Reader comments
LDS Church backs marriage measure on California ballot
699 comments | Read story
Cherilyn Bacon Eagar | 10:14 p.m. June 25, 2008
1. SSM denies children the right to a mother and a father 100% of the time. For every example of statistics of heterosexual domestic, child abuse and marital problems, the statistics are higher for same gender relationships.
2. There is no successful historical precedent of a culture that has legalized SSM, except cultures that destroyed themselves. Name one.
3. Once SSM is legalized, it must be taught as a normal relationship in schools - public and private. Sex ed is indoctrinating our children. This is a parental rights matter and parents must stand up to the public schools that have made sexual orientation a proletariat cause c�l�bre under national standards that bow to international standards.
4. Once SSM becomes law, religious liberties will be in jeopardy. Either churches will be forced to modify their doctrines or they will be challenged by the law. Laws will punish churches for their anti-homosexual doctrines and law suits will challenge them as they have the BSA.
Support | 10:17 p.m. June 25, 2008
What about the Church supporting the family in Las Vegas who left there kid in
the car for 17 hours and died. Those the church support neglectful parents who
can't keep track of there kids? One child or seven, there should never be
an excuse for not knowing where your son is for 1/2 an hour let alone 17...As a
member, that is disgusting!
Comments continue below
John Lambert | 10:20 p.m. June 25, 2008
First off, I am glad that the Orthodox Jews have been among those defending
traditional marriage. My grandmother was a Jew after she had been a
Jehovah's Witnees and before she became a Mormon, so I have no dislike for
Jews inherently. However there is a broad array of Jewish groups, including
Humanist Jews who reject God totally.
However, I have an observation. If there was a hypothetical Reconstructionist Jewish sect that only performed same-sex marriages they would not suffer any disability due to this under current laws. Why, because currently marriage is defined between a man and a woman because the state has vested interests in it. At least seven courts have explanaed in rulings upholding marriage laws what these interests are so I will leave those who really want to know the option of searching google about public policy and marriage.
However under California's ruling, since distinguishing gender in marriage is now "discriminatory", out hypothetical Reconstructionist sect is now engaged in discriminatory dehaior that may bring the anger of the public policy formulators on it. This is why California's supreme court decision was the worst of all worlds.
However, I have an observation. If there was a hypothetical Reconstructionist Jewish sect that only performed same-sex marriages they would not suffer any disability due to this under current laws. Why, because currently marriage is defined between a man and a woman because the state has vested interests in it. At least seven courts have explanaed in rulings upholding marriage laws what these interests are so I will leave those who really want to know the option of searching google about public policy and marriage.
However under California's ruling, since distinguishing gender in marriage is now "discriminatory", out hypothetical Reconstructionist sect is now engaged in discriminatory dehaior that may bring the anger of the public policy formulators on it. This is why California's supreme court decision was the worst of all worlds.
Betsy | 10:33 p.m. June 25, 2008
Who established marriage ? God did. Don't like how He defined it take it
up with Him. Nations and Courts will never be able to define it for Him. Some
may permit actions that violate the laws of God hence free agency. That being
said for violating God's law. God alone will mete out consequences for the
violation of His laws. No court has the power or strength to override the
consequences of actions. Regardless of consequences one nevers needs to worry
about gay marriage in the temple. Will never happen. One of two things will
happen the LDS church will close the temples or the Savior will come either way
gay marriage in temples will not happen.
Anonymous | 11:00 p.m. June 25, 2008
Whatever happens in Nov is one thing. I'm pretty clear that the amendment
will go down but that's only part of the issue. The other part is that the
LDS is creating a tremendous amount of bad feeling and even anxiety about
itself.
Consider the number of people who have always been wary of what goes on in an organization that operates in secrecy. Now there's evidence that the organization that operates in secrecy interferes in the process of government -- to discriminate no less!
What's that going to do for public relations?
Consider the number of people who have always been wary of what goes on in an organization that operates in secrecy. Now there's evidence that the organization that operates in secrecy interferes in the process of government -- to discriminate no less!
What's that going to do for public relations?
