Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California
714 comments | Read story
re: one simple question | 5:57 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
In several states where gay marriage has been legalized religious institusions
have been taxed fined and what not for not allowing gay marriages to happen in
their chapels. Also in New Hampshire I believe, the catholic church had to close
down a adoption agency because they wouldn't adopt out to gay people.
Looking at practicing our religion, when gay people have the right to marry it
opens up lawsuits etc. etc. And yes it will happen, the gay community is always
saying it won't but look at what is happening in other states or countries
that have legalized it. From that point of view not the scriptures its in our
best interest to promote the marriage between a man and a woman.
To to cougar blue | 4:23 p.m. | 5:57 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
You're way off base, buddy.
Absolutely wrong.
The majority does NOT have the right to tell the minority.
By that sentence alone, then, by all means ---
* go back to segregation
* keep women in the home
* take the vote away from women
* make only white, land-owning males the ones who can vote
* and throw in slavery as long as your're at it.
And by the way, what is your college degree in?
Oh, sorry, you're working on your GED.
Absolutely wrong.
The majority does NOT have the right to tell the minority.
By that sentence alone, then, by all means ---
* go back to segregation
* keep women in the home
* take the vote away from women
* make only white, land-owning males the ones who can vote
* and throw in slavery as long as your're at it.
And by the way, what is your college degree in?
Oh, sorry, you're working on your GED.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 6:01 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Say what you want, but the No side had most of Hollywood and every news channel
spinning stuff every night in its favor and luckily not every one watches tv
trash. People need to start suing gaysites for not having adequate
representation of traditional values just like what the gays did to eHarmony.
Lets boycott all the gays by not frequenting any restaurant with a waiter with a
lisp. Sounds silly just like their arguments and proposals. One can't
rationalize or use logic with these people they are supposedly not wired to
understand you simply have to understand them. That's silly too.
Re: Gays just need to change | | 6:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
It is not a question of whether gays are unhappy people.
It is totally a question that they have had their rights taken away from them.
Yes, rights ---
one day, they have them, the next day they do not.
That is not being happy or unhappy.
It is righteous anger.
They/we have a right to be discontended with the way we have been dealt.
Let me ask ---
* Was Joseph Smith "unhappy" (your word, not mine) that the saints were mistreated in Missouri?
* Was Joseph Smith "unhappy" with the U.S. Presidency when they refused to protect the saints in Missouri?
* Was Joseph Smith "unhappy" with all the tribulations that ensued from 1820-1844?
Might I suggest that he had a right to feel upset?
Hello.
It is totally a question that they have had their rights taken away from them.
Yes, rights ---
one day, they have them, the next day they do not.
That is not being happy or unhappy.
It is righteous anger.
They/we have a right to be discontended with the way we have been dealt.
Let me ask ---
* Was Joseph Smith "unhappy" (your word, not mine) that the saints were mistreated in Missouri?
* Was Joseph Smith "unhappy" with the U.S. Presidency when they refused to protect the saints in Missouri?
* Was Joseph Smith "unhappy" with all the tribulations that ensued from 1820-1844?
Might I suggest that he had a right to feel upset?
Hello.
Paul | 6:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Yes, let's take this to the Supreme Court for a constitutional amendment
and end the wrangling once and for all, marriage is between one man and one
woman lets ensure thats how it stays.
Gays just need to change | 4:33 | 6:05 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
As far as the comment "gays need to change"
While some studies suggest that some gays can go through recuperative therapy to go from gay to straight ---
what do we do about the thousands that try the therapy and it does not work for them?
Are the studies even reliable?
In my case, and many of my peers, the therapy did nothing. NOTHING.
I can no more change to hetero than a hetero can switch to gay.
It's an inside wiring, not a practice ---
While some studies suggest that some gays can go through recuperative therapy to go from gay to straight ---
what do we do about the thousands that try the therapy and it does not work for them?
Are the studies even reliable?
In my case, and many of my peers, the therapy did nothing. NOTHING.
I can no more change to hetero than a hetero can switch to gay.
It's an inside wiring, not a practice ---
Re: Robert Johnson | 6:11 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Since when is homosexual marriage a constitutional right? Proposition 8 is NOT
against gay rights anyway.
Since time immemorial marriage has been a male/female institution, and I don't understand why people in California are in such a rush to change this.
If indeed the rights of gays are not respected by government, then changes in our laws should be adopted. Redefining marriage is another issue altogether that affects all of society, like or not.
Since time immemorial marriage has been a male/female institution, and I don't understand why people in California are in such a rush to change this.
If indeed the rights of gays are not respected by government, then changes in our laws should be adopted. Redefining marriage is another issue altogether that affects all of society, like or not.
njp | 4:31 p.m. | 6:12 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Either you live in the longest river in Egypt, Da Nile --- or you are
clueless.
This is not bringing positive publicity to the LDS Church.
You've got to be kidding me!
Have you read the papers for the last month or so?
Were the LDS Church not concerned about the fallout of Prop 8, why do they have a whole webpage of link after link on the defensive on lds.org? --- article after article ---
All the while, PR specialists do the finger-pointing trick --- "we, we were not not involved, it was the Catholics, it was the Evangelicals, it was the African-Americans, it was the people of California..." and on and on and on... anyone except them. Notice they never say "It was also us."
Notice they never say "We helped to contributed a great portion toward the campaign."
Notice that they never summarize how the polls told them it was headed for defeat until the last two weeks, and then, in the last two weeks before the election, they speadheaded their efforts to the end.
Notice how that is never mentioned.
Wake up and smell the coffee or whatever it is you drink in the morning
This is not bringing positive publicity to the LDS Church.
You've got to be kidding me!
Have you read the papers for the last month or so?
Were the LDS Church not concerned about the fallout of Prop 8, why do they have a whole webpage of link after link on the defensive on lds.org? --- article after article ---
All the while, PR specialists do the finger-pointing trick --- "we, we were not not involved, it was the Catholics, it was the Evangelicals, it was the African-Americans, it was the people of California..." and on and on and on... anyone except them. Notice they never say "It was also us."
Notice they never say "We helped to contributed a great portion toward the campaign."
Notice that they never summarize how the polls told them it was headed for defeat until the last two weeks, and then, in the last two weeks before the election, they speadheaded their efforts to the end.
Notice how that is never mentioned.
Wake up and smell the coffee or whatever it is you drink in the morning
RE: Vegas702Jer | 3:37 p.m. | 6:16 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Fine.
I take the argument.
By the same argument, if you are going to make a stand, stand behind it --- don't go hide behind the bushes ---
Also, by the same logic --- people who have a different opinion, have a right to express that opinion --- as long as it is through the democratic process.
What is this --- only the religious can express their view, then they can go quietly about their business as if they did not affect other people's lives?
Not on my watch.
I take the argument.
By the same argument, if you are going to make a stand, stand behind it --- don't go hide behind the bushes ---
Also, by the same logic --- people who have a different opinion, have a right to express that opinion --- as long as it is through the democratic process.
What is this --- only the religious can express their view, then they can go quietly about their business as if they did not affect other people's lives?
Not on my watch.
Re: Define "equal" | 5:48 p.m | 6:17 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Thank you.
Right on.
"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal.
Deja vous from history.
Right on.
"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal.
Deja vous from history.
LA | 6:24 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Sore losers? This isn't an issue about a water bond. This was an instance
where rights were actually taken away from a specific group of people for being
born a certain way. If it were left up to the "majority of voters",
slavery could have lasted decades longer, blacks could have been stuck at the
back of the bus well into the seventies and women may still not have the right
to vote.
That's fine to support the process of a democracy and the right to vote. But some things shouldn't come down to a vote. To call those that are fighting for their civil rights sore losers makes you sound like the one against democracy and the right of free speech. Just because a minority is defeated and defeated again, it doesn't mean they should simply shut up and take it.
That's fine to support the process of a democracy and the right to vote. But some things shouldn't come down to a vote. To call those that are fighting for their civil rights sore losers makes you sound like the one against democracy and the right of free speech. Just because a minority is defeated and defeated again, it doesn't mean they should simply shut up and take it.
To: Tooele Dad | 5:39 p.m. | 6:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Score of 30-0?
I didn't see that score, I'm sorry, must have been another state, not California.
I believe it was 52 to 47 --- to the best of my recollection (rounded off)
Now, going back to your previous analogy ---
obviously, on your first take, since you had the score wrong, you also missed the fact that the game is still on, buddy.
It's the first quarter.
Or you happy with the score and you want to wimp out after the 1st quarter?
I didn't see that score, I'm sorry, must have been another state, not California.
I believe it was 52 to 47 --- to the best of my recollection (rounded off)
Now, going back to your previous analogy ---
obviously, on your first take, since you had the score wrong, you also missed the fact that the game is still on, buddy.
It's the first quarter.
Or you happy with the score and you want to wimp out after the 1st quarter?
a call for tact | 6:28 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Methinks a point in persuading others to correct bad laws in good ways is to
take the high road of courtesy and respect during the discussion. Do this not
because those of a different mind deserve it, but because of who we are. The
words we use and the manner in which we conduct ourselves will support or weaken
our claim to legitimacy.
Neither fury nor arrogance will win the day.
Ain�t it great.
Neither fury nor arrogance will win the day.
Ain�t it great.
Eugene | 6:28 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
And life goes on . . .
in the minority | 6:37 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
The majority are "right?" The majority are "moral?" That
is not always the case. Check out Alma 14.
How much of a majority is 51%? Are you comfortable in your rightness while disagreeing with nearly half your neighbors?
A little humility could improve the odds of coming to an agreement that suits everyone.
