belief in their own community � whether it involves the donation of their time, monetary contributions, or otherwise.
The truth is, the passing of Prop 8 was decided by the voice of the people, and if the (majority) voice of the people end up calling for its overturn, then so be it. In the mean time, there is nothing that says that an organization, be it church or otherwise, should not be allowed to share and promote its own views with its own members and ask them to help support the belief in their own community � whether it involves the donation of their time, monetary contributions, or otherwise.
Outside looking in (#3 - final) | 3:10 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
To not respect the rights of a group to be able to do this is, in itself,
unconstitutional and (even worse) un-American. (Not to mention contradictory to
what you are asking others to do in consideration of your rights).
Both sides put forth and effort to represent their view, and spent money and time in doing so. Someone had to win, someone had to lose. But nobody is attacking the anti-Prop 8 teams for their efforts and contributions.
I can quote numerous instances where individuals that are against Prop 8 have essentially said that one of the fundamental principles upon which America was founded is the protection of minorities against discrimination. Well the last I looked, LDS Church membership in almost all parts of the world � including California � is a minority.
You are, understandably, upset that things didn�t pass the way you wanted them to. However, to strike out in retaliation against another minority who just happened to not share your same opinion on the simple definition of a word (..and NOT the rights of couples�) is a complete double-standard and reeks of the same intolerance of which the LDS Church is being accused.
Both sides put forth and effort to represent their view, and spent money and time in doing so. Someone had to win, someone had to lose. But nobody is attacking the anti-Prop 8 teams for their efforts and contributions.
I can quote numerous instances where individuals that are against Prop 8 have essentially said that one of the fundamental principles upon which America was founded is the protection of minorities against discrimination. Well the last I looked, LDS Church membership in almost all parts of the world � including California � is a minority.
You are, understandably, upset that things didn�t pass the way you wanted them to. However, to strike out in retaliation against another minority who just happened to not share your same opinion on the simple definition of a word (..and NOT the rights of couples�) is a complete double-standard and reeks of the same intolerance of which the LDS Church is being accused.
Anonymous | 5:18 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
This is ridiculous. As a straight male, I don�t understand
the fuss here; the California Supreme Court determined that discriminating
against sexual preference was illegal; this was decided in May,
�08. This is not a �rule of
majority� issue, it�s simply wrong.
Slavery would still be permitted if the rule of majority were allowed to persist
in cases like this. I�m amazed that churches are allowed to
participate in this process, and still retain their tax exempt status. If they
want to engage in political lobbying, they can do so, but not with my tax
dollars. They can play and pay as far as I�m concerned.
Anonymous | 5:57 p.m. Nov. 18, 2008
Different is different, if it were just a matter of a word, then why is the LDS
so against it. I think the LDS, and other religious groups are running out of
reasons other then their own bogus doctrines to blame for failed marriages, and
families. Maybe the gay community can bring a sense of respect back to the
sanctity of marriage. Lord knows they can not make it any worse then the church
already has! I can not wait for the day when God does come back, and those who
preached segregation, and hatred to their children will have to face judgement!
Still not getting it. | 10:10 p.m. Nov. 18, 2008
My friend, if it were just LDS who were "so against it" then the
proposition wouldn't have been passed now, would it. Do you realize how
many non-LDS/non-religious people voted for it? LDS voters in California are
just a small minority of those who had to have voted for it in order to get it
to pass.
And why is no one pointing the finger at anyone else? (...and really, why does a finger even have to be pointed at all? Are we condemning democracy now?) Because the LDS Church is an easy target, that's why. They, too, are a minority, and are being subjected to the exact same behavior and discrimination that you are all crying for others to cease - (and just because a vote didn't turn out as you wanted it to0. Practice what you preach, that's what I say.
And as for "the gay community bringing a new sense of respect back to marriage"... (and I'm not saying that they can't be respectable here, but...) with all the cruel, vulgar, and in some cases illegal retaliation and backlashing being demonstrated, respect is the last thing I'm seeing come from that group right now.
And why is no one pointing the finger at anyone else? (...and really, why does a finger even have to be pointed at all? Are we condemning democracy now?) Because the LDS Church is an easy target, that's why. They, too, are a minority, and are being subjected to the exact same behavior and discrimination that you are all crying for others to cease - (and just because a vote didn't turn out as you wanted it to0. Practice what you preach, that's what I say.
And as for "the gay community bringing a new sense of respect back to marriage"... (and I'm not saying that they can't be respectable here, but...) with all the cruel, vulgar, and in some cases illegal retaliation and backlashing being demonstrated, respect is the last thing I'm seeing come from that group right now.
