U.S. & World

Protests over Proposition 8 outcome getting personal


Return To Article
  • matt
    Nov. 18, 2008 8:04 p.m.

    Add Leatherbys to the list of businesses that I will boycott.

  • East Coast Observer
    Nov. 18, 2008 12:41 a.m.

    This just gets worse and worse.
    Or maybe creepier and creepier.
    It's not quite clear from the article, but it looks like these "bloggers" are downloading lists of Proposition 8 "Yes" contributors from public Web sites, then "targeting" them for personalized harassment or boycotts. Many people will think that's bad.
    It sounds more like effective.
    Contribute enough money, and your name becomes public record. Some people have worried those lists might be abused; it seems they were right. Now, contributors have to wonder what's going to happen to them, personally, if their side wins; this time, or next.
    Experts call that a "chilling effect."

    The Nov. 11 DN article "Utah boycott likely..." quoted "blogger" remarks like "We need to send a message to Utah" and "Mormons crossed the line on this one" (see later comments there for more, and ANTI-boycott blog posts). Now they're "sending a message" to in-
    state individual pro-P-8 contributors to fear retribution. That "crosses a line" too.

    Gays/lesbians can be sympathetic victims of (very real) discrimination.
    They can be scary boogeymen who "know where you live" and will get you if you cross them.
    They can't be both.
    And a few activists shouldn't decide which.

  • to Juston
    Nov. 18, 2008 12:19 a.m.

    the same argument can be made with racism.

    first you abhor blacks (slavery)

    then you tolerate them (but send to the back of the bus, separate facilities, schools, no interracial marriage, etc.)

    finally you accept them and actually give them the priesthood, OMG.

    my, what a slippery slope THAT was!!!!

    YES, food for thought

  • Juston
    Nov. 17, 2008 11:21 p.m.

    Step 1. Abhor
    Step 2. Tolerate
    Step 3. Accept

    Food for thought.

  • Juston
    Nov. 17, 2008 11:18 p.m.

    Civil rights. Equality. Consenting adults. Anyone who uses these words to justify that gay marriage should be allowed should also realize the same arguements could be used for a polygamist. Is society really ready to grant a title of marriage based on an argument of consenting adults? If you open that door, get ready for a polygamist to want to be recognized. Consenting adults cannot be the arguement unless you are ready to accept the polygamist (or any other consenting adult situation) as well.

    Nov. 17, 2008 10:23 p.m.


  • True This..
    Nov. 17, 2008 7:51 p.m.

    "Far from showing that Californias Supreme Court was wrong to extend the right of marriage to gay people, the passage of Proposition 8 is a reminder of the crucial role that the courts play in protecting vulnerable groups from unfair treatment. Mormons should remember this, since you yourselves are vulnerable."

    Mormons seem to forget that they were persecuted and unfairly treated in the past or were my seminary and BYU professors lying to me about that??


  • Ann
    Nov. 17, 2008 6:12 p.m.

    TOTALLY Didn't expect this! NO ON H8!

  • Greg
    Nov. 17, 2008 12:52 p.m.

    This matter is indeed about civil rights, but only one side of the issue is being heard. Opponents are saying that they are going to continue fighting for their "rights." A claimed right to marry whomever one wants is nowhere found in the California or U.S. Constitution. The right of equal protection does not suffice, because that provision has stood alongside the traditional definition of marriage for 140 years.

    My question is, who is fighting for the specifically-enumerated, constitutional rights of those who voted for Proposition 8? Namely, the right to vote, the right to amend one's state constitution, and the right of free speech--the most basic civil rights a citizen has, rights that are specifically enumerated in the California Constitution and/or U.S. Constitution.

    Opponents of Proposition 8 are ignoring and trampling on the most basic civil rights of those who made their voice heard on an issue of fundamental importance, the definition of marriage and family. California's citizens, through the exercise of specifically-enumerated civil rights, passed a constitutional amendment to reinstate the millenia-old definition of marriage. Those rights must be upheld. Otherwise, we have abandoned the rule of law in favor of a dictatorship of the judiciary.

  • boils down to this...
    Nov. 17, 2008 12:17 p.m.

    Far from showing that Californias Supreme Court was wrong to extend the right of marriage to gay people, the passage of Proposition 8 is a reminder of the crucial role that the courts play in protecting vulnerable groups from unfair treatment. Mormons should remember this, since you yourselves are vulnerable.

  • vana
    Nov. 17, 2008 8:39 a.m.

    Doesn't anyone remember 9/11 and how the country pulled together and were praying for each other? What has happened to our country since then? What a sad country we are!!!!!! Now the country is at war just the same as it was when the terrorists attacked!!! Come on people, pull yourselves together and lets make this country great, just as the Founding Fathers wanted it to be!!!!

  • to Hate?
    Nov. 16, 2008 12:42 p.m.

    you did NOT get my point. this is an unfair prop and i completely understand the gay point of view. You won't get it until someone takes away rights that are dear to you.

    Oh wait, this happened back in the 19th century. how sad that the Mormon memory is short lived. my ancestors were persecuted in Nauvoo MAINLY because they practiced a non-traditional marriage. back then Mormons were crying for tolerance too.

    btw, here in CA there were 100s of protesters on the street in favor of prop 8 the weekend before the election disrupting my life. I've never seen such a group so filled with hate and lies. i cried and cried.

    Utah money paid for LIES that played on people's fear. that's why Utahns are getting the brunt of this protest.

    what you give you get. DEAL WITH IT.

  • Sad!
    Nov. 16, 2008 8:44 a.m.

    I feel badly that the gall being displayed by some people in this debate will only end up hurting those who are spewing it. This means those on both sides who are engaging with acid comments and vile acts. There is no end to bitterness until it totally consumes the soul of he or she who harbors it. It is like a person who takes poison and then expects the person who is the object of his vengeance to die. For your own sake, all of you should learn to let go of bitterness. I say, debate without hate!

  • Hate?
    Nov. 16, 2008 12:57 a.m.

    Ok, the LDS church encouraged it's members to donate to a cause they believe in, Prop 8 passes, and why now are people protesting the LDS church? What is it they hope to accomplish? Intimidation? Terror? Hate? If Prop 8 was on an upcoming election I could understand the protests, but seriously, now it's not an (election) issue anymore. If Prop 8 had failed, would it be fair then for LDS members to be protesting homosexuals?

    To 'Hypocrites, eh?',
    The government can't take away the LDS church's right to marry in temples, but they can stop recognizing it as a legal marriage. All that would happen then is people would get married first in a government sanctioned marriage ceremony and then go get married in their temple. That's happened many times in the LDS church's history in other countries where they were not recognized.

  • Hypocites, eh?
    Nov. 16, 2008 12:11 a.m.

    What if prop 8 was about taking away the right for you to marry in the temple? or for interracial couples to marry?

    You'd be protesting in the streets too.

    it doesn't matter if the majority agrees or not it's WRONG TO DISCRIMINATE. move into the 21 century folks.

    from a TOTALLY disgusted straight Californian Mormon.

  • to Adam
    Nov. 15, 2008 11:24 p.m.

    Please, note the Voting Rights Act of 1963 was a law by a representative body. On what basis do you hope for oligarchy rule in America. I support gay marriage, but not by judicial decree.

  • Hypocrites
    Nov. 15, 2008 10:56 p.m.

    Gays talk about tolerance, but look at them? Do they realize how hypocritical they are? The Sacramento Bee (this newspaper supported No on Prop 8) issued an editorial yesterday decrying the No people and called them sore losers. They said that when the people speak we must abide by that decision and stop their ranting and raving. Many churches have come out to defend the Mormons. And really, when you start "kicking" against the Lord's Temples, that can only go the wrong way for them. They are digging their own hole. Let them.

  • Zobewan
    Nov. 15, 2008 7:12 p.m.

    Stenar - Of course marriage is rooted in religion.
    Civil Marriage Is between a man and a woman outside the church context.
    Back in the 60's "marriage" became passe', unnecessary, and irrelevant outside the context of religion! "Who needs a piece of paper?", we ALL said.
    In my opinion, "marriage" IS a religious term and should not be used outside the context of a man and a woman....think of another term...other than marriage...oh, you already have one??..then what's the point??? Must be a MONEY thing...ah yes, the almighty something for nothing motivation disguised again as the irrelevant, and selfish fulfilment of self and satisfying of your own selfish desires. Marriage is the LEAST self-serving thing that can be done in life because you both give up yourselves in the rearing of CHILDREN.
    It is NOT your civil right to get more of my tax money for nothing.
    It is my understanding that 44 states voted FOR the ban, so redouble your efforts, without the violence, cz thats just hurting your cause, and try again next time, like all the rest of us have to do, in pursuit of those goals important to each of us individually in our lives.

  • Dave
    Nov. 15, 2008 5:01 p.m.

    It's not that gay marriage will bring down society as a whole, it is simply that allowing it will open the flood gate for other detrimental problems.

  • ME
    Nov. 15, 2008 4:41 p.m.

    Semd these protesters to CA to fight the fire!! Our firefighters need all the help they can get.

  • I must have missed that
    Nov. 15, 2008 4:22 p.m.

    To: Double Standard | 4:58 p.m. Nov. 13, 2008
    Sorry, I probably missed it but where and when did the LDS church complain about protestors?
    Thanks so much.

  • Linguist
    Nov. 15, 2008 2:46 p.m.

    Daniel wrote, "How does gay marriage hurt anyone youmight ask? It hurts kids the most. Same-sex marriage is a slap in the face to traditional marriages. It's like saying that the hard work of fathers and mothers everywhere is optional and unnecessary..."

    With respect, I find your comments illogical. No, it isn't saying anything about the hard work of parents. Why would it be? For one, many gay couples are raising kids. For another, no one is ever helped by the mistreatment of others.

    Denying gay people the right to protect their relationships is wrong, mean-spirited and immoral. Trying to turn it on its head as an attack on others seems more a tactic when you're losing an argument than logic.

  • Daniel
    Nov. 15, 2008 1:21 p.m.

    How does gay marriage hurt anyone youmight ask? It hurts kids the most. Same-sex marriage is a slap in the face to traditional marriages. It's like saying that the hard work of fathers and mothers everywhere is optional and unnecessary. I for one find that very offensive. There are two sources we can look to for guidance. The precepts of men which change constantly and often bring sorrow or we can show a little faith and see what God has said regarding any topic. If we REALLY believe He has all power and knowledge then we take His word for it. But in the end He leaves the choice to us. That's part of His plan too.

  • Prop 8 opponents & hate crimes
    Nov. 15, 2008 12:52 p.m.

    It is very sad that the anger and hate being displayed by the opponents of Prop 8 is turning into hate crimes against religious people and churches. The Federal Government should be called in to investigate the fire at the Littleton, CO, LDS church building as a hate crime. It is very telling that homosexual proponents only believe things are hate crimes when they are done against them, but anything they do is OK.

  • L
    Nov. 15, 2008 12:12 p.m.

    Notice how Obama has been quiet about this Prop 8 lately? He wants to avoid the elephant in the room by focusing on the economy.
    Could he be afraid to tell people what they don't want to hear?

  • Info man
    Nov. 15, 2008 12:06 p.m.

    My nephew has been talking with some church officials about some humanitarian work in Haiti. Drilling wells to help the people of Haiti. My wife makes blankets and puts together toys and clothes for church humanitarian aid. We have worked with Catholic charities to help people in need. My neighbors who live across the street are in Guatemala, spending their time helping in an orphanage. Many people in our ward donate money to this cause. My other neighbors sponsor a family in Africa that has lost their parents to the aids virus. These neighbors work closely with another family that heads up a Christian organization that helps families in Africa. Again, many people in our ward donate time and money to these charities. Our ward is doing a sub for Santa. The scouting program, that we support, works on collecting canned goods for the food drive. Every month we send people in our ward to work at welfare square, to help replenish the food and other items the church continually gives to those in need. We show love by serving others.

    The gays picket and intimidate. Their thoughts never far from themselves.

  • Laura
    Nov. 15, 2008 11:46 a.m.

    OK, so let's really think about this.
    Divorce takes a heavy financial toll on any society. How many attorneys know how to deal with a gay divorce?
    You "NO on 8" supporters don't understand the underlying can of worms with allowing gay marriage.
    They will use it as a weapon. Don't be so blind and foolish!

  • Laura
    Nov. 15, 2008 11:30 a.m.

    Those people cannot handle the fact that the majority of Californians DO NOT agree with their lifestyle. They live a complete lie. It's a bizarre mentality they have living west of interstate 5.
    I'm glad that the LDS Californians know how to put their money where their mouth is. Other churches are amazed at how organized we were. We just saved California at the polls and things are tough now but we are strong and we don't live in the comfort of the majority like Utahns do.

    Nov. 15, 2008 11:21 a.m.

    I live outside of California. I did not donate for or against Prop 8 . After watching a group protest good churches and individuals in their own communities, It has made be sick and I am starting to become intolerant the protests and all the H8e from them. I have changed my mind ( if it ever comes to it) and will send my financial support to help keep marriage between a man and a woman. I ashamed to see the disrespect that these protestors are showing.
    They are disrespecting the democratic process, where the will of california was decided by a vote of the PEOPLE. They are disrespecting other races, religions, home owners, businesses, prompting threats, anthrax scares, physical violence and harm. They are quickly becoming a danger to society.
    Again I am saddened by their actions. They have lost all my respect.

  • utah rose
    Nov. 15, 2008 10:53 a.m.

    The MAJORITY of Californians have voted against this. You have all the civil rights connected to marriage but are not satisfied? And then you think by "mob rule" you will get this? No, you will get a tremendous backlash!

    Name me one historical period when gays got married. Just one.

    Traditional marriage has a purpose and it usually produces children. It has always been sacred to the mainline religions.

    I have one suggestion if you do not like this---move to a state such as Massachusetts that does condone gay marriage or better yet move to Canada.
    There you can marry and have all the liberal rights including health care that you want.

    And don't be complaining about the Mormons about this. We as Catholics welcome homosexuals into our church, but only ones who are living chastely. It can be done. Many married couples have to face this as a result of illness and manage to do so without being promiscuous. If you cannot do this, get help. Many other people are fighting with their own demons such as alcoholism and drug addiction. If they can do it, so can you.

  • Sterile Argument
    Nov. 15, 2008 9:35 a.m.

    Re: Sterile Couples?

    Way to take innocuous statements to ridiculous levels. The comment about the gay lifestyle only leading to extinction was a response to someone saying that religious people who put their trust is God and scripture are irrational.

    A sarcastic comment was then made comparing the irrationality of that with instead putting your trust in a lifestyle that couldn't even sustain itself.

    Get a grip, people!

  • Artierome
    Nov. 15, 2008 8:28 a.m.

    The mobs are back.

  • Just Curious
    Nov. 15, 2008 8:24 a.m.

    I keep wondering if all the proponents of "same sex marriage" have forgotten that none of their rights have been taken away? Do they not realize that this is not s civil rights issue and never has been?

    All the nonsense they are engaging in post-election is what is tampering with civil rights and the democratic process in America. Do they not want a government for and by the people? They like the idea of four guys running the show? Think about it, people! Talk about loss of freedom there it is right there! What they are doing is paramount to a two year old's temper tantrum. My thinking is we should deal with it in the same way~ignore it! Without an audience, they will soon find something constructive to do with their time and money. And just one more thing while we're at it. I find the despicable way in which the press is handling all of this absolutely criminal. They are in large part the reason this country is in the shape it is in today. They need to be less biased in their reporting and better researchers. Move on People!

  • Robert Johnson
    Nov. 15, 2008 6:55 a.m.

    What "Mr. Leatherby" doesn't understand is that no one is "trying to win him over". The vast majority of us that are against discrimination couldn't care less what his personal views are. Doing the right thing and ending hate and discrimination are not done by "winning" bigots over. No civil rights in America have ever been granted without a fight.
    Mr. Leatherby is crying now because his business is being effected by his bigotry. Well, Mr. Leatherby, this is America. You made your choice.

  • Mom
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:04 p.m.

    I didn't have an opinion one way or the other on Prop.8. Having said that and seeing the hate that has come from opponents of prop 8 my mind has been changed. Acting like spoiled children and jumping up and down when you don't get your way is not benefitting your cause. I believe that churches had just as much right to voice their opinions as did the opponents. I have gay friends who are embarrassed by the hate being generated and worry that this will only create more division than inclusion. Shame on those who are commiting these acts of vandalism, threatening others and spreading hate.

  • Sterile couples?
    Nov. 14, 2008 6:18 p.m.

    In response to the argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because that union is necessary for procreation and the propagation of society: does that mean you would also support denying marriages to a couple when one or both of them are sterile? They have the same chance of producing a child as a gay couple does, so under that line of argument, why should they be allowed to marry?

  • Apparent Hate Monger
    Nov. 14, 2008 4:47 p.m.

    I guess tolerance only runs one direction. Sometimes people make it difficult to live by their own philosopies.

    It's funny how some want love, peace and exceptence, yet they won't give it themselves.

  • Kristen
    Nov. 14, 2008 4:32 p.m.

    I keep reading that the courts should be making laws. Our lawmakers are in the legislature! Any laws made by the courts/judges are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The courts only have power to INTERPRET THE LAW. This is a basic part of separation of powers.

    When courts make decisions, they bypass the people and their representatives, and then confirm the passage of their own laws! This makes the people powerless. We should be glad that the people of California took back this issue from overstepping courts.

    Personally, I think that marriage is a social contract between people and the state. The people who are having children to continue the society around them need special protections and supports to do their job. Marriage is not a popular club that everybody should get to join. It is only partially about the individuals involved. It is an institution with the purpose of protecting and promoting the continuation of society.

    Commitments of love and life can be made without claiming protections that are due to people who are having children. Children need a mom and a dad--marriage is a protection for children, and a support for their parents.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 14, 2008 2:33 p.m.

    To the 11:10 poster,
    For the 100th time everyone has the right to marry. No law bans anyone who is over the age of 18 from marrying. They merely define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. This is no more a violation of the 14th admendment then the heavy regulations of marriage by those under the age f 18.
    If the ERA had passed it would be a different sotry, but the ERA was defeated.

  • DM
    Nov. 14, 2008 1:37 p.m.

    The comments that gays will go extinct is hilarious! They're totally self-contradictory. If gays relied on breeding to maintain their population they would have gone extinct thousands of years ago. STRAIGHT people breed gays. They are your children, your nieces and nephews, your brothers and sisters. And you treat them like some sort of alien species... face it people, gays are here to stay.

  • realitycheck
    Nov. 14, 2008 1:24 p.m.

    so this guy gives $20K to pass the prop "for religious reasons" and he's suprised that it's being taken personally?

    that's what happens when you push your religious agenda on others.... why do you have to push your religion on others?

  • No rights taken away?
    Nov. 14, 2008 1:15 p.m.

    To those of you who are alleging that Prop 8 didn't take away anyone's right to marry (because gay people can still get married, only to someone of the opposite gender), consider if the Proposition instead said that only marriages between a man and a man or a woman and a woman would be sanctioned by the state. Would you really be sitting here saying that your right to marry wasn't taken away by that law? The right to marry should include the right to marry the person of your choice. To say that Prop 8 didn't take away any rights is absurd.

  • Stop Shaking Your Head
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:52 p.m.

    To Shaking my Head:

    Please stop shaking your head, the echo is killing me!

    You wrote: "Debating this issue with mormons is difficult when they fall back on their god, scriptures that have never been vetted ..."

    Yes, putting your faith in man and science is so much more logical than putting it in God and his direct instruction through the years to man. (Do you think this might explain why God is always changing his teachings through the years and science has remained stagnant??? What? It's actually the opposite of that? Hmmmmm ... go figure.)

    You wrote: "There's just no getting through the irrational thought and logical fallacies."

    Yes, because supporting a lifestyle that can only lead to its own extinction is rational and logical?

    You've tapped into the weakest argument ever invented. I love how anybody that thinks different than the Liberal mindset is close-minded and irrational.

    Just because someone thinks different than you doesn't mean they're irrational.

  • Orion
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:41 p.m.

    In answer to "Marriage is not a fundamental right":

    From the United States Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967):

    "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. "

  • Read what Sir Elton John says
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:40 p.m.

    He said gays should have civil partnerships and heterosexuals can have marriages. Read the article at protect marriage.com or online at USA today. Also note that Gladys Knight, a Mormon sang at his benefit. He is the world's most famous gay man and maybe they'll listen to his voice of reason. He has a civil partnership and says he has equal rights to those who have marriages.

  • Amazed
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:38 p.m.

    I wasn't aware that there were crimes classified and "investigated as a bias-motivated arson" Is this a term created by the paper or a politically correct police department afraid of offending the gay community by calling it a hate crime. I suppose that "bias" crimes committed against religous individuals and groups that oppose the militant gay agenda should all be tolerated because the perp's have a right to act outside of the rule of law.

  • Time Came in Form of Vote
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:27 p.m.

    To: It's Only a Matter of Time ...

    Weighing the scales of who I should put my trust in ...

    George Clooney ...

    Prophet of God ...

    Sorry, but I chose long before today which house I would serve.

  • To be CLEAR
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:21 p.m.

    I predict that we'll have to vote on this SAME issue after the courts REVERSE the voter's decision (and they WILL) Let it be settled now and forever: MARRIAGE is defined as ONE man and ONE woman. And yes, I'm an LDS woman who just wants to be clear - I have gay friends who are in committed relationships and those who are compulsively promiscuous (one friend whines plaintively to me, "I don't know WHY, but I just LOVE men" he especially longs for straight men to come over to his "side".He was sexually abused by older boys when he was young and was hooked at a young age) I support their having a civil union if they want it. I do, however, draw the line with calling their committed relationships "marriage" because it's just not the same thing. It's just NOT.

  • John
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:10 p.m.

