Reader comments
LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision
404 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 12:15 p.m. May 16, 2008
I am just curious--has anyone on one of these message boards ever been convinced
that they were wrong and someone on the other side of the issue was right just
because of a 200 word post? If so, I would guess that that post did not include
either the phrase "the LDS church is a crock" or "you sinners are
all going to hell." Do you want to make the world, in your view, a better
place (by instilling your viewpoint in as many others as possible) or do you
just want to pick a fight? Can we all be just a little more cordial here?
Just me, but... | 12:25 p.m. May 16, 2008
I think the Bible has lost a lot of credibility on this issue, since it also
says it's fine to kill witches and disobedient children, and to have
slaves, and we are forbidden to eat shellfish and pork. Why do we single out
homosexuality as being evil? What makes this issue more important to obey than
all the others?
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 12:31 p.m. May 16, 2008
To the person that respnded to my post, I hope you did not misunderstand me. I
do not cae if the LDS church gets invloved in civil discourse, even if they did
suggest you vote for one person or another. My only concern is that they should
stay fully engaged and not try to pretend they are not a part of the
conversation when they clearly are. I welcome to you and the LDS church to the
civic discourse I think it is a good thing.
Pleasanton, CA | 12:31 p.m. May 16, 2008
Several years ago, some private citizens in Californians exercised their
constitutional rights to free speech by placing signs opposing gay marriage.
These were people of different faiths, as well as people who are not members of
any religion.
Then, some radical gays gathered up the signs and burned them in the LDS parking lot in Pleasanton, CA. The militant gays used the LDS parking lot for their Nazi style bonfire because of the LDS Church's statement supporting traditional marriage.
Then, all Californians exercised their constitutional right to vote and the majority voted against gay marriage.
Now, the radical gay minority has taken their case to the courts. This is a case of the gay minority and one radical judge overthrowing the voice of the majority of people of Californian!
Then, some radical gays gathered up the signs and burned them in the LDS parking lot in Pleasanton, CA. The militant gays used the LDS parking lot for their Nazi style bonfire because of the LDS Church's statement supporting traditional marriage.
Then, all Californians exercised their constitutional right to vote and the majority voted against gay marriage.
Now, the radical gay minority has taken their case to the courts. This is a case of the gay minority and one radical judge overthrowing the voice of the majority of people of Californian!
Jill | 12:32 p.m. May 16, 2008
How interesting that the same people on this forum that are constantly spouting
of the constitution to defend the religious civil rights of the "poor FLDS
mothers" suddenly think that majority vote should rule!
It's actually laughable! The constitution of the United States is in place to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY. Otherwise, any minority group would be purely at the whim of the majority.
I guess it is ok to let the majority rule - as long as the hippocritical religious groups are in the majority for the particular issue at hand.
It's actually laughable! The constitution of the United States is in place to protect the MINORITY from the MAJORITY. Otherwise, any minority group would be purely at the whim of the majority.
I guess it is ok to let the majority rule - as long as the hippocritical religious groups are in the majority for the particular issue at hand.
Joe Fullmer | 12:34 p.m. May 16, 2008
Any violation here of separation of church and state is on the part of the
state, not religion.
The state has no legitimate involvement in marriage. Overseeing marriage is is a proper function of the church, not a proper role of government.
For 6000 years marriage was a religious sacrament, administered by churches. Only relatively recently has the state begun regulating it. Regulation controls access (dictating who may/may not marry) by means of licensure (charging fees).
Regulating access to religious sacraments is priest-hood. Charging fees for access to religious sacraments is priest-craft.
State regulation of marriage is state-administered priesthood. It is state religion. It combines civil law and religious law. Some people/nations desire this situation (e.g., Sharia law). Here in the U.S., we supposedly don't.
The civil state should not interfere in any religious sacrament. It should not regulate who can or cannot baptize or be baptized, give or receive communion, make or take confession, administer or receive temple rites, or be ordained to be clergy. And it should not regulate who can marry or be married. Doing so favors the sacraments and beliefs of one religion over another. It amounts to establishment of religion.
The state has no legitimate involvement in marriage. Overseeing marriage is is a proper function of the church, not a proper role of government.
For 6000 years marriage was a religious sacrament, administered by churches. Only relatively recently has the state begun regulating it. Regulation controls access (dictating who may/may not marry) by means of licensure (charging fees).
Regulating access to religious sacraments is priest-hood. Charging fees for access to religious sacraments is priest-craft.
