LDS Church backs marriage measure on California ballot

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Ernie Karafotias
    Nov. 23, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    All people of God are with you, Stand firm.

  • Scott/American
    Nov. 9, 2008 6:29 a.m.

    Shame on you !

  • Joe
    Nov. 6, 2008 4:35 p.m.

    I have never had any reason in the past to discredit the Mormon religion. However, now that you have taken a stance of hate against a group of people I have changed my position. To have the audacity to proclame that you know what the definition of marriage is amounts to arrogance. Your church needs to start recognizing love and not hate. Please have the decency of recognizing your hate of gay people. Don't hide behind your church. Until you rescind your position on gay marriage I will work the rest of my life to discredit your religion.

  • Scott
    Oct. 14, 2008 8:34 p.m.

    The idea of interfering in matters like marriage is to help others not LDS.

    In the days of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah were considered evil. So men were sent to see if they would amend their ways. Of course they didn't and the rest is scriptural history.

    To say nothing from the LDS Church about this issue of marriage may invite censure from the God in whom they believe. Secularists like to presume that their actions do not offend divine sensibilities. If the LDS Church believes otherwise, then to say nothing is an offense to their religious beliefs.

    Who among the secularists will say with absolute authority that no divine sensibilities are offended? Can we rely upon them to tell us the absolute truth or just what they as mere mortals believe? It is much to say that no God exists--especially when we do not have all the information or the power to examine all the universe.

  • amber
    Oct. 14, 2008 12:49 p.m.

    I agree with yes on measure 8. It protects the sanctity of marriage. It also allows us not teach gay marriage in the schools to our children. Children in another state that a similar measure had failed, have brought home gay literature--in the very young grades. Please support measure 8. Vote Yes!! It is so important for our society and our children!!

  • Polyman
    Aug. 27, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    "Let He who is without sin, cast the first stone"

    God gave us a brain to think with and moral agency. We all have baggage and need to determne which train we want to put it on. Preserving marriage betwen a man and woman is essential to society.

  • Richard
    July 23, 2008 12:11 p.m.

    If this is the case the LDS church should lose its tax exempt status at once.

  • It's not about that.
    July 16, 2008 8:25 p.m.

    Dear appalled:
    Yeah, I know some rude, "holier than thou" types too, you get them in every church (except maybe Buddhists-haven't met many of them lol), but if you believe in the teachings of the church -even if not the people- why would you leave it? Are you really going to brake your baptismal covenant and deny yourself the sacrament just because you don't like a few people? Try moving to an area on the mission front if you are having trouble with your ward. I loved the people I met in the areas where missionaries are most numerous, the spirit there was wonderful, the people were like family, and tho the areas were rough friends knew how to be True friends. I miss it but it is safer to raise my baby boy were I am now (no gangs at all). However we were all discussing the law & making good moral choices when voting, the prophet was telling us to do just that. If you think HE is being judgmental then I somehow doubt you have much of a testimony.

  • Cal2
    July 16, 2008 12:07 p.m.

    Those who are proposing legalized same-sex marriage are lost souls promoting their own agenda. They ignore the obligations of NATURE itself. They are so selfishly engaged in self-gratification and perversion that the natural, lawful ways for reproducing life insult them. And they want all the pleasure and all the joys of a counterfeit union-- the ultimate dead-ended way of life -- not even to create a posterity of their own. They also want to wreck every vessel of decency in our civilization and create chaos rather than bliss for those who still model their heterosexual behavior after the ways of God the Father who said, "Be Fruitful and Multiply and replenish the Earth." These people who choose to desecrate their bodies and pollute all institutions geared to establish or maintain order-- providing for the most ideal nurturing of children by a man and a woman-- will, even themselves, reap thorns and thistles in the end. All of mankind will then live in the same pool of moral sewage specially manufactured by Gay elements of society-- the one misguided minority chosen to rule over the Majority in society (all the time calling it their civil right to do so).

  • appalled
    July 12, 2008 10:02 p.m.

    wow. i've grown up in the LDS church....the past 30+ years. i've grown disgusted with the appalling degree of "holier than thou," "moral superiority," "constant judging of others," that I've seen consistently across it's membership. It's one thing to have a testament in your heart of something, but the way Mormons have become morality monsters, and so publicly thick-headed and condescending, is really an embarrassment to the church. I dont believe this is a church Jesus is proud of anymore. I'm not seeing christlike behavior, I'm seeing a bunch of spiritually egomaniacal people who can't get off their high horse.
    For me, this is the end of the road. I am formally resigning my membership this week. As for the LDS members I leave behind, I'll chose to "love the sinner, hate the sin."

  • enpkg
    July 12, 2008 2:12 p.m.

    It all comes down to this. Are we going to follow the counsel of the prophet? Pres. Monson is the mouthpiece for our faith. He is NOT the cornerstone. Question that I'll ask is Who is on the Lord's side?

  • Another LDS Kiwi
    July 9, 2008 3:02 p.m.

    As an active LDS YSA i take an interest in what happens in the world. In NZ, my grandmother recalls ever since sundays became a working day, things gradually went downhill. I have observed that ever since Prostitution and gay marriages were legalised the state of the country has become even worse! Economy,society,nature...all are in turmoil! The world is snowballing BIG time and people need to open their eyes and ask why it's happening. We ( the church members ) do not make the rules here. We obey the commandments of God and do so because that is what makes us happy and brings us into Gods rest.Gods way is the ONLY way to eternal happiness. Kia Kaha latter day saints, = Stand Strong. We don't need to apologise to anybody, ANYBODY for standing up for what we know to be Gods word, which is truth. A Reid. New Zealand

  • Arnie
    July 8, 2008 7:26 p.m.

    Here we go again.
    I worked up a sweat in 2000, time to get a new pair of walking shoes.

  • Samuel Barney
    July 8, 2008 5:21 p.m.

    I want to thank Carole Knowles and Mike Thompson for standing up and OWNING their statements by giving their full names. I find it interesting that no one opposing their views is courageous enough to tell us who they are.

    I am a resident of Alaska but I have family in CA. and the gay issue aside, the Supreme Court has no right to overturn the voice of the people.

    I know that my family will strongly support this amendment.

  • Christ said nothing?
    July 8, 2008 1:35 p.m.

    Christ said nothing about homosexuality? You're mistaken. Read Romans 1. He spoke through His apostle. You cite no "authorities" for your opinions, and reject Supreme Authority. Yikes. God will never be completely out of the equation, no matter how you try. Facets of our lives overlap because Americans have religious convictions. The First Amendment promises freedom OF, not freedom FROM, religion. It never intended to thwart God or let mens opinions negate eternal law. The Constitution supports a nation UNDER GOD, whose law is more supreme than any court! We don't force religion down throats; but we don't want opposing beliefs shoved down our throats! Neither do we want the foundations of America eroded through devious circumventing of of the people, by the people, for the people. Marriage law affects us all, and California upheld marriage through legal channels. The arrogant court acted outside the law, and that should scare people to death, because a terrible precedent was set, and our freedom is endangered by it.

  • Scouts Honor
    July 7, 2008 9:35 p.m.

    We pledge and honor a nations flag under God.

    I know that the will of God will be fulfilled for we are citizens of a promised land that God gave us. His laws and commandments will not be forsaken. If we want a better world we should start by raising moral children who are our future leaders. This shall be done with moral parents such as a man and a woman just like the begining of time.
    Gay people who pretend to be what they are not, should seek professional help, because God does not make mistakes.

  • careful, SC GUY!
    July 7, 2008 8:32 p.m.

    If you want to follow ALL the counsel, please don't call people ugly names. It's embarrassing to those who support your position on the issue, because we can't condone your cruel words and dismissive attitude! Such is NOT HELPFUL. We've been admonished to speak gently, politely, and not to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. The counsel given includes: 'a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger' (Proverbs 15:1). It almost never helps to argue or contend with others... or to become defensive or belligerent... Remember to respect others and their opinions.
    Be friendly and polite, even if you comment anonymously... What helps the most are thoughtful and measured voices... Try that, if you want to make a difference for good.

  • SC GUY
    July 7, 2008 3:34 p.m.

    boiseguy: YOU'RE A MORAN! If you don't know what your talking about, keep your mouth shut and go to another site were people want to listen to your anti-Mormon talk. We don't! I support everything the leaders of this church do, b/c its coming from the lord. To reject their words, is the same as rejecting the lords himself. It's their obligation to make a statment on this matter to the members of this church and the people of this country that was founded on family values and church teaching. We most not allow God to be taken out topics voted on and discussed in this country. Not just Mormons, but all faiths and religions. We need to stand up and and let our voices be heard. God Bless America! We need it....

  • DWmFrancis
    July 7, 2008 12:22 a.m.


    You are right. It's not a sin to want a mutual, loving relationship. What is a wrong is to have sexual relations with someone other than your spouse. Hundreds of thousands of widowed, divorced or otherwise unmarried single teenage and adult Latter-Day Saints have to deal with that every day.

    Membership in any organization has terms and conditions. If your friend wanted to be LDS he had a choice to live the Word of Wisdom and Law of Chastity or not. Please don't confuse and blame the LDS Church for his not doing so.

    The latest research shows that homosexuality is the result of environmental *and* genetic factors. Also, our genetic makeup is dynamic thruout our lifetimes. In other words; sexual orientation isn't simply inherited or static. (But our spiritual gender is.)

    Did you also know that sexual attraction, drugs and nicotine produce the same self reinforcing effects in the brain? All impair the decision making abilities of the individual. Maybe God warned us about the use of those things for a reason.

    Charity and the infinite, eternal atonement of Christ coupled with a firm personal commitment to endure the end can overcome or contain all human frailties.

  • DWmFrancis
    July 6, 2008 11:31 p.m.

    The word marriage has a broadly accepted meaning. Changing it so that a group that does not fit the definition can get the financial and social benefits of the group that does is like changing your personal meaning of "smoking" to "non-smoking" so you can get lower health insurance rates. It's deceptive and dishonest.

    Rather than change the definition of a word that has been widely and commonly understood across hundreds of cultures for thousands of years, perhaps a new word for the union of people of the same sex and new rules for what their "rights" are is what's needed. (garriage?)

    The people of the State of California can pass all the laws they want redefining "marriage". They can also decide to rename zebras as horses, or cats as cougars. It wouldn't change the core nature of their being. It would increase confusion and misunderstanding.

