I live in CA and have been very involved with the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. It will be interesting to see what happens in November. I find that as I speak with people here, many are uninformed about the issue (thinking it a gay rights issue when it clearly is not) or they simply have no opinion on the matter. Also, many wonder why so much time and money is being "wasted" on this campaign when there are so many more important causes we could be pursuing.

1: Adoption services in that story received funding from that state and was in the public domain. Thereby subject to state anti-discrimination laws. Don’t argue best interest of child. As I said studies find that children of gay and lesbian couples differ in no aspect then that heterosexual couples.
2. “Forcing Christian doctors to perform medical procedures that violate their conscience.” Hypothetical scenario: A restaurant run be a person that is a member of the ARYAN BROTHERHOOD Church, neo-Nazis, feels that persons of the Jewish faith are not worthy to be served (remember it is their personal religious and conscience). Should we as a society allow this to continue unabated?
Seventh: “Some of these same groups are even advocating that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions.”
1.      This Supreme Court of California issued the following statement regarding just such a scenario. “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiate will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

A couple issue you “conveniently” forgot to mention:
First: “On Nov. 4, voters in California will decide whether to amend their state's constitution to establish that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Prop 8, as the Attorney general has stated would, Eliminate right of same sex couples to marry.
Second and third: “How can we draw any meaningful conclusions in such a short time?” / “The LDS Church's statement on marriage notes that "high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society.”
Many European countries, our neighbors to the North, and the state of Massachusetts all allow same gender marriage… Yet countries like, the Netherlands , have the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world. Also these countries that have allowed same sex marriage have been operating fine for as long as 8 + years.

Most everyone it seems is against gay marriage, even Obama.

There must be something to it, but I don't understand what it is, how does allowing gays to marry hurt my marriage?

I am against gays adopting kids, I can see this, however no one else in the world seems to care about this, gays adopt kids all the time and no one speaks out against it.

I have thought about these two issues deeply and just don't understand everyone elses opinion on either of these two issues.

This is perplexing to me.

I vehemently disagree. It is not our place to force people to live their lives as LDS do. Don't give me this song and dance that we only comment on moral issues. If that's the case, why has their been such silence on moral political issues the last 8 years? Nope, I've already made my financial donation to the defeat of Prop 8. And thankfully, polls show it's passage is in serious trouble.

The LDS church has been on the wrong side of every civil rights questions that has been confronted in the US in my lifetime. They are wrong again. Proposition 8 is 14 points down in the polls. Face it this is a ship that has sailed.

There are two fundamental problems with the position taken in this editorial:

1. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that allowing gay marriage will somehow weaken either the "traditional" family or heterosexual marriages.

2. The view advocated here is strictly a religious view, which is fine for those to choose to accept it as part of their own religious belief system, but it is NOT fine to seek to impose that view by force of law on non-believers. I am profoundly disappointed in the church of my heritage for participating in this blatant attempt to deny free agency. (My word, they've recently said that even on the issue of alcohol availability there should be a reasonable degree of freedom to choose.)

I also live in California.
The people here don't care one way or the other what other people do with their private lives as it does not affect or harm them in any way.

This appears to be a major concern for people in Utah only.

Get a life, Utahns and concentrate on cleaning up your own backyards before advising others to clean up theirs.

The LDS church is providing an editorial to support its bigotry. What's new? What is frightening is that they suggest that one reason we should not go down this path is that we would not have done so 30 years ago. Go back a bit further and we would have not allowed a black and a white to marry. Go back further and we would have not allowed women to vote. Go back further and we would allow slavery. Let's not look back but rather look forward and ask what is right. Furthermore, much of this article proposes arguments that are better used to support gay marriage rather than oppose it such as the ills brought about by promiscuity and the benefit of social contracts to the next generation. I don't think that the LDS church is thinking straight on this issue because their reasoning is convoluted.

have gay members. They love them, understand them, and many, being forced to choose between their church and children, are supporting their children.

