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
John Pack Lambert

To Deedra,
You have not had someone try to steal their identity like I have.
I know what I posted, and I know what I did not post, and I have never posted that I think this is other than an important issue.
How could I post such and be consistent with following the direction of the First Presidency?

Dang Deedra!

John Pack Lambert is happy that Prop 8 passed. Let's just keep it at that.


To all LDS members who disagree with the Church's stance on Proposition 8, think of this. If the LDS Church does not perform gay weddings in the temples, gays could sue the Church for discrimination and the temples would be shut down for not being in compliance with new legislation. The Church would also lose their tax-exempt status. The Church had to make a stand to prevent temples from being shut down.

the election is over

You lost. Deal with it like an American, or go to one of the tyrannical countries like Venezuela where they use arguments and anger like yours every day to justify their anti-social behavior. They'll be more "loving" and "tolerant" of you in their own special way.

Miss Analogy

Next we should get all the students who hate going to school to march on the district office to demand they abolish all the schools. And while were at it, playing in the street is good fun but people tell me I cant, who are they to tell me how to live my life? I have my rights! Lets vote to let people play in the street to their hearts content!

Roger Carrier

You can't vote to take away the rights of the minority. That's the problem, and that's why people are stirred. It's not about Mormonism. It's about the policy of the present LDS leadership. And guess what? It will gradually change as people fifty and older die off.

I'm 62 and think this whole debate will look very strange in 2020. On July 1, 2020--if I'm still alive at seventy-four--I'll be standing on the steps of the Utah State Capitol Building saying, "Look, I told you, gay marriage was not the end of the world, and it turned out to be good for America."

Mormons may still not allow gay marriage, but it will be legal in most places, maybe even the entire country. It's legal in Spain and elsewhere, and nothing terrible has happened.

PS: I like Mormons and think they are Christians.


On photo 8 that accompanies this article there is a sign held up which reads "When do I get to vote on your marriage?" The answer to that is or was on November 4, 2008. That is when the ballot measure read that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman. It says nothing about between a homosexual and another homosexual. Therefore the measure was about my marriage and my marriage won. Get over it. The people have spoken.

The sad thing about this issue is not that any group lost, it is the fact that our country is turning in a direction that is so foreign to our constitutional foundation. There are groups that are striving with their might to take away all rights to stand for virtue and morality. They mock the very moral base that this nation were founded on and now they want to shut the mouths of those that are just now starting to push back.

You may rally. You may have the courts overturn again the vote of the people. But virtue is virtue, sin is sin, and those that are with us way outnumber those against us.


Why are Mormons so surprised that they are the target for those that lost the right to marry the one they loved. The Church members under direction of Church leadership orchestrated 70% of the funding and 80% of the footwork. Volunteer sheets were passed around Priesthood meetings every week. So now the Church can be proud that they imposed their religious beliefs on an entire state. The Church can also be proud that they got this vote by distorting the truth and in some cases outright lying in the Yes on 8 TV ads. And do you believe you have opened hearts to hear the gospel? What do you think the reaction will be from almost half of the states population that supported not taking away the right to marry from couples that love each other? A gospel of love? Hardly. Has the Church forgotten so soon what it felt like when their constitutional rights were voted on by the state of Illinois? And yes, allowing everyone the right to marry was a constitutional right that has been taken away. So now the Church is just going to have to pay the price for its role.

Plain & Simple

Marriage definitions:

Judicial activism is not leadership; it is judicial tyranny. The California George court has placed our society on a slippery slope that is steep and icy with the outcome below if it is not overturned by upholding Prop 8.

Group 1; Yes on 8; Narrowest definition; marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Source of authority; God, history, all cultures, religions and societies, legal precednt, common law, all dictionaries.

Group 2; No on 8; Broader definition; same as above plus domestic partnerships. Source of authority; 4-3 vote In re Marriages, acknowledges domestic partnerships as having the same or nearly the same substantive rights as marriage, but having two names (marriage & domestic partnerships) they don't provide the same dignity and respect; therfor impinging on the right to marry.