    "If and when this vote by THE PEOPLE of California is overturned, I will be boycotting any person and/or group that is affiliated with the gay movement. I will also protest in front of their meeting places until the PEOPLES VOTE is restored. It is time to stand up against these intolerant bigots and defend our children, families, religious freedoms, and right to vote."

    I completely agree w/ the above comment. Only problem, we will be charged w/ a HATE CRIME. My minister who supported marriage @ the pulpit has already been threathen by a law suit by two gay men who told him "you have no right" to preach in support of marriage. God save us all.

  • JB
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:09 p.m.

    The funniest part is if Prop8 had failed, the pros would have blamed Hollywood for their big contributions. There was strong lobbying on both sides. Ellen Degeneres was taking a lot of heat earlier for not donating more. No one is happy when their choice doesn't win.

    It's also funny that it seems less contentious about the presidential contest. Prop8 has taken that steam, it appears.

  • Boycott?...Fine.
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:09 p.m.

    Go ahead and boycott the Sundance Film Festival, which is arguably the most non-Mormon feature Utah has to offer. And go ahead and boycott the ski resorts here in Utah while you're at it, less people on the slopes would make for a great day of skiing for me.

  • Will
    Nov. 14, 2008 11:44 a.m.

    Supporters of Prop 8 are frustrated that they spoke at the ballot box, yet protests continue. They say, "the people have spoken, accept it." I wish the Religious Right would listen to that, as we've voted on abortion notification laws three times in four years. Makes me think "Do as I say, not as I do."

  • Just the facts, ma'm
    Nov. 14, 2008 11:33 a.m.

    Okay, it's an urban legend about Utah women being the first to vote. I googled and now have the facts. Utah women had the right to vote in 1870. (It was a Wyoming woman who cast a ballot in Sept. 1870.) Utah womens voting rights where taken away by Congress in 1887. They got the right back in 1895. The first woman to vote under the amendment was back east in Aug. 1920. But still women rock (were respected and important) in early Utah history!

  • Fear God, not man
    Nov. 14, 2008 11:10 a.m.

    I realize that there are many difficult situations in our world. People have to make decisions, and usually someone is left unsatisfied. How do we choose what is right? I, for one, will obey the commandments of God. It is difficult, sometimes scary and sometimes dangerous to stand up for what is right. I know that some will lash out at me for standing up for my beliefs but I fear God more than man.

  • Why can't we all just get along
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:53 a.m.

    If you were against Prop 8 and have fellow gay right supporters that are doing these activities, please encourage them to stop. Please encourage them to take actions that will not cause a revolt against your community. I am sure that if Prop 8 had failed, the other side would have accepted it peacefully. Most of you are responisble and rational. Please help the others understand that it is best to protest within boundaries.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:44 a.m.

    Should we resort to killing, beatings having our homes burnt down, car tires sliced like straight people have done to us for years.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:41 a.m.

    But yet gay and lesbians couples adopt and foster the children that straight couples don't want.

  • Ema
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:40 a.m.

    To all those who say that marriage is not a human right--please look over Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 court case that ended bans on interracial marriage in the US. If you read the court opinion written by Chief Justice Warren, he wrote that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'" This can be used as case law, and I think it will help in eventually overturning these bans on gay marriage. This court opinion is very interesting to read right now, just with replacing "race" with "sexual orientation" and "white supremacy" with "homophobia."

  • To shake my head
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:30 a.m.

    Re your comment that Mormons are falling back on their God, scriptures that have never been vetted.

    God has not changed, nor ever will. The scripture Mormons use, as do Catholics, Baptists, all Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. etc., is the Bible, which clearly states how a Christian should view marriage. The Jews Koran has the same teachings, and possibly other non-Christian religions.

    That Mormons have additional books of scripture which SUPPORT the Bible, only reinforces our knowledge about how Heavenly Father wants us to act upon our belief.

  • deseretnews.com moderator
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:24 a.m.

    In addition to our stated rules, any comments containing threats or references to violence of any kind will not be posted. If the trend continues, all comments will be barred from this story.

  • patricia
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:13 a.m.

    It seems to me that we spend our lives teaching our children to follow the laws of the land. And when the people vote and the courts can overturn that vote because a small group of people didn't agree with it. Our children are learning if you don't like a law cry, scream, throw and tempertantrum and beat up people. It's like the bully the my son had to deal with for over three years just because he was an easy target (small in stature). These people who try to do harm to others to get their point across are like spoild babies who didn't get enough spankings as kids. I bet if you look into everyone of them you'll find their parents didn't belive in spanking, they were most likely the bully in school who's parents didn't believe that their kids would do that. Good luck Califorina.

  • Shake your head....
    Nov. 14, 2008 10:07 a.m.

    Since when is "changing with the culture" always a good thing? My father used to say if all my friends were jumping off a cliff, would I do it too? Did that make it smart? The LDS Church has always told its members to pray about every decision, not to just follow blindly. The Church doesn't force any member to follow its teachings. We always make our own choices. We don't desire to be accepted into any club. We just wish more people really understood what we believe instead of listening to erroneous propaganda. Blacks were a part of the church from the beginning. Part of the reason Mormons were forced out of Missouri was because they were against slavery. Women in Utah voted before it was even a state. And although it was Wyoming who first gave women the legal right to vote, it was Utah's women who first actually cast a ballot in an election. Sounds like we are better at "changing with the culture" than you give us credit for.

  • randy
    Nov. 14, 2008 9:59 a.m.

    the states of conn and mass want gays and will marry gays ...

    so what is all the fuss about folks ?? why are you rallying ?? your safety net and acceptance is back east .. take it

    and this being a religious , issue ?? how ?

    it is a darwin natural selection issue .. to my knowledge i havent seen man on man or woman on woman produce an offspring ... so a lifestyle of such pleasure that cant reproduce itself is called extinction ...

    so why and how would a logical thinking human society want to promote a union that cant reproduce itself (thank goodness)??

    i suggest you gather your kind like all the other causes thru the generations have done to conn and mass who have opened their borders to your lifestyle .. so come on down or over

    rights, privledge , respect .. seem to be back east , so take it .. the majority in the west has said no to your marriage issue

    enjoy the trip

  • DM
    Nov. 14, 2008 9:45 a.m.

    Voting on civil rights is not democratic. The purpose of a constitution is to protect our rights from those with power.. that includes the majority. If you put civil rights up for a vote, you could vote against anybody who is unpopular with the majority... that includes mormons. Like it's been said, you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 14, 2008 9:42 a.m.

    The irony here is that no one would tolerate this type of action if take by the Pro-8 against the No on 8. Can you imagine the uproar if Pro-8 supporters were looking up No on 8 contributors and boycotting their businesses.
    It just wouldn't happen?

  • Patricia
    Nov. 14, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    It seems to me that if the people speek then that's the way it should be. The people of Califorina said how they felt through the process. And the courts should up hold that vote. It's not right to give the people the vote and then nulify that they want. It just seems that way to me. good job califorina on a good vote.

  • stupid
    Nov. 14, 2008 8:41 a.m.

    you cant say anything negative about homosexuals or you are guilty of a hate crime, yet they can burn churches, send hate mail, beat up prop 8 supporters and that is not a hate crime. Go figure.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 14, 2008 8:26 a.m.

    To LDS: Get real. You are not listening. That is why gays and others who support individual liberty and equality under the law are shouting louder. How loud do you want it to get before you allow these people to have equality under the law and the right to be married? It is up to you how far this escalates.

  • shake my head
    Nov. 14, 2008 8:12 a.m.

    Debating this issue with mormons is difficult when they fall back on their god, scriptures that have never been vetted, bigotry disguised as protection for children and families, etc. There's just no getting through the irrational thought and logical fallacies. It will take some time for them to get around to a pragmatic "prophesy" when they realize it is in their best interest to change with the culture. This is their historical path, as is the victimization that is part of their psyche and their current discourse. In the meantime, it could be that they are attempting to win over the evangelicals and other "christians" as part of the strategy for Mitt in 2012. Of course, this strategy is determined by the mormon leadership and can't be discussed candidly with the masses, as it serves them better to have the flock use the current rhetoric and appear to be a part of the "normal christian" club that they want so badly to be accepted into.

  • Celtic
    Nov. 14, 2008 7:53 a.m.

    While the protests over the passage of Prop 8 are not surprising, it is puzzling that the gay constituency would resort to violence, porn hacking and spamming (see Merdian magazine), death threats, and suspicous white powder sent to temples to get their message across. This only galvanizes public sentiment against their cause and create a backlash toward a people who want more freedom but can't abide by the democratic process that produces it.

    I also find it interesting that none of these events are happening in South Central LA or other African American communities where prop 8 passed by a wide margin.

    In the end, it is clear that the gay community has only the "no on Prop 8" organizers to blame for it's passage and unfortunately for them, are handling the after-vote has ineptly as they handled the run up to the election.

  • Non-Bigot
    Nov. 14, 2008 6:06 a.m.

    "Homofacism" anyone? As a people we must resist facism in any form-including that which is now being propogated by the homo crowd. They are playing a dangerous game and should watch out for a backlash directed at them and their lifestyle.

    Or they could all move to Connecticut and Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal and leave the rest of us alone.

  • The blame game
    Nov. 14, 2008 5:51 a.m.

    Lets blame everything on the LDS people:
    1. Global warming
    2. Getting pulled over for a speeding ticket
    3. Buying the wrong pair of pants 30 years ago.
    4. .....
    5. .....

    You name it, the LDS will at sometime be blamed for it.
    What is with that?

  • Minority: Bow majority & worship
    Nov. 14, 2008 4:07 a.m.

    To: "@Whan the Vote of the people"

    "We are a representative democracy where the whims of the current majority are not allowed to simply overrun the rights of a minority group."

    How many times must you be told that the rights of a minority aren't being overrun. Tell us what right is being violated. Come on tyrant. We will all wait for your reasoning of why gays are somehow discriminated against even though no one singles them out for any different treatment based on sexual orientation.

    How many times must you be told? Gays can marry and no law prohibits them from doing so. Their sexual orientation has no bearing on marriage anymore than the sexual orientation of heterosexuals has bearing on marriage. It's really convenient how you try to frame this issue into the majority violating the rights of a minority so you can force your opinion about what the law should be on the majority but it won't work.

    If you knew anything about representative democracy and what it means you wouldn't make your evil and tyrannical comment but you have no shame. You can kill us but you will not have our obedience.

  • Which law will you permit Master
    Nov. 14, 2008 3:59 a.m.

    To: "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."

    The majority isn't violating rights of a minority. It's the minority whose trying to violate the rights of the majority.

    The majority does not discriminate against gays in marriage and any gay person can marry. No one asks them if they are gay or straight before issuing a marriage license. No one says to the gay man "sorry but you can't marry that woman because she's not lesbian since only homosexuals are allowed to marry homosexuals and only heterosexuals are permitted to marry heterosexuals." Nor are gays prevented from marrying other gays. The provision is that one man may marry one woman which means that there isn't even discrimination based on gender since both men and women can marry a person of the opposite sex.

    It's the minority who believes: SHUT UP AND OBEY US.

  • To our Gods in Black Robes
    Nov. 14, 2008 3:41 a.m.


    "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.

  • Vote again
    Nov. 14, 2008 1:29 a.m.

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

  • LDS Linda in CA
    Nov. 14, 2008 1:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:32 a.m.

    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
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:30 a.m.

    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?

  • Dose of Texas Sanity
    Nov. 14, 2008 12:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Sarah
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:41 p.m.

    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!

  • Sarah
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:36 p.m.

    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?

  • re Fundamental Rights
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Boycott
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:00 p.m.

    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?

  • Gone too far
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:49 p.m.

    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.

  • Flawed initiative process
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Fundamental rights
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Equal rights?
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:00 p.m.

    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.

  • The rights of the helpless
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:59 p.m.

    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.

  • voter
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Robert
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:25 p.m.

    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?

  • let freedom prevail?
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Changing mind...
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:03 p.m.

    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!!!

  • Liberty will prevail
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:00 p.m.

    When the VOTE of the people,

    "does not matter anymore... then what are we?"

    Let's let Thomas Jefferson answer: "[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."

    So when the VOTE of the people does not matter any more we will no longer be a republic. That is what those who support same-sex marriage are intent on achieving. They believe the Courts have a right to change the definition of the law instead of simply making sure everyone has equal access to it on the same terms. They believe that the role of the courts isn't to protect due process and equal protection under the law but to also change the law.

    We allow anyone regardless of their race, or sexual orientation to marry. We do not discriminate against someone based on the color of their skin, or sexual orientation. Everyone is capable of entering into a legal marriage if they choose to do so and they will not be denied a marriage based on sexual orientation or race.

    Because of this we must defend our liberties.

  • Take it from Elton John
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:56 p.m.

    All those that were against Prop 8, take some advice from Elton John. He stated that he has had a civil union to his partner for many years, and that people in America are sensitive of the word "marriage", so get over the marriage thing because you have your civil union. Well said Elton!

  • @Whan the Vote of the people
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:42 p.m.

    We are a representative democracy where the whims of the current majority are not allowed to simply overrun the rights of a minority group.

  • Let freedom prevail
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:18 p.m.

    Re: "To "less gay tolerance"

    "Please remember how Mormons cringed when the media was reporting the story about the polygamous sect in Texas. That is not representative of Mormons. Not all gays are the same either."

    I agree and those gays who supported Proposition 8 shouldn't be grouped with those who opposed Prop. 8. The first group may be gay but that doesn't make them bad people but those who opposed Prop. 8 and who wanted to force their will on the majority are bad people regardless of their sexual orientation. There were many straight opponents of Proposition 8 and they are the same as those gays who opposed it. They are tyrants regardless of their sexual orientation and we shouldn't single out gays as a group when not all of them are the enemies of liberty and our civil rights as are those who want to force the majority to recognize same-sex marriages.

    May freedom and liberty prevail and tyranny be defeated.

  • With all do respect
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:07 p.m.

    While I certainly enjoy Elton Johns music and respect his right to his point of view, I do not beleive now is the time to accept a role as second class citizens. Seperate is not equal.

  • ThinkFirst
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:06 p.m.

    On the issue of morality, it seems that this is an underlining theme in a lot of these comments. Has anyone looked up morality in the dictionary?

    1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
    2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
    3. Virtuous conduct.
    4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

    It sounds to me like we need to enforce the separation between Church and State.

  • to stop with the victomhhod
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:00 p.m.

    at 6:53. No one has "ripped your marriage apart". As a mattter of fact I have yet to see any marriages previously performed before Proposition 8 passed as being invalid. The supreme court of California let gays participate in traditional marriage. A segment of California society said that is not right and proposed a Constitutional amendment to prohibit marriages except when between a man and a woman to be voted on BY THE PEOPLE. The PEOPLE excersied their constitutional rights and said amendment passed. What happened here was the due process of law. And has been repeatedly stated over and over again ad naseum is the fact that no rights were taken away. None. I am perplexed as to what the Gay and Lesbian agenda is. Society has been tremdously tolerant of their lifestyle and they have as much civil rights as anyone else.

  • When the VOTE of the people
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:53 p.m.

    does not matter anymore... then what are we?

    This scares me more than anything I have heard in a long time.

    I have heard it said; "The vote does not really change anything, if it did, they would outlaw it."

  • I won't go down
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:32 p.m.

    even though I have questions about many of my neighbors who are lds ...i see no reason to be persecuting this particular group as the VOTE has spoken...the president or party was VOTED out, so follow the rules and don't generalize a pop ..there were other religions involved, these people were doing what their religion stands for and there are many who are christ like..so one cannot over generalize because sometimes i have and pert near gave up on them but then comes along some good person in some form like a grandma, brother or sis that makes me realize that i too am ignorant of things. just peace out and don't persecute..to my lds friends ..i say remain strong as something is comming this way!

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:30 p.m.

    To the 1:31 commenttor,
    The laws have been rules unconstituttional, so your point is ridiculous. The laws against polygamy and incest are still enforced. People have been sent to jail in Utah for violating anti-polygamy laws in the last decade, and Texas is in the midst of a full scale prosecution.
    For what it is worth, Utah's law merely made sodomy illegal, it did not provide any consideration of the genders of the people committing the act.

  • To stand your ground
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:29 p.m.

    Stand your ground, as thousands of Mormon parents have done before you. That didn't prevent them from having gay children. And when they do, they start to see this issue differently.

  • To Tom in San Diego
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:19 p.m.

    Please read Matt's comments at 8:37 just for some perspective on why some people have reacted the way they have. Or at least read that before you judge all gays. Also, think how it felt to be LDS and see news reports about the polygamous group in Texas referred to by the media as Mormons. They were not representative of your life or beliefs. Not all gays are the same either.

  • To "less gay tolerance"
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:14 p.m.

    Please remember how Mormons cringed when the media was reporting the story about the polygamous sect in Texas. That is not representative of Mormons. Not all gays are the same either.

  • stop with the victimhood
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:53 p.m.

    Attention Prop 8 suppporters, you are not the victims here, no one pushed their way into your life and ripped apart your marriage. This is a classic case of someone standing up to the bully pushing back amf the bully starts crying. If you dont like it stop bullying people.

  • Nother Texan
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:49 p.m.

    My Baptist buddy says that it is amazing that the LDS church is the only group with the courage to stand up for what is right.

    And once again they are being persecuted for it.

    With much persecution comes much respect from god-fearing people... (Note the god-fearing people are not the ones doing the persecution...)

  • To Mr. Jayce Cox
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:47 p.m.

    As an apparent active Mormon, I am surprised that you would also consider yourself and openly gay man...

    You apparently don't believe what you say you believe... The two just don't mix.

  • Dan
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:45 p.m.

    This is getting ridiculous. Gays have the same rights as anyone, they can get a job, ride a bus in whatever seat they want, go to school, walk down the street, go to the gym, eat at a restaurant, own a business, do whatever they want in the bedroom with whoever they want, have equal benefits as heterosexual couples through a civil union, they can vote (although what they vote for might not always win), they can travel the world (including to Europe where they can get "married" if they want, or heck, even to Connecticut) .... need I list more?? You can cry and complain all day about not being able to attach the words "married" to your union, but that doesn't change anything. I am a student at BYU, I can get degree in Sociology which affords me the same opportunities as someone who gets one at Harvard. Should I be able to say I got a Degree at Harvard just because I want the title?? NO, because I didn't but it doesn't change the fact that I have the same degree. You have civil unions, we have marriage, both of which have equal rights, get over it.

  • Robert Oh
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:38 p.m.

    "A spirit of forgiveness and an attitude of love and compassion toward those who may have wronged us is of the very essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Each of us has need of this spirit."

    "If there be any who nurture in their hearts the poisonous brew of enmity toward another, I plead with you to ask the Lord for strength to forgive. This expression of desire will be of the very substance of your repentance. It may not be easy, and it may not come quickly. But if you will seek it with sincerity and cultivate it, it will come. And even though he whom you have forgiven continues to pursue and threaten you, you will know you have done what you could to effect a reconciliation. There will come into your heart a peace otherwise unattainable."
    - President Gordon B. Hinckley

    "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:29 p.m.

    When it was declared by the church that the family was under attack, I thought that it would be kinda subtle, in the way Satan usually works. But this...... is not what I expected. Trying to make immorality acceptable in the name of civil rights? To quote Star Wars, "Do not underestimate the Power of the Dark Side."

  • Steve
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:22 p.m.

    For the hundredth time, this is NOT a civil rights issue. It is an issue about morality and the definition of marriage. These people begin complaining about how they have no rights, and how there is so much discrimination against them. There are NO, and I repeat NO rights that are taken away from them. When you step back and look at the whole thing, it smells a good deal like a toddler whining because he/she thinks that he/she ought to be an exception to the rules. Or, more appropriately in this case, a toddler crying because the rules wont be altered so that they can get what they want.

  • Clueless
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:16 p.m.

    "Proposition 8 opponents said they will continue to fight for their civil rights."

    What right(s) are gays being denied? Civil unions in California provide partners with every legal right that marrige provides. Those who believe this is an issue about "rights" are clueless - YOU HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS!

  • Mvuvi
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:01 p.m.

    This whole debacle sounds like the argument off of Robin Williams "Bicentenial Man". I believe his whole wish was to be "recognized" as a human, not so he could have "EQUAL RIGHTS", but that he may be "defined" as such to be considered the "same" as everyone else. It kind of begs the question as to the motivation of individuals seeking a status symbol given from society. As if being granted the permission to be "married" gives one a sense of "acceptance" or "validation" of for your life-style preference. Is this an argument about equal rights, or more about a deeply seeded desire to be seen as "equal" on a moral level? Good thing I don't have to be the judge of that, but I think we could all do well to treat each other with respect and civility for our individual beliefs, as long as none of our legitimate and valid rights are not being infringed upon! I am a little confused at why people are so upset that a "religous" or "moral" group of people believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman! Isnt that the first thing their taught in bible class?

  • It's only a matter of time
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:57 p.m.

    George Clooney on marriage equality:

    "At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."

  • To Double Standard
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:51 p.m.

    The Church did not fund the proposition. The members donated their own money just like the other supporters of the bill. The protests themselves are targeting a certain population that was only a part of the population that supported it. That can be defined as racist just like someone who protests others because they are a certain race and that race supports a certain issue.

  • Jordan
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:49 p.m.

    I have no ill feeling towards homosexuals, but some choice prop 8 opponents are the biggest whiners and hypocrites I've ever seen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Gays have equal rights through civil unions or domestic partnerships? What they're looking for is equal acceptance. Well, sorry, most people disagree with your lifestyle, so deal with it. Doesn't mean they hate you.

    Quit pretending like everyone agrees with you. Prop 8 opponents who are calling for a boycott of Utah are laughable and overestimate their influence and importance in this world. Tourism will probably increase because of your call for a boycott. Quit perpetrating acts of hate towards those who you accuse of being bigots because they don't accept your lifestyle. Quit vandalizing Mormon churches and making yourselves look like total buffoons. Oh, wait, I guess that's too late. You've already succeeded in that.

