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

free thinker | 3:43 p.m. June 23, 2008

Boy am I glad that I don't have to ask some old guy in Salt Lake City how I should think or vote in the one life that I have. I was walking down the street the other day in downtown SLC, and I could swear that I heard a majority of the people going....baa, baa.

It's about time.... | 3:42 p.m. June 23, 2008

It's about time that "the church" has it's beloved tax exemption status taken away. They have become way too political (or maybe we just hear about it more now).

Just about every mormon I know (and most christians too) believe our founding fathers were "inspired" by God when they wrote our constitution...funny how fast they all forget that they were smart enough to recognize the importance of separation of church and state.

I really wish the mormon church could concentrate their efforts on skybridges rather than stick their nose in others business.

To: Lakers | 3:44 p.m. June 23, 2008

If you really want to be a free person and enjoy liberty, then combat all the religion crap going on in this country. IMO, organized religion is the most insidious con ever perpetuated on humankind.

Comments continue below

View to the future | 3:44 p.m. June 23, 2008

The time is coming when the courts will take away the right to perform legal marriages from organizations that will not perform all types of marriages the state defines as legal. Therefore the LDS church will at that time perform no marriages, but instead will perform sealing ceremonies for those whose legal marriages also match the LDS definition of a righteous union. Because the courts recognize a right to association, the LDS church still has the right to exclude from it's membership or privileges any who violate its' standards.

re Rock On | 3:46 p.m. June 23, 2008

If you truly believe that being gay is a choice (for Men, especially!) you need to go back to Biology class. Hint: It's not too difficult to tell what a Man is sexually attracted to.

Mormon bigotry | 3:44 p.m. June 23, 2008

Aren't you ashamed to belong to a church that will actually preach intolerance this coming Sunday, June 29, 2008? Someone on here actually proposed a "gay relocation program" to move all Utah gays to California. In response, I propose a "Mormon relocation program": all LDS will move to Iran, where they will be happy with the anti-gay attitudes.
Shame on you.

Marriage sacred??? | 3:46 p.m. June 23, 2008

Bull!

With divorce rates at almost 50%, how is it sacred?

Is is still a sacred ceremony if it's done at a drive thru window in Vegas? How about if the ceremony is performed by Elvis? Does that make it MORE sacred?

Is the 6th or 7th marriage just as sacred as the first? If you marry more than once are you more righteous? That would make Elizabeth Taylor nearing Pope status.

Get real. If marriage was as sacred as you people want to think, you should treat it as such. And if you view it as sacred, strong and secure, how would someone elses marriage affect yours or make it less?

RL | 3:48 p.m. June 23, 2008

All citizens have the right to vote on these issues, whether they are not LDS or are. Our system is based on majority wins. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Accusing the members of "imposing their beliefs on others" is outrageous. We are simply voting according to our beliefs, as do Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, whatever. That's the way everyone votes on issues like this. I don't want your belief "imposed on" me, but you still have the right to vote. Again, if you don't like the democratic system we live in, move to another country. Otherwise, shut up and vote.

TAXES | 3:48 p.m. June 23, 2008

We're not talking about religious marriage, here. This issue is strictly regarding civil unions.

Not by any stretch of the imagination does the church's involvement qualify as "non-political." It's right-wing politics in its ugliest form.

It's time to revoke the church's tax exempt status.

Dan | 3:50 p.m. June 23, 2008

I find it rather confusing on what many purported LDS members feel about gay marriage. This life is a pit stop in time, and only obedient sealed eternal families are capable of inheriting all that is possible in the eternities. If you only want to settle for second best, then yes gay marriage is fine. You don't get to be married for eternity when you aim for second best.

WestBerkeleyFlats | 3:49 p.m. June 23, 2008

Oy vey. The only thing that this LDS statement and these LDS comments have demonstrated is that the LDS church remains, as always, fifty years behind the times in terms of social justice. At one time, LDS church leaders condemned interracial marriage. Now, they condemn gay marriage. History has a way of burying these types of reactionaries. I bet that in a few decades the church's oppositon to the ERA in the 1970s and to gay marriage in the 1990s and 2000s will be disingenuously described as "folklore doctrine" by church leaders.

Charlie | 3:52 p.m. June 23, 2008

Democracies exist to protect the minority against the often-tyrannical will of the majority. Allowing asme-sex marriage is not the same as requiring same-sex marriage. In other words, if you are not gay you won't have to marry someone of your same sex so leave those people alone! Inside your church, believe whatever you want but in the public forum, leave your religion in church.

