Our society is bored and wants something new; never mind that we don't read in
history of any society believing in gay marriage; but I guess we have to be
entertained and we just need something new, because we are bored, so why not try
a new thing, because we are bored, let's just abandon thousands of years of
history and try something new, because we are bored, it sounds like a good idea,
because we just need something new. Drastically new, why not, it sounds like a
good idea? We will turn society upside down because of boredom. And then
after that, then what? Hobbies, books and nature and rearranging the furniture
and work have kept mankind busy (and raising the next generation) and with so
much technology----there is enough in life to keep us busy without taking the
color and life out of life. Happy people don't need to reinvent the wheel;
unhappy people are always needing to push the envelop.
Pagan:Yes, actually, there was this much fear about interracial marriage.
And look where that got us. In time, this fear will dissipate as well, and
hopefully we will all become more open-minded. In the meantime, I hope
Latter-day Saints will listen to the counsel of their leaders (which may be seen
by some to contradict their Prop 8 position) to demonstrate love, compassion,
and respect towards people of all sexual orientations and beliefs. In the end,
whether we believe in religion or not, the fairest and most important measure of
our humanity is the respect we give to those with whom we disagree.
Joggle at 12:34, That was an excellent post on faith versus reason. We must remember that blind faith can be dangerous.
Keep your faith. It is yours. But I want to know why some feel so
THREATENED by sharing rights with others in America. Was there this
much fear about interracial marriage?
@ChristophCritical thinking is a threat to traditions and
established authorities because it calls into question many common assumptions
and beliefs. That, of course, is exactly what some would like to prevent. Faith
reserves the right to suspend logic, and from there, no progress or
understanding is possible. Once a system openly and explicitly declares a
willingness to ignore or abandon logic, then it forfeits any claim for authority
over empirical studies of nature and the universe. This is how dogmatic
religious systems work, though. You choose one or the other...many choose
religion....others choose science. It’s not easy to let go of prejudices
and assumptions in the face of cold facts, but there are ways to explain it that
might get people thinking at least. I think you LDS folks (and other religions)
lose on logic because your proofs are fundamentally unsound and believers should
not place their confidence in them. That's what you choose though and that's up
Us LDS folk will always lose on logic. We can't explain very well why some
things are bad for the eternal soul within us. It is not logical that God had
a Son; it is not logical that Abraham wanted children at an old age. People
wanting to have their own children is a concept we can't force on others. But
we are all moving closer to death each day and it is logical to prepare for a
Arizona Boy, Thanks for the honesty. I didn't feel this was 100% kosher
myself.I think radicalism gets hold of otherwise honest members
sometimes and they let talk radio and scare tactics rile them up.The
line was that if gay marriage were to be legalized the next step was that the
church would be forced to perform gay marriages. That's what they said they were
fighting against.How true was that? Perhaps the sting of
inter-racial marriage still burns with some people?I think it's time
to allow legal equity. Someone elses marriage doesn't effect mine. Bottom line.
The divorce rate in the church is of much greater and immediate concern.
I know gays who don't care about gay marriage; they are happy the way things
are; they are rich and travel anywhere they like to; they know they don't have
to be the same in every aspect of society.
'Does one parking violation discredit a person for life?' - 7:40 p.m. Mimifran, while I disagree that petitioning almost $200,000 to revoke 18,000
legal marriages is akin to... a parking ticket. And
while I would not compare 7 months (Nov '09 - June '10) to... your
life. Let's do as you ask. Start from the begining. I
would like to have all the legal rights and protections majority of Americans
can get, in any city hall, for $75. The response is....?
Okay, so what I am seeing is a whole lot of bashing of each other because of
viewpoints that vary.May I suggest that you all go and smell some of
that sea air, or mountain air or some roses?Can we all remember
Christ's words when he said "whatever ye do to the least of these my brethren",
perhaps let it go.All this energy could be put to better use. Does
one parking violation discredit a person for life?Breathe, just
breathe and see the good in the world. How sad to see such anger and dislike
for one another.I wish you guys peace and goodwill - have a good
Oh Brother or Sister or Broster or Sisother - whatever - all this passion - can
it be directed for good? Am I the only one seeing all this oppressed anger
being disclosed here?Peace - joy - goodwill to all men and women and
those who choose to be both or neither - let us talk of uplifting and happy
times.Didn't you guys win what you had set out to win - rejoice in
that!Does one parking fine discredit a person? Let it all go.
Breathe in some of that sea air you have in California or that mountain air you
have in Utah - let it wash over you and move you on to a better subject.Love - remember? Isn't that what being LDS is about?Love and
peace to you all - may the Lord bless you with this. Go smell some roses -
FearIt's all about fear. Fear that homosexuality is "contaigious."
"Traditional marriage" has been totally trashed by heteroxexuals.
Promiscuity and children being raised by single parents is increasing and
common. So, now we have a group of people who want to be monogamous and married?
I say, go for it! It so easy to demonize those not like ourselves.
We actually know relatively little about the origins of sexuality in people.
However, if we march relentlessly forward to condemn gay people in our society
we will pay a price. It always happens that way. Extremist thoughts and
behaviors exact a high toll...whether Christian, Muslim, gay, white, or black.
And let's be sure about it, the religious part of society can think in extreme
terms also. It's what all of us do when we get afraid. However, our country is
not only thinking in extremes; it is acting that way also. Before concluding
that homosexuality is simply a sick choice or sin ask yourself this: "When was
the last time I chose a lifestyle (just for the fun of it) that would cause
public humiliation, personal stress, and family discord?" Choosing such a
radically different characteristic as sexual orientation is not something people
do just for fun. . And when was it that heterosexuals chose their orientation?
I've asked ligitimate questions hoping for some insight into the logic of some
attitudes here, but so far the questions go unanswered. Makes wonder if the
people against gay marriage can even defend their claims and position!
Thanks to Mike Provo, we now all know the "excessive capital letters"
restriction for commenting must be 50 or more excluding acronyms.Thanks, Mike.
'Legalizing gay marriage is an attack on society, morality, ethics and
everything holy.' - 4:49 p.m. Examples please. Just because you lie
on a thread does not make it so. Gay marriage has been legal in MA since
'04. I haven't seen anything bad happen. 'Stop thinking about
tomorrow and open up your mind to see what the world is going to be like in 10,
20 or 100 years.' So, we should listen to you because you tell us to
'stop thinking about tomorrow'... and want us to picture what the
world will be like in 100 years....?
Far north, 9:27 p.m. This is in reply to your post. So why is the
LDS church against gay marriage?* Because other marriages, such as
sterile couples, should not have marriage because gay people can't have
children.* Because 40% of all children in the US are raised by a
single-parent houshold. 'Traditional Family' indeed.* Because children
should be put up for adoption instead to gay parents. Better a child has no
parents than gay ones.* Because most 'evidence' against gay people is
tainted or an outright lie altogether. Want evidence? Why are gay people 'out to
get' your children?* Because BYU's own studies in 1970 shows that trying
to change a persons orientation has a less than 1% success rate, and that means
your orientation can change any time. Especially to accomidate others.
The basic unit of society is the family, not the individual. There has been much
to change this and concentrate on the individual. Legalizing gay marriage is an
attack on society, morality, ethics and everything holy. Stop thinking
about tomorrow and open up your mind to see what the world is going to be like
in 10, 20 or 100 years. Gay marriage will not help build any type of society
that can survive for long.Eat, Drink and be Gay, for tomorrow we'll die.
I think that pushing proposition 8, people are infringing the rights of
others.@ The Atheist 12:23pm:As a believer and active LDS
church member, I have to say that I agree with you about the inconsistency you
point out. We do choose our religion, we do expect others to respect that
choice, and we should be willing to afford the same respect to the choices made
by others (so long as those choices don't infringe on the rights of others).
That is the most basic principle in the success of a society where everyone
isn't the same.
@ The Atheist 12:23pm:As a believer and active LDS church member, I have
to say that I agree with you about the inconsistency you point out. We do choose
our religion, we do expect others to respect that choice, and we should be
willing to afford the same respect to the choices made by others (so long as
those choices don't infringe on the rights of others). That is the most basic
principle in the success of a society where everyone isn't the same.