Teacher | 11:52 p.m. June 25, 2008
All 9 voting members of our LDS family will be voting to bring in this state
constitutional amendment. As a teacher, I see the changes in our state
educational curriculum already coming. It's reading math and
"alternative lifestyles". Gay and Lesbian groups know if the schools
teach it, it will become the norm of society in one generation. Also as
California goes so goes the country, better beware. I've lived long enough
to see the calamities already coming upon us and it isn't due to global
warming. Wake up America.
Anonymous | 12:33 a.m. June 26, 2008
I think someone failed to teach teacher that discrimination is not an American
value and that freedom of religion means that we leave religion in the family
and the church where it belongs. Because Americans and Californians have a lot
of different religions and beliefs and all are protected under the law.
Maybe teacher can do a little research and see that the suicide rate in the quasi-theocracy of UT is much greater than in CA where we value diversity and tolerance.
Maybe teacher can do a little research and see that the suicide rate in the quasi-theocracy of UT is much greater than in CA where we value diversity and tolerance.
Amazed | 2:22 a.m. June 26, 2008
I find it utterly shocking how people in this day and age continue to quote
morality from a book that features talking animals. The vast majority of you
have never even read the bible cover to cover and have no idea how insane some
of the "commandments" contained within it are.
Sarah | 4:28 a.m. June 26, 2008
John, thanks for the reply. I knew I'd never heard President Packer say
anything so divisive or ridiculous, but couldn't recollect his exact
phrasing in the talk. Thanks for the clarification!
Tejano | 8:09 a.m. June 26, 2008
To Help! again.
I was not equating gay people to 12 year olds, blind people, or pedophiles. You had made the blanket statement that we have no right to limit the privileges of minority groups and I was simply pointing out examples in our society where WE DO place restrictions on privileges granted to some groups in our society.
Then I was stating that the restrictions we place through our laws are generally in accordance with the VALUES we hold collectively as a society. I have no animosity toward gay people; I have and have had close working and personal relationships with gay people (including family members) and my wife, as an R.N., worked for some time in an AIDS Hospice facility where almost all patients were gay.
I, however, feel that while homosexual behavior will certainly continue in our society, I do not support state-sanctioned marriage between persons of the same sex and I'm not confused into thinking we don't have the right to fight for the type of society we want our kids to grow up in.
I was not equating gay people to 12 year olds, blind people, or pedophiles. You had made the blanket statement that we have no right to limit the privileges of minority groups and I was simply pointing out examples in our society where WE DO place restrictions on privileges granted to some groups in our society.
Then I was stating that the restrictions we place through our laws are generally in accordance with the VALUES we hold collectively as a society. I have no animosity toward gay people; I have and have had close working and personal relationships with gay people (including family members) and my wife, as an R.N., worked for some time in an AIDS Hospice facility where almost all patients were gay.
I, however, feel that while homosexual behavior will certainly continue in our society, I do not support state-sanctioned marriage between persons of the same sex and I'm not confused into thinking we don't have the right to fight for the type of society we want our kids to grow up in.
To John Lambert | 10:13 p.m. | 8:38 a.m. June 26, 2008
The problem with your argument is that the people who are allowed to drive
(marry) now are not being policed and are causing all sorts of problems
(divorce, abandonment, live-in arrangements, etc.). To deny one group of people
the right to marry because it offends another group is insane, especially when
the offended group has not done much to get the drunk drivers that are in their
group off the road. Maybe this new group won't be any better, but who are
we to limit them when it is us (heteros) who have really been tearing apart
society and causing all the problems on the road.
sburg | 8:49 a.m. June 26, 2008
This is a travesty. It will only serve to further marginalize our church and
will likely have the opposite of the intended effect. It will close doors and
hearts eternally, that may have been open before, and it violates our own
11-13th articles of faith.
Lastly I would not be surprised if the IRS doesn't come knocking at the Church Office Building.
Same sex couples are getting a legal document that entitles them to some of the same rights we all take for granted. No clergy of ANY religion is being asked to marry them. Why on earth would anybody with an ounce of compassion fight against this? All it does is hurt same sex couples and their children ... ya some of them have kids too. This all from a Church that believes in strengthening familes and loving your neighbor.
Any one who sits through the reading of this letter on Sunday should take a long hard look at themselves and decide how hypocritical they are.
Lastly I would not be surprised if the IRS doesn't come knocking at the Church Office Building.
Same sex couples are getting a legal document that entitles them to some of the same rights we all take for granted. No clergy of ANY religion is being asked to marry them. Why on earth would anybody with an ounce of compassion fight against this? All it does is hurt same sex couples and their children ... ya some of them have kids too. This all from a Church that believes in strengthening familes and loving your neighbor.
Any one who sits through the reading of this letter on Sunday should take a long hard look at themselves and decide how hypocritical they are.
Anonymous | 8:58 a.m. June 26, 2008
Cherilyn Bacon Eagar writes, "...For every example of statistics of
heterosexual domestic, child abuse and marital problems, the statistics are
higher for same gender relationships."
As a social worker, I can promise you that what you claim is a hateful lie.
The truth is every study that has looked at children raised by same sex parents either finds no difference, or less child abuse, more support, and generally better socially adjusted children.
As a social worker, I can promise you that what you claim is a hateful lie.
The truth is every study that has looked at children raised by same sex parents either finds no difference, or less child abuse, more support, and generally better socially adjusted children.
To Tejano | 9:07 a.m. June 26, 2008
I would agree with you except the "toothpaste is out of the tube."
Gays are out of the closet now. They are living next door to our own families
and raising children of their own. They are not going away, no matter how much
we deny them rights. They are just going to continue to live openly and without
shame. Sometimes I think that we think that if we pass this amendment, gays
will quit being a problem. Not true. We need to teach our children the very
hard lesson of living our religion yet not condemning our neighbors and their
children for living different morals than us. That is a hard thing to teach,
but not impossible. That is our challenge - not limiting others.
I wonder | 9:36 a.m. June 26, 2008
Will there be bishops who refuse to read the letter to their congregations?
Alex | 9:54 a.m. June 26, 2008
To "I wonder":
"Will there be bishops who refuse to read the letter to their congregations? "
Perhaps, but they might not be bishops for long if they do.
"Will there be bishops who refuse to read the letter to their congregations? "
Perhaps, but they might not be bishops for long if they do.
My thoughts... | 9:59 a.m. June 26, 2008
Mormons can do what they want, but this type of action will only encourage more
and more people to distance themselves from the Church.
Lost their way | 9:59 a.m. June 26, 2008
It is sad to see a church cede moral authority by focusing on Constitutional law
and evolving words in the dictionary.
The impending defeat at the polls and the isolation and alienation of others appear the least likely practices for a people professing religious faith.
When LDS members decide to discard bibles for dictionaries and civil codes the battle for the human soul is lost.
The impending defeat at the polls and the isolation and alienation of others appear the least likely practices for a people professing religious faith.
When LDS members decide to discard bibles for dictionaries and civil codes the battle for the human soul is lost.
Had enough | 10:03 a.m. June 26, 2008
Reading this letter in Church on Sunday is ALMOST enough to make me go back. It
would be so fun to walk out in protest.
To I wonder | 10:07 a.m. June 26, 2008
I doubt that any bishops will refuse to read the letter to their congregations.
Most men in that high of a position are pretty much willing to do whatever the
Church says they should do. (At least that's been my experience with
bishops and stake presidents.)
But you never know, there might be a few mavericks out there.
But you never know, there might be a few mavericks out there.
To Sarah | 4:28 a.m | 10:26 a.m. June 26, 2008
Here is the quote from Elder Packer:
"The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."
"The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."
What I Wonder | 10:28 a.m. June 26, 2008
What I wonder is whether this letter is based on revelation or merely the
opinions of men. It seems so sad that our Church claims to be run by direct
revelation from God, yet it insists on using precedent and prejudice as the
basis for our current practices.
Has President Monson directly asked God about this issue? Or is he waiting for some future prophet to do so, as Spencer W. Kimball finally did for the blacks? I'm wondering if I'm bound to follow this instruction or if I can in good conscience follow my own heart.
