Quantcast
U.S. & World

LDS Church, other religious groups respond to Prop 8 ruling

Comments

Return To Article
  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Feb. 18, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    Some argue that defending traditional marriage is a waste of time, considering the high divorce rate. Therefore, the suggested concept here is that gay marriages will somehow change the trend. I'm not going to say that is impossible, but before quotes are rendered suggesting that gay marriages/families are just as "normal", just as strong and healthy as heterosexual marriages/families. Personally, I'll wait a few thousand years to collect sufficient evidence to be sure of such statistics.

    And so point to examples such as Greek and Roman civilizations to herald the cause of gay marriage, consider that each of those groups imploded within a short time after embracing that practice of "equality". And I'm not saying that gay relationships were the cause of downfall for these two societies, but evidence would suggest that it didn't do too much to strengthen or prolong them.

  • The truth shall set you free Bay Area, CA
    Feb. 15, 2012 4:20 p.m.

    You can't support the Proclamation of Marriage but defend gay marriage and everything that comes out of it. You can't rationalize sin.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Feb. 12, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    The 10 commandments define sin: #6: 'You shall not murder.' #8 'You shall not steal .#5 Honor your Father and your Mother,[not other or mothers].
    @zoar 63 Do you believe any of them?

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 5:51 p.m.

    @zoar63

    "It is a law of physics that opposites attract or join"

    I'm not aware of any such law in physics. It is true that the laws of magnetism are such that unlike poles attract, but that does not imply that in all cases objects with opposite characteristics attract.

    "Marriage is the joining together of two opposite not same parties. Marriage of two same sex people is not biologically possible."

    In reading your statement about marriage (quoted above), I think you are referring to having children, not to marriage itself. Marriage is a social contract between two persons and has nothing to do with natural laws or with biology.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Feb. 10, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    @Mark

    "If you are talking about the "laws of nature" being physical laws, then homosexuallity does absolutely nothing in violation of those. Clearly a homosexual act is quite possible under the physical laws of our universe."

    It is a law of physics that opposites attract or join. There are positive and negative charges. Same charges repel and opposite charges attract. Take a pair of magnets and see if you can join them together if they have like charges. Try to connect out- put to out- put and see if you get sound from your speakers. So it is in biology the male and the female connect and become one. Marriage is the joining together of two opposite not same parties. Marriage of two same sex people is not biologically possible.

  • The truth shall set you free Bay Area, CA
    Feb. 10, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    I'm sorry you find the Laws of Nature ridiculous even though you are governed by it every second of your life. Man are not supposed to have sex with man. Bend whatever you can bend but it is what it is. My special Operation friend once told me that even the toughest unbeliever will call God when the situation presents itself and you are not an exception.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Feb. 10, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    @ll34

    "it'd be a mess. Let's say you have a guy and he's married to three women, each of those three women are married to him and two other men each. Legally how would this be handled? Do you just keep gathering deductions on your taxes? You'd have to change the structure of some things to work for a non-2-person model. What if there's divorces? Who pays alimony and to whom? If there were a way to straighten out that entire mess then I'd be fine with it being legal... even though I think it's morally wrong."

    That is what congress and lawyers do best they think of ways to write new laws. Those problems you bring up could be addressed. An entire new area of law would be opened up and I am sure there are plenty of lawyers that would jump at the opportunity .

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Feb. 10, 2012 5:50 a.m.

    Fortunately we still live in a Republic (and to the "Republic" for which it stands) and not a Democracy. In our Republic the minorities cannot be trampled upon by the the majority (whether the voters have spoken once twice or ten times). I fail to understand why this point has not become very clear.

  • Some1outthere Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 2:28 a.m.

    No sense in voting because if the way I feel and the majority of the voters feel can be changed by one person or a small group of people to favor the losing side then it isn't worth my time to go to the voting polls.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 7:42 p.m.

    Explain my way out of what? Dude, this is the most ridiculous conversation I have had on here in a long time. I'll ask again: what are you talking about? The "laws of nature". What are you talking about? How nature works? The animal kingdom? Violates none of those laws. Physics? Again violates no laws. Laws about how people are designed? Again, violates no "laws" there either. What "law" do you think is being violated? Or do you think the only permissible sexual act is one that leads to conception? Well, that might be your opinion, but it sure is not a "law" no matter what you may think.

    Are you trying to say it violates God's law? If so, the first thing you must do is prove there is a god before I'll even contemplate your interpretation of any so called law He or She may have.

    I'm through with you.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    Feb. 9, 2012 5:22 p.m.

    "Imagine if all people accepted and practiced gay marriage, we will all be gone in a little over 100 years." - "Of course if all people only had homosexual sex and nothing else humanity would die out." - This is no nonsense.

    You, saying that homosexual sex does not violate the Laws of Nature is absolutely nonsense. It is possible but it violates how man is designed, created, evolved and made. Like I told you, it is a fact that violation of Laws of Nature has consequences.

    If you tell me that you don't care even if it violates the Laws of Nature and that you live by whatever consequences it will bring, I will rest my case. But don't try to explain your way out of it.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 9, 2012 4:34 p.m.

    @ those who screen the comments: Why will you let one poster - RAB - mention baptism for the dead, but not allow responding posts to mention it?

    If I cannot counter his post, using his own argument, then his comment should not have been posted.

    My response: An analogy comparing same-sex marriage (SSM), a civil, secular event, with baptisms for the dead, a religious sacrament fails. Baptism for the dead has no civil effect - there is no social recognition nor are there social benefits. No living person is denied anything if baptisms for the dead are banned. (Which is an interesting thought - there has been enough controversy over baptism for the dead. What if the majority of society voted to ban it? Would the Courts be correct in overriding the will of the majority and declaring such a ban unconstitutional?)

