Reader comments
Foes of same-sex marriage mobilize
323 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 9:25 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
to: Cats | 8:33 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
"To Observer: All God's children are subject to the laws and commandments of God--including atheists."
Not in this life but for sure in the next. If we shove our beliefs into law, aren't we acting like Satan? Don't we then force people to live OUR beliefs?
"To Observer: All God's children are subject to the laws and commandments of God--including atheists."
Not in this life but for sure in the next. If we shove our beliefs into law, aren't we acting like Satan? Don't we then force people to live OUR beliefs?
To Mitch | 8:59 a.m. | 9:28 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Thank you Mitch. Those are exactly my thoughts and you put it into words so
well. THANK YOU!
Comments continue below
Mark Hales | 9:29 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
And let me add an additional verse.
Once embraced we protect it by law,
And reinforce our freedom�s fatal flaw-
That the evil can change the legal decree,
To protect that which is of depravity.
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
And let me add an additional verse.
Once embraced we protect it by law,
And reinforce our freedom�s fatal flaw-
That the evil can change the legal decree,
To protect that which is of depravity.
Jonathan | 9:33 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
"They want people to feel like you are a bad person if you support what has
been the definition of marriage since the dawn of time," Schubert said
Jon: No, the definition of marriage since the "dawn of time" has NOT been ONE man and ONE woman, but ONE man and one or more women. Throughout all human history throughout the entire world. At least until very recently.
Support the LDS/Christian amendment? Not on your life! The persecuted have become the persecutors(Mormons), and have joined hands with previously persecuted (Christians).
Jonathan - Religious Freedom Fighter
Jon: No, the definition of marriage since the "dawn of time" has NOT been ONE man and ONE woman, but ONE man and one or more women. Throughout all human history throughout the entire world. At least until very recently.
Support the LDS/Christian amendment? Not on your life! The persecuted have become the persecutors(Mormons), and have joined hands with previously persecuted (Christians).
Jonathan - Religious Freedom Fighter
Linda Hamilton | 9:36 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I have read these comments. Some are misguided and do not understand what is at
stake. Thank you for those who support this proposition. I am one of those
California volunteers for Prop. 8. I will try to clarify what is going on. First
- Prop. 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian
domestic partners. Under Calif. law domestic partners shall have the same
rights, protections and benefits as married spouses (Family Code 297.5). Second
- California already voted on this issue and "marriage between a man and a
woman" passed in 2000, only to be overturned by judges of the Supreme
Court. Already a Catholic Adoption Service in Boston has been sued - they had to
close their doors. Please go to protectmarriage.com. You can help. They have the
money. We have the volunteers. Please donate to protect marriage. This will not
stop in Calif. It will come to every state in the union. This proposition is to
protect families and children. It is pro-marriage. If we don't protect
families, we will see our freedoms erode before our eyes. Please help us.
SteveS | 9:36 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
No on 8!
Yeah, This Fits | 9:41 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
"Liberal" - (lib-er-uhl), noun: a person who is so open-minded their
brains fall out.
OK, OK, yes, conservatives have their issues too. The GOP really messed up badly when we had control of the House and Senate recently and didn't do a better job of running the country (Dems, puh-lease don't try and say you're doing a better job of it now!) but really, liberals, being open-minded should not be pursued at the expense of completely abandoning common sense.
Pushing homosexual marriage, which the majority of the country has said in poll after poll and vote after vote they DON'T want, is abandoning common sense and respect for YOUR fellow man.
OK, OK, yes, conservatives have their issues too. The GOP really messed up badly when we had control of the House and Senate recently and didn't do a better job of running the country (Dems, puh-lease don't try and say you're doing a better job of it now!) but really, liberals, being open-minded should not be pursued at the expense of completely abandoning common sense.
Pushing homosexual marriage, which the majority of the country has said in poll after poll and vote after vote they DON'T want, is abandoning common sense and respect for YOUR fellow man.
Re: PV | 9:48 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
You are 100% correct. Every person in the US who is single and of sufficient
age has the right to get married, regardless of whether you are straight or gay.
There is no discrimination based on sexual preference with regards to marriage.
