Reader comments
LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision
404 comments | Read story
marriage | 3:20 p.m. May 15, 2008
By definition, marriage is the union between a man and a woman. They've
already corrupted the word gay, let's not do the same to the word marriage.
BronxMetsfan | 3:25 p.m. May 15, 2008
The LDS church's stance is their right to voice an opinion. The people of
CA have a right to choose the laws that effect their life style. A supreme court
ruling over riding the people is wrong.
Chris Plummer | 3:24 p.m. May 15, 2008
If members are free to vote however they want why release a statement?
Comments continue below
Hmmmn | 3:26 p.m. May 15, 2008
I thought that there was supposed to be separation of church and state??? Why
would the lds church feel like they need to comment on this.
Maybe the IRS needs to take their tax exempt status away.
Maybe the IRS needs to take their tax exempt status away.
One Step Closer | 3:25 p.m. May 15, 2008
Ether 2:10 "For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other
lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be aswept off;
for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the bfulness of
iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off."
Today, the American people took one step closer to being swept off this choice land.
Today, the American people took one step closer to being swept off this choice land.
UVU student | 3:25 p.m. May 15, 2008
It sure is scary to see what is happening to the world. Good luck california.
I hope that as members of the church, we treat people who are gay the same and
not discriminate. I know many good gay people.
Nichelle | 3:28 p.m. May 15, 2008
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the church reading a statement from
the pulpit to members in California about the topic offering a persuation to
it's members...
Archaea Cougarguard | 3:34 p.m. May 15, 2008
While I respect the right of the LDS Church to oppose gay marriage, it is my
humble opinion that eventually gay marriage will come to be accepted both by
mainstream religions and society as a whole. In that regard, it will most
likely be similar to the 1978 decision to allow blacks the priesthood, and the
1896 Manifesto decrying polygamy. Societal pressures will force the Church to
be more accepting and tolerant.
JRich | 3:34 p.m. May 15, 2008
It's fine for the LDS church to have their own views on what should
constitute a marriage; however, we live in the United States of America and are
supposed to have freedom of religeon. How do they justify forcing (or even
urging) the government (which is supposed to represent us ALL) to force their
religeous beliefs on any individuals?
I say to each their own - as long as their isn't a victim there shouldn't be a law opposing it. (Victim can be person/business etc...) There is no victim in a same-sex marriage, there is only a victim for someone who wants one and can't have one due to the laws of their state.
GOOD JOB CALIFORNIA!
I say to each their own - as long as their isn't a victim there shouldn't be a law opposing it. (Victim can be person/business etc...) There is no victim in a same-sex marriage, there is only a victim for someone who wants one and can't have one due to the laws of their state.
GOOD JOB CALIFORNIA!
Utah Resident | 3:36 p.m. May 15, 2008
Remember Stuart Matis.
RL | 3:42 p.m. May 15, 2008
The LDS church did not ask it's members to support the ban. So the
statement lumping it together with other religions that did, is incorrect.
Though the church's standing on the issue is clear, they send out no such
requests to the members. In fact, they do send out statements, for the local
Bishopbrics to read to the members, at election time, reminding members to
"vote according to their own feelings and conscience," with no
endorsment of any canidate or inititive/amendment.
John | 3:44 p.m. May 15, 2008
I thought it was a very good comment. It did not seem to be anti-gay, but just
pro heterosexual.
J | 3:43 p.m. May 15, 2008
Who cares what the LDS Church thinks? Sorry, but they did not overturn the
ruling here in Utah so stay out of it. I think it is unfortunate that they are
so closed minded.
Crathes | 3:46 p.m. May 15, 2008
I wish someone could provide a logical, well reasoned explanation why they would
oppose two consenting adults being married. How is this a threat to any one
else's marriage? I seem to recall a group insisting that their abnormal
family concept should not be outlawed, that marriage was not just between one
man and one woman. How is this different? I also seem to recall a group who
claimed that blacks were inferiod and a cursed race, but now claim that
"all are alike unto God." Seems to me, all were alike before this
group changed its mind. I just love such groups. They remind me that humanity
without religion is like a psychopath without a chainsaw.