    And, amen to Jayce Cox's comment. What a novel, idea... civil discourse.

  • re: Double Standard | 4:58 p.m.
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:47 p.m.

    "No one is vandalizing the temples, they are simply pointing out that the Church supports discrimination." That is not quite true and your assumtion that disagreeing regarding marraige is inherantly discriminatory is merely your opinion.
    "The Church helped fund misleading, dishonest ads about the potential repercussions of gay marriage." Actually there were a lot of dishonest and misleading ads coming from opponents, including the denial that there are repurcussions beyond marraige. Gay activists HAVE tried to force religious institutions into providing adoption and marraige when they do not agree - so please dont tell us it is benign and honest and fair. "They deserve to lose their tax exempt status and they deserve negative attention." Just like Martin Luther King? Does a religion only get tax exemption if their opinions match yours? "If they want people to respect them (as a group that has experienced persecution), they should return the favor." Same to you.

  • Misleading ads
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:42 p.m.

    How about the ad that Gay Marriage won't be taught in schools and the Teachers union pays millions to the anti prop 8 group?

  • Church Rights
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:40 p.m.

    No double standard! The Church has the right to assert its views and it did. Don't get offended for the church asserting its views. It did nothing illegal or outside the fair voting and election process.

    People can protest the election all they want, the church was not intimidating people the ways the church is now being intimidated by protestors.

  • Stewie
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:37 p.m.

    Double Standard - What about all the LDS Churches that have been vandalized? It wasn't just the LDS church that funded and supported the Prop 8, but many churches - Should all churches lose their tax exempt status? What about the tax exempt that was against Prop 8 Should they lose their tax exempt? - Why single out the LDS church when so many others were involved. It sounds like you are bitter over something more than gay marriage, almost like the LDS church did you a disservice years ago.

  • To Wayne
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:35 p.m.

    Did you know that Obama voters were a significant factor in the passage of Prop 8? Maybe you should be thanking him, not protesting him. Just saying.

  • to wayne
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:28 p.m.

    you can protest President Elect Barack Obama in four years.

  • Quick, Lets Vote Again
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:26 p.m.

    I want to re-consider my vote, which I had assumed was a vote for tolerance. I now recognize it as a mistake.

    Please, can we re-vote?

  • Rights?
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:16 p.m.

    Everyone HAS the "Right" to get married! The Majority of American defines Marriage as Man & Woman. Make a civil union, perform a religious ceremony whatever if you are gay, But Marriage = Man & Woman you may choose not to exercize it if you are not interested in that kind of relationship But you DO have the right.

  • Mark
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:15 p.m.

    Instead of Protesting, and causing property damage to get your point across. The homosexuals need to realize that in order to accomplish want they want, they are going to have to demonstrate that they are normal, and I don't mean heterosexual. I mean, they need to obey the law like everybody else, and use the law and lawmakers to pass legislation that is appropriate to their cause. I don't understand what the fuss is here. California has legal civil unions which carries the rights of marriage. So the argument that they do not have the same rights is bogus. I am confused as to what the homosexuals want. If you want respect, you need to show it. With the recent hateful bigoted actions of the homosexual community, many are losing respect for and care less about their cause. Good going homosexuals, continue to prove that you're not normal or play a normal role in society.

  • No Answers = no solution for you
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:12 p.m.

    To Utah family member in California @ 2:24PM,

    Emotional arguments have convinced your side, but why can't your side defend your arguments with any proof or at least logical answers to defend your stance?

    1) How is "being gay" not a choice? (First, define what you mean by gay). Everyone is born with the choice of who they will have sex with.

    2) How is defining marriage as between a man and a woman--which includes all humanity--discrimination?

    3) If the issue is only about civil rights for gays (see #2, marriage is available to them), then what civil rights are being taken away? None.

    4) What proof have you that no gays would seek the exact ramifications that prop 8 proponents say they will be able to seek (under law without the clarity of an ammendment)?

    5) How does not defining what marriage is, help families (who btw, the government has deemed a worthwhile institution to give benefits to, mainly for the sake of the children sired to those unions)? How does your cause not devalue that cause?

    6) How come gay unions can't approach the government for equalities based on the merits of gay unions, leaving marriage alone?

  • Stand your ground.
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:10 p.m.

    As the world's morals fall to lower levels the division between Christ's teachings and the world's behavior is going to get ever wider. At some point you may have to take your children out of public school so they're not subjected to garbage you don't want them exposed to. You may have to get rid of your TV/media when you find that you're blocking the majority of channels because of inappropriate programming created in the name of tolerance and artistry. At some point you may have to say enough is enough. Maybe it's time to stop doing nothing and take a stand.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:05 p.m.

    The civil rights of individuals in a democracy should not and cannot, by definition, be impinged by the majority. Why a basically sound institution like the LDS church has precipitated itself into this madness is hard to understand. No one in the Church has come up with legitimate theology. No one is asking the Church to sanctify gay marriages. Same sex civil unions hurt no one and I have yet to see an explanation of how they injure the concept of matrimony. The situation, sadly, is the same as it was for civil rights for Blacks and Women -somehow, allowing these things was going to be disastrous. But, we shall overcome.

  • Double Standard
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:58 p.m.

    It's ironic that the Church is complaining about the protests. No one is vandalizing the temples, they are simply pointing out that the Church supports discrimination. The Church helped fund misleading, dishonest ads about the potential repercussions of gay marriage. Without Church funding and support, Prop 8 wouldn't have passed. They deserve to lose their tax exempt status and they deserve negative attention. If they want people to respect them (as a group that has experienced persecution), they should return the favor.

  • Wayne
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:49 p.m.

    Where do I sign up for the protest over the election of Barack Obama?

    My side didn't win. Therefore either the majority cheated or they are just plain wrong. Who do I sue?

  • Do as I say not as I do
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:45 p.m.

    The gay marriage movement actions are certainly speaking louder than their words. The longer they go after the LDS church the worse they are going to look in the eyes of the public. The people have spoken...surely gay marriage movement leaders can be patience enough to wait for the liberals in the CA court system to turn over the people's will.

  • Brothers
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:24 p.m.

    I came out of the closet 21 years ago! We didnt need marriage then so why all the baby behavior now

  • What?
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:21 p.m.

    Article quote: "The battle over same-sex marriage will not end anytime soon. This week, 44 state legislators filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of opponents of the gay-marriage ban. They maintain the initiative process was used improperly."

    And just how, EXACTLY, was the "initiative process used improperly?"

    The proposition received at least the minimal number of complaintant signatures, handed in to the proper authorities before the petition deadline and the proposition was put on the ballot and it was voted on by legal citizens of CA and the gay crowd lost. Come on, come on, what pathetic argument are you going to cook up now?

  • Alex
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:12 p.m.

    I have been an active participant in the Prop. 102 campaign here in Arizona and was so pleased that the people of California, Arizona, and Florida did the right thing by adding a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.

    As unequivocal as I have been in defense of marriage, however, I will not boycott somebody just because they voted against the amendment. That is just not right. The only way I would consider it is if they started getting belligerent about it. Then I might.

  • Tom in San Diego
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:02 p.m.

    I am LDS. I support traditional marriage. However, I would not normally get personally involved in supporting or opposing a political issue. In this case, however, our Church leaders encouraged us to donate our means and our time and effort to preserve the definition of marriage.

    As a result, I donated money in support of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. I made telephone calls. I held signs. I walked neighborhoods.

    Repeately, our Church leaders also encouraged us to show respect and love for those who oppose our view. Repeatedly Church leaders made clear that support of marriage was not, and should not, be rooted in "hate" or dislike for homosexuals. We are encouraged to be sympathetic and empathetic toward those who feel "same-sex" attraction. Nevertheless, that love and respect does not require that we embrace and accept principles that both ancient and modern prophets have taught are contrary to God's precepts.

    After experiencing the hate that has and continues to spew from the "No on 8" crowd, I am determined more than ever to continue taking a stand in defence of traditional marriage. I will not be bullied or intimidated. Next time I will donate more.

  • Why is this the Mormons fault?
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:01 p.m.

    I dont understand how this has become a Mormon issue. Many people of a variety of faiths, beliefs, and ethnicities agreed that this proposition should pass. That is what is great about this Country. The people decide and the people have spoken. I agree with others in that I would have much more respect of the gay community if they handled this in a mature manner and regrouped and sought recourse. Instead they have alienated the opposition further and have hurt their cause. Bottom line, get over it and work to express you ideas, concerns, and position in a manner that allows those that disagree to listen and perhaps understand. There is no need for the hateful diatribes that are commonly found on here against Mormons.

  • Question?
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:57 p.m.

    What if for arguments sake, we say that most people who claim to be gay were born that way (I know that we see especially young girls, who think it is trendy to like other young girls). I am talking about the majority of gay people who are claiming that they were born that way. I personally believe that I will take them at their word. Now if you were in favor of Prop 8, ask yourself without any religion coming into your mind, what do you think they should do? Some people claim that they already have the same rights as the rest of us married people have. However, they are not "MARRIED" like we are. So they don't have ALL of the same rights we do. Now, imagine that you were born that way. Would there be any difference between someone born gay and someone born white, black, autistic, handicaped, short, tall or any other way you could be born. Since people who are in opposition to Prop 8 see the majority of the gay population this way, then I hope this may shed some on the other side. Prop 8 is fear of what might happen.

  • prop 8er
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:49 p.m.

    Boycotting Utah? hurray, hurray and wahoo!!! please visit elsewhere in the world. On second thought, why not live there?

  • Robert
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:36 p.m.

    Wow! Thank goodness the Deseret News gives all of you a place to vent. The reality is there are hateful people on both sides of this issue. Enough of the stereotyping whoever you are and whatever side you are on.

  • For the cause of love
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:26 p.m.

    this is from an email I got from the human rights campaign "Our cause is love; and only through love can we win the freedom to marry. In the streets, in boardrooms, in church fellowship halls, and over coffee, our message must be clear and consistent: we love our soul mates; we love our families; we love our communities; we love and respect our neighbors - and we expect love and respect in return." I share this with you in the hopes that you will understand where some of us from the pro gay marraige side of the debate are coming from and remond some of us on the pro marraige side what we are after. The reason for the email was to help people refocus on the goal and away from some of the hostility but make no mistake that does not mean we will stop protesting and working towards our goal.

  • Utah family member living in CA
    Nov. 13, 2008 2:24 p.m.

    All you people espousing anti-gay sentiment don't seem to understand that being gay is not a choice and you could very well end up with a gay son or daughter, brother or sister, or relative. It happens to religious and conservative families all the time. I know, because it happened in my family.

    Discrimination in all forms is wrong, and to insert it into our state constitutions is horribly wrong. You are welcome to whatever religious views you want, but our country is greater and better than that.

    The frequently-aired ads used in California to secure the passage of Prop. 8 were slick and deceptive. The issue is about civil rights for gay Americans... nothing more, nothing less.

  • Dan
    Nov. 13, 2008 2:05 p.m.

    To 12:54: Nothing in Prop 8 affected the regulations and guidelines of what is/may be taught in public school in California. This argument was a canard. It is simply false. It had nothing to do with school curricula. Catholic adoption service closed rather than abide by state law, but the only reason it had to abide by state law is because it accepted state funds and participated in state arranged adoption services. You can be a public agency or quasi-public agency and discriminate. No fully private entity has been silenced or forced to alter their beliefs.

    These arguments are simply made up. Please google "Morris A. Thurston" if you don't believe me. He's an active, straight Mormon attorney who wrote a piece deconstructing these bogus arguments made in favor of Prop 8.

  • 4prop8
    Nov. 13, 2008 2:05 p.m.

    You are right!
    A lot of non-Mormons voted just the way I would have voted if I still lived there. Where are the rights of the yes voters? Who is protecting us and our families from the hate crimes?
    I say Yes voters should boycott people who contributed to no on prop 8 (not voted, they have a right) and those who are supporting them from the media and the entertainment field. It is no mistake that the gays have become represented by entertainment sources and the media. It is their way of slowly breaking down society to match their agenda. It has merely escalated now to extreme annoyance and lawlessness. They are trying to wear everyone out. What an immature way to get your way.

  • Re: boycotting
    Nov. 13, 2008 2:02 p.m.

    To add to the list of companies donating to the no on 8 side, you can add Apple! So all you I-Pod wanters - maybe think again! I'm sure there are many more companies, but it is hard to find a list of those who donated to the No on 8 - but VERY easy to find those who donated to Yes! So - no more McDonalds, no more Levi Jeans, no more Apple computers and gadgets! Do you think the small Mormon population would have a big effect? Maybe at McDonalds ------ especially in Utah!

  • More Government?
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:59 p.m.

    When did marriage become a constitutional right? There is nothing in the constitution that mentions marriage. How does marriage implicitly bestow happiness on those who practice it. Those who are unhappy before marriage are unhappy after marriage. If a homosexual lifestyle doesn't make you happy, marriage isn't going to improve your situation. If the government deems to give tax advantages to heterosexual couples who care for children to encourage a particular social behavior, that is their right. Maybe smokers should protest the "unfair" taxes that they pay for their behavior. Personally I would be glad to get rid of any governmental involvement in marriage and leave it entirely to churches, but that wouldn't really change anything, as the professional victims would still find something or someone else to blame for the result of their own miserable choices.

  • RE: Religious Exemption
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:52 p.m.

    Dufuss...have you heard of Canada where LDS temples only perform sealings in the temple after the couple receive their "marriage license" because same sex marriage was approved there?

    They are still wrestling with the issue in Mass. regarding how to protect the religions prohibition to these marriages. It is not a done deal. Lawsuits all over this nation are being won based on precendence.

    Speaking of Catholics. Because they ban adoptions to same sex marriages and the Court there mandated that if they adopt to marriages of any sort they have to adopt to same-sex marriages. The Catholic Church now, to protect itself from the court mandate (and now legal precedence) no longer perform adoptions in that state. So don't preach about how the law protects religions or somehow gives them exemption. IT doesn't

    So quit pretending to be an expert in law.

  • boycott
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:52 p.m.

    I am going to start boycotting gay businesses now because of their stance and reaction to the outcome of proposition 8. There are many more strait businesses that need my money now that the economy is in shambles. If they want to boycott Utah, go ahead. I'm going to boycott them!

  • Change of heart
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:49 p.m.

    I was sympathetic to the "No on 8" crowd and sensitive to their cause.

    Now all of that has changed.

    This kind of anarchy will bring a backlash that will do far more harm to the gay rights cause.

    Eventually, people are going to start getting hurt.

    The best thing for the "No on 8" and gay rights folks to do is to show some class and re-group and try again.

    The majority has spoken. Burning churches and threatening people will only change hearts for the worse, not better.

    Do we really want to go down the road of violence escalating into the situation in Jerusalem or Ireland where someone from one side is attacked or even killed and then the other side attacks/kills in retaliation?

    Stop, take a deep breath, think ...

  • Tim
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:47 p.m.

    All the "No on prop 8" people are saying that Mormons took away their rights. How can you take away something that you never had?

  • Laws and majorities
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:45 p.m.

    Let's see, if I think it should be legal to drink at age 13, and we pass a law affirming that it is illegal to do so until your 21 (or in the case of prohibition - never) then the rule of law was affirmed. I therefore can not complain that my rights were violated.

    Here is the problem. If same sex marriage were approved would my rights to protect my children from deplorable sexual deviancy teachings in public schools, which I pay for in my taxes, be trampled upon? My rights were upheld by the majority of Californians and we will win in the courts to continue to protect us from such sickness.

  • How about some stats?
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:42 p.m.

    3.86% of the yes vote in California can be attributed to LDS members. LDS members represent slightly less than 3% of the total vote in the State. 70% of Blacks and 68% of Hispanics voted for Prop 8. Whites were barely a majority in favor of Prop 8. Catholics were 49.5%, and Evangelicals were 78%. So thanks to Black and Hispanics we maintained our protection of marriage in California.

    Also, stop whining about rights. No one has lost one single right. However, those whose belief is that the term marriage is reserved for a union between a man and a woman have had their rights affirmed. Homosexuals have the same rights as marrieds in California they just can't call it marriage they can call it Civil Unions.

  • REligious Exemption
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:38 p.m.

    It shows you weren't educated as to the laws of California or any other state that allows gay marriage...and the Yes on 8 campaign did a great job of distorting the truth. THERE IS A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION TO THE LAW. No one is forcing clergy to marry other people. Just like Catholics aren't forced to perform marriages for Protestants. And besides, who would want to get married at a place where they aren't welcomed? There are plenty of churches willing and eager to preform same-sex marriages. We don't need the ones who aren't. But again, the law protects against that...EXPLICITLY.

    There is an LDS temple in Boston...5 years after marriage equality was one there, have you heard of a single gay person banging on the door there demanding to get married?

    But, now you took a way people rights.

  • To davidduke
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:32 p.m.

    Are you by chance the same David Duke who was a leader of the KKK or White Supremacist group or something, or just using his name? If you are THAT David Duke I think you hate everyone equally - Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, Mormons, Christians in general, etc!

    I would not be ashamed to belong to any religious group standing up for the beliefs they hold sacred. I applaud the Catholics, the Mormons, the Evangelicals, Baptists, and any others who believe the Bible to be the word of their God, and defend the laws of God as they know them.

  • re JPL 12:21
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:31 p.m.

    Actually, quite a few states have laws against gay sex on their books (including Utah, btw). They can no longer enforce, them, however, due to the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence vs Texas. Just so you know.

  • The left
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:29 p.m.

    Preaches love and acceptance only when you see it there way, then it is ok to be a hypocrite and do hate crimes and persecute those who don't agree with you!

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:26 p.m.

    To those who accuse those of us who do not reveal our addresses of being cowards. I tried to do so, but the Deseret News would not publish my appdress. So it is not my fault that you can not come and find my house to protest in front of it.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:24 p.m.

    To the 12:56 commentator,
    I have never watched Rush or Hanity, and I only marginally watched O'Reilly's show about once five or so years ago.
    You do not have a right to smoke cigaretts. I am not sure where people keep coming up with these more and more bizarre rights

  • Tim
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:23 p.m.

    There are approx 770,000 LDS members in California. That includes men, women and children. As you know Mormons have large families. That could mean that at least half or more are minors and unable to vote. That leaves approx 380,000 voting members. How does 380,000 votes (which some of those 380,000 were against prop 8) compared to the population of California as a whole make such a huge difference that the LDS church is being targeted? Its obvious that not every vote for prop 8 was by a mormon.

  • voted yes
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:20 p.m.

    I voted yes on 8, not because I hate, but because I was concerned that an active and vocal minority of the proponents of same-sex marriage would begin to attack and sue religious organizations for believing that marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman. Organized efforts to strip the LDS church of its tax-exempt status suggest that my concerns about religious liberty may be justified...

  • East Coast Perspective
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:16 p.m.

    It doesnt matter what is or is not going on in massachusetts. Their parental notification laws are different than the laws in california. cali has the strongest parental notification laws around.

    I don't think the gays are showing an ugly face. I think they have finally had enough of people telling them what rights they can and cannot exercise based on what some people's religious beliefs are. I'm in a different part of the country, but I can tell you people here are appalled at the Mormon Church and supportive of the gays and lesbians. The east coast is crawling with Repeal H8 stickers. Even the K of C here is decrying the LDS and they were your bedfellows. People know about the priesthood ban on blacks, the ERA defeat, and people know gay LDS members who have been treated deplorably by the church. You can only trample on people's rights for so long before you get called out on it. Its like a poking a kid on the playground repeatedly. You keep poking, you are eventually going to get swatted down.

  • Comical Radicals
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:10 p.m.

    I have to laugh at how a bunch of these idiots, who disregard our form of government by fighting against and protesting the results of a vote, are targeting the Mormon Church in their ranting. Fact is that in California, they may compromise maybe 4% of the total vote. Why are they not protesting the African American or Hispanic population who overwhelmingly supported Prop 8? Churches are an easy and politically correct target. The Mormon church had very little to do with this passing but many like to hate the Mormon church and I guess if it makes you feel better knock yourself out.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:09 p.m.

    To the 10:58 commentator,
    I have never heard of Mark Danzig. I did a wikipedia search for the name and then a google search. I have come up with a Mark Danzig who is a Kmart executive, a Mark Danzig who was an advisor to Obama and may still be, and some other references but am still totally in the dark to what in the world your are talking about.

  • your not victims
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:09 p.m.

    Wait, the gay community is being unfair and hatful? who exactly was it that invaded other peoples homes and life's telling them that they where no longer allowed to be married, that their love was not real and cast them as less then the rest of us? Oh thats right the LDS church and other religious organizations. Yes you where very successful in your witch hunt but you are not the first time a successfully fool a majority under the banner of moral self righteousness and fear. Sorry, you do not want to deal with the consequences of your actions but stop trying to play the victim card.

  • # of complaints? short time!
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:03 p.m.

    This seems odd that so many comments have hit the Des News in a short time of 6 hours.

    Is this a concerted effort of a group? Has the Des News been holding these?

    Anyone who watches the comments realize that this does not happen here often.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:01 p.m.

    To jt,
    I agree the maligning of Wyoming for the death of Sheppherd is the stupidest incident ever.
    Let us see. Sheppherd's killers are both serving LIFE sentances for murder. There is evidence that Shepherd's killer had had sex with men as well as women on some occasions. He was clearly on drugs, and the easiest way to explain the violence was he was in a Meth-induced fit of rage.
    Sheperd's death was a cruesome murder, but the people who have used it to call for hate crimes legislation have to misrepresent the facts. Since his killers are serving the maximum penalty for their crime, hate crimes legislation would have done nothing, and the evidence is less than conclusive that the murder of Sheppherd was a hate crime at all.

  • One saying applies here...
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:58 p.m.

    I can think of one saying that describes the G&L reaction to the passage of Prop 8, and their castigation of the LDS community and threats against those who supported Prop 8?

    The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

  • I repeat...for closed ears
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:57 p.m.