Now, marriage is currently defined as a union between a man and a woman and
this is where the battle is. Some people frame it as a matter of equal rights
but that is not correct, it is a matter of society's definition of what
marriage is. Now, as long as we're considering changing the definition of
marriage to allow unions between two people of the same gender, why not allow
unions of more that two people (i.e. polygamy)? I suspect that would be a much
less popular political position, but it makes as much sense as any other change
in the definition of marriage.
I wonder | 9:52 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
When the issue was polygamy, everyone claimed "religious freedom",
when it's gay marriage opposition, everyone screams "religious
freedom". So when it come to marriage it must be only the religious who
can make the rules.
I wonder WHO'S religion will get to finalise the rules. And what about those of us who chose to think for ourselves and do not belong to a relig? Will we be allowed to marry?
I wonder WHO'S religion will get to finalise the rules. And what about those of us who chose to think for ourselves and do not belong to a relig? Will we be allowed to marry?
Probably A Troll | 9:53 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I suspect "HMS" at 7:53 is a troll.
Very clever bringing out the fact that the LDS church in the past has been severely persecuted and thereby, in return, LDS members should just let homosexuals "live and let live".
You're guilt trip attempt won't work.
Faithful LDS people, nor anyone else who is against homosexual marriage, have no need to feel guilty for standing up for what is right.
Very clever bringing out the fact that the LDS church in the past has been severely persecuted and thereby, in return, LDS members should just let homosexuals "live and let live".
You're guilt trip attempt won't work.
Faithful LDS people, nor anyone else who is against homosexual marriage, have no need to feel guilty for standing up for what is right.
irony | 9:59 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It's amusing to hear Mark say there is no basis for morality without God
and the rest is moral relativism.
It seems that the Buddhists have a perfectly solid basis without a creator deity. In fact, Biblical religion is quite relative - thou shalt not kill, unless they're from Iraq because of what Saddam did on 9/11 :-) Not to mention all of the other aspects of God's law (Allah's) that change or are completely ignored by the people who focus on this one issue. It is really hypocritical to attack one sin when we all violate so many biblical edicts. What did the bible say about driving cars? Why isn't the church out door to door on getting carbon levels back to 350ppm, above which the planet is going to be Uninhabitable for future generations. No the real danger is those to elderly women in California who were the first to get legal recognition for their 50 year partnership.
And no, civil unions aren't an excuse - Michigan's supreme court ruled these amendments forbid health care benefits for same-sex partners of university employees. This is mostly about fear and superstition.
It seems that the Buddhists have a perfectly solid basis without a creator deity. In fact, Biblical religion is quite relative - thou shalt not kill, unless they're from Iraq because of what Saddam did on 9/11 :-) Not to mention all of the other aspects of God's law (Allah's) that change or are completely ignored by the people who focus on this one issue. It is really hypocritical to attack one sin when we all violate so many biblical edicts. What did the bible say about driving cars? Why isn't the church out door to door on getting carbon levels back to 350ppm, above which the planet is going to be Uninhabitable for future generations. No the real danger is those to elderly women in California who were the first to get legal recognition for their 50 year partnership.
And no, civil unions aren't an excuse - Michigan's supreme court ruled these amendments forbid health care benefits for same-sex partners of university employees. This is mostly about fear and superstition.
Hey "Observer" | 10:02 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
You say that invoking God in defending traditional male/female marriages is
"ridiculous" because no one speaks for God.
First, I disagree with you. I believe that one man does, Thomas H. Monson, the Prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
However, that doesn't even matter because:
A) God can speak for himself, which He has already done so both in LDS scriptures as well as the standard Christian doctrinal book, the Bible, blatantly speaking against homosexual marriage.
B) God can speak to each individual themselves if they lack wisdom and direction. The entire Bible is full of counsel to ask God for wisdom and assurances that God will answer us becaue He loves us.
Legalizing homosexual marriage is not an issue of "X doesn't speak for God", it's an issue of finding out for one's self what God Himself says on the issue.
