Reader comments
LDS Church officials urge California members to support marriage amendment
492 comments | Read story
to JL 6:03, 6:04, 6:19, 6:20 | 6:29 p.m. June 24, 2008
It would be easier to ascertain your thoughts were you to consider succinct
rather than verbose.
Be that as it may, I'm working my way through your comments.
Be that as it may, I'm working my way through your comments.
John Lambert | 6:33 p.m. June 24, 2008
To John in California:
How do you think you can have a reccomend if you do not support this? How are you sustaining Thomas S. Monson as the president of the Church and the only man who holds the keys?
I guess there might be a way to rationalize these two irreconcilable positions, but I do not think so. However I guess if you can see your refusal to follow the counsel of the prophet as sustaining him as the prophet than you can affairm such.
The reason that the 2006 statement was different was because it was about issues in congress not a referendum of the people.
The difference between this and divorce is two fold. Divorce is not inherently evil, homosexuality is. Divorce is conditionally bad in many cases, but at times it is the best decision, so as Dalin H. Oaks demostrated in our current world the church if it did come out on divorce would support its legality.
Secondly, this is not about individual actions but public policy. When same-gender marriage is endorsed by public policy than those who hold moral positions against it become endangered.
How do you think you can have a reccomend if you do not support this? How are you sustaining Thomas S. Monson as the president of the Church and the only man who holds the keys?
I guess there might be a way to rationalize these two irreconcilable positions, but I do not think so. However I guess if you can see your refusal to follow the counsel of the prophet as sustaining him as the prophet than you can affairm such.
The reason that the 2006 statement was different was because it was about issues in congress not a referendum of the people.
The difference between this and divorce is two fold. Divorce is not inherently evil, homosexuality is. Divorce is conditionally bad in many cases, but at times it is the best decision, so as Dalin H. Oaks demostrated in our current world the church if it did come out on divorce would support its legality.
Secondly, this is not about individual actions but public policy. When same-gender marriage is endorsed by public policy than those who hold moral positions against it become endangered.
Comments continue below
Bill | 6:36 p.m. June 24, 2008
Suppose, for example, that the citizens of the State of Georgia voted (even
overwhelmingly so) for a new state law that said that all marriages (civil,
religious, etc.) must be open to the public. Would not LDS members (with hopes
of sacred Temple marriages in the Atlanta Temple) hope that judges in Georgia
would have the ability and clear-thinking to overturn the will of the majority?
Or would you prefer the voice of the majority to triumph over established
judicial principles?
A judge's role is not to rubber stamp the will of the majority but to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Since the LDS church is a minority group everywhere in the U.S. except Utah, members of the church should be thankful that a law enacted by a simple vote of a majority of citizens CAN be overturned through judicial challenge.
I have no problem if the church wants to speak out on what it considers to be a moral issue. But I would hope that commenters who lambast the judges for not following the "will of the people" would consider the impact of such a stance in every other state but Utah.
A judge's role is not to rubber stamp the will of the majority but to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Since the LDS church is a minority group everywhere in the U.S. except Utah, members of the church should be thankful that a law enacted by a simple vote of a majority of citizens CAN be overturned through judicial challenge.
I have no problem if the church wants to speak out on what it considers to be a moral issue. But I would hope that commenters who lambast the judges for not following the "will of the people" would consider the impact of such a stance in every other state but Utah.
Charles | 6:45 p.m. June 24, 2008
to 5:49 pm...you are correct. Just because you say homosexual behavior is normal
and acceptable doesn't make it so. Thank you for making my point.
Isn't it interesting to see all the other animals on the planet doing as they were commanded; to multiply and replenish the earth after their own kind. If they can get the message, why can't you?
Homosexual behavior is nothing more than bad behavior that needs to be corrected and discontinued. Every person on earth has behavior temptations placed before them and we all have the choice to act on those temptations or not to act. It is our choice.
Marriage is not a right and is between a man and a woman. California already has civil union rights that give homosexuals the ability to be in a hospital room and your 3 other complaints. So if it's all about rights, then homosexuals have them in California.
But as we know, that's not the issue. You want your perverted behavior normalized. Societies forever have rejected them. And those that didn't reject homosexual behavior were wiped off the planet.
I'll continue to respond to your silliness as long as you continue to post it.
Isn't it interesting to see all the other animals on the planet doing as they were commanded; to multiply and replenish the earth after their own kind. If they can get the message, why can't you?
Homosexual behavior is nothing more than bad behavior that needs to be corrected and discontinued. Every person on earth has behavior temptations placed before them and we all have the choice to act on those temptations or not to act. It is our choice.
Marriage is not a right and is between a man and a woman. California already has civil union rights that give homosexuals the ability to be in a hospital room and your 3 other complaints. So if it's all about rights, then homosexuals have them in California.
But as we know, that's not the issue. You want your perverted behavior normalized. Societies forever have rejected them. And those that didn't reject homosexual behavior were wiped off the planet.
I'll continue to respond to your silliness as long as you continue to post it.
to Bill | 6:48 p.m. June 24, 2008
interesting analogy about Utah, yet the whole issue is in California and
Massachusetts, 2 of the most liberal states in the nation, and the people have
spoken that homosexual behavior is not acceptable and most definitely isn't
marriage.
Your bigotry of Utahns is showing through loud and clear...nice try though..
Your bigotry of Utahns is showing through loud and clear...nice try though..
John Lambert | 7:05 p.m. June 24, 2008
I wish the idiots who keep bringing up the gay relocation program would read
Elder Ballard's talk where he specifically said that people should not even
in jest propose to those who disagree with our morals that they could move
out.
Homosexuality is wrong, but so is hate. I wish people would stop spewing such intolerance and dislike for their fellow man. I know, I should not hate people for hating, but hater are quite frustrating. They also do a great diservice to the spread of good. Please, do not bring up such stupid, heartless suggestions again.