    Governments and churches share a common goal; to protect and defend the safety, liberty and property of their members thru education, setting limits and enforcing laws. Don't put them at odds with one another by confusing the meaning of a word.

  • Amber
    July 6, 2008 3:59 a.m.

    I'd like to take you back 32 years ago. I was 20 years old then and there was a 10-year old boy in our ward of whom everybody could see by the way he acted that he was gay. His parents, brothers and sisters were good LDS and they didn't want to see it. "It will change, he's still very young".
    Well, it didn't change and this young man was excommunicated. He believed that the Church was true and he missed his friends in Church, his family (only his mother never turned her head away from him). He was very lonely and found a new friend in drugs.
    Ten years ago he stopped using drugs, but it was already too late. He died three years ago.
    That's what can happen when people judge about other people.
    Yes, this young man had a relationship, like everybody-else he needed a companion, he needed somebody who he could love and who he loved. That's no sin.
    And if the Church teaches that it is, then I'm glad I'm no longer a member.

  • If you believe it is sin, then
    July 5, 2008 10:15 p.m.

    ...DON'T do it.

    But if you think that government can legislate because either you or they believe something is "sin", it's not going to pass constitutional muster. Not all religious people, Christian or otherwise, consider it to be sin. And the views of your particular religious persuasion, thank god, cannot be legislated as law.

    The texts of the Christian canon, plus 2 millenia of Christian history, tell us that EVERY Christian, and every Christian faith is NOT going to unite on this or almost any other issue, sorry. Christianity, since before Paul, has NEVER EVER been a "unity of the faith" regardless of what it might say in the NT.
    Just because YOU believe it is sin, doesn't make it sin. Even if your Bible or other scriptures pronounces it sin, it ain't necessarily so. And the law cannot and should not recognize any particular religious doctrine as either a legislative means or end.

    "In God we trust" is not in the Constitution, sorry.

    Thank god, again, for the Constitution.

  • StephenSacco Australia
    July 5, 2008 7:50 p.m.

    We live in an age where "lowering the bar" has become an obsession. As a former member once said to me, " I know that the church teaches truth, but it's too high for me to live". Surely most of us have had feelings or thoughts that on relection we have judged as wrong. The danger is when we attempt to put into place laws that will give legitimacy that those thoughts or feelings do not derserve. Why do the opponants of the Church's stand feel that their voice is the only one that should be heard and that we should " butt-out". Freedom of speech is not defined by the popularity of what is said. People living in a democracy have a right to express their views, be they moral or otherwise.

  • The Fisher
    July 5, 2008 6:07 p.m.

    It seems that many are forgetting one little thing on this issue. It is NOT a sin to be gay, rather, the SIN occurs in having a SEXUAL relationship with someone of the same sex. Read Leviticus chapter 20 King James version of the bible for the Lords own words on this subject. They are VERY CLEAR on his views. EVERY CHRISTIAN faith needs to unite on this issue, first California, then other states will follow. I am proud to be LDS and have a firm testimony of the teachings of the church. We do not condemn others, but condemn the SIN. Each person has their free agency, even within the church. Leaders advise, and admonish, but NEVER DICTATE doctrine to any member. I would envite everyone to go to and click on "Basic Beliefs" to learn exactly what the church teaches.
    TO MEMBERS: Read the article in July's Ensign for insight. "Contention is not of me..."
    I do not live in California, but I support ANY measure that will define Marriage as "a union between a man and a woman" Remember our great nation was founded on these words "in GOD We Trust"

  • tcdueck
    July 3, 2008 11:13 p.m.

    boiseguy:I feel sorry for you.
    you are totally lost, the LDS Church in making a statement in regards to gay & Lesbian
    are the kind of people that demoralize this country.
    your the kind that destroy every moral fabric God gave to people shouldn,t even a voice,because you disgust me.Think about this,God created the earth & the heavens,he created man & women,NOT adam & Steve or Christine & Kim. Remember
    this, one day you will give an account of what you did on this earth.You will get on your knees before Jesus Christ are lord & SAVIOR whether you beleive it or not, but you will.I am a LDS member of the church,all your disgsusting remarks & your thinking
    comes from Satan,if that shocks you,well thats the road your taking & THATS what satan wants us to think.So before you go denoucing my church or any Christian better think what road you are
    taking. the statements you made are immoral & disgusting to me & to Jesus totally disgust me in your attempt to destroy the Gospel of
    Jesus Christ. Remember you will come face to face with are lord,than what will YOU say to him???

  • ladyblueye's right..sorta...Huh?
    July 3, 2008 7:58 p.m.

    ladyblueyes is correct, sorta: ...just because someone else is gay and choses a gay lifestyle, it does NOT meant that you also must be gay and live a gay lifestyle as your own. But ...who ever said otherwise, ms. ladyblueyes?

    Who, when and where, ever said you must become gay and accept their lifestyle choice as your own choice? Who, when and where, ever said that gays living as gays is equivalent to deciding the fate or the choice of the majority?

    But continuing your line of thought, only more logically, who or what gives (or, rather, prevents?) the majority the right and power to control the rights and decIde the fate of a small minority? The Constitution, maybe?

