Comments about ‘Prop. 8 protest draws thousands in Salt Lake City’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Nov. 8 2008 2:12 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Utahns and LDS church turned a blind eye to mormon sect who practiced polygamy in utah but chose to take a stand in state where they do not belong. I don't get it. The LDS pick and choose what is moral and where it needs to be legislated. The God I know would not instuct with such inconsistency. I have to wonder who is at the head of this church.


I am encouraged by the report of hostility in this article. I did not contribute money or time on behalf of Prop 8, but you can bet I will next time it comes up!

CT Reader

Morality is behavior. Laws govern morality and draw a line between what is acceptable in a society and what is not. Polygamy is a moral issue. Pedophilia is a moral issue. Drunk driving is a moral issue. Homosexuality is a moral issue. Gay marriage is a moral issue. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that is what the legislative and constitutional amendment processes do: draw lines. The gay community has a right to its opinions and to peacefully express those opinions. Once they go beyond peaceful expression, they've crossed another line and should be punished accordingly. Regarding gay marriage, why should the line be moved? Gay marriage does not benefit society as heterosexual marriage does. Therefore, society should not grant special privilege and sanction to gay marriage.


Some folks have made the comment that if gays don't like where they live then maybe we should just move. We've tried that and it always backfires on us - straight people are never far behind! We move into the most run-down neighborhoods, ones that nobody cares about, we fix up the houses and yards, and inevitably straight people end up following us! But who can blame them - we're good for their property value.

RE : Sokel

Nice, I knew sooner or later someone would pull the 'if you don't like it move card. Mormons are so predictable.

Courts can't legislate

Plain & Simple,

"To Jason: Your tone was hysterical; source please of how tithing funds were used. You have none, but it sure is easy to make allegations isn't it?"

The LDS Church made an in-kind donation of $2,078.97 to pay for the travel arrangements of Church leaders who went to California for a meeting. The Church did not make any other donation to support Prop. 8.

"Your comments on churches tax exempt statud convince of one thing. You are not a tax attorney."

Of course he isn't since a single in-kind donation of $2,078.97 to a political cause doesn't affect a tax-exempt status. The Church is prohibited from donating to or endorsing political candidates.

"Exactly what rights have you lost?

"Wrong, the purpose of the courts are to see that justice is done, not legislate from the bench. Legislation is left for another branch of our government to do."

I agree. The Courts have no right to change the definition of marriage as it is legally defined but it does have the right to protect due process and equal protection which haven't been violated since gays are treated the same as straight people under the law.

Boo Hoo

Mormons got what they deserved in Missouri and Nauvoo. The only problem is you enjoy and thrive on being "persecuted."


It's offensive to black people when gay people start crying foul about civil rights. Sexuality is not an identity, but an activity.

To Huh? 4:42

Yes, my bet is also on those under 25, that one day, they'll again make it legal for the government to physically force Mormon out of their homes and cities.

And while liberal churches, who get invloved in MANY more politcal isues than the LDS Church does, will get to keep their tax exempt status, the LDS Church will be forced to give up theirs, simply because its views are not politcally correct enough.

Let freedom ring!!!!?

all right!

Thanks, Rover!
I knew it would come.
I was hoping it would come.
Thank you, for posting it.


Second best laugh of the day. :o)

Friend of Plain & Simple

Huh? posted:

I am just baffled how people...complain when their opponents march on someplace that they hold to be sacred. Did they ever stop to think that the 18,000 legally married gay couples in California also believe their marriage vows to be sacred?"

"Sacred" in what sense of the word? Or is this yet another concept you want to redefine to suit your purposes? The main definition of sacred is:

1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration.

Can someone explain to me how gays who obtain a "civil" license to "wed" consider such an act as "dedicated to God?" Isn't the entire point of civil marriage to leave God out of it?

Time to protest at their houses

They chose to make this personal and to bring it to us so now it's time that we returned the favor. How many people would be interested in a protest at the home of Bruce Bastian who donated $1 million dollars to defeat Prop. 8. He lives in Orem so anyone whose willing to participate in a protest outside of his home please post here so we can get an idea. We will also find out who else in Utah donated to defeat Prop. 8 and hold similar protests at their homes but before we do so we will target Scott McCoy, Jackie Jackie Biskupski and Christine Johnson in Salt Lake for their participation in the protest on Friday.

We could hold a protest outside of their homes next Friday and outside of Bastian's home on Saturday. If they no longer want to reserve this issue to the ballot box than we can make it personal too. Instead of voting as civilized people do we will launch personal attacks on anyone who supported Prop. 8. So, John Doe, the average guy in Salt Lake, had better hope he's not on a list of donors to oppose it.

Still a Democracy

California has almost 14 million Catholics, over 2.5 million blacks, and 780,000 Mormons. All three groups voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8.

The Catholics are to big to attack, it's absolutely politicaly incorrect to attack blacks. It's easier to attack the small guy.

To Anonymous at 4:39

Are you then saying that your own urge to have sex should also be avoided unless you're doing it specifically to have children? Or will you admit that being sexually intimate - without wanting to produce children - is a healthy part of your relationship? Please, try to understand, for gay couples sex is only part of the relationship too. Like your marriage, love, companionship, support AND intimacy all function to create a healthy partnership.

Re: Steve 3:25 p.m.

You better watch it. That could be classified as a Hate Crime if you protest infront of a gay club....LOL!!!


To John C. .... remember Governor Boggs?


Do you heterosexuals really believe that the kids of the parents who divorce at nearly half the rate of marriages are A-OK without either a mommy or a daddy?

In other words, don't meddle in gays having a right to marry when you cannot show that "traditional" marriage is working anyway. You can be sure that gay couples who have a child are more likely to care for them because they have to do more to obtain them.

In other words, just live and let live, and don't throw your millions toward lies-infested propaganda that legislates morality.

Response to "Do you homosexuals REALLY believe that kids are 100% A-OK without either a mommy or a daddy?"

a. rod

who writes this stuff? were they even there? i was, and i can tell the protest was anything than peaceful. we were in seven and we were being attacked from everywhere. as for the police being prepared, they didn't even have shields. if the crowd wanted to break into temple square, no one would have stopped them. it is shameful to portray this protest as a peaceful gathering. it was a hate driven riot


I support your right to be gay - more chicks for the rest of us. Same with butch lesbians. I'm also in favor of lipstick lesbians, but for different reasons.

I wish everyone would keep their sexuality private. I worked with a gay man for five years and never knew it - it was a non-issue. However, there is another gay man I work with and every other sentence out of his mouth refers in some way to his homosexuality.

We don't hold hetero-only parades and events. Heteros don't talk in a "special" way to distinguish themselves. Heteros don't sue their former employers for wrongful termination based on them not being gay.

Gays - you are an extreme minority of the population. You are not being discriminated against. You can shop at the straight-stores, go to baseball games and concerts, sit in whichever seat you wish on the bus. You can't marry each other because you and your partner are of the same sex. That's the law of the land and you're going to have to live with it for now or find a new land. Nobody said you can't be gay. You're no worse off than you were before.

Tradition doesn't justify it

Thousands of years defined racism, and fortunately it has been somewhat curtailed by civil rights legislation and sound thinking.

Your claim that laws are made because of experience is flawed. Just because laws are made doesn't mean that they are correct. Think about women's suffrage, segregation, Hitler's regime, etc.

And gays aren't asking for any special rights--just the rights to marry whom they choose.

(Response to "Being gay doesn't doesn't mean you get special rights. Thousands of years have defined marriage and now you want to change it. Laws are made because of experience. Nuff said.")

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments