Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California

714 comments | Read story

confused | 11:34 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I think the problem is two fold. First, blocking gay marriage is not taking away rights that others have (as opposed to blacks voting). Nobody in California will be able to marry someone of the same sex. They can still marry anyone of the opposite sex. Second, a lot of people see gay marriage as an equivalent to marrying a sibling or first cousin. So until perceptions can be changed, most people will not accept gay marriage as something that should be allowed.

Cats | 11:34 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

To Sarah: Thanks for once again putting up a "straw man" argument which has no validity. NO ONE has EVER said that God doesn't love gays. God loves all his children. That doesn't mean he tolerates his children behaving in any way they choose to behave. THERE ARE RULES. Those who disobey the rules will receive the consequences. "As ye sow, so shall ye also reap." That's the biblical way of saying that you will receive the consequences of your choices.

And, by the way, gay behavior is very tolerated in this society. If it weren't, they would be in jail. That's what is done in many societies around the world. In some societies, they are even executed. We don't do ANYTHING like that and wouldn't support it. What the gays want is not tolerance, but for society to accept and embrace their lifestyle. That's a completely different situation.

To Slavery? | 11:42 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

People who are comparing the Marriage & Homosexuals issue with slavery are showing the world not only ignorance but total disrespect. Are homosexuals really saying that their situation is similar to that of slaves? Unbelievable! How can you even come anywhere near using this example? Let's see skin color = denial of ANY and ALL human rights and compelled indentured servitude vs. defining marriage as between a man & women. Is that the same? No wonder African Americans voted 80% in favor of prop 8

Comments continue below

Emme | 11:42 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

You say that "mormons hate the gays?" Really, isn't it odd that my temple going sister took in a gay young man that needed a place to live? Such hate!! She never asked him for a dime even feeding him on her dime for months until he was back on his feet.

The sandwich maker | 11:43 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

prop 8 looks better already! let the vote speak!

RE: LIES? here they are. | 11:43 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

First of all, thanks to Lee Benson...this was a creative and straightforward article.

Second, to "LIES? here they are"...you didn't answer anything! Those are all ambiguous phrases...no specifics.

Re: Kevin | 11:45 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Why do you have to argue, are you trying to convince yourself?

John Pack Lambert | 11:48 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

To the 10:24 commentator,
The Idaho Test oath banned all Mormons from voting.
To make an analogy between that and this issue is illogical. No person has been banned the right to vote as a result of Proposition 8.

To Sarah @ 10:25 | 11:49 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

No on ever said that God does not love his Gay children less than any of his other children. Also, judging what is in your heart doesn't always cut it- i.e. "I haven't paid my tithing for 10 years, but I know it is important, and I really wish I could afford to". Or "I was just so angry at the time I pulled trigger, but I really did love my wife".

Anonymous | 11:49 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Californians got it right with this vote and I agree a national amendment is in order to stop the lawyers from pushing a definition of marriage down the throats of citizens who don't agree.

@To slavery? | 11:51 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

funny Martin Luther Kings on children say that the gay right movement is the same as the movement that their father headed and the movment to end slavery, but people will beleive what they want.

LouisianaLDS | 11:54 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Robert Johnson:

What exactly was the lies, deceit, and deception? I hear this a lot but people seem short on details.

Failed attempts | 11:55 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

since laws in Arizona, California and Colorado aimed at limiting abortions failed to win the support of the voters that the anti abortion groups wanted, will they know drop the subject in those states? ya didn't think so. You talk about relativist thinking.

RE:to: Re; Henry Drummond | 11:58 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Funny that you use Reynolds VS U.S. to suggest that the Supreme Court ruled on the disenfranchisement of Utahns when it has nothing to do with my or Henry Drummond's post.

The wellknown Reynolds case was based on whether or not poligamy could be deemed illegal, not whether or not voting rights could be denied to individuals who will not denounce poligamy.

Please read the context of the discussions to which you reply before posting!

DLS | 12:00 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

We are told by opponents to Prop 8 that ï¿½gay marriage does nothing to discriminate against those who favor so called ï¿½traditional" marriage. They remain free to promote and hold those beliefsï¿½. Explain this to the Boys Scouts of America who were forced to change their membership policies and accept gays even though it was against their bylaws and traditional membership. This might explain why so many are weary of allowing gay marriage. After gay marriage is allowed theyï¿½ll start trying to force the different religious sects which are opposed to gay marriage to perform such marriages or lose their rights and governmental status.

Christopher Jones | 12:01 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Great article, Lee. I attend the Corona Del Mar Ward (next to the Newport Beach Temple). One neighbor whose back yard faces our chapel, (across a small gulley) continues to show their "No on 8" sign on their back yard fence. Another demonstration of the "in your face" attitude that helps to continually galvanize our feelings.

common sense is not very common | 12:02 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"Evan Wolfson, a California-based gay-rights lawyer who heads a group called Freedom to Marry, said, "There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote."

RIGHTS of a MINORITY? Gays and lesbians do not constitute a MINORITY GROUP!! Yes, they are in the minority as far as total population counts go but so are other sexually perverse groups, like child molesters or people who want to have sex with animals for example. Practicing a homosexual life style is a CHOICE not a nationality or a race.

I hope our law makers are not fooled into thinking they are a "minority group" and deserve special rights. After all, our lawmakers have never done anything stupid previously, right? Right? Oh geez....

Re: Failed attempts | 12:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

I wonder how many buildings owned by the opponents of limiting abortion were damaged and defaced in the aftermath of the Arizona, California, and Colorado votes. None. Ya, that's what I thought. There's your relativist think.

Only the prop 8 opponents stoop to that level, thus further distinguishing themselves from law-abiding citizens.

bob carlisle | 12:03 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

goes to show which faiths are in step with the bibles teaching and therefore are in step with christ, go christians, catholics and some groups of the main stream who distort everything else but are right on this issue.

HSFAN | 12:04 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

When the gay thugs finish breaking windows and tagging churches....they will one day have to come to grips with the fact that is was as much the left vrs the right, that voted for Prop 8!

If we had another vote today....it would be 70-30 for Prop 8! Gays have set their cause back 30 years!!

One Human Family | 12:07 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

To Lee Benson and other supporters of prop 8:

If someone had voted on your marriage, something tells me you would also be a "sore loser".

This is not a game. This about equal treatment under the law. I can be married to the one I love and my gay brother cannot. It is as simple as that.

Would you call women and blacks sore losers when they were beaten down over and over again only to fight back until they had equal rights? And don't give me the line that gays choose to be gay so it is different. When did you choose your sexual orientation?

@RE: LIES? here they are. | 12:11 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"Second, to "LIES? here they are"...you didn't answer anything! Those are all ambiguous phrases...no specifics."

you need to read his whole 8 page pdf document. I only posted his conclusion. The posts here are limited to 200 words. He's quite detailed in his assessment of each of the arguements.

Here's what he says at the beginning of the 8 page paper:

"Most of the arguments contained in ï¿½Six Consequencesï¿½ are either untrue or misleading. The
following commentary addresses those arguments and explains how they are based on
misinterpretations of law and fact. My intent is to be of service in helping our Church avoid
charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory. Relying on deceptive arguments is not
only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the
Church."

The won't let go | 12:12 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

And they will not be "losers" for long!

Highlander2 | 12:14 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

The homosexual advocacy group must be early risers! Every time there is an opportunity to respond with a pro-gay post, they are the first-in. Either that or they are located on the east coast and scan the papers for opportunities to spread their message.

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else: to marry an individual of the opposite gender. What they want are SPECIAL RIGHTS to support them in their unnatural choice.

re:Anonymous | 12:16 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Anonymous | 8:13 a.m. Dec. 1, 2008
"It is amazing how obsessive the Utah culture is around this issue, I will never understand the boggy man syndrome of the LDS faithful. You same people have been posting the same ridiculous post for more then a year now. Maybe you should let it go."

How would you know that unless you have faithfully been following the same post for a year? You might want to follow your own advice.

realitycheck | 12:16 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

this is a simple topic, with a simple answer.

Simply give gays the same RIGHTS as everyone else. They don't cares what the "union" is called, as long as it is RECOGNIZED by everyone (state, fed, etc) as having the same rights.

I really don't think the gay community cares whether you call it "marriage" or "civil union" or whatever. The point is that they have the same rights as any other "committed" couple.

They want to be able to put their "significant other" on their insurance, just like a married couple.

They want the same tax breaks as any other married couple.

They want hospital visitation privileges, just like a married couple.

If a married couple has a right to something, or a benefit, or a break of any kind, they want the same rights....

It's not rocket science. Call it whatever you want. No need to call it "marriage". But whatever is done, it will need to be done at the federal level to ensure all states recognize the rights.

Gays represent at minimum 2% of the population. That's over 6 million just in the USA. Give them the same rights that you have. What's the problem?

Statistics | 12:21 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Re: Commonsense- your remarks that children need a father and a mother do not take into account all of the divorced families with single parents. Being a religionist...I can see that you feel that they are lousy parent for not having a partner. Oh that one day you should end up in their shoes and have to learn empathy the hard way.

re@DC & TN - Gay's don't have to have children...there are enough childrent out there that YOU don't foster or adopt that they will never run out of children. You birth, but then dump them off in State institutions to be raised. So don't worry about them running out. They have you to thank for that option!!!

Lastly....If you don't understand why someone would want the same thing you have...ie: an equil marriage, then you DO NOT understand what the word empathy means. And for all you "religionists" out there, if you don't understand empathy, then you don't understand Christ's love, because that's what he gave you when he suffered at the Garden of Gathsemanie and why he died on the cross.

He has empathy for your sins...including those judgmental ones your showing now....

Scoreboard | 12:21 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

What I find so amazing about the protests is that they come after the vote...Isn't the act of voting in the first place an implicit acknowledgment that one will abide by the results of that vote? IF people are going to complain, threaten, deface, and destroy property after they once willing (and in a civil way) participated in a vote THEN democracy has no meaning. This isn't just about the current issue at hand, the very fiber and soul of the Constitution and our government is at stake. Democracy and free elections only work if people respect the outcomes of those elections...case in point: all the failed and blood soaked dictatorships throughout history. If you "anti-prop 8" people are upset with the result then use your venom and angst to plan for the next round of "prop" voting that the future surely will bring - but please for the sake of democracy respect the vote that has taken place. I am absolutely sure that had the vote gone your way you would be demanding that all people, including us "narrow-minded religious folk," hold sacred and reverence the vote because the people have spoken.

@ ONE HUMAN FAMILY | 12:24 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Being gay is not the same as being born black. One is a condition of parents and genes, the other is a choice based on environment or just plain old weakness.
There is no "gay gene", and even if the facts are distorted to suggest that there is a combination of factors which makes a person more predisposed to attraction to the same sex, it would be no different than those who have been shown to be predisposed to alcoholism. Should be endorse and support their alcoholism, allowing them to drive drunk legally, or should we still call their decision to drink, a choice.
Homosexuality is a choice to act, no matter what it is that turns them on.

re: reality check | 12:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Gays already HAVE the same rights as everyone else. When are you going to realize that?

Not Really | 12:31 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Henry Drummond said:

ï¿½Its like those laws that made it illegal for Mormons to vote. They were held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, but Mormons kept fighting until they changed people's minds.ï¿½

Henry,

When the LDS Church stopped polygamy, their voting rights were restored. It had nothing to do with the Church trying to influence the citizenry. The LDS Church upheld the law of the land after the Supreme Court declared the prohibition of plural marriage to be constitutional. The arguments officially came to an end.

ugh | 12:33 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Your words are sickening. They reflect hardness of heart.

I'm seriously considering moving from this valley if not this state altogether.

Many of you will now say "go and don't let I-15 slap you on the tail as you leave," however, do you even have a clue what this place will be like once you've driven away everyone who doesn't believe as you do? You will turn on each other. Blood and ashes.

One Human Family said it | 12:34 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

best:

I can be married to the one I love, but my gay brother cannot.

If that seems fair to you, then you're probably not gay.
Lucky you!

Anonymous | 12:34 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

It's the same story. We go around and around, and become only more galvanized. I'm bitter about all this. I don't enjoy this conflict. I enjoy fishing, skiing, dogs, dinner parties, and self-deprecating humor

But to Lee and the other scorekeepers who are reveling in their Prop 8 victory, and those who are spending millions to keep people like me from having a family, look at the rate of change of the margin of victory. It is negative for you and positive for us.

Say and think what you must about homosexuals and homosexuality. Your simple majority referendums will be overturned in time.

I just wish I could have a real family before I get much older.

All rights can be removed | 12:37 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

There is a way to remove any "right" held by any group by a vote of the majority. Each state has a method for amending their constitution. The US constitution can be amended and (if the majority demanded) all of the "rights" contained therein could be removed. Government itself is a social contract. The majority (in a democracy) determines what that contract will be.

Unfortunately for gay people, most people are heterosexual and have a religious and/or visceral negative reaction to homosexuality (I have both). Your strident clamoring for rights and persecution of opposing groups does not assuage this reaction. If anything it amplifies it. I can easily see homosexuals pushing their agenda into every possible area in every possible way. The "lies" do not seem like lies to me but likelihoods.

re @ one human family 12:24pm | 12:38 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

if you think homosexuality is a choice, you needc to do your homework.

yes, they could "hold back" and be miserable for their entire lives. And a black person could wear white-face all the time - and a woman could strap up her breasts and wear a suit every day, etc.

all of those options are uncomfortable to the bearer.

what don't you get? do you really think 2% of the population CHOOSES to be gay? 6 million people in the USA simply decided to be gay?

get a grip. being gay IS in fact a result of genes. Perhaps if you put down the book of mormon and picked up a scientific journal, you would know that...

Of Course | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

we can vote on religious morals! That's what this country was founded upon.

Let's all pray, though, that the rest of "Christian America" doesn't decide to vote on the legal status of Mormons because we're in the minority here in Utah.
They would, after all, have the right to abolish us as a religion and culture, because religion is a choice.
I'm praying, how about you?

Failed attempts | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"Re; falied attempts" really? thanks for proving my point even better then I could have. I guess you never heard about the clinic bombings or the personal physical attacks on doctors, including the murdering of a doctor by anti abortionist, so donï¿½t try to play innocent just because the people in these states did not do anything this time around the anti abortion groups have a long history of violence and mayhem.

re: Lies? here they are. | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

To Lies? The "Six Consequences" document is the only thing debunked by Mr. Thurston. He in no way debunks the actual propostion. The LDS church had already advised it's members about passing along literature written anonymously. Mr. Thurston also only address the arguments in the document but fails to address other arguments in favor of the propostion but not listed.

He has also come out against the gays for misuse of his memo as an actual rebuttal of the propostion.

Next time do your research with an open mind, especially if you are going to tell people where your feeble arguments are coming from.

Wicked take the truth hard... | 12:41 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Thanks for an EXCELLENT column. I'm sending it to everyone I know. Very well said!

realitycheck | 12:42 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

re poster 12:26 pm said "gays already have the same rights as everyone else".

really? didn't know that.

so how does a gay couple file their taxes so they get the "married" tax rate?

do businesses allow gay people to put their "significant other" on their medical insurance?

pls explain how they have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS as any other couple?

perhaps you should think before you speak....

Thanks for the reminder | 12:46 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

that "All rights can be removed | 12:37".

You, as a Mormon, white, male heterosexual are in the majority for now.
Enjoy it while you can, you lucky dog!

LIES | 12:51 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

except the issues addressed in his paper (that he debunked) WERE used in the ads. i know, i live in CA and saw them every hour on TV. these ads SCARED people because they beleived the lies in the ads.

re:Failed attempts | 12:52 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"donï¿½t try to play innocent just because the people in these states did not do anything this time around".

The people in those states respect majority opinions. That is why they have behaved. Your childish "they did it first" response doesn't work here. Only the pro-homosexual marriage campaign has stooped to damaging property after losing a democratic vote - despite your protests otherwise.

Anonymous | 12:53 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Hey Militant Mormons with your hateful agenda! I do NOT struggle with my homosexuality!!! I LOVE being gay and would NEVER want to be heterosexual. I am thankful to God that he created me this way. We are not sore losers but people intent on having our rights. Somewhere I have heard "with freedom and justice for ALL!" I will believe it when I see it. Anyway it is YOU who started this fight so do not complain.

re @ one human family at 12:38 | 12:53 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Talk about an uninformed bigotted response!

1 - Despite throwing wild-money at scientists to attempt to find the "gay gene", no such gay gene has been found, period.

2 - How do you know that the author you attacked even owns a Book of Mormon? What a great example of bigotry, hate and intolerance by those whose political platform asked for tolerance.

suzyk | 12:56 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

To: RobertJohnson..it's ironic you put the blame on the mormon church when in fact the Catholic church put out videos and anything they could do to support the passing of Prop. 8. Passing that proposition would have opened the door for the gays to start putting pressures(look at Massachusettes)on what is taught to our children. We do not want their sick thinking to be put onto our children and grandchildren. It wasn't only the Mormon church who worked for the "YES" on the proposition...thousands of other churches also did so you have better get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers at the Mormon church. emember when you are pointing your finger at someone there are 3 fingers pointing back at you. It is what it is...they can live their life-style at home but we do not want our lives to be mingled with them. Their thinking and living style is perverted and goes against everything God-fearing people believe in. They choose their way of living yet they can't choose the consequences. Their way of thinking and living in sin will never be accepted as normal. God will not tolerate this unnatural affection between same sexes. He will not.

I have a suggestion. | 12:58 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

There are many that are saying that those who are against gay marriage should stop writing about it, they have been posting for a year. GOOD IDEA, and I have a even better idea, all the protesters that are upset with the LDS church, stop protesting, REALLY GOOD IDEA!!!

re: One Human Family | 12:59 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

"This is not a game. This about equal treatment under the law. I can be married to the one I love and my gay brother cannot. It is as simple as that."

I guess One Human Family isn't interested in defining marriage at all. He says his brother can't marry the one he loves. Well, what do we do when the one they love is a minor, a sibling, an inanimate object?

We have laws for a reason people and they aren't to persecute anyone. They are to protect society.

FreeAgent | 1:00 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008

Where does the gay movement get the idea that those who disagree with them "hate" them? Just because someone disagrees with your way of thinking does not mean there is hate involved. I would not want my sister to marry another woman--that certainly does not mean that I hate her. I wouldn't want my father to marry another man--again it has nothing to do with hate. I guess it's the gay movement's little trick to twist words and spread lies about those who disagree with their point of view. Hopefully, informed and educated individuals will see through this manipulation.

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.