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

It was voted on and passed. The constitutional process is now to look at why you lost, regroup and redefine your message and then look toward a future vote again.

Attacking individuals or churches, boycotting businesses, picketing temples all just make the opposition look like their throwing juvenile tantrums since they didn't get their way. You will lose the support of your moderates acting this way.

And Tom, democratic rule means the majority of the electorate decides the election, not the minority. To insinuate that proponents of 8 are trying to take away any rights of opponents of 8 is ludicrous. Civil unions solve the issue and allows the same rights as traditional marriages. It is a compromise where both sides win.

I had not heard of even one Christian religion supporting Prop 8 to have denigrated not even one individual, picketed not even one business, attacked not even one pro-gay organization before or after. Even if Prop 8 would not have passed, the supporters would have been disappointed, but no attack methods would have been seen. If Prop 8 would have lost, the mayhem against religious folks would continue.

Who are acting like bigots right now?

To Tom

Marriage, gay or straight, is not a protected "right" - it is not in the constitution anywhere. No one's rights were removed by passage of Prop 8. Marriage is essentially a special contract under the law that grants certain tax and other privileges, and is based in legal, civil and religious history. There are fundamental human rights, but getting a tax break - including estate taxes, and being able to adopt wards of the state, are not fundamental rights. If they were, then the equal protection clause would dictate inclusion of all regardless of marital status in offering these "rights".

Marriage is an incentive to promote a fundamental unit of society - traditionally a man and a womon who commit to each other for life. The hope is that they will have children, and the off-spring will be law abiding, productive, tax-paying citizens, and the couple will take care of each other so the state doesn't have to.

We need to have a conversation to decide whether gay marriage should be promoted by law and tax policy. Are there any privileges that should be reserved to promote the traditional family? Does the traditional family bring any value?

Straight Shooter

Tom and the anti-8's still don't get it. For thousands of years marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman. Now they're demanding that we change the definition. That the MAJORITY simply roll over and play dead as we've been forced to to time and time again by liberal courts. You can call it a couple, a joint, a companionship, or whatever you want. But it will never be a MARRIAGE. Your talk of equal protection obviously doesn't apply when the majority doesn't get their way.

Dear Tom

It is possible to support the rights of people to have access to healthcare, visitation, and even survivor benefits without supporting gay marriage. It is possible to support the rights of gays to assemble and have a parade without supporting gay marriage.

Gay marriage is not a human right or a civil right under the constitution. It is proper for the majority of Americans to decide not to add to the constitution.

Both political parties in the last presidential election supported civil unions, but not gay marriage. Why not protest against Obama and McCain?

No one is taking away civil rights, they are acting within the democratic system. I suggest you do the same. That is what America is all about.

elton john

an interesting story in today's USA Today (page 2D)talks about Elton John's view on Prop 8. In it he says "I dont want to be married. I am very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships"

What "right"?

I did a quick check of the Constitution and didn't find any right to marriage. It was right next to the section where there also isn't a right to vote. You proponents of gay marriage need to come up with another tactic in your war because complaining that some "right" is being withheld isn't going to work.

re: Tom

So you think that it is perfectly okay to vandalize and harrass people who used their DEMOCRATIC RIGHT and voted against your beliefs? Man no wonder this whole debate isn't going anywhere when people like you are involved. Quit trying to shove your agenda down everybody's throats. The people voted and you lost. Get over it already. By the way, I promise you that had the vote gone the other way, there would be zero protesting by Mormons, Catholics and others against your gay lifestyle. Just shows the true character you guys when you come out and vandalize and beat up old ladies (check it out on Youtube). I guess you guys just can't stand intolerant people.

Jayce Cox

As a gay man, I am saddended that my church (LDS) participated in the ban. However we need to take a breath and reach out to those who would vote against us. Protesting outside of Mormon Temples is just scapegoating another misunderstood minority.
I live in Montana and I experience more bias due to my religous roots than I do as an openly gay man.
We are all humans, and though we hurt eachother, we must learn to listen to eachother rather than shouting at eachother.