First, I disagree with you. I believe that one man does, Thomas H. Monson, the Prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
However, that doesn't even matter because:
A) God can speak for himself, which He has already done so both in LDS scriptures as well as the standard Christian doctrinal book, the Bible, blatantly speaking against homosexual marriage.
B) God can speak to each individual themselves if they lack wisdom and direction. The entire Bible is full of counsel to ask God for wisdom and assurances that God will answer us becaue He loves us.
Legalizing homosexual marriage is not an issue of "X doesn't speak for God", it's an issue of finding out for one's self what God Himself says on the issue.
Richard Nibbler | 10:08 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The Church has no business in any of this.
Gays: | 10:07 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. I DO NOT want someone at
school asking my little boy "are you going to marry a girl or a boy?"
Re: "No More", 9:06 | 10:14 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
You say it's wrong for a church to campaign for the passing of laws against
homosexual marriage because then they are delving into politics.
How can you not see that by saying this you are essentially saying that the ONLY place that a church can preach it's doctrine is within the walls of the church building itself?
Get real. A church, by nature of the organization itself, doesn't get involved in "politics", they get involved in "morality"; anywhere, any time, any place. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do.
How can you not see that by saying this you are essentially saying that the ONLY place that a church can preach it's doctrine is within the walls of the church building itself?
Get real. A church, by nature of the organization itself, doesn't get involved in "politics", they get involved in "morality"; anywhere, any time, any place. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do.
M | 10:26 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Mitch
We're not trying to change any law. We're trying to keep laws the way they have been for centuries. The Gay agenda is trying to change laws to fit their beliefs and desires. All over the nation states either have voted or are voting on proposals aimed at keeping traditional marriage. The popular vote of the people is the right way to govern...always has been, always will be. You can be for gay marriage without forcing everyone else to accept it. You can scream your belief in gay marriage from the rooftops, but to allow gay dogma to rule our country is completely against the vision of the Founding Fathers. The people voting in California to uphold traditional values shows that we are miles away from a an Arab type government that would force us to accept something that the majority does not agree with.
We're not trying to change any law. We're trying to keep laws the way they have been for centuries. The Gay agenda is trying to change laws to fit their beliefs and desires. All over the nation states either have voted or are voting on proposals aimed at keeping traditional marriage. The popular vote of the people is the right way to govern...always has been, always will be. You can be for gay marriage without forcing everyone else to accept it. You can scream your belief in gay marriage from the rooftops, but to allow gay dogma to rule our country is completely against the vision of the Founding Fathers. The people voting in California to uphold traditional values shows that we are miles away from a an Arab type government that would force us to accept something that the majority does not agree with.
Re - Doctors and Religions | 10:29 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Claiming that a doctor's services are different than services provided by a
church because doctors must perform desired assistance for homosexual patients
due to the hippocratic oath to "do no harm", whereas church pastors,
etc have not, is a false argument.
True, doctors take the Hippocratic oath, but the idea behind the oath never was intended to take away the doctor's freedom to choose if they would render assistance or not.
A doctor, like it or not, is a human being and as such, has a God-given right to choose what they will do or won't do. Being a doctor doesn't negate that ability to choose, no matter how much you might shout against it. Essentially, you're saying that a doctor MUST treat homosexual patients, even if he believes it is morally wrong. It is YOU who are taking away a person's rights, not the doctor.
If a homosexual is refused a doctor's care and expertise, they have a right, and the ability, to find another doctor.
True, doctors take the Hippocratic oath, but the idea behind the oath never was intended to take away the doctor's freedom to choose if they would render assistance or not.
A doctor, like it or not, is a human being and as such, has a God-given right to choose what they will do or won't do. Being a doctor doesn't negate that ability to choose, no matter how much you might shout against it. Essentially, you're saying that a doctor MUST treat homosexual patients, even if he believes it is morally wrong. It is YOU who are taking away a person's rights, not the doctor.
If a homosexual is refused a doctor's care and expertise, they have a right, and the ability, to find another doctor.
To Bryan Monson | 10:32 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Dude, you are one smart amigo!
I couldn't agree with you more.
Fight on, brother, fight on!
I couldn't agree with you more.
Fight on, brother, fight on!