The Church is only a group of individuals, when voting in government ballots.
Although Church leaders may get involved in vital contests over doctrinal
principles, it is still only a collection of individuals who cooperate to vote
for or against an issue which "straddles" spiritual and temporal boundaries. If
the Lord had indeed given direct "orders" for the Church to oppose proposition
8, the Church would have announced it as such; the Lord does not do such direct
intervention on the sly. Why would he need to?The definition of
"prophet" is the problem here, such as "if the Mormon Church is led by a
prophet, how could it [he] make mistakes?”.The Lord chooses
righteous, wise, spiritual men of experience as prophets, because He wants them
to use their own judgment at times when leading His Church. Otherwise, He would
be only a dictator! A prophet is still an imperfect man, though led by God
through inspiration and revelation. We follow him because he was chosen by the
Savior to lead us, and we accept the Savior's choice over our own reasoning and
guesses, no matter how smart we think we are.
"The Atheist, being an atheist, you could probably make an anti-religious excuse
for why religions all seem to concur that homosexuality is a sin, "This is not a true statement. There are plenty of religions that do not view
homosexuality as a sin:BuddhistsUniversal UnitariansQuakersSome Jewish sectsEpiscopaliansand there are
"This isn't to say there can't be exceptions, but they should be viewed as such,
not as equivalent to the ideal. "Sorry, I feel that my nephew and
his wife that adopted a child should have every right and every privilege
afforded any other family. I feel that those who adopt children, whether
straight or gay are raising the next generation too. These are American
children. We should treat them equally under the law and NOT give natural born
children special privileges. Let their families have the rights and
privileges of marriage!
Born that way: "The most obvious is that a society is perpetuated by the
children of the next generation. These children are produced by one man and one
woman. "Again, gays are raising 9 million children. Why should we
only protect those children that have both parents? Why not protect all
children? Many gays adopt children that no one else wants, ie, crack babies,
older foster children, etc. What do you say to these children? Too bad?
@Born that WayI have some questions! Why would society NOT continue
to be perpetuated by the children of the next generation if gay marriage was
made legal? If gay marriage was made legal do you really think heterosexuals
would stop having children? Heterosexual relationships will continue to flourish
even if gay marriage is legal. It will not stop people from having children.
People have children without marriage. What does heterosexual marriage lose by
gay marriage being legal?
btw, The Atheist, being an atheist, you could probably make an anti-religious
excuse for why religions all seem to concur that homosexuality is a sin, using
the same arguments I gave for why homosexual marriage is inferior to
heterosexual marriage. You could claim that this biological imperative is
speaking and not "God", as you don't believe in such a being--and that morality
is simply a collective realization of biological commonsense. But to
do that you'd probably have to acknowlege that the religions have at least a
kernel of biological truth to them.
There are nonreligious reasons for why a society would have political incentive
to advocate heterosexual marriage above all other forms of civil unions. The
most obvious is that a society is perpetuated by the children of the next
generation. These children are produced by one man and one woman. If, through
legal and cultural means, society can convey the import of that one man and one
woman committing to each other for the sake of their naturally created
biological offspring, there are many advantages to the next generation that come
without additional cost of social program, social education, etc. It passes on a
creates genetic simplicity which is useful for a child's health (not just easier
medical history). It is a biological ideal. It is also most economical. With the
additional benefit that statistically speaking it is most likely to succeed, as
it is a natural human tendency among breeding humans--at least unless the state
decides to produce children via some biological alternative. Promote
heterosexual marriage above all other unions, and stable society. This isn't to
say there can't be exceptions, but they should be viewed as such, not as
equivalent to the ideal.
I am repeatedly puzzled when people bring up the argument of whether
homosexuality is biological/genetic in the context of discussions of same-sex
marriage. The same people who bring these arguments up are typically those who
are opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Sexual orientation, they
say, is something you "choose", and therefore, you should not have any rights or
legal guarantees based on sexual orientation they way you do with race.Do you all recognize that religion is not genetic or biological either? You
"choose" your religion, don't you? So why do you demand legal protections and
equality before the law based on your religion? Why do you fight for "religious
freedom" when it is impossible, according to your arguments, for your chosen
religion to be the basis of unfair treatment and discrimination - it is not
inborn!Please explain yourselves. I truly wish to understand this
This article is a stellar example of "spin." The use of words such as "tardy,"
"small," "traffic ticket," are obvious and deliberate attempts by DN to down
play and color the truth. Why does the Church feel the need to do this? The
devil is in the details. Your details are like calling a dishonest person (or
institution) merely "naughty." Tsk, tsk.
Can dignity (self-respect, self-esteem, poise, pride) and respect (admiration,
high opinion, deference, esteem)be legislated?
For example in the Catholic Church you can be married in a sacramental or
non-sacramental marriage. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints you can be married in the temple or not in the temple. Are these
conditions significance to this issue?
Far North: "* Because, despite the desire to portray homosexuality as
inherited, there is no evidence of such, leaving open the non-inherited,
psychological theories of how homosexuality developed and moving the argument
out of the "human rights" arena. I inherited my skin color. There's no evidence
that is true of homosexuality. Let's not equate to race. "You
are way behind the times. Even BYU has pretty much proven that homosexuality is
present at birth and is an immutable trait. There are many peer-reviewed
studies that point to a genetic/prenatal reason for homosexuality.
Far North: "* Because the evidence is in that children raised by gay couples
are more likely to identify themselves as gay or bisexual by a large
percentage."That is a false statement. Unless you can give me a
study stating the opposite, ALL studies that I have seen state that gay couples
raise the same percentage of gay children as straight couples do - about 5%!
Can you cite a study or is this just what you imagine happens with
Far North: "Because gay marriage would put gay relationships on par with
heterosexual marriage and therefore gays would have equal adoption rights making
their children the largest experimental group ever, flying in the face of what
is known about the value of a mother and father raising a child."Gays in California are adopting children. It is against the law there to
discriminate against a gay couple if you are a public adoption agency (per state
law.)Gays are raising 9 million children in America. But not
allowing their parents to marry, you are actually harming those children. Why
would any American want any child to be raised in a home without all the legal
and social securities that we can afford them? Because we think their parent
are sinful? How un-American of us.This has nothing to do with
adoption, especially in California.
I agree 1happycamper and Joggle.....we need to get over the hate. This issue is
all about what is not said in church or public meetings. People need to know
that gay people have always been with us. People don't have to agree with them
(just as people didn't used to agree it's okay to be lefthanded). They will be
with who they want to be with and they will keep trying to achieve their rights
just as anyone would about certain issues pertaining to their freedoms and
pursuit of happiness.
So what does this mean? The Fair Political Practices Commission is trying to
@1happycamperI agree with you! What far north presented above is so
wrong and hateful! Marriage assures nothing! Denying gay couples marriage
prevents none of what they are saying. It can all happen with or without
marriage. That is false propoganda and myth.
Everyone needs to get over the HATE! This is so wrong.
So why is the LDS church against gay marriage?* Because we believe that
marriage is eternal and setting up marriages that have no capacity for
fulfilling the measure of our creation is against God's will.* Because,
while the family ideal of a committed man and woman raising children together
cannot be guaranteed, it's worth trying to make sure that children have that
blessing in their lives as much as possible.* Because gay marriage would
put gay relationships on par with heterosexual marriage and therefore gays would
have equal adoption rights making their children the largest experimental group
ever, flying in the face of what is known about the value of a mother and father
raising a child. * Because the evidence is in that children raised by gay
couples are more likely to identify themselves as gay or bisexual by a large
percentage.* Because, despite the desire to portray homosexuality as
inherited, there is no evidence of such, leaving open the non-inherited,
psychological theories of how homosexuality developed and moving the argument
out of the "human rights" arena. I inherited my skin color. There's no
evidence that is true of homosexuality. Let's not equate to race.
The article that was repoerted in the DN is about: The LDS Chuech didn't meet
the reporting requirements for donations, and therefore has to pay a fine. Other news in Utah has said that the fine has been approved, and the
Church will has agreed to pay. The last one-hundred plus comments
have been all over the map - just a reminder of what the article was actually
So much hate and intolerance from both sides. I can see why the world is in the
shape it is. No respect, no tolerance, just me me me me all the time. I
personally think the LDS church was in the wrong here because they were trying
to restrict other people's rights while being a non-profit organization.
