Reader comments
LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision
404 comments | Read story
Brady | 3:20 p.m. May 16, 2008
To Sin?: I don't know how you can argue that when two people of the same
gender commit to and agree to take care of each other it has "no possible
societal benefit". Is it somehow better for society that these two people
remain alone?
I agree marriage in general, and the mutual commitments and care that comes with it, benefits society. But please explain how this is a benefit only when the two people are of opposite gender.
I agree marriage in general, and the mutual commitments and care that comes with it, benefits society. But please explain how this is a benefit only when the two people are of opposite gender.
Gay Man | 3:24 p.m. May 16, 2008
I find it interesting but also disturbing and offensive when antigay
heterosexuals think it is their God given right to decide what is wrong about
gay men and lesbians and somehow have the right to judge what we should
experience. Who made you judge and jury? And yes I WAS born gay. There is no way
you can deny me that because you have not lived my life. I have known that I was
gay for as long as I can remember and have NEVER felt any sexual or romantic
feelings towards women. If gay sex repulses you so I can say heterosexual sex is
repulsive to me. The pledge of allegiance says "liberty and justice for
all" The California Supreme Court is finally acting on this promise. I do
not hear ANY of you saying that we should also be denied the joy of paying
taxes. I thank God that I am gay end would NEVER want to be heterosexual. So
just deal with your own married lives. Anyway how could gay marriages ruin
hetero marriage? Is that institution so weak? What a pity! Straight marriages
produce gay children..even in the LDS!!!
Comments continue below
To: Sin? | 3:29 p.m. May 16, 2008
How can you believe that a marriage that is not creating children can have NO
benefit to society? Wouldn't you prefer to have people in loving and
caring committed relationships?
If one truly believes that marriage is the best option for adults to live their life, I think you would be happy that even more people are hoping for this opportunity, too.
More married people in more stable relationships sounds like a win/win for society.
If one truly believes that marriage is the best option for adults to live their life, I think you would be happy that even more people are hoping for this opportunity, too.
More married people in more stable relationships sounds like a win/win for society.
GodMadeMe logic | 3:32 p.m. May 16, 2008
Various logical formulations that mirror certain arguments:
1) The "God made me this way, so it's not a sin" argument:
God Made Me. I'm an alcoholic. I was born this way. God made me an alcoholic. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with being an alcoholic.
God Made Me. I'm a pedophile. I was born this way. God made me a pedophile. There is nothing wrong with being a pedophile.
2) The "God made me. I'm made wrong, so God made a mistake, so is incompetent, so doesn't exist" argument.
God Made Me. I'm an alcoholic. I was born this way. God made me an alcoholic. Therefore, God made a mistake.
God Made me a Man. I want to be a woman. God made a mistake.
I prefer this one:
God made us. He now leaves us to make of our lives what we will, and hopes we'll make right choices, but allows us to make wrong ones.
God help us all.
1) The "God made me this way, so it's not a sin" argument:
God Made Me. I'm an alcoholic. I was born this way. God made me an alcoholic. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with being an alcoholic.
God Made Me. I'm a pedophile. I was born this way. God made me a pedophile. There is nothing wrong with being a pedophile.
2) The "God made me. I'm made wrong, so God made a mistake, so is incompetent, so doesn't exist" argument.
God Made Me. I'm an alcoholic. I was born this way. God made me an alcoholic. Therefore, God made a mistake.
God Made me a Man. I want to be a woman. God made a mistake.
I prefer this one:
God made us. He now leaves us to make of our lives what we will, and hopes we'll make right choices, but allows us to make wrong ones.
God help us all.
Brady | 3:34 p.m. May 16, 2008
Double speak? Please explain what you mean. It's not really my opinion.
It is what the court said. Here, from the decision itself:
"[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."
"[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."
Anonymous | 3:33 p.m. May 16, 2008
How long will the LDS Church ignore the existence of gay people and their right
to full citizenship? How can extending the blessings of marriage to all people
damage traditional marraige? Predition: Some day the LDS Church will look back
on this anti-gay position in the same way they now look back on polygamy and
Blacks and the priesthood-something they would rather not talk about. -a life
long member of the LDS Church
To smart girl | 3:38 p.m. May 16, 2008
Appreciate the dialogue.
This question hinges on the societal impact to the family. In my opinion, changing family norms will have far-reaching consequences.
Kind of like what changing norms fueled largely by media portrayals leading to promiscuity did to families, a vicious cycle: increasing numbers of children born out of wedlock, fatherless homes, truancy, dropouts, irresponsibility, drugs, alcohol abuse, crime.
In this case, same sex marriage changes a critical and precious norm. There are far-reaching consequences. What are they? Should we be rushing to change this norm?
If we enable same-sex marriage, we will be sending strong signals to society that this is a new norm, something that is happening with rapidity in other contexts in the media.
My father and mother in a strong loving marriage brought individual characteristics to their marriage and my upbringing, unique to their gender roles, kind of like a right and left hand clasped together in a nurturing protective and strong stable way.
Two left hands do not clasp together and do not hold water.
Signing off now.
This question hinges on the societal impact to the family. In my opinion, changing family norms will have far-reaching consequences.
Kind of like what changing norms fueled largely by media portrayals leading to promiscuity did to families, a vicious cycle: increasing numbers of children born out of wedlock, fatherless homes, truancy, dropouts, irresponsibility, drugs, alcohol abuse, crime.
In this case, same sex marriage changes a critical and precious norm. There are far-reaching consequences. What are they? Should we be rushing to change this norm?
If we enable same-sex marriage, we will be sending strong signals to society that this is a new norm, something that is happening with rapidity in other contexts in the media.
My father and mother in a strong loving marriage brought individual characteristics to their marriage and my upbringing, unique to their gender roles, kind of like a right and left hand clasped together in a nurturing protective and strong stable way.
Two left hands do not clasp together and do not hold water.
Signing off now.
smart girl | 3:50 p.m. May 16, 2008
YBU! I am a huge fan of all of your insightful comments. kudos for being smart
and strong enough to be yourself!
Chris | 3:51 p.m. May 16, 2008
This situation in California is appalling. The next step is to pass a
constitutional amendment specifically stating that marriage is between a woman.
The same arguments that the gay movement make could be used to support marriage between a man and a dog, an adult and a child, child molestation, and polygamy, for that matter. It is the old question of how to define the moral fabric of our society. The voters took a stand on a critical moral issue, and then unelected judges struck it down, for whatever reasons. Unelected judges made a similar decision in the abortion issue.
When the moral fabric of society weakens, that society becomes weak, and vulnerable.
The same arguments that the gay movement make could be used to support marriage between a man and a dog, an adult and a child, child molestation, and polygamy, for that matter. It is the old question of how to define the moral fabric of our society. The voters took a stand on a critical moral issue, and then unelected judges struck it down, for whatever reasons. Unelected judges made a similar decision in the abortion issue.
When the moral fabric of society weakens, that society becomes weak, and vulnerable.
Abee | 4:04 p.m. May 16, 2008
I lived in Oregon when there was a vote to allow 'special-rights' to
the homosexual. This is a State where the extreme liberal left go to live with
old hippies raising young hippies. The homosexual community was up in arms
because they were being persecuted because of their lifestyle and therefore felt
they needed more protection than the average Joe. Well they were only
persecuted in their minds and not in reality. The 'special rights'
issue was voted down because EVERY HUMAN BEING is protected under the civil
rights laws. No extra law was needed. A monster majority vote against special
rights laws were voted in by the people of Oregon, only to have our voices
silenced by the legislature who basically said "You really don't know
what it was that you were voting for, so we are overturning your vote."
This has nothing to do w/the LDS, Catholic, Pentacostal or whatever Churches. It
has to do w/our right to vote and to put it into law. Where does the
constitution say that if the state gov't doesn't like your vote, they
can be take it away? This is a legal issue, not an LDS Church or any Church
issue.
Anonymous | 4:07 p.m. May 16, 2008
Marriage should be as God intended, between a man and a women. I think it funny
how people can want to change something that GOD set in place since time began.
The issue is not whether they would not be compassionate where you could make
the argument that some men and women struggle through relationships. That does
not give the ok to tell GOD he was wrong in the first place. How heaven must
weep to see society moving down slippery paths through unfortunate choices
people make. Society crumbles when it allows things like this to happen.
YBU | 4:07 p.m. May 16, 2008
dwaine:
"By making laws against homosex (sodomy), regardless of married or not, that is proper role of government"
BTW, the US supreme court has voided all sodomy laws in all states. They said that it was not the governments business what people did in their bedrooms.
Catch up...
"By making laws against homosex (sodomy), regardless of married or not, that is proper role of government"
BTW, the US supreme court has voided all sodomy laws in all states. They said that it was not the governments business what people did in their bedrooms.
Catch up...
Brady | 4:16 p.m. May 16, 2008
To No Fair Representation: Representative democracy is not perfect, I'll
give you that! But it's the best system we've got. We can't and
shouldn't put everything directly to voters. Interestingly, if we were to
put it to voters again, polls currently indicate that Californians are evenly
split or slightly in favor of same-sex marriage today.
But our system of government has never been completely majoritarian, either. Constitutions exist to protect minorities from the will of the majority. And it's a court's job to interpret that constitution. (Also not a perfect system but the best we've got.) A majority in the South favored segregation, too. It took a court to overturn that. Maybe that was "judicial activism" or "overturning the will of the people". But in hindsight, most of us would now call it justice.
But our system of government has never been completely majoritarian, either. Constitutions exist to protect minorities from the will of the majority. And it's a court's job to interpret that constitution. (Also not a perfect system but the best we've got.) A majority in the South favored segregation, too. It took a court to overturn that. Maybe that was "judicial activism" or "overturning the will of the people". But in hindsight, most of us would now call it justice.
part | 4:20 p.m. May 16, 2008
What part of two CONSENTING ADULTS do you people not understand regarding gay
marriage? We are not talking about animals or children but again TWO CONSENTING
ADULTS.
-straight mother of 3 that isn't threatened by other adults that remain committed and monogamous regardless of the gender of the person they love.
-straight mother of 3 that isn't threatened by other adults that remain committed and monogamous regardless of the gender of the person they love.
jimmy | 4:26 p.m. May 16, 2008
get serious, the church opposes gay marriage because if it's legalized
there will be pressure from within to bring back the "principal",
there would be no legal impediment to polygamy, which would make coverting new
members harder. remember polygamy was dropped to gain statehood, not because God
changed his mind. Once polygamy disappeared membership exploded, bring it back
and forgetaboutit.
Anonymous | 4:33 p.m. May 16, 2008
If a male teacher is molesting boys how does that NOT make him gay? Being gay is
defined as being attracted to your own sex. Your teacher was a closet
homosexual.
Why do you homosexuals continue live with your head in the sand about your behavior and how destructive it is to yourself, and others, and society.
Why do you homosexuals continue live with your head in the sand about your behavior and how destructive it is to yourself, and others, and society.
BLJT | 4:36 p.m. May 16, 2008
Chris: With all due respect, your comments about the arguments in favor of
same-sex marriage as being the same as arguments "to support marriage
between a man and a dog, an adult and a child, child molestation" is just
absurd. You must not know the actual arguments that surround this issue if you
think that is so.
And again, the state legislature twice voted in favor of same-sex marriage since the voter referendum. Does this not, too, suggest the will of the people?
Times change, opinions change. Polls show that if the question were put to voters today, there is a slight majority in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. Are we supposed to vote on this every 10 years to know "the will of the people" ?
And again, the state legislature twice voted in favor of same-sex marriage since the voter referendum. Does this not, too, suggest the will of the people?
Times change, opinions change. Polls show that if the question were put to voters today, there is a slight majority in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. Are we supposed to vote on this every 10 years to know "the will of the people" ?
NOT Representative | 4:37 p.m. May 16, 2008
To all you non-Mormons out there who are reading this message board: Please
know that while the LDS church's official position is against same-sex
marriage, that MANY of us faithful, good-standing LDS members do in fact support
same-sex marriage rights, especially among the more highly educated. Just as
the ban on conferring the Priesthood upon Blacks was overturned in the late
1970's, we believe that revelation will soon come to enlighten our
community again.
I shudder to think that you would judge us for the short-sightedness and bigotry of a few of our well-intentioned leaders.
I shudder to think that you would judge us for the short-sightedness and bigotry of a few of our well-intentioned leaders.
Kate | 4:45 p.m. May 16, 2008
I agree with the response from the LDS church. It is an unfortunate decision.
I really believe that the gay lifestyle is against God's plan. There is no
way two men or two women can naturally create a family, which is the fundamental
unit of society. God gave man and woman unique characteristics to fulfill their
roles and husband and wife, father and mother. God's children deserve a
father and mother, the way he designed it. In a world where the line between
right and wrong is blurred, it's easy to play God and decide what WE think
is right. I choose to stand up for what I know is right, while still loving my
neighbor, even if they're gay.
smart girl | 4:58 p.m. May 16, 2008
"god made me logic"--I disgree with you. God loved each of us
individually before he sent us here, we are all different, and were all
different in the pre-existance! If you have ever held a baby, you know how
different each one is from the other personality wise. We aren't carbon
copies in the begining, everyone is born differently. Gay, straight, etc. As
for your comparison to alcoholizm, it is a disease and truthful you can be born
suseptible to that disease. Your statement of "God made me, I am made
wrong, so god made a mistake" God makes NO mistakes, and I think gay
people were made more to test others ability to accept, rather then to test Gay
peoples' ability to change who they are. The god I worship would not ask
that of his children.
Democracy Rules | 5:02 p.m. May 16, 2008
Seperation of chruch and state seems to be true after all. What was LDS
Chruch's stance on black and white race marriages?
I believe it wasn't until the IRS threatened the LDS chruch with revoking its tax exempt status in the 70's when it finally allowed black bishops.
Chruch has wrong on civil issues before this is nothing new.
I believe it wasn't until the IRS threatened the LDS chruch with revoking its tax exempt status in the 70's when it finally allowed black bishops.
Chruch has wrong on civil issues before this is nothing new.
About gay teachers | 5:08 p.m. May 16, 2008
If a "gay" teacher has sex with a boy, that makes him a pedophile not
gay. Just as a "straight" teacher that diddles with girls is not
straight but pedophile. It might do you well to actually look at studies that
do indeed show that "straight" men have a greater propensity to sexual
crimes than do homosexual men. Perhaps that is because gay men understand what
it is like to be victimized.
Mother of 3 and still do not think gay marriage impacts her 20+ years of marriage.
Mother of 3 and still do not think gay marriage impacts her 20+ years of marriage.
Re; I was not born gay | 5:14 p.m. May 16, 2008
If I can be born straight I guess people can be born gay!.
Anonymous | 5:15 p.m. May 16, 2008
And you CAN be gay and a pedophile.
Pedophile just means the crime is or was against children.
Pedophile just means the crime is or was against children.
Re: Future Apostate | 5:16 p.m. May 16, 2008
"Please know that while the LDS church's official position is against
same-sex marriage, that MANY of us faithful, good-standing LDS members do in
fact support same-sex marriage rights, especially among the more highly
educated."
Yep, I think the "name" line of this post says it all.
Most of the Church leaders are highly educated. Education is stressed in the Church. So to put that elitist garbage in to imply that those who impose same-sex marriage are uneducated just shows your pride. And as they say, Pride cometh before the fall.
Yep, I think the "name" line of this post says it all.
Most of the Church leaders are highly educated. Education is stressed in the Church. So to put that elitist garbage in to imply that those who impose same-sex marriage are uneducated just shows your pride. And as they say, Pride cometh before the fall.
Re: Double speak | 5:18 p.m. May 16, 2008
From technical analysis, the California Supreme Court did pretty much as you
said.
From a practical standpoint (which is the only result people really care about), the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in California.
From a practical standpoint (which is the only result people really care about), the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in California.
Re: NOT Representative | 5:29 p.m. May 16, 2008
I would hope that you would express these feelings with your Bishop and Stake
President, but when you do, please do not be bitter if you are placed on church
discipline. You are making public statements against church leaders, and even
if you and a large group want to feel justified about gay marriage, it
ain't going to happen. But you need to decide what side of the fence you
are on, cause you can't attack what the church leadership teaches and feel
that you can be in good standing with the church. There is a question about
that for going to the temple.
BLJT | 5:41 p.m. May 16, 2008
To Not Representative: I am not surprised that you expressing your own opinion
is met on here by someone calling you an apostate and another suggesting you
receive church discipline. Enforced conformity, I guess.
I didn't care for your elitist-sounding reference to "the more highly-educated" either. But I am happy to know that many believing members of the LDS Church have their own thoughts on this issue. If my experience is representative, this line runs right through the Church, dividing those with who have a close family member or friend who is gay and those who don't know--or don't think they know--anyone gay.
I didn't care for your elitist-sounding reference to "the more highly-educated" either. But I am happy to know that many believing members of the LDS Church have their own thoughts on this issue. If my experience is representative, this line runs right through the Church, dividing those with who have a close family member or friend who is gay and those who don't know--or don't think they know--anyone gay.