Homosexuality is wrong, but so is hate. I wish people would stop spewing such intolerance and dislike for their fellow man. I know, I should not hate people for hating, but hater are quite frustrating. They also do a great diservice to the spread of good. Please, do not bring up such stupid, heartless suggestions again.
John Lambert | 7:11 p.m. June 24, 2008
To the WestBerkley guy,
Show me one place where a church leader called inter-racial marriage a sin. In about 1958 Spencer W. Kimball gave a talk where he said "inter-racial marriage is no sin". He did discourage it, for purly social reasons.
Anyone who sees homosexuality as an abominable sin, will see that there is no comparison between the two. The sexual acts in marriage are the same no matter what race the participants are, but homosexuality involves different and degrading acts.
I have known so many inter-racial couples in the church that I am tempted to say inter-racial marriage is more common in the church than outside. This is a generalized impression and I can't statistically support it, but your view on the church and inter-racial marriage seems more influenced by Krakauer than reality.
Show me one place where a church leader called inter-racial marriage a sin. In about 1958 Spencer W. Kimball gave a talk where he said "inter-racial marriage is no sin". He did discourage it, for purly social reasons.
Anyone who sees homosexuality as an abominable sin, will see that there is no comparison between the two. The sexual acts in marriage are the same no matter what race the participants are, but homosexuality involves different and degrading acts.
I have known so many inter-racial couples in the church that I am tempted to say inter-racial marriage is more common in the church than outside. This is a generalized impression and I can't statistically support it, but your view on the church and inter-racial marriage seems more influenced by Krakauer than reality.
The 2:31 PM, June 23rd Poster | 7:15 p.m. June 24, 2008
If the LDS church getting publicly involved in the matter of standing firm
against gay marriages, then you have no interest in the Kingdom of God. In
other words, I suggest you should seriously contemplate leaving the Church.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to usher you out. It's just that if you can't stomach the Church actively encouraging it's members to oppose the destructive path that so many of our homosexual brothers and sisters have chosen, you might be a Latter-day Saint on paper, but you're certainly not one in your heart.
I don't mean that to offend you but it is the truth. You are either for God or you are against Him. BTW, I would say that to any person who professes to be "Christian" from another Christ-believing church as well. You're either a Christian or you are not.
So, what is it? Are you a homosexual advocate posing to be a Latter-day Saint on this board or are you an LDS member with a very shaky testimony?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to usher you out. It's just that if you can't stomach the Church actively encouraging it's members to oppose the destructive path that so many of our homosexual brothers and sisters have chosen, you might be a Latter-day Saint on paper, but you're certainly not one in your heart.
I don't mean that to offend you but it is the truth. You are either for God or you are against Him. BTW, I would say that to any person who professes to be "Christian" from another Christ-believing church as well. You're either a Christian or you are not.
So, what is it? Are you a homosexual advocate posing to be a Latter-day Saint on this board or are you an LDS member with a very shaky testimony?
My Money Says.... | 7:27 p.m. June 24, 2008
that a lot of the pro-homosexual comments on these DesNews stories are from a
far smaller number of gays who pose as "other people" to give the
impression that it is the religious, conservative base who is in the minority,
numbers-wise.
Yes, I'm aware that there are many homosexuals in America, but to listen to the pro-gay posters on these DesNews posts, you'd think that there were only a small handful of "straight" people left in America.
Not true, people. To those who love Christian, conservative values, no matter what our specific church may be, stand strong. Stand strong.
Yes, I'm aware that there are many homosexuals in America, but to listen to the pro-gay posters on these DesNews posts, you'd think that there were only a small handful of "straight" people left in America.
Not true, people. To those who love Christian, conservative values, no matter what our specific church may be, stand strong. Stand strong.
John Lambert | 7:39 p.m. June 24, 2008
Charles,
Those who came out and vocally denounced the brethren on the allowance of blacks holding the priesthood were out of line.
Anyway, you have created a false analogy. Maybe if the church had come out on laws regarding the standing of African-Americans. Oh wait, the church did come out in favor of civil rights laws.
Anyway, you do not know your history. The revelation was recieved by President Kimball, not President Benson.
If someone felt that blacks should be ordained to the priesthood in 1972, well if this caused them to refuse to sustain and support the brethren than they were out of line then. If they went ahead and tried to ordain black men without authorization than they would have been rightly excommunicated.
However these analogies do not quite work. We are dealing with an issue here with clear moral implacations. I do not see how you can claim to support the proclamation to the world on the family and yet oppose it in every way. This is why we look to the living Thomas S. Monson and not a dead prophet, for living prophets can come out and say things in ways that are clear.
Those who came out and vocally denounced the brethren on the allowance of blacks holding the priesthood were out of line.
Anyway, you have created a false analogy. Maybe if the church had come out on laws regarding the standing of African-Americans. Oh wait, the church did come out in favor of civil rights laws.
Anyway, you do not know your history. The revelation was recieved by President Kimball, not President Benson.
If someone felt that blacks should be ordained to the priesthood in 1972, well if this caused them to refuse to sustain and support the brethren than they were out of line then. If they went ahead and tried to ordain black men without authorization than they would have been rightly excommunicated.
However these analogies do not quite work. We are dealing with an issue here with clear moral implacations. I do not see how you can claim to support the proclamation to the world on the family and yet oppose it in every way. This is why we look to the living Thomas S. Monson and not a dead prophet, for living prophets can come out and say things in ways that are clear.
from DC | 7:44 p.m. June 24, 2008
The basis of society is people. Obviously, a society cannot exist without the
regeneration of people. The highest social purpose of marriage is to create and
raise up future members of society. That's why governments give so many
incentives and tax breaks to the institution of marriage, because as head of the
family, it ultimately replenishes society and has proven to be the best way of
raising children since the beginning of time. A homosexual union cannot provide
this same benefit to society so why would it receive the same government status
as a marriage? I respect the right to live as one wishes, but I also respect the
right of government to act to preserve society. That's the bare bones of
the issue as far as I'm concerned.
John Lambert | 7:46 p.m. June 24, 2008
To East Coast Active Member,
I am surprised you did not leave the church with Sonia Johnson. No one is keeping you in the church.
If you think the brethren were not inspired in issuing the Proclamation to the World on the Family you are totally welcome to leave the church.
I hate saying these things, but you have a very simplistic understanding of history. Why were post-manifesto plural marriages so horrible? It was not u8ntil 1904 that the church endorsed a full ceasing program. It is easy for you to pass judgement. I wonder if you also think that Joseph F. Smith was out of line for living with his wives after the manifesto?
Your problem is you seem to not see that Spencer W. Kimball recieved the will of the Lord. I do not understand why the Lord allowed the priesthood ban, but it has no relevance on the rejection of abominable behavior.
The law of chastity never has and never will allow homosexuality. I guess maybe I should have less impatience with people. However, people who are so quick to judge the past frustrate me.
I am surprised you did not leave the church with Sonia Johnson. No one is keeping you in the church.
If you think the brethren were not inspired in issuing the Proclamation to the World on the Family you are totally welcome to leave the church.
I hate saying these things, but you have a very simplistic understanding of history. Why were post-manifesto plural marriages so horrible? It was not u8ntil 1904 that the church endorsed a full ceasing program. It is easy for you to pass judgement. I wonder if you also think that Joseph F. Smith was out of line for living with his wives after the manifesto?
Your problem is you seem to not see that Spencer W. Kimball recieved the will of the Lord. I do not understand why the Lord allowed the priesthood ban, but it has no relevance on the rejection of abominable behavior.
The law of chastity never has and never will allow homosexuality. I guess maybe I should have less impatience with people. However, people who are so quick to judge the past frustrate me.
Why do you love the dark? | 7:51 p.m. June 24, 2008
People!.....anyone who even remotely claims that The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, or any other church, has no business encouraging its members
to do all they can to enact laws that have a moral implication, is politically
and spiritually blind. There's just no other way to say it...
We're not talking about a state law or an amendment being considered to perhaps work CA citizens only 4 days a week or to raise school teachers' salaries or something like that. The very heart of the issue revolves around MORALITY and ETHICS! Homosexuality is either RIGHT or its WRONG. It is either GOOD or EVIL. The issue of homosexuals marrying is not just a political question but a moral issue as well.
What exactly would you like churches to do?, only decide on the menu for the next church social?
Get real; churchs, ANY church....Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, etc, even Satanists churches, exist SOLELY to encourage it's members to live their lives according to what the church believes is right and good.
That includes the LDS church. THAT is why the LDS church is getting involved.
It is as obvious as the sun at noon-day and you know it...
We're not talking about a state law or an amendment being considered to perhaps work CA citizens only 4 days a week or to raise school teachers' salaries or something like that. The very heart of the issue revolves around MORALITY and ETHICS! Homosexuality is either RIGHT or its WRONG. It is either GOOD or EVIL. The issue of homosexuals marrying is not just a political question but a moral issue as well.
What exactly would you like churches to do?, only decide on the menu for the next church social?
Get real; churchs, ANY church....Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, etc, even Satanists churches, exist SOLELY to encourage it's members to live their lives according to what the church believes is right and good.
That includes the LDS church. THAT is why the LDS church is getting involved.
It is as obvious as the sun at noon-day and you know it...
John Lambert | 7:52 p.m. June 24, 2008
Post Manifesto plural marriages are a complexed issue. The fact is the church
did not decide to unequivocally renonce plural marriage until 1904.
I think you should reconsider the whole issue and look into why they occured. Did some people act unwisely or beyond authorization in the 1890-1904 period. Probably. Was ever marriage plural performed in this time period out of line with the will of the Lord? No.
Church members felt they were in line with the manifesto if they entered the plural marriages in Mexico. Until President Smith recieved clear confirmation supported by the whole of the First Presidency and the twelve that plural marriage should end it did not end.
This is partly why the whole first presidency and quorum of the twelve issued the proclamation on the family. The most binding pronouncements in the church are issued by the whole first presidency and the twelve.
Also, why do you comdemn the church leaders for opposing the ERA? If the ERA had passed, we might have already been forced to accept same-sex marriage, so it is not clearly a different issue.
I think you should reconsider the whole issue and look into why they occured. Did some people act unwisely or beyond authorization in the 1890-1904 period. Probably. Was ever marriage plural performed in this time period out of line with the will of the Lord? No.
Church members felt they were in line with the manifesto if they entered the plural marriages in Mexico. Until President Smith recieved clear confirmation supported by the whole of the First Presidency and the twelve that plural marriage should end it did not end.
This is partly why the whole first presidency and quorum of the twelve issued the proclamation on the family. The most binding pronouncements in the church are issued by the whole first presidency and the twelve.
Also, why do you comdemn the church leaders for opposing the ERA? If the ERA had passed, we might have already been forced to accept same-sex marriage, so it is not clearly a different issue.
I am amazed.... | 8:05 p.m. June 24, 2008
At the people that do not realize things until they are slapped on the side of
the head! There are actually still people that think that "plural
marriage" used to be good! Take a look at all the terrible things
happening now! There is the first "slap in the face". Next, they want
to stop gay people from committing. Let's take a look: Gay people have
already committed...they just want to make it legal. What are these people
going to say in the future about this? Maybe that it wasn't good in the
past, but well, now it's o.k.
Charles | 8:06 p.m. June 24, 2008
Dear John Lambert,
I don't know which Charles you are referring to, but I'm not going to go read all the pages again. However, I'm the Charles of the last few pages and I didn't say anything remotely close to what you are posting about. Maybe a different Charles did.
BTAIM, I think it's time for you to take a break, don't you? No one is really conversing with you...Just a thought....
