Comments about ‘Anti-Prop. 8 letters delivered’

Get real Andrew Callahan, taking on one of the many churches against Gay Marriage won't protect the rights of gays. I know as a former Gay Rights Advocate that such a protest as this is just a distraction; imagine if all thirty of those people went door to door mobolizing people to vote against Prop. 8 in lieu of traveling to SLC to make a symoblic stance. Then again, I guess Joe The Plumber got 15 minutes of fame; shouldn't these folks?

I can sympathize with these petitions, my heart goes out to some friends who have similar sentiments. There is a need for more understanding and outreach to the gay community. They recieve far too much criticism, bias, prejudice, etc. especially compared to individuals with lifestyles most Christians do not condone, but nevertheless treat with love and respect.

But the truth is that promoting traditional marriage is simply voicing the viewpoint that although individuals in other relationships (same-sex, single parents, grandparents, foster parents, and others) can oftentimes successfully rear children with love and devotion, traditional marriage still represents the optimal relationship for the creation, bearing, and raising of children.

Proposition 8 simply protects the freedom to express this viewpoint, a viewpoint held by the majority of Americans, Californians, and many preimiere sociologists. Without that protection, the goal of "equality for all" will actually be contradicted by the limits of freedoms placed on religious organizations and free speech.

How often is straight marriage optimal? The other day a six year old was pulled from a house near death from starvation in Utah. He had straight parents who let him be in the care of some straight and her boyfriend.

Just because it is a straight relationship doesn't make it optimal.

We'll never get past this until we recognize that we use one word, "marriage", to mean two different things. There's a spiritual meaning, the ceremony usually performed in churches. There's also the civil contract that is granted by the marriage license, a tax you pay to enter into a contract. The issue is that churches, or any other group performing the first definition, has every right to define it as they wish, but the government has no right to withhold tax advantages in a discriminatory manner. The solution is simple - marriage is a private act administered by private organizations with no input from the government, while "civil unions" are the only thing granted by government and are granted to any two people who pay the fee and sign the contract. If you want the tax and other legal benefits, you get a civil union. If you want to express spiritual commitment, you get a marriage. Most people will still get both, just as they do now.

The homosexual movement is intent on destroying the family as it has been since the begining of time. From Massachusetts - who has legal gay marriages we have them teaching this garbage to children as early as kindergarden. Reference:

Massachusetts Parents' Group
Posts Homosexual Teaching Video
May 14, 2007 - Mass Resistance, a Massachusetts-based parents' group is airing portions of "It's Elementary," on its web site.

"It's Elementary" shows teachers discussing how to introduce homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten - even against the will of their parents.

Since airing the video, Mass Resistance founder Brian Camenker has been flooded with phone call from irate parents who have viewed the documentary. According to Camenker, "They were physically sickened by watching that. People with kids are wondering is this what's going to happen to them in schools in America. The reaction we've gotten has been overwhelming."

This is what All of us can expect when those who go against the family get their way. Our Schools which operate on taxes (our money) will teach our children their ways.
Absolutely Pathetic. None of us can stand still and let this just happen!

How often is straight marriage optimal? More often than any other relationship. That was my point.

The fact that there are exceptions (due to factors unrelated to the parents being straight) does not mean traditional marriage is suboptimal. This is an example of the "perfect solution fallacy" (e.g. just because laws against underage drinking won't stop all underage drinking, doesn't mean the laws, the ideals, shouldn't exist).

"But the truth is that promoting traditional marriage is simply voicing the viewpoint that although individuals in other relationships (same-sex, single parents, grandparents, foster parents, and others) can oftentimes successfully rear children with love and devotion, traditional marriage still represents the optimal relationship for the creation, bearing, and raising of children."

That's essentially the same argument that was used to argue against abolition of slavery in the 1850s. "We know how to properly care for these people, they can't act decently in society on their own. This is the optimal form for everyone involved."

No one at the protest stated why they disagree with the Church's publicly stated reasons for supporting California's Proposition 8. The LDS Church, unlike others -- either pro or con on the Prop 8 issue --, has published clear statements explaining its reasons for supporting the measure, and all the statements have been widely distributed in California and posted on the Church's website. Those who criticize the Church, including the Callahan group, do not even attempt to tell us how that reasoning is wrong, but instead take the position that the Church is uncaring, hateful, and discriminatory. If one reads the Church's position on the issue, one will realize the Church is nothing of the sort.

Marriage is a secular arrangement sanctioned by the state whereby couples are given special advantages and privileges. Since it is secular, religious opinion cannot establish the rules about marriage. Policy must change so that heterosexuals are not a specially privileged group over all others. Denying homosexuals the right to marriage discriminates against them by denying them the multitude of benefits that heterosexuals enjoy.

To: Church and state.
Actually, marriage was instituted FIRST by God to Adam and Eve.
In an effort by those not inclined to religion man instituted a seperate organization of order, man's government. In this effort they came up with government sanctioned marriage. Still, a man and a woman.
Marriage is a God established institution. True marriage is, and always will be, between a man and a woman. Man might attempt to regulate it differently. But in this effort they shall fail. Oh, they may get the laws passed that define marriage differently. But, ultimately God will not succume to man's attempts. Eternally, God has been, and will always be, "the Boss". The "Rule maker". The "Law Giver". Man may try to legislate evil into society. But it is limited to man's area of influence, only. Eventually God will punish man for his attempts.
Until then we must do what we can to slow the tide of evil.

