Reader comments
Gay marriage criticized at Education Week address
136 comments | Read story
LdsNana-AskMormon | 3:37 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Thank you for publishing this outstanding list of reasons that we in California
will be walking our neighborhoods - in defense of traditional Marriage in
California.
It is a privilege to follow the counsel of Living Prophets and Stand for what is not only right, but what is imperative to ensure for a healthy future for our children and grandchildren etc...
As we go forward, to teach and educate our neighbors and friends in regard to this most important issue of same-sex marriage -- this precise list of powerful reasons and evidence can be a great tool for sharing truth.
I firmly believe that education is the key, in making sure that prop. 8 is passed in California. As members, although much of what we believe is faith-based... the facts are - that this is not only faith-based, but factual knowledge of what and why we must stand in defense of traditional marriage at this time.
Again, thank you for the summary of this instruction from Ed Week.
tDMg
LdsNana-AskMormon
It is a privilege to follow the counsel of Living Prophets and Stand for what is not only right, but what is imperative to ensure for a healthy future for our children and grandchildren etc...
As we go forward, to teach and educate our neighbors and friends in regard to this most important issue of same-sex marriage -- this precise list of powerful reasons and evidence can be a great tool for sharing truth.
I firmly believe that education is the key, in making sure that prop. 8 is passed in California. As members, although much of what we believe is faith-based... the facts are - that this is not only faith-based, but factual knowledge of what and why we must stand in defense of traditional marriage at this time.
Again, thank you for the summary of this instruction from Ed Week.
tDMg
LdsNana-AskMormon
if the shoe fits | 4:45 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Opponents of gay marriage are rightly derided for being bigoted and homophobic.
There is no rational basis to deprive a minority of Americans the equal
protection of the law that is a right in the Constitution. In Massachusetts and
Canada gay marriage has been legal for five years and none of the
"scary" problems the BYU lawyer predicted actually happened.
My brother lives in California and his life will be affected if this hateful amendment passes. Family is very important to me. I feel deeply that the Church will in future regret its high-profile activism on this issue and offer my prayers.
My brother lives in California and his life will be affected if this hateful amendment passes. Family is very important to me. I feel deeply that the Church will in future regret its high-profile activism on this issue and offer my prayers.
Comments continue below
Remember this | 5:55 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
This is a good story. Do not think that you can substitute a godly relationship
with an imposter relationship. No matter how convinced you are about
nature/nurture origins of homosexuality, the gay relationship will NEVER rise to
the level of a healthy, godly relationship between a woman and man. And now let
the gay apologists start the name calling.
Don Sakers | 7:12 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
So if HIV/AIDS transmission among gay men is a major reason to deny them
marriage, lesbian marriages should be okay, right? Or how about a blood test
before marriage: anyone with HIV (gay or straight) is not allowed a marriage
license?
And regarding the social costs of caring for children of divorced parents: we are already paying those costs for existing unmarried gay parents. Allowing those gay parents to wed will decrease, not increase, the number of out-of-wedlock children. (Besides, where's the sense in saying that letting more people marry will increase the number of unmarried parents?)
And regarding the social costs of caring for children of divorced parents: we are already paying those costs for existing unmarried gay parents. Allowing those gay parents to wed will decrease, not increase, the number of out-of-wedlock children. (Besides, where's the sense in saying that letting more people marry will increase the number of unmarried parents?)
W. Patch | 8:07 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Wardle is right. Gay marriage is already hurting our society - and will for
years to come unless we stand up against it! I am tired of same-sex preference
people trying to push their agenda on everyone else. Their lifestyle choices
will always be unacceptable no matter how hard they try to make it acceptable.
Mike NYC | 8:24 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Yet another rant from a so-called "professor" filled with
misinformation and outright lies. It seems the anti-marriage crowd can only
support its bigotry by fooling others. The "professor" fails to
mention that more than 75% of all HIV in the world has been transmitted through
heterosexual intercourse, he fails to show how same sex marriage will in anyway
increase the rates of HIV transmission and he fails to note that lesbian have
the lowest incidence of HIV.