I'm going to go do my brakes now. Have a good night everyone....even the homosexuals...
I don't know which Charles you are referring to, but I'm not going to go read all the pages again. However, I'm the Charles of the last few pages and I didn't say anything remotely close to what you are posting about. Maybe a different Charles did.
BTAIM, I think it's time for you to take a break, don't you? No one is really conversing with you...Just a thought....
I'm going to go do my brakes now. Have a good night everyone....even the homosexuals...
To Charlie et al | 9:30 p.m. June 24, 2008
Minds already made up. No room for alternate points of view. No room for
objective thinking. No room for understanding, compassion, love. Just endless
repetition of what someone told you to say.
I have just one more thought for you. In times past, the LDS Church lobbied US Congress for the protection their "right" to practice their ABNORMAL and NON-TRADITIONAL version of marriage (you know what it was). They lost, so they gave it up (not too willingly). NOW, in hypocritical fashion, the LDS Church is again petitioning government - indirectly, through the vote - to PREVENT another minority from practicing what they consider to be an ABNORMAL version of marriage. (I'll give you unusual, and less common, but not "abnormal." So, it's okay to fight when you agree with the idea, but not okay for others to fight when you don't. Faulty reasoning + blatant hypocrisy + blind regurgitation. It just doesn't wash with me.
I have just one more thought for you. In times past, the LDS Church lobbied US Congress for the protection their "right" to practice their ABNORMAL and NON-TRADITIONAL version of marriage (you know what it was). They lost, so they gave it up (not too willingly). NOW, in hypocritical fashion, the LDS Church is again petitioning government - indirectly, through the vote - to PREVENT another minority from practicing what they consider to be an ABNORMAL version of marriage. (I'll give you unusual, and less common, but not "abnormal." So, it's okay to fight when you agree with the idea, but not okay for others to fight when you don't. Faulty reasoning + blatant hypocrisy + blind regurgitation. It just doesn't wash with me.
John Lambert | 10:05 p.m. June 24, 2008
President Hinckley on many occasions clearly stated the church always has and
always will reserve the right to make statements on issues that were morally
important.
For those of you bringing up the ERA. The Church still opposes the ERA. It has not changed its position on that issue. No statement has been issued that in any way could be taken to show the church has in any way changed its position.
I think some of the "active members" commenting on here need to read the scriptures more and Michael Quinn less.
Also, the person who urged members to vote contrary to the advice of the First Presidency has committed apostasy.
For those of you bringing up the ERA. The Church still opposes the ERA. It has not changed its position on that issue. No statement has been issued that in any way could be taken to show the church has in any way changed its position.
I think some of the "active members" commenting on here need to read the scriptures more and Michael Quinn less.
Also, the person who urged members to vote contrary to the advice of the First Presidency has committed apostasy.
John Lambert | 10:27 p.m. June 24, 2008
I believe fornication is a sin next to murder.
Spencer W. Kimball also denounced those who have to much hate for homosexuals. The church still excommunicats people for adultry.
Spencer W. Kimball also denounced those who have to much hate for homosexuals. The church still excommunicats people for adultry.
John Lambert | 10:35 p.m. June 24, 2008
I will try this one more time. I do not think it will do much good, but it
will make me feel like I am actually saying something worthwhile.
This is not about actions but public policy. More specifically, there might be a way to adopt same-sex marriage that would not be as detrimental as the California Supreme Court way. There would still be many negative consequences. However by the California court saying opposing same-sex marriage is opposing a person's civil rights and is discriminatory, this is obviously creating a perfect case for arguing that any person or group that opposes gay marriage is engaged in hate speech.
This is not about actions but public policy. More specifically, there might be a way to adopt same-sex marriage that would not be as detrimental as the California Supreme Court way. There would still be many negative consequences. However by the California court saying opposing same-sex marriage is opposing a person's civil rights and is discriminatory, this is obviously creating a perfect case for arguing that any person or group that opposes gay marriage is engaged in hate speech.
John Lambert | 10:41 p.m. June 24, 2008
To Henry Drummond,
You have no real knowledge of the history of the anti-polygamy crusade. Most of its leaders attacked polygamy because it was a way to try and attack the church.
I am no advocate of modern day polygamy. However if you study human history you will find that most societies have accepted polygamy. If the Supreme Court had truly looked at world jurisprudence instead of just the narrow laws of Western Europe it would have seen that polygamy has been legal and accepted in most of the worlds cultures for a great amount of history. This may be a slight overstatement, however there have been a very large number of societies that have accepted polygamy and in much of African, the Middle East and parts of Southeast Asia there are cultures that still practice it.
Beyond this, the analogy to polygamy has no standing. The church was not trying to force others to recognize both wives of a man and give them equal standing. The question was should that man go to jail, while someone who kept a mistress on the side faced no legal problems at all.
You have no real knowledge of the history of the anti-polygamy crusade. Most of its leaders attacked polygamy because it was a way to try and attack the church.
I am no advocate of modern day polygamy. However if you study human history you will find that most societies have accepted polygamy. If the Supreme Court had truly looked at world jurisprudence instead of just the narrow laws of Western Europe it would have seen that polygamy has been legal and accepted in most of the worlds cultures for a great amount of history. This may be a slight overstatement, however there have been a very large number of societies that have accepted polygamy and in much of African, the Middle East and parts of Southeast Asia there are cultures that still practice it.
Beyond this, the analogy to polygamy has no standing. The church was not trying to force others to recognize both wives of a man and give them equal standing. The question was should that man go to jail, while someone who kept a mistress on the side faced no legal problems at all.
John Lambert | 10:57 p.m. June 24, 2008
To monogamy equals sin,
You are wrong. Church leaders on many occasions specifically said that monogomy was an acceptable state of being. Anthon H. Lund, a monogamist, was called as an apostle in 1889. Doctrine and Covenants 132 clearly teaches that the law of celestial marriage is fulfilled with one man and one woman.