What Will You Do? | 5:45 p.m. May 16, 2008
Some left the Church when Polygamy was introduced. Some left when the Manifesto
was announced. Some left because blacks could not receive the Priesthood. Some
left because that right was restored. Some have left because of the
Church's stand against homosexuality. Would any of you on this board so
indignant toward homosexuality leave if the Church reversed course on this
matter?
I Repent | 5:54 p.m. May 16, 2008
My husband always votes "no" to put the judges in another term, I just
don't know, so I am nice and vote yes, but this has taught me that I need
to know. I need to find out who my state judges are and know how they vote and
take a stand. Each of us need to do that, whatever way we lean. I wrote a
comment, it was not printed, but there is only one way for children to come into
this world, what if...?
BLJT | 5:56 p.m. May 16, 2008
Dean, I just want to say thanks. I wonder how much the tone of some of these
comments would change if those commenters truly knew the depth of the feelings
and the difficulties faced by gay people in and out of the Church. I don't
think you see the whole picture unless you've experienced it. Thanks for
sharing.
To BLJT | 7:47 p.m. May 16, 2008
>
Untrue. This ran in the national press today:
"California residents have polled slightly against same-sex rights in recent years. The most recent polls, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that 51 percent and 49 percent of survey respondents opposed making gay marriage legal, while 43 percent and 45 percent endorsed the idea. Gossett also noted that survey respondents often give what they consider to be politically correct answers on social questions such as gay marriage, but record their true beliefs at the ballot box. A month before 61 percent of California voters approved the 2000 marriage ban, only 52 percent of likely voters told pollsters they favored the proposition."
Untrue. This ran in the national press today:
"California residents have polled slightly against same-sex rights in recent years. The most recent polls, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that 51 percent and 49 percent of survey respondents opposed making gay marriage legal, while 43 percent and 45 percent endorsed the idea. Gossett also noted that survey respondents often give what they consider to be politically correct answers on social questions such as gay marriage, but record their true beliefs at the ballot box. A month before 61 percent of California voters approved the 2000 marriage ban, only 52 percent of likely voters told pollsters they favored the proposition."
BLJT | 8:45 p.m. May 16, 2008
OK. We've seen different polls. I accept that. Still, the legislature
DID pass marriage inclusion...and the judges themselves are subject to
election.
I also agree with Brady, though, that constitutions are designed to protect minorities from the majority in questions of fundamental rights and equal protection. When people agree with the decisions of courts, they call it justice. When they disagree, they call it "judicial activism".
I also agree with Brady, though, that constitutions are designed to protect minorities from the majority in questions of fundamental rights and equal protection. When people agree with the decisions of courts, they call it justice. When they disagree, they call it "judicial activism".
Eve | 8:51 p.m. May 16, 2008
What is everyone so afraid of?
John Lambert | 8:54 p.m. May 16, 2008
To M Evans and other people who do not understand:
In Massachusetts they have fired Justices of the Peace for refusing to perform same gender marriages. This seems an egregious loss of rights to me.
If you want to understnad why the church is putting up so much effort in this matter, read the "Proclamation to the World on the Family". I would not be suprised if a new such proclamation is issued, probably with virtually the same wording, but with the signatures of the four new apostles who have been called in the almost 13 years since the first one was issued.
The Church does not try to claim it remains neutral on moral issues like this. The Church consistently does not endorse candidates, but it does make statements on moral issues.
In Massachusetts they have fired Justices of the Peace for refusing to perform same gender marriages. This seems an egregious loss of rights to me.
If you want to understnad why the church is putting up so much effort in this matter, read the "Proclamation to the World on the Family". I would not be suprised if a new such proclamation is issued, probably with virtually the same wording, but with the signatures of the four new apostles who have been called in the almost 13 years since the first one was issued.
The Church does not try to claim it remains neutral on moral issues like this. The Church consistently does not endorse candidates, but it does make statements on moral issues.
John Lambert | 9:01 p.m. May 16, 2008
To the commentor at 10:14 AM:
I think you have a very good point. I am with you that people should stop claiming they are the way God created them.
I have major chemical imbalances, depression and other related problems. Do I think God created these. Well, maybe at some level, but I think we have to recognize that many of the tribulations we pass through in this life are a result of the fall.
It is sad, but even saying this much on the Deseret News board almost feels like casting my pearls before swine. Some people on here have become too obsorbed with trying to justify their sin and have entirely driven the spirit out of their lives. Discerning is not judging, and there is nothing wrong with trying to discern others states of mind.
