Comments about ‘Hundreds take to S.L. streets to protest, support Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Nov. 16 2008 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
re: Disgusted

I agree, we would fight back. That's why Prop 8 was passed. Currently, the homosexuals are attacking marriage by trying to say that they can be married too. Don't agree? Civil unions have all the same rights as married people in California. For all tenses and purposes, a civil union and a marriage are the same thing in California legally. Why would anyone care then? Because they want to attack marriage and religion. If you say that you believe homosexuality is a sin, you're attacked for being a "hatemonger". Well it is, just like any type of sexuality outside of marriage. By the way, if you redefine marriage, I don't think God is going to agree, so he is still going to consider it a sin regardless of what the courts decide. That said, it won't stop the homosexuals from attacking the churches for being against it!

re: Stenar

How about the tyrany of a minority? The Mormon Church is being assaulted when they hardly had anything to do with the outcome, but they are being attacked because they are a minority. That's why the Catholic Church and the Baptists, etc. aren't being attacked!


i love the separation of church and state signs.. shows how ignorant people are. didnt they know that the country was FOUNDED on religious principles? the separation of church and state means the government does not run the church, and the church does not run the government. this vote was BY THE PEOPLE. there is no church and state mixture. american ignorance. and you wonder why our best candidates were obama and mccain?

What Jokes?

I echo the other posters here about gay jokes at Church. I have lived in over 15 different wards and never heard such things at Church. Every member I have met would be embarrassed to be heard talking like that, especially at Church, and especially on a Sunday.

And on any other days of the week the LDS people I know are incredibly tolerant. They don't swear and off-color jokes are rare if not non-existent. Most Mormons have a tough time even with blond jokes for fear of offending someone.

Anyone who suggests Mormons as a people use hate-speech or speak with intolerance about anyone is either confusing them with another group of people or are blatantly trying to deceive.

Mormons, like all true followers of Christ, are tolerant of all people. They love and forgive everyone. What they do not tolerate is sin. Like Christ, they strive to condemn the sin, but love and help the sinner.

If you want tolerance, you have it. But if what you seek is our acceptance of immoral behavior, you have come to the wrong state and nation.


I'm thinkin gays should have the right to marry and also have the right to participate in all of the possibilities that go along with it including domestic violence, cheating spouses,financial problems, divorces, custody battles (maybe) and property settlements just to name a few. Have at it people -- marriage is not a bed of roses. It requires patience, responsibility, and hard work to make it work. Whoever wants to appreciate the joys of marriage should also have to suffer the sorrows.

The legal interpretation

After all is said and done,

and whether sides will agree and disagree as to what the rulings...

it comes down to...

What can be done legally.

Yes, the passing of 8 shows that we, as a society, by a slim margin only, are still not there, in allowing others to live their/our lives as we would.

And sure it hurts.

That said --- we now have two contradictory legal interpretations --- and both of them will have to be done by the same Court.

Methinks my mind takes me back to Brown v. Board of Education, when, the Chief Justice sought an unanimous vote by all justices, to show union with the justices. Are we ready to go there? Or will we have a split decision? Or even worse, a decision that puts us back in Square One?

The judges' ruling will have to, in essence, state that Proposition 8 violates equal protection under the law. Does the amendment to the constitution violate that?

In a worse case scenario, will we, as the LGBT community, have to re-amend the Constitution the Constitution to, in essence, extend marriage to those of us who are now disenfranchised.

The legal interpretation

I believe that when voters went to the polls, they were thinking with their religious minds, not their secular law minds.

By far, the overwhelming argument that I hear is that "I cannot pass marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman" because it is against my religion.


we get that.

I think the undertone, implied, and not written meaning behind Proposition 8 was "only a (religious) marriage is recognized or valid in the State of California."

I don't hear an argument from the side of the people who are not religious, hence my argument. Further, to imply that marriage is only religious is having a narrow-minded view about marriage. Would you in essence, based on your religious beliefs, invalidate the marriages of hetero couples married civilly?

Of course not.

Therefore, by the same logic, marriage is not religious in nature only.

If you say it goes against your religion, fine, we get "The Proclamation to the World."

How would you extend "Proclamation to the World" in the courtroom?

A moral issue? Methinks it is a legal one.

Courts may or may not define morality. It is up to people to do that.

a gay mormon exposed

You've been caught lying again. Your fabricated story used to ignite others against the Church won't work. Just you wait and see. So sad you can't argue your case based on truth. You have to resort to lies because you have nothing to stand on. Your rhetoric is pure drivel. I live near SF and have read California family code 297.5. I've also read what Sir Elton John has to say about gay marriage and guess what, he's on the side of truth!!! He isn't resorting to lies. He's telling it like it is. Homosexuals have civil partnerships and have the same rights of married spouses.

To 'What Jokes?"

You would be surprised how many investigators are turned off by remarks showing intolerance.

While I believe that most the ideal is to be embracing and respectful, there are those who are boisterous and say remarks --- oh shall we say --- of anything that is unlike them.

Perhaps you have been in good wards. I have visited plenty of wards myself too, and time and again, the intolerance was there. Church Members would be wise to show some tolerance towards people of all backgrounds and political persuasions as logn as everyone is respectful.

The legal interpretation

I will rest my case and say that not all things legal are moral.

In an ideal society, hopefully the two are one and the same. In a hybrid society, it's a mess, trying to put all the pieces together.

Now then, back to morality, do we allow 52% of the vote to allow to define morality --- by your own argument?

48% of the vote (or 47.whatever) said that morality should be the other way around.

You will have to agree, regardless on whether you agree or disagree, that it is a very slim margin.