Some leaders of the curch may have spoken against the monogamist world. However this was not against church members who had only one wife but against the hypocrites who attacked the church for polygamy while they kept mistresses.
The church has always held that a man and a woman must only have sexual relations in marriage.
You are wrong. Church leaders on many occasions specifically said that monogomy was an acceptable state of being. Anthon H. Lund, a monogamist, was called as an apostle in 1889. Doctrine and Covenants 132 clearly teaches that the law of celestial marriage is fulfilled with one man and one woman.
Some leaders of the curch may have spoken against the monogamist world. However this was not against church members who had only one wife but against the hypocrites who attacked the church for polygamy while they kept mistresses.
The church has always held that a man and a woman must only have sexual relations in marriage.
flattopSF | 11:32 p.m. June 24, 2008
Funny, isn't it, that the last time your "god" chose to support a
bigoted law in California, it was declared unconstitutional.
Wouldn't a true prophet have foreseen a failure like that on the part of your "god"?
If "god" never changes, then how come "prophet" Brigham Young proclaimed this:"THE CHILDREN OF CAIN CANNOT RECEIVE THE FIRST ORDINANCES OF THE PRIESTHOOD."
And this: "Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT."
Then "prophet" Spencer Kimball claimed in 1978 that "god" changed � CHANGED?!? � CHANGED HIS MIND!!! But wait � "GOD" NEVER CHANGES!!!
And I won't even go into all the ways "god" CHANGED HIS MIND about polygamy. But wait � "god" doesn't change!
You people need to make up your minds when you're going to get with the 21st century. It's already been here for eight years. How long is it going to take before your unchanging "god" "changes his mind" this time?
Good luck with answering that in your own minds.
Wouldn't a true prophet have foreseen a failure like that on the part of your "god"?
If "god" never changes, then how come "prophet" Brigham Young proclaimed this:"THE CHILDREN OF CAIN CANNOT RECEIVE THE FIRST ORDINANCES OF THE PRIESTHOOD."
And this: "Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT."
Then "prophet" Spencer Kimball claimed in 1978 that "god" changed � CHANGED?!? � CHANGED HIS MIND!!! But wait � "GOD" NEVER CHANGES!!!
And I won't even go into all the ways "god" CHANGED HIS MIND about polygamy. But wait � "god" doesn't change!
You people need to make up your minds when you're going to get with the 21st century. It's already been here for eight years. How long is it going to take before your unchanging "god" "changes his mind" this time?
Good luck with answering that in your own minds.
flattopSF | 12:31 a.m. June 25, 2008
So the descendants of Brigham Young's 55 wives will now lecture the world
on the subject of marriage morality.
Lovely.
Lovely.
Ken | 12:45 a.m. June 25, 2008
I read most of the above comments - wild and crazy stuff! Then I went to the SF
Chronicle and read their comments about marriage equality. To put it mildly, it
was so refreshing! Here's one that I strongly agree with:
>America was founded by Europeans who were escaping religious persecution. These settlers wanted freedom to worship as they wished without government interference. Our constitution allows freedom of religion and our government (theoretically) enforces a policy of separation of church and state. For Mormons or other religions to try and incorporate their religious beliefs into our laws is a direct contradiction of everything America stands for. As our social norms change, then our laws may change as well, but not because of religious laws. We eliminated slavery not because of the church but because of changing social values. Mormons have limitations on the role of women in their church but that doesn't mean the government should get involved pro or con. More importantly, our nation is open to other beliefs that are not associated with Christ such as Judaiasm, Buddhism, and Islam. True Americans believe in separation between church and state. Let's keep it that way!
>America was founded by Europeans who were escaping religious persecution. These settlers wanted freedom to worship as they wished without government interference. Our constitution allows freedom of religion and our government (theoretically) enforces a policy of separation of church and state. For Mormons or other religions to try and incorporate their religious beliefs into our laws is a direct contradiction of everything America stands for. As our social norms change, then our laws may change as well, but not because of religious laws. We eliminated slavery not because of the church but because of changing social values. Mormons have limitations on the role of women in their church but that doesn't mean the government should get involved pro or con. More importantly, our nation is open to other beliefs that are not associated with Christ such as Judaiasm, Buddhism, and Islam. True Americans believe in separation between church and state. Let's keep it that way!
Baptist perspective | 3:24 a.m. June 25, 2008
"1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor
the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the
kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
That pretty much sums it up as far as I am concerned.
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
That pretty much sums it up as far as I am concerned.
To BYDC | 5:53 a.m. June 25, 2008
Science supports the idea that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable?
Quite the contrary. Do some research of your own. It clearly supports that same-sex attraction is a developmental disorder (although unchosen), is NOT innate and, in my own experience, not unchangeable.
The fact that public opinion still is showing increasing support in spite of the scientific evidence is truly a tragic miracle. It shows the public has successfully been kept in the dark and has no clue about the science on the issue.
Quite the contrary. Do some research of your own. It clearly supports that same-sex attraction is a developmental disorder (although unchosen), is NOT innate and, in my own experience, not unchangeable.
The fact that public opinion still is showing increasing support in spite of the scientific evidence is truly a tragic miracle. It shows the public has successfully been kept in the dark and has no clue about the science on the issue.
Sarah | 6:04 a.m. June 25, 2008
I've seen many posts on this thread calling LDS members sheep, saying we
need somebody to tell us what to do, and that we have no choice in what we
believe.
That's practically a direct quote from the Book of Mormon, one of the charges that Korihor made to Alma. It was refuted immediately.
You'd think that, after 2,000 years, you guys could get some new material.
That's practically a direct quote from the Book of Mormon, one of the charges that Korihor made to Alma. It was refuted immediately.
You'd think that, after 2,000 years, you guys could get some new material.
Anonymous | 6:09 a.m. June 25, 2008
People on this thread are advocating burning the Bible?