Re: John | 3:56 p.m. June 23, 2008

Sorry John, but at this point I really think that your not being entirely truthful about your religion or at least whether you have been an active member in a very long time. The First Presidency and the rest of the General Authorities are regularly peaching about the harm in divorce, child and spousal abuse, etc in just about every conference.

If you chose to believe that the First Presidency is guided by God then you should follow their guidance. But from your comments I am pretty sure you dont believe and are not a member of the LDS faith.

Re: Old Beezle | 3:58 p.m. June 23, 2008

"Your entire argument is based on a religious viewpoint."

My view is political because it is a political issue therefore your argument doesn't have significance. I don't care how you form your public opinions and you shouldn't mine.

Richard John Neuhaus put it this way "In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ï¿½religiousï¿½ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified ï¿½thingï¿½ that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who are religious. As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them."

hopefully | 3:59 p.m. June 23, 2008

"Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

Hopefully then the letter also includes important instructions to be less selfish and critical, more forgiving and understanding so that man-woman marriages better reflect strong, loving, committed unions.

In my observation, it isn't the genders of those in the partnership that makes a marriage sacred, it's the work put into it and making the choice everyday to be committed and loving.

Re: Don't Be Deceived | 4:00 p.m. June 23, 2008

"The stripping of tax-exempt status from any church that opposes gay marriage is the next step in the gay agenda. This is not idle chatter, this is the game plan.

First they get the courts to legalize gay marriage.

Then every church will be forced to not only recognize gay marriages, but to perform gay marriages."

This makes absolutely no sense. Churches decide on whom to marry all of the time. Non-members or even inactive LDS members can never successfully sue to be married in an LDS temple.

Wow | 4:00 p.m. June 23, 2008

All of these LDS church bashers are just "kicking against the pricks." Marriage between a man and a woman is not the LDS church's law. It is God's law. Just because you don't believe in God or in his laws doesn't make them untrue. Truth is truth--no matter how you try to cloud it or make "good look bad" and bad look good." The world thinks they can change God's laws--and then blame the LDS Church for standing up for them. But you will only hurt yourself trying.

Chris Plummer | 4:01 p.m. June 23, 2008

Not enough Mormons in California to worry about them mobilizing.
I think at this point the tax free status of the church should be taken away.

remember | 4:00 p.m. June 23, 2008

The Church was threatened with tax exempt status by politicians who were in favor of gay marriage. There was never any legal foundation for them to stand on. This is an issue not a candidate. The people who were threatening them with IRS B.S. were nothing but thugs trying to bully the church. The church never came out and threatened any members if they did one thing or another. The church as always encourage people to stand up against something that they feel is damaging to the family. The one thing that should come out of this is that all churches can be very strong when they unite together for a good comon cause. Because I read alot of blogs that are afraid of what is going to happen at the polls. Yes that is what happens in America people vote and some times you win and some times you lose.

@ LDS ELDER | 4:02 p.m. June 23, 2008

Your arghument is hypocritical.

The LDS church STILL practises polygamy. And if you read the history of Brigham young, when he was in his 50's and 60's he was marrying women FAR younger than he was.

As far as the far fetched comment about marrying your pet, if your pet has evolved to the point of being able to verbally consent to being married, I say go for it!

A lot of things in this country's past weren't legal at some point, does that make them all unatural? African Americans and whites going to the same schools wasn't legal so it was unatural? Slavery WAS legal so by your argument it was natural. That's a very broad way of thinking.

And as far as closets, they are for clothes not people. I did my time in the closet because of certain attitudes of some in this state. Never again. I have to deal with you being straight and thinking your superior and righteous, you can deal with my being gay.

Censorship | 4:06 p.m. June 23, 2008

Compare the anti gay members of the LDS faith to the followers of Fred Phelps and it doesn't get posted. What? Did I hit the nail too hard?

To Charles | 4:05 p.m. June 23, 2008

I am Mormon, hold a recommend, and oppose this. Why must I reevaluate my position? Why don't you reevaluate yours?

Don't you think it's entirely possible that there were members in the 1970's who sincerely, and vocally, opposed the Priesthood ban on African-Americans? They didn't have to wait for President Benson to tell them how to feel, they knew what was true in their hearts and stuck to it.

Concerning homosexuals, it is the same. There are those of us in the Church now who believe in the Proclamation to the World, but don't believe it needs to be legislated, and feel a desire to stand up and fight for human rights. With posters saying things about "shipping the gays" to CA, I feel completely and unequivocally justified in standing up and saying that is not right. Since when did we go from being the persecuted, to the persecutors? That role reversal should never have happened.

Just because my belief system doesn't fit the mainstream Mormon thought process, doesn't mean I'm on the wrong side. Things change. And I feel very strongly that compassion will rule the day. Talk to me again in 10 years.

Fear God, not Man | 4:07 p.m. June 23, 2008

How can someone belonging to "Affirmation" claim to be Mormon but yet go against the teachings of the Church? I don't understand. I'm ready to fight for God's law on marriage.

dave4197 | 4:07 p.m. June 23, 2008

The only danger to the LDS church over this issue of "gay" marriage (misnomer intended) is if the church failed to speak out against this moral and religious issue that is central to our beliefs, central to our society, and a foundation of safety and security for families of children and parents. And remember, we Califonians clearly stated once, 60-40, our opinion on this matter, now it's apparently necessary to clearly state again. This will be a multi-church combined push back against misguided judges. Not to worry an instant about irs and tax exempt rantings. Not to fear the vicious anti-religion hate expressed in many posts above.

Let's ask ourselves... | 4:07 p.m. June 23, 2008

What would Jesus do? Would he say go ahead and let society deteriorate as it sees fit or would he say stand up for what is right? The sad thing is, the "right" has become so misunderstood or moved for convenience that people honestly think they are standing up for the right when they support gay marriage. Sodom and Gomorrah, anyone? It's in the Bible.

Re: Old Beezle | 4:07 p.m. June 23, 2008

To all non-mormons:

These are the church's views and the view's of its members. Either it's okay to express our views, or its not ok for you to express yours.

Satan's plan was to force people to do the right...when was the last time the church forced anyone to do anything?

Mormon's are taught to love unconditionally, and we do. That doesn't mean we have to support gay dudes getting married. I love my brother who is far astray from what I believe, but I don't condone what he's doing...theres a difference.

Divorce and Gay Marriage is SEPERATE issues. To be clear, the church DOES NOT support divorce either...but there is no crazy judges trying to make law about it so no one is talking about it. Divorce does hurt the family...the church is CLEAR on that. But, homos hurt the family too. It DOES hurt children...my neighbors are lesbians.....their kids are all kinds of messed up...poor kids. If you want to be homo....you can't reproduce and, therefore, shouldn't be allowed to have kids....what's next...legislation saying homo's have the right to reproduce????

East Coast Active Member | 4:10 p.m. June 23, 2008

I'm so disappointed by today's news that the Church will fight this issue with an organized anti-gay marriage campaign. I know we're supposed to follow our leaders, but my conscience is telling me that this doesn't feel right (for a long list of reasons). I've studied, pondered, and prayed about it extensively and just can't align myself with the Brethren on this.

I believe our leaders to be good, inspired men. But given what I view as past mistakes by Church leaders (i.e., past views on homosexuality, blacks, ERA, post-manifesto polygamy, etc.), I know that they're also human and capable of mistakes. I've seen first-hand the damage that the 2000 anti-gay marriage campaign had on members and non-members alike. Please, let us not proceed down that same road again.

lakers | 4:10 p.m. June 23, 2008

Down with homosexuallity, pedophillia, abortion, murder and other improper behavior!! Why do gay people have to force their views on me. As soon as a gay couple has a naturally born baby, then I will beleive that it is an acceptable alternative. Until then get the gay stuff out of here!!

I can choose to do wrong things and I will have to pay the price for my choice. Why are gays trying to get everyone else to pay the price for thier choice. Gay marriage is so fundementally wrong it is obviouse how it would hurt our society.

And by the way gay people, even if it gay marriage is "legal" does not make it right, it would still be wrong!! It is and always will be fundamentally wrong to act on/embrace gay behavior.

Charles | 4:13 p.m. June 23, 2008

To Dan, Amen brother...I'm truly amazed at how many people seem to be confused about such a simple doctrine of the gospel.

Maybe we should cut Sacrament Meeting down 20 minutes and add that time to Gospel Doctrine. It seems like too many can use the assistance. Or maybe some people need to open their scriptures a little more often so when they do open them, the pages aren't still stuck together from when they bought them.... :)

Steve | 4:13 p.m. June 23, 2008

Since the definition in the first presidency letter is "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" does that mean that all other "marriages" are not? So is polygamy not ordained of God, and if not, was it back over 100 years ago? Will it be again? Interracial marriage used to be forbidden and then highly discouraged. It's not any more. Was that ever doctrine? Do the doctrine or standards related to marriage change?

Anonymous | 4:16 p.m. June 23, 2008

Who is more bigotted; a church group trying to control the behavior of others who don't accept that church's standards, or those who belittle the beliefs of that church and tell its members that they should stay out of the political process and keep their opinions to themselves?

Those arguing for gay marriage seem to be fairly intolerant of disenting opinions. They may see it as being intolerant of intolerance, but I see it as them being intolerant of others' moral convictions.

Anonymous | 4:18 p.m. June 23, 2008

We need to remember one thing, children come from a MAN AND a WOMAN, same sex marriage does not promote the very reason for marriage. The church should and always stand for what is right, and we all know what is RIGHT!

sick | 4:18 p.m. June 23, 2008

if it isnt defeated California will become sodom and gomora.

Dave in Midvale | 4:20 p.m. June 23, 2008

TO: Bert

Since I was a young boy, I can remember letters from the LDS Church First Presidency being read in Mormon Sacrament Meetings. AT NO TIME did I ever hear anything that could be considered "a directive" or any type of dictatorial tone used when it came to "political issues." ALWAYS the letters encourage members to read and become knowledgeable on this and all other political maters.

You've made, along with many others, another blind assumption about the LDS Church.

Anonymous | 4:22 p.m. June 23, 2008

The interesting thing is that most Americans and most Californians don't want to discriminate against gay Americans. The LDS is in an unholy alliance to do this with the very aggressive churches that deny the Christianity of the LDS.

The church will not get their regard. This is a simple case of politics making strange bedfellows.

Stand for Truth | 4:27 p.m. June 23, 2008

Man can't define God's eternal laws. We must stand up for what is right, the consequences are far more serious than we realize. I love gay people, but I love God more and fear his judgments.

John Lambert | 4:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

As I have pointed out elsewhere, and other have pointed out more eloquently, state recognition of same-gender marriage makes it a matter of public policy. To oppose the goals of public policy puts institutions at risk of public support.
Possible results include loss of tax exempt status, denial of building permits on the argument of being a hate group, denial of government funded loans and grants to BYU students and in extreme cases jail times for those who have the audacity to preach that homosexuality is a sin as has happened to a Pentacostal minister in Sweden.

Brad | 4:27 p.m. June 23, 2008

This isn't political, it's moral, the church will take a stand EVERY time it is a moral issue. I'm so thankful that the church stands on principals! Critics of the church and Gays can say all they want but thanks to the church of Jesus Christ and other like minded religious groups who are founded on moral ethics that the bible clearly teaches we need to be unified.

Dave again | 4:27 p.m. June 23, 2008

TO: the responder "to Dave4197"

A reminder of what you said:

"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."

This may surprise you. . . But I don't appreciate the ERA, nor Prop 22. . .
And even though I am in opposition to your opinion or NOWs opinion or the ACLUs opinion. . . my family has risked their lives and some have laid down their lives for your right and their right to do just that. For you to say that the LDS Church can't express an opinion on ANYTHING is hypocritical as an American.

Wait.... | 4:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

With all the people throughout the world who are suffering because of natural disasters and political suppresion, the AIDS crisis in Africa, more children starving than Sally Struthers can help, the LDS church chooses to flex it's political muscle and take a stance on two people who love each other and want to be in a commited relationship?

Shouldn't we take care of those things that are a bit more, oh, I dunno....HUMANITARIAN before we start worrying about who's doing what with who?

I know the church does a lot to help, but I can't help but feel that if they put the same energy into poverty and starvation that they put into supressing civil (not moral) rights, they would have had these third world countries in a much better state.

FIX one thing then move on to the next.

To: To Charles | 4:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

I don't want to question you about your temple recommend, but it would seem that most people within the church (if they are paying any attention at all) would have known to use the name President Kimball instead of President Benson.

I guess I missed something. If the people of California voted 60-40 against this, how did it become legislation, and how is it un-democratic to try to persuade government to follow the voice of the people??? Hmmmm.

what, me worry? | 4:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

>>>Not enough Mormons in California to worry about them mobilizing<<<

maybe so...
but...

