Deseret News | LDS Church officials urge California members to support marriage amendment

Reader comments
LDS Church officials urge California members to support marriage amendment

492 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next >

VOR | 1:59 p.m. June 23, 2008

The LDS Church, as well as all Churches, should mind their own business and not try to impose their will on others. Seriously, can anybody come up with a halfway intelligent argument on who this would affect the LDS Church or it's members? If you are a member of said church, and you want to marry someone of the same sex, by then all means, please do so. Just don't expect your homophobic church to support your decision.

I can't wait | 2:05 p.m. June 23, 2008

for all the gay California people to start coming out of the woodwork to comment on this.

Go Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage - go democracy -

boo crazy activist judges in Cali

sdj | 2:12 p.m. June 23, 2008

I believe the article contains an error. The referendum in 2000 was not a constitutional amendment or the court could not have ruled it unconstitutional. It must have been added to the state code or statutes. That's why a constitutional amendment is necessary now, so the justices of the supreme court cannot rule it unconstitutional in the future.

Comments continue below

SLC Resident | 2:12 p.m. June 23, 2008

Surprise, surprise. Now, go and do as your told. Baaa Baaa Baaa!

flattopSF | 2:19 p.m. June 23, 2008

If you think the California Supreme Court was composed of "activist judges" you really ought to go find out a fact or two...that is, if you can accept facts in your life. The CSC is mostly composed of Republican-appointed Republicans. Ironic, isn't it?

As for the LDS church getting involved in political acts of bigotry, well...I'll just say that when it came to putting up or shutting up, the Mormons weren't abolitionists, they weren't feminists, they weren't against child labor, they weren't...need I go on? I think the world knows where the LDS church stands on most social issues.

Agreed with VOR | 2:18 p.m. June 23, 2008

There's a separation of church and state for a reason. Marriage in this country is civil legal proceeding when it comes down to it. A civil legal document is necessary to become married, and a civil legal document is necessary to dissolve the marriage. Marriage is NOT by definition in this country a religious proceeding. Religion needs to stay out of it.

dave4197 | 2:21 p.m. June 23, 2008

We LDS church members in California welcome the church's encouragement, support, guidance, and common ground with us to support the religious institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It's about safety and security for children and for parents. Not the misdirected redefinintion that's being forced on us, thru government intervention. The 5 California justices who tried to justify their ruling with extrapolated theories are the people who need to mind their own business, and read the Bill of Rights, and stick to gov't business. We the people of California have voted, 60-40, already, in favor of keeping marriage what it is, a man / woman union. I expect we can restate that 60-40, clearly, for those who think they need to legislate religion.

Breaking news!! | 2:23 p.m. June 23, 2008

This just in: The LDS Church is standing up for what they believe......details at 6.

Amazing! Shocking!

I bet they do this on purpose, just to get the antis all fired up. I bet the LDS leadership sits around all day and thinks of ways to get you all whipped up into a frenzy.

Eichendorff | 2:21 p.m. June 23, 2008

The Church has the constitutional right to express its views on any moral issue it chooses. There is no attempt to impose anything on anybody; this is about encouraging members to exercise their democratic duty. By doing this the Church is in fact minding its own business. Marriage and the family and the preservation of our civilization are the Church's business.

Jon B. Holbrook | 2:25 p.m. June 23, 2008

Yes, I agree. The Church of Jesus Christ should mind its own business! All churches, including the LDS Church, have a right to speak out on moral issues, even if you don't agree with them. Even the ACLU has sided with the LDS Church on its right to speak out on moral issues affecting the community. If the LDS Church is not allowed to speak out on issues, should Move-on.org or the GLBT Alliance be allowed to speak out on any issue? The Leftists are hypocritical. They claim to believe in free speech, but if you disagree with them, they will use every strategem to silence you. Isn't this what the Communists and Nazis did? Support the U.S. Constitution per the original intent. Support a Constitutional admendment supporting God-ordained marriage! Thank-You

BobP | 2:27 p.m. June 23, 2008

The boo-birds with their evil propensities are coming out in droves.

As far a gay marriage is concerned they can live together, procreation might be a little tough, but that's OK. Just don't call it marriage OR expect me to approve it.

I don't want my kids or grandkids getting any idea that gay marriage is acceptable. To me and other LDS members like me, we can use political mehtods to push our wishes just as the gay community does.

mind your own business | 2:26 p.m. June 23, 2008

Where does it say that LDS get no voice in the affairs of their state?
Is that in the
Thumb-Suckers-Whiny-Baby Manual?
Please give a reference.

Cal01 | 2:26 p.m. June 23, 2008

Churches have every right to speak out on issues of moral consequence and certainly the definition of marriage is one of them. No one is attempting to silence the gay right advocates and their desire to impose their will on the vast majority of Americans who oppose gay marriage.