I believe! | 10:33 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
If marrage is going to be between ONE man and ONE woman then the LDS church
needs to get out of its efforts for Prop 8. Does not the LDS church believe in
multiple wives? Did not the LDS church practice having multiple wives? Will not
LDS men get more wives in the after life? This is the LDS churches belief and as
such, how can they in good faith oppose gay marrage?
I am not gay but gay marrage does not bother me in any way, shape or form. It will not be the down fall of this country and in fact, under the Constitution, it should be legal.
I am not gay but gay marrage does not bother me in any way, shape or form. It will not be the down fall of this country and in fact, under the Constitution, it should be legal.
Yes on CA 8 | 10:37 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
This was posted a little earlier:
"The gay marriage issue will be the undoing of the LDS church unless they change their ways...some of us can't wait for either one."
As such, this posting and others, both in the DNews and other venues, exposes the real issue here. Gay Marriage is not the real issue. This is D-day for the homosexual political machine. If this invasion of society succeeds, there will be no stopping until public dissent is squashed as hate speech, schools will have to teach that being gay is the same morally as traditional marriage, churches may find themselves at least losing their tax exemption, if not being under civil attack for not allowing such unions in their buildings, in fact, the very nature of society is what they want to change.
No, this is not about marriage, it is about raw political power and using it to push the homosexual agenda to the detriment of society.
"The gay marriage issue will be the undoing of the LDS church unless they change their ways...some of us can't wait for either one."
As such, this posting and others, both in the DNews and other venues, exposes the real issue here. Gay Marriage is not the real issue. This is D-day for the homosexual political machine. If this invasion of society succeeds, there will be no stopping until public dissent is squashed as hate speech, schools will have to teach that being gay is the same morally as traditional marriage, churches may find themselves at least losing their tax exemption, if not being under civil attack for not allowing such unions in their buildings, in fact, the very nature of society is what they want to change.
No, this is not about marriage, it is about raw political power and using it to push the homosexual agenda to the detriment of society.
Zionskid | 10:38 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
why don't we just stay out of each other's bedrooms. Its none of our
business.
Tolerate but don't accept | 10:40 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Go California! I think the majority will uphold the only true definition of
marriage, which is between a man and a woman--the way the constitution intended
it, when people didn't have to question what marriage and family are. It is
sad whenever anyone decides to redefine the values that are most valuable to a
society. I hope that never becomes the majority's trend.
If we don't value families in society, then what do we value. The family unit is struggling enough. I don't see how defining broken families as the norm and as equal to how families are naturally set up and intended will make things any better; and so I don't see how redefining homosexual relationships as equal to a marriage relationship is not just redefining tainted values as acceptable. I can tolerate people choosing to live their lives in ways that I choose not to live mine, but I should never have to accept the behavior by defining it as having no different status than my actions.
Everyone already has equal right to choose marriage as it is presently defined. To define it differently, however, would change what marriage is, what family is, & what society is.
If we don't value families in society, then what do we value. The family unit is struggling enough. I don't see how defining broken families as the norm and as equal to how families are naturally set up and intended will make things any better; and so I don't see how redefining homosexual relationships as equal to a marriage relationship is not just redefining tainted values as acceptable. I can tolerate people choosing to live their lives in ways that I choose not to live mine, but I should never have to accept the behavior by defining it as having no different status than my actions.
Everyone already has equal right to choose marriage as it is presently defined. To define it differently, however, would change what marriage is, what family is, & what society is.
Keith in Colorado | 10:44 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
What makes you think the California supremes won't overturn this initiative
either. They couldn't care less what the people want. California needs a
ballot measure to impeach the members of the Supreme Court,simply based upon the
fact that some 63% of the state have already spoken on this issue and were
ignored.