    One of the arguments against SSM is that gays have the right to marry - one person of the opposite sex, same as everyone else.

    What is the difference in the cost to society if the two couples it is supporting are opposite-sex or same-sex? Why is it better to support lies than it is to support love?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    Oh my gosh, what are you talking about?

    Of course if all people only had homosexual sex and nothing else humanity would die out. But they don't and they won't. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that because of gay marriage there is a possibility that everyone, everywhere would stop having heterosexual sex. And such a suggestion has no place in a conversation about gay marriage.

    I can't believe I'm responding to such nonsense.

    If you are talking about the "laws of nature" being physical laws, then homosexuallity does absolutely nothing in violation of those. Clearly a homosexual act is quite possible under the physical laws of our universe.

    Again, what in the world are you talking about?

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 3:55 p.m.

    @ksampow The time-honored institution that you speak of was marriage established by social groups, often churches, and controlled by those groups. The basic problem of this topic is that governments took control of marriage and made marriage a legal thing. Thus, some people want marriage to be reserved for a man and a woman, while other want marriage to be open to anyone. Both groups seem to have accepted governmental regulation of marriage a desirable thing. Yet, many of those people would object to governmental regulation of other aspects of their lives. They want to be free from excess governmental control; yet they accept and strive for governmental control of marriage. If government would get out of the marriage business, this whole problem would disappear.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    Feb. 9, 2012 3:45 p.m.

    Allen, laws of man will always fail. It may not be today or tomorrow but it will. To elaborate on the Laws of Nature; man are not designed, created, evolved and made for man. My point being that this Law is greater than any laws created by man. Just because the consequences are not evident and immediate, as a person trying to defy gravity, does not mean you can cheat it. Humans are imperfect and corruptible.

    Mark, tell me. If everyone is gay and would abstain from touching the opposite sex, would humanity survive? It is not absolutely ridiculous but absolutely the truth. Brain surgery, space flight or the internet or indoor plumbing all conforms with the Laws of Nature. Tell me of a brain surgeon, pilot, programmer or a plummer that would say, "Oh, I just went against the laws of nature with what I did today". I don't think so.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Feb. 9, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    Phranc - There is no attempt to oppress anyone. The LDS CHurch is not asking for laws against homosexuality. (Though God has already forbiden it in His laws.) People can choose a homosexual lifestyle. But they have no right to force society to change the definition of a time-honored (and divinely established) institution to suit their personal preferences. These activists want to redefine marriage.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 2:54 p.m.

    You brought up the specter of humanity vanishing in a century, getting it, er, right. It is absolutely ridiculous to use that idea in a discussion about gay marriage.

    And what are these "laws of nature" you speak of? Leave aside the fact that there is an abudence of homosexual acts performed in nature. But do you really think that everything humans do should conform to some arbitrary "law of nature"? There are plenty of species that will eat their young; monogamy is rare; violence and brutality is the norm. Should we really base what we do, as a civilization, on the "laws of nature"?

    What do you find conforming to the "law of nature" in brain surgery, or space flight, or the Internet, or indoor plumbing?

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 2:17 p.m.

    @Getting it Right It seems to me the topic being discussed concerns agency, whether people can choose the type of marriage they want, or if marriage will continue to be regulated by government. I don't understand your reasoning behind your comments about "Law of Nature". Perhaps you will elaborate why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it is against the laws of nature?

    It's true that two gay people can't have children in and of themselves, but there are many men and women who get married and have no intentions of having children. Should they be prohibited from being married? Do we really want that type of intervention in our lives by government?

    I'm an active LDS and support the Proclamation on Marriage, but I also believe that people should have the right to choose for themselves the type of marriage they will have, and I believe that governments at all levels should stop regulating marriage. Let social groups, such as religious churches, define marriage for their organization, and let people choose a social group that practices the type of marriage they want.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    Feb. 9, 2012 1:38 p.m.

    @Mark 12:26PM

    Mark, Allowing gay marriage does not make the human race disappears in a century, I did not said that, you did. Say what you want to say, it does not change the fact that Gay Marriage is still against the Laws of Nature.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 12:26 p.m.

    Oh my gosh yes. There we go. Allow gay marriage and the human race disappears in a century.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    Feb. 9, 2012 12:00 p.m.

    Gary Marriage and its lifestyle is against The Laws of Nature. Forget about rights, definition, equality, etc...we all know the consequences of going against the Laws of Nature. Most of the results are not good and could cost lives. Imagine if all people accepted and practiced gay marriage, we will all be gone in a little over 100 years.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 9:43 a.m.

    I would like to see governments at all levels get out of the marriage business; let governments focus on civil unions, and let individuals and social groups define marriage any way they want. Marriage, after all, is a social contract between two people. It shouldn't be a basis for property rights, insurance rights, and so forth.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 6:45 a.m.

    @VoR;

    God has no legal standing in our government or civil laws. Your book of mormon is meaningless as is the bible in relation to these laws. They're not based on "god says".

    I've read your BoM, dozens of times and in two languages. It changes nothing.

    Marriage id defined by the people entering into the contract. What you want it to mean for you is your personal business and doesn't affect what I want it to mean for me or what Joe Blow wants it to mean for him. For some it is a religious rite, for others it is a civil rite. Nobody should be able to define what it is for someone else.