I knew it.... | 2:27 p.m. June 23, 2008

I knew this was coming, it happened before.

Looks like the LDS church just can't keep it's nose out of the political arena. ANd they say the church doesn't tell it's members how to vote. Isn't this EXACTLY the opposite action????

Oh, wait, I forgot...that's different.

C'mon people, start justifying the church's actions, start quoting the same scriptures you ALWAYS fall back on that proove NOTHING.

Here, let me get the ball rolling: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

To VOR | 2:26 p.m. June 23, 2008

Christian churches that remain true to the Judeo-christian principles found in the Bible cannot avoid teaching and advocating God's pronouncements against homosexuality, any more than they could avoid teaching and advocating in any other spiritual or religious matter. That is a church's divinely mandated reponsibility.

Because some churches have strayed does not mean their straying is divinely approved. Churches also sprang up in Book of Mormon times which "did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden".

you funny! | 2:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

>>"not try to impose their will on others"<<

Who do we think we are, anyway?
California Judges?

Live in SoCal | 2:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

@VOR

Get a clue. A church that preaches its doctrine is doing exactly as you suggest 'mind(ing) its own business'. Marriages are sanctioned by and performed in churches as a central tenet of most faiths.

The reason that churches have a vested interest in this particular issue is that it would only be a small step from the CA court ruling to compelling churches to recognize/perform same-sex marriages. A church certainly has a right and obligation to protect the doctrine of the faith, even if (or maybe especially if) the issue is being debated in the public forum

COSMO | 2:27 p.m. June 23, 2008

Amen, LDS Church.

Bert | 2:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

This is a directive to all Mormon members to vote a certain way on a political issue.

They didn't say study the issue, get involved in your comunity and vote according to your moral continence.

This was a directive from a non-profit to its members to vote as their told.

IRS, are you listening?

Beth | 2:30 p.m. June 23, 2008

"Activist judge" is code for "liberal," and as Flattop pointed out, there is a conservative majority (6 to 3, I think) sitting on the CA Supreme Court bench. These ain't you're tree-huggin, CA hippies that came down with this decision.

Also, endorsing political positions and candidates from the pulpit/stand can put a religious organization in a bad place with the IRS. Just sayin'

Oh, and good for teh gheyz!

to dave4197 | 2:31 p.m. June 23, 2008

I think you should speak for yourself. I don't appreciate in the least the church inserting itself in the political arena. I didn't appreciate it when they worked against the ERA. I didn't appreciate it when they worked for the passage of Prop 22. And I don't appreciate it now.

People have left the church over this question of overstepping its bounds. In the past it did it covertly. The more publicly it does it, the more embarrassed and troubled many Mormons will be. And the harder it will be to get anyone who isn't yoked into intellectual herd mentality already to consider the church.

Another thought | 2:32 p.m. June 23, 2008

If it doesn't affect your marriage life don't worry about it. Really how many times a day do you thing about a homosexual or something related to homosexuality? If it's more than the person next to you then maybe you're questioning yourself. I know very well this doesn't bother me or my husband in anyway. The best quote said is "Gay people deserve to be as miserable as straight married people". Honestly if it doesn't bother you, your spouse or keep you up at night don't worry about it. Let them be. Oh and for those homophobes I promise it's not contageous (because my sister is a lesbian). I know first hand. :)

Bert | 2:34 p.m. June 23, 2008

News to BobP: your kids and grandkids most likely already believe marraige for gays is acceptable.

Destructive | 2:33 p.m. June 23, 2008

The LDS Church is making it's voice heard because gay marriage is destructive to families and therefore society. Liberals sure are open minded until someone stands up to their socialy destructive policies then they get all worked into a frenzy. How dare any one oppose them!!

Seriously People | 2:34 p.m. June 23, 2008

Seriously all you foaming at the mouth liberals. Lay off the church. The LDS church has always said they have a right to speak up on matters pertaining to morality. What has happened in California is insidious and immoral. All good Christians and thier churches have a right and duty to exercise thier 1st ammendment right to freely denounce this as something we must not support.

NT | 2:36 p.m. June 23, 2008

This is the right thing to do.

Sarah | 2:36 p.m. June 23, 2008

There's something about some of these comments that I don't understand. When someone mentions "activist judges", the counter argument is always that some of them are Republican judges.

Who says that Republican judges can't be activist judges? Nobody said anything at all about their political party affiliation, just their actions in this particular court case, when they completely disregarded the will of their constituents, the people whose interests they're hired to protect.

Grateful | 2:36 p.m. June 23, 2008

I'm grateful for all churches that are willing to take a stand on moral issues, regardless of the firey darts that are sure to follow.

Churchs and their members have an obligation and just as much right to speak out on moral issues as people who have no such moral convictions.

Just because a judge is appointed by a Republican governor, doesn't mean that that judge can't become a liberal, activist judge.

Since the gay movement has not been able to gain a majority to support gay marriage, they've launched a coordinated backdoor attack nationwide to get liberal, activist judges to support their agenda.

People who are willing to speak out against their agenda will be called every despicable name in the book for not supporting this unnatural, corrupt form of "marriage."

YBU | 2:36 p.m. June 23, 2008

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage is LEGALLY defined as being between a man and a woman."

Why can't they be content with RELIGIOUSLY defining marriage as between a man and a woman? When did they get to decide what should be legal?

Anon | 2:38 p.m. June 23, 2008

The intent of "gay marriage" is to utilize the hate-speech laws to criminalize the preaching of the gospel. For this reason "gay marriage" should be opposed by all baptized members of the Church.

to "I knew it" | 2:38 p.m. June 23, 2008

should we look up the word "encouraged" together?

HUH? | 2:37 p.m. June 23, 2008

"gay marriage is destructive to families and therefore society"

How is it destructive to marriage? Please explain.

MC | 2:39 p.m. June 23, 2008

In response to VOR-your argument that the LDS church or other churches are imposing their will is narrow-minded and flawed. That same argument could be used for those who are in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact I would say that argument holds more water in that case. The majority of people are not in favor of same-sex marriage and have not been for centuries. So who is imposing their will? Furthermore, I dont think it is a matter of imposing wills. It is a matter of people having different values and standing up for those values. This is what a democracy is founded on. Also, your question of anyone coming up with a "halfway intelligent argument" seems to be refuted by your own unintelligent accusation of a "homophobic" church. I suggest you do some intelligent research on how homophobic the LDS church is and then make your argument.

to Sarah | 2:39 p.m. June 23, 2008

"the people whose interests they're hired to protect."

They are not hired. They were appointed to judge the law. The law has nothing to do with what the majority wants...it is what has been deemed constitutional.

Re: VOR | 2:40 p.m. June 23, 2008

VOR,

"The LDS Church, as well as all Churches, should mind their own business and not try to impose their will on others.

That will be COMPLETELY fine if you will agree that the LDS Church and all Churches don't have to abide by U.S. laws but so long as they have to live under our laws IT IS their business rather we agree with them or not.

"Seriously, can anybody come up with a halfway intelligent argument on who this would affect the LDS Church or it's members? If you are a member of said church, and you want to marry someone of the same sex, by then all means, please do so."

I'm sure they will be happy to oblige in that regard but the State of California taxes members of the LDS Church and any non-profit operations of Churches and this impacts the LDS Church as much as it does those who will choose to marry persons of the same sex so they have the right to participate in the decision.

"Just don't expect your homophobic church to support your decision."

The LDS Church hasn't taken any homophobic stance instead they are taking a pro-marriage stance.

Flecher | 2:40 p.m. June 23, 2008

2016
LDS Church announces married men cannot both serve in same Bishopric.
Heterosexual couples may both serve together.

*To those living in 2008
after the lawsuits there were a couple of changes

Herbie | 2:40 p.m. June 23, 2008

Ditto on Dave4197's comments. Last time, we were "told" over the pulpit we HAD to support Prop.22, a proposition with NO teeth, even though most of us wanted a Constitutional Amendment THEN, the Church caved then. We have many close friends' from our previous Stake in California(a very politically conservative area too) who have children, siblings, and other relatives who are gay/lesbian. The political antics of Prop.22 very nearly damaged the Church's tax-free status, as well as alienated a LARGE portion of the active membership. It is my personal belief that such letters should NOT be read from the pulpit. While I support marriage between a man and a woman, I enthusiastically support registered civil unions, domestic parternerships between PEOPLE. This is not a good thing to being doing at present. The Church has it's opinon, and I can express mine as well.

thanks Bert! | 2:41 p.m. June 23, 2008

for the great legal advice!

worth every penny the Church paid for it, too.

say hello to Ernie for me.

Autumn256 | 2:41 p.m. June 23, 2008

VOR,
What I disagree with is the "state" changing the legal definition of marriage. What will they change the definiton of next?
Although I disagree with the idea, what is wrong with a "Civil union"?

HUH? | 2:43 p.m. June 23, 2008

"The intent of "gay marriage" is to utilize the hate-speech laws to criminalize the preaching of the gospel. For this reason "gay marriage" should be opposed by all baptized members of the Church."

I don't know where you heard that, but it is totally untrue and spreads a false rumor. That is, I believe, against your religion.

I vote no on your dictatorship | 2:44 p.m. June 23, 2008

Agreed with VOR,

"There's a separation of church and state for a reason."