State regulation of marriage is state-administered priesthood. It is state religion. It combines civil law and religious law. Some people/nations desire this situation (e.g., Sharia law). Here in the U.S., we supposedly don't.
The civil state should not interfere in any religious sacrament. It should not regulate who can or cannot baptize or be baptized, give or receive communion, make or take confession, administer or receive temple rites, or be ordained to be clergy. And it should not regulate who can marry or be married. Doing so favors the sacraments and beliefs of one religion over another. It amounts to establishment of religion.
common sense | 12:37 p.m. May 16, 2008
Honestly you can't claim that homosexuals should be denied the right to
marriage on purely worldly arguments. But if you believe as I do that
homosexuality is a sin, than it makes sense that homosexual marriage is
wrong.
Marriage is about love and trust between two people of opposite sex. It is an institution that is at the heart of society without which we will see the complete collapse of our nation.
Besides that nobody honestly can believe the rediculous claim that it is unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Any one who claims this needs to reread the constitution.
Marriage is about love and trust between two people of opposite sex. It is an institution that is at the heart of society without which we will see the complete collapse of our nation.
Besides that nobody honestly can believe the rediculous claim that it is unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Any one who claims this needs to reread the constitution.
YBU | 12:43 p.m. May 16, 2008
The word of wisdom is a commandment of God and if LDS do not live it, they are
sinning. Why don't they pass a law making all Americans obey that
commandment? It would reduce highway fatalities, reduce health care costs and
make healthier Americans.
The reason is that not all Americans believe in that commandment or that it is a sin. It would be forcing LDS beliefs upon citizens.
Believe it or not, not all Americans (or Christians!) believe that loving someone of the same sex is a sin. Why is it OK to legislate LDS beliefs upon American citizens and not afford them the GOVERNMENT given priviliges that marriage affords others?
Do what you want in your own church. Expel and ostricize any one that does not obey what you think should be your commandments, but do not try to deny others their American pursuit of happiness in the name of your God through legislation.
The reason is that not all Americans believe in that commandment or that it is a sin. It would be forcing LDS beliefs upon citizens.
Believe it or not, not all Americans (or Christians!) believe that loving someone of the same sex is a sin. Why is it OK to legislate LDS beliefs upon American citizens and not afford them the GOVERNMENT given priviliges that marriage affords others?
Do what you want in your own church. Expel and ostricize any one that does not obey what you think should be your commandments, but do not try to deny others their American pursuit of happiness in the name of your God through legislation.
Martha, T.O.,Ca | 12:43 p.m. May 16, 2008
Legalized marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The family,
consisting of a mother and a father and including children is the basic unit of
society. If this is passed in Ca., what is to stop other unions from forming
and what is to happen to our Society. Think again about it and be careful of
what you think and say....legalized marriage between a man and a woman is
ORDAINED by God....be very careful in your thinking for your sakes. xoxo
The Texan | 12:48 p.m. May 16, 2008
The voters got it wrong?
No, the court got it wrong.
Time to clean the courthouse.
No, the court got it wrong.
Time to clean the courthouse.
Ema | 12:57 p.m. May 16, 2008
These comments make me so sad. Someone's interpretation of God and his
word should have nothing to do with the decisions of government. Allowing gay
couples to marry hurts NO one. And the majority is not always right;
that's why we elect representatives to try to gain better understanding of
these things and design laws for us. I do not support taking human rights away
from people.
Sincerely Confused | 1:05 p.m. May 16, 2008
While I personally don't condone gay marriage, I am not sure if I
understand the problem with the government allowing gay and lesbian couples to
marry. I understand that it changes the definition of the word marriage and
that it goes against some people's religious views; however, I was hoping
someone else could help me understand the other issues surrounding this topic.
Does allowing gay marriage negatively affect other people or the community? I
truly just want to understand the main issues of concern?
Anonymous | 1:24 p.m. May 16, 2008
In the last 10 years, the Turkey earthquake killed 17,000 people, the Iran
earthquake killed 26,000 people, the Pakistan earthquake killed 78,000 people,
the Chinese earthquake killed 22,000 people with 14,000 more still missing, the
Central American hurricane killed 9,000 people, Katrina killed 1,600 people, the
Indian Ocean tsunami killed 230,000 people, and the cyclone in Myanmar killed
78,000 people with 56,000 more still missing. In the US alone in the last four
months, 64 people have been killed by tornadoes, nearly the national average for
an entire year. Also in the last 10 years, at LEAST 14,757 have been killed in
terrorist attacks. There are hundreds of thousands of more people who were
injured in these incidents. How can ANYBODY look at that and say that God is
pleased with His children right now? Rather than mocking His laws and taunting
Him to strike us down, as several have done on this thread, we should be
repenting and living the way He has asked us to.
Joe Fullmer | 1:28 p.m. May 16, 2008
How many agree that Marriage is a religious sacrament and the state should just
simply not be involved at all and should leave it to the churches?
I suspect many don't, because both sides have certain goals that cannot be accomplished without force of government. They may be disagreed about the morality of homosexuality, but they are implicitly agreed that the solution is to use government to enforce their position.
Without government involvement, churches would be free to both perform gay marriages, as well preach that it is a sin.
Would gays be OK with just being "allowed" to live as they wish, or must they make their lifestyle to be socially acceptable, by government decree? Would conservatives be OK with just being "allowed" to preach that homosexuality is a sin, or must they prevent sin, by government decree?
Both sides would mold society in their own image. But is the best way to do this by government decree, or by preaching of the word?
Should not both sides "[worship] Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."?
I suspect many don't, because both sides have certain goals that cannot be accomplished without force of government. They may be disagreed about the morality of homosexuality, but they are implicitly agreed that the solution is to use government to enforce their position.
Without government involvement, churches would be free to both perform gay marriages, as well preach that it is a sin.
Would gays be OK with just being "allowed" to live as they wish, or must they make their lifestyle to be socially acceptable, by government decree? Would conservatives be OK with just being "allowed" to preach that homosexuality is a sin, or must they prevent sin, by government decree?
Both sides would mold society in their own image. But is the best way to do this by government decree, or by preaching of the word?
Should not both sides "[worship] Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."?
YBU | 1:28 p.m. May 16, 2008
If I remember right, the LDS church's defination of adultry is that one has
sexual intercourse with someone that they are not "legally and
lawfully" married to. If homosexuals could be "legally and
lawfully" married, that could cause a problem. Maybe that is why they are
fighting this so fiercely.
To Dave | 1:32 p.m. May 16, 2008
Marriage is NOT a phenomenon of nature. It's a manmade institution.
YBU | 1:37 p.m. May 16, 2008
I do not believe that "God" has killed all those thousands of people
because of wickedness! How many of those were innocent children? How many of
those were just people trying to survive in an earthen hovel that was just not
earth quake proof?
How can you believe in a God that would take a vengence on innocent people?
How can you believe in a God that would take a vengence on innocent people?
To Re: Public Discourse | 1:37 p.m. May 16, 2008
The LDS church may not tell its members how to vote, but it's interesting
how a vast majority of its members associate with one political party. I am not
a Republican, yet three states later, every new group of LDS friends
automatically assume I am. Try telling your fellow LDS church members that you
have a different political view than they do. It doesn't go over well.
And the church spending $1.1 million trying to ban gay marriage is an implicit
form of telling its members how to vote.
Ethics: | 1:39 p.m. May 16, 2008
a set of moral principles : a theory or system of MORAL VALUES
or
the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, FLDS, Green Peace, PETA, Humane Society, ACLU, NAMBLA, ELF, etc. etc.
...all have "moral values" that they vigorously promote and seek to have codified/preserved/changed in our laws and constitutions.
Freedom of speech gives EVERYONE the RIGHT to both express and to promote having their moral values passed into law.
Just because someone's values are based on religious beliefs, doesn't disqualify them from voicing disapproval of current laws or promoting changes to laws based on their personal beliefs.
or
the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, FLDS, Green Peace, PETA, Humane Society, ACLU, NAMBLA, ELF, etc. etc.
...all have "moral values" that they vigorously promote and seek to have codified/preserved/changed in our laws and constitutions.
Freedom of speech gives EVERYONE the RIGHT to both express and to promote having their moral values passed into law.
Just because someone's values are based on religious beliefs, doesn't disqualify them from voicing disapproval of current laws or promoting changes to laws based on their personal beliefs.
Joe Fullmer | 1:41 p.m. May 16, 2008
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do to you.
This is the law of reciprocity. When one side sets the standard of behavior, they have no complaint when the other side behaves the same.
If one side willingly uses government force (the sword) to mold society, have they not established that use of government force to mold society is an acceptable standard of behavior? Is there room for complaint when the other side behaves the same way?
I would go back to a lesson learned anciently: that "the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just�yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them�therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God."
Shouldn't perhaps both sides use more persuasion to convince people they are right, than to use force of government - the sword - to do so?
This is the law of reciprocity. When one side sets the standard of behavior, they have no complaint when the other side behaves the same.
If one side willingly uses government force (the sword) to mold society, have they not established that use of government force to mold society is an acceptable standard of behavior? Is there room for complaint when the other side behaves the same way?
I would go back to a lesson learned anciently: that "the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just�yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them�therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God."
Shouldn't perhaps both sides use more persuasion to convince people they are right, than to use force of government - the sword - to do so?
Anonymous | 1:24 p.m. | 1:40 p.m. May 16, 2008
God as you've described him doesn't sound very loving. His actions
sound like those of an abuser: "if only you had, I wouldn't have had
to..." He doesn't sound very divine; he sounds more manmade. The God
I believe in loves all his children, and isn't putting out his punitive
finger to strike them down.
smart girl | 1:49 p.m. May 16, 2008
Who the heck is this "born gay?" guy!!!! Stop comparing gay people
with child molesters and serial killers!!! You are ingorant, and rude. I am
not gay, but I am still very offended by your comments. California hasn't
said if being gay is morally right or wrong, they are simply not going to deny
people of their basic rights to choose. Sounds pretty smart.
Stand For Something | 1:48 p.m. May 16, 2008
At least our faith (LDS) has the backbone to stand for something. I realize
that is very hard for many individuals to comprehend. We also allow even our
own members to use agency and choose knowing there will be consequences of our
choices. We force no one to follow Church directives or guidelines. Some even
vote Democrat which is the party which condones abortion, gay rights etc. It
matters little what the Holy Bible teaches about same sex relations.
Brynn | 1:50 p.m. May 16, 2008
I think it's interesting how many people are appalled by the LDS Church
making a statement about this issue. This is a moral issue, and God makes
judgments about moral issues. It makes perfect sense to me for a Church to speak
out on a moral issue. Many claim the Church is trying to force their view on
others, but aren't these judges doing the same thing? Legalizing gay
marriage diminishes the value of traditional marriage and forces businesses to
recognize a view they might not except, which can have a huge financial impact.
On another note--the LDS Church is not anti-gay. Just because they don't
support the government sanction of gay marriage doesn't mean they are
bigots. The LDS Church gladly accepts gay people at their services. They can
hold callings and participate just like anyone else. The only time there is a
problem with their church status is if they are unchaste--but that is the same
for a heterosexual person. Anyone LDS person who is hostile toward someone who
is gay is not living in harmony with what the LDS Church teaches. Just my two
cents....
Just me, but... | 1:56 p.m. May 16, 2008
I think Joe Fullmer brought up a very valid point. We should do unto others as
you would have others do to you. Why can't we just do that?
midwest mama | 1:57 p.m. May 16, 2008
Several posts asked what is wrong with allowing homosexuals to marry, so I would like to address it.
I took a course entitled Marriage and the Family that described the functions of marriage in society in terms of public functions and private functions.
The public functions: to give birth to children and to care for those who can't take care of themselves. The private functions : meeting of physical/emotional needs for love and acceptance of the couple.
By allowing legal marriage in our country to include same gender couples, we are minimizing the public functions of marriage at a time when they are already in need of serious reinforcement.
Same gender marriage can only exist to meet emotional/physical needs of the partners. They can adopt children and thereby serve the function of caring for others, but the emphasis in this type of relationship is the private function of marriage.
Already, families are opting to go childless in order to assure the couples level of comfort, divorce has led many to swear off ever getting married, and the need for the traditional mother/father family is disregarded.
Same gender marriage will only put the final nail in the coffin.
"Free" Agency? | 2:00 p.m. May 16, 2008
This is a response to "smart girl".
LDS Church doctrine does not contemplate "free agency", which implies freedom from consequences but rather moral agency, which involves freedom of choice but also the fact that consequences follow choices.
As an example: you are free to choose to jump off a cliff, but not what follows ....
Government has no obligation to facilitate a particular set of choices, legally not until society has seen fit to legislate, morally not when it strikes at a fundamental building block of society, the family.
Make no mistake: notwithstanding possible examples of caring relationships and troubled or failed marriages and families, establishing children in homosexual unions deprives children of the very notion of a loving mother and father, bringing respective natural gifts to the teaching and nurturing of children.
In the US, the homosexual agenda strikes at the moral grounding of our country on a Judeo-Christian set of values with scriptural and prophetic foundation that condemns homosexual deviancy in no uncertain terms, while valuing the individual.
Undermine that and our country will be weakened and will topple, a disastrous result already looming from the results of fatherless households.
