Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California
714 comments | Read story
HATE=OVERUSED WORD! | 9:51 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
"If there were | 8:34 p.m." and others, why is it that you call any
word, decision, or nuance that goes against you "HATE"?
Do you not understand the meaning of the word? Do you love hearing the sound of it so much you can't resist using it? Do you believe that the more you use it, whether it makes sense or not, the more people you will rally to your cause?
I suppose the very fact that I'm ASKING THIS QUESTION automatically qualifies me as being filled with "HATE" in your eyes. I'd certainly like to believe nothing could be further from the truth.
All I know is--I've never seen so much TRUE HATRED as I have seen from those kind, loving, peaceful, non-HATE-filled people who protested the passage of Proposition 8. What else would you call insults, harassment, stereotypical thinking, justification of symbolic and literal violence, and even "HATE crimes"? Those protesters made MANY more enemies than friends by choosing to respond in that way.
If you're going to protest what you call "HATE" so vehemently, what on Earth justifies you in using and evoking more of THE REAL THING?
Do you not understand the meaning of the word? Do you love hearing the sound of it so much you can't resist using it? Do you believe that the more you use it, whether it makes sense or not, the more people you will rally to your cause?
I suppose the very fact that I'm ASKING THIS QUESTION automatically qualifies me as being filled with "HATE" in your eyes. I'd certainly like to believe nothing could be further from the truth.
All I know is--I've never seen so much TRUE HATRED as I have seen from those kind, loving, peaceful, non-HATE-filled people who protested the passage of Proposition 8. What else would you call insults, harassment, stereotypical thinking, justification of symbolic and literal violence, and even "HATE crimes"? Those protesters made MANY more enemies than friends by choosing to respond in that way.
If you're going to protest what you call "HATE" so vehemently, what on Earth justifies you in using and evoking more of THE REAL THING?
BC | 9:59 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
LOL. Great article. Thanks.
Comments continue below
to Anon. 9:41 | 10:01 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
You need to remember that it is a matter of perspective and yours is only an
opinion! Opinions are not lies, but rather ones belief or thought.
It is my opinion and belief that Gay Marriage will lead to the continued moral decay of our society and do great harm to the traditional family. The Majority of americans as this article points out agree with my opinion and thats no lie!
It is my opinion and belief that Gay Marriage will lead to the continued moral decay of our society and do great harm to the traditional family. The Majority of americans as this article points out agree with my opinion and thats no lie!
Bud Parks | 10:05 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
A little research would show that the gay marriage ban was defeated here in
Arizona two years ago before being passed this year. As an LDS church member I
can never understand how anyone other than my wife or I could weaken my
marriage. As for the people who thinks the church's tax exemption is even
at any risk at all you are very mistaken. Is the Catholic Church or other
churches that advocate against the death penalty going ro lose their exemption
of course not. THe majority of the church's activities are not political
and thus it will continue to be tax exempt.
To Anonymous | 9:41 p.m. | 10:12 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
I am confused ---
if marriage were to be re-defined as allowing gay people to marry --- that would essentially hurt your marriage?
I really don't get it.
Hetero people are married and have been married for x amount of years.
Between May of this year up until Nov. 4 gays were allowed to marry in California --- in fact, 18,000 of them ---
Between that time, are you saying that people having those certificates did something to dramatically alter your definition of marriage?
Really?
To me, the fact that ---
* divorce happens --- does a lot more damage
* spouse abuse happens --- does a lot more damage
and you sleep well at night knowing that some people, calling their hetero relationship marriage, abuse their partner constantly?
It does that much to your self-confidence?
Methinks we need to evaluate what affects the definitions of what other people call their relationships ---
Many people want to monopolize words --- "the best," "the only true Church," (there are many churches who hold fast to this tenet, and it is their prerogative) "the most beautiful," "#1", etc. etc.
And we allow people to use those words ---
if marriage were to be re-defined as allowing gay people to marry --- that would essentially hurt your marriage?
I really don't get it.
Hetero people are married and have been married for x amount of years.
Between May of this year up until Nov. 4 gays were allowed to marry in California --- in fact, 18,000 of them ---
Between that time, are you saying that people having those certificates did something to dramatically alter your definition of marriage?
Really?
To me, the fact that ---
* divorce happens --- does a lot more damage
* spouse abuse happens --- does a lot more damage
and you sleep well at night knowing that some people, calling their hetero relationship marriage, abuse their partner constantly?
It does that much to your self-confidence?
Methinks we need to evaluate what affects the definitions of what other people call their relationships ---
Many people want to monopolize words --- "the best," "the only true Church," (there are many churches who hold fast to this tenet, and it is their prerogative) "the most beautiful," "#1", etc. etc.
And we allow people to use those words ---
Mike | 9:50 p.m. | 10:16 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
No one is saying that gays would want to make homosexuality the one method to
live --- for 100% of the people.
The fact is, gayism has been around... since forever.
What we, in the LGBT community want --- is to allow our space --- and to live among heteros ---
That is all we're asking.
Gays do not make it a point to go out and proselyte other gays ---
Gays find themselves.
They sort of pop up everywhere --- across every culture, race, color, ethniticity, religion, and language.
The fact is, gayism has been around... since forever.
What we, in the LGBT community want --- is to allow our space --- and to live among heteros ---
That is all we're asking.
Gays do not make it a point to go out and proselyte other gays ---
Gays find themselves.
They sort of pop up everywhere --- across every culture, race, color, ethniticity, religion, and language.
To Anonymous around 6 pm | 10:26 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Sue networks for not having enough channels on traditional values? --- as
opposed to non-traditional values --- I take it you mean that TV nowdays is too
gay?
Is that your meaning?
Wow!
For years --- wow, since the start of TV -- TV has mainly had hetero people ---
in fact, sometimes gay people playing straight or in the closet --- at gay people's identity and expense ---
Come the 1990's and gays finally make it to the media --- with a few shows --- I repeat, a few ---
and somehow that's reverse discrimination against heteros?
I count the number of channels that have predominantly gay versus predominantly straight --- only two are predominantly gay --- that's it.
The rest of the cable selection is purely hetero-driven.
Is that your meaning?
Wow!
For years --- wow, since the start of TV -- TV has mainly had hetero people ---
in fact, sometimes gay people playing straight or in the closet --- at gay people's identity and expense ---
Come the 1990's and gays finally make it to the media --- with a few shows --- I repeat, a few ---
and somehow that's reverse discrimination against heteros?
I count the number of channels that have predominantly gay versus predominantly straight --- only two are predominantly gay --- that's it.
The rest of the cable selection is purely hetero-driven.
to "To Chris" | 10:38 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Thanks for your insight.
Looking around my immediate neighborhood, these are the families I see:
Home 1: grandparents, grandchildren, a married couple not related by blood and their children, several adult male cousins
Home 2: single dad with 2 kids who appear on Wednesdays and every other weekend and a month in the summer, male roommate, another male roommate and his live-in girlfriend
Home 3: married couple with two kids together, one son who comes every other weekend, two kids who are there except every other weekend
Home 4: two women partners who got together when the now young adult son was in junior high after his parents divorced
Home 5: divorced mom, her adult married daughter and her husband, her sons, her sister
Home 6: married couple, children grown and gone
Home 7: single man, his aging mum, one of his nephews and an otherwise homeless friend of the nephew
Home 8: married couple, their kids, her divorced cousin and her kids
Home 9: four generations of a large, extended family
The only definition of "family" I find congruent is that family is what you make it.
Looking around my immediate neighborhood, these are the families I see:
Home 1: grandparents, grandchildren, a married couple not related by blood and their children, several adult male cousins
Home 2: single dad with 2 kids who appear on Wednesdays and every other weekend and a month in the summer, male roommate, another male roommate and his live-in girlfriend
Home 3: married couple with two kids together, one son who comes every other weekend, two kids who are there except every other weekend
Home 4: two women partners who got together when the now young adult son was in junior high after his parents divorced
Home 5: divorced mom, her adult married daughter and her husband, her sons, her sister
Home 6: married couple, children grown and gone
Home 7: single man, his aging mum, one of his nephews and an otherwise homeless friend of the nephew
Home 8: married couple, their kids, her divorced cousin and her kids
Home 9: four generations of a large, extended family
The only definition of "family" I find congruent is that family is what you make it.
Anonymous | 10:41 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Excellent article. There is another "minority" group -
Kleptomaniacs...a group of people who have a "genetic propensity" to
steal - deep urges that are hard to control that can only be satisfied by the
thrill of stealing (sounds like the gay argument, no?)
The homosexual marketing machine is akin to a group of Kleptomaniacs banding together and demanding that we make stealing legal. The rest of us look at that and empathise with their plight in life, but we have the common sense to know that that doesn't work for the common good - and it would be outrageous to legalize theft, just to make a small group feel good about their abnormal, detrimental, psychological anomaly.
That is what the gay argument is. It is not good for the common good. It will have devastating consequences on the little citizens of this nation who are adopted by gay partners (what about their rights? Who will protect their rights?). Devastating consequences on the collective morality we hold to be true and right.
The homosexual marketing machine is akin to a group of Kleptomaniacs banding together and demanding that we make stealing legal. The rest of us look at that and empathise with their plight in life, but we have the common sense to know that that doesn't work for the common good - and it would be outrageous to legalize theft, just to make a small group feel good about their abnormal, detrimental, psychological anomaly.
That is what the gay argument is. It is not good for the common good. It will have devastating consequences on the little citizens of this nation who are adopted by gay partners (what about their rights? Who will protect their rights?). Devastating consequences on the collective morality we hold to be true and right.
to kjb | 10:50 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
My husband and I spent thousands of dollars getting our living trust and other
legalalities into place. My husband couldn't make medical decisions for me
simply because we were married. Don't kid yourself and fall for the
homosexuals whining about how unfair it is and how their right to have a family
was taken from them. Their sexual preference is what took their right to have a
family away from them, not the citizens of CA.
to Mike, 9:50pm | 10:54 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Homosexuality may have been around for quite some time, but it has not been
brought to the front and made to appear "normal" until recently.
Therein is the problem. Is it normal, traditional, or moral? That is the debate
that the majority does not want.
How should it be taught in our schools, or should it be brought up at all? What long term effects will being normalized do to our society? The evedience to this point seems to suggest that it will change or moral fabric, which is not what the overwelming number of Americans want to see happen.
I am one of them, and believe that this is only the begining of the battle for our countrys soul. What is more important? The right or the "rights"? Deep down I think that we all know what is right and we will choose to follow our consceince or we willfight it and be miserable and bring others down with us.
How should it be taught in our schools, or should it be brought up at all? What long term effects will being normalized do to our society? The evedience to this point seems to suggest that it will change or moral fabric, which is not what the overwelming number of Americans want to see happen.
I am one of them, and believe that this is only the begining of the battle for our countrys soul. What is more important? The right or the "rights"? Deep down I think that we all know what is right and we will choose to follow our consceince or we willfight it and be miserable and bring others down with us.
outside looking in | 11:06 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
to Klepto Anonymous-
What could have any more "devastating consequences on the collective morality we hold to be true and right" than has already occurred under the reign of the religious, married, family-oriented majority? Apparently it's been all downhill for quite some time now. What's that definition of insanity? Continuing to do what has been done and expecting different results?
I like that idea of making marriage a religious choice not a civil one. Abolish marriage as a civil institution. One person = one tax/benefit standard and no special treatment.
I'd like to hear from the therapists out there on whether the mental health of children would be improved if we decided to teach them that regardless of their family structure *they* are well-loved, capable and able to enjoy successful lives. Maybe what's doing the damage now is the collective belief that broken homes make broken kids. Since *committed* relationships seem to have expiration dates and adults break their vows of lifelong commitment all the time, maybe it's time to overhaul how we teach children to consider their potential regardless of being raised in part-time, multiple living arrangements.
What could have any more "devastating consequences on the collective morality we hold to be true and right" than has already occurred under the reign of the religious, married, family-oriented majority? Apparently it's been all downhill for quite some time now. What's that definition of insanity? Continuing to do what has been done and expecting different results?
I like that idea of making marriage a religious choice not a civil one. Abolish marriage as a civil institution. One person = one tax/benefit standard and no special treatment.
I'd like to hear from the therapists out there on whether the mental health of children would be improved if we decided to teach them that regardless of their family structure *they* are well-loved, capable and able to enjoy successful lives. Maybe what's doing the damage now is the collective belief that broken homes make broken kids. Since *committed* relationships seem to have expiration dates and adults break their vows of lifelong commitment all the time, maybe it's time to overhaul how we teach children to consider their potential regardless of being raised in part-time, multiple living arrangements.
correction 10:54 | 11:10 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
The 10:54pm post was in responce to
Mike|9:50|10:16 .... Sorry Mike
Mike|9:50|10:16 .... Sorry Mike
Jacqueline | 11:29 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Excellent Article. Well put. Well Said. I wish it was enough said.
A few thoughts1 | 11:40 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
If this was simply a minority rights issue, why aren�t all
people in favor of gay marriage? Why don�t all religions
and people support the way that you lead your lives (whether in the privacy of
your own homes or in the public eye)?
Answer: I think it is simple: The lives that you lead, you chose. The Yes-er's/ Religionists/ Mormons/ Blacks etc. chose not to support your decision. You were born with those feelings perhaps or they developed over time, but regardless of their genesis, somewhere along the line you chose to act on them. Having the feelings wasn't 'wrong'....who out there has feelings and beliefs 100% of the time that fit perfectly into the so-called 'moral fiber' of our country? No one! The Yes-er's/Mormon�s/ Religionists etc. did not and do not object to your feelings of love and desire for one another. Not at all. They simply object that your practices are completely opposite of the natural (or the word they use is 'moral') way to live. If you are getting hung up on the word �natural�, read it as any of these: Natural as natural selection, society norms, reproductive processes, physiology, anatomy, natural laws, etc.
Answer: I think it is simple: The lives that you lead, you chose. The Yes-er's/ Religionists/ Mormons/ Blacks etc. chose not to support your decision. You were born with those feelings perhaps or they developed over time, but regardless of their genesis, somewhere along the line you chose to act on them. Having the feelings wasn't 'wrong'....who out there has feelings and beliefs 100% of the time that fit perfectly into the so-called 'moral fiber' of our country? No one! The Yes-er's/Mormon�s/ Religionists etc. did not and do not object to your feelings of love and desire for one another. Not at all. They simply object that your practices are completely opposite of the natural (or the word they use is 'moral') way to live. If you are getting hung up on the word �natural�, read it as any of these: Natural as natural selection, society norms, reproductive processes, physiology, anatomy, natural laws, etc.
A few thoughts2 | 11:42 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Regardless, here is what that statement means: If everyone on this earth was to
live as a homosexual and strictly acted only on those feelings of love and
desire for those of their same gender, what would happen? Our entire race would
end in one generation----Is this natural?
Neither God nor evolution works this way.
This is why marriage (or to simplify it: unipartner sexual relationships), traditionally have been between a man and a woman. This is the only way propagation of our species works! Our ancestors knew this truth and prevented the rampant practice of homosexuality in their civilizations, so that their civilizations could continue. (You can read about those few groups however that did allow it to permeate through their society---whether you believe the accounts or not).
Neither God nor evolution works this way.
This is why marriage (or to simplify it: unipartner sexual relationships), traditionally have been between a man and a woman. This is the only way propagation of our species works! Our ancestors knew this truth and prevented the rampant practice of homosexuality in their civilizations, so that their civilizations could continue. (You can read about those few groups however that did allow it to permeate through their society---whether you believe the accounts or not).
Way to miss the point | 11:46 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
Ummmmmmm....Michelle? At what point was I bringing morals into my argument or
stating my position on loveless unions? Could you help me out with this?
I don't know about you but putting words into someones mouth seems a little bit to me like you are trying to mislead the reader. I was simply making the point that the rights to marriage are equal regardless of your sexual preference. If you would like to refute that point I would love to hear your argument.
I don't know about you but putting words into someones mouth seems a little bit to me like you are trying to mislead the reader. I was simply making the point that the rights to marriage are equal regardless of your sexual preference. If you would like to refute that point I would love to hear your argument.
the jury is still out | 11:50 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
It is FAR TOO SOON to say children raised in homosexual households are no worse
for wear. I've always heard it said you'll know what type of parent
you were, by how your grandkids turn out. Legal adoptions by homosexuals
haven't been around long enough for an accurate study to be done. What is
happening is that homosexual doctors, psychiatrists etc. are inserting their
unfounded opinions into these statements in the hopes of legitimizing homosexual
adoptions.
Hey! | 11:54 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
We are not against the gays and lesbians about getting married. Go marry some
one of the opposite sex and everything will be fine.
re one simple question | 11:54 p.m. Dec. 1, 2008
you ask how homosexual marriage hurts me. google kindergarten, gay pledge,
Hayward California and you'll see for yourself the news account about
kindergartners being asked to sign a gay pledge supplied by the gltb community.
A first grade class in San fran was taken to a lesbian wedding during school
hours. These little ones should be in class learning how to read and write, not
learning about perversion. They want to indoctrinate our kids at the earliest
possible time. Both these incidents happened during the few weeks that
homosexual marriage was allowed in CA. I think they helped spur prop 8 to
victory. People saw for themselves what was happening.
Gays treated the same under law | 12:01 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Only 34 states are needed to call a constitutional convention while a mere 37
are necessary to approve amendments to the Constitution. If Congress were to
propose an amendment it would only require that 290 representatives and 66
Senators.
The point I'm trying to make is 30 states chose to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman and only 4 more could call a constitutional convention to ratify an amendment, while a mere 7 more would result in a amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's fairly obvious where the American people stand on same-sex marriage.
If people think a minority has the right to define our statutes as they see fit because of a twisted understanding of the Constitution they are wrong. Marriage isn't a right and so long as the majority doesn't violate due process and equal protection under the law it has a right to define the law.
In other words, so long as the majority doesn't say that gays can't marry a person of the opposite sex or gays can only marry another gay person then the majority has the right to define the institution. Simply, gays can marry.
The point I'm trying to make is 30 states chose to amend their state constitutions to define marriage as one man and one woman and only 4 more could call a constitutional convention to ratify an amendment, while a mere 7 more would result in a amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It's fairly obvious where the American people stand on same-sex marriage.
If people think a minority has the right to define our statutes as they see fit because of a twisted understanding of the Constitution they are wrong. Marriage isn't a right and so long as the majority doesn't violate due process and equal protection under the law it has a right to define the law.
In other words, so long as the majority doesn't say that gays can't marry a person of the opposite sex or gays can only marry another gay person then the majority has the right to define the institution. Simply, gays can marry.
identity theft | 12:06 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
We all need to stand up against identity theft and not allow homosexuals to
steal the identity of an institution that has existed for thousands of years and
in countless cultures.
They never took a logic class | 12:07 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Way to miss the point,
"I was simply making the point that the rights to marriage are equal regardless of your sexual preference. If you would like to refute that point I would love to hear your argument."
This is something they fail to grasp. It's very simple. There is no law that states "gays cannot marry a person of the opposite sex but straight people can marry a person of the opposite sex" nor is there a law that says that "a gay person can only marry another gay person." That would be a violation of equal protection under the law but that isn't the case here. Homosexuals are treated the same as heterosexuals under the law. If a gay person wants to marry a person of the opposite sex they are able to do so just as much as a straight person can marry a person of the opposite sex and a gay person cannot marry a person of the same sex anymore than a straight person can marry a person of the same sex. Thus, no discrimination and no violation of equal protection under the law as the majority defines it. All are treated the same.
"I was simply making the point that the rights to marriage are equal regardless of your sexual preference. If you would like to refute that point I would love to hear your argument."
This is something they fail to grasp. It's very simple. There is no law that states "gays cannot marry a person of the opposite sex but straight people can marry a person of the opposite sex" nor is there a law that says that "a gay person can only marry another gay person." That would be a violation of equal protection under the law but that isn't the case here. Homosexuals are treated the same as heterosexuals under the law. If a gay person wants to marry a person of the opposite sex they are able to do so just as much as a straight person can marry a person of the opposite sex and a gay person cannot marry a person of the same sex anymore than a straight person can marry a person of the same sex. Thus, no discrimination and no violation of equal protection under the law as the majority defines it. All are treated the same.
zzman | 12:18 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
It's high time to ban ANY state-sanctioned marriage. Get the state out of
this marriage businees altogether. Or at least call it what it is (a
"civil union") and move on! If people in their churches and
communities want to believe in eternal unions, polygamy, patriarchy, adam and
eve or whatever let them do that in their churches and homes.
Canadiandy | 12:29 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Thank you LDS people for taking the high road on this discussion. For the most
part you have been respectful, insightful, and wise in your responses.
Keep fighting the good fight on this one.
Keep fighting the good fight on this one.
A whim? | 12:31 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
There is a lot more at stake here than the "whims" of the majority
when it comes to defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There are
thousands of years of recorded history, the teachings of the Bible and nearly
every religion in the world, and the votes of millions of people in 30 states
all across America.
Prop 8 does not say gays cannot live together, establish civil unions, and enjoy financial benefits.
We as the majority do not like to have our beliefs characterized as hate-inspired bigotry, or a whim. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are standing up for our deep-seated and long-held beliefs, not whims. America has voted legally and gay unions are not being allowed to call themselves marriages. Period.
I still do NOT see the "loss of civil rights" here that the gay community is screaming about. What else will they gain if they win this fight? You cannot compare this to slavery of the 60's if there is no loss of civil liberties by allowing this law to stand. America will not tolerate violence and intimidation from the losers, which only harms the gays cause.
Great article!
Prop 8 does not say gays cannot live together, establish civil unions, and enjoy financial benefits.
We as the majority do not like to have our beliefs characterized as hate-inspired bigotry, or a whim. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are standing up for our deep-seated and long-held beliefs, not whims. America has voted legally and gay unions are not being allowed to call themselves marriages. Period.
I still do NOT see the "loss of civil rights" here that the gay community is screaming about. What else will they gain if they win this fight? You cannot compare this to slavery of the 60's if there is no loss of civil liberties by allowing this law to stand. America will not tolerate violence and intimidation from the losers, which only harms the gays cause.
Great article!
Hetero's can't marry same sex | 12:40 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
instereo,
"Maybe it has something to do with the constitution and how we belive that it protects the rights of the minority against the wims of the majority. To put it bluntly, do we want to believe in a country where the majority can vote away someones rights. Even if I don't believe it's proper for gays to marry, I believe it's even more wrong to take away their rights to marry."
Legal marriage is not a right. The majority through our elected representatives created the institution of legal marriage which means that the majority has a right to define it and so long as it grants equal protection under that law as it's defined they have a right to do so.
You are the one who is suggesting that a minority has the right to change the law which is throwing the Constitution out the door. You are the one who believes a minority has the right to say 'we don't care if you created the legal institution of marriage because you can't define a statute that you enacted. That is the right of the minority to do so. Now obey us and change the law."
"Maybe it has something to do with the constitution and how we belive that it protects the rights of the minority against the wims of the majority. To put it bluntly, do we want to believe in a country where the majority can vote away someones rights. Even if I don't believe it's proper for gays to marry, I believe it's even more wrong to take away their rights to marry."
Legal marriage is not a right. The majority through our elected representatives created the institution of legal marriage which means that the majority has a right to define it and so long as it grants equal protection under that law as it's defined they have a right to do so.
You are the one who is suggesting that a minority has the right to change the law which is throwing the Constitution out the door. You are the one who believes a minority has the right to say 'we don't care if you created the legal institution of marriage because you can't define a statute that you enacted. That is the right of the minority to do so. Now obey us and change the law."
Vote their way or be harassed | 12:53 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Anonymous,
"I hope the howling mob continues to bang on the church door. It's time their forays into the larger public realm be curtailed."
We understand. We will never vote and we will never speak on any proposed laws because we don't live in a free country. Members of a Church don't have the same rights as members of the tax exempt groups in favor of same-sex marriage and the Church doesn't have the same rights as an organization as these other tax exempt organizations instead our members must pay taxes so that these groups who don't pay taxes can advance same-sex marriage.
We must be taught a lesson we will never forget and learn our place. If we promise never to vote again or to vote contrary to your will will you promise to stop harassing us at our homes, businesses and places or worship. We will obey and we will crawl back into our holes. We are afraid and we will never vote again. Please stop it. If we promise to never vote contrary to the will of the Kings who voted against Proposition 8 will you promise to leave us alone.
Over my dead body tyrants.
"I hope the howling mob continues to bang on the church door. It's time their forays into the larger public realm be curtailed."
We understand. We will never vote and we will never speak on any proposed laws because we don't live in a free country. Members of a Church don't have the same rights as members of the tax exempt groups in favor of same-sex marriage and the Church doesn't have the same rights as an organization as these other tax exempt organizations instead our members must pay taxes so that these groups who don't pay taxes can advance same-sex marriage.
We must be taught a lesson we will never forget and learn our place. If we promise never to vote again or to vote contrary to your will will you promise to stop harassing us at our homes, businesses and places or worship. We will obey and we will crawl back into our holes. We are afraid and we will never vote again. Please stop it. If we promise to never vote contrary to the will of the Kings who voted against Proposition 8 will you promise to leave us alone.
Over my dead body tyrants.
ha ha rosie | 1:39 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I read in my CA paper today that rosie o'donnel's new variety show was
cancelled after only one week!!!! I personally decided to boycott her show and
apparently others did the same because the ratings were so dismal. In the ads
for her show she reminded everyone that she was a lesbian. The boycott goes both
ways. I won't watch any show that depicts openly homosexual characters. I
won't watch tv or movies in which celebrities appear who are openly gay or
other celebrities who use their fame to promote or encourage the homosexual
agenda of wanting society to accept them as normal when they are in reality
sexual deviants. Think of the difference that could have if everyone who is sick
and tired of the homosexuals demands boycotted these entertainers. Look what
happened to gas prices when people stopped using as much gas. Power to the
people!!!
Logic this | 4:24 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
@ HATE=OVERUSED: Do you have a better name for it? You are denying law-abiding
citizens the same rights that you enjoy for no other reason than you disagree
with their lifestyle (very similar to what a certain budding religion
experienced in Nauvoo). In your opinion, what is the base emotion behind that
sort of persecution?
@They never took a logic class: You've completely missed the point (but I think you know that). In an allegedly free society, unless the law allows CONSENTING ADULTS to partner with and marry WHOM THEY CHOOSE, then it is inherently discriminatory. (And yep, as far as I'm concerned that includes polygamy.)
Law is, with good reason, vastly more relative and nuanced than pure logic. If it weren't, you'd be spending time in prison for a parking ticket.
@zzman: Right on, sir.
@They never took a logic class: You've completely missed the point (but I think you know that). In an allegedly free society, unless the law allows CONSENTING ADULTS to partner with and marry WHOM THEY CHOOSE, then it is inherently discriminatory. (And yep, as far as I'm concerned that includes polygamy.)
Law is, with good reason, vastly more relative and nuanced than pure logic. If it weren't, you'd be spending time in prison for a parking ticket.
@zzman: Right on, sir.
Trisha | 6:19 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I am not mormon. I do not live in Utah. I am reading the Deseret Newspaper
because of Prop 8. I was for gay marriage, but based on the targeting of Utah
mormons by gays in California. I will not vote the same way again. It was the
people of California that voted for marriage between a man and a woman not
against gays. I see that now as are others.
To Cougar Blue | 6:55 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
First, your comment on my education is both wrong and ad hominem/personal
attack. I happen to have a Master's Degree, but wonder what is wrong if I
had a GED as you suggest? Would my opinion be somehow less valid? Should such
persons not be permitted to vote?
Second, I did not suggest law, but that majority DOES form the social mores (social custom/norms) for the whole. Marriage is a religious and cultural event so that culture bears the responsibility of dictating who may or may not participate. Marriage is not a right since there are many single people desiring marriage that cannot participate.
Third, regarding your segregation and other comments. Dare I be so bold to suggest that only a few and not the majority would want the nonsense you suggest? Yes, I dare besides the obvious point that those were actual rights withheld.
The same "progressive" people that voted for Obama voted against gay marriage.
FYI I am not mormon, though I am familiar with it as an ex-mo, and do not participate with any religious organization.
Second, I did not suggest law, but that majority DOES form the social mores (social custom/norms) for the whole. Marriage is a religious and cultural event so that culture bears the responsibility of dictating who may or may not participate. Marriage is not a right since there are many single people desiring marriage that cannot participate.
Third, regarding your segregation and other comments. Dare I be so bold to suggest that only a few and not the majority would want the nonsense you suggest? Yes, I dare besides the obvious point that those were actual rights withheld.
The same "progressive" people that voted for Obama voted against gay marriage.
FYI I am not mormon, though I am familiar with it as an ex-mo, and do not participate with any religious organization.
Anonymous | 6:57 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I love how when confronted by the reality of the professional organizations that
actually study and reserach human behavior and it effects people choose to
ignore those post like they never happened. I did not see one response to any of
Kevins post quoting the professional organization that study human behaviors.
On Marriage | 7:00 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
How does gay marriage hurt the word marriage? I will put this is the most
simple comparison possible. You always admired and hoped one day to have a
Rolls Royce. You scrimp and you save, making life changes so that you can have
this one thing precious to you. Then before you buy it, there is a mark down
putting the Rolls Royce at 25K...a bargain with pretty much anybody able to
afford it. It has been devalued, just like marriage.
I did | 7:03 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I tried to comment on Kevin's legwork and thank him for the research, but
my comment wasn't posted.
Term Marriage already taken | 7:10 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
The against 8 crowd has lost their bid to redefine the term Marriage. They need
to find a new word for what ever type of relationship with what ever they want,
their choice, but the term Marriage is already taken and they cannot redefine
it, Marriage is one man one woman.
Anonymous | 8:03 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"I did" there is a surprise...not.. the only true surprise is that
they psoted Kevins comments in the first place or our post know.
A Californian | 8:03 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
You got everything right in your article (which I loved), except for the last
line. "California" isn't the problem...just the group of people
who are whining. The vote showed that this group doesn't represent the
wishes of the majority of Californians. Thank goodness!
Eddie | 8:05 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
A liberal judge gave queers the right to marriage. That is hardly a vote of the
people. Proposition 8 did it the right way.
Do the queers really think that the protests that went on because they lost this election will give them more votes the next time. Not in my book. I'll even contribute money next time to oppose them.
You are a minority because you choose to be a minority, NOT because you were born a minority. You have choosen to put yourself in the same company as the thieves, liars, etc. Is there something about the Ten Commandments and "thou shalt not" you don't understand? And you still expect respect?
Do the queers really think that the protests that went on because they lost this election will give them more votes the next time. Not in my book. I'll even contribute money next time to oppose them.
You are a minority because you choose to be a minority, NOT because you were born a minority. You have choosen to put yourself in the same company as the thieves, liars, etc. Is there something about the Ten Commandments and "thou shalt not" you don't understand? And you still expect respect?
John Pack Lambert | 8:45 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To the 4:16 commentator,
Stevens and Souter are two of the most liberal members of the United States Supreme Court, they are also both men apointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans.
The issue is more complexed in California. At least on social issues, neither Gov. Wilson nor Gov. Shwartzenegger has ever been accused of being conservative.
There is a big difference between being a fiscal and a social conservative. California's state wide Republican party is often dominated by fiscal conservatives or moderates who are full fleged social liberals. So the alignment of parties is much more complexed than you think.
In Pennsylvania there was as late as 10 years ago almost as many pro-life Democrats as Republicans, with the pro-abortion Republicans outnumbering the pro-life ones. Even at this, the heros of pro-life Republicans in Pennsylvania were men like Phil English who were moderate if not liberal on fiscal issues.
I generally try to avoid the liberal/conservative labels in the marriage issue, because they obsure more than they reveal.
Stevens and Souter are two of the most liberal members of the United States Supreme Court, they are also both men apointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans.
The issue is more complexed in California. At least on social issues, neither Gov. Wilson nor Gov. Shwartzenegger has ever been accused of being conservative.
There is a big difference between being a fiscal and a social conservative. California's state wide Republican party is often dominated by fiscal conservatives or moderates who are full fleged social liberals. So the alignment of parties is much more complexed than you think.
In Pennsylvania there was as late as 10 years ago almost as many pro-life Democrats as Republicans, with the pro-abortion Republicans outnumbering the pro-life ones. Even at this, the heros of pro-life Republicans in Pennsylvania were men like Phil English who were moderate if not liberal on fiscal issues.
I generally try to avoid the liberal/conservative labels in the marriage issue, because they obsure more than they reveal.
John Pack Lambert | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To the 4:19 commentator,
I will continue to follow the direction of the Lord through his prophets on parenting. I think they understand the matter better then the claimed experts.
I will continue to follow the direction of the Lord through his prophets on parenting. I think they understand the matter better then the claimed experts.
John Pack Lambert | 8:55 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
TO the 4:23 commentator,
You may find the marrying of a cousin disgusting, and it is illegal in some states. However it is legal in other states and worldwide probably more legal than illegal.
The first part of your post is very Amero-centric. If you were to realize that these are values which are not held in most of the world, such as Thailand where half the females are married by age ten and half of males by age 14, or in much of Africa where polygamy is still a common practice you would realize that the definition of marriage we are debating here is much more central than the issues you bring up.
I also have to protest against your calling a man who marries a 14-year-old a pedophile. Pedophia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. As far as I know all 14-year-olds have entered puberty.
My point about the polygamy issue is the people who try to wound the church on this issue for its one-time support of plural marriage show an Amero-centricism on the matter that I would not think possible in the 21st century.
You may find the marrying of a cousin disgusting, and it is illegal in some states. However it is legal in other states and worldwide probably more legal than illegal.
The first part of your post is very Amero-centric. If you were to realize that these are values which are not held in most of the world, such as Thailand where half the females are married by age ten and half of males by age 14, or in much of Africa where polygamy is still a common practice you would realize that the definition of marriage we are debating here is much more central than the issues you bring up.
I also have to protest against your calling a man who marries a 14-year-old a pedophile. Pedophia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. As far as I know all 14-year-olds have entered puberty.
My point about the polygamy issue is the people who try to wound the church on this issue for its one-time support of plural marriage show an Amero-centricism on the matter that I would not think possible in the 21st century.
Re: And if there were | 8:55 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"There was this guy many years ago in a beard and robes that talked about
golden rules, loving your neighbor, and "judging not.""
Oh, but that's not all He talked about. He also accused the Pharisees and Sadducees of being hypocrites, robbers, and adulterers, He told people who came to Him to go and sin no more, and He called Peter - His friend, His second in command, a man who always defended Him and had so much love for Him and faith in Him that he is the only completely mortal person in the history of the world to actually walk on water, and do you know what Christ called him when Peter disagreed with something He said? He called Peter "Satan". He also threw out the money changers and those selling sacrificial animals on temple grounds twice, once with a whip in His hand.
If you're going to preach to us about following the example of Jesus Christ, make it the entire example, not just part of it. Christ did teach love for everybody, but He also taught standing up for God's laws above man's laws, keeping the commandments, and not allowing sin to become the standard.
Oh, but that's not all He talked about. He also accused the Pharisees and Sadducees of being hypocrites, robbers, and adulterers, He told people who came to Him to go and sin no more, and He called Peter - His friend, His second in command, a man who always defended Him and had so much love for Him and faith in Him that he is the only completely mortal person in the history of the world to actually walk on water, and do you know what Christ called him when Peter disagreed with something He said? He called Peter "Satan". He also threw out the money changers and those selling sacrificial animals on temple grounds twice, once with a whip in His hand.
If you're going to preach to us about following the example of Jesus Christ, make it the entire example, not just part of it. Christ did teach love for everybody, but He also taught standing up for God's laws above man's laws, keeping the commandments, and not allowing sin to become the standard.
John Pack Lambert | 9:06 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To Realitycheck,
The Temperance League was not founded until 1893. To claim Joseph Smith had any connection with it is patently absurd.
The Temperance League was not founded until 1893. To claim Joseph Smith had any connection with it is patently absurd.
Anonymous | 9:11 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Sore losers? Is this the dignified and appropriate way to characterize those who
disagree with you on a matter of public policy?
By virtue of your name-calling like that, Lee Benson, you reveal yourself as the only LOSER around here!
By virtue of your name-calling like that, Lee Benson, you reveal yourself as the only LOSER around here!
Sarah Nichole | 9:31 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
If marriage was a civil right, then if your spouse wanted a divorce, you could
sue them for infringing on your right to marriage.
If marriage was a civil right, nobody over the age of 18 would be unmarried unless they wanted to be, or they could sue their boyfriends or girlfriends for not proposing to them, and denying their civil rights.
If marriage was a civil right, you could marry anybody you wanted to, regardless of their age, gender, IQ, or familial relationship to you - and you could do so without a license or a bloodtest.
There are restrictions on marriage for a reason, and that reason is that not every pair of candidates measure up to socially acceptable standards. It used to be socially acceptable, even preferable, for cousins to marry each other. Ever read 'Gone With the Wind'? It was standard practice back then. It used to be socially acceptable for 14-year-olds to marry each other, but that's frowned on now. It is also currently unacceptable for two people of the same gender to marry. One definition of marriage is the blending of two opposites. You can't have that when both parties are the same gender.
If marriage was a civil right, nobody over the age of 18 would be unmarried unless they wanted to be, or they could sue their boyfriends or girlfriends for not proposing to them, and denying their civil rights.
If marriage was a civil right, you could marry anybody you wanted to, regardless of their age, gender, IQ, or familial relationship to you - and you could do so without a license or a bloodtest.
There are restrictions on marriage for a reason, and that reason is that not every pair of candidates measure up to socially acceptable standards. It used to be socially acceptable, even preferable, for cousins to marry each other. Ever read 'Gone With the Wind'? It was standard practice back then. It used to be socially acceptable for 14-year-olds to marry each other, but that's frowned on now. It is also currently unacceptable for two people of the same gender to marry. One definition of marriage is the blending of two opposites. You can't have that when both parties are the same gender.
John Pack Lambert | 9:39 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
The Arizona issue brings up a lot of points. No one went protesting in the
streets when the measure was defeated.
However, it was much more broad than the measure passed in Arizona this year. It deals only with marriage and not the limiting of government benefits to non-married partners of state employees.
This also illustrates another difference between the sides in this debate. The pro-marriage people are willing to compromise, a word unkown to the anti-marriage crowd.
However, it was much more broad than the measure passed in Arizona this year. It deals only with marriage and not the limiting of government benefits to non-married partners of state employees.
This also illustrates another difference between the sides in this debate. The pro-marriage people are willing to compromise, a word unkown to the anti-marriage crowd.
Herby | 9:48 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Lets put all the homosexuals on a little island and see if they can procreate.
If they can, then they have the right to marry to preserve the family.
Procreation is the key here folks.
TO John Pack Lambert | 9:57 a.m. Dec. 2, 2008
My point was that our society dictates the norms and what was not long ago
deemed moral, even preferable in cousin marriage, is now deemed disgusting. And
yes, I was being "Ameri-centric" especially considering the topic is
the U.S.
FYI - Not all 14 year olds have entered puberty. I was 15, which is typical in my family and related to weight. The nearer a girl is to 100 pounds the more likely she will begin menses. So yes, pedophile can be the appropriate term.
FYI - Not all 14 year olds have entered puberty. I was 15, which is typical in my family and related to weight. The nearer a girl is to 100 pounds the more likely she will begin menses. So yes, pedophile can be the appropriate term.
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.
- Davis seeking donations for seniors 10:40 a.m.
- Palin tickets still available 10:24 a.m.
- Obama to note conflict of Nobel 10:19 a.m.
- Dem health coalition survives deal 10:10 a.m.
- Obama directs $600M for health 10:07 a.m.
- Stocks turn mixed 10:06 a.m.
- EPA chief on U.S. regulating CO2 10:00 a.m.
- Storm pounds Midwest, New England 9:56 a.m.
- Geithner: bailout program extended 9:50 a.m.
- Panel passes college playoff bill 9:39 a.m.
- Snow brings big chill
- Expert calls Mitchell delusional
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Ranking the bowl games
- Cougars in better mood about bowl
- Five players miss Jazz practice
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
280 - Letters: Global warming a lie219
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall172
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil143
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax120
- George lost in rivalry hatefest120
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony99
- Revive full food tax?96
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
We in congress have many, many matters that are far more pressing than an...
@Ironic 8:40 a.m. The record goes back about a century-and-a-half, a blink...
What would the old Leaders think about the new changing rules with the times...
99% of those who bought tickets also believe a MWC team belongs in a BCS...
If it weren't so sad, this headline would be funny. Is anyone surprised...
To me Cleon Skousen has an amazing ability to take the scriptures, take them...
BYU is already superior...come back when you have won national title. BYU...
You missed the point. It isn't warming, cooling, or no change. The...
I'm amazed at how well timeouts work. I spanked my kids, but my daughter...
This story reminds me a lot of the Utes, They claimed to have a decent team...
Advertisements
Civil unions are available. If it doesn't provide the same rights at marriage that isn't marriage's fault. The gay rights activists need to start lobbying for changes in what civil unions get. Marriage is between a man and a woman.