More Worried About Economy Crash | 3:50 p.m. May 15, 2008
I helped put out flyers the last time the church was fighting gay marriage in
California. This heightened the internal conflict in a nice young man in my ward
and he killed himself.
I'm done with this issue. If God has a problem with people that are born gay, he can rain down fire and brimstone. As for me, I say live and let live.
I can find hundreds of worse problems than whether someone is born gay.
BTW You "No one is born gay" people are just plain ignorant.
I'm done with this issue. If God has a problem with people that are born gay, he can rain down fire and brimstone. As for me, I say live and let live.
I can find hundreds of worse problems than whether someone is born gay.
BTW You "No one is born gay" people are just plain ignorant.
Anonymous | 3:50 p.m. May 15, 2008
All churches that was active in urging California residents through public
referendum in March 2000 to support Proposition 22 should have their tax exempt
status revoked.
Park City Resident | 3:52 p.m. May 15, 2008
Pretty sad when millions of voters decide an issue and a few left leaning judges
enforce their will on the voters.
Time for California to impeach some judges!
Time for California to impeach some judges!
Roscoe | 3:52 p.m. May 15, 2008
The LDS Church just isn't used to seeing legislation that they didn't
get to sign off on first.
Hypocrisy | 3:54 p.m. May 15, 2008
"The Supreme Court said voters got it wrong..." ?????
Did the nation also get Edmunds-Tucker wrong in the late 1880's?
Remember: "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"
I really question the moral equity that exists in our supposed elightened and egalitarian country.
Did the nation also get Edmunds-Tucker wrong in the late 1880's?
Remember: "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"
I really question the moral equity that exists in our supposed elightened and egalitarian country.
LMV | 3:56 p.m. May 15, 2008
Unfortunately we live in California at this time and are very saddened that the
so called government has allowed gays to marry. In California they don't
respect the aspect of marriage between a man and a woman. God made "Adam
and Eve" NOT "Adam and Steve" or "Sandra and Eve". I
can't wait until we are back in Utah for good and get away from the
lifestyle that has become of the norm for California.
Enter nameKarl | 4:01 p.m. May 15, 2008
The God I worship loves all man kind. Each and every American citizen in this
country has the same exact rights as given by our beloved constitution.
How could this decision be unfortunate? Why should religious dogma in this day and age trump human rights? Look around the world real hard and see what dogma has accomplished for man kind. Do we really want to contunue this kind of hate against a group, and what's the reason again?
How could this decision be unfortunate? Why should religious dogma in this day and age trump human rights? Look around the world real hard and see what dogma has accomplished for man kind. Do we really want to contunue this kind of hate against a group, and what's the reason again?
Anonymous | 3:59 p.m. May 15, 2008
who cares what the lds church thinks?
Kant3 | 4:06 p.m. May 15, 2008
In a democracy, the minority has a right to be tolerated, but there is no right
to approval. The to approve of what it wants to approve of is a right of the
majority. Overturning the ban on same-sex marriage is a reversal of democracy.
Gays certainly have the right to be tolerated and not harmed. In banning gay
marriage, we would not be keeping them from doing anything. It would only keep
them from getting legally enforced approval. But demanding such approval is not
a right anyone can claim. There is no right to be called "married" by
others. Let them have civil unions and all the other rights that go along with
marriage. But to enforce legal approval ssm takes away our liberty to an
important degree. Alas, that is what the judges in California have
done---ignored the rights of the majority to approve of what they want to
approve. Now it will likely be required that schools teach that same-sex
marriage is just at morally valid as any heterosexual marriages. What if the
majority doesn't want that? That is the problem.
Whatever | 4:09 p.m. May 15, 2008
When poled Americans aged 18 to 34 where 54% in favor of gay marriages. I think
another generation of Americans will make the final call on this issue's
merits.
Mass doesn't seem to have collapsed.
Not all Americans care about Ether. I'm guessing it's a part of the BOM.
Mass doesn't seem to have collapsed.
Not all Americans care about Ether. I'm guessing it's a part of the BOM.
Kris | 4:11 p.m. May 15, 2008
Kudos to the CA Supreme Court. Let's hope it can stick this time.