California Voter | 10:51 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Thank goodness we live in a democracy! It seems that four judges in California
are trying to throw that fact out the window. Voters in California already voted
on this issue. I wasn't old enough at the time, but I remember the same
issues coming up last time. Yeah, my family must be a bunch of haters because we
were in favor of proposition 22 even though we had a gay couple and a lesbian
couple living on cul de sac. Those people are our friends. One of my best
friends is gay. They are very loving people. Does that mean I think they should
be allowed to change the definition of marriage? NO! For all of those who think
we should just have free love and let people "live and let live" think
about what that really means. We wouldn't have any laws. Once again, thank
goodness we live in a democracy where the people can vote. Hopefully, the
majority of Californians will go out there and vote again for the protection of
marriage. I definitely will!
wbm5 | 10:51 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
These people are not denied marriage. they have the same right as I do. To
marry a person of the opposite gender. They just don't want to accept that
and feel they should be allowed special consideration. You are not special.
You should get the same thing we all do. Stop insisting you deserve special
treatment.
Ing | 10:58 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Actually, this is the business of churches--morality.
Whether they're right or wrong in their approach to it is a different story.
Personally, I'm against gay marriage as such, but I'm not against gays, nor am I against the idea of civil unions that are accessible to everyone. I think that homosexuality is NOT a choice (more and more scientific evidence supports the conclusion that it's biologically determined, and no more a choice than I had in being heterosexual). People are not abandoning their families to become gay, as some of the anti-gay messages imply. If you want a union that doesn't include gays, you can marry in whatever religion you believe in; your right to do that is already protected by the Constitution under religious freedom, and always has been.
We shouldn't be amending the Constitution to specify who can and can't marry. It's already sufficient as the founding document of our government, and shouldn't be altered to assuage the paranoia of anyone, gay or otherwise. This is not a constitutional problem, it's an issue of personal belief and current social morality--talk to each other or duke it out in the legal system, whichever, but don't muck with the Constitution.
Whether they're right or wrong in their approach to it is a different story.
Personally, I'm against gay marriage as such, but I'm not against gays, nor am I against the idea of civil unions that are accessible to everyone. I think that homosexuality is NOT a choice (more and more scientific evidence supports the conclusion that it's biologically determined, and no more a choice than I had in being heterosexual). People are not abandoning their families to become gay, as some of the anti-gay messages imply. If you want a union that doesn't include gays, you can marry in whatever religion you believe in; your right to do that is already protected by the Constitution under religious freedom, and always has been.
We shouldn't be amending the Constitution to specify who can and can't marry. It's already sufficient as the founding document of our government, and shouldn't be altered to assuage the paranoia of anyone, gay or otherwise. This is not a constitutional problem, it's an issue of personal belief and current social morality--talk to each other or duke it out in the legal system, whichever, but don't muck with the Constitution.
Pusey | 11:08 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I guess the state of Mass., Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, etc. where same sex
marriage is legal are all about to fall off the planet. I have a simple
solution: IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GAY MARRIAGE, DON'T HAVE ONE!
I wanna vote | 11:08 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
When do I get to vote on YOUR temple marriage? I don't belive int he LDS
faith, so do I get to vote on YOUR marriage according to MY beliefs??
lynn | 11:13 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I feel this campaign against gay marriage should not be an LDS cause. I see gay
marriage as another form of alternative marriage, like polygamy. We LDS have
polyamy in our past, and it is still scripture to this day in our own Doctrine
of Covenants, even though we don't actively practice it at this time. We
have never actually repudiated polygamy-- our leaders have only said we
don't practice it. Attacking others who want to practice an alternative
form of marriage, when the LDS chuch has polygamy issues, reeks of hypocracy.
Mike | 11:14 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
In my view, the most destructive opponent to Marriage is "Divorce".
If we really want to defend the institution of marriage we should make divorce
impossible, or a least more difficult. Be honest, this right wing mormon
opposition to homosexual marriage is really more about homophobia, and
homosexuality as "sin", than it is about defending the institution of
Marriage. Mark Twain called Mormonism "an after clap of puritanism".
I think he knew what he was talking about.
Equal Rights | 11:17 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
What happened to the notion of pure religion... feed the hungry, clothe the
naked, bless the sick....
I don't see why the LDS church maintains its tax exempt status when it is so actively involved in political processes... hardly something I would expect from a religion who claims to preach the "gospel."
The gospel has nothing to do with politics... didn't we learn that already? I thought the Jews were seeking a political solution when Jesus presented a non political approach.
Religions have no business in politics... and if they do they should pay taxes like the rest of us.