Anonymous | 10:17 a.m. Nov. 19, 2008
TO: Still Not Getting it.....
People in The LDS refuse to see the similarities in this and racial segregation. How sad that some people have yet to evolve to a higher place of understanding. Discrimination by one group, using intimidation, and even vote, is still illegal. Doing what you are doing is not American, study the constitution. I am sure we will see the constitution, and God's real will, prevail, and Homosexuals will no longer be the blame for ANY church!
People in The LDS refuse to see the similarities in this and racial segregation. How sad that some people have yet to evolve to a higher place of understanding. Discrimination by one group, using intimidation, and even vote, is still illegal. Doing what you are doing is not American, study the constitution. I am sure we will see the constitution, and God's real will, prevail, and Homosexuals will no longer be the blame for ANY church!
Juanita | 1:19 a.m. Nov. 21, 2008
I notice all the focus on the Mormons. Are you too chicken to confront the much
larger Catholic Church and Black population who voted for Prop.8?
Ironic | 3:36 a.m. March 15, 2009
Am I the only happily-married heterosexual male that thinks it's ironic
that polygamists and pedophiles are the ones defining what
"traditional" marriage is?
Adam | 11:41 a.m. April 9, 2009
It is ironic that a church who was persecuted for so long because of its
abnormal marriage practices has come down so strongly against a practice that,
in the eyes of almost every American, is a lot more acceptable than a man having
five wives.
Mark | 6:26 a.m. April 15, 2009
Mormons are neither polygamists nor pedophiles. Please keep opinions out of
this, and try to stick to facts, Ironic.
I do find it odd that people who have been persecuted (e.g. Mormons, African American, Mexican Americans, etc) have decided they are going to persecute others. The way I see it, this is like two children fighting over some candy. If they can't share it, neither should get it.
Yes, I am saying that marriage should just be removed, since it is only causing people to revert to acting like children.
Let people be who they are. Stop trying to control everyone outside of your congregations and social cliques. This isn't high school, anymore.
I do find it odd that people who have been persecuted (e.g. Mormons, African American, Mexican Americans, etc) have decided they are going to persecute others. The way I see it, this is like two children fighting over some candy. If they can't share it, neither should get it.
Yes, I am saying that marriage should just be removed, since it is only causing people to revert to acting like children.
Let people be who they are. Stop trying to control everyone outside of your congregations and social cliques. This isn't high school, anymore.
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
- Placebo power behind cures 2:49 p.m.
- 'Suspect just shopping screenplay' 2:49 p.m.
- '08 loss 'learning experience' for TCU 2:47 p.m.
- AMA: repeal 'don't ask,don't tell' 2:46 p.m.
- Jackson's executors approved 2:43 p.m.
- Mapleton rejects mtn. airport bid 2:42 p.m.
- Plea in sex abuse streaming case 2:40 p.m.
- NJ man sues FBI over his detention 2:39 p.m.
- More theatrics at Gotti trial 2:39 p.m.
- Clinton to Dems: pass health bill 2:38 p.m.
- Utah group finds homes for orphans
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges
- Jazz blow big lead, hang on
- Senators want food tax restored
- Y. tight ends talented tandem
- Utes get extra motivation
- Alta's Ohai is Ms. Soccer 2009
- Soccer MVPs know how to win
- Price injured; Miles has cast removed
- BYU soccer incident still popular
- House passes health care bill
245 - TCU showdown has big implications185
- Lobo suspended183
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Senators want food tax restored137
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy104
- RSL rallies to advance103
- Utes pound winless Lobos89
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar restaurants nationwide will honor...
Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John...
Advertisement
Latest comments
This sounds like a reporter trying to make a story without the facts. It...
HAHA D Will plays selfishly? He had 6pts and 16 assits vs. the knicks, and...
I don't think the percentage difference between college-education women in...
Huh? You say if Utah wins you can look forward to beating Utah and getting a...
Riggs girl you did well. Had quite a good number of goals.
Not necessarily. If Utah wins, Utah can break into top-10. And who...
I wholeheartedly agree with Joe Moe. As a mother of 3 sons, I am often...
Ashley....now why did she make the 1st team....I mean she played with the...
Conejo, I'm sorry you feel so arrogant that you have to put down the majority...
vote democrat - its easier than getting a job
Advertisements
Get over it, you lost. If you want to blame someone, blame Barack Obama for bring out the black voters in high numbers who voted FOR Prop 8 70% to 30% against.
Also the latin vote that voted in favor 54% to 46% against.
Go protest those groups and focus your attention on what really caused the proposition to pass, better yet, just accept the fact that more Californian's wanted it passed than didn't.