I applaud those who stand behind the church and its leaders and urge all of you to keep in that way of action. Do not let this setback be too discoraging. There are set backs in all worthwhile causes. It was in about 1995 that Hawaii's Supreme Court first rules for having same gender marriage and they were defeated.
I think you have a very good point. I am with you that people should stop claiming they are the way God created them.
I have major chemical imbalances, depression and other related problems. Do I think God created these. Well, maybe at some level, but I think we have to recognize that many of the tribulations we pass through in this life are a result of the fall.
It is sad, but even saying this much on the Deseret News board almost feels like casting my pearls before swine. Some people on here have become too obsorbed with trying to justify their sin and have entirely driven the spirit out of their lives. Discerning is not judging, and there is nothing wrong with trying to discern others states of mind.
I applaud those who stand behind the church and its leaders and urge all of you to keep in that way of action. Do not let this setback be too discoraging. There are set backs in all worthwhile causes. It was in about 1995 that Hawaii's Supreme Court first rules for having same gender marriage and they were defeated.
John Lambert | 9:12 p.m. May 16, 2008
To Jill,
We are not trying to send any homosexuals to jail. No one is doing raids and seizing children being raised by lesbian or gay couples. When was the last time a lesbian had the choice or either lieing or going to jail?
The analogy to the FLDS situation is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Some people need to think before they speak. This is not a like situation at all.
Ayway, I would point out that freedom of religion is a right spelled out in the constitution. However with the current attitude of courst towards it, being a religion that excludes homosexuals from membership and leadership may soon be a prosecutale offense. We will fight each battle, and we will win, the admendment to California's constitution will pass if it ever makes it to the balot.
One more thing, I hope those who get on our case for griping about California's current judges were up in arms when Bork was denied a seat on the Supreme Court because he had expressed his opinion on issues. If you do not think people should try to influence who the judges are that should be appaling.
We are not trying to send any homosexuals to jail. No one is doing raids and seizing children being raised by lesbian or gay couples. When was the last time a lesbian had the choice or either lieing or going to jail?
The analogy to the FLDS situation is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Some people need to think before they speak. This is not a like situation at all.
Ayway, I would point out that freedom of religion is a right spelled out in the constitution. However with the current attitude of courst towards it, being a religion that excludes homosexuals from membership and leadership may soon be a prosecutale offense. We will fight each battle, and we will win, the admendment to California's constitution will pass if it ever makes it to the balot.
One more thing, I hope those who get on our case for griping about California's current judges were up in arms when Bork was denied a seat on the Supreme Court because he had expressed his opinion on issues. If you do not think people should try to influence who the judges are that should be appaling.
John Lambert | 9:15 p.m. May 16, 2008
To YBU,
Same-sex marriage may become legal but it will never be lawful. A lawful marriage is one that has standing in God's eyes.
Same-sex marriage may become legal but it will never be lawful. A lawful marriage is one that has standing in God's eyes.
BLJT | 9:50 p.m. May 16, 2008
To ABEE who asks "Where does the constitution say that if the state
gov't doesn't like your vote, they can be take it away?" The
14th Amendment to the Constitution states "...nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY
TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."
It's that last part that's important here. People can enact laws directly (as with Prop 22) or through their representatives (who, interestingly in California, actually approved gay marriage twice). But the Constitution prohibits laws that discriminate against a class of people, or deny them equal protection. (This case was decided under s similar provision in the California constitution).
No one has "taken away" anyone's vote in this case. It's just a principle of our government that whatever laws people enact, they must treat all people equally. The court determined that the marriage law did not treat gay people equally.
It's that last part that's important here. People can enact laws directly (as with Prop 22) or through their representatives (who, interestingly in California, actually approved gay marriage twice). But the Constitution prohibits laws that discriminate against a class of people, or deny them equal protection. (This case was decided under s similar provision in the California constitution).
No one has "taken away" anyone's vote in this case. It's just a principle of our government that whatever laws people enact, they must treat all people equally. The court determined that the marriage law did not treat gay people equally.
ldswoman | 9:57 p.m. May 16, 2008
Morality: You said "the lds church is far from perfect." You are
wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints IS perfect. The people
are not. But the Church you'll find some of the nicest, kindest most
loving people on the face of the Earth.
I am a convert and have been a member for 35 years and have a strong testimony. How grateful I am to be a member of the Lord's Church here on earth.
