Comments about ‘Protests over Proposition 8 outcome getting personal’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 13 2008 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Changing mind...

I was against Proposition 8, but I am changing my mind. I think the gay community and its' supporters need to STOP and think what they are doing! They are shooting themselves in the foot. They are showing that they themselves, who demand respect from people who do not share their views, will not give respect to others if they think differently. They are losing any respect I once had for their cause because of how poorly they are handling this loss. Shame on you!!!

let freedom prevail?

With no do respect, what you describe as freedom sounds a lot like tyranny to me. The majority has never had the right to violate the rights of a minority group or individuals but now you want to violate others freedoms because you have the force of the current majority, I am sorry but that sound like tyranny to me.


Once again the voters have spoken in California and elsewhere on this very delicate issue. I believe in honoring the law of the land no matter what. These laws were not designed to suit an individual's life style or choice. However, it was designed to protect our nation as a whole, being a neutral cornerstone to the foundation of society. If we shake that cornerstone, how much more of our foundation are we going to shake for own personal needs, instead of the needs of this great nation as a whole?


1) If MEN were allowed to vote on giving WOMEN the right to vote, WOMEN still wouldn't be able to vote.

2) WHITE people didn't vote on the BLACKS' right to vote either.

3) None of the first constitutional amendments were voted on. You cannot let the MAJORITY vote on the rights of a MINORITY.

I love my right to vote, but I do not believe a Constitutional Amendment should be left to the people to vote on. That's why we have the Courts, to determine what is fair and just, regardless of what the Majority thinks. That's what real democracy is. Power to all the people, not just the Majority. This Country was founded on the principle that even the smallest voice should be heard, because everyone should be raised to the same level.
Constitutional amendments such as these are only there to divide people and create an elitist class that looks down at those that are different than them. So let's drive back tonight to our own nice little gated communities, where everyone behaves and thinks like us. Because God forbid we learn to accept and appreciate those that are different from us.

The rights of the helpless

It is incumbent upon the State to provide children who are helpless and innocent the same parental arrangements that created the child in the first place namely a MAN AND A WOMAN.

Gay rights (not a right but a preference. Lets call it gay preference) has no sympathy for the helpless but seeks to change a definition of "marriage." The ones who will be hurt most with this definitional change are the helpless children of those potentially gay preference people who would then legally adopt. Note Massachusetts.

The children placed in a gay preference home likely will NOT HAVE THAT PREFERENCE, but now have no chance of voicing their preference. The State must protect the innocent. Even single parent adoption should be eliminated by the state.

When we forget the helpless and prey upon the helpless, we are truly a nation in decay.

Abortion and gay preference both harm the helpless. Where are the children's rights? IT TAKES A MAN AND A WOMAN, EVEN IN VITRO, TO CREATE A CHILD! That is why these 2 topics are so divisive. One side wants to protect, while the other...does not, only force an agenda.

Equal rights?

I cannot understand how the issue of same gender marriage fits under the topics of "discrimination" or "equal rights". The fact is, that under current law, all people are treated equally with respect to marriage. All are allowed to marry. The issue is about whether all people should be given *different* "rights", not whether right are unequal.

For the good of society, I personally believe that everyone should be given the same rights to marry, but nobody should be allowed to marry someone of the same gender. But please don't accuse me of being intolerant, etc. I have friends who are gay, and who I definitely respect and care about.

Fundamental rights

Re: MT in MD

You obviously weren't paying attention in high school government. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document that confers any rights on the American people. And you apparently missed the entire Bill of Rights, where such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right against self-incrimination, and so on, are enshrined.

And off-topic: in a society that is as advanced and advantaged as ours, all of our citizens should be able to get health care, housing, and an education, whether they are promised in the Constitution or not.

As for marriage, it may not be a fundamental right, but when the state sanctions marriage for some people while just offering others civil unions, they are essentially saying that gay people are allowed a separate but equal union. And in the landmark civil right case Brown v. Board of Education, the Court ruled "separate but equal" violates the equal protection clause, because "separate is inherently unequal". The government should either sanction all marriages or none of them--anything else is of questionable constitutionality.

Flawed initiative process

It's also worth noting that we technically do not live in a democracy, as several people here have alleged. We live in a republic, in which we elect representatives who make our laws. The Founders established a system of representational government and checks-and-balances in part to ensure that the rights of the minority could not be trampled upon by the majority. They recognized that it's completely unfair and illogical to ask the majority whether or not the minority should have certain rights. That's part of the reason why there is no mechanism for a federal initiative process in the Constitution. The passions and opinions of the majority had to be tempered through elected representatives in the constitutional model in order to protect against the tyranny of the majority, and the initiative process like the one in California is a fairly obvious violation of the founders' intent, for any of you "original intent" fans.

Gone too far

Protesting outside of Mormon Temples is just scapegoating another misunderstood minority.

Prop 8 didn't take away rights.

Prop 8 protects rights.

Homosexuals have all the rights the state can give.

Prop 8 was about a definition.

Why can't we peacefully agree on what a definition is? Defining something doesn't mean hatred or discrmination (unless you start doing it because things didn't go as you wanted)

Everyone has their rights, so let us move on.


Those who were against Prop 8 can also be boycotted, such as Brad Pitt. He gave $100,000.

David Geffen of Dreamworks studios gave $100,000
CAAs Bryan Lourd gave $5,000.
California Teachers Association gave $1,312,998 (Church and state argument OUT THE DOOR!)
TR Knight, actor, (Greys Anatomy), $100,000
George Lucas, $50,000
Lucas Films, $50,000
Apple, $100,000
Ellen DeGeneres, $100,000
Mayors Committee for Government Excellence and Accountability, $25,000 (Church and State again....who is complaining about them?)
Stephen Speilberg & Kate Capshaw, $101,000
Levi Strauss, $25,000
Sergey Brin and Larry Page,
Google founders, $140,000
Jack OConnell, California Superintendent of Schools (Church and state AGAIN)

And finally we mustn't forget......The California Supreme Court....How do we boycott them?


Marriage may not be a right, but when it is allowed to certain groups and denied to others it is unconstitutional. Separate but equal is a violation of the 14th amendment.

re Fundamental Rights

This is definitely not an issue of "separate but equal" unions. "All" people DO have the same marriage rights. The state DOES sanction marriage for ALL people. It (California) just now defines marriage as between one man and one women.


I find this particular bit of the article to be rather telling, "A week after the majority of voters passed the controversial measure to ban same-sex marriage, the conflict continues in the courts..."I'm frustrated by what's going on," said Dave Leatherby...commenting on the protests and court battles. "Let's move on. I always told my children that once a rule was made, you have to abide by it. I think it should be the same in this circumstance.""

That is very interesting, Mr. Leatherby but I think you are a hypocrite. The Courts made a "rule" but you wouldn't abide by it and you fought until the voters over-ruled it. So, since you set a precedent, what makes you think that you can prevent others from doing as you did? You didn't abide by the rule so why should they?


At one time, the voters said that blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, and neither should women. The courts over-ruled that and now both blacks and women can vote. At one time, blacks weren't allowed to marry whites...and the voters thought that was just fine. It took the courts to overturn that too! Sometimes people are too wrapped up in their prejudices to see what is fair and just and it takes an impartial court to do the right thing.

Am I for gay marriage? I am a Christian and as such, I uphold and support the Bible's teachings on homosexuality (ie. it is am abomination) but at the same time, since it is not illegal and this is NOT a Christian country, I see no reason why they should be denied legal rights that are afforded heterosexuals...with one exception.

No one in a church should be forced to either marry or provide facilities to someone not of their congregation or who submits to the church's doctrine. If gays wish to marry in a "church", then they had better create one that suits their doctrine and leave others alone!

Dose of Texas Sanity

In spite of what you may have heard in recent weeks:

No one's civil rights have been taken away.
No one's civil rights have been taken away.
No one's civil rights have been taken away.

I've only seen intimidation coming from one side of the debate. How many 'No on Prop 8' supporters have lost their employment merely due to exercising their civil rights this past week?

Marriage has always been a uniquely heterosexual institution. Homosexuality is different than Homosexuality and by definition is unequal. Sorry to break the news. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Mother Nature. Or perhaps consult a Biology 101 textbook.

Speaking of equality: marriage is open to all regardless of sexual orientation--any man has the right to marry a woman and vice versa.

Regarding 'No on Prop 8' claims of having religion forced on them, I'm waiting, but I've yet to hear of anyone forced to go to church due to passage of Prop 8. Or forced to read scripture. Or forced to pray.

LDS Linda in CA

TO: Kevin | 7:20 a.m. Nov. 13, 2008, who says:
"Let's be honest. If your Mormon marriages had just be nullified by a simple majority referendum, would you just 'move on?'"

Go back and study your history. Polygamous Mormon families were torn apart when the US declared polygamy against the law. These families were either forced to break up or move to another country (Juarez, Mexico) where it was NOT against the law. Then the President of the LDS church sent out a procalamation that the LDS church would NOT support polygamy in the church. (We believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the LAW.)

DO you think we can't be empathetic?


The "marriage" that the gay community wants is the civil contract that would be issued to them without protest if they were to marry someone of the other gender. It is denied purely on sexual identify.

The "marrige" churches perform has no legal bearing without this civil contract.

The problem is people confuse the two.

LDS Linda in CA

TO: Bob | 8:30 a.m. Nov. 13, 2008, who says:
"The question: Where did the LDS Church get the money to pour into this state-wide issue? There is no transparency with the Church but I am more than positive that the majority of the Church members would be interested to know where this money is coming from. When it all comes down to it, the money roots from the tithing fund. The Church will say no."

Where did you get your info on the use of tithing for "YES" on Prop 8?

Thousands of LDS people may have personally donated to the grassroots effort to support the right of Califorians to maintain the traditional definition of "marriage", but that the LDS church would hoodwink its members like the CTA organization did to the unsuspecting teachers of Califonia is someone's effort at ignorant and/or intentional falsification of facts.

Vote again

i think we should vote again and see where things are going.

To our Gods in Black Robes


"I love my right to vote, but I do not believe a Constitutional Amendment should be left to the people to vote on. That's why we have the Courts, to determine what is fair and just, regardless of what the Majority thinks. That's what real democracy is."

Let me see if I understand you correctly. So long as the majority agrees with a minority on a Court then we can make the law but if they disagree then their delegated authority to make all laws is taken back to themselves.

"Power to all the people, not just the Majority."

Under your system the majority has no power but only the image of power since all laws are made by Courts and not the people.

"Constitutional amendments such as these are only there to divide people and create an elitist class that looks down at those that are different than them."

It sounds to me like you are the elitist who looks down on all of us slaves who either agree with you or our votes don't matter. We pass law X and you approve so it stands. Y, nope. Our masters strike that one down.

to comment

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