The California Seven were fundamentally and grievously wrong.
LDS Church doctrine does not contemplate "free agency", which implies freedom from consequences but rather moral agency, which involves freedom of choice but also the fact that consequences follow choices.
As an example: you are free to choose to jump off a cliff, but not what follows ....
Government has no obligation to facilitate a particular set of choices, legally not until society has seen fit to legislate, morally not when it strikes at a fundamental building block of society, the family.
Make no mistake: notwithstanding possible examples of caring relationships and troubled or failed marriages and families, establishing children in homosexual unions deprives children of the very notion of a loving mother and father, bringing respective natural gifts to the teaching and nurturing of children.
In the US, the homosexual agenda strikes at the moral grounding of our country on a Judeo-Christian set of values with scriptural and prophetic foundation that condemns homosexual deviancy in no uncertain terms, while valuing the individual.
Undermine that and our country will be weakened and will topple, a disastrous result already looming from the results of fatherless households.
The California Seven were fundamentally and grievously wrong.
John Dough | 1:59 p.m. May 16, 2008
Who does gay marriage hurt:
1) Gay marriage laws are passed by activist judges and not the will of the people. Gay marriage hurts democracy
2) Gay marriage also would FORCE people to accept gay marriage as normalcy and not a sin, through various lawsuits that will be enacted as some people will refuse to offer their services for gay weddings (ie. photographers, caterers, and finally churches). Gay marriage hurts freedom.
3) Gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage as a whole by opening up the door for other unions such as poligamy, underage marriage, and beastiality. If you don't see this you obviously haven't seen what the sickos at the ACLU can do.
For these reasons gay marriage shouldn't be allowed until the voice of the people (democracy) says that it should be allowed.
1) Gay marriage laws are passed by activist judges and not the will of the people. Gay marriage hurts democracy
2) Gay marriage also would FORCE people to accept gay marriage as normalcy and not a sin, through various lawsuits that will be enacted as some people will refuse to offer their services for gay weddings (ie. photographers, caterers, and finally churches). Gay marriage hurts freedom.
3) Gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage as a whole by opening up the door for other unions such as poligamy, underage marriage, and beastiality. If you don't see this you obviously haven't seen what the sickos at the ACLU can do.
For these reasons gay marriage shouldn't be allowed until the voice of the people (democracy) says that it should be allowed.
Equal Time? | 2:08 p.m. May 16, 2008
Amazing that not many posts acknowledge the fact that the Catholic Church spoke
out against the ruling as well....
Oregon resident | 2:08 p.m. May 16, 2008
I see a lot of negative comments about the LDS church taking a stand against gay
marriage (as did many other churches), but I don't see those same people
commenting on the fact that 61% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition
22. Where is the democracy in this? The people spoke, and a few judges
overruled the masses.
Dear Sincerely Confused | 2:09 p.m. May 16, 2008
Please see the post preceding this responding to "smart girl". That
will give you an idea why legitimizing homosexual marriage is a bad idea.
Dutchman | 2:17 p.m. May 16, 2008
Let's see, big earth quake in China, major typhoon in Burma, more tornados
in the US this year than ever on record, wars and rumours of wars, sins of every
kind and nature and now comes legalized gay marriage. The earth is realing and
more will come if we don't turn back this tide of iniquity.
Brady | 2:20 p.m. May 16, 2008
This article states, in reference to the voter-passed initiative outlawing gay
marriage, "Thursday's 4-3 Supreme Court decision said voters got it
wrong." This is simply not true. The court expressed no opinion on
whether same-sex marriage should or should not be permitted AS A MATTER OF
POLICY. Indeed, that was not the court's job. It was tasked only with
determining whether prohibiting same-sex marriage runs afoul of the state
constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
In other words, it did not suggest at all that voters were wrong. It made no judgment at all as to the wisdom of same-sex marriage. It merely said that the state constitution does not permit such a ban. If the voters dislike same-sex marriage, they will have to amend the state constitution. But the fact that the elected legislature--the expression of the voters--subsequently endorsed same-sex marriage suggests that this is unlikely.
In other words, it did not suggest at all that voters were wrong. It made no judgment at all as to the wisdom of same-sex marriage. It merely said that the state constitution does not permit such a ban. If the voters dislike same-sex marriage, they will have to amend the state constitution. But the fact that the elected legislature--the expression of the voters--subsequently endorsed same-sex marriage suggests that this is unlikely.
G | 2:28 p.m. May 16, 2008
"Amazing that not many posts acknowledge the fact that the Catholic Church
spoke out against the ruling as well...."