As a former California resident, I am still having a hard time understanding how the vote of the people can be nullified by a Supreme Court. Why even put a Proposition on a ballot? This isn't a hard problem for any who choose to have a gay relationship. Most anything they are trying to achieve can be done on an individual basis by writing a concise and proper living will and trust. You do not need a marriage license to allow someone to take care of you in case of medical needs. A hospital cannot prevent someone named in a legal will or directive to not attend to the health care of a partner. I support Prop. 8 now as I have in past times, and encourage everyone else to honor the sanctity of a Marriage between a husband and wife, which also supports the family which is the basic unit of our society. If you choose a same sex relationship, get your personal papers organized in a way that you are prepared for the time when you need to take care of your partner. You can name any beneficiary you choose. It just takes some preparation.

How often is straight marriage optimal?

I know it is when it comes to reproduction.

Matt, you express your religious beliefs, and that is great. However, it has nothing to do with the rule of the land and the rights of individuals. Adam and Eve is a myth that a certain percentage of the world believes in. That myth is not what our laws are based on. If you were to study the history of human beings you would find out that what we consider to be human beings have been around for at least 250,000 years. At some point, as cultures begin to evolve, religions and other cultural traditions came about. The whole concept of "god" has changed drastically throughout written history and the Adam and Eve myth is actually based on older creation myths (such as the Sumerian myth). Obviously, our modern laws have nothing to do with these old myths because our laws are based on fairness to all peoples and the old myths and the religions based on them are based on discrimination and bias.

The real agenda of those against Prop 8 is to create a society without morals so 'everyone is free.' In doing so, they ignore the fact that those who strive to have morals are having their alternative styles crammed down our throats. This is not just about a small faction operating in a vacuum. This decision affects society as a whole and will result in generations of those being taught that it's ok not to believe in God and it's ok not to have morals, because we wouldn't want to offend those who don't. Stand up and be counted. Vote YES on 8!

To Cardell Sackett,

READ THE SUPREME COURT DECISION!

Obviously, until you do, you are just whining and groveling in your own ignorance. You won't find anyone commenting on here who can give you any better understanding of how and why the California Supreme Court overturned the vote of the people in 2000.

Read the Decision! Then read it again!

The problem is that for almost a decade now, if not longer, people have been telling us that we are liars when we say "Condemn the sin, love the sinner".
Tolerace means that we find ways to live with eachother despite our differences.
We must keep to the standards the Lord has set. This means that we must continue to say the truth that homosexual acts are a violation of the law of chastity.
Stand with marriage as defined by the Lord, vote yes on 8.

Actually, our laws are based on the 10 commandments. "In God We Trust" is part of the basis of this country, and the world.
Those who try to discredit Adam & Eve, God, and other so called "myths" are those who are trying to stop a moral society from progresing. Those are they who are attempting to degenerate man to the same level as the lower species. Such attitudes of, so called, equality are just a way for those so convinced to rationalize the true standards of society down to their level. A level of base desires without control. Without limits.

To Anonymous,

I've read the California Supreme Court Decision.

In brief, it says that because California has offered domestic partnerships to same sex couples in the past, it's unfair not to offer marriage to same-sex couples now. The decision takes some time referencing the fact that marriage has always been heterosexual, but it's time for a redefinition. There is some language in the decision that speaks of the possibilities of having perhaps at least two different definitions of marriage, one for civil marriages, and one for religious marriages.

As I understand it, the only reasoning behind throwing out the traditional meaning of marriage is because the times are changing.

It was a narrow decision (4-3) and could be overturned with a different court.

I am not whining or groveling in my ignorance when I say that I think the Supreme Court is wrong; their reasoning is not good; it makes me regret ever thinking that domestic partnerships were reasonable; and that the decision ought to be overturned.

Times change, true; words change meaning, true; but government needs to support what has been called the "optimal" union: between a man and a woman.

It think it is important to continue to address the difference between religious belief and civil matters. A previous comments stressed that marriage was instituted first between God and Adam and Eve. Great, that is one belief, and people have the right to believe this. Others that do not hold these same religious beliefs should not have to have them forced upon them. That is why the founding father's organized a government, in which they stressed the importance of a separation of Church and State.

In D&C 134:9 it reads,
We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

To James,

For argument's sake, we can take a purely secular view of the origin of human beings.

How did they originate? In a heterosexual union. If they evolved from lower forms, they may have generated asexually, but long before they could have evolved into human beings, they were propagating heterosexually. They may or may not have been bisexual, as some apes seem to be, but they never produced children any way other than through heterosexuality.

Somewhere along the line, some homo sapiens sapiens would have begun to marry. It was a long time ago. Religious people name those first Adam and Eve, and suggest that they were also the first of the species.

Naming the biological facts and believing in a different time span isn't imposing anything on anyone. Biology makes that imposition.

That the LDS Church teaches respect for individuals along with respect for the biological, societal, cultural, personal, and religious aspects of marriage is admirable, and could hardly be regarded as a breach of the separation of church and state.