Has President Monson directly asked God about this issue? Or is he waiting for some future prophet to do so, as Spencer W. Kimball finally did for the blacks? I'm wondering if I'm bound to follow this instruction or if I can in good conscience follow my own heart.
Frank | 10:31 a.m. June 26, 2008
I love being told not to interfere in others lifes or express my convictions by
people who are telling me how to live my life by expressing their convictions.
I think we all deserve each other.
Alex | 10:41 a.m. June 26, 2008
"Mormons can do what they want, but this type of action will only encourage
more and more people to distance themselves from the Church. "
Why are you suddenly so worried about what happens to the growth of the LDS church?
It is laughable how all of these "objective", "above the fray", "observer", and uninvested LDS Church critics have now got to step in and "save the church from itself".
Why is it that, on average, those who are most invested in the Church itself are the least worried about the direction the church is going?
Look, the church has been encouraging the members to involve themselves in efforts to support the marriage between men and women all over the country for a while and we have done fine. People are fickle.
Why are you suddenly so worried about what happens to the growth of the LDS church?
It is laughable how all of these "objective", "above the fray", "observer", and uninvested LDS Church critics have now got to step in and "save the church from itself".
Why is it that, on average, those who are most invested in the Church itself are the least worried about the direction the church is going?
Look, the church has been encouraging the members to involve themselves in efforts to support the marriage between men and women all over the country for a while and we have done fine. People are fickle.
Kathy in California | 11:36 a.m. June 26, 2008
A BIG thank you to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints! I am behind
you 100% and will go door to door again if I have too!!
The PEOPLE of CALIFORNIA have already made their choice known back in the year 2000. What right did the courts have to overturn the will of the people? I think we all need to step back and take a long look at what's happening in these United States of America?? What has happened to the will of the PEOPLE? 61% of the people in California voted that Marriage is between a Man & a Woman in the year 2000. How can our courts overturn this?
The PEOPLE of CALIFORNIA have already made their choice known back in the year 2000. What right did the courts have to overturn the will of the people? I think we all need to step back and take a long look at what's happening in these United States of America?? What has happened to the will of the PEOPLE? 61% of the people in California voted that Marriage is between a Man & a Woman in the year 2000. How can our courts overturn this?
Anonymous | 11:44 a.m. June 26, 2008
Is it more effective not to go to sacrament meeting on Sunday at all or to go
and leave when the letter is read?
Worried in LA | 11:45 a.m. June 26, 2008
I wonder if we will have to pass through demonstrations to get in to SM on
Sunday?
Anonymous | 12:03 p.m. June 26, 2008
Maybe it's better for *lots* of people to go investigate the LDS on Sunday
in CA.
Frank | 12:27 p.m. June 26, 2008
Its funny how similar the comments I've run across remind me of things said
in the Old and even New Testament. I wonder how often Moses was asked,
"Are you really sure you talked to God or is it just your opinion that we
should go to the desert". Or Jesus having to deal with the advice
"You know if you weren't against that it would bring you a lot more
followers. What your doing is really unpopular with the majority."
re: Packer quote | 12:47 p.m. June 26, 2008
Since he calls scholars or intellectuals "so-called scholars or
intellectuals", I wonder if he would mind if we called him a
"so-called apostle".
to Frank | 12:57 p.m. June 26, 2008
True enough. But the same things might have been said by the Donner Party, the
folks at Mountain Meadows or people who kept investing in Enron.
Steve - Re: To Agki | 1:05 p.m. June 26, 2008
The chances of the entire human race turning/deciding to be gay is about as slim
as... well I can't think of a good analogy, but you get the idea... it
just isn't going to happen. But IF it did happen the human race
wouldn't come to an end for two good reasons:
1. Gay people can still have sex with the opposite gender, gay people can still procreate the normal way if they wanted/needed to.
2. With today's technology people could quite easily be artificially inseminated and become pregnant to continue the human race.
1. Gay people can still have sex with the opposite gender, gay people can still procreate the normal way if they wanted/needed to.
2. With today's technology people could quite easily be artificially inseminated and become pregnant to continue the human race.