Nevertheless the hatred and lack of any kind of respect for the LDS people
coming from the gay community deserves note as well.
I am sure there were accounting irregularities on both sides of the debate.
@PaganAs much asI would like to fully respond...the powers that be
are preventing me from answering your question, but the answer is well within
your grasp! Californians Against Hate supports Prop 8. Hopefully, the powers
that be will at least post this so you will not think I'm ignoring you.
I think if the Church were to do this all over, it would be done differently.
When this was going on, I was serving as a Bishop at the time. The way the
money and donations were requested, denied and hidden from most of the members
was very disturbing to me. I voiced my concern only to be ignored. Remember
this ... the Gospel is true but the people aren't always true.
'Now, if you are talking about Federal law, well - there is not much California
can do about that since DOMA and the Supremacy Clause.' - 1:07 p.m.
Thank you Maudine for articulating what I was having a hard time doing
myself. The 'Defense of Marriage Act' title is misleading, as it
denies legal regocnition of marriages in other states. (Moving out of state,
your marriage is not recognized, A spouse dying in another state, etc) While I
agree, CA can do little in this regard, this would be evidence the 'Domestic
Partners' and marriages are not equal in legal protections. Deafmom,
thank you for providing your source. I look foward to looking at it later.
@ deafmom: I've looked at ab205 on the California government website, and
nowhere in there did I see any mention of family leave or death taxes. The
closest ab205 comes to mentioning either of those is to say that domestic
partnerships are to be treated the same as marriages.Now, if you are
talking about Federal law, well - there is not much California can do about that
since DOMA and the Supremacy Clause.The actual only way to ensure
the exact same rights across the board is to allow same-sex couples to get
married. Without that, there will always be, if not actual differences, the
appearance of differences.
Also from the CA Supreme Court:"One of the core elements of the
right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the
California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their
family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other
officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the
family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation
of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a
serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal
dignity and respect."Is this valid, Deafmom?
Deafmom | 12:16 p.m. June 10, 2010 You are right, AB205 provides more
rights for "Legal DOmestic Partnerships". With this in mind, why would someone
want marriage?------------If it can be more in one area,
it can be less in another, right?Would you want to be "legally
domestic partnered" or "Married" and why? Do you think that they have the same
dignity and standing in your community?
"Whether I think it is valid or not is immaterial. Couples that have a "Legal
Domestic Partnership" can call one another spouse and one can adopt the other's
name. If they do this the argument you cited becomes invalid. If having separate
names causes harm then heterosexual couples in which the woman maintains her
maiden name or even hyphenates would have the same issues."--------I think you misread the opinion. It had nothing to do
with adopting each others names but dealt with the word, "marriage." Same sex
couples having only a domestic partnership are put a a disadvantage because they
and their family are given a lesser title and as such are not as legitimate.Will you read it again and then respond again?Thanks.
You are right, AB205 provides more rights for "Legal DOmestic Partnerships".
With this in mind, why would someone want marriage?
Lane Meyer,Whether I think it is valid or not is immaterial.
Couples that have a "Legal Domestic Partnership" can call one another spouse and
one can adopt the other's name. If they do this the argument you cited becomes
invalid. If having separate names causes harm then heterosexual couples in
which the woman maintains her maiden name or even hyphenates would have the same
issues.The entire argument is about semantics. The legal use of the
word "marriage". Gay couples can legally do everything that married couples can
do and more. My supervisor is gay and has a "husband". He is a great guy and I
admire him but he does not force his lifestyle on me and I do not force mine on
him. Marriage is the legal term for the union between a man and a
woman. The union between same sex couples should have a different name.
If these people are really purist, they will return this 'fine' to the church to
pay for the damage done to their properties by the protesters of 'other side'
Deafmom | 11:47 a.mYou just proved that the rights are NOT the same!
Why the distinctions?
Deafmom,This is what your Cal. Supreme Court stated about the
difference between "civil unions" and "marriage":"...retaining the
traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a
separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter,
impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying
such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage
is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex
couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."That is a legal opinion rendered by the CA Supreme Court. Do you think it is
Pagan 11:33am I can't put a web address here so Google 'California
AB205'. Make sure to go to the official State.Gov site. AB205 does not offer
less. In fact, it offers greater protections and rights. For example, under
AB205 married people must take family leave concurrently (3 months total for
both Federal and State allowances) "Legal Domestic Partnerships" can take them
consecutively (they get 6 months). The Death taxes are lower for "Legal
Domestic Partnerships" too.
In an earlier post I said it was legal to hunt a murder a Mormon until the mid
1970's. I neglected to specify that this law was in the state of Missouri.
'Society is not going to and will not tolerate gay marriage.' - 4:19 p.m. WTP, Gay marriage has been legal in MA since '04. Argue against it as
you wish. 'AB205. basically this law states that anyone who has a
"Legal Domestic Partnership" has all the rights and priviledges of someone who
is married.' - 11:20 a.m. Deafmom, I would like to find a list of
those rights if you have the source. All information I have found shows domestic
partnerships do not offer equal legal protections. 1138 — CA
marriage. 1100 — CA ‘domestic Partners’
Domestic Partners, to me, is just another way to offer less. Comparable to
segregation. i.e. Go to a 'black' school, have a 'domestic partnership'. Joggle, as I have mentioned, I do not think 'Civil Unions'/Domestic
Partnership is equal (Mainly due to 'DOMA') but I heard the LDS church
established its front group called Hawaii’s Future Today (HFT) and raised
$400,000 against gay marriage when it was put up for vote in Hawaii in 1993. Can you confirm this?
This is continued from my earlier post.As for some of the other
comments. There was a video showing a teacher taking her elementary school
class on a field trip to see her get married...to her lesbian girlfriend. This
was not initially an ad, it was news footage. It was reported by the news and
the clip was then used to back up the argument that Gay marriage would be taught
in schools.There was one comment I took particular offense from.
PJ, the persecutions were not and are not a farce. I have an ancestor that was
around during the Mountain Meadow Massacre and he did not fight. He felt it was
wrong. Brigham Young sent word not to retaliate but it was received too late.
The Mountain Meadow Massacre was in response to the Saints having been murdered
and thrown out of their homes several times. They were human and made the
mistaje of acting before word from the Prophet was received. Additonally, are
you aware that until the mid 1970's it was legal to murder a Mormon? The
Persecution was and is real. I have lost jobs, etc. because of my faith.
E. Klinche: "Looks like things are going to change on that front as well, but I
know that a large part of the military will not take to it also."The military is trained to obey orders, whether they agree with them or not.
They will obey this new stance, right? Just like they learned to accept blacks
Reading these comments is very disheartening. There is a lot of bashing going
on on both sides. There doesn't need to be. I live in California and I am a
member of the Church in good standing. I teach and have listened to Persuasive
Speeches on both sides of the issue.I happen to agree with the
position that marriage should be between a man and a woman. As I was doing my
own research (Church leaders did encourage us to get involved but never were we
told that we MUST do anything), I came across a law that allows everyone to have
all their needs met. AB205. basically this law states that anyone who has a
"Legal Domestic Partnership" has all the rights and priviledges of someone who
is married. This law provides for gay couples to have their unions and all the
rights and priviledges of married couples without offending the sensibilities of
those of us that believe marriage should be between a mana nd a woman.
I understand that many besides objecting to gay marriage for a variety of
reasons also object to using the word marriage as if its makes a difference when
it doesn't...except in a person's mind! My civil "marriage" tends to receive NO
objections in definition because I'm a heterosexual yet it technically is a
"civil union" since I didn't have a religious ceremony. What differnce does a
separate a definition really do? Not much!Otherwise, I think
religion as a whole and especially the LDS Church should stay out of the
business of trying define and regulate marriage for other people outside their
sphere of influence. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all
religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in
that state made it very clear that the Mormon Church didn't represent them, and
made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. In a
society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of one
religion over other people to enforce private religious rights is an affront to
all who would claim the right to choose themselves.
re: DeepintheHeart"How does it compare to the dishonest ads run against
the Church by the gay community (missionaries taking away the Bible from a
couple of lesbians?"Let's just say I didn't like the ad mentioned
above.However, the ads put out by the other side were dishonest as well.