How much of a majority is 51%? Are you comfortable in your rightness while disagreeing with nearly half your neighbors?
A little humility could improve the odds of coming to an agreement that suits everyone.
RE: realitycheck | 5:17 p.m. | 6:56 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Uh--hold on a minute. The only person I've EVER read so far who's
decided that the church sounds like the Temperance League is YOU. Because YOU
decided that, now YOU have gone on the record saying there's some sort of
historical association between the two.
You're going to have to explain yourself MUCH better than that if you want to be convincing. Let's hear the historical sources, links, the vast multitude of scholars who've defined and explored the deep and complex relationship between Mormons and Carrie Nation...
Come on, realitycheck... you need to back up your point with a LOT better material than just "you guys SOUND like..." Unless calling your bluff has hopefully led you to your OWN "reality check" ...
You're going to have to explain yourself MUCH better than that if you want to be convincing. Let's hear the historical sources, links, the vast multitude of scholars who've defined and explored the deep and complex relationship between Mormons and Carrie Nation...
Come on, realitycheck... you need to back up your point with a LOT better material than just "you guys SOUND like..." Unless calling your bluff has hopefully led you to your OWN "reality check" ...
jd | 7:02 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
ATTENTION LEE BENSON: The problem is that you don't get it. This was a
right that had already been given, this isn't like the other 30 situations
you listed. Since you understand sports analogy, it's like Lance Armstrong
being stripped of ALL of his Tour de France trophies, because he might have used
a substance.
CA Jay | 7:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
What streak are you talking about? Maybe we're looking at a different
record. See Arizona Proposition 107, an initiative to amend the Ariz.
Constitution to ban gay marriage and civil unions. It was shot down by the
voters in 2006. Maybe you should check your facts before writing an op-ed.
Of course, the initiative's failure didn't stop those who obsess over denying equal rights from propping up another initiative this past November. Why didn't THEY just accept their loss and move on, rather than compulsively reintroduce new formulations of the measure in subsequent elections until they got their way? This is the problem when you appeal to popular prejudices in dealing with the rights of a minority, and why we have Equal Protection in our Constitution.
Indeed, your state's obsession and involvement over the issue in my state completely discredits those who think this (and issues like abortion) is merely a "states' rights" issue that SCOTUS should leave alone under the 14th Amendment, and that every state would be free to abide by Equal Protection if it wishes. You won't be happy until people, inside your state AND outside of it, abide by your religion. States' rights ... ha, sure!
Of course, the initiative's failure didn't stop those who obsess over denying equal rights from propping up another initiative this past November. Why didn't THEY just accept their loss and move on, rather than compulsively reintroduce new formulations of the measure in subsequent elections until they got their way? This is the problem when you appeal to popular prejudices in dealing with the rights of a minority, and why we have Equal Protection in our Constitution.
Indeed, your state's obsession and involvement over the issue in my state completely discredits those who think this (and issues like abortion) is merely a "states' rights" issue that SCOTUS should leave alone under the 14th Amendment, and that every state would be free to abide by Equal Protection if it wishes. You won't be happy until people, inside your state AND outside of it, abide by your religion. States' rights ... ha, sure!
CA Jay | 7:15 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Getover it writes: "When are people going to stop calling the homosexual
lifestyle a constitutional right? Have you even read the constitution? If so you
would know that IT IS NOT a protected class. Only gender and race are classes
that are protected under the constitution. Lifestyle choices are not."
Have YOU read the Constitution? Equal protection (Section 1 of Amendment 14, where the protected/suspect class structure comes from) does not specifically single out ANY classes for protection--not even race and gender.
If your cherry-picking of protected classes comes from the Supreme Court's holdings rather than the constitutional text, which you seem to be alluding to when you name race and gender as the only protected classes (which isn't even right--alienage, for example, is another protected class), then you might want to read Lawrence v. Texas, which says that there is a right to same-sex relations. Or are judges only activist when you disagree with them?
Have YOU read the Constitution? Equal protection (Section 1 of Amendment 14, where the protected/suspect class structure comes from) does not specifically single out ANY classes for protection--not even race and gender.
If your cherry-picking of protected classes comes from the Supreme Court's holdings rather than the constitutional text, which you seem to be alluding to when you name race and gender as the only protected classes (which isn't even right--alienage, for example, is another protected class), then you might want to read Lawrence v. Texas, which says that there is a right to same-sex relations. Or are judges only activist when you disagree with them?
There is a basic difference | 7:18 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
in how some religious people think! Some think that religion should be able to
use the thinking of the Christian religion (or Mormon religion) to make laws.
Although people have a voice in this it should be noted that in issues such as
human rights their religions should not. They don't relalize that issues
like equal rights for woman and other races used to be put in the same category
as gay people now are. They will tell you that this is "different"
because this is about "family values". There are all kinds of ways
that they spin it around, but in reality it's about basic human rights.