    Here's some advice. You follow your god and your god's commandments. He'll deal with you when you get to heaven. I'll follow my god's advice and he'll deal with me when I get there. In case you didn't understand the subtlety of the above advice, here's a clearer rendition: Mind your own business and we'll mind ours.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:57 p.m.

    Here's some sound advice for anyone who wants to be happy and wants to learn the truth regarding this issue and every other facet of our existence...

    Read the Book of Mormon. :) I find this to be better advice than anything else I could have possibly debated or disputed on here. This issue and any other 'issue'- will they ever 'go away'? No. It could be rejected. It could be passed. It doesn't matter because in the end what matters is people doing the right thing or not. Every last bit of reason or evidence I've ever seen has supported the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Everything true points in one direction. Only by hardening one's heart does someone not see that same answer.

    There is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. Your body was designed one way, like a one way street. If you want to fight that, fine. But it still isn't the truth. I've said nothing here that should offend anyone, nor have I intended offense. I simply think it's worth stating what I believe to be true. I'll probably go read it now.

    Today is a great day. Best wishes to everyone.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:38 p.m.

    rpjense says:

    "The fundamental problem here is that the people of California spoke. A majority voted in favor of a proposition and this has been overturned by a MINORITY ... a very few judges overturned the will of the majority."

    --- You have that backwards sir. The "fundamental problem" here is that THE RIGHTS OF A DESPISED MINORITY were put up to a vote in the first place.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:13 p.m.

    "...said the court âhas ruled straightforwardly that the motivation for defending traditional marriage is animus against homosexual persons. "

    --- What else do you call it when a law is specifically targeted against one group and one group only? Animus.

    You can not vote away the rights of Americans without having a valid reason. "God says" is not a valid reason.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 7:14 p.m.

    What if the government made a law stating that all people MUST agree with and approve of the act of baptizing people in behalf of the dead in accordance with LDS beliefs and that those who believe in baptism for the dead must be financially supported by the government? Would not the whole country be outraged?

    Why then is it okay for the government to make a law stating that all people MUST agree with and approve of intimate homosexual activities implicit in gay marriage in accordance with homosexual beliefs and that those who believe in gay marriage must be financially supported by the government?

    Simple really. Government endorsement of religious beliefs is apparently only bad when the beliefs can be tied to a particular religion. But if your belief approves of gay marriage and homosexual behavior and cannot be tied to a particular religion, you get to obtain government approval of your religious beliefs.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 6:32 p.m.

    zoar63: "Can you provide a single cogent secular argument against plural marriage."

    The most compelling I have heard is that historically, in most cultures that practiced polygamy, the marriages have consistently had uneven power relationships. One person (inevitably the male) held all the power and the wives were subservient. Having watched two seasons of "Sister Wives," the Kody Brown marriages (at least as as portrayed after selective editing) seem to be fairly well balanced, full of mutual respect, and financially self-supporting (no "bleed the beast" as in Short Creek). Not perfect, but better than in most cultures (and better than many monogamous marriages). I don't have too much of a problem with plural marriage if it has balanced power structure, no coercion, mutual consent among the participants, and doesn't burden larger society with caring for its failures. Also, polygamy acceptance would have to include both polygyny AND polyandry with equal opportunity and access for both.

    procuradorfiscal @6:09-- Godwin. Written with flair, but still a Godwin.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 6:09 p.m.

    Re: "CA will join the six other states which have already approved same-sex marriage and life will go on."

    CA is not joining anything. The millions who voted for Prop 8 are figuratively being herded into cattle cars, on a track to somewhere they didn't choose, being disingenuously soothed into going along with it by 3 corrupt, dogmatic, doctrinaire judges, and way too many liberal libertines chanting the modern moral equivalent of "arbeit macht frei."

    Don't accuse the good people of CA of "joining" anything. Particularly this lemming-like rush to the ragged edge of civilization.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 5:14 p.m.

    @zoar63
    "Can you provide a single cogent secular argument against plural marriage."

    Legally it'd be a mess. Let's say you have a guy and he's married to three women, each of those three women are married to him and two other men each. Legally how would this be handled? Do you just keep gathering deductions on your taxes? You'd have to change the structure of some things to work for a non-2-person model. What if there's divorces? Who pays alimony and to whom? If there were a way to straighten out that entire mess then I'd be fine with it being legal... even though I think it's morally wrong.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    Feb. 8, 2012 5:06 p.m.

    The problem with saying that the court should side with the "will of the people" is that the will of the people is changing towards the acceptance of same-sex marriage. Does that mean that the church will be in favor of SSM when the majority of the voters are?

    Obviously, the church cannot really mean this in view of the way the majority viewed polygamy. Be against it, fine, but use better reasoning. At least one that aligns with the history of the church itself. The church fought hard against the will of the public on polygamy.

    Be against it because you think it is morally wrong and leave it at that.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 8, 2012 4:50 p.m.

    @ Mormoncowboy: If you don't have a marriage license from the state, then you do not get the benefits of marriage.

    And if you have a registered domestic partnership and call yourself married, everyone will know that you are not really married, which will have a negative social impact on you.

    As the case states, there is a certain perception and distinction that goes along with marriage that only marriage has.

    Anything else is not the same.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    Feb. 8, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    The path of least resistance here would be for gay's and lesbians to find Church's willing to perform marriages for them, and then just get married. Then when they go out in public and introduce themselves to their friends and family, just use the familiar language of marriage, ie, husband/wife/spouse/etc. Then lastly, defy any of their opponents to fine them or put them in jail for calling their union "marriage". It wouldn't happen, and everybody everywhere would realize how stupid this whole debate really is. You can't put a person in jail for saying that they are married, and so you couldn't enforce proposition 8 even if you wanted to. Quit asking for permission and just get married if it matters to you.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 8, 2012 3:49 p.m.