And, I hold religiously motivated groups to a higher standard. They failed to
'How does it compare to the dishonest ads run against the Church by the gay
community (missionaries taking away the Bible from a couple of lesbians?
Really?)...' Yeah. Really? Much better than the 18k gay
marriages in CA that are now in limbo thanks to the Church, huh?
'It is misleading to suggest that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. In
the immediate sense, same gender relationships are not as good for children as
different gender relationships, making it, therefore, hurtful.' - 7:21 p.m. Jeff, then perhaps you can expalin why 40% of all children in the US
are being raised in a single-parent household? Would that not coincide
with the 50% divorce rate among 'regular' marriage? Children are
hurt by bad parents. Regardless of orientation. Or do you have a source? Mine is the CDC. "Don't ask, don't tell" has discharged
14,000 men and women to date. $1.3 billion tax dollars have been spent on it.
(Source? Patrick Muphy, Iraqi vet and PA congressmen) While America
is in Iraq and Afgahnistan. And do not use your children as excuses
to hate others. Why are gay people out to 'get' your children?
Simple. They are not. It is a lie. Since we have two examples of
pointless fear-mongering on this thread alone, you need to ask your self 2
things: 1) Which one is based on facts and not fiction?
2) Which one is based on hate?
A great deal of nit-picking here. The fine was less than the cost of the
man-hours to both investigate the alleged abuse and defend against the false
accusations made by the enemies of Prop. 8. Since the hours were reported in due
course, and the only violation was overlooking the requirement for a daily
filing, I don't get the hand-wringing and cluck-clucking going on here. How does
it compare to the dishonest ads run against the Church by the gay community
(missionaries taking away the Bible from a couple of lesbians? Really?), or the
intimidation of people using this misguided law. This is small indeed.
The mistake was late reporting -- they reported the expenditure after the
24-hour limit. The law is a bit ridiculous -- for-profit corporations use a
number of theories to push revenue into one accounting period or another. The
state found an inadvertent error.
There was an article the other day about Lesbian women having children that are
more well adjusted that heterosexual couples. There is only fear when people
think that children being raised by homosexual couples will not have morals and
will not become Gay themselves.
RE: JoggleYour argument/defense/position etc. is well versed and
defended. I think one of the biggest problems in the issue is the demand to use
the term 'marriage' in what many feel should be called gay 'union'. Those who
are against homosexuality in a moral sense resent the intrusion into the
traditional 'marriage' concept by redefining the term. This demand creates a
backlash that involves 'defending the traditional turf'. I have zero problem
with gay unions that involve all the rights and privileges of traditional
marriage. I just feel the term 'marriage' should maintain it's original meaning
as traditionally defined. But hey, that's me.
I know some regular gays, as someone has questioned my status of acquaintancess
as to my concern with married same sex partners in the school system.I am also in the military.Looks like things are going to change on
that front as well, but I know that a large part of the military will not take
to it also."Don't ask, don't tell" is the best policy,
logistically.Same sex marriage is wrong, and my kids are going to be
exposed to many wrong things throughout their life, like pot and pornography and
violence, but that does not mean we have to condone it or prematurely expose
innocent kids to it.Yes, they are called minors for a reason.They can't smoke, drink, engage in sex, drive until 16 or 18, etc.Civil unions are fine. Same sex marriage is not. Can I marry anyone?
Absolutely not. It is a privilege granted by law.And good luck to
our broken public schools once they degenerate by mandate from too many unsound
administrators and unaware electorate, who think that this is a true civil
rights issue.Tom Hanks is much more un-American than this Mormon.
@christophGay marriages will not interrupt the natural continuation
of new generations. Straight people will still have children with or without
marriage. Marriage isn't necessary to having children you know! Gay people by
whatever means possible can also have children since lesbians can give birth. By
using your same pseudo-logic, sterile individuals (such as post-menopausal
women) or couples that do not want children should not marry, since no children
would most likely be the result of such marriages. Does that mean married
couples without children should have their marriages annulled? Will allowing gay
marriages destroy or harm civilization? Of course not! Therefore, allowing
marriages only based on the possibility of creating children is not logical. If
a single parent can successfully raise children, then two parents of the same
sex would have an even greater chance of successfully raising children.
Furthermore, there is no scientific proof that gay couples increase the
probability of homosexuality in their children, just like heterosexual parents
do not guarantee straight children either. Since gay marriage is not accounted
for in history in any significant way to determine if any society has benefited
or not...it isn't even an issue.
Just because a church (any church) got involved doesn't mean they will in 2012;
I hear polls show if it was put to a vote today, gay marriage would pass in
California. It is coming down the road; I disagree with it. The church may
not get involved again. There are 5 states in country where it is legal. And
we go on living. Gay marriage doesn't hurt me, but I oppose it because of what
it does to children; and it is rolling the dice on it's effects on society.
Can anyone point to a society in history that benefited from gay marriage? Would
you be here today if your ancestors lived this lifestlye one thousand years ago?
If one thinks of the past and the future and not just of today (and instant
pleasure) then one sees how genealogy and having children is the best way to
honor the past and look forward to the future.
@ArynenI viewed the first video you referred me to. It proves my point.
How one fights is as important as what one fights for--at least for
me. I understand Republicans favor setting aside principles when "necessary."
@SwimomWhat is sad is discriminating against gays based on what you
believe is right for yourself. Who are you to say what is right for others? How
does gay marriage hurt you personally? What exactly are YOU personally losing by
preventing someone different from you from having the same rights you do?
Furthermore, traditions against inter-racial marriages, wives being the property
of their husbands, and divorces have changed throughout the years. So, why
can’t the tradition against gay marriages change too? I don't think I need
to further prove that tradition is not a logical reason for denying gays a civil
or secualr right. The laws supporting the separation of church and state allow
religious reasons to not have any foundations in the secular and legal world.
Furthermore, not everyone in the United States shares the same belief concerning
gay marriages either; therefore it is morally wrong to legally ban same-sex
marriages for everyone. Of course, each religion can still choose to deny
same-sex marriages within their religion or church, but it is wrong to deny
same-sex marriages in the secular world based on YOUR beliefs while ignoring the
belifs of others.
I for one would be disappointed if the LDS Church did not take a stand. Everyone
has the duty to stand for what they believe is right. I wish they did more, but
I see why they can't. Americans want marraige between a man and woman for now,
but if our children don't see us fighting HARD for what we believe is right,
they won't either, and we may loose this fight....loose what marriage has been
since the beginning....how sad!
@JeffStraight people can be hurtful, too in society...so what does
that have to do with it? The issue is marriage as an institution and as a civil
right not as a sexual act. What consenting adults do privately has no bearing on
this. There are straight people who have risky lifestyles as much as gay people.
There gays who have loving relationships the same as straight people. Straight
people don't have a corner on goodness. The reason that gay people sometimes say
they wouldn't choose that lifestyle if they weren't born that way are saying it
because of the way society treats them. It's a hard lifestyle to live simply
because of the stigma attached. I believe that...if done with love and
understanding...as any parent would...a gay couple can successfully raise a
child just fine. It's ridiculous to think that by letting gays marry that it
will promote more people into homosexuality thus making humans extinct. I have
news for you the practice IS allowed already. Gay people aren't refraining from
being intimate because you think its' wrong. Are you that naive? For the
record...I'm not gay!
Geez and Gay ppl wonder why everyone hates them...they're poor sports. Cry me a
river :( PATHETIC
It is misleading to suggest that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone.In
the immediate sense, same gender relationships are not as good for children as
different gender relationships, making it, therefore, hurtful. To suggest that
sexuality should not be regulated is hurtful. To promote a lifestyle whose
proponents themselves often say is bad ("would I choose this lifestyle if I
weren't born this way?") is hurtful.It's in the long term that same
gender marriage would be the most hurtful. If the practice became universal,
human beings would become extinct in one generation. The practice could not be
allowed without guaranteeing universal applicability, which would be hurtful.