    Besides which, after gay marriages are finally legalized, why and how, with at least 95-97% of all marriages still being of the "traditional values" heterosexual type, and only 3-5% or less same sex, are traditional values going to be "let go" so devastatingly? Traditional values cannot endure with a 95-97% majority??

    Why not?

  • ms. blueye's right..sorta...Huh?
    July 3, 2008 7:25 p.m.

    ladyblueyes is correct: just because someone else is gay and choses a gay lifestyle does NOT meant that you also must be gay and live a gay lifestyle as your own. But ...who ever said otherwise, ms. ladyblueyes?

    Who, when and where, ever said you must accept their choice as your own choice? Who, when and where ever said that gays living as gays also decides the fate or the choice of the majority?

    But continuing your line of thought, only more logically, who or what gives (or prevents?) the majority the right and power to control the rights and decIde the fate of a small minority? (The Constitution?)

    Besides which, after gay marriages are finally legalized, why and how, with 95-97% of all marriages being of the "traditional values" heterosexual type, and only 3-5% or less same sex, are traditional values going to be "let go" and devastating? Traditional values cannot endure with a 95-97% majority??

    Why not?

  • ladyblueyes
    July 3, 2008 6:11 p.m.

    I have worked for and with gay people. Their home life is THEIR home life, like mine is MINE.

    I don't approve of their life choices - I don't agree that they should have 'marriage' since from the beginning of time it has always been MAN and WOMAN. Just because gays choose their lifestyle does not mean that I have to accept their choice as MY choice.

    Again, when did minorities decide the fate or the choice of the majority? Hitler did the same, Bonapart, Castro ... and I'm sure I'm missing some of the other catastrophes there.

    I'm very sorry for Mr. Romney - if this had not come up, I think he would have been a good running mate for Senator McCain.

    Californians UNITE!! Marriage is between a MAN AND A WOMAN and there should be NO EXCEPTIONS.

    Let them have their 'civil unions' or whatever else they want to call it - but NO GAY MARRIAGE. It's a travesty.

    And no, I'm not 'homophobic' ... Just very convinced that to let go of traditional values would devestate the State as well as our United States.

  • ladyblueyes
    July 3, 2008 6:05 p.m.

    When I first hear about the legislature overturning the voters will, I was saddened and wondered how we could get our will back. I prayed.

    Then I heard that we would get to vote again. I was thrilled. And I prayed.

    I wondered if the LDS Church would tell us how to vote. I had already determined to vote my conscience - which is that MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN ONLY. I kept praying that the Church would come out and back me up on that.

    I love my gay sister and my transgender brother. I do NOT love their lifestyle, nor do I agree with it. Nor do the majority of people we know.

    Why should we cater to the minority when they are fighting to take away our life as we know it and to replace it with the life they want us to know? Why should I accept a perverted way of life when I know in my heart and soul that it is wrong? Why should I let anyone dictate to me what I should believe?

  • Jesus said nothing at all
    July 3, 2008 5:30 p.m.

    ...about homosexuality as far as we know.

    Beyond that, such claims (including what 'Christ inspired his apostles') are nothing but personal faith and religion and belief. You are free to have all those influence how you not only act personally, but also to inform your activism and how you vote. They are fine for Sunday School and sermons.

    But the government should not be passing any laws based on "Christ says so" if you expect it to pass constitutional muster. It shouldn't and it won't. And it's not much of an argument in pluralistic public discussion, except for how you, the individual, personally believe. I, for one, and many others, recognize that "Christ" is not a person of history, but a declaration of faith tied to the Jewish life and Roman death of Jesus of Nazareth. As such, virtually nothing he is claimed to have said or inspired in the Bible means anything at all in a discussion of the legal issues involved.

  • to sberg
    July 3, 2008 2:51 p.m.

    I'm sad about all this pridefulness. When prideful, we learn nothing. What a waste! To answer sberg: You wonder what Christ would do? I don't. He already did it by inspiring His ancient apostle to speak out against homosexuality-- because He loves us. He inspired His living prophet to speak out today-- because He loves us. My baby grandson wants to stand on tables, but my daughter loves him enough to safeguard him from such danger. God is precisely the same, and He has all the facts! "Why would anyone with an ounce of compassion fight against this?" Because, sberg, They love us enough to safeguard us from danger; that's why. NO ONE has more compassion than Christ, and Christ says no.

  • R Young
    July 3, 2008 2:39 p.m.

    I can't believe that we have to constanly address or defend our concept of marriage in this country. Has the world all gone crazy? Are we all so stupid that all of our common sense has completely disappeared? The animals have more common sense than we humans do. Two people of the same gender can't have a baby. They can only pretend to have a family. This is about as unatural a union as there can possibly be. A marriage is between a man and a woman anything else is just play acting.

  • Carol
    July 3, 2008 2:18 p.m.

    There is only one way to know if a prophet is speaking for God. That is to listen to his words, read the words of former prophets in the scriptures, keep God's commandments, and pray for guidance. Then be patient and with humility continue to pray to be led to the truth and not be deceived. God will not deceive us. We allow ourselves to be deceived through pride and arrogance, thinking we know more than God, and that his laws have changed as times have changed.

    God has counseled us to love him with "all our hearts, might and minds" and to "love our neighbors as ourselves." We are not loving our gay neighbors by pretending that gay marriage is a good thing.

    God's laws are in place to help us, not to take away our freedoms. The more we live in accordance with his laws, the more freedom we have. Because he loves us unconditionally he allows us to have agency. But with agency comes responsibility, as well as consequences. The consequences of non-gender marriage are not completely known, but society can not be perpetuated in genderless homes. God knows more than man. Let's listen to him.

  • D in CA
    July 3, 2008 11:57 a.m.

    Our God-fearing forefathers probably would have wrote to ban same-sex marriage in the US Constitution if they would have imagined that it would happen today.

    ALL LDS people should support BANNING same-sex marriage. If not, then apparently one must do some true soul searching.

    I will support all organizations (including other religious organizations) that support the will of the California voters with Prop. 22. WE, THE PEOPLE, of California voted to BAN same-sex marriage. Sad that one judge decides the will of a few (in comparison) people.

  • arizona
    July 3, 2008 11:16 a.m.

    For one: this is NOT a hatred act against gays..but this IS a church urging it's members to help keep the laws in standing with what they believe. How is that different then those groups urging their supporters to vote the other way???
    I have a dear friend who is gay and while I still respect her and her choice of lifestyle, I personally do NOT believe that is the way of God. We believe in the LDS church that those supposedly "born that way" are simply given this as their weakness or trial to overcome in this life...just as one might suffer with anger issues etc. This life is a test!

  • Erica
    July 3, 2008 11:17 a.m.

    We do not believe in a relative morality that shifts with every wind of societal preferences. Truth is eternal and never bends to accomodate philosophy, no matter how loudly stated. I absolutely intend to support the California amendment. I fought to get Prop 22 passed to ban gay marriage in California, and now will have to do it again because of a judge who overrode the vote of the people. Californians are NOT for gay marriage no matter what the media and the shouters presume and claim. We voted it down twice and will do it again.

  • audra
    July 3, 2008 11:00 a.m.

    This is statement from OUR prophet of the Lord..I'd probably listen if I were you!...and even if you don't believe that then fine BUT let the church promote their beliefs just as the gay and lesbians are promoting theirs.

  • freedom
    July 3, 2008 9:52 a.m.

    to sburg, yes we follow the "law of the land" that doesn't mean we should let every BAD law be voted in. just because other countries do it, doesn't mean that we should also. we were given this land, this FREE land as a gift, and because "where much is given, much is required" we have been admonished to take care of it. Loving others does not mean let them do whatever they want. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean that it is moral ie. abortion. Do we follow the law of the land and get an abortion "because it is legal?", why should the church care? You better believe that the church should care about these issues, and so should we. i have a feeling that we have no idea of the pandora's box that will be opened if this law passes. Study the issue, ask questions, ignore the name calling and pray to understand- then vote what you believe is right. One way or the other, we will all suffer the consequences (and there will be consequences.)

  • sburg
    July 3, 2008 8:25 a.m.

    so WRZ, since gay marriage is legal and has been for years in some Scandinavian countries and Canada, why hasn't the church been marrying gay couples in those countries? Don't we believe in following the law of the land, or is this just one more example of saying we believe in one thing, like the 11th through 13th articles of faith, and doing quite another.

    This is a civil issue only. The proposed amendment states the "State of California ..." shall recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It says nothing about the religious institution of marriage, ONLY the civil one. So, why should the church care?

    One's left to wonder what would Christ do? My reading of the four gospels leads me to suspect he would be disgusted with the Mormon Church that blasphemes his name with it's formal title when it sends out letters that literally tear same sex families apart, and promotes sexual promiscuity or at least serial monogamy for gay people, (and yes gay people can adopt in most states, you don't have to be married to do that).

  • In God We Trust
    July 2, 2008 10:19 p.m.

    In this country we believe we have the freedom to do what we want, say what we want, and be what we want. Yet when some makes a stand against the belief of others, they are looked at as "close minded" or "homophobes" or "behind the times." Though all of us are God's children, it does not mean that we have to tolerate the crosscurrent and sway of "the new morality." Let us do all within our power to bring down the tide of tolerance (of the new morality) and bring morality to where it belongs. Look to God and live!

  • Tamara Wilcox
    July 2, 2008 10:07 p.m.

    The only way to show you actually believe something is to do something about it. If we believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman (as the LDS Church does), it is not enough to just preach it. We must stand up for it, promote it, try to set a good example in our own marriages, help and counsel others to nourish their marriages. It would be wrong to turn the other way and ignore all that is encroaching on the sacredness of marriage: divorce, pornography, homosexuality, and infidelity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not just an office building in downtown Salt Lake City; it is US, the members. And if we won't DO anything (including giving of our means and time to protect marriage) to show what we believe, then it's an empty Church.

  • ConcernedParent
    July 2, 2008 9:35 p.m.

    RE: "This is a matter of civil marriage. It doesn't affect religious marriage."

    Mr. Melsons pat response to the gay marriage question may make a good quote, but the issue is not at all that simple. Like the earth's ecosystems, our society is highly connected. To say that gay marriage won't affect anything or anyone is inane. Of course it will!

    Traditional marriage is highly valued because it provides the most stability for children, couples, and society. This is historically/statistically verifiable. Societies which condoned the gay lifestyle have collapsed, and in modern countries which embrace gay marriage, stable family life is rapidly declining and welfare systems are taxed.