Tejano | 1:07 p.m. June 26, 2008
I agree �the toothpaste is out of the
tube� and that even if the California amendment passes this
time around, gay marriage will likely be allowed by California and a number of
states in a few years anyway. It�s fairly easy to predict
given how the young people of today have become so acculturized (through TV
shows, movies, magazines, school curriculum, etc.) into disassociating sex from
any moral standards.
But at least I can still advocate for what I feel is right, as those on the opposite side of the issue can as well.
By the way, besides �the toothpaste is out of the tube� may I add another expression which might be applicable here?... The fig tree has put forth its leaves.
But at least I can still advocate for what I feel is right, as those on the opposite side of the issue can as well.
By the way, besides �the toothpaste is out of the tube� may I add another expression which might be applicable here?... The fig tree has put forth its leaves.
To Frank @12:27 | 1:16 p.m. June 26, 2008
Even Pres Hinckley stated that he did NOT KNOW if homosexuals were born that
way. Does that sound like he has actually asked God for details about this
issue? Why should we assume the questions have been asked and answered if they
really haven't?
Sarah | 1:30 p.m. June 26, 2008
Frank is right. Whether it's popular in the eyes of the world or not,
whether the church loses members over their stand or not, it is the obligation
of our leaders to follow the will of the Lord. We have ALWAYS supported measures
that speak out against the breakdown of the traditional family, and we have
ALWAYS spoken out against sin that the world finds acceptable. We will continue
to do so, no matter how unpopular it makes us.
Consider all of the prophets throughout the ages. How many of them were rejected, imprisoned, stoned, beaten, mocked, or killed because of their messages against the sins of the world? The majority of them. Our own Savior was sentenced to death by a mob of people unwilling to heed His message.
That which is right in the eyes of the Lord has RARELY been popular in the world. It doesn't mean the world is right and we're wrong just because they have the majority, and it doesn't mean we aren't obligated to continue to stand up and fight for our beliefs.
Consider all of the prophets throughout the ages. How many of them were rejected, imprisoned, stoned, beaten, mocked, or killed because of their messages against the sins of the world? The majority of them. Our own Savior was sentenced to death by a mob of people unwilling to heed His message.
That which is right in the eyes of the Lord has RARELY been popular in the world. It doesn't mean the world is right and we're wrong just because they have the majority, and it doesn't mean we aren't obligated to continue to stand up and fight for our beliefs.
This is helpful | 1:31 p.m. June 26, 2008
I appreciate all of the comments on this site. They vary all over the lot. It
helps me, the father of a gay son, prepare for the negative things I will hear
about my son this Sunday from the ward members, most of whom don't know
about his situation.
Frank | 2:19 p.m. June 26, 2008
re: This is helpful
You have my sympathies for what you will have to prepare for. Thats something any of us could or may have to go through one day.
And no matter how awsome or understanding the ward there always be a few that will share their negativity. I hope you and your son can work past those few because there's many others that want you and your son there and understand that you've got as many difficulties to go through life as we do.
You have my sympathies for what you will have to prepare for. Thats something any of us could or may have to go through one day.
And no matter how awsome or understanding the ward there always be a few that will share their negativity. I hope you and your son can work past those few because there's many others that want you and your son there and understand that you've got as many difficulties to go through life as we do.
RE: This is helpful | 2:47 p.m. June 26, 2008
It seems to me most of the negative comments have been directed at the LDS
Church or its leaders.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say you are now prepared for the negative things members of your congregation will be saying about your son. I don't see anyone here advocating hatred of gays or anything like it. I only see the advocates of SSM accusing others of hatred where it doesn't exist.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say you are now prepared for the negative things members of your congregation will be saying about your son. I don't see anyone here advocating hatred of gays or anything like it. I only see the advocates of SSM accusing others of hatred where it doesn't exist.
WHAT? | 3:05 p.m. June 26, 2008
You've never heard gay bashing in church before? I have. "They are
trying to wreck society. They are sick and depraved and should be shot."
There are more, but these are the ones I distinctly remember.
Frank | 3:08 p.m. June 26, 2008
I feel silly defending my statement but:
1. Enron or the Donner Party arent/werent headed by men who claimed to speak to God. As far as I've heard.
1a. From what I heard of MM the local leaders did claim divine direction, and in my opinion will take full responsibility for all that happened due to that claim. But thats would be Gods call.