Homosexuality, and (therefore, homosexual marriage) is against God's laws-always has been and always will be. All the arguments in the world will never change it. We teach in the Church that homosexual feelings are only a sin if acted upon...homosexuals are to remain celebate, and exercise self control, just as heterosexuals before they are married. God loves ALL his children but he cannot and will not condone the breaking of any commandments. We must every day of our life strive to live the teachings of Jesus to the best of our ability, and to love one another and try to help and lift others.
That's all I'll ever need to say on the subject. God Bless all.
I am a convert and have been a member for 35 years and have a strong testimony. How grateful I am to be a member of the Lord's Church here on earth.
Homosexuality, and (therefore, homosexual marriage) is against God's laws-always has been and always will be. All the arguments in the world will never change it. We teach in the Church that homosexual feelings are only a sin if acted upon...homosexuals are to remain celebate, and exercise self control, just as heterosexuals before they are married. God loves ALL his children but he cannot and will not condone the breaking of any commandments. We must every day of our life strive to live the teachings of Jesus to the best of our ability, and to love one another and try to help and lift others.
That's all I'll ever need to say on the subject. God Bless all.
you.will.see | 10:08 p.m. May 16, 2008
it sad that this turns out this way...it so simple just to be man and
wife...just throwing lifes away...however we have free choice. god gave that to
us all. once the veil is returned...boy I...wish we listened... because now we
are at the judgement seat with god
KSD | 10:30 p.m. May 16, 2008
I guess that I need to add that none of us are without sin, but I am not asking
for anyone to condone my sin, but to let me repent and strive to live in
accordance with the Lord's commandments. It's a continual process,
but I think we all should be making an effort. We all have moral agency and
should love each other regardless of our shortcomings or sins. But that is
different than upholding those same sins and saying it's ok to remain in
that state.
truth | 11:04 p.m. May 16, 2008
Good for you California, my family and I will be moving from this closed minded
Utah culture to a place where people are not affraid of letting other people be
themselves. Good by Utah you can keep your eyes closed to the rest of the world
as long as you like, but for me and my family Cali is the place for us.
All that is shiny is not gold! | 11:09 p.m. May 16, 2008
You can rationalize all you want. Basic to all living creatures is the need to
pair off for the purpose of reproduction. In our species, it has been the norm
since the begining of recorded time for couples to form a life long monogomous
bond, of which reproduction is a key function. That is why homosexual behavior
is only a counterfeit.
Active Homosexuality is nothing more than devient behavior that has through social corruption become accepted as normal. It is perfectly acceptable if two confused but, consenting adults wish to gratify selfish desires through confederate means. But to force the majority to not only accept the behavior but, also grant it the same legal and moral standing is to mock the whole concept of marriage.
Furthermore, I think those who would hold the counterfeit in the same esteem as the original have no understanding of the importance of marriage in society. Don't urinate on my leg and tell me it is raining!
Active Homosexuality is nothing more than devient behavior that has through social corruption become accepted as normal. It is perfectly acceptable if two confused but, consenting adults wish to gratify selfish desires through confederate means. But to force the majority to not only accept the behavior but, also grant it the same legal and moral standing is to mock the whole concept of marriage.
Furthermore, I think those who would hold the counterfeit in the same esteem as the original have no understanding of the importance of marriage in society. Don't urinate on my leg and tell me it is raining!
Disfellowship | 11:31 p.m. May 16, 2008
Many individuals who are dis-fellowshipped from the LDS faith are those whose
views and practices are no longer in harmony with what is accepted by our
ordained,inspired Prophet. The Proclamation on the Family makes this whole
dialogue quite clear. Some choose to leave on their own. Sad but true, all are
allowed to make choices to accept or not to accept the Brethren.
RE: Gay Man | 1:09 a.m. May 17, 2008
Brother, I know where you're coming from. I'm not gay, but I was born
with a violent streak and a quick temper, and if I allow myself to lose control,
I will be deep in sin because of it. Men like us have to work very hard to
overcome our natural inclination to sin. I'd guess that if you knew the
truth, everyone out there was born with a propensity to some sinful urge, some
more than others, but everyone struggles with it. What is important is not
giving in to those sinful urges, and I can tell you that without Jesus Christ,
we can't beat it. Repent of it and lay it at the cross brother, and through
Him, you'll overcome it.
to RE: Gay man | 5:50 a.m. May 17, 2008
But are you asked to not love someone you are strongly attracted to because of
that streak of supposed sin. Well, that is the problem with your comparison.
All gay men are asked to not love the only people they are ever attracted
to...adult males. You purposely live without love and then we can have a
conversation.
Straight mother of 3
Straight mother of 3
hey ldswoman | 5:54 a.m. May 17, 2008
It wasn't too long ago that intermarriage was also an 'eternal'
principal and "gods law." It seems that god changed his/her mind in
1978. I fully expect a new "revelation" when tax exempt status is
again put into question as it did in the late 1800's as well at in
'78.
Perplexed | 5:55 a.m. May 17, 2008
Some of you are missing a key distinction here. As far as the civil law is
concerned, marriage is a state-recognized institution carrying hundreds, if not
thousands, of benefits. God and religious doctrine have nothing to do with it.
The civil law is what the California Supreme Court was interpreting in the
marriage cases.
As far as ecclesiastical law is concerned, marriage is whatever a particular faith community wants it to be, so long as it doesn't run afoul of the civil law. God is very much relevant to ecclesiastical law, and no faith community in the United States may be forced to perform or recognize a marriage that it finds offensive. Merely because the civil law may hold that gays and lesbians may wed does not mean that the LDS Church may be forced to recognize those marriages.
People can talk all they want about the family as the basic unit of society. Even taking that as true, situations for whatever reason involving cohabiting heterosexual couples and serial divorcees create environments that can be unstable and confusing for children. I don't see how gays and lesbians can mess with the institution of marriage any more than we heterosexuals have.
As far as ecclesiastical law is concerned, marriage is whatever a particular faith community wants it to be, so long as it doesn't run afoul of the civil law. God is very much relevant to ecclesiastical law, and no faith community in the United States may be forced to perform or recognize a marriage that it finds offensive. Merely because the civil law may hold that gays and lesbians may wed does not mean that the LDS Church may be forced to recognize those marriages.
People can talk all they want about the family as the basic unit of society. Even taking that as true, situations for whatever reason involving cohabiting heterosexual couples and serial divorcees create environments that can be unstable and confusing for children. I don't see how gays and lesbians can mess with the institution of marriage any more than we heterosexuals have.
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
- Westminster campus briefs 12:35 a.m.
- Y.'s Bauman receives award 12:33 a.m.
- BYU campus briefs 12:30 a.m.
- Utah Jazz: Game at a glance 12:12 a.m.
- Phoenix temple inspires thanks 12:07 a.m.
- Knitting hearts together 12:07 a.m.
- Christmas gifts for your scholar 12:07 a.m.
- The spirit of the fast in nursery 12:07 a.m.
- Tips for living: Dining out with kids 12:07 a.m.
- The gospel in words: Civility 12:06 a.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Psychologist: Mitchell schizophrenic
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Snow brings big chill
- Jazz go up against 'the best'
- Letters: Global warming a lie
229 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall184
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil147
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax138
- George lost in rivalry hatefest121
- Max Hall wants to look ahead119
- Revive full food tax?100
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke94
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Utah is still BYU's BCS game. A little mind game: Which one of these is...
Seriously, Dick. You believe there is a bowl selection committee like the...
out of 80ish comments tho only like 6 people have no common sense. really...
This is really sad hope there can be a happy ending to this story. Also it is...
And how do they find these photos of Okur's defensive prowess? They had the...
Where to place the blame after this one? 6 pts in the 4th? Their bigs are too...
"Dan's reposting........" It was not only TOO long....but it is also just...
I hoped the Jazz bounced back against the Magic, loosing to a good team like...
Richest man on earth - Warren Buffet plays SERIOUS BRIDGE. Many chess...
Too funny...an anti-intellectual using big ol' words to sound smart. Just...
Advertisements
It is as impossible for an elected representative to fairly represent "the will of the voters" (his constituents), as it is for a single divorce attorney to fairly represent the interests of both the husband and wife (er, ah, husband and husband, wife and wife...) in court. If a husband in a divorce hired me as his client, everyone can see it is ludicrous to think that I could also have the wife as my client simultaneously. This is because their interests are opposed.
Voters interests are opposed. It is just as impossible for an elected "representative" to fairly represent all the voters. Nope, sorry, the whole notion of representation falls flat. Representatives represent themselves, and whoever agrees with them and that's it! They cannot, and do not represent all the voters. Some voters get what they want and some don't. There is no such thing as "the will of the voters", as a single, unified opinion, writ as law. There is only opinion of some imposed on all.