    Furthermore, the gay marriage issue is already rippling through our society in another way: Massachusetts currently preaches gay marriage in public schools, and the liberal CA legislature which has previously attempted to mandate gender neutrality and gay-centered curriculum in public schools, may just get their way. Those who support gay marriage will not tell you how they want to indoctrinate your children, too.

    This is a very big deal. Will this issue affect you? You bet it will!

  • LDS church supports the ideal
    July 2, 2008 6:54 p.m.

    The ideal is a family where a loving mother and father raise their children.

  • rockhound
    July 2, 2008 5:48 p.m.

    AWB: the LDS church has never ever preached the principle of free agency. The LDS church teaches the principle of "agency." Each person has "agency," or the ability to choose for each person for themselves. The principle of "free agency" means that each person may choose for themselves free from any responsibility of the consequences of their choice. There are consequences for every choice we make. Some choices result in blessings. Some not. If you excercise your agency to make wrong moral choices (God's Law) or wrong legan choices (man's law), then you need to be ready to accept the responsibility for the consequences of those wrong choices. There is a price to be paid for every wrong choice we make. Again, there is no such thing as "free agency" only "agency."

  • Sure of that
    July 2, 2008 5:41 p.m.

    There have been many gay people in my life and I want to say that that was one of their only shortcomings. They were funny, highly intelligent, kind, generous and so forth but they were attracted to the same sex. Does that mean they are evil? No. That means we love them inspite of this complex conflict. We don't have any right to condemn them but we have every right to protect what we in our hearts believe is God's way and purposes. We have a duty to do that. Thats the beauty of the law in this country of and by and for the people. If the people find it in conflict with what they consider true and good they can support law to uphold the institution of marriage as we've known it for generations now. Ultimately all the chatter will be hushed by what the majority believe. If we come to the point where the majority turn from the teachings of our nation's Christian heritage then as the Prophets have warned there will be calamity upon us all. Let's vote from our hearts. Even some gay people don't believe in gay marriage.

  • tigger
    July 2, 2008 4:58 p.m.

    **Vote however you will, support the prophet, but why trample civility and goodness in dealing with gays in your disagreements, since we all struggle with sin?**

    When I said "You say we who oppose gay marriage are blind, but it is you who are blind, hardhearted, stiffnecked, etc." I was referring to other members who called me blind for following what Pres. Monson has asked of us. He woulddn't ask it of us unless the Lord instructed him to. If calling them blind, etc., in return was offensive, oh well, I'm not concerned.

  • andrew
    July 2, 2008 4:57 p.m.

    Here's a view from New Zealand...I am a less active member of the Church...however,I must say without any doubt...that the Church stands for "good" and promotes values that are good for any society, especially in a world that appears to be like a boat without a rudder in a stormy sea...the Church is an Ensign and an Anchor....for true seekers of truth to harbour from the evil views of the world where some call "Right" wrong and "Wrong" right. Marriage is only right when between Mary and John...rather than John and John....its how God designed it to be....anything else would be wrong and would stuff up society in a way we would never imagine....Get it right America, the rest of the world is watching....and all sense and wisdom to your lawmakers.....choose the right!!...ka kite ano (from New Zealand)

    July 2, 2008 4:19 p.m.


  • njp
    July 2, 2008 4:12 p.m.

    Anyone ever hear of Sodom and Gomorah and what happened to them?????

  • DWmFrancis
    July 2, 2008 3:53 p.m.

    Constitutional Law of the Land; 144th Congress, Second Session - 1996 resolved and passed:

    H.R.3396 the `Defense of Marriage Act'.


    `No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.


    `Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

    `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

  • Concerned
    July 2, 2008 3:33 p.m.

    I live in California and one sunday when the letter was read i thought it was the dumbist thing that i have ever heard it its everyone has different ideas and i think that people should be married if they are in love and want to share their lives. It makes me wonder if the church i belong to and go to every sunday where people that where against people that were of different races couldn't get married to one another and i couldn't believe when they asked people to give money and support against gay marriage it had no affect to them and i thought we where to love one another and not oppress one another from our right to be with who me want legally and get benifts from it

  • AWB: UM
    July 2, 2008 3:25 p.m.

    The Church is NOT limiting anyones free agency. They are reminding us of our covenants and what we do believe. Why can they not encourage members of the church to get involved in a stance that will further help society. They are not forcing them, they are encouraging. Last I checked, I can say I will or will not have the time to participate. But, my vote may be all that I can do. The Church does not take away anothers free agency. Definitely not.

    People say those kinds of things when they are angry because they don't get their way.

    Read the constitution, and know that it was inspired by God.

  • Self-righteous???
    July 2, 2008 3:03 p.m.

    Calling someone self-righteous is just saying you disagree, but in a rude way. I didn't hear anyone saying "we're better than you" If you can't come up with a decent argument don't go calling people self-righteous.

    The cannibal thing was just saying if we don't believe anything is wrong where does it end?

    The homosexual Mormon thing is true, you can't be both just like you can't be a Christian atheist.

    And if homosexual people were not being stiffnecked they would not be trying to get homosexual marriages seeing as how they can live togeather, as they are, already without it. There is obviously a different issue to it than marriage.