    Dan from 12:20,

    I respect your claim that people are rallying behind something that doesn't affect them. But I disagree. If this issue were solely about gay unions being recognized by the government with the same benefits the government gives to marriage, then why is the definition of marriage called into question? There is more at stake!

    Changing the definition of marriage affects everyone, the unmarried and the married. Everyone! It has implications on any word associated with marriage, including: bride, groom, family, children, and even society. Why must the definition of marriage be degraded for a union that is outside marriage? Why can't that union stand on its own merits, instead of bringing down the merits of what marriage is? No one says that gays can't have their unions. What they do doesn't affect me, but what they call it, does.

    I have explained how redefining what society upholds will affect everyone, over and over. If you don't get it after this explanation, then maybe you are incapable of understanding it. You then should not speak for marriage rights advocates or for other groups seeking that status. Changing the very definition of marriage changes the status of any marriage.

  • Joe citizen
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:57 p.m.

    The vote was held, the population had its say. Whats to argue?

  • re JPL
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:56 p.m.

    been watching Rush O Hannity much? Honestly, the point is that there are consequences for actions. Everyone has the right to their beliefs, but when they put money to change laws behind those beliefs, they should rightfully expect there will be consequences. I have the RIGHT to smoke cigarettes, but I certainly should realize if I choose to do that, there will be consequences.

  • davidduke
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:56 p.m.

    Once again the Mormons have succeded in elevating their religion to national ridicule. Is this any differnt than the Mormon's discrimination against African Americans not so long ago?

    Regardless of your 'feelings' towards homosexuals your religion's image was and is being tarnished over something the elders should of known better than to stick their nose in. dumb. Are you happy?
    Really. Are you a happy mormon today or one who has an uneasy feeling in your gut that something just ain't right about this whole shenanigan?

  • to Dan:
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:54 p.m.

    Doesn't affect us in the least bit? Please think before you utter nonsense. How about the impact on school education for starters? It is already happening in CA schools even before the Prop 8 discussion. How about what is happening in Mass? All wihtout parental notification. How about the affect on the Catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt to gay couples? Clearly, only one side tolerates others' beliefs. I could go on, but hopefully, the ignorance of your statement is clear now.

  • Nate
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:48 p.m.

    Reading all these protests and how they are doing it reminds me a lot of how my 5 yea old reacted when I told him we could not get hm a crab for a pet. He pouted, told me I was the meanest dad in the world and told me how unfair it is. One thing that every parent knows... When you child throws a temper tantrum the LAST thing you do is give them what they want.

    This is very disappointing and childish behavior, I really wish they would act more mature.

  • Sleeping Giant
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:47 p.m.

    Married gay couples are filing suits to protect their marriages. If their marriages are now invalid, then Prop 8 is an Ex Post Facto law, clearly in violation of the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 9: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    If some gays are allowed to wed, and other as not based simply on timing, then California is violating the 14th Amendment by not granting Equal Protection under the Law:

    XIV Amendment

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  • To: Rich @ 11:11 a.m.
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:46 p.m.

    Hey Rich,

    This God that you are talking about that teaches equality, is He the same God that created one man and one woman to begin life on earth? Is He the same God that made it that one man and one woman would need to join together to create life? Or is he a different God than the one that created this world and all things on it?

  • Morals aside...
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:45 p.m.

    ...these G&L folks are just nasty mean!

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:44 p.m.

    From a statement by ProtectMarriage
    "Protests and boycotts have taken place against a Hispanic restaurant owner in Los Angeles, African American religious leaders in the Bay Area, and a musical theater director in Sacramento, among many others."
    There is an expanding breadth of hate.
    The enemies of prop 8 are engaging in attacks on African-Americans and Latinos. I have seen claims on this board that the citizenship of Latino voters should be revoked. Racial epithets were thrown at African-Americans who showed up with "No on 8 signs" to protest in front of the LA Temple. The pro-same-sex marriage people are so hate filled they vilify their allies.
    The main stream media seems to be trying to hide these hate-filled attacks on Latinos and African-Ameircans. I hope the truth gets out soon.

  • G&L Hate
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    The G&L community is the least tolerant, most hateful group of folks I've witnessed in a long time. They want tolernace, love, & respect but show none to others who don't agree to their every demand.

    Nov. 13, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    You Mormons are just a big bunch of crybabies, enjoying your status as the poor persecuted and misunderstood Christians standing up for righeousness.

  • Nathan
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:36 p.m.

    The problem is, is that everyone knows that they can take cheap shots at the LDS church because most faithful LDS people just let petty things roll of their backs. You see the LDS being targeted in movies, television, and even music. I am not LDS, but it takes strong, admirable people to put up with so much critizism.

    As for Proposition 8. No rights were taken away, a definition was made. Deal with it. People voted, and I am sure that there are plenty of gay people that didn't get out to vote. I really think that gay people are enjoying what is going on because they "pride" themselves by making big public disturbances. If Proposition 8 wasn't voted for, they would be partying in the streets, making the same disturbances for people who are just trying to go about their lives. We get it, you are gay, you like being gay. good for you. Do your thing, and stop making yourself a victim.

    I know my LDS neighbors befriend everyone, even a cranky old man like me, and I know that most of them have a strong love and tolerance for everyone, including gays.

  • Jeannie
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:32 p.m.

    to 12:11: Thanks for the silly semantics. It's all so clear now.

  • Big Dave
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:31 p.m.

    Gays have shown their ugly face during this campaign. They have shown their intolerance toward everyone who doesn't see things through the same pair of foggy, screwed up lenses. They have shown their total disregard toward democracy and the vote and voice of the people. They have shown their sleaziness with their internet prop 8 propaganda video's. They have shown all America that they care not for other but only for themselves and are willing stoop to any level to force their twisted ways on people. I know this, I have much LESS tolerance toward this group than before the election.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:28 p.m.

    To Bob,
    The use of tithing to defend a sacred institution like marriage is 100% ok by me.
    I pay my tithing to the church and trust that the First Presidency, Quorum of the 12 and Presiding Bishopric will use it in a beneficial way. If they don't, they will have to answer to the Lord, not me.
    That said, there was very little money used by the church in this campaign. They made an inkind donation of less than $3000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.
    The money that people are talking about is the millions of dolars donated by thousands of church members throughout California. Little Juan in the San Fernado Valley probably took the $20 in his piggy bank that he was going to use to fund his mission and gave them to the Protect Marriage people so that his little brother Francisco would not have to be exposed to the idea that a prince can marry a prince in kindergarten.
    A member family in San Jose donated a few thousand dollars and then found a hate van parked in front of their house.

  • less gay tolerance
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:23 p.m.

    this gay marriage thing has done one thing for me personally - made me much less tolerant of gays and more determined to see their rights put on ice. I think the entire country has seen the real face of the gay crowd during this campaign and has been angered and frustrated with their behavior.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:21 p.m.

    The 14th Admendment bans distinctions in law based on race, but says nothing about distinctions based on sex. There is no provision in the 14th Admendment that bans legal distinctions based on sex.
    That was the whole point of the ERA, which was defeated. So there is no constitutional grouds to argue that a law defining marriage as only the union of a man and a woman is not legally binding.
    On the other hand there are no laws in any state that criminalize homosexual acts. People can have sex with anyone they want, well, actually there are incest and anti-polygamy laws. Oh, I guess if you really believe that the government should not be prying into people's bedrooms and any two adults have a right to love each other, you should work on repaealing those laws.

  • Dan
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:20 p.m.

    Mike @ 11:04

    Can you explain how same-sex marriage will "burden [you] and [your] children in the form of higher taxes, more military service, less available mates for [your] children" ?

    That's the thing that has bugged me the most is that this whole thing started because people rallied against something that doesn't affect them in the least bit!

  • its alright
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:18 p.m.

    I agree that when people cross the line into threats of violence, violence and destruction of property then they should be arrested and face the consequences of their actions (including being charged with hate crimes if appropriate). However, people have the right to protest and boycott against perceived wrongs. I am not sure exactly why the LDS church and supporters of prop 8 seems so surprised by the protest, when you decide to take a public stand people may take offense and may decide to protest and boycott you. The LGBT community is far from the first to do so, many christen organizations have protested and called for boycotts over perceived wrongs over the years. Democracy and freedom is sometimes messy but it is worth it.

  • to Mike C
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:15 p.m.

    Mike C- "the form of higher taxes, more military service, less available mates for my children, than it is very much my business to vote how I most think will affect my and their future."

    First of all, Don't Ask Don't Tell prevents all gay people from serving. So whether or not gays get married doesn't at all effect military service.

    Secondly, "higher taxes"- explain to me exactly how gays getting married leads to higher taxes? it doesn't. at all.

    Third, "available mates for your children." That's just rediculous. You really want your kid to marry a gay person? I can guarantee you that won't produce children and will leave your kid lonely, miserable, and probably divorced.

    So...what's your point? how does it effect you?

  • laws correct/clarify falsehoods
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:11 p.m.

    To Roger Carrier,

    No one voted against Gay Marriage. And there was no law passed against Gay Marriage. The law was simply ammended, in order to clearly define what the word marriage already meant.

    The law didn't even bother with the terms you use together--Gay Marriage. What is that? If you dissect those words meanings you come up with language that is ambiguous at best.

    The nation has yet to pass a law that doesn't allow a gay person to get married--hence no law against gay marriage. That would go against civil rights, which is not the case.

    Since marriage involves a man and a woman, I guess for a gay marriage the only requirement is that either the male or the female, or both participants, are gay. I guess. It really isn't defined, is it? Which calls to question, what exactly is gay? Who do we even mean when we use that word? Inclinations or actually acting on those inclinations?

    You see, you don't do anyone any favors by not allowing the law to define the ambiguities.

  • bob
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:08 p.m.

    cox you are not a member on the LDS church, if you where you would know better. What I have seen is the guy people are not loving people or do not believe in the will of the people. Do you want your own county? Or do you want to live with all American? Have you Guy people seen other go out in the street and act like you, no when the courts said guy marriage was ok no one I mean no one run out is the streets like you. Please stop, Please stop.

  • learn the law
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:07 p.m.

    Marriage is not a right it is a "set of legal obligations!!!!!!" No right was taken from gays in California. They have the right to marry just as I do--- to a person of the oppisite sex! That is the same right that straight people have. As far as their rights go they have the same rights as married straight people do under the cival union and domestic partner laws. So once again I ask what rights were taken from them? NONE They just want the rest of to accept their life style as normal or okay. I believe they have the right to chose the life style they want but---they do not have the right to force me to accept it. All this protesting and distruction only shows the true colors of the oppostion. Is their real mission to distroy religion because most do not agree with them? My advice--if you want the rest of us to take you seriously---stop acting like a spoiled child who didn't get their own way.

  • Matno
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:04 p.m.

    MT in MD, you hit the nail on the head. Too many people here are talking about gay "rights" that do not exist. Nobody has any special rights in this conflict, and yet the same-sex movement would have us believe that society is somehow depriving them of a "right" when we don't put their unions under the same definition as a marriage. All of their fundamental rights are still intact and protected just like everyone else's. Why do they insist on getting additional "rights" created just for them? If they want to form a unit of society that is different, they have to realize that they are already getting special "rights" when the state grants them the same benefits and privileges that it grants to a family. My single neighbor has great insurance coverage but no family. Should I demand that I be covered under her policy? (After all, we are good friends). Maybe its time for the gay lobby to start being grateful for the special treatment we already give them and stop using religious bigotry and name calling to try to embarrass good people who are just standing up for what they believe in.

  • JG
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:04 p.m.

    All of you are so right.. I am outside my house name calling and acting out.. I guess waving toward your neighbor and getting nothing in return is too much to ask.. And please, it's not neighbor, it's neighbor(s). We even attend our neighborhood July 24th party and never felt so isolated. Were we excited about the celebration of that date? Nope, not at all but respected the tradition.

    And the "move if you don't like it" comment.. Love it.. Sorry.. I'm here to stay. I've lived in quite a few states and have never experienced the seperatist feeling of Utah.

    I've heard rumors of such neighborhoods where LDS and non's get along.. Just haven't seen it in person.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:03 p.m.

    Proposition 8 was about protecting children from attacks. Learn about the kindergarten children in Hayward, California who were being taught about coming out day without any warning being given to the parents.
    The radical elements within the homosexual movement are trying to corrupt five year olds. Notice I said radial elements, not everyone who practices homosexuality let alone everyone who feels such inclinations is involved in these totally sick actions, but there are those in the movement who have no problem urging their agenda on kindergartners, and if they were able to redifine marriage as a basic, inalienable right there would be no stopping them.

  • stop your hate now
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:59 a.m.

    What is most surprising is that mormons, as a persecuted group, are so happy to persecute another group!! Why should you give a rat's behind as to how other people want to love each other? I have a great idea, let's pass a referendum that says that mormons are not fit to raise children (let's not forget what happened in texas recently). i am sure a lot of mainstream americans would support such a referendum. How would you feel then, all of you bigots who are so gleeful that you "won"? Don't forget, while you are so giddy with the victory of your hateful agenda, that most Americans perceive the mormons as a cult, and i believe with good reason. Isn't it in cults that members blindly follow the directives of leaders? That is exactly what has happened here. People who are not capable of independent thought join the 'pile-on' against any weaker group. Open your eyes.

  • Amercenary
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:56 a.m.

    Matt 8:37 See American history October 27,1838 Missouri Executive Order 44. Not only were "Mormons" marriages forbidden, but "Mormons" were forbidden to live in the state of Missouri.

    Check your history. Nothing in Prop 8 says that "Gays and Lesbians" are forbidden to live in the state of California.

    Missouri Executive order stood until 1976.

    Let me see if I understand you correctly I as a "Mormon" am not allowed by executive order to live in the state of Missouri until after 1976. You want my sympathy for a minority with a chosen life style that is being forbidden the rights of marriage where in this country has the gay community been given an excutive order to leave this state or die?

  • people have spoken
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:52 a.m.

    Yes, this is a democracy and people do have the right to vote on things, but the US Supreme Court established that marriage is a fundamental right in the case of Loving V. Virginia back in 1967. Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, all citizens are supposed to be given due process and equal rights, thus this issue should never have been brought before the voters.

    Nate, the voters are the people. This is a government created for the people by the people. The government is our servant and not vise-versa. If the government does not listen to the will of the people, they can be replaced even the judges if necessary. Read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, it outlines the process beautifully.

  • if proposition 8 hadn't passed?
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:50 a.m.

    if prop 8 got hadn't passed...would gay activists still protest on LDS church property for supporting prop 8 even thought it hadn't passed?

  • Your attacks honor my position
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:50 a.m.

    Claim I am hateful: boycott me, yell at me, vandalize my property, and demean me and my religion. Call me names: call me a homophobe or whatever you want. Call me a liar. Say I am in the wrong and you are in the right. None of that changes the truth:

    No matter what, MARRIAGE REMAINS DEFINED BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. For the purpose of upholding everyone's best interest, I advocate marriage's definition be upheld so that the fundamental unit of society can be upheld. I believe my position best benefits everyone. Whether male or female--which constitutes all of humanity--marriage remains equally available to all. I am sad if you exclude yourself from marriage as it is defined, If marriage as it is defined is not what you want, than rather than attack what marriage is, doesn't it make more sense to go directly after benefits for your unique unions.

    I will still treat you w/ civility as a human. I will uphold your freedoms, including all your rights; allowing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I will respect your vote on issues. I will even try to understand your position. Will you?

  • Re being told to donate
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:49 a.m.

    I'm a California active LDS person. I was ASKED to donate, along with doing all I could to support Proposition 8. During this same period I needed to renew my temple recommend, and neither my Bishop or the Stake President asked me ANYTHING about politics. Just the same questions as prescribed in the handbook. Period.

    Did I donate? Did I walk the neighborhoods? Did I pass out literature? Did I vote yes? Only I would know that. Neither my Bishop or any other leaders in my Stake in Northern California have EVER asked. If it happened in other areas it was overzealousy on the part of the leaders.

  • To Protests are Fair and Healthy
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:47 a.m.

    Someone with their head in the sand wrote: "Also, there weren't gay-funded Mormon-bashing commercials ..."

    That is absolutely false. There was a commercial portraying two Mormon missionaries entering a lesbian couple's home and bullying them while searching for their wedding certificate so they could gleefully tear it up in their faces. For crying out loud, it even showed them giving the underwear in their drawers a nice squeeze while they were rummaging through them.

    Protests are fair and healthy -- as long as they are respectful. People would have a lot more respect for the gay crowd if they held respectful protests. Instead they're acting like a bunch of lunatics. Did you see the goon who tore a cross out of an old lady's hand at the protest yesterday. They threw the cross on the ground and stomped on it, then this moron kept shoving his "No on 8" placard in the lady's face.

    Utterly discraceful. Your crowd is the only one who has the right to protest and let their thoughts be known?

    What an embarrassment to today's society.

  • @jfs
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:45 a.m.

    I am not sure if you are aware of this jfs but those rainbow organizations you speak of including equality Utah and Equality California are not tax exempt because they do lobby. Some of the people calling for the tax exempt status to be removed from the LDS church is based on their belief that it creates an uneven playing field by giving the LDs church an unfair funding edge. I personally really do not care but I thought you should know.

  • Nate
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:44 a.m.

    To 10:07: Public funds, use of public property, public interest.

    In those cases you cite, the entities were either receiving taxpayer funds or using public property. You cannot participate in public programs (even if you call yourself private) and discriminate. There is not a single case where a fully private institution has had its free speech or rights restricted.

  • PapaBear
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:42 a.m.

    The Gay Rights folks have their rights to their beliefs and opinions ,they just do not believe that others should have the same rights . The majority does not count any more. The california problem just inforces my belief ,that the individual vote means NOTHING...

  • KathyB
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:39 a.m.

    This issue is not about politics OR religion- it's all about the MONEY. Gays wouldn't seek marriage if there wasn't some economic benefit to it- tax breaks, legal rights to estates, etc. If they want those things, that's not wrong. But it is my right to practice my religion's belief about what I believe God calls a marriage.

  • Feel Like Ralphing
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:38 a.m.

    Yo, Ralph, did you happen to catch the "No on 8" ad that portrayed two Mormon missionaries bullying their way into a Lesbian household, going through their underwear drawers and tearing up their wedding certificate in their faces?

    How accurate was that?

    Show me one instance where that has happened?

    Yet everyone rails on the Yes on 8 ads that claim gay marriage will become acceptable to be taught in schools -- this when there was a clear case where a class of first graders attended a lesbian wedding on a field trip.

    So which side had the most deceptive ads again?

  • optimistic
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:38 a.m.

    Hey look on the bright side, they are only carrying around signs and chanting. At least they aren't ransacking our houses or dragging us out in the street and tarring and feathering us like people in the past have when they didn't agree with us.

  • To Bob
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:34 a.m.

    What an uninformed opinion. Absolutely no money came from tithing funds, tithing interest, or any other church sources.

    The money donated by individual Mormons accounted for approximately 40-50% of the money raised by the Prop 8 side. The anti-8 people have sites which actually name or identify donators - and appear to be using the information to make personal attacks on those individuals. The case of the director of a California Theater Group (for over 25 years), was targeted, and chose to resign rather than have the anti-8's hurt the group. The Catholic dairyman was 'outed' and is being personally harassed.

    Perhaps all pro-8's should look at who donated to the anti-8 side and boycott/protest against them? Perhaps not buy any more Corel software for example as at least a million was donated by the founder who lives in Utah. Also big companies such as McDonalds, Levi Strauss, PG&E and others. No more WordPerfect, burgers or jeans, and develop alternative sources of energy so we don't have to be dependent on PG&E in our neck of the woods. Tit for tat would not work.

    Anti-8 protesters are wrong to protest in the way they are doing.

  • Re: Matt | 8:37 a.m. Nov. 13, 20
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:33 a.m.

    I agree. Mormons have never had their marriage practices under attack, mormons have never been targeted, belittled, acused of indoctrinating youth, had the law used against them, and been denied the right to life, murdered, ravaged, or tortured, or kicked out of their homes in the middle of the night, watched their sick die, moved from home to home, city to city, state to state.

    They wouldnt know how to judge in this situation right??

  • Pete
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:32 a.m.

    I am not sure of all of the religious arguments about this, but I do understand that it is, legally, a slippery slope to start down if you give gays and lesbians a constitutional right to marraige. I have nothing against them getting this right . . . I am just pointing out it will open the door for lots of other groups can make their arguments that they should be able to marry whoever they want too.

  • No end in sight
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:32 a.m.

    "Matt, your 8:37 comment is really useful I think. People should step back and try to see how they would feel and react if the shoe were on the other foot."

    Couldn't agree more for both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, this is an ultra-emotional issue. The religionists see it as good vs evil. The uneducated can't see past the "ick" factor of the homosexual. Gays and their supports see it as a civil rights issue. There is no common ground. It ain't gonna happen.

    These verbal poundings will continue as long as DesNews prints articles.

  • Stop and think
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:32 a.m.

    The riots and hurtful media regarding Prop 8 against Christian beliefs and especially the Mormons are HORRIBLE. Mormons show love and understanding to others no matter individuals circumstances, color, decisions or beliefs. All I ask is the same in return. Its easier to be understanding of a group that isn't yelling insults. As a people we can all be understanding of others wants and wishes, but being understanding doesnt mean we have to agree with them. If respect is not given how do gays expect to be treated in return? Those of you who are Mormon, or not Mormon, may be pro 8, or against 8. It doesn't matter... What matters is that whichever side of the fence you are on, treat the other side with RESPECT. Yes, this country is a free country, but living in a free country doesn't make it okay to publicly criticize, harass, insult, slander, or punish one another. Just because a church tries to protect a belief doesn't mean anyone opposing are bigots and it doesn't mean the church hates the people doing whatever they don't believe in - it just means the church has principle and enough sense to stand up for it.

  • James
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:25 a.m.