I wonder if the comments left at Vatican newspaper sites acknowledge that the LDS church did the same?
I wonder if the comments left at Vatican newspaper sites acknowledge that the LDS church did the same?
SouthpawJesus | 2:29 p.m. May 16, 2008
Oh NO!! two people love each other and want to marry!! what an awful thing! the
whole world is going to hell...
The supreme court was created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As long as the state chooses to provide benefits in recognition of the union of two citizens it can not use a religious standard or the prejudice of citizens to justify excluding a particular group.
The supreme court was created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As long as the state chooses to provide benefits in recognition of the union of two citizens it can not use a religious standard or the prejudice of citizens to justify excluding a particular group.
Brady | 2:30 p.m. May 16, 2008
BronxMetsfan and Park City Resident and others:
The will of the voters has NOT been overturned.
This article leaves out critical information about this. It leads you to believe that the 2000 voter initiative was the last that was said by the democratic branches of government in California about same-sex marriage. Not true. Since then, the state legislature has TWICE approved the inclusion of same-sex couples in the states marriage laws. Both bills were vetoed by the governor, who said he believed it was up to the state supreme court to decide. The will of the voters, as expressed most recently through their elected representatives, HAS NOT been overturned.
The will of the voters has NOT been overturned.
This article leaves out critical information about this. It leads you to believe that the 2000 voter initiative was the last that was said by the democratic branches of government in California about same-sex marriage. Not true. Since then, the state legislature has TWICE approved the inclusion of same-sex couples in the states marriage laws. Both bills were vetoed by the governor, who said he believed it was up to the state supreme court to decide. The will of the voters, as expressed most recently through their elected representatives, HAS NOT been overturned.
Sin? | 2:32 p.m. May 16, 2008
It isn't about sin or not sin.
It isn't about religion (although many religions are involved)
It isn't about my marriage or the future of marriage.
It isn't about semantics.
It IS about the fact that marriage between a man and a woman benefits society as a whole. No other unions have been shown to benefit society the same way. I have no problem with others living their lives in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I do have a problem with some trying to force society to financially (via tax benefits) reward a union that has no possible societal benefit to return. History shows that the future of our nation rests firmly on the back of its families.
It isn't about religion (although many religions are involved)
It isn't about my marriage or the future of marriage.
It isn't about semantics.
It IS about the fact that marriage between a man and a woman benefits society as a whole. No other unions have been shown to benefit society the same way. I have no problem with others living their lives in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I do have a problem with some trying to force society to financially (via tax benefits) reward a union that has no possible societal benefit to return. History shows that the future of our nation rests firmly on the back of its families.
Open your eyes | 2:36 p.m. May 16, 2008
LMV...you said you cannot wait to get out of California and back to Utah??
Why?? So you can put on your blinders and hide? Face it, Utah is 10 years
behind, and not everything is seen through rose colored glasses. I hate to tell
you but in Utah, there are Gay people/couples, they sell alcohol, people speed
in their cars, you might even hear a 4 letter word. Get over yourself, enjoy
the real world.
Re: Equal Time? | 2:41 p.m. May 16, 2008
Surprised? Not really.
Unfortunately, some posters are anti-Mormon all the time. It rarely matters what the church does, whether it's revitalizing downtime SLC, helping hurricane victims, or taking a stand against gay marriage, whatever the church does, there are some who can be counted on to find something to criticize.
They aren't concerned with the Catholic church's stand on this issue. They're just happy that the LDS church took a stand so they could use that stand as cannon fodder for criticism.
It's okay. We'd probably be a little disappointed if it didn't happen. At least the church and its members are important enough in their lives for naysayers to take the time to criticize us.
Unfortunately, some posters are anti-Mormon all the time. It rarely matters what the church does, whether it's revitalizing downtime SLC, helping hurricane victims, or taking a stand against gay marriage, whatever the church does, there are some who can be counted on to find something to criticize.
They aren't concerned with the Catholic church's stand on this issue. They're just happy that the LDS church took a stand so they could use that stand as cannon fodder for criticism.
It's okay. We'd probably be a little disappointed if it didn't happen. At least the church and its members are important enough in their lives for naysayers to take the time to criticize us.
YBU | 2:41 p.m. May 16, 2008
Byrnn:
The LDS church can make any statement it wants regarding same sex marriage. What people are really referring to is the money and time that the LDS church put into making this unconstitutional law pass in the first place.
The LDS church can make any statement it wants regarding same sex marriage. What people are really referring to is the money and time that the LDS church put into making this unconstitutional law pass in the first place.
Fred Vader | 2:41 p.m. May 16, 2008
There seem to be two sides to this argument:
#1: "God made me. I am Gay. Therefore God made me Gay."
#2: "God made man and woman to be together. Men and women choose to be Gay."
Personally, I think it is somewhere in the middle.
Did God physically make everyone of us personally, and since God doesn't make mistakes, therefore He must have made some Gay?
Or is it more likely that God provided the process for men and women to be born, but that the outcome of that process, depending on the thousands of years of genetic make-up, causes some to be Gay? (Just as the process causes some to be Siamese, some to be prone to cancer, some to be prone to Alcoholism, etc)
If the second is more likely, then God commanding us to overcome the "natural man" seems to make more sense.
#1: "God made me. I am Gay. Therefore God made me Gay."
#2: "God made man and woman to be together. Men and women choose to be Gay."
Personally, I think it is somewhere in the middle.
Did God physically make everyone of us personally, and since God doesn't make mistakes, therefore He must have made some Gay?
Or is it more likely that God provided the process for men and women to be born, but that the outcome of that process, depending on the thousands of years of genetic make-up, causes some to be Gay? (Just as the process causes some to be Siamese, some to be prone to cancer, some to be prone to Alcoholism, etc)
If the second is more likely, then God commanding us to overcome the "natural man" seems to make more sense.
smart girl | 2:44 p.m. May 16, 2008
to "free" Agency- I apprieciate your response and your opinion. Many
think that drinking coffee is wrong, that doesn't mean it should be
illegal. I never argued the fact that there are concequences for actions (right
or wrong) I can say I KNOW that gay marriage is RIGHT just as confidentaly as
you may say YOU know it is WRONG. I am heterosexual, therefore I can marry... I
don't see the "grievous"ness of allowing homosexuals the same
rights.
Re: Brady | 2:56 p.m. May 16, 2008
Double speak.
But you're entitled to you opinion.
But you're entitled to you opinion.
YBU | 3:00 p.m. May 16, 2008
Free Agency? 2:00
"establishing children in homosexual unions deprives children of the very notion of a loving mother and father, bringing respective natural gifts to the teaching and nurturing of children."
I am the mother of two children. Both of my children are responsible tax paying heterosexual adults that have a gay mother (oh, my heck!)
Their lives have been different than some children but better than others. They knew that they were loved. They knew that they needed to find out who they were and become the best people that they could with what they were given.
I will admit that when they were looking for their partners in life, they had a restricted playing field--they had to find someone with an open mind and someone who could love their mother as much as they did.
There are many children in this world raised by 2 parents that are ignored, abused, and not wanted. To say that a gay home is not conducive to what kids need is to say that we now must only let those that will raise kids in a perfect environment have children.
Now, lets talk about divorce and what that does to children...
"establishing children in homosexual unions deprives children of the very notion of a loving mother and father, bringing respective natural gifts to the teaching and nurturing of children."
I am the mother of two children. Both of my children are responsible tax paying heterosexual adults that have a gay mother (oh, my heck!)
Their lives have been different than some children but better than others. They knew that they were loved. They knew that they needed to find out who they were and become the best people that they could with what they were given.
I will admit that when they were looking for their partners in life, they had a restricted playing field--they had to find someone with an open mind and someone who could love their mother as much as they did.
There are many children in this world raised by 2 parents that are ignored, abused, and not wanted. To say that a gay home is not conducive to what kids need is to say that we now must only let those that will raise kids in a perfect environment have children.
Now, lets talk about divorce and what that does to children...
BLJT | 3:04 p.m. May 16, 2008
Oregon resident asks "where is the democracy in this?" because
"61% of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 22". That was in
2000. TWICE since then, the state legislature approved same-sex marriage. Is
not democracy expressed by the people's elected representatives?
Dwaine | 3:05 p.m. May 16, 2008
Joe:
Whether marriage licensing is a proper role of government, defense/preservation is. God rained brimstone on Sodom for their sexual sins against nature. (the word sodomy comes from the behavior of Sodom that God didn't like). Just as the nation can legitimately protect us from disease, it (or rather, we) can protect us from God's wrath.
God doesn't cease to love the sinner because he sins, but God does want the sinner to cease sinning and repent.
I believe the Bible, and that God destroyed Soddom because of sex sins, and he would do the same, and homosex is a sin.
We aren't justified in being hostile to the sinner, but that doesn't mean "oh, ok, guess that isn't a sin after all."
We can rightly protect our nation from God's destruction; he will not be mocked. By making laws against homosex (sodomy), regardless of married or not, that is proper role of government -- for national survival. (This isn't the only thing threatening our national survival, but also our "silver become as dross" inflation by FED, overextending our military strength in foreign aggression, etc., abortion of 1 out of 4, descruction of family with no-fault divorce, absentee fathers, etc.)
Whether marriage licensing is a proper role of government, defense/preservation is. God rained brimstone on Sodom for their sexual sins against nature. (the word sodomy comes from the behavior of Sodom that God didn't like). Just as the nation can legitimately protect us from disease, it (or rather, we) can protect us from God's wrath.
God doesn't cease to love the sinner because he sins, but God does want the sinner to cease sinning and repent.
I believe the Bible, and that God destroyed Soddom because of sex sins, and he would do the same, and homosex is a sin.
We aren't justified in being hostile to the sinner, but that doesn't mean "oh, ok, guess that isn't a sin after all."
We can rightly protect our nation from God's destruction; he will not be mocked. By making laws against homosex (sodomy), regardless of married or not, that is proper role of government -- for national survival. (This isn't the only thing threatening our national survival, but also our "silver become as dross" inflation by FED, overextending our military strength in foreign aggression, etc., abortion of 1 out of 4, descruction of family with no-fault divorce, absentee fathers, etc.)
Mormons!!!! | 3:09 p.m. May 16, 2008
Who cares about what LDS Church thinks? Why the LDS Church doesnt ask itself why
Utah got the higgest percent of young people killing themselves (SUICIDE) and
that is a fact.Is something related with the Church values or what the Church
considers as values??? Give me a break and let the gay people do whatever they
want..All the gays I know in Utah are mormons and 90 % of them are married or
were married.... Church values?????
Jon B. Holbrook | 3:12 p.m. May 16, 2008
In the 19th Century, Horace Greeley said to go West. In the 1930's, the
Okies left the Dsut Bowl and went to California. In 1962, Jed Clampett was told
to move to California by his relatives. In 2008, the polygamists can move to
California. If homosexual marriage is morally equivalent to marriage ordained by
God, thus saith the California Supreme Court, who wear the robes of the false
priesthood. Then the polygamists can move en masse, and claim that their
marriages should also be recognized in California. If the Sages of California
refuse to recognize polygamy, then Warren Jeffs,et. al. can claim
discrimination. After all, all Americans are allowed equal protection under the
law, including all alternatives lifestyles. NAMLBA will be very happy with this
decision, because once homosexuality is mainstreamed, then pedophilia will be
next. This is why I believe in the Constitution per the original intent. The is
why judicial activism should not be allowed under any circumstances.
YBU | 3:18 p.m. May 16, 2008
Sin? | 2:32 p.m
We should take away the tax benefits of all couples that do not have children then. Especially if it is a conscience decision. They are not benefitting society and should be punished.
We should take away the tax benefits of all couples that do not have children then. Especially if it is a conscience decision. They are not benefitting society and should be punished.
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
- Obama Tues. speech: new job ideas 4:33 p.m.
- 2nd gay bishop for Episcopalians 4:27 p.m.
- Snowy roads cause accidents, delays 4:20 p.m.
- Woman charged in identity theft case 4:06 p.m.
- Kentucky edges UNC 68-66 3:26 p.m.
- Chelsea's lead trimmed after loss 3:24 p.m.
- Russian nightclub fire kills 107 3:19 p.m.
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world 3:02 p.m.
- School drops required fitness class 2:55 p.m.
- 2 people, 43 horses dead in barn fire 2:47 p.m.
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
302 - BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS245
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry188
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing166
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage127
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore118
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
I agree with Tami. You can't force those with no math aptitude to learn...
Where does say God is not both? God has a Body and is a Spirit. It is...
Afraid? Religious institutions are not "afraid" of people who are different....
. . . because it appears because I didn't donate more than $49,000 to Senator...
Utah State will take BYU to the wire... You heard it here first.
I agree with Cosmo, these professors are green with envy! They've never...
...and still Boozer gets no love from the Jazz faithfull. With all the...
Did the snowy roads cause the problem or was it bad drivers who don't know...
Can recruit some great athletes. We will never compete against Boise, Utah or...
Who'd name their kid "Gypsy"?
Advertisements
On the other hand, the court did say that the law was unconstitutional in CA. That means the CA constitution should be changed, doesn't it.