And supposedly "active" LDS members are talking about walking out of a sacrament meeting because a letter from their PROPHET will be read over the pulpit?
It has been proven - and you can easily look it up - that in countries where same sex marriage has been legal for more than five years, the homosexual lobby has gone after the churches and anybody who does not support their way of thinking. They have verbally attacked, imprisoned, fined, mocked, and even physically harmed those that do not agree with them. And then they have the nerve to call that freedom?
And you guys think it's the Mormons that are out of line on this issue? Get real.
And supposedly "active" LDS members are talking about walking out of a sacrament meeting because a letter from their PROPHET will be read over the pulpit?
It has been proven - and you can easily look it up - that in countries where same sex marriage has been legal for more than five years, the homosexual lobby has gone after the churches and anybody who does not support their way of thinking. They have verbally attacked, imprisoned, fined, mocked, and even physically harmed those that do not agree with them. And then they have the nerve to call that freedom?
And you guys think it's the Mormons that are out of line on this issue? Get real.
Lakers | 8:31 a.m. June 25, 2008
430 comments on this issue! Wow. it is really simple:
Homosexuality is WRONG!!
Period!!!
Homosexuality is WRONG!!
Period!!!
Charles | 8:36 a.m. June 25, 2008
Ken,
Interesting post you bring from the SF Chronicle. I'm sure all the posts over there are just filled with love and compassion. Get real.
To the substance of someone else's thoughts that you posted, can you show me in the Constitution where is says separation of Church and State?
As for laws being enacted, all laws are based on the sense of morality of the individual the proposes the law. There isn't any way around it. I don't care if you call it religious or secular because it doesn't make a difference.
If you want to get nitty-gritty about it, secularism IS a religion. So no law should be based on your version of religion, is that what you are promoting?
You want religious people to check their beliefs on the way out of their house but you are just fine with your religious beliefs as the foundation for law.
You have your sense of values and others have their values. I can no more deny my values than you can yours. Take it to the legislature and let's see your version enacted as law. It hasn't been and won't be.
Interesting post you bring from the SF Chronicle. I'm sure all the posts over there are just filled with love and compassion. Get real.
To the substance of someone else's thoughts that you posted, can you show me in the Constitution where is says separation of Church and State?
As for laws being enacted, all laws are based on the sense of morality of the individual the proposes the law. There isn't any way around it. I don't care if you call it religious or secular because it doesn't make a difference.
If you want to get nitty-gritty about it, secularism IS a religion. So no law should be based on your version of religion, is that what you are promoting?
You want religious people to check their beliefs on the way out of their house but you are just fine with your religious beliefs as the foundation for law.
You have your sense of values and others have their values. I can no more deny my values than you can yours. Take it to the legislature and let's see your version enacted as law. It hasn't been and won't be.
Ken, To Charles | 9:41 a.m. June 25, 2008
Here's the facts, man (from Wickipedia):
>The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]
What do you think Jefferson (and the SC who quote him) had in mind? He at least could see the difference between government and religion, even though you have trouble with that. Argue away.
"It hasn't been and won't be" you say? How would you know that? Are you a prophet, too? Perhaps you're just following the Mormon leaders advice to "follow the prophet."
"The Prophet will never lead the Church astray." signed, The Prophet.
>The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]
What do you think Jefferson (and the SC who quote him) had in mind? He at least could see the difference between government and religion, even though you have trouble with that. Argue away.
"It hasn't been and won't be" you say? How would you know that? Are you a prophet, too? Perhaps you're just following the Mormon leaders advice to "follow the prophet."
"The Prophet will never lead the Church astray." signed, The Prophet.
John Lambert | 10:09 a.m. June 25, 2008
To the person who responded to my post,
I did not say exercising judicial review made a judge activist. I really did not explicate the issue at all.
Activist judges are those who go beyond the clear meaning of words and read new meanings. It is the judges in the 1960s who argued that the phrase "belief in a supreme being" in consciencious objector laws was not the obvious, normal meaning.
Personally I think conscientious objector status should be widely based. However I think the court had two choices, finding the law in violation of the first admendment because it privaledged some forms of religion over others, or finding that those who did not believ in a supreme being were not covered. The former I think would have been their best, but what the judges did was rewrite the law.
The reason the California judges are activist is because they said that the methods used by California of giving civil unions were judt not good enough. Why? Probably because civil unions can not be unilaterally forced on other states. If trying to force the will of your state on other states is not activist what is?
I did not say exercising judicial review made a judge activist. I really did not explicate the issue at all.
Activist judges are those who go beyond the clear meaning of words and read new meanings. It is the judges in the 1960s who argued that the phrase "belief in a supreme being" in consciencious objector laws was not the obvious, normal meaning.
Personally I think conscientious objector status should be widely based. However I think the court had two choices, finding the law in violation of the first admendment because it privaledged some forms of religion over others, or finding that those who did not believ in a supreme being were not covered. The former I think would have been their best, but what the judges did was rewrite the law.
The reason the California judges are activist is because they said that the methods used by California of giving civil unions were judt not good enough. Why? Probably because civil unions can not be unilaterally forced on other states. If trying to force the will of your state on other states is not activist what is?
John Lambert | 10:15 a.m. June 25, 2008
Bill,
You analogy is patently flawed. Religious organizations have been performing "marriages" for same-sex couples in California for almost two decades. No one has tried to stop people from doing so. No law has been passed to ban such things from happening.
The question is how can the state decide what it will and will not call marriage. If the oerwhelming majority of people in Georgia passed the law you are talking about, in a way that made sense such as requiring all legally ecognized marriages to be open to the public, the church would just have members get a civil marriage before they go get married in the temple. This is what happens in most Latin American countries already.
Anyway, we should consider real issues. We do not object to judicial review, we do object to judges creating new rights out of thin air that can be then used to clasify our speaking against sin as hate speech.
You analogy is patently flawed. Religious organizations have been performing "marriages" for same-sex couples in California for almost two decades. No one has tried to stop people from doing so. No law has been passed to ban such things from happening.
The question is how can the state decide what it will and will not call marriage. If the oerwhelming majority of people in Georgia passed the law you are talking about, in a way that made sense such as requiring all legally ecognized marriages to be open to the public, the church would just have members get a civil marriage before they go get married in the temple. This is what happens in most Latin American countries already.
Anyway, we should consider real issues. We do not object to judicial review, we do object to judges creating new rights out of thin air that can be then used to clasify our speaking against sin as hate speech.
re John Lambert | 10:30 a.m. June 25, 2008
Why on earth are you and your religion so adamantly opposed to a gay couple
having legal rights for their relationship, if not outright bigotry? They are
fellow, tax paying US citizens who simply happen to be gay. Do they not have
the right to legal protections because your religious beliefs say otherwise?
John Lambert | 10:33 a.m. June 25, 2008
To flatttop,
At least Brigham Young married and recognized his wives. Same with my ancestors Joseph Lee Robinson, John Pack, Ward Eton Pack and Richard Anderson Ivie.
There are many people who descend from famous figures through their mistresses. Would it make sense to claim people descended from such a union have no right to speak in the public forum? I will not join you in denouncing Brigham Young, George Q Cannon, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant and others for living the law of God, and raising up a righteous progeny. On the other hand I will denounce those from John Woolley and Joseph Musser to Warren Jeffs for breaking the laws of God.
Anyway, many of you people do not understand. The church never tried to get congress or anyone else to pass a law giving full legal recognition to polygamy. Ciminalizing something is much different than giving it the proactive support of public policy.
At least Brigham Young married and recognized his wives. Same with my ancestors Joseph Lee Robinson, John Pack, Ward Eton Pack and Richard Anderson Ivie.
There are many people who descend from famous figures through their mistresses. Would it make sense to claim people descended from such a union have no right to speak in the public forum? I will not join you in denouncing Brigham Young, George Q Cannon, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant and others for living the law of God, and raising up a righteous progeny. On the other hand I will denounce those from John Woolley and Joseph Musser to Warren Jeffs for breaking the laws of God.
Anyway, many of you people do not understand. The church never tried to get congress or anyone else to pass a law giving full legal recognition to polygamy. Ciminalizing something is much different than giving it the proactive support of public policy.
John Lambert | 10:42 a.m. June 25, 2008
At least Ken admits that the "separation of church and state" does
not come from the constitution. However he does not admit that Jefferson was
specifically addressing the issue of government fiscal support for religions.
Also, I would recomend reading the volumn edited by Dr. Dallin H. Oaks of the University of Chiacgo College of Law on this subject. The various commentors in general argue this is a horrible metaphor that needs to be displaced, and that was nearly 40 years ago.
However the whole point is not relevant. We are talking about government policy and the right of Religious groups to influence it. Was it wrong for the alliance of Pastors to try and change government policy on the treatment of African Americans? Was this an attempt to foce their beliefs on others?
Also, I would recomend reading the volumn edited by Dr. Dallin H. Oaks of the University of Chiacgo College of Law on this subject. The various commentors in general argue this is a horrible metaphor that needs to be displaced, and that was nearly 40 years ago.
However the whole point is not relevant. We are talking about government policy and the right of Religious groups to influence it. Was it wrong for the alliance of Pastors to try and change government policy on the treatment of African Americans? Was this an attempt to foce their beliefs on others?
To Lakers | 10:54 a.m. June 25, 2008
Yes, and about 400 of them are from John Lambert who unfortunately wanders far
off topic, only generating responses that are similarly off-topic.
To your point: Fine for you to believe that. Some people think it's wrong to eat meat, too. What they shouldn't do is try to form a majority to impose their views on others if there is no harm from it to them.
To your point: Fine for you to believe that. Some people think it's wrong to eat meat, too. What they shouldn't do is try to form a majority to impose their views on others if there is no harm from it to them.
BYDC | 11:05 a.m. June 25, 2008
I said that science increasingly supports such a view, yes. Just this week a
study was released and reported in Time among other news outlets showing notable
differences between the brains of gay men and women compared to straight men and
women. Of course there is no conclusive proof in this area, but you are simply
in error to say that science supports the view that homosexuality is a
developmental disorder. Please, sir, what science do you refer to? Neither the
American Psychological Association nor the American Medical Association support
this view.
O.k; some of you are always | 11:24 a.m. June 25, 2008
going to exclude gay people....we get that. But you need to get something too!
Gay people exist (they've always existed, but just didn't dare say
much until recently). They are going to keep existing and even if you
don't like them or maybe you like them, but don't think they deserve
equal rights. Guess what? That's not what the constitution states! They
will keep fighting for their rights until they get them. You can make petition
after petition and that isn't going to change. They, will one day,
prevail. Get used to it and move on with your own business of life.
John | 11:43 a.m. June 25, 2008
Beyond the varying definitions here of what is or is not moral (here homosexual
behavior), it seems that even the posters' sense of morality's
essence varies. Many here express views that no behavior is immoral (as long
as it is a �victimless� crime). We
may perhaps not like something but hesitate to define it as wrong, because maybe
it is right for someone else. Maybe, freedom itself is our sense of right and
wrong. Other people can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't
bother me. Have we lost the notion that there is an absolute right and wrong
out there? And I don't claim that God rigidly controls what we do just for
His own personal pleasure. He teaches us what is right, and what is right is
what makes us happier, healthier and more capable. As to my opinion, can we
really claim that we know all the ramifications, personal and societal, of gay
marriage? Unless we're pretty omniscient ourselves, reading others'
minds, we can't. But God can, and maybe He's lovingly telling us that
it is wrong, and not just because He doesn't like it, but because it will
affect us negatively.