I'm an lifelong member of the LDS church, who is acting just as the church
advises, on my own conscience. I fully believe that two (just two) consenting
adult humans (not dogs, not goats, just humans) who love each other should
absolutely have the right to a legal marriage. It doesn't hurt my marriage
in the least.
Hank | 4:17 p.m. May 15, 2008
I was living in California when we fought for Prop 22. It is unfortunate, but
not surprising that the liberal court justices would overturn the people's
vote.
That is what liberals stand for. "We know what is right for the people." They actually believe that people cannot decide and vote for themselves, so they will tell us what is right and wrong.
That is what liberals stand for. "We know what is right for the people." They actually believe that people cannot decide and vote for themselves, so they will tell us what is right and wrong.
K.C. | 4:18 p.m. May 15, 2008
"Pretty sad when millions of voters decide an issue and a few left leaning
judges enforce their will on the voters."
All of California's Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees except one. They're considered a very centrist court, not left-leaning.
All of California's Supreme Court justices were Republican appointees except one. They're considered a very centrist court, not left-leaning.
Ethos | 4:18 p.m. May 15, 2008
In response to Crathes, it is not that legal gay marriage would harmn any one
particular marriage. (That notion commits the fallacy of division---The buffalo
is disappearing in our country; therefore, this particular buffalo must also be
disappearing)It is that it will erode the ethos of monogamy (as Stanley Kurtz
has cogently argued). If we accept same-sex marriage, then there is no legal
basis to deny polyamory and polygamy. Thus the ethos of monogamy will be
eroded (See Kurtz essay "Slipping Toward Scandinavia" and "Beyond
Gay Marriage." Thus I wholly support the stand taken by the LDS church.
anonymous | 4:19 p.m. May 15, 2008
god created adam and eve, not adam and steve.
Church | 4:21 p.m. May 15, 2008
I applaud the LDS church for making a stand on something. So many religions will
change doctrine and policy to please the masses. Which would make it a church of
man and not of God. If you believe in God, he will tell you some things that you
may not want to hear. Just as a person has a right to protest heterosexual
marriage an organization has a right to protest gay marriage.
BSR | 4:21 p.m. May 15, 2008
Throughout the ages, prophets have been charged with delivering messages of
warning, and to help ALL people who can hear the sound of their voices have
guidance and direction in this life. God, through his scriptures, made it clear
that it is not OK for people of the same sex to marry. Gender and gender roles
are important to each individual accomplishing his or her role in this life.
What one person does, even in "private" DOES have an effect on all
people, because nothing really is completely private in that it has no effect on
anyone but the person engaging in the action.
Just remember that just because laws can be changed to make something "legal" does NOT mean that laws can be changed to make something "right" or moral. Wickedness never was (or will be) happiness, and the only way to feel peace is to follow ALL of God's laws, not just the ones that are easy.
The Church has an obligation to be the voice of warning in times of trouble, and to urge people to do what is right always.
Just remember that just because laws can be changed to make something "legal" does NOT mean that laws can be changed to make something "right" or moral. Wickedness never was (or will be) happiness, and the only way to feel peace is to follow ALL of God's laws, not just the ones that are easy.
The Church has an obligation to be the voice of warning in times of trouble, and to urge people to do what is right always.
re LMV | 4:23 p.m. May 15, 2008
Ever been to SLC? Sorry to inform you there is a very large gay population
here--you may want to rethink that move.
To Hmmm | 4:23 p.m. May 15, 2008
Separation of church and state does not mean that a church has no right to
publicly express an opinion regarding what it believes is a moral issue. It
means that Government cannot restrict the freedom of religious practice and
beliefs.