    You know, it seems like there has been a lot of discussion lately about who gets to decide what to call various things...

    discussions over words like "marriage" or "Christian"

    I wonder who gets to decide - those who claim to belong to those groups? Or outsiders looking in?

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 3:28 p.m.

    @ CottageCheese: You are right - a dog is not a cat, a football is not a basketball, etc., etc., etc.

    But have you ever noticed that not all cats are the same? Nor are all dogs, footballs, or basketballs.

    There are certain similarities that determine which category an item falls into, but within that category there are a great many differences.

    A civil union, domestic partnership, or "garriage" is not a marriage. One of the benefits of marriage is use of the words "marriage" and "marry" and "married" and all their counterparts. Without a marriage, those aren't available. Anything other than a marriage is less.

    A cat is not a dog, and a domestic partnership is not a marriage.

  • ThatsSoUtah Fredericksburg, VA
    Feb. 8, 2012 2:59 p.m.

    @zoar63 and others

    Honestly, I'm completely fine with allowing polygamy. As long as all involved parties are adults and enter into the arrangement of their own free will.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 8, 2012 2:53 p.m.

    The LDS Church statment is too little and too late. If it truly wanted to defend prop 8, it should have spendt some of its considerable legal talent at the trial court level instead of leaving the job to incompetents.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    Feb. 8, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    There will be ups and downs in this battle, but it is easy to see which way it is going. No case has been made to convince young people that gay and lesbian marriage is a problem. Hollywood has normalized homosexuality, at least to the extent that the young understand that there is nothing to fear. This will be decided by attrition as the old-fashioned voters just die off and the electorate is increasingly disinterested in interfering in other people's lives...especially about something that just doesn't matter. Any campaign to say that it does matter just marginalizes the campaigner. Within a decade, everybody will have accepted gay marriage and moved on.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Feb. 8, 2012 2:06 p.m.

    Why is it so hard for the LDS church (and others) to understand that the courts are ruling on the constitutionality of the ban, not if the ban is popular amongst voters. This isn't rocket science folks. Please stop with the disingenous defense of the ban.

  • crowntown1 Corona, CA
    Feb. 8, 2012 1:59 p.m.

    Why is it discrimination if you oppose something you beleive is wrong and immoral? Maybe your discriminating Prop 8 supporters becasue we oppose you. It's called taking a stand if you feel something is attacked, it's called the people, the voters here have spoken and you lost twice. Sometimes I wish that you could split us in half, you keep fresno and let us be our own state.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 1:31 p.m.

    rpjense said:
    Interesting and endless ... the verbal wranglings of this discussion. Mankind, endlessly and bravely afirming that immorality is okay. We affirm this by basing our decisions, our twists of words, our logic, on what others have said. It appears we have let go of basing our logic and reason on anything resembling fundamental principles and truths. You can prove anything you want by trotting out your so-called experts in man's reasoning.

    Isn't this your only support? What other have said? (in your case religious leaders) Your so-called experts are clergy or Other men trotting out religion as a tool to suppress yet other men.

    You have NO argument besides religion, that's why the courts overturned this silly prop.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 1:17 p.m.

    The sidebar graphics of polling data don't show the full story. Support for gay marriage is very strong among younger people. Attrition of the older generations with the passage of time will eventually shift the tide to majority support for gay marriage.

    Opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong side of history. The trend is towards expanding civil rights to all, as it should be. In thirty or forty years people will look back at today's fuss with the same bewilderment and incomprehension that we have when we watch newsreel footage of the angry segregationist mobs harranguing the Little Rock Nine on their way to class. It will seem such a quaint, dated, and misguided use of human energy.

    By the way, how hard would it be for the DesNews online to link to the actual decision and make it easier for us read it for ourselves?

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Feb. 8, 2012 1:14 p.m.

    @lagomorph

    "I have begged on these forums in the past for someone to provide a single cogent secular argument against gay marriage. Still waiting. All I get is the Bible. Fail."

    Can you provide a single cogent secular argument against plural marriage. It seems like the polygamy laws passed in 19th and early 20th century, which were clearly targeted against a selected minority group, are a violation of the 14th Amendment. The definition of marriage which is accepted as being between one man and one woman must remain, otherwise if it is altered to include marriage between same sex couples then we are clearly discriminating against a minority who have married multiple partners. If these marriages are by consent of the parties involved and do not include underage participants, then those marriages should also be legal.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:49 p.m.

    CottageCheese: "Well, a same-sex union is not a marriage."

    That is exactly what the court decided. From a summary of the decision:

    "The panel majority determined that in taking away the designation of 'marriage,' while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, ...[other social goals of marriage]. The panel majority concluded that Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

    In other words, same-sex civil unions relegate gays to second class status. It echoes Brown v. Board of Education: separate is not equal.

  • rpjense West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    Interesting and endless ... the verbal wranglings of this discussion. Mankind, endlessly and bravely afirming that immorality is okay. We affirm this by basing our decisions, our twists of words, our logic, on what others have said. It appears we have let go of basing our logic and reason on anything resembling fundamental principles and truths. You can prove anything you want by trotting out your so-called experts in man's reasoning. I suppose if we wanted to, we could convince mankind that the sky was not blue. If enough people said so, it must be true ... right?

    The fundamental problem here is that the people of California spoke. A majority voted in favor of a proposition and this has been overturned by a MINORITY ... a very few judges overturned the will of the majority.

    I fear that our boat has left the harbor and we are hopelessly adrift in a current we can only faintly discern. Yes, the whirlwind will be upon us soon.

  • darjen Cleveland, OH
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:41 p.m.

    As a sixth generation LDS, I strongly oppose the church's continual involvement in politics and government.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:38 p.m.

    May I suggest that all of you read the constitution again and then read the transcript of the trial.

    I doubt anyone who has done this would even question this ruling. The judge cannot rule on evidence that was not presented AND the pro Prop 8 side did not present any evidence at all on how gay marriage harms society.

    In court, you cannot say that you "believe" harm will occur, you must present real evidence. You cannot say that your religion will not allow you to recognize gay couples because the law does not care what you believe - they MUST deal with the law only.

    Above all else, they MUST follow the constitution.

    Anyone who has read the transcripts, please tell me where this judge and these new judges were wrong legally. Show me where they proved that gay marriage will harm society and thus it is right to deny tax-paying, law-abiding Citizens the privileges that you enjoy.

    I can't do it. Can you?

  • CottageCheese SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    @Bubble

    Whats wrong with calling a dog a cat?

    Well, a dog is not a cat.

    Whats wrong with calling a basketball a football?

    Well, a basketball is not a football.

    Whats wrong with calling a Ford a Chevrolet?

    Well, a Ford is not a Chevrolet.

    Whats wrong with calling a same-sex union marriage?

    Well, a same-sex union is not a marriage.

    It is two completely different things. Like dogs and cats. Basketballs and footballs. Fords and Chevrolets.

    Let them enter into relationships. Let them enjoy the same benefits as others. But do not call it marriage because that is not what it is!

    Call it Garriage. I'll get Married. And my same-sex friends can get Garried.

    Then it is simple. Everyone has the same benefits, but everyone knows that Marriage= man and woman and Garriage= same-sex.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    "Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society" Said the statement from the LDS Church. What the statement did not mention was that LIKEWISE Millions of other Californians voted against Prop 8. The Pro- Prop 8 groups in the Court Hearings were not able to prove that allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry would cause detrimental harm to society. Likewise if we allow popular vote to decide who can Marry, Interracial Marriage wouldn't have been legal until the mid-1990s based on opinion polls, 30 Years after the SCOTUS said it was legal nationally. Game over people. you lost! See you next spring before the SCOTUS if they will hear the case. In the meantime some 18,000 Gay and Lesbian California Citizens remain legally married. Shall the Evangelicals introduce a ballot initiative nullifying LDS Temple Marriage in California? Who knows?

  • johnnylingo62 Gray, TN
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    You may want to consider the "warning" that is included in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" given in 1995 by the prophet Gordon B. Hinckley concerning the dissolution of the core family:
    "... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets..."
    We all have our free agency to choose how to act, or not act upon our impulses.

  • RAB Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:00 p.m.

    Looks like the spin is out in full force today.

    It isnt about religion. The nature of marriage has never involved people of the same sex regardless of anybody's religion. People may have religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. But proponents of gay marriage merely use that as a convenient way to undermine their arguments.

    It isn't about civil rights. All the rights that gay people want can be addressed without government-endorsed gay marriage. The opposition of the pro-gay-marriage community to similar rights for polygamists also exposes the lack of true interest in civil rights.

    The actual issue is simply a question of whether people should be forced to endorse homosexual behavior REGARDLESS of whether or not they personally approve of it. People and their government SHOULD accept, allow, permit, and tolerate other peoples beliefs and behavior (assuming no one is being hurt). Thus, no law should be created to punish gay people who marry.

    However, people SHOULD NOT be forced, by the government that supposedly represents them, to approve of, support, endorse, and agree with other peoples beliefs and behavior. Thus, no law should be created to endorse gay marriage.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 8, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    "Opponents of same-sex marriage have been unable to muster any arguments other than it offends their theology," said the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for a Separation of Church and State. "We have a secular government, and dogma should not and cannot be transformed into law."

    Amen!!

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    The Proclamation to the World on the Family that was delivered in 1995 by the 1st Presidency of the Church would be censured by the Deseret News Editorial staff if I were to quote directly from it.

    The evidence for my above statement is found on my email response from Des News when I made quote from said document.

  • gayldsparent Nashville, TN
    Feb. 8, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    @OnlyInUtah, whose supreme ruler do you want to decide, because my God is a loving God who made me the way I am and he does not make mistakes, neither did he intend for cowards to us his scriptures to be twisted and used as a weapon for bullying a minority of people because they are different from someones else's view on right from wrong. I prayed for years for change before I realized to ask God to change me and make me straight was also asking him to agree he made a mistake and needed to fix it. You know what I don't need to be fixed. I am who my Heavenly Father made me and doing what he expects me to do by loving and helping everyone not just the people I agree with or like.

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    @ CottageCheese: 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Marriage is not a religious issue as evidenced by the fact that you cannot get married without a license from the state, but you can get married without the participation of a religious officiator.

    The California Constitution was interpreted to contain the right to same-sex marriage.

    Also, the part of the US Constitution that was violated was the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the laws - you cannot strip a right from a group of people and create an unequal situation without evidence of harm from practicing that right.

    Prop 8 removed use of the word "marriage" - everything else - adoption, child rearing, non-discrimination, education about different family types, etc. - was still in place.

    What harm is created in society by allowing same-sex couples use of the word "marriage"?