The only "civil rights" he seems to be worrying about is the "right" to hate and discriminate against the group of your choice which I don't believe IS a "civil right".
Finally, the old "slippery slope" argument is used as an attempt to put fear in people saying that they don't know what impact this will have. One of the oldest tricks to control people is to instill fear of the unknown in them. In the end, the "professor" is a professor of ignorance and fear and I hope that educated people see through the nonsense and also see what kind of faculty BYU has on staff.
The only "civil rights" he seems to be worrying about is the "right" to hate and discriminate against the group of your choice which I don't believe IS a "civil right".
Finally, the old "slippery slope" argument is used as an attempt to put fear in people saying that they don't know what impact this will have. One of the oldest tricks to control people is to instill fear of the unknown in them. In the end, the "professor" is a professor of ignorance and fear and I hope that educated people see through the nonsense and also see what kind of faculty BYU has on staff.
uncannygunman | 8:39 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
What a fair and balanced article! I love the balance between "gay marriage
is awful" and "gay marriage is terrible." I really feel like I
have both sides of the story now!
samhill | 9:00 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
I could not agree more. With every aspect of this article.
The attempts to silence dissent in this arena are very similar, though probably even more destructive, to the tactics used to quash any dissenting voices in the "global warming" "debate".
Thankfully, we live in a society that still includes the right to free expression and thought. I have no problem with people who express thier opposition to the opposition of gay marriage and/or the opposing opinions regardings "global warming". So long as all parties remain free to express themselves, I'm fine. However, any attempts to restrict that freedom will bring out my opposing voice.
The attempts to silence dissent in this arena are very similar, though probably even more destructive, to the tactics used to quash any dissenting voices in the "global warming" "debate".
Thankfully, we live in a society that still includes the right to free expression and thought. I have no problem with people who express thier opposition to the opposition of gay marriage and/or the opposing opinions regardings "global warming". So long as all parties remain free to express themselves, I'm fine. However, any attempts to restrict that freedom will bring out my opposing voice.
kart | 9:43 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment will not do a thing. The proponents of gay
marriage will simply go to the state courts and demand that all marriage
licenses be stopped from being issued and that the states only issue civil
contracts between people.
The issue here is you have state constitutions, almost all of them, with equal protection clauses. A court will rule that as the federal constitution says that marriage must be between a man and a woman and as that condition violates the state's equal protection clause the state can no longer issue marriage licenses as doing so violates the state constitution's equal protection clauses.
Nothing in the federal amendement fouces states to issue licences and we will end up with some states with and some states without marriage which will weaken marriage even more than same sex unions would have.
The issue here is you have state constitutions, almost all of them, with equal protection clauses. A court will rule that as the federal constitution says that marriage must be between a man and a woman and as that condition violates the state's equal protection clause the state can no longer issue marriage licenses as doing so violates the state constitution's equal protection clauses.
Nothing in the federal amendement fouces states to issue licences and we will end up with some states with and some states without marriage which will weaken marriage even more than same sex unions would have.
victor | 9:56 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
The professor is telling it like he was told to tell it. His assumptions are
merely that. He citing the cost of divorce in our society is silly and not
rational. How, pray tell, can how another celebrates life ruin my relationship
with my wife and with my children. As I would not want someone else to tell me
how to live and how to function, why should a BYU professor or any church tell
others not in their faith how to live. Should not people be able to think and
live as they want without having to be oppressed by myopic thought. As a society
we thought women were incapable of voting, we thought blacks were inferior as
citizens, allowing women to vote did not hurt our society, allowing people of
color to be fully integrated into society has not hurt our society.
I don't care if gays marry, what they do may seem weird to me, but what I do may seem weird to them. California is allowing what is a natural function of society. The professor needs to leave his tower and venture into the society he reads about, to see how it is in real life.
I don't care if gays marry, what they do may seem weird to me, but what I do may seem weird to them. California is allowing what is a natural function of society. The professor needs to leave his tower and venture into the society he reads about, to see how it is in real life.