3. I love Hinckleys statement, and No, Hinkley did not ask God for details about this issue as far as we know because he has passed away. That question was popped on him during an interview. What we are talking about now is different, it has spanned many days. So Yes, I believe that Monson has asked the Lord about this particular case. He's had plenty of time to.
1. Enron or the Donner Party arent/werent headed by men who claimed to speak to God. As far as I've heard.
1a. From what I heard of MM the local leaders did claim divine direction, and in my opinion will take full responsibility for all that happened due to that claim. But thats would be Gods call.
3. I love Hinckleys statement, and No, Hinkley did not ask God for details about this issue as far as we know because he has passed away. That question was popped on him during an interview. What we are talking about now is different, it has spanned many days. So Yes, I believe that Monson has asked the Lord about this particular case. He's had plenty of time to.
This is helpful | 3:18 p.m. June 26, 2008
Without searching for specifics, the shrillness of the rhetoric on both sides is
pretty evident. From my own church life, I have sat in HP group meeting and had
my HP group leader let us know that AIDS is God's punishment for the gays
(i.e homosexuality is a capital crime) and our Relief Society President let my
wife and I know that we would never have "the Spirit" in our home if
we continued to support our gay son.
The latest letter and campaign in CA where I live will just bring more of the same.
The latest letter and campaign in CA where I live will just bring more of the same.
to RE: This is helpful | 3:23 p.m. June 26, 2008
Whether hate is intended or not, encouraging supporting an attack on simple
"legal" marriage in church, signals to people that homophobia is
acceptable. My heart goes out to the father with the gay son. Please don't
let other's words hurt or anger you. Forgive them for the know not what
they do, literally.
We have a legacy whether we like it or not. One of Matthew Shepard's killers was allegedly LDS, and Stuart Matis, a returned missionary killed himself on the steps of his wards church in 2000 over what he felt was unacceptable and hatred towards people with same sex attractions in his ward. That's just the start of a very long list.
This letter being read on Sunday will only pour salt in those wounds. If enough faithful in California walk out, perhaps the First Presidency will clarify if this is their opinion or divine revelation.
We have a legacy whether we like it or not. One of Matthew Shepard's killers was allegedly LDS, and Stuart Matis, a returned missionary killed himself on the steps of his wards church in 2000 over what he felt was unacceptable and hatred towards people with same sex attractions in his ward. That's just the start of a very long list.
This letter being read on Sunday will only pour salt in those wounds. If enough faithful in California walk out, perhaps the First Presidency will clarify if this is their opinion or divine revelation.
titleist5 | 3:32 p.m. June 26, 2008
I have heard so much about rights and rule of law, law of the land, personal
choice, what's the big deal, and can't the church leave us alone, and
so on and so on... It is open for anyone to have an opinion and that's
great. Opinion and Commandment are very different things indeed. Moral law is
at the heart of this. What is best for the divinely appointed work and glory of
God Almighty is the bottome line. His work and glory to bring to pass the
immortality and eternal life of man is frustrated by the practice of same sex
marriage. It is not God's opionion on this, it is his commmandment. If
your one who does not believe in God, then you need to read no further. But if
you do believe in God then you must accept his word..ALL OF IT, not just the
convenient ones. Thou shalt not is pretty clear. And don't try to say
it's not in the bible, or that it is unclear how God feels about this.
Whether your heterosexual, or homosexual and having sexual rel. outside
marriage, thou shalt not applies. That decree has not changed since Adam.
To Frank | 3:36 p.m. June 26, 2008
And in 97 years Hincklely didn't? One would think that as a loving
prophet, he would want to know that answer.
I just want peace | 3:44 p.m. June 26, 2008
To me it just seems sad that we have to fight against issues like this. It
would be so much nicer if we could come to a peaceful solution. So many
innocent people seem to get hurt while we are fighting for our principles.
If only there were some inspired prophet or religion out there that could actually unite us--I'd join it in a heartbeat!
If only there were some inspired prophet or religion out there that could actually unite us--I'd join it in a heartbeat!