It is deeply disturbing | 7:20 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I will put my annoying part aside ---
As a gay LDS man ---
it is deeply disturbing that gay people are coming out in droves and some of you can do nothing but quote Bible verses and do nothing but --- judge.
It is baffling that you would never consider how gay people have grapped for this for years...
Please understand...
we did not wake up one day and decided we wanted to go against "principles"
And before you recommend therapy.
Been there, done that.
Marriage.
Been there, done that.
Trying to change.
Been there, done that.
And thousands like me.
Does it strike you that thousands like me could have something to say in the matter?
Having personally seen people be ostracized by family, peers, co-workers, etc. because of something that is outside of their control is deeply, deeply disturbing.
And the attitude continues... "well, that's just the way it is..."
Is this understanding, or condescension or turning aside as if to ignore?
As a gay LDS man ---
it is deeply disturbing that gay people are coming out in droves and some of you can do nothing but quote Bible verses and do nothing but --- judge.
It is baffling that you would never consider how gay people have grapped for this for years...
Please understand...
we did not wake up one day and decided we wanted to go against "principles"
And before you recommend therapy.
Been there, done that.
Marriage.
Been there, done that.
Trying to change.
Been there, done that.
And thousands like me.
Does it strike you that thousands like me could have something to say in the matter?
Having personally seen people be ostracized by family, peers, co-workers, etc. because of something that is outside of their control is deeply, deeply disturbing.
And the attitude continues... "well, that's just the way it is..."
Is this understanding, or condescension or turning aside as if to ignore?
Again | 7:21 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
A gay man can marry a gay woman.
A gay man can marry a straight woman.
A gay woman can marry a straight man.
A gay woman can marry a gay man.
A straight man can't marry his mom even if he & she are in love and they think they should be entitled to a "marriage".
Nobody is preventing anyone from being in love and spending their lives together. Prop 8 isn't a bigotry or hate issue. It's about the definition of marriage. The majority of those who make up our great country want the definition to remain as is. Throwing a fit about it isn't productive.
Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman and I believe that's what it should always be.
A gay man can marry a straight woman.
A gay woman can marry a straight man.
A gay woman can marry a gay man.
A straight man can't marry his mom even if he & she are in love and they think they should be entitled to a "marriage".
Nobody is preventing anyone from being in love and spending their lives together. Prop 8 isn't a bigotry or hate issue. It's about the definition of marriage. The majority of those who make up our great country want the definition to remain as is. Throwing a fit about it isn't productive.
Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman and I believe that's what it should always be.
Hey, Highlander2 | 7:22 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Of the 12 comments that made it to this board between 5:00 and 7:00 am, seven
were by pro-prop8 people. Guess every position has people who are early
risers.
Are you ridiculing early risers and people from the east coast? I don't understand the intention of your segue.
Are you ridiculing early risers and people from the east coast? I don't understand the intention of your segue.
thoughts | 7:27 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I liked Lee Benson as a sports writer but I found this article unimpressive.
Legal issues should not be up to public opinion.
The following is an interesting quote from Henrik Ibsen
"The majority never has right on its side. Never, I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent men must wage war. Who is it that constitute the majority of the population in a country? Is it the clever folk, or the stupid? I don�t imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over. But, good Lord!�you can never pretend that it is right that the stupid folk should govern the clever ones I (Uproar and cries.) Oh, yes�you can shout me down, I know! But you cannot answer me. The majority has might on its side�unfortunately; but right it has not. I am in the right�I and a few other scattered individuals. The minority is always in the right."
People should exercise caution in taking comfort being part of a majority.
The following is an interesting quote from Henrik Ibsen
"The majority never has right on its side. Never, I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent men must wage war. Who is it that constitute the majority of the population in a country? Is it the clever folk, or the stupid? I don�t imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over. But, good Lord!�you can never pretend that it is right that the stupid folk should govern the clever ones I (Uproar and cries.) Oh, yes�you can shout me down, I know! But you cannot answer me. The majority has might on its side�unfortunately; but right it has not. I am in the right�I and a few other scattered individuals. The minority is always in the right."
People should exercise caution in taking comfort being part of a majority.
Mel | 7:41 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Wow-- I can't stand to hear another person use the Anti Prop 8 party line
"lies, deceit and manipulation that the "Yes on 8" campaign based
their campaign on" "lies, deceit and manipulation"... keep
saying, it still makes no sense that I can believe that marriage is between a
man and woman and it is considered "lies, deceit and manipulation".
It's us that is being manipulated by the Anti Prop 8 minority.
Punkaman | 7:56 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Lee made a touch down! Thanks
To Again... | 7:58 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
What would be the point?
of me, a gay man, marrying a straight woman?
As a matter of fact, I have already done that.
Did it work?
No.
Following the very same precept of a man should only marry a woman.
I suppose I could go again and marry another straight woman or gay woman, for that matter --- a lesbian.
Why?
I would not be in love.
I would break her heart.
Is marriage supposed to break people's hearts?
The point I'm trying to make is...
I'm happy dating a man.
It makes me happy --- it brings my life completeness.
Why should that relationship stop at dating?
of me, a gay man, marrying a straight woman?
As a matter of fact, I have already done that.
Did it work?
No.
Following the very same precept of a man should only marry a woman.
I suppose I could go again and marry another straight woman or gay woman, for that matter --- a lesbian.
Why?
I would not be in love.
I would break her heart.
Is marriage supposed to break people's hearts?
The point I'm trying to make is...
I'm happy dating a man.
It makes me happy --- it brings my life completeness.
Why should that relationship stop at dating?
labrador | 8:06 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far
focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous
because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate
marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the
right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from
marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the
individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt
to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as
one�s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people
suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are
not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their
choosing.
Anonymous | 8:08 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I hope the howling mob continues to bang on the church door. It's time
their forays into the larger public realm be curtailed.
Chris J. | 8:16 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
After the gay militants want to redefine marriage, what will they want next?
Will they want to redefine 'parents' to be only a 'couple' who pony up to a creed of the homosexual agenda?
Will they want to redefine 'brothers' and 'sisters', or perhaps 'grandmother' and 'grandfather'?
Let them be happy with their civil unions, which gives them all the benefits they wanted in the first place. Just don't let them redefine my dictionary.
Will they want to redefine 'parents' to be only a 'couple' who pony up to a creed of the homosexual agenda?
Will they want to redefine 'brothers' and 'sisters', or perhaps 'grandmother' and 'grandfather'?
Let them be happy with their civil unions, which gives them all the benefits they wanted in the first place. Just don't let them redefine my dictionary.
Tom in CA | 8:17 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Re: Robert Johnson
"Marriage" is not, has not, never has been a "constitutional right".
The institution of marriage between a man and a woman has existed for thousands of years. Don't try to force your so-called progressive ideology down the throat of the 97%.
Thank you.
"Marriage" is not, has not, never has been a "constitutional right".
The institution of marriage between a man and a woman has existed for thousands of years. Don't try to force your so-called progressive ideology down the throat of the 97%.
Thank you.
Religous | 8:21 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
The only morally correct definition of marriage is that established by God in
the Garden of Eden. The Creator defined proper marriage in Adam and Eve. The
concept of homosexual marriage is of Satanic origin, and is evil, and if
implemented will bring upon individuals and nations the judgments of God.
Remember Sodom?
Tom in CA | 8:21 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Re: Robert Johnson
And oh, by the way, the Mormon Church financed nothing.
And oh, by the way, the Mormon Church financed nothing.
thoughts? | 8:24 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
The majority is never right until it agrees with the minority? And the minority
is always right? I �m sure you can find some examples when
the minority is wrong. KKK for example, Skin heads come to mind. Am I to believe
that human intelligence is a minority thing, the rest of us are stupid. And if
were talking about intelligence or common sense, explain how nature created
human reproduction and then creates a hiccup like same sex attraction. Darwin
theories seem to contradict such a mutation. What is the use?
I�m sorry if I just don�t get this
line of thinking. I try, I really do. And to be honest I�m
not much for making exclusionary laws. I like freedom to much. But the arguments
used by same sex supporters to me are very lame. Calling prop 8 liars is quite a
lie. The worst that can be said is their arguments where exaggerated possible
outcomes, based on facts. If this is lying then almost every argument about
global worming is a lie. Had prop 8 passed you would be hailing the majority
vote. After all, that is the essence of democracy.
If there were | 8:34 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
An amendment stating that a majority could never vote to take away civil rights
from an otherwise law-abiding minority, would you vote for it? If not, why not?
What makes you think you are safe?
I honestly don't know how anyone can sleep knowing they have voted to keep other adults from enjoying the same rights and happiness they do. There's only one word for that, and it's "hate."
There was this guy many years ago in a beard and robes that talked about golden rules, loving your neighbor, and "judging not."
Too bad there aren't more people around like him.
I honestly don't know how anyone can sleep knowing they have voted to keep other adults from enjoying the same rights and happiness they do. There's only one word for that, and it's "hate."
There was this guy many years ago in a beard and robes that talked about golden rules, loving your neighbor, and "judging not."
Too bad there aren't more people around like him.
Maine has a limit | 8:35 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
The state of Maine has a limit on how many times you can get married in that
state.
The reason I know this is because my ex wants to marry the young lady he is living with and the state won't let him because he has already married the maximum number of times a person can marry in that state. However I have advised him to go to another state for a few days like New Hampshire and get married there. Then he will be seen as legally married because it was done in a different state.
The reason I know this is because my ex wants to marry the young lady he is living with and the state won't let him because he has already married the maximum number of times a person can marry in that state. However I have advised him to go to another state for a few days like New Hampshire and get married there. Then he will be seen as legally married because it was done in a different state.
Rights? | 8:36 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
When were the "rights" given to gays as many suggest? I do not know of
any time, other than the "courts" trying to over rule the will of the
people.
The whole point of the article was the idea of a "score"(30-0). That's a super majority! It's so interesting how we as winners of the issue (30-0)are just supposed to give in to the losers.
Civics lesson class; The Constitution allows "We the People" to decide on moral issues by voting for or against the issue(30-0). The losers(30-0) need to stop whining and take it up for another vote (not the courts). Try a few more states, there's still 20 to go! We the people have the "right" to say NO to gay marriage.
Compassion is needed (both sides), Tolerance is not. We as the majority need to continue to take a stand for Right! This is a Right or Wrong issue, not middle of the road.
As so many have said, these words will not change others actions, but we can always hope!
The whole point of the article was the idea of a "score"(30-0). That's a super majority! It's so interesting how we as winners of the issue (30-0)are just supposed to give in to the losers.
Civics lesson class; The Constitution allows "We the People" to decide on moral issues by voting for or against the issue(30-0). The losers(30-0) need to stop whining and take it up for another vote (not the courts). Try a few more states, there's still 20 to go! We the people have the "right" to say NO to gay marriage.
Compassion is needed (both sides), Tolerance is not. We as the majority need to continue to take a stand for Right! This is a Right or Wrong issue, not middle of the road.
As so many have said, these words will not change others actions, but we can always hope!
To Tom in CA | 8:44 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
We're not talking about the actual LDS Church issuing out a check from
Church headquarters and handing it out to the Yes on Prop 8 headquarters,
Tom.
We're talking about the deliberate stand to take 'a moral stand' as it has been called --- as if to take the moral highground ---
and then to scurry off the day after the election...
seriously...
have you seen press releases wide and open since then?
In Sacrament meetings?
Press conferences?
interviews?
clarification on the issues?
Nothing ---
Not anymore than --- the issue has been debated enough, now we're off --- don't bother us --- we're a Church.
Here's a bunch of articles on our webpage. Read those.
Have a nice day.
That's been the attitude.
Really?
Sarah Palin had better sense than that. After the election, whether like her or not, she stood her ground...
If people can make a stand, shouldn't they be able to stand behind their stance?
If not, the opposition will.
We're talking about the deliberate stand to take 'a moral stand' as it has been called --- as if to take the moral highground ---
and then to scurry off the day after the election...
seriously...
have you seen press releases wide and open since then?
In Sacrament meetings?
Press conferences?
interviews?
clarification on the issues?
Nothing ---
Not anymore than --- the issue has been debated enough, now we're off --- don't bother us --- we're a Church.
Here's a bunch of articles on our webpage. Read those.
Have a nice day.
That's been the attitude.
Really?
Sarah Palin had better sense than that. After the election, whether like her or not, she stood her ground...
If people can make a stand, shouldn't they be able to stand behind their stance?
If not, the opposition will.
To Tom in CA | 8:46 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Really?
Marriage not a constitutional right?
Then by all means let's have a celibate society where no one marries because the State does not issue marriage licenses.
I seriously do not get your logic.
Marriage not a constitutional right?
Then by all means let's have a celibate society where no one marries because the State does not issue marriage licenses.
I seriously do not get your logic.
There is a... | 8:48 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
He said "go thy way and sin no more"
To Chris | 8:49 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I'm afraid that families are already being re-defined.
Many people tend to believe that Mom, Dad, two kids --- make a nuclear family.
Where does that leave ---
* single hetero parents?
* adoptive parents?
* grandparents acting as parents?
* uncles/aunts acting as parents?
it seems the dictionary was defined quite a while back...
in order to define 'family'
Otherwise --- should one group have a monopoly on 'family' as well?
It seems, that according to some people, who hold onto the nuclear family definition, are a bit behind... in any dictionary.
Many people tend to believe that Mom, Dad, two kids --- make a nuclear family.
Where does that leave ---
* single hetero parents?
* adoptive parents?
* grandparents acting as parents?
* uncles/aunts acting as parents?
it seems the dictionary was defined quite a while back...
in order to define 'family'
Otherwise --- should one group have a monopoly on 'family' as well?
It seems, that according to some people, who hold onto the nuclear family definition, are a bit behind... in any dictionary.
alan smithy | 8:51 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
One doesn't choose to be gay, it is a genetic characteristic, like skin or
hair
color, which is precisely why, unlike polygamy, it is a civil rights issue. The
"gay lifestyle" is no more a choice than the "mens lifestyle". Ignoring science
and using your beliefs to justify bigotry is an Archie Bunker mentality and
doesn't change the fact that it is still bigotry, publishing this article is
irresponsible and magnifies animosity and misunderstanding by those looking to
bolster their reasons for scapegoating those they think are different. Stop
promoting dark age beliefs that only serve hatred and division, use intelligence
not ignorance.
color, which is precisely why, unlike polygamy, it is a civil rights issue. The
"gay lifestyle" is no more a choice than the "mens lifestyle". Ignoring science
and using your beliefs to justify bigotry is an Archie Bunker mentality and
doesn't change the fact that it is still bigotry, publishing this article is
irresponsible and magnifies animosity and misunderstanding by those looking to
bolster their reasons for scapegoating those they think are different. Stop
promoting dark age beliefs that only serve hatred and division, use intelligence
not ignorance.
To "Rights" | 8:53 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Your logic --- when it comes to "will of the people" falls flat ---
The "will of the people" --- left this nation scarred when many groups were left without 'rights' ---
* Women
* Slaves
* Blacks, after slavery
* Other Minorities
All these, mind you, were the will of the people --- so I don't get exactly where you go with "the will of the people?"
The "will of the people" --- left this nation scarred when many groups were left without 'rights' ---
* Women
* Slaves
* Blacks, after slavery
* Other Minorities
All these, mind you, were the will of the people --- so I don't get exactly where you go with "the will of the people?"
@gay married gay divorced | 8:58 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Let's be honest...
I love some of my best guy friends growing up.
I love my sisters.
I love my dog.
I love my brothers.
I love my wife.
I love my children.
I love some of my clients.
I have loved co-workers.
I might pass 50 people a day I think I could love given the chance.
I love my cousins and some are even very attractive. I might even be attracted to any of the above or any other number of examples including the ones you listed at "7:58 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008" but there is only one of the above examples that is proven to promote a healthy society and to most often foster stable and productive offspring. As is, carnal intimacy in all but one of those cases is illegal in most places. Some examples are illegal EVERYWHERE save fallen Rome, Sodom, Gomorrah and a few others.
Take heart, this is just a short list that shows homosexuals are far from alone at being denied marriage.
Love when you can (!) but like it or not, marriage is an institution to protect families, children, and a healthy society.
I love some of my best guy friends growing up.
I love my sisters.
I love my dog.
I love my brothers.
I love my wife.
I love my children.
I love some of my clients.
I have loved co-workers.
I might pass 50 people a day I think I could love given the chance.
I love my cousins and some are even very attractive. I might even be attracted to any of the above or any other number of examples including the ones you listed at "7:58 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008" but there is only one of the above examples that is proven to promote a healthy society and to most often foster stable and productive offspring. As is, carnal intimacy in all but one of those cases is illegal in most places. Some examples are illegal EVERYWHERE save fallen Rome, Sodom, Gomorrah and a few others.
Take heart, this is just a short list that shows homosexuals are far from alone at being denied marriage.
Love when you can (!) but like it or not, marriage is an institution to protect families, children, and a healthy society.
to 6:11 posting | 9:01 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Proposition 8 essentially, in purpose, targets the gay community.
By essentially definining marriage between a relationship that excludes gays it targets gays --- it is in the intent.
Saying it is not so evades the question and ignores the issue altogether.
And we're back to rights.
"domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" in California, and much less in Utah, where they do not exist --- are not the same.
They do not afford the same equal protection under the law --- when you enumerate all the benefits --- one by one, they do not add up.
By essentially definining marriage between a relationship that excludes gays it targets gays --- it is in the intent.
Saying it is not so evades the question and ignores the issue altogether.
And we're back to rights.
"domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" in California, and much less in Utah, where they do not exist --- are not the same.
They do not afford the same equal protection under the law --- when you enumerate all the benefits --- one by one, they do not add up.
oregon outsider | 9:04 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I know this topic has been beaten to death and I know this will not change the
minds of the opposition to prop 8, however, when opponents to prop 8 bring up
civil rights it makes me cringe. First of all, Marriage is not a
"right". If it were then anyone who wanted to marry could marry and
that just isn't the case. Second of all, you are a minority in number, not
a minority by race because homosexuality is not a race of people. It offends me
that you try to characterize yourselves as a minority and equate yourselves with
the black community and compare your trials to those in the civil rights
movement in the 60's. You have a choice to participate in this lifestyle,
even if you are born gay, african americans and other true minorities have no
choice in the matter. It is not a civil rights issue.
Response | 9:23 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
"We the People" do set the laws and standards, right or wrong.
Logic has nothing to do with it being moral. If "we" choose to make killing others legal we could by voting it into our constitution, will that happen? No, why? Because the majority still has some moral integrity and would never go for it, but "We" do make the laws.
Logic does say that this issue(gay rights) is dragging us down as a country, Why? Because the majority has to stoop to the level of those that don't want morals and we fight for simple right or wrong issues. This is an important issue. Do "we the people" stand by and let others(gays) bring us down morally. Remember the score(30-0), that's a powerful message that the minority wants to ignore. If they do win court battles they think that justifies them, but they have not won a vote of the People! Gays have the same rights as all the rest, the problem is they want different rights.
Logic has nothing to do with it being moral. If "we" choose to make killing others legal we could by voting it into our constitution, will that happen? No, why? Because the majority still has some moral integrity and would never go for it, but "We" do make the laws.
Logic does say that this issue(gay rights) is dragging us down as a country, Why? Because the majority has to stoop to the level of those that don't want morals and we fight for simple right or wrong issues. This is an important issue. Do "we the people" stand by and let others(gays) bring us down morally. Remember the score(30-0), that's a powerful message that the minority wants to ignore. If they do win court battles they think that justifies them, but they have not won a vote of the People! Gays have the same rights as all the rest, the problem is they want different rights.
Sarah Nichole | 9:30 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
To: Re: Sarah
"I'm starting think you're not the active LDS you claim to be in a previous post. The LDS are advised against encouraging malicious attacks. If you need to claim to be something you're not to gain credibility please say you're a police officer or astronaut or something."
I am active LDS. I've been posting under my first name, Sarah, for months on this board, but when others with my name (it's a common one) started coming around with opposing views, I switched my usual handle to using both my first and my middle name. I am not the same person as the one you replied to, and the two of us have wildly different views on many subjects. I support President Monson has a prophet of God, and I know full well that my life is better in many different ways when I follow the prophet's counsel, whether I always fully understand it, or the reasons behind it.
"I'm starting think you're not the active LDS you claim to be in a previous post. The LDS are advised against encouraging malicious attacks. If you need to claim to be something you're not to gain credibility please say you're a police officer or astronaut or something."
I am active LDS. I've been posting under my first name, Sarah, for months on this board, but when others with my name (it's a common one) started coming around with opposing views, I switched my usual handle to using both my first and my middle name. I am not the same person as the one you replied to, and the two of us have wildly different views on many subjects. I support President Monson has a prophet of God, and I know full well that my life is better in many different ways when I follow the prophet's counsel, whether I always fully understand it, or the reasons behind it.
Anonymous | 9:41 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Roger S. | 9:09 a.m. wrote, "But to change the institution of marriage as
you would have it changed, would end marriage as we know it, and that's not
equality for anyone, especially for those who have entered into the institution
of marriage in reliance on its current definition."
People were asking about the lies the pro-8 side was using. Roger S. repeats it here quite well. Allowing gay marriage is NOT a "attack on traditional families". Allowing gay marriage does NOTHING to traditional families. Stop spreading this despicable lie.
People were asking about the lies the pro-8 side was using. Roger S. repeats it here quite well. Allowing gay marriage is NOT a "attack on traditional families". Allowing gay marriage does NOTHING to traditional families. Stop spreading this despicable lie.
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.
- Sports on the air 12:07 a.m.
- Ambassador turns on temple lights 12:05 a.m.
- Our 25 days of service project 12:05 a.m.
- Mormon Media Monitor 12:05 a.m.
- 'Mi Vida, Mi Historia' exhibit 12:05 a.m.
- Spencer Larsen mixes faith, football 12:05 a.m.
- Nativity at BYU museum 12:05 a.m.
- Mormon Times national calendar 12:05 a.m.
- Actions make love speak loudest 12:04 a.m.
- Good eating for Christmas 12:04 a.m.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
277 - BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall195
- Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax143
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
- LDS to emphasize helping needy107
- Revive full food tax?106
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill105
David Rankin, one of Utah's youngest and ablest astrophotographers has...
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
Can you tell I just got out of a budget meeting with Gov Gary Herbert?
Latest comments
Who has beaten your #1 & #2 state ranked teams? Oh...and your #10 team,...
Good job Titans another win.
Sorry..."Classless Ute". Max Hall is hilarious.
Good concert tonight. Not great. Natalie Cole was as good as I expected...I...
Isn't that what barack is teaching us? When we have financial difficulies,...
I love this list, only one issue would be Alex Hart's exclusion, I thought he...
Nice job Nick! First of many great things to come! Give a lot of credit to...
Why does everybody keep saying 6 lanes to Spanish Fork? I read 2 additional...
All 1st teamers should attend from both papers.
...has had a home invasion. None. I know several people who've died by...
Advertisements
Not only do you want to deny the word "marriage" to those who are different than you --- you also want to deny the notion of "family" --- by denying parenting ---
You're sick!
As a gay father, you're sick, sick, sick.
With that kind of mentality, does it make any kind of sense why courts have an inch of more mental acumen than you Neardarthals?
As far as giving it a rest --- why should we?
What's at stake? --- our civil liberties and our notion of what it means to be entitled to the same rights that heteros are --- pure and simple.
and go on and say that "marriage is not a right" --- as you keep blabbing --- then by all means get divorced, if it is not a right --- go the state and take back your marriage certificates and tell them that they should not have given you a license to marry in the first place.