    If it is sin you're talking about, however, we don't go legalizing it if we can help it!

    And as for right vs. good they are one in the same. If you are doing right good will come of it. Basically good people can do wrong things but that doesn't mean we make those wrong things ok just because the people doing them are nice.

  • re: lds leaders support
    July 2, 2008 2:05 p.m.

    I appreciate reading those of you who say you will follow the prophet's lead on this issue. However, just looking at the last 20 or so posts, you find the following from "Christians":

    "The sarcasm which equates gay rights to cannibals, murders, etc."

    "As for "gay/lesbian mormons?" Are you freaking kidding me?"

    "You say we who oppose gay marriage are blind, but it is you who are blind, hardhearted, stiffnecked, etc."

    It is self-righteous statements like these that almost makes me wish I hadn't come across Mormonism 35 years ago. Doing the "right" seems to be more important that doing "good" to so many people.

    Vote however you will, support the prophet, but why trample civility and goodness in dealing with gays in your disagreements, since we all struggle with sin?

  • DWmFrancis
    July 2, 2008 2:02 p.m.

    A brief reminder to Latter-Day Saints:

    4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

    5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

    7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

    9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

    10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

  • LDS freedom fighter
    July 2, 2008 1:48 p.m.

    You can't change the truths of a church (any church) with a vote and without Gods instruction/permission. People who think God has nothing to do with our government & country need to read the constitution. Most importantly, People who think God SHOULD have nothing to do with our government & country need to take a look at history & notice how civilizations tend to fall into dictatorships & evil rule when they forget God and His teachings. God tells people how to be good & how to be better. Right and wrong ARE set in stone and always have been. You have the ability to do whatever you want to Laws will not stop you and it is not like homosexuality is being outlawed anyway!

    Also if the church should stay out of the issue so should everyone else, Everyone! weather they are for or against the issue.

  • DWmFrancis
    July 2, 2008 1:37 p.m.

    Do you folks really want the civil government to define what is or isn't a marriage or a family? Do you actually trust them that much?

  • Rich
    July 2, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    TO: Cats

    Yes, God will NOT be mocked. Perhaps that is an answer for all the fires in CA this year? Earthquakes around the world? Floods in diverse places? And the hurricane season isn't even here yet.

    Perhaps God is indeed sending a message as he did in Noah's time and will before the Second COming.

  • rangerwick
    July 2, 2008 12:37 p.m.

    Same-sex marriage? That means that brother can marry brother? Sister can marry sister? Just to enjoy the benefits given to married couples. And hey, they love each other. Polygamy isn't far behind. It is all morally wrong - wake up!! This is NOT just an LDS issue - it is an issue for all of us to fight against.

  • The utmost sarcasm
    July 2, 2008 12:26 p.m.

    Cannibal rights! We are people too! Just because you don't understand our preference and lifestyle doesn't mean you have the right to stop us from living like we want to. Join me in organizing a Cannibal pride parade this independence day!
    What's wrong with eating what you want to if the someone being eaten has no objections to it? People donate their physical bodies to our cause all the time so what is wrong with that? As long as we aren't killing people? And so what if we do want to kill people? Murderers are people too. Do what you like it's your life.

    ---sarcasm ends---

    "The California Supreme Court with its opinion has now established their concept of the "new morality" as the official religious dogma of the state of California. Laws against polygamy, rape, adultery, fornication, sodomy,incest,and child sexual abuse have all had their foundation in legislation based upon moral or religious beliefs of the people."

    If you leave out all morality (i.e Gods teachings) there is no basis for decision on ANY laws.

  • Janice Huang-Calif
    July 2, 2008 12:02 p.m.

    I hate how the world has changed.
    I am not active in the Church, but I belive the teachings and try to live my life right by the teachings. I don't hate the guys, but I don't belive they should have the same rights as us. And as far as the people in the courts, if they are not up holding the laws as to how our forfathers wanted them,then they should be out of office. Like I said, I hate how the world or the usa is.

  • DWmFrancis
    July 2, 2008 11:52 a.m.

    What is really unfortunate is that it will take another generation or two before the consequences of being raised in a household without *both* a male and female role model will be evident. The results of the first long term longitudinal studies on single parent households are just now being published - it took over 30 years to collect the data. (John Bowlby was right - having responsible, reliable parents who encourage exploration are a key factor in developing strong interpersonal relationship skills in the next generation.) Who's looking out for the "rights" of the children here and how long will it take to figure that out - how many lives will be effected and how much misery and suffering could be avoided? In reproductive terms, a two parent same sex family is not neither normal nor natural, or we'd all be sexually polymorphic. This is folly on a grand scale, let alone the issues regarding the separation of church and state.

  • Peace
    July 2, 2008 11:43 a.m.

    To love, to share a life committed to helping one another, raising children under this model, same gender or not, it is a valid marriage. God would smile because God is love.

  • Worla
    July 2, 2008 11:26 a.m.

    How absurd that those who uphold God's law are labeled "bigots; homophobic; old-fashioned; narrow-minded; cruel". Mud-slinging is always counterproductive and childish. It solves nothing. The issues surrounding same-gender attraction are moot. What matters is whether we trust the Lord's mouthpiece. God knows what He's doing,even if we misunderstand His purposes, which are NEVER divisiveness and hate. He cherishes His children & asks us to trust His path to happiness. When He speaks-- and politics & morality WILL overlap!-- then the debate ends for me. We have no right to counsel God, because "the voice of the Lord is unto all... there is none to escape...What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself... my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same...and the truth abideth forever..." God, not man, gets to decide what that truth is. If we ask in humility, He'll teach us His will and we'll feel His peace.