And that as society changes, will we allow the 'morality' to be dictated by a simple majority?

What do we do with the 47%?

And granted, one side will not like the outcome, whatever the legal ramifications of interpretation might be.

In the meantime,

a slim win just made a lot of people unhappy.

While some may ridicule, and get this, here's where the bigotry jumps in --- based on the entries of these comments alone ---

"We don't need 'those people' here" --- referring to gays who want to boycott Utah, in a tone of condescencion. Are they/we not children of God?


I am so sick of hearing about gay right. I have been appalled how they single out the views of churches, and cry hatred but look at the work of many of them destroying and hurting others property. Churches, whatever they come across. Our nation is in moral decay. We no longer have any morals. You all say Churches should stay out. Its a good thing some people still believe in Gods laws. I think it still says in the Bible that being gay is NOT what God intended for us to be.

to legal interpretation

Same sex marriage is not normal. It is against nature, and biology or did you not notice the physical differences between a man and a woman. Same sex couples cannot consumate or procreate. The parts aren't compatible. Children without a mother are more likely to get pregnant as a teen and without a father children are more likely to commit crimes. Same sex marriage is bad for society and our children. There are many nonreligious reasons that same sex marriage is wrong. It was never intended to be a right by our founders.

To "legal interpretation"

You better tell that to my brain, because "normal," as you define it, does not compute.

I get it about the parts. I don't need a biology lesson and neither do I need to go there.

The wiring in my brain, and believe me, I have tried, as have many of my LGBT friends, have tried, to no avail, to go hetero.

You bring in the argument about children --- it seems like you're talking about single parents, and not gay marriage.

Common sense

challenge any of you who are demonstrating hate and bigotry towards the LDS church, to provide substantial proof that the church has over stepped any boundaries of civil law in their support of prop 8. Tell me of a law that says church leaders can't urge their members to participate in their civic duties of voting and encourage them to one side of a debate. Didn't obama campaign from the pulpits of many black churches or other religeous groups? Didn't Huckabee and many other candidates do the same? Did baptists churches overstep the bounds when their members donated? The church itself didn't donate anything it was its members along with thousands and thousands of others. Three quarters of the black and hispanic communities of CA voted for prop 8. Go protest them, oh wait yah you would be too scared because they aren't an easy target like the mormons.

common sense

You are like wolves preying on the weak. All of your intolerance and bigotry is casting shame on your own message. There is no sleeping giant only the same roaring mouse there always was. The sleeping giant voted twice even after you all poured in 40 million, which is more than raised by prop 8 supporters. You are showing your true agenda your way or we'll scare you all into not voting agianst us next time. The real sleeping giant is the silent majority of moral americans who have done the same in 40 other states. Yah or didn't you know that? You had nothing taken away expect the ability to trample on religion. You have civil unions which give ALL (yes ALL) of the same rights as married couples. The results are showing how poor losers react when the public does not support them. Next time we are going to double our efforts and donations to protect ourselves from fanatics who openly attack religions.

Churches have rights too


Your argument is poorly constructed. Richard John Neuhaus said "In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who are religious" and "As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them.

There is little doubt that Churches and religious people have a right to participate in the public square but our beliefs and opinions "should be considered on their merits." (Elder Dallin H. Oaks)

Legal interpretation

If we go the way of what was "intended to be a right by our founders" I think we're going the way of how a Constitution should be.

Shouldn't a Constitution be broad and general without minor clauses and interpretations all along the way? I believe the founders meant for the courts to do the defining and re-defining as time went along.

I will even go as far as saying that the Constitution was written by God-fearing men, with some Deism along the way.

Religion has little bearing

Re: "to legal interpretation,"

"Same sex marriage is not normal. It is against nature, and biology or did you not notice the physical differences between a man and a woman."

We don't know whether nature or nurture influences a person's sexual orientation or a combination of both but we know society doesn't have a legitimate interest in recognizing those relationships. Our society has no business in regulating love or any other intangible. Society has a legitimate interest in promoting "traditional marriage" as we refer to it because it promotes the nuclear family of a man, woman and their biological children.

We recognize that not all "traditional marriages" will result in procreation or a nuclear family but the potentiality of bearing children is sufficient for society to grant such marriages. Simply stated, a man and a woman may choose not to or be unable to have children but their union promotes the idea.

Society recognizes that other types of families exist but chooses not to promote those families including families where extended family raise children, adoptive parents, and families that consist of persons of the same sex.

But society has no business in promoting those families. Only recognizing their existence.


The difference with gay rights and women's right to vote and civil rights, was that women couldn't vote, so they fought so they could vote, not so that women could be considered men in the eyes of the law, and blacks had to have everything separate, so they fought to be included, not so that blacks could be considered white in the eyes of the law. Those fighting for gay rights are not asking that a gay couple have the same privileges and benefits as a married couple, they are fighting to be considered a married couple, even though the definition of marriage has traditionally been a man and a woman. They have already hijacked the words gay, lesbian, and pride. Please don't change the definition of marriage, so that it no longer means what it used to. Widespread divorce and Hollywood has already managed to tarnish the sanctity of marriage, I am afraid gay marriage would dissolve the sacred nature of marriage even more. You can have your rights, just let us keep our definition of marriage.


Same sex marriage on the ballot is 0 for 30 or so? That is not close. If you can't win in CA you can't win anywhere. Over a half million votes is not close and that was the margin of victory for prop 8. Same sex marriage is wrong and anybody with logic and knowledge understands that. Gays already have equal rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex like everybody else. They also have civil unions.

to comment

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