Who Cares? | 4:26 p.m. May 15, 2008
A whole lot of people care what the LDS church thinks. Any of you who so
sanctimoniously deny the church its right to speak out on such a morally
significant issue are deluded into thinking that there can be no justified
entering the public discourse by a religious entity. That shows a flawed
understanding of the church and state divide. By the way, the church has taught
us to show a great deal of love to its gay members, but that love does not imply
the support of gay marriage.
yadayadayada | 4:27 p.m. May 15, 2008
This isn't an issue about the LDS church, but if some of you actually read
the article, other churches were involved as well. The truth of the matter and
issue here is that the people voted against something, and the government told
them they are wrong and are going to do it their way. Doesn't anyone else
see that? We the voters are losing our power and voice to the government that is
supposed to protect us. If they change our votes on this, whats stopping them
from changing our votes on something bigger and more important, or turning this
country into something that the founding fathers didn't want, a country ran
by the government. Wake up and see whats going on people!
Anonymous | 4:29 p.m. May 15, 2008
It's too bad that the Mormon church can't see the wisdom of staying
out of other people's lives. Rather it wants to impose its own religious
notions about marriage on the entire population by force of law. That's
far different from the Mormon church that I grew up in which still believed in
Free Agency.
BY | 4:30 p.m. May 15, 2008
This is simply underscoring the greater issue that we live in a country where
one branch (judiciary) is wielding almost absolute power. That is a very
dangerous thing and very underhanded. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant
such absolute power. I guess the legal means designated to create a law through
the consent of the people can just be disregarded by the whim of a few judges.
This is what our founders feared--power by the few elite. I wonder what kind of
recourse the people of CA have?
...Wrong shall appear right. | 4:30 p.m. May 15, 2008
This is a moral issue, not a political issue. If our voices are not heard in
defense of what is moral and right, then this nation is in trouble. I lived in
California at the time this amendment was passed. As members of the LDS Church,
we were asked from the pulpit to get involved. When the pro proposition 22 signs
were put up, some of the "tolerant" homosexual community gathered the
signs that we put up and set them on fire on the grounds of a Mormon church in
the S.F. Bay Area. I personally had 3 signs taken from my front yard. By the
way, this amendment passed overwhelmingly, something like 65 or 70% of the
voters in Cal voted for it. As for the City of SF questioning the tax exempt
status of the LDS Church, what a joke! They are some of the most pandering
liberal people in the country.
The count so far... | 4:32 p.m. May 15, 2008
Only two people have offered up the hilarious "not Adam and Steve"
comment so far; gee, that never gets old, does it? P.S. To all who claim the
court overrode the voters: The correct way to characterize this is that the
voters tried to override the State Constitution, which is a no-no.
RE Anonymous | 3:50 p.m | 4:32 p.m. May 15, 2008
So you think the churches who voiced support of Prop 22 should have their tax
exempt status revoked.
What about the churches that voices opposition to Prop 22? Do you want to see THEIR tax exempt status revoked?
Are you upset that liberal churches were active in politics during the civil rights movement? Or that churches were on BOTH sides of the slavery issue in the 19th century?
What about the black churches actively supporting Obama's campaign?
Or do you only get upset when conservative churches exercise their right to voice opinions on moral matters?
Typical liberal hypocrisy.
What about the churches that voices opposition to Prop 22? Do you want to see THEIR tax exempt status revoked?
Are you upset that liberal churches were active in politics during the civil rights movement? Or that churches were on BOTH sides of the slavery issue in the 19th century?
What about the black churches actively supporting Obama's campaign?
Or do you only get upset when conservative churches exercise their right to voice opinions on moral matters?
Typical liberal hypocrisy.
Well Reasoned? | 4:34 p.m. May 15, 2008
Crathes 3:46,
Will the philosophy of natural law, upon which the government of the United States be logical enough for you?
There are over six billion souls on this planet. Without exception, every single one of us is the product of a heterosexual union. All children have natural and biological parents, to whom they hold a natural and inalienable Right. Children have a natural attachment to parents, and vice versa. This natural attachment is dulled only through the synthetic lifestyle occasioned by a modern machine civilization that was not present when the Philosophers of Natural Law established the basis of Natural Jurisprudence, of which marriage forms a part.
The marriage contract strengthens and validates the bonds that form naturally within the biological family as a result of procreation.
There is no question about what nature intended by sexual distinction. It matters little whether or not a person is born with same-gender attraction. Those born blind are not granted drivers licenses. Marriage licenses are likewise unsuited to the homosexual.