Alex | 3:44 p.m. June 26, 2008
To WHAT?:
"You've never heard gay bashing in church before? I have."
If calling homosexual sexual relations a sin is considered bashing, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, I have never heard digs from either the pulpit or classroom or priesthood quorum. I'm sorry that you have.
"You've never heard gay bashing in church before? I have."
If calling homosexual sexual relations a sin is considered bashing, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, I have never heard digs from either the pulpit or classroom or priesthood quorum. I'm sorry that you have.
Anonymous | 3:47 p.m. June 26, 2008
In the immortal words of that inspired leader, Rodney King, "Can't we
all just get along?"
Is this issue really worth fighting over?
Is this issue really worth fighting over?
and in the end ... | 3:48 p.m. June 26, 2008
In the end the U.S. Supreme with plenty of conservatives among them, will
ultimately rule in favor of people marrying people of any sex.
But if it makes conservatives feel good about whining and carrying on about this ... good.
I hope they are less miserable than how they are now over this.
But if it makes conservatives feel good about whining and carrying on about this ... good.
I hope they are less miserable than how they are now over this.
To Sarah | 1:30 p.m. | 4:03 p.m. June 26, 2008
"We have ALWAYS supported measures that speak out against the breakdown of
the traditional family"
Except 1) no one has shown how this issue will result in the breakdown of the "traditional family" and 2) what we have now is NOT the traditional family. Learn some history for crying out loud.
Except 1) no one has shown how this issue will result in the breakdown of the "traditional family" and 2) what we have now is NOT the traditional family. Learn some history for crying out loud.
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.
- Advocate charged with sex abuse 11:52 a.m.
- Sp. Fork city blamed for flooding 11:51 a.m.
- State to keep four-day work week 11:50 a.m.
- Bennett enlists campaign chairs 11:49 a.m.
- Miles is back, but others still out 11:48 a.m.
- Phoenix vote on temple Wednesday 11:02 a.m.
- Iran whistleblower poisoned 10:58 a.m.
- Stocks waver after jobs report 10:57 a.m.
- Robotic hand controlled by thoughts 10:51 a.m.
- Tribune Co. names new CEO 10:49 a.m.
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- Find joy in life, Bishop Burton says
- Utahns growing tired of Bennett
- BCS just keeps dirty laundry on spin
- Orem pair getting a rep for crime
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
909 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime483
- Hall reprimanded by MWC404
- Max Hall issues apology388
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal355
- Utes won't respond to Hall276
- BYU says Hall incident resolved241
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game166
- Religion in politics is tiresome148
- BYU is champion of the state144
As the TV cameras Tuesday night scanned the West Point audience during...
LDS Church publisher Deseret Book has some specials for the holidays.
Latest comments
The real question: Is anybody going to do anything about the cause other...
Lee--having an entertaining story to tell about your roommate's Coke stash...
History shows that religious animosity usually ends in death for somebody....
I'm a BYU fan but I'm a huge fan of watching games in the Specutrum (except...
TO Re: Bill No where in any of those two chapters does it state that a...
If we're going old school,they should bring back the jazz band for the games...
>> a time comes when campaign rhetoric has to fade away and practical...
yeah usu is super good this year. I hope coach rose had time to call up the...
As for the Pelosi discussion, a very odd thing happened. Late last night a...
Mark B | 11:01 a.m. WHY do you expect the DN to come down in favor of...
Advertisements
Tejano did not equate gays to blind people. He equated restrictions on who can marry to restrictions on who can drive.
Since marriage involves the state pro-actively recognizing the validity of a relationship than the equation works. It is not a perfect equation. The car does not have to consent to you driving, and the effects of poor driving are more obvious than the effects of poor marriage. Yet in the case of driving, it is when people start treating it as a right and oppose higher ages for drivers, more strict removals of drunk drivers from the roads and so forth that the system stops working. In the same way, once we proactively define marriage as something other than between a man and a women we put those who only accept marriage by the tradition definition out of line with the government.
The current system does not do this. No one is out there claiming the Unitarians, Quakers and Reformed and Reconstrutionist Jews should loose their tax exempt status. More to come.