    Prop 8 supporters acknowledged that domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage - thus acknowledging a harm to those who are forced to use the term "domestic partnership" instead of the term "marriage".

    This is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    2nd try
    First, I would point out that even the LDS judge threw out the argument that Judge Walker's sexual orientation made him unqualifed to hear and rule on Prop 8.

    Basically, the Prop 8 proponents had no defense except they don't approve of same-sex marriage. When cases are heard in court, evidence has to stand up to scrutiny.

    CA will join the six other states which have already approved same-sex marriage and life will go on.

    Churches will still be allowed wide latitude in their practices. For example, a majority of churches still prohibit women from leadership positions.

    The requirement that religious institutions offer health insurance coverage for contraceptives has already been in place in 28 conservative and liberal states. Where was the uproar when it happened?

    News media does an extremely poor job of informing the public. Very few facts or history are presented, with the end result of continual perpetuation of ignorance and hysteria.
    It would be more useful for news sources to outline the judges reasoning in their decisions than merely provide soundbites and attention-grabbing headlines.

  • john mclane Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    @BrentBot "This just goes to show us that we can't rely on Democratic presidents to appoint judges who will uphold the will of the people."

    The duty of a federal judge is not and never has been to "uphold the will of the majority." Their duty is to uphold the Constitution. If the "will of the people" is to enshrine Mormonism (or indeed any other religion) as the official religion of Utah, a judge would be well justified in striking down such a law, would he not? If the will of the people is to relegate a certain class of people to slavery, is it not the duty of a judge to strike down that law?

    Similarly, this panel of judges decided that Prop 8 violated the principles set forth in the Constitution (by denying equal protection to all citizens) and struck it down.

  • ciaobello Concord, CA
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    For the second time on this issue, I wonder why I voted if the will of the people gets tampered with. Why have it on the ballot in the first place? I respect the statement by the Church.

  • CottageCheese SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    A lot of comments say that the LDS church and others are trying to take away the "right" of same-sex couples to marry.

    Since when was marriage a "right" anyways?

    Is there any constitutional language explicity stating that "all citizens of america shall have the right to be married"

    There is no language in the constitution granting marriage as a "right" to anyone. Heterosexual or homosexual.

    And yet... these judges overturn Prop 8 ruling on a basis that it is unconstitutional?

    There is nothing in the constitution about marriage in the first place!!!

    Why?

    Because it was - has been - and still is a religious practice. The constitution doesn't mention anything about marriage to separate a religious practice from the laws or the land. Looks like the consitution attempted to separate church and state - and opponents of prop 8 are trying to combine them.

    Give me a break.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    'Next thing you know plural marriage will be legal.' - dustman | 9:04 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012

    Then I guess the 'defenders' of traditional marriage...

    never really cared about mongoamy, huh?

    It was all talk.

    What does it SAY when lgbt support mongamy, and religion supports polygamy?

    Just to get the ability to marry any woman you find attractive to be able to sleep with them.

    Wait a minute....

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    @Browsing Dave
    Surprisingly singled out? LDS members donated half the funds and 3/4 the volunteer hours to prop 8 despite being 2% of the California population. Those who work the hardest get the most credit... and the most blame.

  • dustman Nampa, ID
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    Next thing you know plural marriage will be legal. Wait a minute...

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    "homosexuality should be discouraged by society" WHAT???

    That is the question they asked LDS people in the ?

    Homosexuality just is. Why am I attracted to the opposite sex? Because I just am.

    I would have been in the 25% that answered NO to that question because it is the wrong question! You can't discourage a state of being because it exists no matter how you react to it. The LDS church has repeatedly come out in favor of compassion and love for all (all..meaning excluding no one)

    The debate gets clouded by those who draw conclusions from the results of poorly designed polls.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    'Regardless of what elections may decide, judges may rule or legislators may enact, the definition of marriage has always been, is, and always will be: the union of a man and a woman...' - Rocket Science | 10:48 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012

    A man and A woman.

    Singular.

    Not, polygamy.

    Which was legal in Utah, until 1890.

    So the claim of marriage 'always' being between A man and A woman...

    is proven, false.

    Polygamy, is not monogamy.

    Again.

    'This just goes to show us that we can't rely on Democratic presidents to appoint judges...' - BrentBot | 4:24 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012

    Um, judge Vaughn Walker, the judge to first strike down prop 8, was 1st nominated to his position by...

    Ronald Regan. In 1987.

    His 2nd nomination came from...

    George H. W. Bush. In 1989.

    So the claim that this ruling is because of a 'Democtratic' President...?

    Is false.

    Please, do some research before making unfounded and factually faulty....

    claims.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:39 a.m.

    OnlyInUtah: "The justices need to go read the Bible."

    I have begged on these forums in the past for someone to provide a single cogent secular argument against gay marriage. Still waiting. All I get is the Bible. Fail.

    RocketScience: "The definition of husband is: a man married to a woman; the definition of a wife is: a woman married to a man."

    Your definitions and argument are tautological. Another fail.

    rjpense: "He did not have the personal integrity to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest that obviously created a bias."

    If the opponents of gay marriage are to be believed, gay marriage poses a dire threat to straight marriage. A straight judge would have an equal (perhaps even greater) conflict of interest and would also have to recuse. Yet another fail.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    I agree that marriage is sacred if one uses the definition of sacred as worthy of reverence and respect. However, that sacredness doesn't come from the pronouncement of an imagined diety. It comes from the daily acts of commitment that are symbolized in the pronouncemnt that two individuals are married. Declaring that one is "married" to another individual has come to mean that the commitment one feels towards that individual is increased. Marriages fall apart when that commitment falls apart..not when a diety says it falls apart. Marriages are made by the daily acts of people not by prouncements. Prouncements symbolize only.

    If the symbol of a diety sanctioned marriage (religious ceremony..man and woman) is important to you fine, but don't be fooled into thinking that sanction makes your marriage, and don't be fooled into thinking that it prevents others from having successful marriages (non religious ceremonies..same sex).

    To deny someone the privledge of that special commitment because it offends your theology is not just religious bigotry, it's constitutionaly wrong, and morally wrong because of the opportunity loss it inflicts on society.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:25 a.m.

    lost in DC
    West Jordan, UT
    HVH

    since when do the taliban read the bible?

    Bible, Koran, Torah all draw their authority from father abraham so they're all essentially the same.
    When religion isn't the government, there's always a battle for control.

    Isn't that what this really is, Religion wanting dominion over the word "marriage?"

  • windsor City, Ut
    Feb. 8, 2012 6:18 a.m.

    Who were the three judges?
    Looked up that there are 48 judges in the Ninth Circuit. Who were the three and why were they the ones to rule?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 5:52 a.m.

    If civil rights were determined by a vote of the people, perhaps slavery would still be part of the way of life for a large part of this country, and certainly we would have a permanent second (or third) class. Change is hard and uncomfortable, and like it or not, this change is coming. The question still not answered for me is if we grant all rights equivalent to marriage but deny the formality, what is the big deal about allowing marriage. We are already there in a de facto way. Your personal faith and the way you live your life has not been infringed and it won't if people you don't know or not personally involved with are married or not. Are we going to impose religious views on all, or seek to sway the views and actions of individuals? Who decides whose moral code should be imposed on the whole of society?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 5:02 a.m.

    rpjense: "The will of the majority was expressed through a democratic process. A single, openly gay judge reversed the will of the vote of millions. He did not have the personal integrity to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest that obviously created a bias."

    No, Judge Walker was _not_ "openly gay." He only "came out" after he retired.

    But you set yourself up too easily. The dissenting opinion in yesterday's court ruling was from Judge Randy Smith, who is "openly" a Mormon.

    Why do you feel justified in questioning the objectivity of Judge Walker, but not Judge Smith?

    Look, it is flat-out impossible to offer an argument against equal rights for all citizens without resorting to ancient religious beliefs which we, out of respect for religious freedom, permit to be excluded from evidence-based critical examination. The time has come to end this exclusion.

    "My religion says so," is neither a rational nor a constitutionally acceptable reason to deprive someone of their civil rights.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 4:24 a.m.

    This just goes to show us that we can't rely on Democratic presidents to appoint judges who will uphold the will of the people. Democrats always believe they have superior wisdom to the "masses". Just look what they are doing to our country: no Federal Budget in three years, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and trampling on the religious rights of Catholics (and other denominations in the future).

    Never vote for another Democrat for President.

  • BrowsingDave PROVO, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 1:38 a.m.

    I must admit I was surprised that the LDS Church responded vocally or officially to the ruling. I suppose it was in an effort to show solidarity with other religious groups. While I strongly support their right to voice their opinion in the matter, both in 2008 and today, I don't see how their statement today does them any good. In 2008, it helped them take an early stand on a major issue, and triggered increased awareness of the issue among it's members, in many cases resulting in much-needed moderation and understanding. Though the backlash was strong and surprisingly singled out, at least Prop 8 let the LDS define themselves and choose a clear course of policy.

    Since gay marriage will be a reality everywhere in the country within 30 years (if not sooner, look at the demographics), in my view it was uncharacteristically foolish of LDS PR officials to officially dig up an issue that their stance is already known on, and that didn't go over well to begin with. Churches have every right to define themselves and take stands, but it's better to take rare and firm stands then to quip about every little ruling along the way. Here's to better judgement in the future, as this case will undoubtedly continue past the election and media wave.

  • regis Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:16 a.m.

    It is incredible and infuriating that a few judges using twisted reasoning can overrule the will of the people. The notion that the constitution of the United States was intended to protect the rights of a gay couple to marry is laughable.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 10:49 p.m.

    The ruling regarding standing and the motion to throw out Judge Walkerâs decision was a unanimous 3-0 vote.

    In his August 4, 2010, decision, which the 9th Circuit upheld today, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitutionâs 14th Amendment. In his opinion, Judge Walker presented 80 findings of fact regarding same-sex marriage, which included discussions about the immutability of sexual orientation, the ability of same-sex couples to be good parents, and the inequality of providing LGBT couples with civil unions as opposed to full marriages. These findings of fact are highly significant, because while appellate courts can overturn a lower courtâs decision based on its findings of law, they usually defer to those courtsâ findings of fact. Todayâs ruling affirms Judge Walkerâs findings of fact, meaning that they can but used in the future in other trial cases in the 9th Circuit that deal with LGBT rights.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 10:48 p.m.

    Regardless of what elections may decide, judges may rule or legislators may enact, the definition of marriage has always been, is, and always will be: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife

    The definition of husband is: a man married to a woman; the definition of a wife is: a woman married to a man. A same gender couple cannot be husband and wife and marriage does not include two husbands or two wives.

    Two men or two women living as a couple do not meet the definition of married. The definition of marriage was established religiously thousands of years ago and no one can change that. All the legal rights can be given to couples and the law may call it marriage but does not make same gender couples what they never can be.

    It is not a matter of discrimination it is a matter of what is and what is not. It is an attempt to make that which is statistically defined as abnormal behavior seem normal through a legal definition.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:32 p.m.