Homosexuals falsely claim that they have been denied the rights of heterosexuals. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, the law will not prevent him.
Will the philosophy of natural law, upon which the government of the United States be logical enough for you?
There are over six billion souls on this planet. Without exception, every single one of us is the product of a heterosexual union. All children have natural and biological parents, to whom they hold a natural and inalienable Right. Children have a natural attachment to parents, and vice versa. This natural attachment is dulled only through the synthetic lifestyle occasioned by a modern machine civilization that was not present when the Philosophers of Natural Law established the basis of Natural Jurisprudence, of which marriage forms a part.
The marriage contract strengthens and validates the bonds that form naturally within the biological family as a result of procreation.
There is no question about what nature intended by sexual distinction. It matters little whether or not a person is born with same-gender attraction. Those born blind are not granted drivers licenses. Marriage licenses are likewise unsuited to the homosexual.
Homosexuals falsely claim that they have been denied the rights of heterosexuals. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, the law will not prevent him.
Scary | 4:34 p.m. May 15, 2008
Why even vote on anything when the will of the people is ignored anyway? What
has happened to this country? I don't care what the issue is. If a
majority of the people vote for something it should stand.
My Name Is Curly | 4:33 p.m. May 15, 2008
The LDS church can take a stand but don't spend money on it. Spend the
money on the poor and on medical care for poor children
Matt in MO. | 4:37 p.m. May 15, 2008
I don't think the LDS church is saying hate Gays or Lesbians it is saying
that this is not a behavior that will strengthen family units and a Nation is
only as strong as it's family unit. It is also against God's law and
to be frank I don't want to be around for the judgments that will come. The
rain falls on the wicked as well as the righteous so why wouldn't I try to
help my brother or sister who is having a hard time with this by helping them
realize the wrong path they are on and get them on the right path. I'm not
perfect and I would like help in the area that I am weak in to overcome the
flesh or the natural man. Don't be an LDS hater just because you don't
know anything about the religion.
Re: Karl | 4:39 p.m. May 15, 2008
God will not be mocked. For those that believe in God, you must realize that
marriage is his institution. And it has gone from a very holy institution, to
those that separate at a drop of a hat, to now gay marriage. God loves every
soul, no doubt in that. But if we chose to jump off a cliff, he won't stop
us. And he'll let us continue to chose. If we don't hear the
whispering that what we are doing is dangerous, eventually it will be to late.
Many great empires through time that have fallen seem to have one thing in
common, that is how accepted homosexuality is. Whether they are born gay or
not, I don't know. Was I born with these hormones that if listened too,
would have me cheat on my wife and children? Or is it our media today that
trains our hormone to be perverse. Media that, while God loves the individuals,
has chosen not to find his will.
Morality | 4:40 p.m. May 15, 2008
The LDS Church perverts the notion of morality when they take a moral position
against homosexuality. Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with
morality. Common sense and simple reason tells me that morality is much
different than when two consenting adults of the same sex who love each other
decide to marry.
Who does it harm?
What is truly immoral is dismissing gay people for wanting to make a long term commitment under law as an equal citizen of the U.S.A. Even more immoral is encouraging gays to ignore their homosexuality and get married to cure their natural attractions. I know because my LDS brother has hid his homosexuality and accepted the advise of LDS authorities back in the 70's and 80's. If his church had been more accepting of him, he would have not thought it necessary to hide it from everyone, and it would have prevented him from starting a family with woman he never loved him.
Yes, the LDS Church is far from perfect.
Who does it harm?
What is truly immoral is dismissing gay people for wanting to make a long term commitment under law as an equal citizen of the U.S.A. Even more immoral is encouraging gays to ignore their homosexuality and get married to cure their natural attractions. I know because my LDS brother has hid his homosexuality and accepted the advise of LDS authorities back in the 70's and 80's. If his church had been more accepting of him, he would have not thought it necessary to hide it from everyone, and it would have prevented him from starting a family with woman he never loved him.
Yes, the LDS Church is far from perfect.
HD | 4:43 p.m. May 15, 2008
There appears to be a great deal of confusion with those posting to this issue.
If you look at the history of our legal system and how laws have come about, you
find that most of our laws all have a moral foundation to them. Many of these
laws are based on the moral conscience of the society. Therefore, you will see
various religious groups weighing in on different legal decisions. There are two
sides of this issue that I don't feel have any common ground to work from.
The gay and lesbian side sees the issue of marriage as a legal right and a civil
right. The religious side sees this as promoting a life-style that is contrary
to Bible teachings regarding what marriage is all about. That is what was seen
in the California vote on marriage in 2000. You can throw in the argument about
polygamy all you want regarding the LDS Church but this was still a union
between a man and a woman. I live in California and these two sides will never
meet in the middle as their point of view does not have any common ground to
work from.
I'mnot1RU | 4:43 p.m. May 15, 2008
God's scriptures also approve of slavery and having many wives....who
decides what parts of God's words we follow and don't follow?
The "people" do NOT get to pass any law they want. That's exactly why you have a court to protect the RIGHTS of the minority FROM he majority.
The "people" do NOT get to pass any law they want. That's exactly why you have a court to protect the RIGHTS of the minority FROM he majority.
Re-Enter My Name | 4:47 p.m. May 15, 2008
Scary,
Your philosophy is scary. Maybe the majority will vote to tar and feather everyone who calls themself "Scary". Constittutions and Bills of Rights are nice.
Your philosophy is scary. Maybe the majority will vote to tar and feather everyone who calls themself "Scary". Constittutions and Bills of Rights are nice.
Doesn't My Marriage? | 4:51 p.m. May 15, 2008
All of you who argue that legalized same-sex marriage is ok because it
doesn't hurt "my marriage" are missing the point. That has never
been the argument of those who oppose it. The argument is that it will weaken
the institution of marriage. I totally agree with "Ethos" that it is
the ethos of marriage that will suffer. If that happens, then the institution of
marriage will eventually suffer. It is highly likely here will be far more out
of wedlock births (as there has been in Norway since it has been legalized), and
the whole concept of marriage will be altered permanently. Why then would it
not imply two brothers could get married (even if they are not gay) just for
the legal benefits? You can't say that "well tradition says that
marriage is between two people who are not family because that is the
tradition." Those who support Gay marriage cannot use the notion of
tradition, because they have rejected it.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Fans can vote by text for NBA stars 1:02 p.m.
- Ex-astronaut pleads guilty in attack 1:01 p.m.
- Mo. governor's mansion lockdown 1:01 p.m.
- Clinton to Dems: pass health bill 12:55 p.m.
- Deseret Book moves from Orem mall 12:52 p.m.
- Ed chief wants to redo appointment 12:50 p.m.
- No bail for accused cop shooter 12:48 p.m.
- Flu appointment full in 15 minutes 12:47 p.m.
- Dodd: Gov't can prevent crash 12:46 p.m.
- Lessons from nutrition conference 11:56 a.m.
- Utah group finds homes for orphans
- Senators want food tax restored
- Jazz blow big lead, hang on
- Soccer MVPs know how to win
- Y. tight ends talented tandem
- Utes get extra motivation
- Alta's Ohai is Ms. Soccer 2009
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges
- Price injured; Miles has cast removed
- Mitchell seeks to block witnesses
- House passes health care bill
242 - TCU showdown has big implications185
- Lobo suspended182
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Senators want food tax restored134
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- Thousands protest health bill120
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy104
- RSL rallies to advance103
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar restaurants nationwide will honor...
Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Brothers and Sisters, Let us not be so quick to judge either party. We...
Senator Bennett is a member of the minority party who at the moment has very...
I think this is standard procedure in lots of cases. Doesn't mean he's...
Timpview had kafausi when the played pg
as soon as he comes back,resign Korver and groom Matthews to be our 2 of the...
To Observer55, it is hard not to lose some of an adoptees heritage when they...
I think BYU's disregard for the post came when BYU brought on it's first JC...
Pulling their key players was the right thing to do. Cougar fans don't hate...
A Imman not “their Imman,” I know its hard to tell the difference...
Dude your reasoning is so sound and logical. Yes, let's cancel all sports at...
Advertisements