Quantcast
Utah

Mormon Church agrees to pay small fine for mistake that led to late report of contributions in Prop. 8 campaign

Comments

Return To Article
  • christoph
    June 13, 2010 9:56 p.m.

    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.

  • cynic
    June 12, 2010 2:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Lee
    June 12, 2010 1:39 p.m.

    Joggle at 12:34, That was an excellent post on faith versus reason.

    We must remember that blind faith can be dangerous.

  • Pagan
    June 12, 2010 1:32 p.m.

    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?

  • Joggle
    June 12, 2010 12:34 p.m.

    @Christoph

    Critical 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 to you!

  • christoph
    June 12, 2010 10:20 a.m.

    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 new life.

  • Screwdriver
    June 12, 2010 8:38 a.m.

    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.

  • christoph
    June 11, 2010 10:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    June 11, 2010 8:38 p.m.

    '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....?

  • Mimifran
    June 11, 2010 7:40 p.m.

    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 day.

  • Mimifran
    June 11, 2010 7:34 p.m.

    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 - please!

  • Truthseeker
    June 11, 2010 6:01 p.m.

    Fear

    It'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.

  • Joggle
    June 11, 2010 5:42 p.m.

    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!

  • hmmm interesting
    June 11, 2010 5:39 p.m.

    Thanks to Mike Provo, we now all know the "excessive capital letters" restriction for commenting must be 50 or more excluding acronyms.

    Thanks, Mike.

  • Pagan
    June 11, 2010 5:04 p.m.

    '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....?

  • Pagan
    June 11, 2010 4:54 p.m.

    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.

  • wwookie
    June 11, 2010 4:49 p.m.

    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.

  • utestudent
    June 11, 2010 4:23 p.m.

    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.

  • cynic
    June 11, 2010 3:50 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • kosimov
    June 11, 2010 3:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer
    June 11, 2010 3:17 p.m.

    "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:

    Buddhists
    Universal Unitarians
    Quakers
    Some Jewish sects
    Episcopalians

    and there are plenty more.



  • Lane Myer
    June 11, 2010 3:10 p.m.

    "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!



  • Lane Myer
    June 11, 2010 3:06 p.m.

    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? Really?

  • Joggle
    June 11, 2010 3:04 p.m.

    @Born that Way

    I 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?

  • Born that Way
    June 11, 2010 1:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Born that Way
    June 11, 2010 1:12 p.m.

    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.

  • The Atheist
    June 11, 2010 12:23 p.m.

    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 glaring inconsistency.

  • Brian Utley
    June 11, 2010 11:16 a.m.

    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.

  • path6
    June 11, 2010 10:26 a.m.

    Can dignity (self-respect, self-esteem, poise, pride) and respect (admiration, high opinion, deference, esteem)be legislated?

  • path6
    June 11, 2010 10:18 a.m.

    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?

  • Lane Myer
    June 11, 2010 9:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer
    June 11, 2010 9:19 a.m.

    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 gay parents?

  • Lane Myer
    June 11, 2010 9:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Kimber
    June 11, 2010 8:09 a.m.

    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.

  • mosbyjim
    June 11, 2010 8:02 a.m.

    So what does this mean? The Fair Political Practices Commission is trying to save face.

  • Joggle
    June 11, 2010 12:13 a.m.

    @1happycamper

    I 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.

  • 1happycamper
    June 10, 2010 11:44 p.m.

    Everyone needs to get over the HATE! This is so wrong.

  • far north
    June 10, 2010 9:27 p.m.

    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.

  • HopeforUS
    June 10, 2010 8:31 p.m.

    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 about.

  • Hossman
    June 10, 2010 7:35 p.m.

    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.

  • mattrick78
    June 10, 2010 3:17 p.m.

    I am sure there were accounting irregularities on both sides of the debate.

  • Joggle
    June 10, 2010 2:17 p.m.

    @Pagan

    As 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.

  • Arizona Boy
    June 10, 2010 2:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    June 10, 2010 2:06 p.m.

    '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.

  • Maudine
    June 10, 2010 1:07 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Lane Myer
    June 10, 2010 12:33 p.m.

    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?

  • Lane Myer
    June 10, 2010 12:30 p.m.

    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?

  • Lane Myer
    June 10, 2010 12:27 p.m.

    "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.

  • Deafmom
    June 10, 2010 12:16 p.m.

    You are right, AB205 provides more rights for "Legal DOmestic Partnerships". With this in mind, why would someone want marriage?

  • Deafmom
    June 10, 2010 12:15 p.m.

    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.

  • CB
    June 10, 2010 12:13 p.m.

    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'

  • Lane Myer
    June 10, 2010 11:57 a.m.

    Deafmom | 11:47 a.m

    You just proved that the rights are NOT the same! Why the distinctions?

  • Lane Myer
    June 10, 2010 11:55 a.m.

    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 valid?

  • Deafmom
    June 10, 2010 11:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Deafmom
    June 10, 2010 11:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    June 10, 2010 11:33 a.m.

    '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?

  • Deafmom
    June 10, 2010 11:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer
    June 10, 2010 11:21 a.m.

    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 and women.

  • Deafmom
    June 10, 2010 11:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Joggle
    June 10, 2010 10:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker
    June 10, 2010 9:41 a.m.

    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 measure up.

  • Pagan
    June 10, 2010 8:44 a.m.

    '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?

  • Pagan
    June 10, 2010 8:28 a.m.

    '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?

  • DeepintheHeart
    June 10, 2010 8:26 a.m.

    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.

  • ratkellar
    June 10, 2010 8:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Pam in Illinois
    June 10, 2010 7:11 a.m.

    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.

  • ramper
    June 10, 2010 6:30 a.m.

    RE: Joggle

    Your 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.

  • E. Klinche
    June 10, 2010 5:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Joggle
    June 9, 2010 11:02 p.m.

    @christoph

    Gay 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.

  • christoph
    June 9, 2010 10:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker
    June 9, 2010 10:24 p.m.

    @Arynen
    I 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."

  • Joggle
    June 9, 2010 10:01 p.m.

    @Swimom

    What 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.

  • Swimom
    June 9, 2010 9:31 p.m.

    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!

  • Joggle
    June 9, 2010 8:38 p.m.

    @Jeff

    Straight 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!

  • Pianoman99
    June 9, 2010 7:28 p.m.

    Geez and Gay ppl wonder why everyone hates them...they're poor sports. Cry me a river :( PATHETIC

  • Jeff
    June 9, 2010 7:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Joggle
    June 9, 2010 7:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Alex 1
    June 9, 2010 6:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 6:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Joggle
    June 9, 2010 6:02 p.m.

    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!

  • PJ
    June 9, 2010 5:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Sutton
    June 9, 2010 5:36 p.m.

    "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?...

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 5:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Joggle
    June 9, 2010 5:22 p.m.

    @We The People

    The 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.

  • kishkumen
    June 9, 2010 5:13 p.m.

    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)

  • gwells
    June 9, 2010 5:10 p.m.

    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?

  • Joggle
    June 9, 2010 5:04 p.m.

    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 should.

  • Christy
    June 9, 2010 5:00 p.m.

    E. Klinche | 10:52 a.m. June 9, 2010
    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.


    =============


    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.

  • Truthseeker
    June 9, 2010 4:45 p.m.

    @AZRods
    BTW 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.

  • AZRods
    June 9, 2010 4:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker
    June 9, 2010 4:23 p.m.

    @Arynen
    We 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?


  • We the People
    June 9, 2010 4:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Thomas Jefferson
    June 9, 2010 3:35 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 3:16 p.m.

    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.

  • ramper
    June 9, 2010 3:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    June 9, 2010 3:01 p.m.

    '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.

  • TRUTH
    June 9, 2010 2:39 p.m.

    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!

  • Alex 1
    June 9, 2010 2:35 p.m.

    "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.

  • Speed_Altitude
    June 9, 2010 2:26 p.m.

    $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 hiding something.(NOT)

  • We the People
    June 9, 2010 2:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker
    June 9, 2010 2:24 p.m.

    @Arynen
    When 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.

  • We the People
    June 9, 2010 2:22 p.m.

    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 at large.

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 1:39 p.m.

    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 values.

  • Pagan
    June 9, 2010 1:03 p.m.

    '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...

  • NF
    June 9, 2010 12:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker
    June 9, 2010 12:00 p.m.

    @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.

  • Pagan
    June 9, 2010 11:44 a.m.

    '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.

  • We the People
    June 9, 2010 11:44 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike in Texas
    June 9, 2010 11:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    June 9, 2010 11:31 a.m.

    '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.

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 11:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    June 9, 2010 11:23 a.m.

    '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.

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 11:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Lane Myer
    June 9, 2010 11:13 a.m.

    E. Klinche

    Please 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.

  • E. Klinche
    June 9, 2010 10:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Not_Scared
    June 9, 2010 10:44 a.m.

    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?

  • Pagan
    June 9, 2010 10:39 a.m.

    '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 oppressor.

  • Brian Utley
    June 9, 2010 10:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 10:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 10:22 a.m.

    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.

  • dalep2u
    June 9, 2010 10:14 a.m.

    "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.

  • We the People
    June 9, 2010 10:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Arynen
    June 9, 2010 10:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan
    June 9, 2010 10:00 a.m.

    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....

  • Not_Scared
    June 9, 2010 9:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Sutton
    June 9, 2010 9:47 a.m.

    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 down...

  • MikeProvo
    June 9, 2010 9:30 a.m.

    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?

  • Thomas Jefferson
    June 9, 2010 9:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902
    June 9, 2010 9:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker
    June 9, 2010 8:57 a.m.

    @ER in AF
    I 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 opponents.

  • Pagan
    June 9, 2010 8:38 a.m.

    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.

  • utah guy
    June 9, 2010 8:33 a.m.

    @B

    Perhaps 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.

  • B
    June 9, 2010 8:23 a.m.

    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 next time.

  • utah guy
    June 9, 2010 8:13 a.m.

    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.

  • E. Klinche
    June 9, 2010 5:44 a.m.

    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.

  • ER in AF
    June 9, 2010 5:30 a.m.

    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 woman.

  • embarrassed Utahn!
    June 9, 2010 5:10 a.m.

    Self-righteousness is a sin....and an epidemic.

  • carman
    June 9, 2010 4:49 a.m.

    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.

  • sls
    June 9, 2010 4:16 a.m.

    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!

  • cynic
    June 9, 2010 1:55 a.m.

    @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.

  • Rick for Truth
    June 9, 2010 1:26 a.m.

    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!).

  • Spicy McHaggis
    June 8, 2010 8:23 p.m.

    So many blessings. We've baptized so many people in Calif because of Prop 8.

  • KM
    June 8, 2010 7:43 p.m.

    @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...

  • Arynen
    June 8, 2010 7:31 p.m.

    The LDS church political wing? You know nothing about how the Church operates friend.

  • Hutterite
    June 8, 2010 7:19 p.m.

    I don't care if the church makes administrative and accounting mistakes. That it is a political entity at all is my issue.

  • Truthseeker
    June 8, 2010 7:09 p.m.

    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.

  • cynic
    June 8, 2010 6:42 p.m.

    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.