Why don't you religious people get it? Gays aren't forcing their agenda on you.
They aren't infringing on your rights. They aren't forcing their lifestyle on
you. They aren't personally doing anything to you by wanting civil rights. Do
the conservative religious such as the LDS believe that non-believers, skeptics,
agnostics, humanists, pantheists, and religious peole who disagree with them
aren't entitled to their beliefs? You may say "yes"...but it seems to me that it
is only in theory, but not practice. You can deny gay people the right to marry
and receive the equal benefits that marriage provides, because, YOU believe that
homosexuality is a SIN according to YOUR view of religion .... but not theirs.
It's amazing how religion often claims to be the persecuted ones in modern
society even as they are fighting to control others' lives. They are the only
group I know of who can define "persecution" as "not being allowed to dominate
everything and everyone" with a straight face.
Sutton:"If so many people hate the church, maybe the church should
ask itself why?..."No. Maybe you should tell is why YOU hate the
church. You have given me no reason in the world to believe that you are a
designated spokesman for any "we" anywhere. Look, I don't take collective guilt
trips very seriously. I don't do that any more. Personal guilt, sure. Guilt
for specific charges that are germaine and effectual, sure.
Sutton, I don't think the Church really cares what its haters think.
It's as a dog running up and barking at the wagon train. People may notice,
stop and look, even comment on how annoying the bark is, but the train moves
forward nonetheless and continues with its mission. It will continue to teach
correct principles and allow its members to govern themselves.
What is mistaken for hate of the LDS Church by some here is actually a
preference that any church or religion including the LDS Church stop trying to
force their morals and values on the rest of us who believe differently. We all
should be free to live our lives according to our own beliefs as long as they
aren't harming others, but unfortunately religion tends to want to exert power
and control over all people's lives instead of just being concerned with their
own believers. Some people obviously find comfort within this system of
religious control, but many do not....so we rebel against religion and it's
inclination to try to turn civil rights issues into a moral issue (in this case)
based on their doctrine...when not all people believe that doctrine. Pretty
simple, really, but for some reason people want to falsely turn it into a "you
hate our religion" issue when it is simple disagreement with their stance. We
have a right to criticize religion when we think what it does is wrong!
To those wondering why the LDS church's integrity comes into play: Please, do
us all a favor and pick up a history book and do some research on your church.
The "persecution" was a farce! And how many about Mtn. Meadows? Wow, what a
guy Brigham Young was. All the votes and efforts to prevent equality. I'm glad
you can all look at yourselves in the mirror everyday and be proud.
"It seems the real issue is not Prop 8 but a basic hate of the LDS church. Why
is it? What is it people hate so much about it?"I don't know
why you think it "seems" that people "just" hate the church, but don't delude
yourself... it has to do with the fact that they are tryin' to force others to
live by their dictates, the religious persecution is really gettin' old. If so many people hate the
church, maybe the church should ask itself why?...
Truthseeker:I think we're looking at it from two points of view.
I'm looking at it from a legal entity point of view meaning there was no one
controlling/correlating agency of what the others did. Rather it was exactly as
I described as a group of supporters with the same goal, again, as the
neighborhood analogy above. You can work together as a neighborhood to
accomplish a goal, but what one neighbor does doesn't reflect a black eye on the
rest of the neighbors. Does that make sense? The point being, that what the
church A, community leader B, interest group C does is not being controlled by
the LDS Church or visa versa. To put blame on the LDS Church for what another
supporter does is illogical and ignorant.Back to your original point
about negative videos, none of the Church's videos appear on their website. If
you want informed information about what the Church officially believes (not
what I say they do), including the whole collections of videos the Church
produced for that $189k, go to their official website. Since URLs aren't
allowed here, search for perservingmarriage dot org.
@We The PeopleThe majority don't always rule. History tells us that
minority rights get protected. Abortion is an example of a so-called moral issue
that the majority was against. Guess what? It went to the Supreme Court and was
determined as a rights issue. This issue may well go all the way to the Supreme
Court and be treated as a civil right issue also.
Think about the thousands of hours and money current church leaders and members
spent on this issue (they still are paying fines and time dealing with the
press). And all of it was spent just to be nasty to people who are different
from them. I like what Gordon B. Hinckley once said , "We must work
harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of tolerance, with forbearance one
for another." (Speech to the National Conference of Community and
Justice, Feb 21, 1995)
It seems the real issue is not Prop 8 but a basic hate of the LDS church. Why
is it? What is it people hate so much about it?
Has anybody else noticed that DSN rejects posts during what may be peak hours
for reading? It isn't a moral issue, it's a human rights issue. What's morally
wrong to one person may not be to another. This is like telling someone they
can't practice their own religion, because they believe that its not the right
religion. A marriage is a relationship between two people. How does it hurt
society or people not involved in the marriage? Society shouldn't be dictating
what two people can or can't do when no one else is hurt in the process. Denying
them marriage is a violation of religious freedom since civil and religious
marriages are two separate institutions. The First Amendment of the Constitution
clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be
protected. As far as I know Churches can deny a couple the rites of marriage
within their church, so what's right about denying it to them in all other ways,
shapes, or forms? Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
The government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they
E. Klinche | 10:52 a.m. June 9, 2010I voted for Prop8 in 2008. What
potential damage could gay marriage have?If gay teachers are
"married" in the public school system, guess what I will do with my kids? I will
put them in private schools, and possibly ask every like minded parent to co-op
and start own own, possibly LDS-based school system.=============Couple things...Is it gay teachers
you have a problem with, or gay teachers getting married?And are you
under the impression that there are no gay LDS people, let alone gay LDS
teachers?You are not teaching your children to be very Christ-like.
@AZRodsBTW I'm a life-long member of the LDS Church. I don't really care
about other religions and groups. However, I do care what the LDS Church
does--the church I attend.
I'm sure that all of the LDS bashers back on the subject of prop 8 meant to
include the hundreds of other groups, religions & organizations. As well as the
hundreds of thousands who also voted to support prop 8- in their criticisms and
attacks on the LDS church....right?If not, just admit it.Bigotry
behind a thin veil.
@ArynenWe were directed, in Church to donate money and time to
protectmarriage. From the Church website: "the Church
accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of
churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure,
Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that
only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized.
(Information about the coalition can be found at protectmarriage). On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter
about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,”
announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter,
which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked
that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed
constitutional amendment.” BTW do you live in CA?
Pagan:Yes, really, you did. I am using facts to point out that over thirty
states in the past decade have banned gay marriage by amending their
constitutions or by statute. You still cannot refute that public sentiment is
against gay marriage. Go ahead a say that marriage is amoral. I do not care.
Society is not going to and will not tolerate gay marriage. If you can scrape up
enough support to change society's views on marriage, go for it. But you cannot.
Poll after poll and election after election prove you wrong. TJ:I
have seen the numbers and you are sadly mistaken. What writing should I see on
the wall? That only one state has passed a law not overturned by the people to
allow gay marriage? If you really think that your demographics argument holds
water, you are wrong. Do you think that in 50 years this state will change its
mind? Or Mississippi? Or Alabama? Or Nebraska? Or West Virginia? Or Texas? Or
Kansas? Or Missouri? Please.
@ we the people:"You do realize that voter in every state in the
nation in which the question of gay marriage has, in the last six years, been
open to public referendum have voted to keep marriage as it has been for ages,
right?"I guess you havent seen the demographic breakdown of how
people vote on this issue. If you cant see the writing on the wall then you are
blind. I dont know how old you are or how long it will be but your type of
thinking is dieing out and that is a fact. Look it up.
Truthseeker:The "coalition," as you put it, was not organized, led,
or centralized by any one group. Your information is screwed up (along with
other facts you state in your post). There was no coalition that produced
anything (at least that the Church was a part of). Individual supporter groups
did. How would the Church be responsible for what any other independent group
does, or how are any of the numerous other groups affected at all by what the
Church does? Each supporter of Prop 8 acted out of their own purposes and
reasons, none of them reflecting on the other group. Let me give you an
example. If your neighbor commits a crime and is labeled a sex offender, does
that then reflect on you as a sex offender as well? Does it reflect on everyone
in the neighborhood as being a sex offender? According to your argument, since
we were all part of the same neighborhood, we must all be sex offenders then.
Real logical.If you see a negative, fear-mongering campaign, then
you ironically aren't seeing the truth. Countless acts of violence
unfortunately orginated with the opposition, including vandalizing Church
property, even temples.
Anytime you get into a pig fight in the slop you come out with at least some
dirt on you. Unfortunately, the slop pen is sometimes in the political (i.e.
voting booth) area.
'You take my words out of context.' - 2:22 p.m. We The People,
really? They're your words. You claim that 'judicial
fiat' as an excuse that gay marriage is not accepted by the masses and then tell
me that the supreme court ruling of Loving vs. Virginia to allow interracial
marriage is not the same. While at the same time telling me gay
marriage will not be accepted by the majority... while ignoring that
7 years ago gay marriage was not allowed in America...at all. It
seems today, that has changed. Truth, your 'moral' issue affects
peoples very real lives. Somthing other than your own. Should I say
that it is 'imorral' to marry a person of the same gender? It would
have the same logic. Morality is fiction. As an example, strangely
people only want the gay community to adhere to IT'S own idea of morality... but will not even ask what the LGBT community's morality is. Since a gay persons relationship will not affect someone elses, I really have
to ask WHO needs to be the grown up here.
Gay marriage is not a politcal issue....its a Moral Issue! If the
church wants to spend $40 Billion to defeat the next version of Gay
Californication....I support it!Gay Marriage is nothing more than a
benefits grab...grown men wanting mom's tax benefits!Grow up Gay's!
"That's can of worms that the church doen't want opened because it has never
rennounced polygamy, just suspended its practice. If it fights its battle in
California and wins, it won't have to fight it in Utah."What fear is
there and why? What worms? Regardless of what the law says, the removal of the
suspension must come by revelation from the Lord through the leaders of the
church. According to our beliefs, there is only one person who can authorize a
plural marriage for church members who wish to remain in good standing and that
is the Prophet (Yes, D&C 132 so states). So in theory, a person could legally
marry multiple spouses and still be excommunicated under the current policy on
marriage until or unless the suspension is lifted.
$43.3M spent by the proponents of Prop 8 and someone using a magnifying glass
looking through nook and cranny finds that $36,928 in in-kind contributions were
failed to be reported on a daily basis?Wow, that process sounds like
tedium personified. No wonder it was missed. And let me get this straight. All
of this was reported in a later report anyway? What is newsworthy about this? Oh
yea, the LGBT community grasping at straws to find fault with an organization
that accounts for less than 1% of the total money raised for the prop 8
proponents.Nice job. You REALLY convinced me that the LDS church was
Pagan:(Sorry, I could not get this all on one post)As for
Loving, I do not see your point. The court said that denying someone the right
to marry based on their race, not gender or sexual orientation, is
unconstitutional. The Court has never addressed the issue of whether allowing
gays to marry each other is required under the 14th Amendment. I suspect that
with the Court as it is presently constituted would not rule in that manner.
@ArynenWhen the Church joins a coalition and the coalition produces, airs
and distributes misleading and in some cases false information you bet it is a
black eye on the Church. Church members--due to our strong organizational
structure--accounted for a significant percentage of the groundwork and money
raised to pass Prop 8. The Church can't take a political stance and then run
away from responsibility when they are successful. I'm sure James Dobson/Focus
on the Family enjoyed the LDS Church taking the heat for Prop 8. It
was a negative, fear-mongering campaign something I never expected the Church to
be involved with. It has left a lasting imprint on me and our family.
Pagan:You take my words out of context. I did not say that marriage had to
be authorized by popular vote. Rather, that to change a fundamental legal
definition by judicial action does not mean that the idea of gay "marriage" has
taken root. The fact that certain entities do recognize gay marriage is true; I
do not dispute that. I do dispute, however, that society has accepted or will
accept gay marriage. Thus, my statements about the perfect record gay marriage
advocates have amassed in trying to convince society to accept their
institution. By the way, the perfect record is zero. You twisted my
words, but perhaps I was not clear. The validity of a marriage is not up to the
vote of the people; rather, the vote of the people shows that society does not
want gay marriage. The institution of gay marriage exists is some limited states
(three out of the four had gay marriage instituted by court order, mind you);
however, the idea or acceptance of gay marriage will never take hold in society
Truthseeker,In essence, small 30-second spots of two people talking
in various settings (i.e, walking down a street) and ending with a website
address. The spots respectfully addressed becoming informed about the issue.
Yes, the Church has a stand, but it never crossed into hatred as commonly
criticized. I don't know if our actors were members, but members of the Church
do a lot of things, like run for political positions (Mitt Romney), play sports
(Steve Young), work in entertainment (Glenn Beck), and post on newspaper
discussion boards (myself) for my own personal reasons, and things that every
other American can get involved in. So I don't see what your point is other
than I simply agree with you.The Church, as you quoted, spent a
grand total of $189,903.58. Total overall on the campaign was what? $43M?
Also, total membership of the Church voting was around 2%? (and not even all
members voting voted for it). Who were all the other 49%. If you want facts,
California, not the Church, voted in favor of traditional marriage. Back to my
original point, it is no black eye on the Church for supporting family
'However, to say that it is coming so we had better get used to it is
disingenuous.' - 11:44 a.m. We The People, I do not mean to say it
is comming, I mean to say it is here. It has been legal in MA since
May 17, 2004. To say it is NOT is disingenuous. After the first gay couple got
married legally, you cannot say it does not exist. Since we're
talking about 'Judicial fiat' I have failed to hear your arguments about 'Loving
v. Virginia', 1967. The supreme court ruling that allowed
interracial marriage across all 50 states, 43 years ago. Since WTP
argues that marriages must be authorized by 'popular vote', we can repeal the
little under 2 million interracial couples in America. And the 59
million 'regular' marriages in the US. Since popular vote wasn't
done on those...
I find it amusing that the title says the LDS Church "agrees" to pay this fine -
as if they have a choice or some supreme authority to nullify a legal fine being
brought against them.Regardless, if the LDS Church didn't properly
account for their political activity, then the fine is appropriate. I would
expect this to be the action taken against any person or entity who had violated
this CA law.Those claiming this is some kind of retribution or
discrimination just want to play the victim and have something to whine about.
The fact is the LDS Church has great resources at their disposal to find out the
proper way to conduct itself in these matters and it willingly chose to become
actively involved in a political campaign. As a result, they must accept all
consequences of that choice (good or bad).I'm pretty sure this is
what their own doctrine teaches and am glad to see they are accepting
responsibility by paying the fine imposed and without turning the fine into an
opportunity to grandstand.
@Arynen"Last year, the LDS Church said its total contributions to "Yes on
8" tallied $189,903.58 – all nonmonetary, in-kind contributions such as
video production from its studios, church employee time and airfare and lodging
costs for church leaders traveling to California for campaign efforts."So what were the "Church" produced Prop 8 videos? and what were the
"video productions" from Church studios? It is a fact that Church
members appeared in the Prop 8 campaign ads.
'It's the homosexuals who are bringing the issues to the ballots, not the other
way around. And according to your own words, homosexuals are skewing the
facts to be viewed as the oppressed and victimized.' - 11:22 a.m.
What words are those? 'Homosexuals are attacking the system to add
something that was never there before.' Massachusetts allowed gay
marriage in May 17, 2004, and ever since. Before Prop 8, CA allowed 18,000
gay marriages between June 16, 2008 - November 4, 2008. 'It's the
homosexuals who are bringing the issues to the ballots, not the other way
around.' As I have previously explained gay marriage was legal in CA
BEFORE Prop 8, I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion. If gay
marriage was legal previously, WHO 'brought the issue to the ballots?' A hint would be: Not the gay community.
Pagan:Judicial fiat created the "right" to marry in MA, IA, VT. CA and ME
voters recently voted to keep marriage defined as between one man and one woman,
even though the CA Supreme Court and ME legislature had created this "right."
Your argument is not persuasive; three out of the five entities you
mentioned had gay "marriage" created by courts, not by the people or
legislatures. Zero states have legalized gay "marriage" by popular vote; only
one has done so through the legislature. I really do not think "it is coming"
anytime soon. Can you see states like Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska,
Alabama, or Mississippi voluntarily legalizing same-sex marriage? I doubt it.
Other states may legalize it at some point, I do not deny that. However, to say
that it is coming so we had better get used to it is disingenuous.
Freedom to marry for gays opens the door to the churches real fear. It is a
myth that the church believes that legally marriage is just "between a man and a
woman". That is just a talking point. The real fear is that permitting any
redefinition of what is legal regarding the marriage contract inevitably opens
the door to a redetermination of the legality of plural marriage, marriage
between man and several women. That's can of worms that the church doen't want
opened because it has never rennounced polygamy, just suspended its practice. If
it fights its battle in California and wins, it won't have to fight it in Utah.
'No, gay marriage is not coming.' Then you have to tell
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire. The District of
Columbia also now recognizes gay marriages as of March 3, 2010.
Not_Scared | 10:44 a.m."I see zero facts in your comment. Could it
be you, that is too emotional to see reality here?"Statement of
fact:"The LDS Church created no such video for the Prop 8 campaign."And I'll add another statement of fact. The Church supported no such
video that you mentioned. I know because I was involved with the official
Church-produced Prop 8 videos. You can refute whatever you wish, but my
statement is fact, whether you believe it or not.
'If gay teachers are "married" in the public school system, guess what I will
do with my kids?' - 10:52 a.m. E. Klinche, few flaws here. 1) No one is trying to 'marry' the public school system. They are trying to
marry consenting adults. 2) Following your logic, should we then
deny straight teachers from marrying also? 3) Any LGBT teachers who
are married would only say they are MARRIED. Wear a wedding band, etc. Please
give me an example of any factual reason a parent has a legitimate NEED to know
the gender of that teacher's spouse? 4) Your comparison, that gay
teachers are somehow 'after your kids' is truly weak. As any teacher is there to
teach the school curriculum. Math, reading, arithmatic. What
teachers are trying to 'mess with your kids?' Do you have an
example? I doubt it. More fear-mongering. I
encourage you to pull your children out of public schools. If
anything, to limit your irrational fear of teachers in general. And
your attempt to vilify a minority based on zero facts and faulty accusations.
Pagan, nice way to take facts out of context to make it say what you want to
say. It's a lot like the Prop H8 video that came out that does the exact same
thing.Let me help you out a bit.My comment you quoted
was specific to addressing Charles about a video the Church allegedly produced.
My quote to his comment was accurate and not related to your previous
comments."'Strip' rights from gays?" That suggests this is about
established rights, which has never been the case. Homosexuals are attacking
the system to add something that was never there before. The issue is about
protecting the sanctity of marriage, not discriminating against homosexuals.
It's the homosexuals that are turning this into a "rights" debate and playing
the victim. As far as I understand, homosexuals have every right that every
other American has."Targeted by voters?" Targeting suggests those
who are not homosexual have it out for those who are. It's the homosexuals who
are bringing the issues to the ballots, not the other way around.And
according to your own words, homosexuals are skewing the facts to be viewed as
the oppressed and victimized.
E. KlinchePlease start your own school or put your children in
private schools to protect them from the evil gays.When they
graduate and start into the real world, guess what? They are going to meet gays
and they will have one of two reactions: They will run from them and think they
are evil as they have been taught or they will find out that they are just
regular people and start questioning your teachings.It sounds like
YOU need to get to know some regular gays.
I voted for Prop8 in 2008. What potential damage could gay marriage have?If gay teachers are "married" in the public school system, guess what I
will do with my kids? I will put them in private schools, and possibly ask every
like minded parent to co-op and start own own, possibly LDS-based school
system.Whether teachers are married or single, keeping those
opposing values out of my kids' lives.This may seem hateful,
paranoid, or reactionary to some, but I am willing to bet that millions of other
Californians would willingly pull their kids out of the public school systems
also.Please: do not mess with our kids. That is a sure sign of a
sociey going down hill. Like the no-fault divorce ruling in the late 1960s.Marriage is an institution between two consenting adults, as Prop 8
indicates. Anyhting else could be a civil union, but not a "marriage".When general society changes too much toward wrong definitions (accepting
wrong principles like legalized marijuana), I and likeminded people will have to
do something to protect our own families.I know plenty of morally
upstanding people who would run and teach private schools.
Arynen | 10:26 a.m The LDS Church gave support to groups who used these lies. I
pointed out that these where merely two of the many lies used. I see zero facts
in your comment. Could it be you, that is too emotional to see reality here? My stand is this: this is America, churches have the right to take
stands on issues. We have gay marriages. We were told that gay
marriages would ruin marriage. Show me were gay marriage has effected one LDS
marriage. Was this statement correct?I've read the Bible. I believe
the rabbinical account, which is so ironic. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were
greed and hospitality. It perfectly all right to believe the
revisionist view. If god was directing you, wouldn't god have shown
you in your calling that you were braking the law?
'Sorry, but your argument is fueled by emotion, not fact.' - 10:22 a.m. Not directed at the LDS church specifically, just anyone who supported prop
8... Title: 'Official proponent of anti-gay-marriage measure is
questioned at trial' - By Maura Dolan - DSNews - 01/21/2010 Quotes
from article:'In other testimony Thursday, a Stanford political scientist
said gays were politically vulnerable, particularly at the ballot box.
Gary M. Segura, a Stanford professor of American political science, testified
that voters have supported 70 percent of ballot measures to strip gays of rights
during elections in the past 15 years.He said there was no other group
that has been so targeted by voters.(sic) '"Gays and lesbians lack
the power necessary to protect themselves in the political system," Segura
concluded.' So, on the one hand, we have a minority who, by
authorities, are given the title of 'political minority'.... and on
the other hand you have a majority paying fines. In history, it is
especially important that you are viewed as oppressed... And not the
Where did all the love go? Or was it ever here in the hallowed halls of the
Church bureaucracy to be lost? Hearts go out to our gay and lesbian friends
while the money changers argue in the temple.
Not_Scared | 9:51 a.m.The LDS Church created no such video for the
Prop 8 campaign. Sorry, but your argument is fueled by emotion, not fact.
"We believe in honoring, sustaining and obeying the law". When you get a
fine...that means you did NOT obey the law....Regardless of what,
when, why or how...the fact remains that the LDS church did something that was
illegal. If you want people to take you seriously...you HAVE to show them by
your example. Do what I do....not what I say kind of thing. The example set
here is that LDS members will try to justify the fact that the LDS church broke
the law. The process of trying to justify...is what set's the tone for how
other people view the LDS church. One of do what I say...not what I do....The history books are full of examples where the LDS church or their
representatives did questionable acts in the name of representing their
religion, which according to them is the only TRUE church on the earth. If this
IS true..then God must do questionable acts also...as his church is his example
here on earth.
TJ 9:25:No, gay marriage is not coming. You do realize that voter in every
state in the nation in which the question of gay marriage has, in the last six
years, been open to public referendum have voted to keep marriage as it has been
for ages, right? Not_Scared:Church of liars? Please
expound.The Church, as any church does, has the right to support
certain civil causes. The Church feels that gay marriage itself is a sin and an
abhorrence. Further, it worries that gay marriage would be taught in schools and
children would be taught in schools that this lifestyle is socially acceptable.
I have no problem with another church arguing the opposite view or supporting
proposals such as Prop 8; why do so many people who claim tolerance hate the
Church for its beliefs?I am glad to see that the Church corrected
its mistake and will pay a fine. The Church proved that it does try to obey the
law and if it does not, it faces the consequences.
People who are saying that the Prop 8 campaign gave the Church a black eye or
that it was a negative campaign just don't get it. Opponents of the Church will
always find something to throw and complain about no matter what the issue is.
The logic in your argument, Pagan, is so flawed that I don't have near enough
room on this post present the facts against it. The issue isn't out of fear of
threat against straight marriage, but it is an advocacy to support the moral
fabric of society. Let me put it in a scientific term you can understand. When
you start changing the genetic makeup (or moral fiber) of an organism (society),
it becomes a mutation often with negative side effects, some devastating. You
can't mess with simple nature! Reality is that there is a very real moral fiber
that either strengthens or weakens society. Aside from the obvious signs in
nature that homosexuality is unnatural (seriously, how do you think the human
species was designed to propegate and survive?), it has very real side effects
that destroys morality. The fight is hard, but positive and worth it.