Jennifer | 10:17 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
People have their agency. I should not be forced to accept the fact that someone
else is living in a way I do not agree with. I can accept a person but I
don't have to accept the way they live. They have their choice to live how
they want, but not cram it down the throat of everyone else. If someone believes
something is wrong, they should not be forced to do it by the government.
Where's our freedom then? If an adoptive agency won't let a same-sex
couple adopt, go somewhere else. Same thing with the case for the doctor who
didn't want to help the Lesbian get pregnant. Just go somewhere else.
WHAT? | 10:46 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
So if gay marriage is allowed it will end my civil right to oppose it? That
makes no sense. The 1st amendment lets us speak out on anything. Ask the KKK
or the American Nazis. That somebody is called homophobic is a name in the mind
of the name caller. I guess if you have thin skin, be offended. Gay marriage
will come whether we like it or not. Eventually the Supreme court will make the
determination. the US Constitution was written to protect the least of us, not
the will of the majority. Otherwise, civil rights would not be in the American
language.
espresso | 11:17 a.m. Aug. 23, 2008
The state constitution should never be amended to limit Californians' right to their own personal and religious beliefs. It should scrupulously uphold equal rights under the law. That is what it now does, based on a state Supreme Court ruling this year affirming a right to same-sex marriage. Voters should not take the extraordinary step of amending the constitution to take a right away. They should reject Proposition 8.
Those who would impose their own intensely personal or religious feelings about marriage ignore the word's equally important secular and legal definitions. Marriage confers a whole range of rights and responsibilities around inheritance, parenthood, medical decision-making, tax benefits and liabilities, and on and on. In American law, all of these are affected by
Advertisement
marriage.
Anonymous | 12:32 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
There is no such thing as this so-called "gay marriage."
old enough to know and care | 1:25 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
The comments give credence to the term QUEER
Jnole | 1:55 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
You have to wonder at people who think they have some God given right to tell
others how they should live their lives. I especially like this comment:
"I should not be forced to accept the fact that someone else is living in a
way I do not agree with." In other words this person believes they are
better than everyone else and have the right to tell people that they don't
like what they are doing in their personal lives so they can't do it? Why
am I being forces to put up with people who think like this?
John Pack Lambert | 2:01 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
I think Brother Wardle hit the nail on the head on this issue. In doing
research on him, I realized I have heard him speak before. For part of the time
I was at BYU he was in my stake's stake presidency, and I have probably
heard him speak twice, although maybe only once.
I applaud him for being willing to face the hate of those who are trying to destroy the rights of those who conscientiously object to same gender relationships. To give them the legal support of the law will be detrimental to many people's freedom. In Massachusetts justicies of the peace have been fired for refusing to perform same gender marriages and in California a doctor is being sued for refusing to perform an artificial insemination on a lady in a lesbian couple, even though he was willing to reccomend the lady to a client who would perform the operation.
I will continue to speak out against giving same-gender marriage the proactive endorsement of public policy.
I applaud him for being willing to face the hate of those who are trying to destroy the rights of those who conscientiously object to same gender relationships. To give them the legal support of the law will be detrimental to many people's freedom. In Massachusetts justicies of the peace have been fired for refusing to perform same gender marriages and in California a doctor is being sued for refusing to perform an artificial insemination on a lady in a lesbian couple, even though he was willing to reccomend the lady to a client who would perform the operation.
I will continue to speak out against giving same-gender marriage the proactive endorsement of public policy.
John Pack Lambert | 2:06 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
To Don Shakers,
No one said that AIDS transmission is a major reason for not legalizing same gender marriage. It was put near the end of the article because it is not the compelling reason.
You have set up a straw man argument. You have failed to engage the major issues of redefinition and weakening of the family.
In Massachusetts Catholic Family Searvices has stopped processing adoptions. In Norway the out of wedlock birth rate has gone from 35% to 52%. There are a whole slew of negative results of legalizing same gender marriage.
No one said that AIDS transmission is a major reason for not legalizing same gender marriage. It was put near the end of the article because it is not the compelling reason.
You have set up a straw man argument. You have failed to engage the major issues of redefinition and weakening of the family.
In Massachusetts Catholic Family Searvices has stopped processing adoptions. In Norway the out of wedlock birth rate has gone from 35% to 52%. There are a whole slew of negative results of legalizing same gender marriage.
Quest | 3:06 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
The 'professor' fails to provide facts to support her
'opinion'.
FACT: The State (Massachusetts) that legalized SAME-SEX MARRIAGE... has the LOWEST Divorce Rate in the United States.
Things that make to go Hhhmmm.
.
FACT: The State (Massachusetts) that legalized SAME-SEX MARRIAGE... has the LOWEST Divorce Rate in the United States.
Things that make to go Hhhmmm.
.
To John Pack Lambert | 3:34 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
This makes no sense to me: "In Norway the out of wedlock birth rate has
gone from 35% to 52%. There are a whole slew of negative results of legalizing
same gender marriage."
Why would gay marriage have anything at all to do with an increase in out of wedlock births? I think you may be attributing more consequences to gay marriage than are really reasonable. Just as many others seem anxious to do.
Why would gay marriage have anything at all to do with an increase in out of wedlock births? I think you may be attributing more consequences to gay marriage than are really reasonable. Just as many others seem anxious to do.
David S. Fanene | 3:54 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
I agree with the good professor. Gay marriage is not good public policy and
neither good for our children to model after. We need to speak out in opposition
and support for traditional marriage and wholesome family values.
Eric | 4:02 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
I must have missed the part where more marriages destroys marriage. That's
like saying, "if we grow more food we will all starve." Then using the
excuse that broccoli are a lesser vegetable than corn, and thereby should not be
grown.
I personally think that the Mormon community is destroying America, would you find it fair for me to collect signatures so that we can make an amendment to the Constitution to ban Mormonism? "No" you say? Would that be because you have the right to have your beliefs, and for those to me different than mine? Then all I ask is the same in return. I won't ban your way of life, and you don't ban mine... Welcome to America. THAT is what this country is built on. If you don't like it get out.
I personally think that the Mormon community is destroying America, would you find it fair for me to collect signatures so that we can make an amendment to the Constitution to ban Mormonism? "No" you say? Would that be because you have the right to have your beliefs, and for those to me different than mine? Then all I ask is the same in return. I won't ban your way of life, and you don't ban mine... Welcome to America. THAT is what this country is built on. If you don't like it get out.
To John | 4:41 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
"I applaud him for being willing to face the hate of those who are trying
to destroy the rights of those who conscientiously object to same gender
relationships."
HUH?
So now you're not only trying to deny gays the right to marry, you also think you're denying their rights to enter into relationships with each other?
Please - ask yourself why God is mute and inert in the presence of natural disasters and genuine man-made evils, yet is so obsessed with everyone's sex life.
It's pathetic.
HUH?
So now you're not only trying to deny gays the right to marry, you also think you're denying their rights to enter into relationships with each other?
Please - ask yourself why God is mute and inert in the presence of natural disasters and genuine man-made evils, yet is so obsessed with everyone's sex life.
It's pathetic.
Thor | 4:54 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Well lets take a look at Canada, Spain, Netherlands, and even Massachusetts.
Each country/state has had gay marriage for a few years now and nothing
catastrophic has happened. The real threat to marriage is the ridiculous divorce
rate in this country.
RE: Eric | 4:59 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
That was already done in the 1800's in Missouri.
How'd that work out?
How'd that work out?
RE: Eric | 5:03 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
How can you equate Religious belief which is protected by the constitution,
to sexual behavior which is not protected?
to sexual behavior which is not protected?
John Pack Lambert | 5:42 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
To the nameless person at 3:34,
Same gender marriage seperates child-bearing and marriage. In doing so it creates a society that is more accepting of sex outside of marriage and child rearing outside of marriage, which in turn causes an increse in the rate of out of wedlock births.
Same gender marriage seperates child-bearing and marriage. In doing so it creates a society that is more accepting of sex outside of marriage and child rearing outside of marriage, which in turn causes an increse in the rate of out of wedlock births.
John Pack Lambert | 5:46 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
We oppose same-sex relationships. God has a law of morality. If same-sex
relatinships recieve the endorsement of public policy speaking against them will
be a punishable offense, at least in terms of deneying government funding to
your institution.
Under the current system the state does not punish same-gender relationships, but does not pro-actively endorse them.
To Eric,
Your analogy is not logical. We are talking about what the legal perameters of marriage are. You analogy to banning a religious group is not analogous.
Under the current system the state does not punish same-gender relationships, but does not pro-actively endorse them.
To Eric,
Your analogy is not logical. We are talking about what the legal perameters of marriage are. You analogy to banning a religious group is not analogous.
John Bisceglia | 6:04 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
No need for armor; no name calling here.
Some of us have realized that talk is cheap, but since MONEY talks, we are withholding federal taxes until we have Marriage Equality.
You can rant and petition and have all the tantrums you want protesting "gay" marriage. Just remember to pay your taxes, because more and more LGBTIQ Americans have stopped paying altogether. Everyone else can carry the tax burden until US LAWS stop being affected by citizens who want a theocracy. (GAY TAX PROTEST)
Some of us have realized that talk is cheap, but since MONEY talks, we are withholding federal taxes until we have Marriage Equality.
You can rant and petition and have all the tantrums you want protesting "gay" marriage. Just remember to pay your taxes, because more and more LGBTIQ Americans have stopped paying altogether. Everyone else can carry the tax burden until US LAWS stop being affected by citizens who want a theocracy. (GAY TAX PROTEST)
Anonymous | 7:10 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
BYU Professor Lynn Wardle offers his hypothesis that same sex marriage is
destructuctive to society.
Dr. Wardle demonizes gay men and women as carriers of diseases and the cause of out-of-wedlock childbirth , but he fails to provide any tangible, documented scientific evidence to support these claims.
Professor Wardle of BYU asserts, again with no supporting evidence, that same sax marriage will burden taxpayers. But he fails to note that same-sex couples are taxpayers too. They often pay higher taxes than married and receive none of the benefits married couples do.
The BYU Professor, Lynn Wardle concludes, based on his non-existent evidence, that same sex marriages are destructive to society.
Repeating a hypothesis as a conclusion with no evidence to support it, while maligning the group of people who are its subject has nothing to do with scholarship.This is NOT the quality of reasoning one would expect from a professor at BYU or at any other universtity.
Dr. Wardle demonizes gay men and women as carriers of diseases and the cause of out-of-wedlock childbirth , but he fails to provide any tangible, documented scientific evidence to support these claims.
Professor Wardle of BYU asserts, again with no supporting evidence, that same sax marriage will burden taxpayers. But he fails to note that same-sex couples are taxpayers too. They often pay higher taxes than married and receive none of the benefits married couples do.
The BYU Professor, Lynn Wardle concludes, based on his non-existent evidence, that same sex marriages are destructive to society.
Repeating a hypothesis as a conclusion with no evidence to support it, while maligning the group of people who are its subject has nothing to do with scholarship.This is NOT the quality of reasoning one would expect from a professor at BYU or at any other universtity.
Anonymous | 7:33 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Lynn Wardle has built a career on spreading misinformation, ignorance and fear
about gay people and same sex relationships. He demonizes same sex relationships
as a threat to the family. He is now campaigning to elimante the right of same
sex couples in California to marry. He has spent a decade crusading against the
civil rights of gay citizens. He collects a salary and speaker fees to
propagate this malicious nonsense.
Yet Professor Wardle proclaims himself to be the victim. Isn't that something?
Funny things is, no one is campaigning to eliminate his right to marry.
Yet Professor Wardle proclaims himself to be the victim. Isn't that something?
Funny things is, no one is campaigning to eliminate his right to marry.
Seeking the best for gays | 7:55 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Make no mistake -- gay people are spirit offspring of a divine Creator who loves
every one of His children, and wants our eternal happiness. In His greater
wisdom and perspective, He knows that gay sexual relations will ultimately cause
grief and pain. It is for that reason that He has commanded that we eschew such
behavior. It is for the same reason that those who truly love and support their
gay friends and family members refuse to facilitate that harmful behavior, and
instead, oppose gay marriage and civil unions.
True, it sounds arrogant to suggest that other people know what is in a gay person's best interest to a greater extent than he does himself. However, it is not their own knowledge upon which these believers rely, but their faith in the word of God. True arrogance lies in believing that we know more about what is good for us than does our Creator.
True, it sounds arrogant to suggest that other people know what is in a gay person's best interest to a greater extent than he does himself. However, it is not their own knowledge upon which these believers rely, but their faith in the word of God. True arrogance lies in believing that we know more about what is good for us than does our Creator.
Jack | 8:05 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Why is the Mormon Church attacking Jesus Christ? You may ask, how is the Mormon
Church attacking Jesus Christ? Every time the Mormon Church attacks homosexual
people composed of hatred, discrimination, persecution, and condemnation the
Mormon Church does it to Jesus Christ.
Kenny | 8:06 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
I guess my last post comparing those opposed to gay marriage to those in the
1960s who were opposed to interracial marriages was either off topic or somehow
offensive. Or maybe it was my fear that legalizing gay marriage was a slippery
slope to the legalization of polygamy that was considered off topic or
offensive. Maybe the censor could email me at the address I supplied and let me
know if anything in this post is off-topic, abusive, offensive, or
misrepresentative.
Anonymous | 8:30 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
What kills me are the people who seem to think that it would be a violation of
their right to freedom of religion if they are "forced" to live in a
society where it is legal for people to do things they disapprove of. Well, if
that's a case, I guess MY right to freedom of religion is violated every
time these very people are permitted to marry, breed, and brainwash their
children with their own evil, demonic beliefs.
Re: Seeking the best for gays | 8:34 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Wrong. True arrogance lies in believing that you have a right to tell anyone
else how to live just because it says so in a work of FICTION written thousands
of years ago.
Seeking the best . . . | 8:47 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Dear "Re:" -- Check your premises.
Anonymous | 8:50 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Are religious beliefs a valid reason for eliminating the right of same sex couples to marry in California? Using the state to impose religious beliefs about same sex relationships on those who do not share those religious beliefs violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
Re: Seeking the best | 9:13 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
You check your premises. The only "proof" you have that your book is
the word of god is the fact that the book says so. I could write a book tomorrow
that says the same thing; that wouldn't make it true.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe anything that gets you through the day. I AM saying that you DON'T have the right to force ME or anyone else to live according to your beliefs. I don't believe in your god and I see no reason you should be permitted to force me to live according to words he allegedly spoke to a small group of people thousands of years ago.
I say this as a person who is attracted exclusively to members of the opposite sex, so for whom gay marriage is not so much a personal issue as one of justice and equality.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to believe anything that gets you through the day. I AM saying that you DON'T have the right to force ME or anyone else to live according to your beliefs. I don't believe in your god and I see no reason you should be permitted to force me to live according to words he allegedly spoke to a small group of people thousands of years ago.
I say this as a person who is attracted exclusively to members of the opposite sex, so for whom gay marriage is not so much a personal issue as one of justice and equality.
Unconditional Love | 9:23 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
There is an evolution that is happening in the world and the LDS Church and
it's members are a little behind the curve. People around the world are
beginning to love each other unconditionally and supporting humanity in its
entirety. I don't personally understand why two people of the same sex are
attracted to each other, but I don't have to in order to love them as
spirit beings. California has always been a leader in changing laws and seeing
the injustice for what it is "an untruth." The momentum now has begun
to swing in a loving direction and as this momentum shifts, peoples perceptions
begin to shift. The ugliness of pre-1978 racism has shifted over the years to
equality. In the immortal words of Jesus, "This to shall pass." At
this moment the fear and control that the LDS Church and some of it's
members are fealing is as far as they have evolved. The evolution continues and
the world will become a place of love without boundaries or we will end our own
existense.
Lets see | 9:56 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
To Kart: Every person in the U.S. would be equally protected, each would be able
to marry a member of the opposite sex. And, no person would be able to marry a
member of the same sex. That is equal protection of the law. Just the same as
"all people are allowed to marry whom ever they please including members of
the same sex would be "equal protection" of the law. Unfortunately,
the Calif. Supreme Court majority used bad legal reasoning as the basis to
support their own agenda. Hurrah, the bench legislates because the elected
representatives, and the people just aren't quite up to the task.
Anonymous | 10:09 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
"True, it sounds arrogant to suggest that other people know what is in a
gay person's best interest to a greater extent than he does himself"
--Seeking the best for gays | 7:55 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
It not only sounds arrogant, it is arrogant. It is more arrogant to blame this condescending malicious nonsense about knowing what is best for others on your god.
It not only sounds arrogant, it is arrogant. It is more arrogant to blame this condescending malicious nonsense about knowing what is best for others on your god.
It's Great | 10:16 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Isn't it wonderful that California is leading the way in the battle of
equality. Equal rights is such a wonderful goal for humanity to shoot for and
California once again is leading the way. I would have thought that so called
spiritual organizations (ie: the LDS Church) would have been leaders in the
crusade against inequality, however I was let down once again. I realize that
people and organizations can only rise to the level they have evolved to. The
raising of ones consciousness to a higher level where bigotry, racism and just
plain old inequality is considered unexceptable is happening as we speak. For
the individuals that are showing their fear (John, W. and Mr. Monson) it's
OK, if you don't lose your fear while you are in this mortal state, you
will lose it after. If the world continues to live in fear than we as a people
will no longer exist on this planet (fear of other people-Iraq, Georgia, Gays,
Iran, N. Korea, Democrats etc.) If we can accept other groups of people no
matter if we agree with them or not they will begin to change and so will we.
I support gay marriage | 11:16 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
I'm happy to see how many comments here support the rights of homosexual
people. One of the reasons I left the Mormon Church is because of its stance on
gay people (I still respect many Mormons, who are trying to be good people just
as I'm trying to be a good person). I believe that our (grand?)children
will feel shame about the way gay people are denied basic rights, much the same
way I felt shame when I first learned about the historical treatment of black
people, women, Jewish people, etc. I wish it were possible not to offend anyone
about this, as it's not my style: I just want the happiness and security I
enjoy in marriage to be available to everyone, regardless of whom they love.
Curt | 11:22 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Why is it that people feel their marriage is threatened by this. I love my Wife
and what anyone else does in their marriage does not effect mine. If some one
is married does something bad in their relationship does that make mine worse?
Time to worry about yourself and your life and let others live theirs. This guy
speaking does not know what he is talking about he is just showing his elitist
attitude and narrow view that anything different from what he believes in is
wrong.
Curt | 11:28 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
This guy needs to study before he throws out stats and numbers. Like the idea
that aids is primarily transmitted through gays except in certain parts of
Africa. That is not true, do a little research and you can find most countries
it is being transferred by heterosexual couples. Where did you pull that one
out of? Maybe you should let people live their lives and worry about yourself.
Elizabeth ...again | 11:36 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
Why do so many look at this issue as being hate-filled, gay-bashing etc. when
the bottom line is one of our basic rights as citizens of this country is the
right to vote and have our vote count......why isn't everyone up in arms
over the fact that those activist UNELECTED....repeat....UNELECTED judges in San
Francisco overturned the majority vote of the people of CA...forget what it was
about don't you see that our fundamental rights were thrown to the
winds???? What would same-sex couples think if activist judges who disagree with
their current civil rights overturned those rights then put it up for another
vote of the people.....imagine the outrage and rightly so, that would take
place. The people have already spoken in CA but no one wants to listen....wake
up America we are losing our basic freedoms and no one is paying attention. Is
it right that homosexuals be a protected group and have superior rights to other
individuals? Stop, please with the anger and bigotry, the name calling of
people who don't agree with your point of view and think what we are
losing, all of us gay or straight, by toying with our precious freedoms.
The Best Way | 11:38 p.m. Aug. 23, 2008
I'm saddened by the name-calling. This debate lends itself, but
doesn't inherently have to be hate-filled.
It ultimately comes down to procreation, and a child's perspective. The family is the most fundamental unit in society. Marriage is a way to legally support, & give a name, to a unit that's primary responsibility is to create and support life. Relationships between members of the same sex cannot, by definition, create life. They CAN support it, and my boys have an uncle who supports them . . . but he cannot give his nephews, or any child he and a partner adopt, the same benefit of a mother and a father.