Charles | 11:49 a.m. June 25, 2008
Ken, you obviously have no clue about the details of the letter written and the
context in which it was written. It's useless for me to discuss this with
you because you don't have the knowledge to discuss the details of it. Your
post shows your lack of knowledge of it.
Just because SCOTUS refers to something doesn't make it correct or Constitutional. Can you explain how over the past few years SCOTUS is quoting FOREIGN law in supporting their conclusions and NOT the Constitution? Just a little bit out of bounds, don't you think?
So go bone up on the letter to the Baptists and then you won't need to quote Wikipedia, which isn't a great source of truth and knowledge anyway....
As for your comments about following the prophets; Christ said His sheep will hear His voice. You choose who you want to follow, I'll do the same.
Just because SCOTUS refers to something doesn't make it correct or Constitutional. Can you explain how over the past few years SCOTUS is quoting FOREIGN law in supporting their conclusions and NOT the Constitution? Just a little bit out of bounds, don't you think?
So go bone up on the letter to the Baptists and then you won't need to quote Wikipedia, which isn't a great source of truth and knowledge anyway....
As for your comments about following the prophets; Christ said His sheep will hear His voice. You choose who you want to follow, I'll do the same.
John | 11:51 a.m. June 25, 2008
On heterosexual marriage, briefly: Just because there is a history of
infidelity, abuse and divorce in marriage, does not make it wrong or unworthy of
protection. It means that people casually enter into it unprepared, do not
cherish their spouses as they should or regard those sacred bonds as temporary.
That reflects on certain participants, not the institution. Marriage between a
man and a woman is the ideal way for them to learn love and to grow, and to
raise children in that love. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
has that view (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World) and, to its credit,
fights the premarital sex (have you attended high school or college recently and
seen its extent?) and infidelity that lead to single parenthood and broken
homes. Do we have enough sociological evidence now to denounce premarital sex?
Unfortunately, too often, we don't have the courage.
MY SLC | 12:29 p.m. June 25, 2008
Folks the whole situation has changed in California:
"Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition Friday (6-20-08) arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions".
"the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all - in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution".
Amendments and revisions are 2 completely different things in California.
"Unlike a constitutional amendment that can be approved by voters, a constitutional revision requires convening a Constitutional convention or the appointment of a commission to recommend changes to the Legislature and voters".
"Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition Friday (6-20-08) arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions".
"the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all - in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution".
Amendments and revisions are 2 completely different things in California.
"Unlike a constitutional amendment that can be approved by voters, a constitutional revision requires convening a Constitutional convention or the appointment of a commission to recommend changes to the Legislature and voters".
Ken to Charles | 12:43 p.m. June 25, 2008
>Christ said His sheep will hear His voice. You choose who you want to
follow, I'll do the same.
I agree with you, especially about the sheep.
I'm done. Have a nice day.
I agree with you, especially about the sheep.
I'm done. Have a nice day.
Bill Knowlton | 12:52 p.m. June 25, 2008
I get a kick out of people who tell the members of the LDS Church not to
exercise their Constitutional right and democratic responsibility to stand-up
for their beilefs and to "mind their own business" . . . all the
while, the pro-gay marriage shout their beliefs from the roof tops. Classic
(but not surprising).
Dear John L - | 2:29 p.m. June 25, 2008
Your quote: "At least Brigham Young married and recognized his
wives."
From your mouth to your fellow believers' ears. Allow ALL people the same privilege of having recognition for their unions for goodness sake. Literally. For goodness. ALL.
Your heart's is apparently in the right place and making attempts to show up in your writing. :o)
From your mouth to your fellow believers' ears. Allow ALL people the same privilege of having recognition for their unions for goodness sake. Literally. For goodness. ALL.
Your heart's is apparently in the right place and making attempts to show up in your writing. :o)
Frank | 2:47 p.m. June 25, 2008
You could vote on any of those things you mentioned, you just need follow the
same political process, get a group of supporters and a politican to spearhead
the vote. The same stuff everyone else does.
Frank | 2:54 p.m. June 25, 2008
Whoops disregard my last post I'm crazy
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.
- Rabbis join NJ gay marriage debate 9:03 a.m.
- Afghan buildup on faster timetable 9:01 a.m.
- Salahi denies crashing W.H. party 8:58 a.m.
- Suspect in police slayings killed 8:55 a.m.
- Arrests made in Roy slayings 8:35 a.m.
- Bowden meeting with school officials 8:01 a.m.
- FIFA: Ireland won't be in WCup 8:00 a.m.
- Florida's Dunlap arrested, charged 8:00 a.m.
- Stocks climb early as dollar slides 7:59 a.m.
- China: Talk, not sanctions on Iran 7:49 a.m.
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Y. student vanished in China
- Max Hall issues apology
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
899 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Hall reprimanded by MWC384
- Max Hall issues apology382
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal317
- Utes won't respond to Hall264
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies123
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome113
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
Just in case no one else is watching, gold broke through the $1200/oz barrier...
Assuming that the prosecutor is following the law, it is investigations like...
Now there is no wasted time or money in a prolonged trial and jail time. No...
Isn't there a psychological term called projecting? Isn't that where you...
As evidenced by the posts here, the BYU kitten fans do not feel like the...
Holiday candy is a poor comparison to what few natural sites there are for...
Old Joe Smith and Max Hall had a lot in common: "...and while they were...
I was shocked by the '0-to-5' year term until I read that the "victims" had...
Billions more for war. What on earth for? What a waste of financial...
Awesome story! Way to go to this outstanding family.
Advertisements
I really don't understand this notion. Any judge that exercises judicial review is an activist judge? Well, then John Marshall established the precedent. The term "activist judge" is usually reserved for judges who seek to introduce their ideas or initiatives through their decisions, thus seeking to "legislate" from the bench. Judges who rule, rightly or wrongly, that legislation exceeds constitutional bounds such as the early 1930s Supreme Court justices are usually not seen as activists. On the contrary, they may be viewed as reactionary.