Oh no. The gays are 'in your face' because of Pride. Let's all calm
down Mike, buy a copy of the swim suit issue, go to Hooters in Midvale, wearing
my wedding band, after inviting others to my public wedding downtown, watch the
movie 'Sex in the City 2', based on the TV show, and talk about this....
Charles | 9:30 a.m I read these lies. I believe you can use wrongs as a tool to
do good. Many of the ads used against prop 8 were lies. I found a church
supporting using lies offensive.There was a video of children
attending a gay marriage. It's implied that they were bused from school. Their
parents wanted them to attend and the school had nothing to do with these
children attending.There is the church that took a special tax break
that required them to be a public venue. This is why they were forced to have a
gay wedding. If they hadn't taken the public's money they could have no had this
wedding. This isn't the church f my grandfather's generation. Once,
Mormons rejected liars.
Mr. Provo, You need to step away from the ledge my friend... Breath. So the Gays have an agenda... The LDS Church has one as well, you just
happen to agree with one and not the other. Yes the Gays had
their festivities and on July 24 Mormons will have theirs.calm
Oh, BIG DEAL! Go find something else to argue about. Something important! Stop
attempting to destroy one of the only decent institutions this country of
AMERICA has going for it right now!The Liberal GAY agenda will find
ANYTHING, ANY STRAW, or ANY MEANS to attack the LDS church.As was
demonstrated this past weekend in SLC with the GAY PRIDE festivities... the
quote, "PRIDE cometh before the FALL"... becomes rather prophetic, doesn't it?
We all know that the time for 'traditional marriage' is limited. We all know
that gay marriage IS coming. As the old die off the young will continue to NOT
CARE who gets married. And then the earth will stop rotating around the sun,
cats and dogs will live together and the four horsemen will come down with their
respective horrors. That or (almost) no one will notice a difference at all.
Except the gays who at that point will have to deal with marriage.
Spicy McHaggis wrote: " So many blessings. We've baptized so many people in
Calif because of Prop 8." How many people are joining the church who
claims to be the Church of Christ not because of their love to their neighbor,
but because, they found an organization that share their same biases. That is
not a blessing that is sad.WHat is also sad, that everyday God loving men
and women raised as LDS choose to live their church and sometimes their families
because they realized that there is no place for them in the Mormon community.
People who don't know why they are homosexual, they certainly would rather not
dissapoint their families. But, they are what they are and in order to be true
to themselves and their God they need to move away from the congregation of the
saints. Re; to Pagan: Thank you for your opinions and perspective.
@ER in AFI would love to share with you firsthand knowledge about the
Prop 8 campaign and the less than truthful way it was waged here in CA. And
i've tried on several occasions. But DN won't permit me too--they've repeatedly
censored my comments. All in all i'm very disappointed and ashamed
that the Church engaged in such a negative campaign--giving ammo to our
I agree with cynic and Utah guy. While a small thing, many will use any excuse
given to further give the LDS church a black eye. This is only further
ammunition. While I agree that people have the right to disagree, to
petition to nullify over 18,000 same-gender marriages in CA to me, is a bit
much. I mean, where do you see the LGBT community advocating against
existing straight marriage? Simple. You do not.
Factually, there is no petition to nullify YOUR marriage, is there?
As, being an active homosexual is against LDS teachings ('love the sinner, not
the 'sin') I fail to see how this will affect their marriages, even less with
temple marriages. As such, I fail to see an real, factual way a gay
marriage will hurt any straight one. Some will choose to see an
assault on their morality where none exist. Regardless, I hope you
all have a good day. I wouldn't want anyone to petition to nullify you and
17,999 of your friends marriages. Then you would know what it's like
to be gay in America.
@BPerhaps they should have made sure all the i's were dotted and t's
crossed last time. The Church has a staff of well-qualified CPAs. Someone
dropped the ball. The funds of the Church are sacred and need to be treated as
such and disbursed in accordance with the proper laws.
My guess is that any normal organization would probably not have been fined. No
matter. The church will make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed
I was always taught to avoid the appearance of impropriety. By the Church (of
which I am a member) getting involved in this the way they did, they deserve
every ounce of scrutiny they are receiving. While I realize that other
organizations were heavily involved, as well, the Chruch has always had dealing
above board. Even a small error like this give the Church a huge black eye and
will damage its reputation for years to come. I hope there is an accountant
being reprimanded for this.
I donated for the Preservation of Marriage Prop 8 in 2008, and I donated toward
the cause a few pay checks. As an eight year resident of the state I felt it my
moral obligation.Many peope claim this vote was about hate: I beg to
differ. To me it is about love of the law and the sanctity of real marriage.To me, and a few other Americans and people worldwide, marriage is an
institution between adult men and women, not to each other. Man and woman.It is a moral belief enacted and sustained by law.I am
pro-civil unions for same sex partners, as I am in favor of having financial
breaks for families to care for dependents like disabled or special
circumstances. There ought to be economic breaks for people living together
outside of marriage.The LDS Church participates in some moral causes
and they make mistakes like we all do. The ERA movement and the MX Missile were
also causes it opposed.It happens less often than some think that
the Church publicly opposes or favors an issue to be voted on.This
is a constitutional freedom I cherish for myself and faiths.
Charles, please give an example of what you suggest is lack of integrity. The
church was very open in its position on Prop 8. ask anyone and you will hear
the same thing. there was no deception, no double talk or denials. The church
spent around 1% of what was spent as a whole. The church participated in an
issue that many other groups, both organized and not organized did. Ethnic
groups and nationalities voted in a similar fashion resulting in an overall
repudiation of marriage being anything anything other than between a man and a
Self-righteousness is a sin....and an epidemic.
Charles:The LDS Church has had nothing but integrity on this issue.
Integrity can be defined as, "an undivided or unbroken completeness or totality
with nothing wanting". The church has had an undivided and unbroken, completely
consistent position on marriage being between a man and a woman. They happen to
feel that the traditional family is an ideal worth fighting for.I am
ok with you disagreeing with that position. But don't resort to cheap shots
because you disagree. It is you, not them, that appears to lack integrity and
cilivity. You simply come across as hateful and agry.
A daily reporting requirement really is an abridgement of free speech
guarantees. Can you imagine that the church must report within 24 hours if it
pays for a representative to fly on an airplane? This California law is nothing
short of a joke!
@Rick for Truth:What a nice way for you to display the principles for
which the LDS Church stands, by viciously attacking Charles for having the
audacity to disagree with you.Charles, I can assure you that Rick
doesn't speak for all LDS members. Most of us fully respect your right to
disagree with us.
Hey Chuck, I'll take the "lack of integrity” you have expressed from you
or from the likes of people with your opinions any day of the week. I proudly
gave $ and walked the beat for prop 8, and will do it again and again for as
long as it is necessary. Freedom is only lost when good people do nothing. You
and others like you would not recognizes truth if it were to jump up and take a
bite out of your (you know what!).
So many blessings. We've baptized so many people in Calif because of Prop 8.
@Charles,The "churches lack of integrity?" I am just amused by the LDS
haters out there, who know nothing of the church and the great work it does for
the poor and disadvantaged throughout the world.I was thinking of the
"social justice" churches like the one Obama attended for 20 years, and how they
get a total pass by the government and the press, with regards to the violations
they make in actively getting into the political game. I never here the LDS
church getting involved in elections and such...
The LDS church political wing? You know nothing about how the Church operates
I don't care if the church makes administrative and accounting mistakes. That it
is a political entity at all is my issue.
For those who think the LDS church members only contributed time and money--not
true. The LDS church political wing was heavily involved in producing the TV
ads--starring LDS members--and the campaign in general.
While I fully support the LDS Church's efforts on this issue, this story makes
it clear that if the Church is going to get involved in divisive political
issues like this one, they need to be extra vigilant in following the rules, so
as not to give their opponents an opportunity to make a mountain out of a
molehill like they have in this case.