Research has proven time and again that children raised in homes with a married mother and father is enormously important. Every home is not ideal, but why not support that ideal from the start, rather than give a false "alternative" to the basic emotional needs of the next generation. How do children develop their own identities, sexual or otherwise, without the benefit of both sexes in the home? I realize there are many single-parent homes, but again, that is not the BEST way, and all children deserve the best.
It ultimately comes down to procreation, and a child's perspective. The family is the most fundamental unit in society. Marriage is a way to legally support, & give a name, to a unit that's primary responsibility is to create and support life. Relationships between members of the same sex cannot, by definition, create life. They CAN support it, and my boys have an uncle who supports them . . . but he cannot give his nephews, or any child he and a partner adopt, the same benefit of a mother and a father.
Research has proven time and again that children raised in homes with a married mother and father is enormously important. Every home is not ideal, but why not support that ideal from the start, rather than give a false "alternative" to the basic emotional needs of the next generation. How do children develop their own identities, sexual or otherwise, without the benefit of both sexes in the home? I realize there are many single-parent homes, but again, that is not the BEST way, and all children deserve the best.
Believer in facts | 1:45 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008
"Research has proven" is an easy thing to claim, but I note that none
of the posters has bothered to back the assertion with references to the actual
research.
Consider Judge Kevin Chang's ruling from Hawaii in 1997 which includes: "The State did not prove ... that, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his/her biological parents or a married man and woman".
Consider Judge Kevin Chang's ruling from Hawaii in 1997 which includes: "The State did not prove ... that, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his/her biological parents or a married man and woman".
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Hearing set for accused teen shooter 5:23 p.m.
- Students on the job front 5:22 p.m.
- ATP finals: Davydenko beats Nadal 5:22 p.m.
- Report: Iverson set to retire 5:20 p.m.
- Principal leaves giant imprint 5:12 p.m.
- 13-13-13 = oodles of laughs 5:12 p.m.
- Crews free man in Utah County cave 5:05 p.m.
- Mormon Times briefly 5:00 p.m.
- Syracuse woman gets 1 year in jail 4:55 p.m.
- NFL locals report 4:54 p.m.
- Donny and Kym dance to victory
- Howard made the rivalry a rivalry
- Crews free man in Utah County cave
- Cougars cruise past Southern
- Loyal to Cougarettes, Crimson Line
- Twitterati to BCS: 'We hate you.'
- Y. focused on 10-win season
- BYU has slim shot at BCS
- Witness describes '99 killing
- Thunder rolls by Jazz
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
257 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?226
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple205
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin129
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
- Thunder rolls by Jazz100
- Boys basketball rankings97
Latest comments
monsen dunked once. 2A mvp only had 16 against a team thats talest player...
Thank you Alan. A rational voice, one not driven by partisanship or a desire...
"get a life" Why don't you get an education???
This just one step foward, two steps back. That said, Salt Lake seems to have...
Nice letter, Meg. It's too bad the conservative crowd can't discuss issues...
"the Joan of Arc of traditional American values"??? Wow, this one made me...
After watching part of last nights game I got sick. With the talent the Jazz...
Why are the courts so lenient on women on this kind of crime? If it was a...
You know what..I honestly don`t know,we have plenty of talent,no doubt,we...
@9:41, You don't have a clue about the Constitution. You claim that...
Advertisements
Please look deeper into this situation at the ramifications to medical personnel, social agencies, parochial/religious schools, public schools etc. not being allowed to follow their conscience. Look at Catholic Charities having to shut down their adoption services in Boston MA because of being forced to process same-sex adoptions! In CA same-sex couples can be added to each other's health insurance etc. but unmarried heterosexuals cannot! Equal rights is one thing, superior rights is another and it's WRONG but that's what comes with "protected class" individuals. Please look deeper into the possible outcome of this initiative. I believe we haven't scratched the surface of what this will lead to in areas we haven't even thought about. If you live in CA .. VOTE YES ON PROP 8.