    *'LDS Church's in-kind donations to Prop. 8 total $190K' - By Lynn Arave - By Dsnews - 02/03/09

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:25 p.m.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a first response in 1995. All about "The Family." A Proclamation to the World in 1995. The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

    Then ban all same-sex marriage and abortion.

    The justices need to go read the Bible they swear on.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:21 p.m.

    HVH

    since when do the taliban read the bible?

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:12 p.m.

    for al those LDS people drying because people have a negative view of the church, this is a big reason why. This is an example of actual of attempting to oppress others. People having an opinion about your religion is hardly the same as taking away a persons ability to marry. one is simply words the other is actions. see the difference?

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:07 p.m.

    @onlyinutah

    I really hope you where trying to be sarcastic.

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:31 p.m.

    Maybe people will stop discriminating against LDS people when the LDS Church stops discriminating against them. I say that as an LDS person who is sometimes ashamed of my brethren.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:09 p.m.

    'The justices need to go read the Bible.' - OnlyInUtah | 5:12 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012

    And what about the Quran?

    'A single, openly gay judge reversed the will of the vote of millions.' - rpjense | 5:33 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012

    Not true.

    Former judge Walker's ruling was actually SUPPORTED upon appeal by Judge James Ware.

    Judge Ware also supported that there was no 'pro-gay' bias in Walkers 136 page ruling.

    That was in June, 2011.

    But I guess you couldn't be bothered to check that.

    So, former judge Walkers ruling was supported by Judge Ware AND, majority of the 9th circuit ruling.

    The only vote in SUPPORT of Prop 8...was by a Mormon judge.

    'Judicial activism?'

    18,000 same-sex couples got married BEFORE Prop 8.

    If you do not think life-long monogamy is worth it, that is your choice.

    But I, would celebrate your marriage.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:08 p.m.

    OnlyInUtah said:
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    This is an issue that should be decided, not by the supreme court, but by the supreme ruler of mankind.. and I believe He's given us his word on the matter. The justices need to go read the Bible.

    The Taliban totally agrees with you, to bad we're fighting with them right now.

    3 judges 2-1 the one decent was a mormon, activist judge who doesn't understand the constitution any better than those who believe in mob rule who have commented as such.

    Don't worry you can still hate because America is still free.
    The sad reality is, your children aren't as prejudice and like my father insisting he wasn't a racist,
    believed that interacial marriage was wrong, and against the will of God.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:41 p.m.

    Just a reminder -- Prop 8 was an expression of the will of millions of people of the state of California, ensconced -- at their request -- in the constitution of that sovereign state.

    Now two leftist activists, appointed for life as a political trick to a partisan, discredited, laughably-oft-reversed court, one that has come to richly deserve its nickname -- Ninth Circus -- flout the will of those millions.

    And some think that's a cause for celebration?

    That's beyond sad. This leftist-inspired and implemented dictatorship of the radical fringe will shortly leave our nation a riven, carved-up, hollowed-out hulk.

    That's not a cause for celebration.

  • rpjense West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    The will of the majority was expressed through a democratic process. A single, openly gay judge reversed the will of the vote of millions. He did not have the personal integrity to recuse himself because of a conflict of interest that obviously created a bias. Now, a small number of judges from the Ninth Circuit (any surprises here?) has again reversed the will of the majority, RULING that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

    At the same time, the Obama administration RULES via edict that religious-run health institutions must comply with the government view of contraception ... forcing them to violate their own beliefs and doctrines.

    What has happened to the Constitution and government that our Founding Fathers created? It appears that it is in the process of being co-opted and trammeled by a minority that is intent on trampling out anything that is traditional family-based, decent, pure, and moral.

    Of course there are going to be many of you who will whistle and caw against the concept of core moral values. Say whatever you want. You can preen and pretend, but those values don't change. You can trot out your "experts", but their rhetoric cannot change fundamental verities.

    Sooner or later we reap the whirlwind.

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:12 p.m.

    This is an issue that should be decided, not by the supreme court, but by the supreme ruler of mankind.. and I believe He's given us his word on the matter. The justices need to go read the Bible.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:11 p.m.

    Jut wondering what civil rights measures were passed by the voice of the people?

    1. The Bill of Rights? No, that was a number of delegates that voted to include those in the Constitution.

    2. ERA? As much as I believe that women should be equal, i.e. equal pay for equal work, for one, the ERA for no good reason, was voted down - on the basis that if people look into documents defending opposition to the ERA, as "immoral." Go figure.

    3. Inter-racial marriage? Again, not by the voice of the people - and it is now quite outdated.

    5. Civil rights of the 1950s and 1960s - History speaks for itself, landmark U.S. Court decisions and legislation from the federal government.

    6. Rights to give back some of the rights taken away from indigenous tribes - again, executive orders.

    7. Women's suffrage: In states, when it was placed to the people to give women the right to vote, it was voted down.

    8. To really defend marriage - i.e. to lessen the high percentage of divorce, for one. I am sorry, I can't recall an instance.

    Please, if you respond, don't begin by saying "Vince, the real issue is..." because such rhetoric circumnavigates question #8 above.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 4:55 p.m.

    Since the equal rights movement for women it's all been downhill for religion, I remember when only men could hold the priesthood, those days now long gone, since religions were forced by the government to accept women as equals.

    But alas this has NOT happened, and it is not the intent to force religion to be tolerant of others, even if they espouse it as a teaching. Religion is still quite free to discriminate against ideas, races, and sexes and will continue to so...Freely!