    You would think that a group like the LDS, who have themselves been targets of bigotry over the years, would be more tolerant to other groups who are only trying to advance their own freedoms; to live their lives as they please without causing pain or harm to others.

  • t
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:24 a.m.

    Who is intolerant now?

    So if we don't agree with you, and we stand up for what we believe is right, we are bigots? Your logic is flawed because the way this is playing out, it is your way or no way. My view doesn't matter to you, my rights don't matter to you.

    We can be tolerant of your life, but when it infringes on my rights, I am going to stand up for what I believe is right, just like you.

    It is a democracy, the majority voted, deal with the results.

  • Protests are fair and healthy
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:22 a.m.

    The anti-gay marriage crowd lost a gay marriage ballot question in 2006. How come it was fine for them to put it up again in 2008 instead of just "accepting the will of the majority of voters" and "accept the results." They didn't accept the results the first time. And gays won't accept the results this time, nor should they. If they want to fight for change, good for them!

    People also miss the point when they say Mormons would have been nicer had they lost Prop 8 than gays are being. Big deal! Mormon rights weren't at issue, so of course they're not going to be outraged either way. Also, there weren't gay-funded Mormon-bashing commercials, but there were Mormon-funded scaremongering commercials about gay marriage and how it would mean little kids would be inculcated with talk of gay stuff. That's just false, but I guess Mormons are perfectly happy dishing out whatever sells if it accomplishes their purpose. With this 2% Mormon minority outspending the other 98% on this issue, and putting out untruthful ads, I don't know how the Mormons can say with a straight face that they are "perplexed" about being "singled out."

  • thank you Sir Elton John
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:21 a.m.

    Sir Elton John gets it!!! Read his words in yesterday's USA today. He understands prop 8 was about defining marriage not taking away protections that gay couples have in civil partnerships. He is probably the world's most well known homosexual and I sincerely hope his celebrity will inject reason into this debate. Read the article and send it to everyone you know. I googled his name and found it online.

  • Jim
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:19 a.m.

    The early days of the LDS saw persecution much worse that a group of gays could ever level against it. The gay movement is just hurting their cause by turning away people who once supported them. I applaud the church for standing up on this issue.

  • Behavior is a right
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:17 a.m.

    Speech is a behavior and it is a right.

  • Great comparison Matt
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:15 a.m.

    Matt, your 8:37 comment is really useful I think. People should step back and try to see how they would feel and react if the shoe were on the other foot.

  • VOR
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:13 a.m.

    more bad press for the LDS Church - I was watching the local news here in So-Cal last night and they were covering a protest at a local LA resturant where the owner gave money to Yes on 8, she was quoted as saying I'm Mormon and my Church leaders told me I had to support it" - and we've heard this before in other interviews on TV. Now whether or not this was a cop out does matter, they feel they've been "told" by their leaders and it's just more bad publicity. Like I said, the "Church" should not have gotten involved.

  • Ralph
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:13 a.m.

    I was in California before the elections and saw the ads that the "Yes on 8" group was running. The ads had NOTHING to do with gay marriage and everything to do with scaring the populous into thinking this was a pro-gay child education bill or a way to get tax money from churches. The LDS and other social conservative organizations crawled into bed with the wrong group and now they want to hide behind their pulpits. You can't have it both ways; you play you pay.

    I am not gay, but I am sick of churches trying put their "mission" into legislation. If I am in search of a new god, I'll come looking for you. Until then, leave the me and the rest of us alone!

  • Puzzled
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:12 a.m.

    It's sad when things are sprayed on church buildings, fires are set and businesses and families are trageted. They call it a right to protest. If this was to happen to those who are gay it would be a hate crime. Sad to see they don't feel they have to play by the same rules. Get it on the ballot in 2 years and try again. Funny the gay rights groups raised more money but can't seem to get the votes.

  • Rich
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:11 a.m.

    I cannot believe the things that the Deseret News is allowing to be posted. Some of the Pro 8 posters here have been nothing but hateful and prejudice, but for some reason my comments about the LDS church is viewed by them as "offensive" and they don't post my comments.

    This is a joke. They are posting hate and prejudice but will not let the other side voice real opposing views and worries.

    Good Job Des News, you are completely bias and disgusting.

    No H8! Equality is what our God actually teaches.

  • Simple is as simple says
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:10 a.m.

    "Those opposed to Prop 8 are just trying to smear the Church."

    No one can possible believe this. Everyone is the same?

    The church is doing its best to stay above board, although whenever you get into politics you end up aligning with other groups that do not always say what you want said. I am sure the ProtectMarriage alliance said things the church did not totally agree with.

    Members on the other hand are saying things that are quite contrary to the mission of the church. This inane comment would be one of those things.

  • Does it end?
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:08 a.m.

    So can the polygamists get leagally married now?What about their rights? I'm just saying...

  • Canuck
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:05 a.m.

    The Gay supporters have just shown who they really are. My impression of the gay movement has just been reduced substantially. So many of them are such bigots. A bunch of cry babies.

  • Mike
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:04 a.m.

    As civil unions in California already guarantee all civil, legal, and partnership rights, it would seem the only thing the lgbt folks are actually fighting for is having their lifestyle accepted by mainstream society.

    If this causes more people to embrace it in future, then it becomes everyones concern- as in, is it a good thing or a bad thing for society? Hetero couples have children, who grow up to work, defend the country, pay social security, and a host of other functions for the benefit of society. Why on earth would I wish to mainstream a 'right' which will reduce the ranks of future generations of Americans?

    Nobody is preventing people from behaving as they see fit, but it is disingenuous to portray something as a personal right which clearly has ramifications for us all. No, it may not affect my marriage, or turn my children gay, but if it puts more of a burden on me and my children in the form of higher taxes, more military service, less available mates for my children, than it is very much my business to vote how I most think will affect my and their future.

  • Honest
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:04 a.m.

    To Tom (1:09 am)

    You are confused as to how someone could vote yes on 8 and also support gay rights. Well, let me shed some light on that. I live in CA. A little secret that the no folks don't want you to know is that many gays and lesbians voted yes. I personally know a few. A prominent GAY radio talk show host in San Diego (Steve Yuhas) very publically came out in favor of prop 8. They feel that civil unions are sufficient, and don't feel the need to re-define marriage. Look at Elton John's quotes in USA today (he said that gays should be satified with civil unions, and not try to re-define a heterosexual instituion). The "no" folks want you to believe that votine yes equates to hate, homophobia, intolerance, etc. It does not. Many gays voted for 8.

  • HEY!
    Nov. 13, 2008 11:02 a.m.

    Someone should make a list of all the businesses owned by gays so that we can boycot those too!!

  • Danzig anyone?
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:58 a.m.

    "If the religous community forced someone to resign because they supported gay causes; they would get labeled "nazis": well guess what."

    Ever heard of Mark Danzig?

  • California Mormon
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:57 a.m.

    I gave a lot of thought to this. At first, I was inclined to vote NO on Prop. 8. Then, upon further reflection I realized marriage is the institution our society (as well as most others) supports in order to encourage procreation and propagation, something so fundamental to human survival. Gay marriages will never answer this need, call it what you will. Gays are clever in trying to define the issue as one of "rights." However, the discrimination here is by Mother Nature who, no matter how we try to distort her, has decreed children will be born only by combining men and women. When Mother Nature is disrespected or ignored, the results are disastrous. So protest against Mother Nature, if you will.Call her a bigot. But she's not going to change her mind anytime soon. I applaud religious leaders wise enough to recognize this and support an institution of procreation and propagation for the benefit of future generations.

  • Adam&Eve
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:57 a.m.

    How funny is this....gays and lesbians not being tolerant of someone elses beliefs.....for some reason that just seems so funny to me! What was all this mumbo jumbo about accepting everyone and being tolerant no matter what the person thought/believed/loved???????????? Anybody else see something really WRONG with what they say and do??? I DO!!!!!!

  • To Jeffrey Nielsen 6:17am
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:56 a.m.

    "How is this any different from the case of Jeffrey Nielsen...."

    You ask a very good question. Here are what I see as differences.

    While the Musical Theatre community may be "heavily" gay, I doubt that it is 98% gay, or owned by an institution that is gay by formal declaration.

    Nielsen knew when he wrote the letter what the likely consequences would be since it is outlined in his formal contract. The people in this story had neither knowledge nor a formal agreement prohibiting them from their support.

    I would imagine Nielsen sought out BYU as an employer specifically for what it purports to be. The businesses being boycotted did not specifically seek out gay clientele.

    The boycotters are publicly discouraging ALL people from frequenting the targeted businesses. The analogy to Nielsen's case would be if BYU went about discouraging other universities or employers from hiring Nielsen. This did not happen.

    BYU's motivation is to maintain an atmosphere conducive to their view of a unique learning environment. The motivation for the boycotts, I would argue, is out of revenge and intent to harm.

    No more room. Just thought I'd chime in. Cheers.

  • jayme
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:54 a.m.

    Re RR saying it's a life that will never give them true happiness because they can NEVER have children. Why choose to live your life like that? We can have chidren and 90% of us do and continue too. I have 3 kids and have been with my lover for 25 yrs, longer than alot of MARRIED COUPLES and VERY HAPPY. My children are very successful and happy. I don't need a pieace of paper to be happy most straight couples can't even be happy or stay married with that piece of paper. But I will fight for other stronger rights and we will win them in the furture we just need to focus and stick together. The constitutional process is now to look at why we lost, regroup and redefine your message and then look toward a future vote again.
    civil Partnership is ok with me. I like what Hogwash and Jayce Cox had to say. We can achieve what we want we just need to take our time and do it the right way.

  • che
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:52 a.m.

    Ya know, gays talk A LOT about being tolerant of everyone and accepting EVERYTONE no matter how they are....GGEEEE I sure find it funny that as soon as anyone opposes what they stand for they go on the attack....talk about a bunch of HYPOCRITES!!

    I saw on tv last night an 80 yr old woman carrying a cross get attacked by a crowd of protestors. They tore the cross our of her hands and stomped it into the ground. Im sorry, but after that gays get no sympathy from me. Nothing but a bunch of HYPOCRITES.

  • jt
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:50 a.m.

    well utah, join us wyomingites. we are considered a hate crime state because of the isolated incident in laramie years ago with matthew shephard. someone does something and everyone is branded. its a sad thing. the gay community is showing their colors and their prejudice by singling the mormons out. well kudos to everyone who voted against same sex marriage. the gay community will have to answer to God soon enough. I see nowhere in the bible where He says it is good and right.

  • Clifton
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:46 a.m.

    reaping what you sow | 7:12 a.m. Nov. 13, 2008
    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.

    What a load of left wing nonsense. Obama took in millions during his campaign, a lot of that donated by Gay organizations. There are many of us who did not support Obama and still don't. So I guess that makes us bigots eh since we are according to you REAPING WHAT YOU SOW, the Church has turned itself into a political movement and is a fully- owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. What a truly pathetic joke and liar you are! I'm an Independent, LDS from Montana, and never was coaxed for a dime to support Prop 8. Hey, you want to boycott Marriot, go ahead as I'm sure you have them shaking in their shoes!

  • Randy
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:41 a.m.

    California, where voting is considered a hate crime.

  • Semantics, Schmantics
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:41 a.m.

    I agree with Sir Elton John. I don't care about calling my relationship marriage (my partner and I will celebrate our 20th anniversary next labor day by the way). As long as there are the legal protections in civil union laws regarding taxes, probate, etc. etc., then I'm good. I can always have a Hallmark moment "marriage" ceremony at any number of denominations and churches (American Baptist, UCC, etc. etc.)

    The problem is in Utah, courtesy of Amendment Three the State Constitution forbids anything even remotely looking like civil unions that recognizes gay and lesbian relationships. So I can understand the push for legal recognition via "marriage".

    It's the same catch 22 as in the reproductive rights arena. Politicized religious folks don't want abortions but they wont allow sex ed, or birth control that would prevent them. The same "all or nothing" people don't like gay marriage but they won't allow civil unions. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

  • Please boycott us
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:39 a.m.

    To gay rights activists:
    There has been a lot of talk about boycotting Utah. Please step up the effort on this. An added bonus would be for you to talk Robert Redford into boycotting us as well. Things are really looking up for our great state. Keep up the good work. Boycott away. The less wing nuts around here the better.

  • GW
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:36 a.m.

    Most Gay and Lesbian individuals are " secular progressive", this live and let live additude does not take in the idea that there are " sacred " things in this world. Most Christians believe that marriage between a man and a woman is " sacred " relationship which includes God. When God organized families it was Adam and Eve period! However, if you do not believe this doctrine, it is hard for someone to understand why keeping marriage between a man and woman is sacred. Therefore, even if the liberal courts throw out Pro 8, most hetersexual marriages , will never ever accept gay marriages as ordained by God, but only something that the liberal courts are inforcing upon society. So gay couples better not think they will ever be accepted as a " normal" part of society, except maybe in areas of the country like San Francisco. As for the passing of Pro 8 by the religious community, well, Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple, because they were violating " sacred things".

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:33 a.m.

    I don't have a problem that mormons believe that marriage is a divine institute from God I find their ACTIONS discriminative... there is a difference... a lot of gays want to get married to have families...gays are a minority that needs the protection of marriage.

  • re: SoWhat | 10:04 a.m.
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:32 a.m.

    "Imagine that... There are consequences for your actions. Who would have thought that?" Being a homosexual male who lived through the 80's - when that kind of comment was made about those dying of AIDS - gay activists immmediately cried "bigot". It is ironic that gay activists would now use that same argument to rationalize terroizing those who dare disagree with them.

  • Aaron
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:30 a.m.

    This entire post prop8 protest is just people venting their frustration with organized religion altogether.
    The civil right argument does not hold up since there are NO rights being revoked.

    They will never bring themselves to understand the church's position, so all they can do is vent their confusion.

    There's no doubt their actions are based on hate.

    If only they could understand that the church's position is not.

  • lilhool
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:28 a.m.

    I didn't like the fact that Obama was elected president either, so does that mean I can protest and have the courts change the election outcome? No, I live by the majority rule and will suport my new president.

  • sick and tired
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:26 a.m.

    I am just sick of the tantrums thrown by the gay and lesbian movement. If the majority decided to protest and ban businesses who supported the same sex marriage movement then I bet those businesses would change their open position of support against Prop. 8.

    The gay movement is "in your face" and act like uncivilized human beings in public. You don't see that kind of behavior with the general public.

    I dare the gay and lesbian movement to protest and vandalize the streets of the ghettos and barrios where most of the black and hispanic voters cast their ballots in favor of Prop. 8. They would get --tch slapped! or worse. They target the kind and gentle Mormon Church. Do they really think that Mormon's got people to vote yes that didn't agree with Prop. 8? Come on now... the only people who voted yes were those that believed in the Propositon. No one was asked to vote against their conscience.

    Just get over it you whiny babies and "intollerent" ones!

  • Imagine That
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:25 a.m.

    So people shouldn't protest? Is that your point? Perhaps the jews should have been more "tolerant" of the Nazis? After all, they would certainly have lost any election expressing "the voice of the people." Same with blacks. The law said they were also separate but equal in this country. Who were they to get "uppity?"

  • T
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:24 a.m.

    The anti-8 folks just don't get it. Voters supported prop 8 not because of hate, but because the homosexual lifestyle is twisted and perverse. We don't want that lifestyle portrayed as "acceptable."

  • CB
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:21 a.m.

    Much easier to promote homosexuality if you have access to the children, and since they can't pro-create they must have the ability to promote. Ask the parents of Massachusetts what rights they have. Frankly it's rather difficult to turn a vice into a virtue, or as the saying goes: A sow's belly into a silk purse."

  • LDS and proud of it!!!
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:20 a.m.

    Talk about having another persons beliefs forced upon you. Truthfully I think that the gay community needs to take a long long look into a mirror. You complain that the LDS are forcing our beliefs down you neck, I have heard "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." I don't like having your beliefs forced on me or my children. If you wanted to have any influence then you should have paused and thought about how you are coming across. Burning books or burning building is illegal, and simply showing hate. I thought that the gay community was a peace loving people. Hmmmm, I am seeing different now. Basically people we can talk and talk till our faces turn blue. They will still do just what they want to do. FREE AGENCY lets them, we just have to sit back and watch them prove just whom is forcing whom to do what they want.

  • Righteous Fists
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    I can't wait for the first gay militant to get in my face for exercising my Constitutional Rights.:#

    If asked by the Prophet to defend Church Property I will do it with a Lions Heart.

  • Hey "hey both ways"
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    The fact of the matter is that these people who are protesting are like the spoiled little kid who throws a fit. They didn't get their way, so now they are kicking and screaming. How is that any different then non-obama supporters rallying and protesting becasue they didn't get the presidnet they wanted? I wouldn't care much if they protested only at places like the state-capitol. But they are TOTALLY OUT OF LINE by protesting at mormon temples, catholic cathedrals, among other places. ant the personal attacks are really classless

  • Amber
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:18 a.m.

    Reguardless of the fact that you are for or against prop 8. The truth of the matter is that marriage is recognized by the government and married people get government perks. Therefore the government cannot discriminate against gay people. That does not mean the the LDS church or any other religion or private oranization has to marry gay couples, but the state and federal government entities do. They cannot discriminate. Just like with women and African American people. After the government accepts it everyone else will eventually too.

  • move on?
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:14 a.m.

    Would you simply move on if you had just been stripped of rights that had been granted you?

    I didn't think so, hypocrite.

    Oh, and Brian, the hate attacks against the LDS church such as graffiti HAVE been reported on the news regularly. So, you can quit playing the martyr this time.

  • Yes on Prop 8
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:10 a.m.

    I would have voted for Prop 8, but I would not have asked anyone else to vote for it or against it. Every individual has a right to vote their belief. I am completely dismayed at the personal attacks coming out of this against people who voted their beliefs. That is a fundamental right in this country .... to be able to vote safely and freely and not be bullied or penalized based on your vote.

  • It's not about their rights....
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:08 a.m.

    The boycott against Utah and the Mormon Church is more about getting free TV and news coverage/publicity than it is about Prop 8. What coverage would they get if they went to the Vatican to protest the Catholic Church? None. Where do you go to protest the Lutheran Church? No, the Mormons are an easy and highly visible target. Just what they need to keep their cause in the limelight.

  • To Nate:
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:07 a.m.

    I notice you didn't refute the argument presented by "Truth about Prop 8" you just used words like "ludicrous" and "malarkey". Let me give you two cases to back up that argument.

    The Catholic Adoption agency in Boston is on the verge of shutting down due to threat of legal action by gay protesters for only adopting out children to traditional families. They state the Catholic Church is violating the law because gay couples are also legal in Massachussets.

    The gay movement also took action against the Boy Scouts of America for not allowing openly gay scoutmasters. Notice I said "openly". Never mind that they also don't allow female scoutmasters and the girlscouts don't allow male leaders as well. They took this argument all the way to the Supreme Court and almost won which would have shut that organization down.

    Ludicrous? Malarkey? No. That is your movement's track record.

  • SoWhat
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:04 a.m.

    Imagine that... There are consequences for your actions. Who would have thought that?

  • re Weak arguments
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:04 a.m.

    I'm sorry I was going to keep out of this but I don't think you portrayed things at all correctly. First off you mentioned how at different times societies have declared women as being inferior. This is very true and it was and is wrong. However just because something like that has happened doesn't mean any minority is free to declare their own perceived rights i.e. a "minority" of society are prositutes. Do you feel we infringe their rights by not legalizing prostitution? Now please don't take this to mean that I am equating gays to prostitutes. I am merely saying that simply because something is a "perceived right" (and having sex with someone for money could definitely be viewed as a right) by a minority doesn't make it so. Dealing with the republic comment: Yes this is a republic, and you hit it right on the head. A republic "PROTECTS the rights of all including the minority through a Constitution enforced by law." Marriage is NOT in the constitution (google "constitution" if you don't believe me). Remember this country is "for the people, by the people and of the people". The people decide what the rights are.

  • Stop!
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:02 a.m.

    When did behavior become a 'right?'

  • jfs
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:02 a.m.

    removing the lds church tax exempt status for supporting prop 8 would also require the removal of the tax exempt status of all the gay straight rainbow .orgs that opposed prop 8. Thats one for equallity.

  • re Carl
    Nov. 13, 2008 10:01 a.m.

    I agree with Carl's point on semantics but would suggest a different approach in application. Why not allow those institutions who historically have used the term marriage in the traditional sense (a man and a women) to continue to do so. Those who are seeking an establishment of rights outside of "marriage" could then adopt a new term and call it whatever they like; civil union, unionage, civility, or homogenation. The point being, don't ask those who view marriage in a traditional sense to give up that term. The Gay community has the freedom to secure every right they can just don't cram it down everyone's throat by insisting that it be called marriage.

  • Free
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:57 a.m.

    All this is telling me is that the LDS faith is unmovable and stands firm in what they believe in. What they believe is that marriage is sacred between man and woman. It is doctrine written by prophets from God. I am God fearing. To me God is unmovable and stands firm in truth. The LDS faith says Your free to choose but their are consequences of that choice, weather good or bad. They know times will get hard and we are prepared as a collective and individually. I am sad to see that bad choices are made. I am not perfect no one is. I love the sinner but hate the sin. I know that sin is in the eye Of the beholder. I made a choice and others made a choice. Respect that we are free to choose. Respect the law. Yes we are unique so is everyone ells. I don't speak for the church. I am speaking for myself and my beliefs.

  • To JG Reply:
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:54 a.m.

    I'm LDS and my children's best friends are not LDS. In fact, the majority of my neighboorhood is not LDS and we all get along great. Quit lumping an entire religion into one sterotype based on your expirence with one neighboor. Should your neighboor reach out to you? Absolutley, regaldless of religion. The church doesn't teach to only associate with our "own". In fact, they teach exactly the opposite. Your problem is with your neighboor, not the church. Maybe you should reach out to your neighboor; friendship and mutual respect go both ways.

  • Voted Yes & Living in CA
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:54 a.m.

    I say to the Anti-Prop 8 protesters: Keep it going! I am finding many people I know who voted NO are now changing their mind. They are outraged by the demonstrations and the hate coming from the Gay community. They want nothing of it. I won't have to donate all that money next time. They are doing all this campaigning against themselves without any help.

  • Mormon
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:53 a.m.

    Hey JG-what area do you live in!!! Most my closest friends are not LDS, does that mean I don't live in Utah. Think again. A lot of people that are non-LDS that live in Utah hate mormons and won't let their kids play with LDS kids, so don't go down that road. I will agree that some LDS members are jerks, but it goes both ways. Why don't you try to open up to your neighbors. If they are still rude, you should move (I would).

  • TOO Inconvenient
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:50 a.m.

    While the Treaty of Tripoli contains the words you quote, the meaning and context are different than you imply.

    The passage in the Treaty was placed there to confirm that the U.S. engagement and defeat of the Muslim pirates was NOT a religious war. This was done in specific recognition and deferrence to the lingering sentiment among Muslims about the Crusades. The government is not an extension of the official Church, or vis-a-versa, as was the case in much of Europe.

    Your comments about our founding documents are selective and myopic. The Declaration is the first major document to acknowledge that rights come from a Creator, not the king or Caesar or the sun, and that mankind is inherently endowed with those rights and that governments instituted by We The People are tasked with protecting those rights.

    You would deny that God is the source of your rights, then complain that the state (by virtue of the vote) has taken away your rights? If God is not the source, then the state by default must be and can grant, withdraw and deny rights as it wishes and without recourse. Which is EXACTLY what the Founders wished to prevent.

  • Shecky I
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:49 a.m.

    Anybody besides me think that we should get a list of all "GAY" owned business and boycott the heck out of them? How stupid is this? Just goes to prove that there is nobody more bigoted, obnoxious, hypocritical, or just plain snotty as a spurned gay person. Somebody call the "wahmbulance" for these crybabies. THERE ARE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEING TRAMPLED UPON!! I hope that those under attack never compromise their principles

  • Brian
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:48 a.m.

    Apparently hate crimes can only be committed against those who have the foresight to be on the "politically correct" side. If they are committed against those on the right they barely get reported.

  • irony
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:48 a.m.

    A lot of people I've spoken to are surprised that California allows its constitution to be amended by a simple majority. What makes it a constitution then, as opposed to a collection of statutes that change from election to election? It is also amusing that the supporter quoted in the article has TEN children. Talk about a poor environment for raising kids, I'm sure any study would show that one or two adoptive kids in a lesbian couple's home would have a happier and psychologically healthier childhood than one raised somewhat anonymously in a megafamily. Having so many children is truly immoral. Even having families of four on average every 25 years would give Utah a population more than 30 million by the end of the century, making gay marriage look pretty helpful!

  • to amazed
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    right on target. i couldnt have said it better

  • bigotted bigotry?
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    Seems to me that parts of both sides of displaying tremendous bigotry. I think it is sad that a small part of both sides are painting each other with such narrow minded strokes.
    I am mormon and I supported prop.8. That being said I encourage those who where against prop 8 to protest and to boycott whatever they want. Protesting and boycotts are an important part of governmental process in this country. However, both sides need to show each other more respect, hate filled speech coming from one side to the other is only entrenching positions and validating reprisals.
    As a side note, this is an issue that I think should be decided by a vote of the people. There have been comments that this should be decided by the supreme court which I think is ludicrous. The perception that the supreme court is some how omnipotent is sadly wrong. If this were to go before the court it would win or lose on a split decision by one vote. It's no different then a vote by the people except the power is held by a far smaller group of people who can't be boycotted or protested.

  • re: JG - Reply | 8:48 a.m.
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    "Utah is most definitley a hate state. My LDS neighbors don't speak to me and their kids don't play with mine. It's this elitist attitude that only takes spark to ignite the hate in non-mormons.

    When the mormons start praticing what they preach will they get the benefit of the doubt when taking a side.

    I can't wait until 2030.. "

    Of course you have nothing to do with it. I suspect if you move to Skokie Illinois and spout anti-semitic rhetoric - Jewish kids wont play with you there either. BTW I am not LDS but I get along just fine with Mormons, its the baiters I tire of (and the neighbors with the obnoxious dogs).

    Please dont wait untill 2030 to look in the mirror.

  • Matt
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    Why cant a church, made up of ordinary citizens, support a ballot measure? How can a church be a church if it doesnt openly and proudly oppose immorality in all its forms. So, if you believe that homosexuality is not immoral and that gays should have the right to be called married, how much different are you than the people who dont believe that. Its a belief. You vote on belief and conviction. Ive never been so proud to be LDS, or Mormon, than I am now. We were part, not the cause, of an historic election in which we believe that we voted for morality.
    I feel any church has every right to support ballots which are fundamentally morality based. Churches keep morality alive in America.

  • Karl
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    I admit what stuck out to me out of all this was this phrase: "bias-motivated arson" at an LDS site.

    If any other group had been targeted, it would have been called a hate crime.

  • Good Thing We Voted
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    We voted, we won, end of story. Wow. . . good thing we cleared that up. So anytime one group dislikes the actions of another group we can now simply pass a voter initiative to stop those actions. What about a voter initiative that would require a popular vote on building permits for all religious edifices? How about a popular vote on the issue of polygamy? I don't like how the Bush administration is handling the war in Iraq. . . let's put it to a vote? Voter initiatives on hot button, social issues are bad policy, period. It is far too easy to get something like this on the ballot in California. Be prepared for some other bias-based initiative for 2010--California gets one every election.

  • Don't confuse the issue
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    Comparisons of the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's to the current day gay rights movement simply do NOT hold water. Race is not a lifestyle choice, homosexuality is. I don't care whether or not you believe that you are born with homosexual tendencies, to live that lifestyle is a choice, plain and simple.

  • Churches and Taxes
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    If you're gonna strip the LDS church of its tax-exempt status, you should do the same for all churches....including the churches that opposed proposition 8.

  • SoCal
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    If this proposition is overturned, it is time to march on Sacramento and demand the resignation of the Supreme Court justices. It is time to stand up to tyranny by the minority.

  • Roger Carrier
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    I have always been impressed with the Mormon concept of Free Agency. Dont take away a persons right to choose. If you dont believe in gay marriage, thats fine, but dont pass a law against it.

    In an age of impermanent relationships, we should encourage people to make long-lasting legal commitments to one another. For that reason, I say that gay marriage will be good for America! (And on this subject, everyone should watch the Keith Olberman video on the internet, where he talks about love. Its powerful stuff.)

  • Nate
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:35 a.m.

    To "Truth about prop 8" @ 8:46.

    You write, "Without Prop. 8 if the LDS or Catholic church refuse to marry people of the same sex same they could be subject to legal prosecution. The whole 1st ammendment to the constitution would be at stake. Ultimately the Constitution could "hang by a thread".

    That is simply and totally not true and it is a paranoid scare tactic that some proponents of 8 shamefully used. Prosecuted? It would be a CRIME not to marry those of the same sex? This is ludicrous. I respect some thoughtful and honest reasons for people to come down on either side of this issue. But lies and paranoia like this should not be a part of this debate. It is just sad if this malarkey was the basis for anyone's vote on 8.

  • Craig in WA
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:33 a.m.

    Proposition 8 did nothing to alter people's liberties.

    Proposition 8 simply defined a requirement for statutory marriage - that the relationship consist of a male and female. There is no hate, intolerance or bigotry in this definition.

    The issue is that the state has an interest in male-female relationships that it does not have in same-sex relationships. Male-female relationships have the potential to perpetuate the species, and hence society and the state itself. Same sex marriages have no such potential and are therefore not due the same legal consideration.

    Because of this it is entirely appropriate to create different legal structures for each different relationship. Marriage for male-female relationships, and civil permissions for same-sex relationships.

  • Eric Larsen
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:31 a.m.

    Re: Jayce Cox
    Thank you for being open enough to use your name. While I disagree with the practice of homosexuality, I find it far too easy to hide behind pseudo-names while attacking the other side; again, thank you for being "adult" enough to stick your neck out there. I hope we can all be mature enough to speak openly, intelligently, and calmly about the subject at hand.

    There are many on both sides of the argument feeling victimized by the recent debate on Proposition 8. I hope there can be mutual understanding on the issue.

    This is a topic that LDS bishops will undoubtedly need to address, meaning they must understand how to approach the issue and help their members. There must be understanding on the part of LDS leaders.

    On the other hand, there must be understanding from the LGBT community. I would hope that at least a few have researched why Mormons believe what they believe. Put in context of the Plan of Salvation, homosexuality appears to be a dead end.

    I am concerned that donor lists on the internet will lead to individuals being targeted for what they have chosen to support (on both sides).

  • I'm tired of this
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:31 a.m.

    Marriage is not a civil right - it is a choice. Being a certain race or gender - qualities that a person is born with and cannot change - is not a person's choice. Those rights need to be protected. But I'm tired of people saying that Prop 8 is taking away rights. I'm calling BS.

    If you want to fight about taking away rights, why don't you let polygamy legal so all non-traditional families get to be legally married. Let's make incest legal. We have to define marriage and CA voters voted to define it as one man and one woman.

    I know many hurt sob-story comments and retaliations are going to reply to this post. Go ahead... Be predictable: make my prediction true... I dare you to resist.

  • wow
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:30 a.m.

    If the religous community forced someone to resign because they supported gay causes; they would get labeled "nazis": well guess what.

    I am homosexual and I am embarrassed by a gay community that has become the very thing it claims to despise.

  • Sam the Army man
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:26 a.m.

    I think those that are calling Mormon religion, bigotry. Should stop and take a look at them selves, when a group of people gather and starting mobs which then cause them destroy property or deface a church and to harass individuals. It throws a black mark the Gay people. The real bigots are those that are doing this. They act like spoiled Brats and are throwing a fit. This is immaturity and will not get you any were when you act like a two year old. So grow up, stop what you doing and follow the rules that were passed. If Prop 8 had failed do you think we Christians would take to the streets and start causing turmoil amongst the Gays. Would you like it? The good Lord does not like this and would not accept these actions. So respect this new ruling. Respect our right to vote the way we choose.

  • Marriage is NOT a right
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:25 a.m.

    Even judges arent 100% certain that marriage is a right. Every single supreme court vote that has granted it was a 4-3 split. Marriage is a privilege.

    Government borrowed the institution from religion (check your history) as the best means for insuring future citizenry. Therefore, marriage is, by its very nature a religious institution. So don't tell me that I can't vote my religious conscience.

  • EJ
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:23 a.m.

    The above noted comments attributed to Elton John are spot on. The Gay community has moved the fight for equal rights to a battle that requires those rights be called marriage. I find it odd that those who take so much pride in being different are fighting and protesting to be the "same." If Gays truly want equal rights then fight for those rights not for a name.

  • Thomas
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:23 a.m.

    Some people should be careful on inviting them to be targeted, you'd be surprised how many gay guys have a very discrete military backgroud that could target you from a very long distance in a blink of an eye. The american people pride themselves on the contstitution but we tend to ignore the part that separate church and state, why do personal religious beliefs have any bearing on laws being made in any state? What if some believe in a religion that accepts gay marriage? Where do their rights fall into this? Its bigotry and prejudice no matter how you paint it.

  • Fred
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:19 a.m.

    Some of you are understanding what is going on here, while others are still in the dark. Please read the comment from "To Tom." He clearly and correctly gives an accurate summary of this situation: Marriage is not a right! This is not about hate or limiting someone's civil rights. It's about creating a legal definition of the word marriage.

    In principle, gay marriage is no different than polygamy or any other type of union, including marrying your car, pet, or lamp post. Before you know it, the Democrats socialized health care will be using our taxes to pay for tune-ups for sick cars, counseling for suicidal pets, and light bulb replacements for neighborhood lamp posts, all because we demanded the 'right' to marry whomever or whatever we want!

  • Carl
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:19 a.m.

    Perhaps we have a problem with semantics. One big problem is that churches, like the Catholic church sees marriage as a religious ritual, and has many rules regarding whom a person may marry, and whom they cannot...we have extended this belief to the civil sector, where ministers even act as agents of the state. I believe that the word "marriage" as is seen by some religious organizations should be redefined as a "religious" term, and then each denomination could use that term as it sees fit. All "marriages" then should be considered civil unions as being recognized by the state or government, with the same rights and privileges as our so-called marriage now enjoys. Civil Unions could then be universally recognized, "marriage" can retain its sacramentality, and everyone would be happy.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:17 a.m.

    I wonder if these kinds of boycotts were going on in the reverse if it wouldn't be more plastered all over the national media.

    I am sorry that people from the lesbian and gay community have felt ridiculed for their sexual orientation over the years. I am also sorry for the LDS people who have always largely been misunderstood by the public. Hmmm, seems these two groups have a lot in common.

    But the misunderstanding doesn't lie in people exercising their religious and social beliefs in an election through the democratic process, it is by those who are trying to vilify their opponents. There is no room for that on either side of the argument, and I hope that people can act mature and civil about this.

  • Eye for an Eye
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:16 a.m.

    So, what's with the vandalism at LDS church meeting houses? The news on TV last night reported someone lighting a Book of Mormon on fire and throwing it at a church. The police were unsure who did it (duh!), but they are classifying it as a "hate crime". All these protestors are labeling the church as a hate organization. Who are the ones vandalizing churches? Who are the ones commiting "hate crimes"? Figure that one out...

  • Future Generations
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:13 a.m.

    To all those posting pro-Prop 8 comments. I want you to print them out and stick them in a drawer or filing cabinet in your homes. I'm sure you'll want your grandchildren to know you were the authors of such comments. They'll want to know know that you proudly fought against equal civil rights for all members of society.

  • Re CABE
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:10 a.m.

    If you had the guts to disclose your business name, you can bet you would be targeted for boycott.

  • jt
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:10 a.m.

    looks to me like these people who profess to be targeted by hate crimes are doing just that. they are committing hate crimes towards anyone who is against them. i find that prejudice and they should be penalized. i will pray for their souls. when they stomped on that womans cross, they committed a hate crime. nuff said.

  • LDS in NYC
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:09 a.m.

    I live right next to the NYC temple and was welcomed home last night by 5,000 people spewing hate at the church. Does this bother me? Maybe a little. Am I glad it is happening? Yes. The more they protest, the more they discredit their cause. They look foolish and simplistic using words like 'hate' and 'homophobia' to describe a people that, collectively, have never hated anyone. The general public doesn't buy this type of intimidation and the LDS will not be intimidated. In a world where it was once legal to kill a 'mormon' upon seeing him/her, this is just another bump in the road...

  • Familiar arguments
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:08 a.m.

    I'm sick of bigotry against me. i'm sick of being unfairly targeted for something I was born into and believe with all my heart. I'm sick of being targeted and repressed. but more than anything, I'm sick of people hell-bent on destroying my character and infringing my constitutional rights.

    signed...the Christian Right.

    (to LBGA and those like-minded, keep up the H8 speech and vandalism, it's doing wonders for advancing your cause.)

  • Why would I
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:08 a.m.

    Want to have screaming, intolerant, bigoted inviduals waving rainbow flags to frequent my business or my state? What would they frequent them with, stones and spray paint? Stay away! I don't want your business or your tourism dollars. I support marriage between a man and a women, am free to do so and to speak out against homosexual marriage. If you can't handle that Prop 8 passed, learn to get over yourselves.

  • Jason
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:03 a.m.

    All of you pro Prop. 8 people continue to spew your hypocrisy, venom and lies. This is a republic not a democracy. The supreme court said prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying was unconstitutional and legally allowed up till now the GLBT to marry. The right to marry WAS taken away! Get your facts straight people! Mormons are so convinced that they are the only church, and that their leaders speak for God here on Earth, that they cannot see what they have done is wrong! Along with countless of other faiths as well! You say you have a right to voice your views, but then the GLBT community voices theirs and they are religious bigots, hypocrits, etc. Excuse me? You are the hypocrites ladies and gentlemen not the GLBT community. The constitution was never intended to say that the rights that tax-paying citizens can only be reserved for specific groups is WRONG! That is what was said when Prop. 8 passed. Pure and simple! You all need to grow up and get over yourselves. I am so glad I left the church. BTW, criticizing those who leave the church shows you as hateful too!

  • InAZ
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:02 a.m.

    That's what desperate people do.....if they have little or no more reasonable points to make they get personal. In an argument/debate, if you have to resort to personal attacks, you lose your argument.

  • re: Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:01 a.m.

    "Marriage is a fundamental right - everybody gets it, or nobody gets it." No Tom - you dont get it.
    Marraige is not a right and there are numersous restrictions even for heterosexuals: focus on something real.

  • Supplanting the Vote
    Nov. 13, 2008 9:01 a.m.

    If the CA Supreme Court Rules Prop 8 invalid, then We have NO REASON TO HOLD ELECTIONS. If democracy is the will of the people, and a few judges can OVERTHROW that democracy, then we have surrendered the RIGHT to "Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances" in favor of a Despotic Judiciary.

  • Matthew
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:58 a.m.

    Some people need to label and villify those that disagree with them because they are so insecure in there position/opinion that they can't deal with someone disagreeing in any other way. Some people need to label and vilify those that disagree with them because they are so insecure in there position/opinion that they can't deal with others disagreeing in any other way. This is true of some people on both sides of most issues. Having said that, there are often a few villains on each side of most issues as well. Just be thoughtful about ones attempts to point out those few villains. If you indiscriminately use a broad brush, you might end up being one of the villains.
    Being officially married in the eyes of the state is genuinely important to some Gay/Lesbian people. Applying marriage to a Gay/Lesbian union does fundamentally change the meaning of marriage and is thus of genuine concern to many people. This is a fundamental disagreement, but does not involve hate on either side.
    Unfortunately some angry demonstrators are choosing to show their own hate by unjustly labeling others as hateful. Hopefully they are a minority of those that share their position.

  • Richard
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:57 a.m.

    "Opponents of Proposition 8 issued a statement last week asking those disheartened by the passage of the initiative not to target those who voted the other way."

    Those would be wise words to listen to. Because now prop 8 has fullhearted supporters like me who preiviously backed the gay community until they were stabbed right in the back by the religiously bigoted views of the groups they were rallying with. I was all for tolerance and comprimise until anti-prop 8 supporters shared their intolerant uncomprimising hate for anyone they could judge by their religious affiliation istead of who they really were.

    So next time you pull out your signs, spray cans, and start screaming at someone because they're different(a lesson you'd think some would understand), maybe realize that you could be screaming in the face of one of your supporters.

  • RE: Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:56 a.m.

    Marriage is not a civil right, as it's defined by a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals have equal rights - under the law - with civil unions. These unions grant every "right" to homosexual couples as married couples. This is not about rights, it's about finding something else to rally about and complain, which strengthens your belief system.

    I admire the boldness and courage of the homosexuals for standing up for what they feel is important. They represent less than 5% of the poplation, but have a very strong voice for such a small percentage. I hope I have the same courage to stand up for my personal convictions.

    For me, altering the definition of marriage goes against my fundamental beliefs taught in the scriptures. Making a sinful lifestyle mainstream is like making it OK to commit adultery (oh wait, that was already done), or saying it's OK to steal. A sinful lifestyle should not be acceptable in a culture that loves God and keeps the commandments he has given us to abide by on this earth. These laws help us know how to govern ourselves in this short life to be happy in the next life.

  • Clifton
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:54 a.m.

    Free Agent | 6:14 a.m. Nov. 13, 2008
    As the LDS Church often states, "choices have consequences". The church and its members chose to get involved in the political process on a red-hot issue (the church putting pressure on the members from the pulpit and even in temple recommend interviews), and ought to have anticipated the possible repercussions. I don't agree with the reactions, which are extreme, but the church took a stand and now needs to deal with the consequences.

    Free agent: What you posted here is an out and out lie. Never in my many years in this Church have I heard anything remotely resemble hate, bigotry or anything political supporting a cause or issue preached from the pulpit and that includes Prop 8. Nor anything like it in Temple recommends How is it you think you know so much about these things? Perhaps you need to wise up and check your sources again, or better yet wise up!

  • Weak Arguments
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:50 a.m.

    Ok, I support Prop 8 and would have voted yes had I lived in CA. But I have to address two of the weakest arguments in the history of debate that keep coming up. 1. History says so. I could go on and on about how people historically have been wrong about all types of things. ALL societies at one time or another have come to the conclusion that women are inferior and should be treated as such. Does that mean it's right? So just because hetero marriage is the way it has always been done does not necessarily make it right. 2. Democracy. I don't know whether people in Utah learn about govt or their country in grade school but we do NOT live in a freaking Democracy. We live in a Republic - remember the pledge of allegiance - which PROTECTS the rights of all including the minority through a Constitution enforced by law (judges). Just because the majority has spoken does not make it right if it limits the rights of others or discriminates in some way. Really only one argument holds water -- God said so. There's another one but don't have enough wordslefttowrite it.

  • JG - Reply
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:48 a.m.

    Utah is most definitley a hate state. My LDS neighbors don't speak to me and their kids don't play with mine. It's this elitist attitude that only takes spark to ignite the hate in non-mormons.

    When the mormons start praticing what they preach will they get the benefit of the doubt when taking a side.

    I can't wait until 2030..

  • The Truth about Prop 8
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:46 a.m.

    To all of you "brave" gay protesters who beat up old ladies and attack certain religions who in a very Christ-like way turn the other cheek let me explain something to you. Prop. 8 was about religous liberty.

    Without Prop. 8 if the LDS or Catholic church refuse to marry people of the same sex same they could be subject to legal prosecution. The whole 1st ammendment to the constitution would be at stake. Ultimately the Constitution could "hang by a thread".