Group 3; Future plaintiffs; broadest definition; same as Group 2, plus parent to child, sibling to sibling, man to beast, & multiple spouses. Source of authority; In re Marriage page 6, "The core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish. . . and entitled to the same respect and dignity acorded a union traditionally designated as marriage."

Plain & Simple

To Ekaternia: "I think the LDS church should have its tax exempt status revoked...It would help our economy. Don't be so limited in your thinking of helping the economy. Go after all the coalition churchs, and all the churches addvocating liberal views.

Plain & Simple

To True Californian:

Wow two whoppers in one post! Your sources please on the amount you claimed. Also your assertion that the LDS church dumped money into California from Utah. Tell that to all the coalition members in California. Better yet look up the California Secretary of State's website and you can see where the donors came from and how much they gave. Admittedly that takes more effort than to report misinformation.

Plain & Simple:

To Nigel UK:

Your assertion of " . . . commanded to obery. Every Mormon bishop in California was instructed to inform you, based on your tithing, how much you should contribute to Prop 8." How about a source for that one? Interesting that someone from the UK would be weighing in on California politics.

Plain & Simple

To Joseph:

"The Mormon church's enormous financial support of this proposition is hurting both." The church gave no enormous financial support. If you would take the time to check the California Secretary of State's website you would know that. However if you want to emote do not go there, because facts get in the way of emoting.

Plain & Simple

To Heidi:

"The LDS church gave $22 million . . ." Stop the lies; if you believe you are telling the truth then back up that stuff with a source. The LDS church did not donate $22 million. Over 19,000 entities mostly individuals made contributions. The truth is easily found on California's Secretary of State's website, but most people know it is easier to sit at a keyboard and spew out falsehoods when facts aren't important.

More than a moral issue

David LeCheminant is quoted in the article as saying that "The LDS Church sees this as a moral issue." My understanding is that there were also legal concerns, like the possibility that the LDS church, or any church for that matter, could be forced to perform same-sex marriages or be shut down. I cannot speak for the church leaders, but my sense is that if they could have been guaranteed that they would not be forced to compromise their doctrine, they probably would not have been so vocal or involved. I'm sure they would have reiterated the church's stance on the sanctity of marriage between a man and a women, and they may have encouraged their members to support that position specifically (or maybe not). However, I think it's also possible that they would have, like they do every election, simply encouraged their members to exercise their right to vote, first of all, and second, to vote for candidates and policies that each member feels best support his or her values. I think there was more to the church's concern than what kind of marriage is "right" or "wrong."

Plain & Simple

To Judeges in California:

I suppose the point you were trying to make with the make up of the California Supreme Court being made up of 6 Republican appointed judges and one Democrat is that the court is conservative and not liberal. That may be true on criminal cases, but not social issues. Just because they were appointed by a Republican doesn't make them conservative. Does the name Earl Warren mean anything to you? He was one of our nation's most liberal justices to the U.S. Supreme court and was appointed by Dwight Eisenhower (R).


To Majority Rules???:

Hats off to you that you have read In re Marriages. I am glad you have such certainty that Prop 8 will be overturned. It is one thing to overturn a statute enacted by the people, but to overturn the consitution when the people have used the democratic process to amend it amounts to nothing more than judicial tyranny. These judges do not have life time appointments and will come up for reconfirmation. I am sure they remember what had to Justice Bird and the other two justices she lead who refused to upheld any death penalty cases.


While the church may not have given financial support itself, it encouraged its members to do so and was very public about it. A clear case of "Do as I say, not as I do," if you will. Opponents of Prop 8 will not consider your argument claiming no financial involvement based on your transparent technicality. I myself reviewed a very long published list of the individual names and their associated companies and places of employment for each donation, large and small, all from Utah in a very public newsletter I subscribe to online. Protests against these sources and their affiliated institutions will continue, and those institutions will be held accountable.

Smart & Final

To Plain & Simple:

Do you have an obsessive compulsive disorder? Suggest you get therapy...


Everyday it gets a little stinker on here. Whoooy!

to comment

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