Unfortunately, living in a democracy today means that even if the majority has spoke, and we are a government by the people, that as long as you have enough money and can find the right lawyer then you can legally change a court's decision. I do believe that the system to legalize something like this should be put to the vote of the people because it truly allows the people to have a direct impact on how they are governed. In the end, it truly is simply that the majority rules. Look at the office of President of the United States. Once the votes are in, whoever has the most electoral college votes wins the office and that's final. No lawsuits happen to change that (although recounts do happen in latter years).

To Tom

"I find it bizarre that someone would donate to a Gay Pride festival yet donate to strip those same people of rights. I can't even fathom how that reconciles."

Those of us who supported Prop 8 were told numerous times that we need to try to understand how "the other side" feels. There are MANY of us who love and support the gay community but do not feel that gay marriage is something to support.

The issue here, evident from both your comment and the article, is that the "understanding" is only supposed to go one way. You seem to believe that everyone is divided into homophobes and gay-rights activists. I find that sad.


These guys orchestrated and funded a campaign to take away rights. The folks whos' rights were removed are taking it personal, too.

Re: Yogi and Tom

Why is it that you continue to state that your civil rights were "taken away" by anyone religious? The constitution of California was amended (voted on twice now) by a clear majority due to the voting rights of its citizens. Those voting for Prop 8 were very aware of the ramifications of this passing. If a few angry mobs boycot them, so be it. They are also very aware of what would happen had Prop 8 NOT passed, so they used their rights to support it whole heartedly, and many of us stand by them. It is part of the democratic process. I am sorry that you feel so victimized. No one is out to get you, that is the truth. It's time to move forward and put your hate behind you.



You're right. Marriage is a "right" of all. And marriage is defined in CA as the union of one man and one woman.


When will you no on 8 people get that it is not about rights. It is about semantics. As you scream for tolerance and hold your nose at morals, why do you focus your venom and hate towards the Mormons who make up less than 2% of California's 34 million. Civil Unions great. Marriage is between Man and Woman and is the linchpin that holds our western civilization together.


There were not any real rights taken from Gays and Lesbians when Prop 8 was voted in by the people of California. I see no difference between saying that it would be irreverent if we all as non jews demanded that we could have Bar Mitzvahs because we wanted a celebration....these are religious and stem from our sacred beliefs not from a legal right. The legal rights for all people to have couple unions STILL exist and have not been questioned. Religious rights in this country have been the question all along. It means religous rights for all; the right to believe or not to believe, but not to disallow or take away religion from people by the State.


I'm LDS, and I supported Proposition 8. Target me! I dare you.

reaping what you sow

The LDS Chruch has transformed itself into a political movement that uses the power of religion to demand contributions to a particular cause. As such, the LDS Church has lost its authority to speak as if it were something other than a fully-owned subsidiary of the Republican party. 70% of anti-gay donations to Prop Hate came from Mormons. I and others will be boycotting all Mormon-owned businesses, starting with Marriott.

Former Utahn

I agree with "both Ways", the person who suggested that all of those who were for Prop8 should boycott all things that support the gay lifestyle all over the country just like the gays want to target people in another state for their problem with the failure of their cause; hollywood, star-watchers, movies, broadway, disneyland, the cable shows hosted by gay folks, etc. If we did not watch these people parade themselves around on the video media, their cause would have no audience.


The protestors are now hurting themselves with their continued demonstrations. Hard to see them as civil, reasonable people when they behave as they do. Their credibility as rational people has essentially vanished. The people of California have spoken clearly about this issue. In a democracy we accept the outcome, even if we oppose it. Then we work to change it through peaceful, rationale ways. This group reminds me of the anti-dope demonstrators of the 60's. Didn't that start in California also?


I have never understood why people don't realize that we are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions before God. God already knows all and those who purport to play Him are toying with fire. Gay people are responsible for their beliefs and actions before God just as straight people are. I would rather imagine that God cares about how we love more than he cares about who we love. I don't get the threat to straight society posed by allowing gays to marry.

to comment

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