Do Churches live under the same laws as non-Church organizations and individuals? Separation of Church and state doesn't mean that Churches and members of Churches can't influence legal, constitutional and political decisions because the moment they can't they live in a dictatorship where they have to obey our laws but can't influence them.

"A civil legal document is necessary to become married, and a civil legal document is necessary to dissolve the marriage. Marriage is NOT by definition in this country a religious proceeding."

I agree completely with this.

"Religion needs to stay out of it."

I guess they should just sit down, shut up and obey our laws but never think they live in a free country where they can participate in the making of our laws. I'm sorry to have to inform you of this but every organization, rather religious or not, has the right to advance its members interests. The Chess Club has the right to advance the interest of their members just like a Church does. To say otherwise would apply a different standard to Churches and that is DICTATORSHIP.

uncannygunman | 2:46 p.m. June 23, 2008

As much as I disagree with the LDS church on the gay marriage issue, I am happy that my taxes will go down now that the church has chosen to give up its tax-exempt status.

Sad | 2:48 p.m. June 23, 2008

So sad that my own church would have to tell it's members how to think. Can't the members of the church follow the light of Christ and Spirit to make their own decision based on compassion, love, and charity? I can't wait to go to Elders Quorum and hear the biased, ignorant, contentious, and bigoted rhetoric against homosexuals that always follows such requests from church leaders.

Silliness, Seriously! | 2:46 p.m. June 23, 2008

A church is established, presumably, to teach God's will--whether or not it is popular. Voluntary members of any church are encouraged to live as they are taught what God would desire.

ALL Christian churches, at one time or another--have advocated PURITY in sacred, intimate relations. Over time, some churches (and individuals) have somehow changed their mind.

So what is happening here--either 1) the churches which DO NOT change have been teaching God's will previously AND now.

Or 2) churches with changeable doctrine are teaching for popular public opinion and worth every counterfeit $100 bill available in the donation plate.

Or 3) God has been changing his mind as-of-late, recognizing his original decision as a mistake?

This is a serious issue for an organization to purport to represent the will of Diety.

I support organizations that believe in inspired instruction through fervent prayer.
I support organizations that do not pander to an audience--but stand firm, steadfast, and immovable.

Focus | 2:48 p.m. June 23, 2008

Two issues here: 1) the right of the church or any other organization or person to participate in a public political conversation about a moral issue, and 2) whether the LDS church is right or wrong on the issue. We can debate number 2 all day, but, regarding number 1, as a matter of constitutional law, the church can speak up and can encourage its members to do the same to support the tenets of the organization. Attempting to keep the church, any other organization, or any individual out of the conversation goes against the 1st Amendment.

re MC | 2:55 p.m. June 23, 2008

I suggest YOU do some research on just how wonderfully the LDS Church has treated their gay members (AND those who have supported them) over the years. There are mountains of incidents and they are abominable.

Family Decline | 2:55 p.m. June 23, 2008

This is the right thing to do. The LDS church supports all family values. In my opinion, the reason the morals of society are declining is due to deteriorating family values. My next door neighbors are lesbians. They have 3 kids from a previous straight marriage. I've talked to their oldest about this and he is confused as a kid can be. He's different than everyone just from his upbringing. He has no male influence on his life...its so sad. This CA ruling only allows this deterioration at a more rapid pace.

Good job church. Anything we can do to support real family values (mothers and fathers are needed) will help. Kids don't need any more immoral things to cloud their minds!

Anonymous | 2:57 p.m. June 23, 2008

Since I am a LDS member and before that, a Baptist - it is our belief that only man and woman be married as in the bible. But you know what? you have made up your mind to marry the same sex and personally, not the church, I think you are living in sin and it also says homosexualty is not permitted by God's law. I hope that you all will think about it and pray about it. I feel sorry for the children that you will adopt. As far as I am concerned, you can do what you want, but I know that it is wrong but I really don't have to associate with you people. You are living for MAN - not GOD.

Sooooo... | 2:59 p.m. June 23, 2008

If it's all about equality, then when do I get to vote on heterosexual marriage, Republican marriage and since I don't believe in the Mormon church, when do I get to vote on the validity of Temple Marriage?

I feel that heterosexual divorce is FAR more damaging to the family unit than gay marriage, so do I get to vote on this too?? FYI, divorce...the bible is agiant it. So is the Catholic church. Hypocrits.

Tom Paine | 2:57 p.m. June 23, 2008

When a church becomes involved in politics, promotes a political agenda, and tells it's members how to vote, it should lose it's tax exempt status. No church is an individual, it's an organization, and a tax exempt organization at that. Only individuals are granted rights under the constitution. So if the LDS church chooses to act as an individual, then it should pay taxes as an individual.

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next >

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.