I don't see why the LDS church maintains its tax exempt status when it is so actively involved in political processes... hardly something I would expect from a religion who claims to preach the "gospel."
The gospel has nothing to do with politics... didn't we learn that already? I thought the Jews were seeking a political solution when Jesus presented a non political approach.
Religions have no business in politics... and if they do they should pay taxes like the rest of us.
Mc | 11:21 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
No more
"If any church want to be involved in POLITICS which this issue is, they should no longer be tax exempt."
This comment illustrates one reason why I oppose legalization of gay marriage. To many churches this is a moral issue and churches have always been able to speak out on any moral issue without losing their tax exempt status. To silence churches on this issue with the threat of losing their tax exempt status is wrong, but we will see this happening for sure if gay marriage is legalized. There will be pressure to perform gay marriage ceremonies and employ gay people, and any preaching against gay marriage will be labeled "hate speech." Then there will be laws against hate speech. We will all see our basic rights of free speech and religion infringed upon. There may not be a gay "church," but the gay movement is definitely a religion or belief to some people and they want their definition of morality legalized. All laws are based on the moral convictions of the governed people. Are we ready to throw out traditional moral values?
"If any church want to be involved in POLITICS which this issue is, they should no longer be tax exempt."
This comment illustrates one reason why I oppose legalization of gay marriage. To many churches this is a moral issue and churches have always been able to speak out on any moral issue without losing their tax exempt status. To silence churches on this issue with the threat of losing their tax exempt status is wrong, but we will see this happening for sure if gay marriage is legalized. There will be pressure to perform gay marriage ceremonies and employ gay people, and any preaching against gay marriage will be labeled "hate speech." Then there will be laws against hate speech. We will all see our basic rights of free speech and religion infringed upon. There may not be a gay "church," but the gay movement is definitely a religion or belief to some people and they want their definition of morality legalized. All laws are based on the moral convictions of the governed people. Are we ready to throw out traditional moral values?
A book for you | 11:22 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I've recently been reading "Covenant Hearts" by Bruce Hafen. He
has practiced family law and lived in various parts of the world. His message in
the book is germane to this discussion, and quite enlightening due to his
research and historical review. I recommend it to you.
Jason | 11:24 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I am glad to see the church standing up for what is right. The world has become
far to politically correct, far to accepting of sin.
Homosexuality has always and will always be an abomination.
I believe that homosexuals have the right to be homosexual, but not to push for special rights and privileges.
Homosexuality has always and will always be an abomination.
I believe that homosexuals have the right to be homosexual, but not to push for special rights and privileges.
Protect Marriage | 11:29 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
We would do more to protect marriage by enacting taxpayer-supported marriage
counseling for all. How many marriages would be saved if they could get free
counseling? Far more than gay marriage would ever hurt.
But, that would cost tax money, and might be effective at protecting marriage. Sorry if I sound cynical.
But, that would cost tax money, and might be effective at protecting marriage. Sorry if I sound cynical.
Way to go California! | 11:30 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It seems to me that the right of a child to have a mother and a father should
outweigh the perceived right of an immoral and adulterous person to flaunt his
or her sexuality.
Call it what it is | 11:35 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
There are many individuals of faith with homosexual tendencies. Instead of
trying to justify their sin through societal law, they, like the rest of us
sinners, work to improve their lives as they prepare to meet their maker.
The laws of the United States of America are founded on Judeo-Christian values; if you take away those underpinnings the constitution and all laws built upon it become baseless and moral relativism will continue to inch us towards extinction of our society.
The laws of the United States of America are founded on Judeo-Christian values; if you take away those underpinnings the constitution and all laws built upon it become baseless and moral relativism will continue to inch us towards extinction of our society.
In Review | 11:53 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
After reading all of the comments, it is clear that those for upholding the
definition of marriage between a man and a woman are far more convincing. The
debate isn't even close. It is apparent that gays are wrong, in not only
their chosen lifestyle but in their political views as well.
Nonetheless, live how you want to live, who is stopping you? Just don't expect to be defined as something you are not. If you want to get married, that is defined as between a man and a woman and you may do so. It is the gay agenda that seeks to change definitions, laws, and thereby what is acceptable in society, not the other way around. Yes, this is about values (The way you throw your beliefs around is no different than those having a religious stance) and your values have never been accepted by definition, so you are attacking definitions that are what they are no matter what you call them (Example: A square remains a square even if you call it a circle). Marriage (Being between a man and a woman) is what it is, and there really is nothing to debate about it.
Nonetheless, live how you want to live, who is stopping you? Just don't expect to be defined as something you are not. If you want to get married, that is defined as between a man and a woman and you may do so. It is the gay agenda that seeks to change definitions, laws, and thereby what is acceptable in society, not the other way around. Yes, this is about values (The way you throw your beliefs around is no different than those having a religious stance) and your values have never been accepted by definition, so you are attacking definitions that are what they are no matter what you call them (Example: A square remains a square even if you call it a circle). Marriage (Being between a man and a woman) is what it is, and there really is nothing to debate about it.
It looks like hate | 11:52 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
When people get all worked up about something that has no impact on them
personally they can appear to be irrational and emotionally unbalanced to other
people. Since some opponents of gay marriage do in fact fiercely hate gay
people it is easy to confuse emotional unbalance for hatred. Like it or not,
there are people, gay and straight, who are more frightened of LDS people now
than they were before. That is part of what happens when you take a strong
position on a divisive issue and choose to play on a team that includes people
who are motivated by fear and hatred.
Peter Taylor | 11:53 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I volunteered for this - I got a list of over 150 people. I was only able to get
through the first 25 voters on the list this weekend, and there was only ONE
voter that I contacted at the door for which I was able to communicate in
English enough to conduct the survey.
COMMENT - if you can't speak/read English, you shouldn't be allow to vote.
COMMENT - if you can't speak/read English, you shouldn't be allow to vote.
Anonymous | 12:03 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
M, so what is traditional marriage to you? One man and one woman? You are
forgetting that the LDS did not practice traditional marriage at all with
polygamy. How can we take that glaring fact out of this gay marriage issue? If
Mormons felt justified in practicing plural marriage, why should gays not feel
justified in practicing gay marriage? Given that, should this be an issue for
the LDS church at all?
Worry about yourself | 12:03 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
If gays want to be as miserable a heterosexual married couples they should be
given that right. This is such a none issue.
Clueless and Sad | 12:09 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Until now, there was not a need to define marriage. EVERYONE knew that marriage
was between a man and a woman.
It's so sad that the values of our society have disintegrated so much that the definition of marriage is now being challenged.
The people who are pushing for this change are simply clueless about how destructive this attack on the fundamental unit of society, the family, will be.
It's so sad that the values of our society have disintegrated so much that the definition of marriage is now being challenged.
The people who are pushing for this change are simply clueless about how destructive this attack on the fundamental unit of society, the family, will be.
Mark | 12:11 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
As a proud gay man and US Army veteran, I am sick and tired of the heterosexual
agenda which I have had to tolerate ALL my life. I thank God that I am gay. I
was forced in my childhood to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance in school which
ends with the words "with liberty and justice for ALL" Not!!!! I
refuse to say it now. So if you are so against our getting married why are you
not campaigning for us to be forbidden to pay taxes? How can you tolerate that
we pay taxes that fund your childrens' schools!!! Horror! Anyway who gave
you the right to decide who I can be and what I can do. Certainly not the US
Constitution
Doctors | 12:15 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The problem comes into play when they take federal funds. That's what a
lot of this is about. Just like hospitals can't turn away people in need
of immediate medical care. It's because they received stolen property in
the form of federal tax monies. Read up on it, it's called EMTALA.
re: hombre.de.steele | 12:16 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I totally agree with the fact that there is no hate in your desire to see the CA
constitution amended to have marriage be only between a man and a woman.
I understand the fear that the sky is indeed falling.
Where I do find hate in my own ward is in the comments members make about gays which invariably are made since we discuss this issue every week when getting volunteers for prop 8. "Nefarious" was the adjective a member used yesterday to talk about an anti-prop 8 CA TV ad circulating. "Deceitful" was last week's word in describing gays.
The man in charge of our stake's walk around campaign told me "I will not have THEM tell ME how I define marriage." The words he used were not offensive in the least. It was the venomous disdain with which he said them. There was no mistakening his hatred for gays.
Please vote how you want. Encourage others to vote how the prophet asks. But don't tell me, the father of a gay son, that there is no hatred. I feel it every week at my supposed place of refuge.
I understand the fear that the sky is indeed falling.
Where I do find hate in my own ward is in the comments members make about gays which invariably are made since we discuss this issue every week when getting volunteers for prop 8. "Nefarious" was the adjective a member used yesterday to talk about an anti-prop 8 CA TV ad circulating. "Deceitful" was last week's word in describing gays.
The man in charge of our stake's walk around campaign told me "I will not have THEM tell ME how I define marriage." The words he used were not offensive in the least. It was the venomous disdain with which he said them. There was no mistakening his hatred for gays.
Please vote how you want. Encourage others to vote how the prophet asks. But don't tell me, the father of a gay son, that there is no hatred. I feel it every week at my supposed place of refuge.
re: Linda Hamlton | 12:26 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Linda Hamilton says, "I have read these comments. Some are misguided and do
not understand what is at stake."
The California Supreme Court said what is at stake is "equal dignity" and the state of California not officially branding domestic partners "second class citizens", which is what the separate distinction does.
There is no doubt that those for prop 8 indeed believe that gays are "second class citizens" and should remain so. Others, even though "we do not understand what is at stake", believe they are not nor should be.
The California Supreme Court said what is at stake is "equal dignity" and the state of California not officially branding domestic partners "second class citizens", which is what the separate distinction does.
There is no doubt that those for prop 8 indeed believe that gays are "second class citizens" and should remain so. Others, even though "we do not understand what is at stake", believe they are not nor should be.
Citizen | 12:31 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Where can I send money and what can I do to support the marriage amendment?
Dennis | 12:31 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I have walked our local zip code for the past two Saturday's and have
spoken with many people concerning Prop 8. Many people are undecided because
they do not understand the proposition. Those of you who do not live in
California can assist those of us who do by donating to the cause. This is not
just an issue that applies to us in California. It has been said that "as
California goes, so goes the nation". Please help us with your means as we
cannot carry the load alone. Thank you
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.
- Climate drama climax looks elusive 8:46 a.m.
- Russian nightclub fire kills 109 8:38 a.m.
- Texas-Neb. will impact other games 8:35 a.m.
- Day 2 of U.S.-Afghan offensive 8:34 a.m.
- Senators target insurance exec pay 8:32 a.m.
- Gunmen kill 3 peacekeepers in Darfur 8:29 a.m.
- This weekend on TV 8:28 a.m.
- George lost in rivalry hatefest 1:33 a.m.
- Paul returns after being out 1:04 a.m.
- Nets finally win 1:04 a.m.
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony
- Mr. Football 2009: Tuni Kanuch
- 5A high school football All-State
- 4A high school football: All-State
- Utah Jazz going green with unis
- Miller predicted Tiger's rough road
- Nutty Putty Cave to be sealed today
- Harpring's NBA career is over
- MVPs wrap up stellar prep careers
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
410 - Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?294
- BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS238
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry185
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore118
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage118
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan104
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
All you Y fans better enjoy this win. You'll never catch Utah in BSC bowl...
Mormons celebrate Advent and Christmas like everyone else that is a Christian.
BYU only gets faster and better. look at the records since both coaches...
Charities often do this to individuals who volunteer their services in the...
Let's nix sports, all of them, meet in the middle of the fields and arenas,...
is so typical. Koolade for everyone. That's why everyone laughs in your...
A fluke is something that happens once like the accidental National...
Think Obama has the guts to stare Ahmadinejad in the eyes and win this chess...
This story is new to me and never heard about it until yesterday, but...
Mitchell appears to be a narcissistic pedophile, parading behind a facade of...
Advertisements
"Go Matilda. Your blog is fantastic."
Just for further reference, it is not a BLOG. This is merely a place to post opinions. There is a difference.