Reader comments
MormonTimes.com Media Observer: Activists' tactics counterproductive

Activists tactics may be counterproductive but then so is taking a stand to take away someone elses rights. The one good thing about the whole thing is that it now allows LDS people to put on their "Look how we're persectuted" hat again instead of their persecuting hat.

The fact is, as an LDS member it's dismaying to me that we are so unwilling to grant rights to others after our history of having rights denied to us. It's hard to fight a political battle when people won't even look within themselves to find a way to get along, find common ground, and work for solutions. It's also hard to deal with the situation when fear seems to be the prime motivating force on both sides.

I didn't think marriage was a right.

Marriage isn't a right. There are plenty of restrictions on it. You can't marry more than one person, you can't marry if you are too young or your potential spouse is, you can't marry a close relative, and you can't marry someone of the same sex in 48 states. Those states where you can, were decided by a few state supreme court justices, not a vote of the people. These justices decided that constitutions that are 150-225 years old had "rights" to gay marriage in them. That it didn't matter that the people of those states had voted against it already, or that they shouldn't be allowed to vote because the justices knew better and they didn't want to risk it. That is not how a republic is supposed to function. Justices aren't supposed to make law - that function is reserved for the legislature or the people.

INSTEREO: You seam to be saying that we should go agent Gods command. You can only serve one master, God or Lusafer.
I would not wont to be the person who defied Gods wills in faver on the peoples well. We will be judge accordinly come judgement day.
Even my Gay Uncle voted in faver of Prop 8.

Marriage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. That's why you have to get a license.

Cats got it right. Marriage is not a civil right. It is a witness before God that a man and a woman will take the responsibility for each other and the children their union will produce, both legally and morally. Like any other contract/agreement, the parties must be qualified. If you want a home loan, you have to be able to fund the loan. If the lender and borrower qualify, the contract can go forward. We see the mess we're in financially as a nation because, in many cases, neither the borrower or the lender did 'due diligence'. The same would be true with marriage. The parties involved need to qualify. The nature of men and women and their inherent ability to conceive and bear children is the reason our human race is perpetuated. The inherent incapability of same-sex couples to conceive and bear children (as a couple) disqualifies them for the 'contract' of marriage. Now lest this be likened to hetero-couples who can't have children, the remaining qualifications are there...man and woman. Every child is entitled to having a father and a mother. 'Traditional' marriage has been in place since the beginning of time for good reasons. Keep it!

Instereo, I think something that you and apparently many others are overlooking is that the 'rights' that same-sex couples feel have been taken away, were given erroneously. Our Democratic process allows governance by the people. In 2000, Prop 22 passed by 61% of the voters in California. Four State Supreme Court judges overturned the will of the people when the allowed same-sex marriage in June 2008. Their 4 votes over-ruled over 4 million votes by the people of California! That's 1 to a million votes! The judges overstepped their bounds, per the 3 judges that ruled that the will of the people should stand vs. the judges supplanting their own opinons in place of the people's will. We should ALL be guarding this democratic process carefully, regardless of which side you are on with Prop 8 (or any other initiative. The persecutions of Mormons in their early history was a violation of equal protection under the law. Marriage isn't a civil right. It is a contract/commitment between 2 people - a man and a woman - before God and/or State with legal and moral obligations to each other and the children they will bear. Same-sex couples don't meet the criteria.

Please stop saying that gays "rights" have been taken away. That argument is illogical, contorted and overused.

Activist judges redefined marriage and the people returned the definition. People have been blinded if they think that "gay marriage only affects gay people." It affects the community, public education, and all of society. Gay marriage in MA has taken away parental rights, and it threatens religious liberties, and freedom of speech.

I hope gays and lesbians can see the bigger picture and stop acting like victims and behaving like perpetrators.

Marriage is a institution created by God for the purpose of bringing children into the world.The legality of marriage requires certain standards that governments have set.Government is there to define the rules not to define the institution in and of itsself.Same sex marriage sounds the same as male/female unions except same sex marriage by the majority of the population sees it as foreign and distasteful for mulitple reasons.Most people however feel that if denying a person the right to engage in same sex marriage is denying them their rights then they are opposed to that denial.But marriage is not a right therefore a logical society can only conclude that there are no rights denied.People can debate this for the next 100 years but truth is truth. The problem is that we dont always want to define or accept universal truth.We want to pick and choose. Very convienent but does not hold water.Our political system caters to the manority.

Instereo, I am confused. In your first post you seem to advocate same-sex marriage...or giving the 'right's to same-sex couples to marry. In your second post, you seem to take the opposite viewpoint. Am I missing something?

I wholly agree with your second post:-)