SOMEBODY voted to outlaw homosexual marriage in California (with way over 60%) a few years ago
and
SOMEBODY is going to vote to amend the California Constitution to outlaw homosexual marriage in November.

Anonymous | 4:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

Churches lose their tax exempt status when they take sides regarding SPECIFIC CANDIDATES not on SPECIFIC ISSUES. Taxing a church removes the separation of Church and state, because if an entity is being taxed then the goverment is required to represent it's interests (taxation = representation).

Telling a church to keep it's mouth shut about ISSUES is bigotted and intolerant of disenting opinions. There are many moral issues that cross political lines, including abortion, violence, abuse, community involvement, teen pregnancy, drug use, prostitution, nudity, decency and welfare to name a few.

Sarah | 4:28 p.m. June 23, 2008

"To Charles" stated that things change, and that the church will probably change its mind on this in the next 10 years.

I completely disagree with that statement. It's comparing apples and oranges. The ban on certain people holding the priesthood was never supposed to be permanent. It was ALWAYS stated that when the time was right, it would be lifted. That is not the case when it comes to homosexual behavior. That has always, and will always, be classified as a sin.

Certain practices go through periods when they're required and when they're not, and we don't always understand the reasoning behind that. But immorality has ALWAYS been immoral. That hasn't changed just because some people in California decided it has.

suzyk | 4:31 p.m. June 23, 2008

WOW..there's a lot of bitterness, guilt, anger against the LDS Church. To Eichendorff and dave4197 and COSMO..you have the right attitude and hopefully more will feel the same way. Those active members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints know what the First Presidency is saying and encouraging. We all have our freedom to choose but doesn't hurt to have some good direction. We also know when we choose something that is against what we believe, we cannot choose the consequences. Those are left up to God. We live in a wonderful country filled with many people; some very angry and hateful, some who are perverted, some very selfish with their millions and then there are many more who are humble and seek the truth and are willing to help those who have much less. That's the way we follow Christ and he did not and would not support same sex marriages. Marriage is between a man and a woman and will never change in the eyes of God..and you can take that to the bank.

Cultist Behavior | 4:32 p.m. June 23, 2008

Cultist Behavior, cannot think for themselves!

Bryan | 4:33 p.m. June 23, 2008

Homosexual "marriage" is a political charade with no real basis in homosexual life. No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron. In Belgium, Spain, and South Africa, for example, fewer than 1/2 of 1% of homosexuals has "married."

It is a cruel lie to suggest to homosexuals that their lifestyle choice will ever result in anything like a real marriage!

Homosexual "marriage" is an anti-democratic political charade.

to Gay relocation | 4:34 p.m. June 23, 2008

"I am willing to donate to the fund to pay their moving costs to California so long as they all promise that they will never leave the state of California."

Does it even occur to you that there are people who could change the word "gay" to "Mormon" and the name "Cailfornia" to "Utah"?

John Lambert | 4:35 p.m. June 23, 2008

Utah was the second state to give women the vote, well it was a territory than. Congress than denied women the vote in Utah.
Joseph Smith was proposing a method of abolishing slavery in 1844. Lincoln was still not openly for abolition in 1860.
This current issue is a moral issue, not a civil rights issue. The issue is whether degrading sexual practices will have the stigma of evil removed from them. If is only though a creation of a "sexual orientation" identifier of people, something that until recently did not exist, that this has happened.
I also still invite those who think the government should not keep any consenting adults to marry to explain why it is unawful for an adult man to marry his adult sister. Once you explain that we can consider what other regulations of marriage are justified.

to Recommend Holder | 4:35 p.m. June 23, 2008

You wouldn't be a recommend holder for long if you voiced your opinion directly to your priesthood authority - and he would be justified in pulling your recommend and instituting Church discipline.

Comparing blacks and the priesthood to this is totally off base for two reasons. 1. the Church never had a policy which stated that blacks would NEVER hold the priesthood. It was always well known and accepted that one day they would hold the priesthood and many members hoped and prayed that day would be soon. Their prayers were answered. 2. homosexual relationships have always, are currently and will always be opposed by the Church. Smoking, drinking, immorality, dishonesty, abuse, greed, covetousness will always be opposed by the Church in all their many forms. The arguement that this is civil marriage and the Church shouldn't be involved is a silly point. Of course the Church needs to oppose it since it has a policy of recognizing civil marriages. These so-called gay mormons are just looking for a loop hole to lay claim to some legitimacy with the Church.

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.