Marriage in California has not lost any of its rights, benefits, or responsibilities for anyone. No one's marriage has been harmed. The more people who enter into marriage, the more stable all of society is. I believe in marriage equality (often called gay marriage) because it will bring more stability to society. Civil marriage is a civil right; temple marriage is not. Many LDS people are unwilling to understand this. Nothing about civil marriage - and marriage equality - threatens the marriages of any one, and certainly not LDS temple marriages.

to Gus....the reason most folks don't seem to have an opinion is that they aren't being directed by their church leaders to march in lockstep. Either the people you meet are members of churches that don't tell them how to vote (and don't put them on conference calls with church leaders asking for $25,000 donations...go check out the Wall Street Journal's article on Prop 8), or else they are not affiliated with any religion.

I strongly suspect that a large portion of the "no opinion" people you encounter are actually opposed, but don't wish to seem confrontational when you call on them.

The WSJ journal article interviewed an active Mormon in San Diego County who was COO of the Clorox Corporation. He gave $3000 after hearing the First Presidency letter read in church and receiving a ProtectMarriage.org donation slip from his bishop. Evidently this wasn't enough money, as he received a conference call with a General Authority leading the call, and the GA suggested that "$25,000" would be a more appropriate amount for a mean of his means.

So, yes, he coughed up another 25K, but only under duress from a GA.

I’m a person who is homosexual. Whenever I read an editorial like this and, even worse, the online comments that follow, I am drained of energy.

You don’t know what it’s like having your moral dignity defamed day in and day out, to hear your neighbors conspiring against you having some semblance of a family, and to hear how you and your partner are inherently unfit for parenthood.

All of these constitutional amendments shut people like me out of government. I cannot petition my legislators for rights pertaining to marriage, and I have no recourse in the courts. In that regard, my citizenship is less.

It’s then that I wonder why I should bother making any kind of contribution to society. Why should I care about humanity’s future?

I’m involved with genetics research to understand human disease, and on the side I’m studying for an EMT certification to do volunteer work. Why should I?

I listen to non sequitur arguments about protecting marriage and protecting kids from people like me, and I am saddened.

And then I begin to hate my neighbors. Hate is dangerous.

I can see why conservatives are terrified of this. If gay marriage remains legal in Cali, it will be legal nationwide in 20 years. There's just no way to have state-by-state segregation on this issue on such a large scale.

So in other words, congratulations to all of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters! You're going to win this fight and we'll all be better off for it.

This nation was not founded on “traditional values.” It was founded on a revolution against a church-state government that denied fairness and representation. The revolution and the values that ignited it were anything but traditional.

The philosopher John Locke is said to have had the greatest impact on our founding fathers. He believed that revolution was not just a right, but also an obligation.

This is same old "but we've always done it this way" argument.

For the most part, the News is making strawman arguments. No one denies that marriage is an important societal institution. Letting gays get married doesn't change or injure that.

Always have, always will. They are tax paying US citizens the same as all of us. Hasn't the LDS Church persecuted them enough? Take a look at the history of the Church and it's gay members? While there has been a slight improvement, it isn't pretty, and it's there for all to see.

The central conceit in the argument against gay marriage can be seen in the words used in this editorial: marriage needs "protecting" "preserving" and "promoting" and that allowing gays to marry would "weaken" and "undermine" marriage". It is argued here that our limited experience with same-sex marriage is too short to see evidence that this negative impact impact would not occur.

But opponents of gay marriage not only don't have evidence that such negative impacts WILL occur, they don't even bother to explain WHAT those impacts are or HOW this will occur. What exactly what about marriage will be weakened by allowing more couples into the tent? It is not enough for opponents to posit that marriage needs "protecting" and that gay marriage will destroy the institution. With all due respect, merely saying so doesn't make it so.

I challenge people who agree with this editorial to please take the next step. Explain how allowing committed same-sex couples to marry will affect heterosexual marriage at all. What is it exactly that you fear will happen? Please don't just say, as this article does, that we need to protect marriage. Protect from what?

This editorial is nothing but the same old line of fear we've had to listen to over and over again. Get over the fear of same-sex marriage: no one is hurt by it, some people are helped by it, and the institutions of marriage and family can only be made stronger by including everyone.

The founding fathers declared that the purpose of government is to "secure and protect our rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [property]".

The prophets tell us that marriage is "between a man, a woman, and God".

According to the 'inspired' founding fathers and the prophets, government has no business defining marriage.

For nearly 100 years our prophets engaged in sexual intercourse with multiple partners and despised that the government dared to interfere

No on 8

Insofar as possible rights should accrue to PEOPLE, not institutions.

To: clean up your own yards first.
Have you ever had a neighbor who's yard is so dirty and piled with garbage that when the wind blows some of the garbage starts to blow into your own yard?
You act as if what goes on in other states won't, in the long run, affect ours. You overly opened-minded people are too eager to run willy-nilly down a road that has no perceivable course.

Marriage is often good for the spouses. Marriage would often be good for gay spouses. If the LDS Church really believes in the beneficial aspects of marriage, and if they really care for all of God's children, they would advocate marriage for anyone who wanted to be married.

so I'm a Utahn lesbian.
Wait, no, hey, before you skip over this comment saying to yourself, "This chick is going to be for gay marriage all the way" I just want to tell you I'm not and here's why:
The girl I'm with wants to get married in California, but I cannot stand her! I don't want to get married! I've been trying to break up with this b-otch for years but nothing I say will keep her from calling! She just doesn't get the concept.

So Californians, please vote to keep out gay marriage. If you think it's a moral issue or an issue of the sanctity of the church of whatever, its not. It's me, and how much time I have getting this clingy chick off my back, and if you allow us to get married, there will be no end to poor, battered lesbians like me running around in your streets and doing coke. We might even run away and come to Utah and INVADE!!!
Tell your neighbors to vote against recognizing gay marriage. If they say its none of their business, tell them their wrong, because we'll come to your house like zombies in Dawn of the Dead.

Josephs arguments @ 7:52 at first seem logical. However, both are weak.

1st, little or no empirical evidence regarding the societal harm of gay marriage exists because the concept and practice of gay marriage is so new. How can we have evidence when we are at the very beginning of this social experiment?

2nd, every law ever written is the imposition of some groups' moral values on everyone else. Josephs seems to argue that morality is relative and that religious views are somehow subordinate and should be kept separate from public debate. This argument on its face negates the first argument as it prevents rational discussion of what 'benefits' or 'harms' society.

Property rights, free speech, freedom of assembly and a number of other rights could easily be put at risk in our current legal climate by adopting this view. Witness the current silencing of clergy in Europe who speak out against homosexuality. Talk about imposing one's views on everyone else!

Josephs is very strident in his positions. One wonders what other behaviors, aberrant or otherwise, he would remove from public debate because one side's position is deemed 'religious'.

I think this issue is as much about trying to restrain the liberal agenda as much as anything. The advocates of gay marriage like to say that this will have no impact on other people's lives.

But just like global warming prevention policies, abortion rights, and affirmative action, this is just a step in a long line of things to come.

The process works like this: First, circumvent the legislature and the vote of the people by getting a judge to find a new right in the constitution. Second, convince the public that this "one little thing is all we want". Third, begin down the slippery slope where we exert control over everyone who doesn't think like us.

We need to draw a line in the sand and just say no more. Give control back to the people. Vote YES on Prop 8.

Anyone considering supporting Prop 8 should first take a quick moment to surf over to the letters to the editor section in today's (Sunday) Salt Lake Tribune and read the Public Forum letter headlined, "Proud Father."

You can read it and be back to the DesNews in less than a minute.

Contrast that position with the position this newspaper is taking. It's absolutely eye-opening.

Now if only the censors here will allow this comment to appear.

Here's hoping!

The LDS church is still fighting the fact it was on the WRONG side of the racial divide in this county. It is on the wrong side again. I think this could be the downfall of the LDS church in the long run as people realize how wrong they. It is very poor planning and thinking on their part. It is too bad because of all the good they can do and yet they spend so much time on evil.

I'm disappointed in the Deseret News, but not surprised.

"We need to protect marriage bc it is a good thing for society"

And yet by eliminating the right to marry for a portion of the population somehow in your mind seems to support the argument of protecting marriage? Wow.

Thanks so much for this editorial. I agree 100%. It's clear that you've hit this on the head given all the negative comments here. Who's really afraid? Many of those vehemently against Prop 8 and this editorial are afraid of standing up for what they know is right deep down inside. Yes, this is about civil rights, it's about protecting the freedom of religion that will, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not, be diminished if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide.

DesNews, thank you for standing for what is right despite all this opposition.

Sheila, it sounds like your problem is not gay marriage in California but that you have a stalker on your hands.

Stalkers can be of either sex or sexual persuasion. Do not blame your problem on Gay marriage.

I'd say Sheila is trolling. Easy to spot.

Sincere questions: Why do the states get involved with marriages at all? Why aren't all marriages done by the state just referred to as "civil unions"? In reality, that is the more accurate description as "civil" relates to "state". Then we could allow the individual religious institutions (christian and other) to perform "marriages" however they please. But in the states' eyes there wouldn't be marriages like we have today, only civil unions. And if a gay couple wants to be considered married, they could find some religious person to marry them.

This seems like the truly non-discriminatory solution to the problem.

It will stay. It may not be "legal" as you see it, but marriage itself has been "redefined"...lol
If you don't believe that look all around you and see the many people that have been in a relationship and no longer are by divorce or other option. The world is changing folks. If you tell people they can't be "legal" they will just be what they are anyway. Stop trying to control people's lives and control your own by spending your money on worthwhile things like healthcare, food and shelter for the poor and many other worthwhile things. You are showing your bigotry and hate and not your Love as has been taught will end the world's problems.
I am no longer religious because of the hypocrisy that religions often show. Instead, I show my love to all and support all good causes that I can. This type of thinking is going to win over.

I know it will be considered as heresy to some reading this article and the comments, but please go to the SLTrib website today and read the letter to the editor from "Proud Father". I was touched by this letter. The church is wrong on this and it is very upsetting to many CA members to have to pretend to support this, when most of them don't really care.

The arguments against legal rights for same sex couples are simply nonsense.

"Marriage is the foundation of all known civilizations and societies; therefore the state has a compelling interest in preserving and protecting it." Marriage in the simplest form is merely the civil and legal recognition of the basis for a family which is actually the foundation of all civilizations and societies. That functioning of a "family" is no different whether it is an opposite gender couple, a single parent or a same-sex couple. The extension of the rights and obligations that come with marriage is gender neutral and makes no difference regarding the gender of either member of the partnership.

The massive instability of marriage in modern American society is a reflection of many factors but in no way is the result of same gender attraction or same gender partnerships regardless of the title applied. Same gender partnerships even with full recognition of civil marriage rights and obligations do nothing to undermine the stability of those in mixed gender traditional marriages.

Times and attitudes are changing. It just takes time to rethink things and adapt.

We live here. We in California witnessed that nothing changed. This is ignorant fear mongering.

You lost money. You've divided families and you have forced member to walk away from the church. You're loosing. Maybe, god as sent a message.

We've reached the point where the Republican nominee for Vice President can say during a debate that gay couples should have the relationships legally recognized and not be denied rights like hospital visitation. Face it, Utah, this ship has already sailed. In fifty years, we'll look back at this and realize how ridiculous the whole "defend traditional marriage" argument really was.

SSM will provide a platform from which to criminalize religious speech utilizing hate-crimes / hate-speech / anti-discrimination laws for teaching that homosexual conduct is abhorrent to God and that humans must be wedded - male to female - in order to inherit the blessings of his kingdom. In CA, the hate-crimes / hate-speech laws rest on "emotional distress" and other like intangibles and indemonstrables.

The homosexuals are out there destroying our country, while true heroes like Wall Street, Orrin Hatch, and Bob Bennett are conspiring to save us all.

uh-huh.

The so-called "conservative" party has the game plan down to a science. Distract the people with a hot-button issue that makes them fret and worry over what consenting adults do in their intimate lives. While they are busy yelling about how the sky is falling because of all those perverts, take the money and RUN. If you invest it poorly, just print some more, and take that batch, too. You can always take the heat off of your heels by pointing the finger at Planned Parenthood or the gay community and redirecting the attention back on all of those evil, evil people. Look out for the terrorists! Look out, Russia is starting to make some noise! LOOK OUT FOR THOSE GAYS!!!!

Made you look...made you flinch....now go over there and fight it out amongst yourselves like good boys and girls so we can get the REAL government work done....there is money to be distributed and invested, and we can't have you all in the way wondering where it is coming from...

Some people are gay, people including me wish it weren't so, I wish everyone were straight. However we need to be fair and kind to everyone.

If you look down on people who are wired differently, you are wrong.

I am convinced gay people do not choose this, I have read several accounts of gays saying in their earliest memories, they can remember being attracted to people of the same sex.

So much for the false doctrine that this is their fault.

I myself try to treat them with the humanity they deserve. I am disapointed that churches who come out against gay marriage don't work just as hard to get their members to not disrespect people because of their orientation.

If you look at the ramifications of legalizing gay marriage in MA. The left is introducing to indoctrinate children as young as 5 years old to accept homosexuality as normal and common. These poor families that have to fight school administrations and govt. to get them to stop EXPOSING their very minor children to these adult themes. It is disheartening to view from afar here in the rocky mnts.
But, it looks like it is comming to our little town soon...

re: Gus 11:43 a.m.

Your idea is sound, except for the fact that there is no difference between civil marriage and civil unions. Why should the word "marriage" be relegated to religious institutions? What about those who aren't religious? Should they be denied the term "marriage" simply because they don't want a religious ceremony? That sounds like discrimination to me.

Why are religious people so hung up on a word when the state is using it in a non-religious context? Call it marriage and get over it.

wonderful editorial - I agree wholeheartedly. God -fearing middle class Americans are already being driven out of California in droves because of high taxes, high cost of living, and the illegal alien invasion. This may be the last straw or the last chance. Good luck California!

Yes, heaven forbid we teach our children that not everyone is like you and you need to be nice to everyone regardless of the differences between us. WHAT A TERRIBLE, EVIL IDEA!

I couldn't agree more. Liberal media outlets get applauded for negative editorials, but look at how people are attacking this piece. Great job Desert News for having courage to take a stand on this. One voice standing alone in a sea of media negativity. Thanks.

re: Jackhp

You're right. I shouldn't have written my post so that the word "marriage" was only associated with religion. I was in a hurry and forgot to look over it. The truth is, all state unions between two people could be called "civil marriages" and then if the couple wanted a religious designation they could seek request a separate ceremony from their pastor or religious leader. It could be called "marriage in God", "marriage in Allah", or for the LDS it could be called "celestial marriage." If a gay couple wanted a special designation (religious non-religious), they could seek that designation from whatever person they deemed appropriate (how's that for political correctness?).

First off, I don't believe being gay is a choice for most gays. I believe that most gays are born gay. Second, I am LDS and support prop 8 because I believe marriage is ordained of God and it is the means by which we help God accomplish his plan of bringing to pass the eternal life and immortality of his children. Despite good intentions, even the best gay couple that raises the best children cannot create an eternal family. This is a great conflict for LDS gays, but that does not mean that God will change his criteria for heaven to accommodate the gay lifestyle. Sometimes I don't understand the criticism toward the LDS church for standing up for marriage. I realize much of California doesn't see marriage the same way the LDS do, but that doesn't mean the LDS shouldn't stand up for protecting marriage. If prop 8 doesn't pass, life will go on, families will be created, divorce will continue, and celestial marriage will still be celestial marriage.