    Gays have protection under the law against discrimination. Legal protection for any partnerships can be attained for property rights, insurance etc. Gay marriage is really an attack on organized religon. That is the dirty little secret that the Gay protesters don't want you to know!

  • Teeky
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:45 a.m.

    I disagree Tom - the solution is that no one should get marriage by the state. The reason so many religious people oppose alternative forms of marriage is because they view marriage as a religious sacrament or rite. Thus these people view the state as administering a fundamentally religious rite.

    The answer then is to get the government out of the marriage business. All relationships between consenting adults would get the legal status of civil unions from city hall. Then, if they wanted, they could get married within a church. Religious institutions must be granted freedom to refuse marriage to anyone, and existing same-sex unions could be considered legal. This could be done without any change to the law, just the restriction on what government can do. CA should pass a law that the State does not have the authority to perform marriages, but only allows the state to bestow legal rights on relationships in which the participants want the legal benefits offered by the state.

    Unfortunately I don't think such a sterile contract reflects what marriage traditionally means to our society. But the competing traditions of heterosexual marriage and equal protection are being balanced here and somethings gotta give

  • UtahGuy
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:44 a.m.

    You can protest all you want. It is not going to make a lick of difference.

  • On Your Mind
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:44 a.m.

    I still don't understand why the LDS church is being targeted. More African Americans voted against Prop 8 than did California LDS members. (even if all the California LDS members didn't vote at all, Prop 8 still would have passed) Why don't the no on Prop 8 voters seek out African Americans? So the LDS is supposed to respect the lifestyle of the gay community but the gay community can't respect the lifestyle of the LDS? The gay community is acting like a little kid throwing a temper tantrum.

  • SouthDude
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:43 a.m.

    Tom...there is nothing to "fathom." He does not have to explain his fathom-nessness anymore than you have to explain your gayness.

  • bam0612
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:41 a.m.

    i'm sadden by the actions of "adults" on BOTH sides. it's sad that we treat each other so mean. is this the example we want to send to our kids?
    it's too bad that we can't disagree as adults. and we wonder why our children are so mean to each other.

  • Inconvenient Truth
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:39 a.m.

    Marriage ceased to be a "sacred" ordinance the moment our society allowed a secular authority (i.e. a judge, justice of the peace, ship's captain, etc.) to perform it.

    Denying gays the right to this civil institution is as reprehensible as denying a certain segment of the population the right to vote on the basis of their skin color.

    We are not, as some like to pretend, a Christian Nation. The Constitution calls on no higher power than "We the People", and I defy anyone to find mention of God in this document. It is the only legal basis needed.

    the First Amendment (1791) reaffirms this, and later the Treaty of Tripoli (1797)states in article 11 that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

  • Matt
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    I personally don't condone the protests and think them useless at best and counter-productive at worst.

    But I want to pose a hypothetical by way of encouraging people to try see the other side: Suppose Evangelicals (who are not very fond of Mormon beliefs) organized a campaign in a single state against Mormons. Suppose they raised a lot of money from other states where they were strong to support an initiative prohibiting your marriages and marginalizing your relationships. Now suppose they primarily used the specious argument that people's children would be indoctrinated into "the Mormon way of life" in the public schools and were able to convince a bare majority to prohibit Mormons from marrying in that state and to annul those marriages that had already occurred.

    Would you not be upset by this? Would you not call this bigoted and hateful? Would some of your members not stand up and speak out against such actions or even march in protest?

  • Stand for Morals
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:36 a.m.

    As a member, the Church has never put pressure on us to do anything, they teach doctrine and we have the responsibility to go home and pray about it--asking God if what they teach is right. These immoral issues are serious matters, there's a much greater purpose to all of this and some of us will fight to the end to protect marriage. There's no hate involved, if people truly knew our purposes and our hearts they would understand love and true happiness is at the core. But that takes a lot of humility on their end.

  • Rafe Pealman
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:33 a.m.

    Strange how sexual preferences began to determine a race of people. When did that happen? Gay people are not their own race. They are just people, just like everyone else. Since this is a fact, then that means just like everyone else, gay people have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry if they choose to, but marriage is defined between man and woman. It's sad this has to be explained to people.
    Just because some people have a fetish doesn't mean it must be condoned by the majority. And if all types of minorities should be granted their special rights, then maybe we should allow special rights to all people who have other types of sexual fetishes? What about the right to marry under age kids? Or how about the right to marry animals?
    True, these comments sound so far out there, but so did the term, "Gay Rights" years ago. We are on a slippery slope my friends and its sad that most of you who speak up don't see it. But at least the majority that will not speak out loud for fear of being called hate mongers agree.

  • E
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:32 a.m.

    The left is by nature fascist and totalitarian. Lose an election? The left's response is to attack the supporters of the winning side to intimidate, silence and then subvert the democratic process to steal and impose what they cannot obtain by persuasion. Should be a real interesting four years.

  • Change my ways
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:32 a.m.

    Since I didn't support Proposition 8, I am homophobic. Since I didn't vote for Obama, certainly I am racist as well. So according to those I didn't support, that makes me a red-neck, gun-toting, homophobic, racist, religious zealot. I'm certainly glad you let me know, otherwise I wouldn't be able to clearly see myself for who I am. Thank you! I am such a hateful person, now I realize it! All those horrible things you've said, certainly it's me that's the hateful one not you!

  • Bob
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:30 a.m.

    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. But it comes from the interest made on the Church's tithing fund just like the billion dollar mall does....

  • Stand up for yourself
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:29 a.m.

    Utah, stand up for yourself. Boycott them. Don't travel to San Fran. Don't buy the Hollywood Crab. I know it will just make a same dent, but maybe others in other states will do the same. I am sick of the gay & lesbian agenda. This shows how intolerant they are towards religion. Stop letting them have any power. Why should all these hollywood types have any power. Have you seen their lifestyles? Ya, they are making society better. Duh. Don't buy ,don't watch. Don't travel to their strongholds.

  • Diversity?
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:28 a.m.

    It makes me laugh that the gay community insist we accept diversity when that is the very thing they DON'T have. Man+man= same. HELLO! Man+Woman=Diverse!

    Good Day!

  • definitions
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:27 a.m.

    It's a sad day that we actually have to give legal definitions to a word like "marriage" which has been understood for all of time to have one clear meaning. And since the words "bride" and "groom" don't apply to same-sex couples, the state of CT has now added the word "spouse" on the marriage license so you can take your pick. Just because you want to call a horse a cow, it doesn't make it so. It's not about 'civil rights,' either. Gay couples already have the rights, what they want is society's blessing and acceptance. Sorry, society has just indicated they will not grant that. Tolerance perhaps, but not approval.

  • CA Yes on 8
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:25 a.m.

    The voters have spoken. It is OVER! Use the correct process to place an ammendment on the ballot! The NO on 8 people are vindictive, hateful, and intolerant. One does not have to look very far on television to see this as clear as day. We call it double speak. Arrogant, militant, immoral people demanding acceptance, not tolerance. You go ahead and target individuals, and turn this in to a seriously physical battle, yep, that is a smart tactic to take for your cause. This is truly unbelievable. 70% of black voters stood against you, try boycotting their businesses and churches, oh but you can't since that is a hate crime and discrimination. You No on 8 people make me sick to my stomach.

  • Correct!!!
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:23 a.m.

    Clueless is absolutely right. If the gay community were to really look at the demographics then they would see that the African American Community and their affiliated faiths had the majority of the vote. Not to mention the hispanic vote. Why not target them? Because they know that the mormons are passive and targeting the race would be huge. Get over it!! The vote is in and the gay community lost.

  • Ted
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:18 a.m.

    I support Proposition 8. Go ahead and target me. I will exercise my right to defend myself. This is why the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms. When the government fails to protect us exercising our freedom to vote, we can defend ourselves.

    The way I see it, we can make it a larger majority vote the next time around, by knocking off a few anti-H8 people.

    How dare they bring violence to people who exercised their right. This is why I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. They come out with violence to people who peacefully voted their mind. If they're that upset, they should be upset with themselves for not getting out to vote.

  • MAS
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:16 a.m.

    Again, it's time to move on with life and cease the hatred towards all people. We love you all as human beings but do not like the way you choose to live your life. We have accepted that way you live your life and we still love you all. Life is a full of CHOICES, we all be making the right ones

  • Double Standard Gays
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:15 a.m.

    I'm going to get all my friends to march around with signs that say: "Religo-phobic Gays", "Gays bigoted against People of Faith", "Gays hate Faithful".

  • News Flash
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:13 a.m.

    NO RIGHTS WERE LOST WHEN PROP 8 PASSED!!! Gay Civil Unions and registered Domestic Partnerships in California still maintain all perks/visitation rights/tax breaks they had 2 months ago. Prop 8 merely keeps them from hijacking the title of "Marriage." And yes, the US Constitution allows the majority to define who can marry and what its definition is based on moral and other reasons. That is why polygamous relationships are not recognized and why children below a certain age cannot purchase a marriage license. And don't bring up the "Consenting Adults" argument--polygamy and prostitution have been defined as illegal practices based on moral reasons. Gay couples were given a huge concession in California to receive the rights they have and should quiet down before everyone else realizes just what they've allowed them to get away with.

  • MAS
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:06 a.m.

    It's time to move on with life. The people have spoken. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Those who support the initiative to keep marriage between man and woman have chosen that way. the other side has chosen the way they feel and believe. The bottom line is about choice. Choosing which side to be on will also bring persecution. For either you belong on, we will all be persecuted for what we believe. The vote was done and the people of the country have spoken. Live with it or go find another place in this world to live and excercise your choices.

  • CIndy
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:05 a.m.

    TO TOM:

    . . . and when everyone gets it, you'll see that America's gonna get it. When the nation has lost its moral compass, it will be the end. Right now the populace has shown that it isn't quite gone, and for that we have to thank not the white university educated folks like you and the judciary, but the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

  • Lionheart
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:05 a.m.

    It should be clear by now that religion is the ultimate target of the gay marriage crowd. This will be coming to a street near you and it won't be stopping until the foundations of the great religions are rubble.

  • Jim
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:03 a.m.

    How long until there is a demand for the "right" to marry my dog (he has rights too!)? It is a slippery slope.

  • Bill
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:02 a.m.

    It's funny that people think a boycott is going to work.....boycotts have always failed and always will....Besides how many straight businesses depend solely on the gay community? Just like when the illegals took a day off to shut down our economy. It was a flop. Fact is we don't depend solely on one group of people.

  • Gemma UK
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:02 a.m.

    Every adult does have the right to get married, but there are provisos.
    You can't marry a close relative.
    You can't marry a minor.
    You can't marry if you are already married.
    How about - you can't marry someone of your own sex?

  • Nate
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:02 a.m.

    Yes, this is a democracy and people do have the right to vote on things, but the US Supreme Court established that marriage is a fundamental right in the case of Loving V. Virginia back in 1967. Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, all citizens are supposed to be given due process and equal rights, thus this issue should never have been brought before the voters.

  • ediddy
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:01 a.m.

    Furthermore, while protest is a right of any citizen of this country, the personal attacks, name calling and targeting of selected groups while ignoring others only sheds illumination on the truly bigoted and intolerant natures and agendas of those who so recently have clamored for all to be tolerant. Seems the tolerance is only appropriate if it suits the G & L agenda. That we don't agree on the issue is one thing. That we are not allowed to without recrimination only highlights the hypocracy of the gay marriage proponents. The law allows for protest and redress by due process. Utilize those rights as any other group would do, but get off your hypocritical horse and cease the personal attacks.

  • Re: Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 8:00 a.m.

    If you don't see the difference between us fighting for same sex couples to have certain civil rights and defending our moral belief that Marriage not be trampled on and mocked, then you truly don't understand the issue.

    I can't be a Dr. without going to school. I believe the basic prerequisit for marriage as being a man and a woman.

    This has never been an anti-gay measure. We do not hate, and it pains me to watch people hurt. For me it's been a pro-God, pro-Child, pro-Law measure.

    1) I believe that marriage is ordained of God and is recognized only when solomnized between men and women. To do so mocks God. (I think marriage should be taken out of Govt. all together).

    2) Children should not have their rights to a Mom and a Dad taken away from them.

    3) The Law should not be overruled by activist judges.

    I support civil unions, I support the rights of those same sex couple to love how they want, I support their beneficiary, medical, ect. rights.

    I don't support their forcing an immoral law upon us.

  • Katie Groves
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:58 a.m.

    It is not surprising that this issue is so heated, but what I can't understand is how it is not within any church's right to speak out for what it teaches and believes in. We believe one of the prophets roles is to warn.
    I think the churches support on prop 8 is as much a warning for our society as it is support to affirm heterosexual marriage. God knows the consequences of sin on indiviuals as well as societies and no matter how loudly gay rights activist preach or protest their own beliefs, those consequences in short and long term will not be taken away.
    Calling sin a different name or re-naming an timeless institution to make a lifestyle seem more acceptable to oneself or the world at large will do little to relieve the longterm effects on our society.

    The mormon church and it's members who supported proposition 8, don't hate those who chose or even feel deeply for their same gender. They just don't feel that feelings alone can make something wrong in God's eyes, right; and we trust that God can see far beyond the limited vision of man. Time will vindicate the prophets.

  • SoCal Mormon
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:57 a.m.

    Yogi, I suggest you check out the video on YouTube of prop 8 opponents assaulting an older lady in Palm Springs. The video was shot by a Palm Springs News team. Opponets of 8 have engaged have used harassament, vandalism and even violence on 8 supporters, or even people that are simply expressing religious belief. No matter what your feelings on 8 may be, you cannot condone this behavior. If you do, you ought to consider the religious civil liberties that are being trampled. To commend the one and condem the other is of itself gross hypocrisy and bigotry.

  • To: Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:57 a.m.

    First, you should be happy you have supporters among those who voted Yes on 8. Absolutely, people can support gays but still value the sanctity of marriage. I can totally see how that reconciles. We value your right to live your lifestyle, but we also value the sanctity of marriage.

    Second, PLEASE PLEASE tell me how this is a rights issue. Absolutely none of your rights are being taken away or violated. I still have not heard an explanation that makes any sense. Yours is a campaign for "special" rights, not civil rights.

    Lastly, do you see us picketing your lifestyle choice? Do you see us vandalizing your houses, places of worship, places you patronize, or doing anything to hurt you? Then, why do you feel the need to picket and vandalize our places of worship? Do we not have a right to champion whatever causes we wish?

    Tolerance goes both ways!

  • Craig Williams
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:56 a.m.

    People need to stop talking about taking away civil rights. Marriage is not a fundamental right and Proposition 8 did not such thing.

    Proposition 8 simply defined a requirement for statutory marriage, that the relationship consist of a male and female. There is no hate, intolerance or bigotry in this definition.

    The issue is that the state has an interest in male-female relationships that it does not have in same-sex relationships. Male-female relationships have the potential to perpetuate the species, and hence society and the state itself. Same sex marriages have no such potential and are therefore not due the same legal consideration.

    Because of this it is entirely appropriate to create different legal structures for each relationship. Marriage for male-female relationships, and civil permissions for same-sex relationships.

  • puzzled
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:56 a.m.

    As if what they are doing will make a difference. It makes me want to look up all those that are doing this and boycott their Establishments.. How can this be good but create more hate. It really sadens me to see people lose sorely. Almost like the parent that picks on opposing little league team kids, because their team got beat....

  • ediddy
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:54 a.m.

    Gus or GeeBee or Ultra Bob or liberal Larry, Please articulate in your elitist clarity which rights guaranteed by the constitution were eliminated by the passage of Prop 8. I don't mean the semantics or the theatrics, but the actual rights already afforded by the US Constitution, which trumps the California constitution. Marriage is a religious rite not a civil right. Civil unions afford all the legal rights available to any couple wishing them. Seeking a marriage rite as a civil right allows federal and state intrusion into areas prohibited by the establishment clause of the US constitution. I contend, on legal footing, that it is the opponents of Prop 8 who do not get it, not the other way around.

  • Professor
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:52 a.m.

    Boycotts are one thing, but in my 61 years in California I've never seen groups of people running rampant in an effort to harass a group because of their beliefs.

  • Marriage
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:52 a.m.

    You are right Tom... Marriage, which is defined as a man and woman, is a fundamental right. Everybody gets it. Honestly, who do we think we are to try and redefine what has been set since the beginning of time?
    Everyone just needs to relax and be nice.

  • To Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:49 a.m.

    CORRECTION! Marriage is a fundamental right between man and woman. It isn't your "right" to change what has been for thousands of years. Children have the RIGHT to have a mother and a father! Parents have a RIGHT to teach their children without public schools forcing your lifestyle down their throats (example, the kindergarten class required to sign a pledge about homosexuality, kindergarten class taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding-all in CA of course.) Religious institutions have a RIGHT to believe as the please and stand up for moral correctness (example, Catholic adoption agency in Mass required to close for not letting gay couples adopt). I am sick and tired of gays pushing their lifestyle on me. You are violating my religious freedom by forcing your lifestyle on the rest of the rest of the country.

  • Bill
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:48 a.m.

    It is just outright funny how these pro-gay people attack the mormon church. First they claim that mormons are weak and a small pathetic group. Then they attack it and say it has too much power and influence. Which one is it? Why not march in front of all of the churches that pushed for Proposition 8? Why only mormon temples? That is pretty targeted and shows biased intent. It is what it is. Pro-gay people can claim bigotry, but, what they are doing in return is plain bigotry. Remember "No one is born a bigot" :)

  • Intolerance?? Nah
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:46 a.m.

    Rights have NOT been taken away. I see this whole thing as a joke really. Everybody has the right of marriage...One man, one woman. If you don't choose that, then don't be asking for MORE rights. And to compare this whole thing to the civil rights movement is wrong.

  • Really
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:45 a.m.

    Minority rights trump the majority? How about fair treatment of everyone. Each person had a right and opportunity to let their voice be heard on this issue. The "majority" spoke out, and it was not just from religious organizations. People of all faiths, races, etc. spoke out and decided on an important social issue. Prop. 8 protestors are clearly harrassing those who were in support and showing their "true colors", which is nothing to be proud of. What are they going to do? Bully everyone until they get their way, which is what they are doing. It's not about equal rights for them, it's about special privileges to the minority over everyone else.

  • By the way...
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:44 a.m.

    marriage is not a right. That argument is completely invalid. It's purely your opinion.

  • Instereo
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:44 a.m.

    Sounds good that once a decision is made to abide by it but did the "Right" do that with Roe vs. Wade, NO. The only time you hear that arguement is when someone wins. When they lose they just try something else. People that supported Prop 8 should know that because I imagine they are trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade at the same time.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:44 a.m.

    What I don't understand is three other states passed similar if not the same change in their laws and many states prior to this election have done the same thing........but now everyone wants to protest Prop 8. Is California the most important state in this country? Are gays in California valued more than ones in AZ? GA? UT? etc etc.

    I also understand that people are angry and upset. Some of the riots, ie LA Temple, have came very close to being riots. And there are people who have damaged property that isn't theirs. There are times where people jump out in front of cars to make their point. This doesn't help the cause of marriage for all. It drives a bigger wedge in the separate groups which doesn't allow for people to understand others people and their needs. Protest -- yes. Being respectful to others and their property -- yes. Acting like a criminal -- no.

  • Tia
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:42 a.m.

    Bravo Tom. I was going to remark, but you said it so well I can only second it.

  • ToTom
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:39 a.m.

    Tom says: "Marriage is a fundamental right - everybody gets it, or nobody gets it."
    I don't remember marriage being a right. Marriage is not a universal right, nor has it ever been. Marriage has always been discriminatory by age, sex, species, health, and number of spouses, etc. To say Prop 8 is taking away one's rights is completely misleading and wrong. Marriage is a privilege, and is such because it contributes to society by creating families. Gay marriage does not create anything but a union, which I believe is already available to homosexuals through civil unions. I have no problem with that, but marriage always has been a privilege.

    People are saying they have "rights" that don't exist. They aren't even accepting the responsibilities of the rights they have.

  • Incredibly insightful!
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:37 a.m.

    Thanks for parting with your wisdom Tom. I wasn't aware of more than one constitution!

  • Against Gay Marriage but for civ
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:37 a.m.

    Against Gay Marriage, but for civil rights.

    I'm against redefining marriage to include a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman, but I'm for civil rights. They should be able to vote, work and get housing, but they shouldn't be allowed to redefine marriage.

    The hatred directed towards Catholics, LDS, and Evangelicals is only going to further the resolve of the those people to continue to defend the defintion of marriage.

    The hatred and violence shown toward the LDS by the gay community may eventually backfire on their attempts to redefine marriage. The gay community appears to be acting as a bully by trying to intimidate and threaten anyone that opposes their attempts to redefine marriage.

    I am against redefining marriage, but I wish the derogatory comments about homosexuals would stop.

  • Re: Yogi
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:36 a.m.

    That is a lie. Gays have not had their Civil Rights taken away. Way to promote a lie.

  • To; Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:34 a.m.

    Tom. Are you telling us that the nation should be ruled by the minorities? If the majority disagrees with something, they should always give way to what the minority wants?

    With that kind of logic, John McCain should be President because he only received a minority of the votes?

    Is that how you want the system to work? I think that you are totally forgetting the concept of democracy.

  • Dave
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:28 a.m.

    "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." - Quote from Prop 8 supporter.

    First reaction: That sure is an easy thing to say when you're on the winning side.

    Why do I have the feeling that this guy who gave $20k to this effort wouldn't be so blithely easygoing about it had his cause lost?

    Who are you kidding? He'd sink the next $20k into the passage of a national anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment. And his quote the the paper would be "I've always told my kids to never give up in fighting for what's right."


  • Paul
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:27 a.m.

    Thank you Tom. It seems that a majority of the reaction from the Pro-8 side is, "You guys lost. Roll over, and don't be such sore losers." It's also hard to use common sense with people who believe that a god has told them that they are a chosen and privileged people. It leads to a tendency to believe they can't possibly be wrong, and it makes them think their bigotry is an instinct to righteousness.

  • Kevin
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:20 a.m.

    Let's be honest. If your Mormon marriages had just be nullified by a simple majority referendum, would you just "move on?"

    Try empathy.

  • Forrest
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:20 a.m.

    What of the children? Do they not have a right to a father and mother? Giving gays a right to call their union "marriage" under the law is to disregard the foundations of our society, one that has blessed many children throughout history because people thought more of their children than of themselves. Which is what marriage is all about. If gay folks want to adopt, how does calling it a marriage impact in any way their effort to raise a child?

  • free_utah
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:20 a.m.

    Why wouldn't it get personal? I mean if a gay person can't marry the person they love and want to spend their life with -- isn't that personal? Of course it is personal when you deny the civil rights of a particular group of people. It is very personal when you pull out your wallet at the recommendation of your church and pay to prevent the minority of having their equal rights.

  • Darin
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:19 a.m.

    No matter how you feel about same-sex marriage, I find it incredibly short-sighted for anyone to think that a ballot initiative on the issue is the end of the story. People ask, " the majority has spoken, why can't we just move on?" The answer is because this is a human rights issue, and it is not going away. Moreover, this is a highly emotional issue and an unusual situation in that rights were TAKEN AWAY, not just defined. This is where the LDS church and others badly miscalculated. Deep down, does anyone really believe that same-sex marriage - now legal in two states - will not be allowed in every one of these United States one day in the near or distant future? -- Oh, yes, I know, "that will never make it right in the eyes of God!" Fine. My point is that I don't understand how anyone can be surprised and offended by the protests against the passage of Prop 8.

  • RE: Tom & Yogi
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:19 a.m.

    Tom and Yogi, no one "stripped anyone of rights" here, stop playing with words.

    Homosexuals are trying to create new rights to support their non-traditional lifestyle, they were defeated, and now they harass the other side.

    Homosexuals have the exact same rights as anyone else. I wish they had enough class to try to win their point appropriately. You both know that had the issue gone the other way, the Yes on 8 crowd would not be behaving like the No on 8 crowd is right now.

    Sure, they're incensed because they think it's a "rights" issue, which it's not. It's also not a hate, bigotry, or tolerance issue, but those are such convenient labels and such inflammatory rhetoric it's become a crutch for them.

  • AJ
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:18 a.m.

    Yogi & Tom - Using emotionally packed words like "civil rights" and "pushing your religion" is a sophomoric attempt at real thought and debate. We all know Prop 8 was not a civil rights issue since anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex! And, it wasn't churches pushing their religion when MA homosexuals who could easily have been married by a judge instead choose to push their religion of "self-worship" on an innocent Christian church by suing it because the minister said he cannot perform a sacred, religious ceremony when there is no "man" and "wife". The voters for Prop 8 saw the not-so-hidden agenda of the Anti-8 perverts and their duped supporters. No, "religion" is a continuum with God of Truth on one end and no god on the other extreme. Unfailingly, where God isn't, people like you worship yourselves. Like Sir Francis Bacon said, "Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." So you and your ilk attack honest, humble, God-fearing people while all the while worshipping yourself and your perverted beliefs. SO QUIT PUSHING YOURSELF AS GOD ON THE REST OF US, and we won't have to have these pathetic discussions anymore.

  • Dewey43
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:17 a.m.

    I rather expect God cares more about how we love than He does about who we love. Get a life straight people, you don't have to answer for gays, gays do, just as you do. Good luck to both sides.

  • impeach
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:16 a.m.

    The California Supreme Court could rule as early as this week on a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate Proposition 8, said court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.~~~~~~~~
    If they rule in favor of invalidating the millions of California voters.
    All those judges that do should be *IMPEACHED.*~

    * People of California * ~Please remove any court judge that tries to steal your vote.

  • arc
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:14 a.m.

    Those opposed to Prop 8 are just trying to smear the Church. They are acting like a little kid that didnt' get their way, actually worse.

    They are trying to state that the Church preaches hate, which it doesn't.

    The real question, who is behind the smear campaign, certainly not those in the Gay community that are all for love and acceptance.

  • dewey43
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:14 a.m.

    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.

  • Minnesota
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:13 a.m.

    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?

  • Former Utahn
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:13 a.m.

    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.

  • reaping what you sow
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:12 a.m.

    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.

  • CABE
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:11 a.m.

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

  • Mom
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Clueless
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:09 a.m.

    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.

  • SRC
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:08 a.m.


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

  • Re: Yogi and Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:05 a.m.

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

  • To Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:04 a.m.

    "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.

  • itsme
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:04 a.m.

    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).

  • Jayce Cox
    Nov. 13, 2008 7:04 a.m.

    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.

  • re: Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:57 a.m.

    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.

  • What "right"?
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:56 a.m.

    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.

  • elton john
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:53 a.m.

    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"

  • Dear Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Straight Shooter
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:48 a.m.

    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.

  • To Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:48 a.m.

    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?

  • Hogwash
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:45 a.m.

    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?

  • DC
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:43 a.m.

    No one is taking away the rights of the minority. They still have the right to live together, have civil unions, etc. What is being discussed here is what is the definition of marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because a minority wants it to be different doesn't make it different. I just think it is sad to see the minority "targeting" some individuals and some churches.

  • Boycott Gay Businesses
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:38 a.m.

    If and when this vote by THE PEOPLE of California is overturned, I will be boycotting any person and/or group that is affiliated with the gay movement. I will also protest in front of their meeting places until the PEOPLES VOTE is restored. It is time to stand up against these intolerant bigots and defend our children, families, religious freedoms, and right to vote.

  • Millie
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:34 a.m.

    When the vote has been taken the will of the people has spoken.
    This is not about prejudice but voting by ones own conscience. The Religious folks have as much right to vote by conscience as the gays have to vote for preference. I don't care if they target me with their hate speech . . . it just shows a group that doesn't practice what they preach. It shows a group that is religiphobic with a hatred for those who won't agree with their point of view. The gays are showing a preference and love of hate speech to get their way. I don't wish them ill but if my child were tantruming I still wouldn't give in to them.

  • JG
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:34 a.m.

    I am in disbelief at people calling Utah a 'hate state'. If the liberals are so tolerant of diverse lifestyles, then why aren't they tolerant of ours??

  • Paul in MD
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:32 a.m.

    The concept of separation of church and state has been twisted almost beyond recognition over the last 40 years. When this country was founded, its founders had been living under empires that had religious components in the government, imposing religious rules without representation of the people. Britain still reserves a number of Parliament seats for Church of England leadership.

    Separation of church and state was intended to leave the government in the hands of the people, not the priests (rabbis, clerics, etc.). It was never intended to block the government from recognizing the good contributions religion has made, or keep it from listening to constructive input from all religious leaders, along side input from every other group.

    Yes, history is full of examples where ruthless people used religion as an excuse to do horrible things - the Crusades come to mind. But if the extent of a church's involvement in politics is to say to its members "we think this is a good proposition, and we support it" they have done nothing more than act in good faith and as good citizens in a democracy.

    By the way, I heard a lot of LDS were voting against Prop 8.

  • thompson
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:31 a.m.

    Marriage is a fundamental right, Tom. I agree. But we're discussing the DEFINITION of marriage, and for right now most (practically all) societies define marriage as between a man and a woman. I believe it's because men and women can create human life through their physical relationship, and that's the reason that societies have created "marriage," to tie parents to their offspring. Regardless, all Americans are free to marry.

  • Mom in MO
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:21 a.m.

    I have the right to my own opinion, and no one should have the right to punish me for it. Or try to bully me into changing it. And I find it disgusting that the people can VOTE and have their voices silenced by a judge who overrules the majority. Why bother voting if the courts are going to legalize whatever they want? Call evil good and good evil, and watch what happens.

  • Paul in MD
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:21 a.m.

    Prop 8 opponents are quick to say supporters are taking away a right. I've seen many say the LDS church should "stay out of our bedrooms." A ban on same-sex marriage doesn't alter what two people can do in private. All it does is define marriage.

    My disagreeing with supporters of same-sex marriage doesn't make me homophobic either. That's a childish reaction.

    A lot of people have expressed a desire to strip the LDS church of its tax-exempt status. There were other churches that supported Prop 8. Should they also be stripped of that status? How about the ones who fought against Prop 8? As long as only one church is being singled out, for voicing support of a ballot question on religious grounds, then the reaction IS bigotry. Churches have spoken out on political proposals, questions, etc, since the founding of this country. They are within their rights to do that. It's when they start devoting money to it (which the LDS church didn't) or force its members to fall in line (which the LDS church won't) that they cross the line.

  • RE:Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:18 a.m.

    Pretty short sighted aren't you? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to "fathom" the hate that's spewing from the exact group who is claiming to be hated. The LDS church did nothing except voice it's opinion...the same as multiple other religious organizations throughout California. When you want to protest them all equally and spray paing "bigot" and other illigal vandalism on their sacred edifices then come back and tell me about discrimination.

    What a joke. Boycott Utah will ya? I'll bet Robert Redford and his "plastic" friends won't mind a bit when you shut down his anti-Mormon film festival.

  • Jeffrey Nielsen
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:17 a.m.

    How is this any different from the case of Jeffrey Nielsen, the BYU Professor who was fired for writing a letter to the SLTrib opposing his church's stance on gay marriage? The key here is knowing who your community is and not upsetting them. I would think the Musical Theater community is heavily gay, just as BYU is heavily LDS.

  • Free Agent
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:14 a.m.

    As the LDS Church often states, "choices have consequences". The church and its members chose to get involved in the political process on a red-hot issue (the church putting pressure on the members from the pulpit and even in temple recommend interviews), and ought to have anticipated the possible repercussions. I don't agree with the reactions, which are extreme, but the church took a stand and now needs to deal with the consequences.

  • re Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 6:12 a.m.

    The law has been defined, If you don't like it move to some where where you can marry your man.
    Get over it.
    You never had the right

  • Fibonacci
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:58 a.m.

    Who's pushing their "religious beliefs" on who? The homosexual radical militant agenda is showing it's true militant self.

  • John
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:57 a.m.

    I am active LDS, opposed proposition 8, refused to donate to support its passage and have now lost total sympathy to those in the gay rights comunity. If Proposition 8 had failed, you would not see this type of bigotry and idiocy on the part of those who support traditional marraige. It is very doubtful supporters of Proposition 8 would picket bathhouses in San Francisco or the Ellen Show. This is the second time a ban on same sex marraige has passed California -- not the first. Those gay rights activists need to realize that it wasn't one or two religions -- it was a majority of California citizens -- the LDS church is not the majority in California. Plain and simply this is anti-Mormon bigotry. I sure don't see them picketing African American churches and African American supporters who voted for Proposition 8.

  • ramper
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:49 a.m.

    We always use the saying: "What would Jesus do?" Well, how about "how would Jesus vote?" Interesting thought don't you think?

  • Patience
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:38 a.m.

    Gay Rights activists like to compare their fight to other Civil Rights movements, but what a far cry they are from the peaceful, non-violent movements led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. Instead of having a loving, peaceful attitude, they shove their beliefs down people's throats and resort to violence. They should limit themselves to peaceful protests and general boycotts, and stop with the personal attacks, book burning (cross burning, anyone?), and vandalism. Blacks, women, and other minorities worked for sometimes centuries to get rights and the gay community seems to be demanding them overnight, creating embittered groups on both sides.

  • Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:37 a.m.

    It is sad that the Minority has the right to force their beliefs on the Majority but not the other way around. The people of California have voted for the marrage amemdment twice and the all holy judges reversed it the first time and will probably reverse it again. What good does it do the people to vote for something just to have the judges reverse their vote? Why don't the people who are in favor of same sex marrage move from California to Vermont and Mass. Their cause is law there. I am tired of having other minorities views and beliefs shown and force into my life.

  • BOAD
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:24 a.m.

    I do not care if the gays and lesbians want to target me and my state with boycotts. That is their choice, and since we live in a free country, they can choose to do that. For the most part, having of bunch of gay and lesbian people not coming to my state to visit and do business is really no skin off my nose at all. I would just as soon not have to deal with them and their self-righteous smugness and feigned indignation. If the recent protests are at all indicative of the kind of people who will not be coming to Utah, or who will be leaving Utah in the near future, all I can say is bring it on!

  • Amercenary
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:20 a.m.

    Speak quietly and carry a big stick.- Teddy Roosevelt(?) The voice of the majority of Californias has spoken not once but twice on this issue.

    The great thing about America is that neo facism is still a live and well. The minority has the right to trump the majority and the good of the whole must answer to the need of the few. Now we wait to see how blind justice responds again to the voice of the people.

  • billybob
    Nov. 13, 2008 5:17 a.m.

    Marriage is not a fundamental right in the government of the United States (US) set up by the founding fathers, nor in the individual governments set up by the various states of the union. You will not find reference to it in the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Marriage is a religious rite that has been adopted by the government of the US and the various states with the US. Those who think it is a right need to get their facts straight.

  • No on 8 don't uinderstand
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:59 a.m.

    The "No on 8" folks just don't get it. It was not about "hate" and "taking away rights".

    The "rights" are already there with civil unions. What you want is "respect" and the ability to teach our children that "gay marriage is equal to heteosexual marriage" (Lexington, MA) and be able to sue doctors, photographers, and other professionals who don't agree with accepting your lifestyle. And take away the tax exemptions (as in New Jersey) if a church doesn't adopt same sex marriages as valid. Whatever happened to free speech and freedom of religion?

    It all seems like one-way tolerance. "We (the No on 8 side) can boycott your businesses, but don't dare to even vote your conscience or we'll go after you." Just yesterday, the Californis Musical Theater director of 24 years was forced from his job.

  • samhill
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:51 a.m.

    My anger is being stoked against those who try to silence anyone simply for saying something that they disagree with.

    Protestors have a right to -lawfully- protest, and those who voted in ways the protestors dislike have a right to do so.

    But, those who protest against voters are simply discrediting themselves within a democratic process.

  • Adam
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:33 a.m.

    I think Tom hit the nail on the head. There are times when an election process is the proper way of determining a law but in most instances laws should be determined by a set group of people who can overlook bigotry that a common collection of people cannot. Its no wonder that gay marriages got banned in California, more than likely they would be banned in every state in the Union if we just took a vote on it. If we were to take a vote in say the 1960s era, southern states over what freedoms we should or shouldnt allow African Americans to have Id probably have to say that wed still be stuck in the same position that we were in at that time. This is one of those times where a vote is not the right way to settle the dispute but rather a time where the Supreme Court should decide. Im going to laugh long and hard if thats the way the coin lands after reading about how much time and money the Proposition 8 supporters put into trying to outlaw gay marriages.

  • CharlieBrown
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:29 a.m.

    Mariage comes from the latin "maritus" and is defined in any dictionary across the planet as, "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife". If gay activists and the press accuse supporters of this definition of being "bigots", they are advocating preference over principle. As former LDS Apostle Neal A. Maxwell once warned, "if everything is a matter of preference and nothing a matter of principle, why not put Dracula in charge with the Blood Bank?" We are indeed dealing here with a group who intends to suck marriage from its vital substance...

  • Ironic
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:25 a.m.

    It's amusing to hear that the gay crowd threatens to boycott (gasp!!) the Sundance Film Festival! Wouldn't that be hilarious? The Sundance Film Festival, which harbours all things homosexual, gets ruined because the gay crowd boycotts it. LOL

  • Paul
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:21 a.m.

    Yes for proposition 8 :)

  • unintended consequences
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:20 a.m.

    The unintended consequence of record numbers of African American voters turning out to vote in the presidential election, was that they overwhelmingly voted for prop 8. The LDS church is an easy target in these protests, but the members of the church in California do not have enough votes to pass the proposition. Millions and Millions of non-LDS voted for the proposition, and are not being targeted. I do not see large scale protests at African American businesses or churches. It seems a little inconsistent.

  • RR
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:08 a.m.

    Two crazy things about this. First, protesting like this changes no ones mind and they're better off helping those in need than carrying on like little crying kids like this day after day. You lost, get over it, it's part of life.
    Second, they are defending a way of life few people agree with and it's a life that will never give them true happiness because they can NEVER have children. Why choose to live your life like that? To each his own.

  • nyc
    Nov. 13, 2008 4:01 a.m.

    We get to see the uncivil actions of those who throw dangerous tantrums for their civil" rights!... and they want to adopt the children of those they call the "breeders". When is the public going to fully understand the foul agenda of this warped group.

  • MT in MD
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:47 a.m.

    Funny, the only fundamental rights I recall from my days in high school government class are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see health care, housing, education, marriage, are a whole host of things liberals have since declared are fundamental rights. Does Prop 8 threaten anyone with the loss of life? Is anyone suddenly unable to, say, leave their house and go wherever they wish because Prop 8 passed? Does Prop 8 prevent anyone from purchasing what they want, taking whatever job they want, sleep with whomever they want? The only thing that Prop 8 does that is even remotely like that is state that a particular institution is reserved for a man and a woman. It does nothing to repeal the state's law that allows gay couples to name one another the beneficiaries of each other's wills, life insurance policies, and a whole host of other "advantages" that heterosexual couple enjoy by virtue of being married. The reaction from the "losers" of the Prop 8 initiative is wholly unreasonable and childish. Fundamental rights have not been stripped from them.

  • He did right
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:33 a.m.

    Tom, he didn't vote to strip "those same people" of their rights.
    You miss the point.
    Calif has a civil union law that grants gays the rights of a married couple.

    By donating to the Gay Pride festival he was showing AMAZING tolerance to a position he doesn't agree with. Using tolerance here in its original defintion as well. Not the redefined one that means hating and calling people names that donm't agree with you.

    He voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. That is between a man and a woman. One in which consumationm of the marriage is required (not possible with gay partners). The standard, traditional definition has existed from the fisrt man and woman.

  • tonce
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:31 a.m.

    whatever happened to scenarios like democracy,voting for results,and acceptance of results.Many African American entities voted...Catholics voted...non denominational Christian groups voted...singling out Mormons is a low blow scenario of conviently targeting a group akin to Hitler targeting Jews in Nazi Germany for the nation's economic issues

  • Delicious
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:25 a.m.

    This is just too delicious!

    Religious bigotry being justified on the grounds of gender-identity bigotry.

    I get the message -- bigotry is OK, so long as it's my flavor of bigotry.

  • amazed
    Nov. 13, 2008 3:10 a.m.

    What a bunch of hypocritical hate mongers. The fay community is targeting one religion that decided to stand up for what it believes in. The majority of voters were not Mormon. They raised more money to try and buy public acceptance of perversion and destroy the definition of marriage (a religious institution the state recognized and adopted civil benefits for) and they lost. Twice. Take civil unions and leave the religious groups out of it and marriage as well. Marriage is religious don't step on their toes and there will be no fight. And by the way to all the morons who don't understand the constitution it says nothing about marriage, nothing therefore it is not a constitutional right. This same bigoted group only tolerant of their own views would be touting democracy if they had one. Since they didn't they throw it out the window and rant and rave like children who didn't get their way. America is not yet completely desensitized to perversion yet, so CA along with 40 other states have passed similar laws. Gays don't want equality they want special priveledge and like a bad virus to conquer and subvert more to their cause.

  • GeeBee
    Nov. 13, 2008 2:02 a.m.

    Surprised and puzzled? If you dive into the pool, don't be surprised and puzzled when you get wet!

  • jefejivaro
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:42 a.m.

    To Tom: There are some basics here worth repeating. You speak as though it were a foregone conclusion that marriage is a fundamental right. Marriage has never been a universal "right". Marriage as sanctioned by government was designed to benefit/protect women and children, and all rights inherent to marriage accrue to them. One of the basic problems of government sanctioning same-sex marriage is it also removes the last barrier to adoption by same-sex couples.

    Children in homes without either a mother or a father have measurably poorer outcomes in life. In situations of divorce or death of a parent government can do little or nothing to prevent it. Here, though, it is possible to prevent this injustice where children who have no say in the matter grow up under a disadvantage. This is the true "equal protection" required.

    BTW--your puzzlement RE a business that supports gay causes and still supports traditional marriage stems from your misconception that support of traditional marriage = hatred of gays. In most of our minds/hearts, there isn't a ghost of a connection. I'm supporting millennia of proven tradition and stable civilization, not acting out of hate or ignorance.

  • Hey Both Ways
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:32 a.m.

    Your logic is flawed. Your vote for president does not include taking the rights away from an entire group of people.

    Prop 8 is nothing but a hate and fear motivated movement. You should be ashamed!!!

  • Tom
    Nov. 13, 2008 1:09 a.m.

    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. I'd suggest that business owner sit and have a think about how he really feels about gay people - and people in general.

    Further, I don't understand the puzzlement of religious leaders who feel targeted by 'religious bigotry', when those same people urged their faithful to spend enormous amounts of time and money to push their religious beliefs on an unwilling minority through law. How did they think the minority would react? I mean, seriously?

    And really, is it really true that in the US the rights of the majority trump the rights of the minority? The will, maybe, but not the rights. Our constitutions are designed precisely to protect the rights of minorities from unfriendly majorities. That's what "equal protection" means, and that's one of the reasons the judicial branch is there. Nobody gets to have the legal goodies at the expense of others. Marriage is a fundamental right - everybody gets it, or nobody gets it.

    Sooner or later, everyone will get it.

  • Both Ways
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:47 a.m.

    This can work the other way as well. How bout everyone who voted for prop 8 boycott businesses that gave money to oppose it and buy from businesses who helped support it. Obviously the majority was for it so we could do more damage than the vocal minority.

    BTW, do the gay rights activists realize this is a democracy. I think I am going to protest in front of the homes of those who voted for Obama because I didn't vote for him.

  • Yogi
    Nov. 13, 2008 12:45 a.m.

    Yes on 8 folks are now complaining that they are being targeted for boycotts? Well, what did you expect would happen when you take gay business but then turn around and try to take away their civil rights? Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost...