Deseret News | Sore losers won't let go in California

Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California

714 comments | Read story

to cougar blue | 4:23 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

The majority does have the right to dictate cultural mores. Once upon a time it was acceptable to marry, actually preferred, ones cousin. Now such is deemed disgusting and illegal. Once upon a time it was acceptable for a 14 year old to marry a man of any age. Now such a man would be deemed a pedophile. Never before in history, that we know, has gay marriage been held equally to heterosexual marriage.

Kevin | 4:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

@Sore Losers? | 3:01 p.m.

Extremely good points! They're sore losers. And they'll be losers once again.

to human family | 4:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I chose when I began dating. I wanted children and nature dictated whom I could marry to produce such. I don't regret my decision especially since I married my best friend.

Comments continue below

re: One Human Family | 4:27 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Or you for real????? Have you ever been to an LDS singles ward ? Count how many men there are and then count how many women there are! There are lots of LDS women who will never have a loving intimate relationship because there are just not enough GOOD and honorable LDS men out there to marry... do you see them throwing tantrums?? I am divorced now going on 11 years and have been celibrate during that time. What about all the Nuns and Fathers ??? sure it is their choice but it proves that it can be done without horibble damage to the person.

oh Boy | 4:27 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

re: Vegas702Jer | 3:37 p.m.
"Politics and Religion don't belong in the same sentence. I don't think it's a matter of the church "hating gays" but let's draw the line and leave other states alone."

So how do you feel about Martin Luther King and his religious based "politics" being exported out of Alabama?

Just curious to know if you are consistent or a hypocrite.

Rod | 4:28 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"Common Sense" at 5:33 am--one of the first comments, helps to show why people are upset! He or she writes that passage of Prop 8 was necessary because it would "open the door to the adoption of children".

Gay people can already adopt children in California!!! Prop 8 didn't change that!!! Because so much of this campaign was based on misleading and downright false arguments, it's a little hard to let it go.

njp | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Protest away California......it is really pretty helpful as Mormons are getting publicity which causes many to investigate exactly how we stand on many issues. And that is not bad!!

realitycheck | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

no, mr 4:06pm poster - I'm not upset in the least. But then, I'm not gay.

you said "homosexuality is an immoral practice and a sin".

that coming from someone that believes in seer stones and all the other bizarre mormon stories is pretty funny.

and are you aware that almost all species on the planet have a minor population that portrays gay tendencies? and yet they don't smoke... (perhaps it's the thumbs...)

you all think homosexuality is a sin. I think it's just nasty. Both opinions are based on the eye of the beholder and have no business in law.

and if the gays feel shame, it's because you moral majority has forced your ways down everyone's throats. your definition of sin is everywhere. You think sex outside of marriage is a sin. and that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Yet there it is...

I personally think believing you can go to some higher level of heaven if you follow a bunch of stupid rules invented by some whacko in the 1800s is a sin. but it's not for me to decide.

your idea of sin and mine are extremely different. should mine be forced on you?

Glenn | 4:33 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Those people crying that the rights of minority shouldn't be subject to majority vote didn't seem to be talking of this on Nov.1 days before the election---only since they lost. Someone asks, "What harm does gay marriage do to anyone?" I suppose it doesn't---- the same as saying "two trees in the forest are married" doesn't hurt anyone; where I see the invisible poison is a bed and breakfast in Vermont is sued for not serving alternative lifestyles, and soon hotels and airlines will be sued for not having the same alternative movies and school districts will be sued for not having correct language in curriculum concerning the gay movement. Anything that is not even-stevens will go to court. Say yes to gay marriage and you will never be able to say no again on anything. Let the camel's head in the tent and soon the whole zoo wants in.

Gays just need to change | 4:33 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

When I went to college homosexuality was NOT defined as "normal" behavior. Science is rich with study after study verifying this fact. Also there is NO gay gene in the human anatomy. Gays are the same as anyone else from a human anatomy standpoint. So, we are left with the unpleasant fact (from the gay viewpoint) that homosexuality is more about behavioral abnormality (like clinical depression) and can therefore be cured one day.I don't hate gays - I do hate the way gays have chosen to attack society with this prop 8 fallout. Gays should ask themselves if they are truly happy people and if not why not. There is help to be found and a way back to a normal and happy existence.

re: HLDS | 4:34 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Boy - YOU are REALLY confused!

RE: realitycheck | 3:10 p.m. | 4:37 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Hey, realitycheck, the Temperance League had little if anything to do with the LDS Church. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but Carrie Nation and pals, much less the passage of the 18th Amendment, had about as much to do with the LDS Church as Martin Luther King had to do with the Black Panthers.

Or for that matter, they had about as much relationship as Joseph Smith had with JRR Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings novels. You have access to a historical timeline, right? LOTR was a hundred years AFTER Joseph Smith, right? NOT saying that this actually happened--but hypothetically speaking, it'd be a LOT more plausible to claim that Tolkien drew his inspiration from Joseph Smith than the other way around, which is patently absurd.

realitycheck, you need to go back and check some of your own facts--you're a bit off base there. If you're offering a REAL "reality check," you might as well be operating from actual facts!

re: Kevin at 7:16 am | 4:38 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

No one voted against your right to have a family. What they did vote for was to define what marriage was. The definition applies just as equally to me as it does to you. So who's rights are being stepped on? If you want to be married (which it sounds like is very important to gays in California) then by all means, find yourself a willing member of the opposite sex and get hitched. No one is going to stop you, I promise.

Faulty logic is faulty logic (even if it is hidden behind the veil of big important sounding words)and most, if not all, of the anti prop 8 ilk are using a lot of it. the only obvious conclusion here is that gay individuals are hurt that no one wants to accept there perverse ways as normal and so now it's time to throw a tantrum.

Re: Reality Check | 4:47 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"I, as an individual, can list my wife on my health insurance. a gay person cannot do that."

You really are confused so I'll help you out. A gay may CAN list a wife on their insurance just as you can. You CANNOT list a husband on your health insurance just like they can't. You are both treated equally by the law even though you have different sexual preferences. That is why they have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS.

To test this out list a man as your spouse next time and wait till they tell you that's not allowed. Then tell them, "Hold on, I am a straight person and am entitled to the special rights of straight people". When they tell you even though you're straight you can't list a man as your spouse and that you don't have any special rights you'll have the long sought-after answer to your question.

Just tell me where you get lost in this simple reasoning that you and a gay person have the same rights and I'll help out again.

RE: Vegas702Jer | 3:37 p.m. | 4:51 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

The church is within its rights to comment on a political issue, and even to lend its support, when it involves a moral dilemma. The church has encouraged members to vote against various legalized gambling initiatives as well.

I'm sorry you have a problem with that. I don't know you and won't judge, but I'd just encourage you to ponder and pray about the problem.

But from my own perspective: I think the church would be woefully remiss if it did NOT stand up for what it teaches its own members. And remember--free agency isn't compromised; members aren't getting excommunicated for NOT supporting these propositions. But the church has the right AND the obligation to make its stance known.

If people don't like that, don't understand what the church REALLY is trying to do, or even protest it--well, it comes with the territory.

re: Realitycheck | 4:51 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Hi, you don't know me - but I am LDS and I have also had gay friends and have gay relatives. I know that many gays feel shame and that some commit suicide because they cannot deal with what they feel. I feel for those people - I really do. But, I have done a lot of studying up on this Prop 8 and I think that most of the people that are so angry that it did not past are not the ones that feel the shame of which you speak. There are many who feel not shame at what they are doing at all. There are many who for them it is a choice. There are many who love to throw it in others faces and brag about it and how they are going to get our sons and brothers to be like them. And, it seems lately that there seem to be more of these kinds of gays out there then the other.

Level Minded | 4:51 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

All of you that are for Prop 8 good for you!.

The people that stand for the traditional methods of living will survive.

Deviant life choices will not.

Deviant people did not create this democracy.

The founders may not have been perfect, but they had the right idea!

Just because there are a few loop holes in the constituition, does'nt mean that it can't be clairified and ameneded to improve it. (BY CLOSING THE LOOP HOLE). This is accomplished by the people voting, not by Judges.

Loop holes should not be used to pervert the intent of the document.

JImmy Z | 4:52 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

JImmy Z says man marry a woman...come on....
lets get real this should not even be discussed

Confused by no on 8'ers | 4:53 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I am confused when I hear marriage is a civil right. What exactly does marriage allow you to do civilly? I know there are a bundle of rights you get when you are married, but all of those rights can be separately granted to non-married persons (i.e. civil union, etc.). So, my question is what civil rights are inseparable from marriage? If there are any, then and only then can the civil rights argument hold water. And if there are any inseparable civil rights, then let's focus on rationally making those separately granted to non-married persons, who seek them. Does that sound a little more reasonable than redefining a 6,000 year old, multicultural word?

to RealityCheck | 4:55 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Nope, I don't believe in Seer stones or men that talks to God by putting his face in a hat. I am ex-mormon and am a card carrying agnostic. I oppose gay marriage.

You really need to do more research before you post or you would know that homosexuality in the non-human animal kingdom does not reflect love and affection but dominance so you are comparing applies with pencils. Many animals that do have excessive amounts of homosexual tendencies can be found in Zoos with unnatural living arrangements.

The Caravan Moves On! | 4:59 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"realitycheck | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008.....You think sex outside of marriage is a sin. and that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Yet there it is. I personally think believing you can go to some higher level of heaven if you follow a bunch of stupid rules invented by some whacko in the 1800s is a sin. but it's not for me to decide."

Realitycheck, do you see your duplicity and subsequent confusion?

You say in your post that it's "not for me (you) to decide" but yet you have decided. You've decided that sex before marriage is not a sin, otherwise why would you do it?

Here's the kicker: sexual relations before marriage IS a sin. Just because someone believes something does not in any way, shape, or form mean that it must be true. I believe that sexual relations before marriage is a sin, you do not. But neither my belief or your belief in the matter alone makes one perception correct and the other false.

What makes one true and correct and the other false is the fact that one is held by God and one is not.

God alone determines what is true.

RE: Kevin@4:19 | 5:00 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Ah, so your source is Wikipedia! How convincing! An Internet database that ANYONE can contribute to, no matter of what level of expertise--even Kevin himself!--and then cite as authoritative fact!

Kevin, civil as I'd like to be, I've gotta call it like it is--THAT'S JUNIOR-HIGH-SCHOOL-LEVEL RESEARCH. Can you try for some more authoritative sources, please? No, about.com and answers.com aren't necessarily all that authoritative, either.

rights/laws/church/state | 5:01 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

The passing of any law is in some way or another "forcing" someone else's morals on the rest of society. QUESTION - So it's okay for me to vote Yes on Prop X (fill in any ballot measure) if I arrive at my decision based on playing the kids game ini-mini-mayni-moe, BUT IT'S NOT OKAY for me to vote Yes on Prop X if I feel that my "God" has told me to vote that way? How is the worth of either of those two votes different? They are both votes. Is that not a right for voters, to vote however they please?

re - re HLDS 4:34pm | 5:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

not confused. just amused...

amused that people base their beliefs system on seer stones and such - not unlike scientology - and think gays are off track. (seen any hobbits?)

amused that people actually think gays can be forced to be heterosexual and be happy.

amused that mormons actually think being gay is a sin.

more amused that mormons think consenting adult pre-marital sex is a sin, even between heterosexuals. (God made it fun for a reason, people.)

amused that you would have multiple wives if you could get away with it yet refuse others a spouse at all.

very amused that you are not amused by HLDS.

Re: Adoption | 5:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"Guess what? Gays in California get to adopt kids any way! So do gays in Florida."

Nice try. The key is that in those states adoption agencies still have the right to deny same-sex couples children because they don't have a legal marriage. An arm of the Catholic Church's adoption agency was already sued for denying same-sex couples to participate but the passage of Prop 8 has turned the case in favor of the Church.

We all know big changes would occur if the extreme homosexual agenda is passed. Many simply want acceptance, but those most vigorously behind this want that lifestyle to be taught and embraced as warmly as traditional marriage - by law if they must.

I personally say, "Not on my watch".

Michelle | 5:04 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"If you want to be married (which it sounds like is very important to gays in California) then by all means, find yourself a willing member of the opposite sex and get hitched. No one is going to stop you, I promise."

Ahh, good old fashioned heterocentric morals: favoring loveless unions between people who aren't attracted to each other for years.

One simple question: | 5:09 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Prop 8 supporters, please answer a single question without resorting to some religious text:

How would it hurt *you* if gays were allowed to marry?

If you can give me an coherent, reasonable answer without invoking religion, you'll have convinced me you're right.

Michelle | 5:14 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

If people in California are being "sore losers" it's because the passage of Prop 8 sets a /dangerous/ precedent for civil rights in general: The Supreme Court of the state declared a measure to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, only to have mere popular opinion write that same unconstitutional measure INTO the Constitution.

We have judges to base their findings on the letter of the law, not on public opinion. THAT is the ONLY reason why segregation and miscegenation laws were overturned--because "activist judges" looked to the Constitution and determined that, in /spite/ of the majority opinion (indeed the majority MORALS) of the time, that certain rights still needed to be upheld.

Now, if just a few months after THOSE unconstitutional laws were turned out by the judges, the majority of people voted them back in, don't YOU think the minority that the laws affected would be "throwing a tantrum?"

realitycheck | 5:17 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

re realitycheck poster 3:10pm

if you're not aligned with the temperance league, why do you sound so much like the black-clad preacher walking down the street with a bunch of uptight women protesting outside the cathouse and the saloon. People watching the old westerns always go "boy, glad that's not my parents" - except your kids, who go "look - it's mom and dad"...

perhaps if you would join the 21st century (or even the 20th)

realitycheck | 5:21 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I'm just enjoying the responses of the 4:47pm poster (who's logic really needs some work) and the 4:59pm poster that thinks God said premarital sex is bad.

God never said that - man did. not sure how you can be so confused when you have such an all-encompassing (and uptight) religion...

Yes, there | 5:21 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

are homosexuals that are plain ol' mean people.
The operative word, there, is "people". They are people, after all, or have you not acknowledged that yet? It's a lot harder to be so judgmental towards gays when you understand that they are human beings.

It's a good thing we don't judge all religious people by the actions of a religious few. If I thought all religious people were as judgmental as the religious people on this forum, I would be truly worried for God(s).
I got news for you folks who think God's on your side in all this...I'm pretty sure God dislikes bigotry more than a lisp...

rob | 5:23 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I love the sports analogy? How completely immune to the times LDS thinking is on this and many other subjects. Just keep to yourselves, please.

D Shields | 5:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

If the vote had gone the other way guaranteed ï¿½the losersï¿½ would be continuing to work to get their preference put into law. Itï¿½s not about the issue per se, itï¿½s about believing those with other opinions need to sit down and shut up. Benson wrote in a condescendingly snide tone which I suppose isnï¿½t considered to be persecuting in nature since heï¿½s on the side of the winners.

ï¿½Sore losersï¿½ is for sports competitions, yet even there long-standing rivalries are heralded, anticipated and encouraged. ï¿½Weï¿½ll get ï¿½em next yearï¿½ is an eternal mantra in the locker rooms of the losers.

No wonder itï¿½s nigh impossible to get civil discussion going on important issues.

Hey, I'm married, | 5:33 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

and I say...
If gays want in on that type of misery, then let them have it.

Statistically, half of all you "marriage defenders" are going to be or have already been divorced.
Doesn't that just about destroy any argument on behalf of the God-ordained sanctity of marriage?
You don't even have to investigate the history of marriage as an institution, which alone would cause you all kinds of cognitive dissonance, just look at the current statistics.

re: Reality Check | 5:34 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I'm glad that you're sitting back and enjoying the responses. That's the only thing to do when your reasoning has been deflated and you've run out of answers and but still want to keep your dignity.

I can respect that.

Nature | 5:37 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I say that if it was natural for a man and a man to have children, it would be natural for a man and a man to marry

Kevin | 5:39 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

@RE: Kevin@4:19

Point taken. I cannot provide links, so you'll have to visit the organizations respective web sites yourself to read their policy statements.

But I'll provide some more information

Tooele Dad | 5:39 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

What if Prop 8 passed? What would be the next battle ground for the gays? It's like the financial bailouts. Where will it end? A score of 30-0 should mean something.

Kevin | 5:41 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

American Medical Association

"RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association support legislative and other efforts to allow the adoption of a child by the same-sex partner, or opposite sex non-married partner, who functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child. (New HOD Policy)ï¿½

make sense | 5:40 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

There is nothing equal about a man and man or woman on woman.

There shouldn't even be a debate. Man and Woman were made to unite and nothing else.

Kevin | 5:42 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

American Academy of Pediatrics

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued the following statement in support of gay and lesbian parenting and called for equal access to co-parenting and second-parent adoption rights for gay and lesbian parents in February 2002:

"On the basis of the acknowledged desirability that children have and maintain a continuing relationship with 2 loving and supportive parents, the Academy recommends that pediatricians do the following: Be familiar with professional literature regarding gay and lesbian parents and their children; Support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychologic, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and to the welfare of their children; Advocate for initiatives that establish permanency through coparent or second-parent adoption for children of same-sex partners through the judicial system, legislation, and community education."

To Re: Adoption | 5:42 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"Several states ï¿½ including California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York ï¿½ already expressly forbid discrimination against gays seeking to adopt." The Fight Over Gay Adoption Heats Up
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2008 TIME Magazine

Kevin | 5:42 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

American Psychiatric Association

The American Psychiatric Association adopted the following position statement at its November 2002 meeting:

The American Psychiatric Association supports initiatives that allow same-sex couples to adopt and co-parent children and supports all the associated legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities which arise from such initiatives.

The American Psychiatric Association adopted the following position statement at its December 1997 meeting:

1. Sexual orientation should not be used as the sole or primary factor in child custody decisions.

2. Gay and lesbian couples and individuals should be allowed to become parents through adoption, fostering and new reproductive technologies, subject to the same type of screening used with heterosexual couples and individuals.

3. Second-parent adoptions which grant full parental rights to a second, unrelated adult (usually an unmarried partner of a legal parent), are often in the best interest of the child(ren) and should not be prohibited solely because both adults are of the same gender.

4. Custody determinations after dissolution of a gay relationship should be done in a manner similar to other custody determinations.

Kevin | 5:43 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

National Adoption Center

The Board of Directors of the National Adoption Center approved the following adoptive parent assessment policy statement on September 17, 1998

"We believe that every child has the right to a loving, nurturing and permanent family, and that people from a variety of life experiences offer strengths for these children."

"Therefore, it is the policy of the National Adoption Center that no person should be denied consideration in the adoption process solely based on marital status, sexual orientation, lifestyle, disability, physical appearance, race, gender, age, religion and/or size of family."

Kevin | 5:43 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

National Association of Social Workers

The National Association of Social Workers approved the following policy statement at in August 2002 at the NASW Delegate Assembly.

"Legislation legitimizing second-parent adoptions in same-sex households should be supported. Legislation seeking to restrict foster care and adoption by gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people should be vigorously opposed."

Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2003-2006.

Kevin | 5:44 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Child Welfare League of America

The Child Welfare League of America's Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services states:

"Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation." Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted "on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future."

Kevin | 5:44 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

American Academy of Family Physicians

The American Academy of Family Physicians adopted the following position statement at its October 2002 meeting:

"RESOLVED, That the AAFP establish policy and be supportive of legislation which promotes a safe and nurturing environment, including psychological and legal security, for all children, including those of adoptive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation."

In the Majority | 5:47 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Just as Islam has it's violent radical extremist elements, such as Al Qaeda, homosexuality has it's violent radical extremist elements, such as certain Prop 8 opponents. Neither group is satisfied with the status quo and both resort to terror to promote their agendas.

Define "equal" | 5:48 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

If civil unions are "equal" to marriage, and therefore a valid substitute, then those who have civil unions must be allowed to adopt - otherwise, they are not equal and are discriminatory.

Win/Win | 5:53 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Lindsey,
So now we're attacking the ATHEISTS..I guess they should not have a right to marry either since after all Atheists are EVIL and they could produce immoral offspring that do not believe in GOD. So now we're saying those who are religious are moral and those who are not religious are immoral. I am a Therapist and I work with religious and non-religious Families.
Truthfully, of the religious Families I work with many are not at all functioning within a healthy parameter. The majority of these families issues relate to verbal, emotional and physical abuse. Religious parents mistreating their children. Husbands mistreating wives and wives mistreating husbands. Many would define some of these families as "Pillars of the community". My concern is not what defines a Family but what takes place within the Family. Instead of trying to define what marriage should be...those of you with Families would be better off focusing on your own Family and your own behavior. Your children are watching you..they will grow up and be you. People who are confident and secure with their own life don't have time to worry or stress over how others live theirs.

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.