  • LDS Leaders Support
    July 2, 2008 11:09 a.m.

    Sorry, I didn't mean you can't call yourself "mormon," because we all have our own sins/weaknesses/trials. I just wonder how someone can think they will be living with God when what they are doing is an abomination.

  • LDS Leaders Support
    July 2, 2008 11:02 a.m.

    It's sad that there are so many "mormons" out there who say they are active members of the church, but in all reality "their hearts are far from Thee." As for "gay/lesbian mormons?" Are you freaking kidding me? You can't even call yourself Mormons. Have you actually read "The Family: A Proclamation to the World?" "...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God..... We warn that individual who violate covenants of chastity.. will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
    You think the world has problems now, just wait....

  • I love being LDS!!!
    July 2, 2008 11:00 a.m.

    I am so very glad to be a member of this church and to have a true understanding of the plan of salvation and the importance of families in it. I can not comprehend how there can be members with this same understanding that act on homosexual feelings and think that it is ok and/or think that the First Presidency will even consider negotiation on this. Truth is truth and cannot be diminished or watered down without losing what makes it true. There is no need to fear that our doctrine will change. It will always remain the same, for truth never changes. I see the separation of the wheat from the tares, brothers and sisters. This is only the start. Hold fast to the faith and the Lord will bless you mightily.

  • Concerned Social Worker
    July 2, 2008 10:57 a.m.

    The comments from "Symantics" were golden. Many want to believe that allowing gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage, but I believe that it is an extremely near-sighted position. The gay marriage movement is an extension of a culture that has become individualistic in family matters. Relationships are voluntary and too often based on personal feelings with too little regard to personal commitment. Allowing gay marriage may only serve to strenthen that trend. And the ones that ultimately suffer from all of this are children.

    I have gay and lesbian friends; I have been a mental health counselor for gays and lesbians. The ones I have personally known are kind, sensitive people, with whom I have been proud to be associated. I think they can make great parents, in terms of being able to teach children values upon which we all would agree (i.e. kindness, respect for others). But there's something that they simply can't offer children: a home with a mother AND a father, to which all children should be entitled. And if my analysis is correct, we will only see more children in broken homes if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry.

  • stand for righteousness
    July 2, 2008 10:55 a.m.

    I read an article that gave statistics stating that the percentage of gay and lesbians voters was 2.9% Look what poliical issue this 2.9% of voters has created. Think of what your voice could do by standing for righteousness. If you just voice your oppinion, give time where you can, and vote. We can make a difference for the better. We just have to act.

  • steady the ark?
    July 2, 2008 10:29 a.m.

    I think the best place anybody can make a difference is in our own homes. Anybody who reads the Bible knows that homosecuality is wrong,but the question is how much power do we want to give our government. The church fought for the right to continue plural marriage and lost so the peactice was abandoned. If people succeed in allowing homosexuals to be married, how much will that change what we are supposed to teach in our homes? It shouldn't. We are to still teach love and compassion and understanding right? Homosexual marriage doesn't hurt the family any more than divorce does so we really should outlaw divorce, or even just speak out against it more on the pulpit!! The most important thing is that children be protected in whatever situation the adults who are raising them are doing it in!!

  • freedom
    July 2, 2008 9:58 a.m.

    I believe in freedom. I believe in thinking for myself. It just so happens that I CHOOSE to believe in the institution of marriage. Why does that make me bad and hateful? It seems to me that those who call us hateful want to take our freedoms and that of institutions who believe in preserving values that we hold near and dear, the things we hold sacred. Why should churches be FORCED to accept something they feel is wrong. The LDS church will NEVER accept something they feel is morally wrong - even if they lose their tax-free status (they already pay taxes anyway-check your facts)Nor does the church dictate to its members what to choose. I think for myself and I CHOOSE to follow the Prophet. We are quickly becoming a world who will accept anything. It doesn't matter, be accepting of anything anyone wants? ARE YOU KIDDING? Those of us who sit quietly on the fence, STAND FOR SOMETHING. It's time we all choose to stand on one side or the other. Yes it is your right and YOUR DUTY to choose. Let's all make a choice...However we will not be free to choose the consequences.

  • Anonymous
    July 2, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    I have a daughter who has been to the temple and has since decided that she is gay and is now living the gay lifestyle with her partner in Boston. I love my daughter and I love her partner. They are both wonderful, amazing women, but my heart is broken that my daughter has chosen to break the covenants she has made. I just visited them last month and had a wonderful time being with them, but my heart is still broken. Everyone on this earth, including the people who have posted on this blog, has the right to choose for themselves. We don't all have to agree with each other and we have no right to judge one another - that is the Savior's job. But I have chosen to follow the prophet, and I will do all I can to fight gay marriage because the Lord has asked me to through His prophet. Gay marriage will have profound, untold consequences on society. And since the Lord knows the end from the beginning, and I don't, I will put my trust in the Lord.

  • Concerned Californian
    July 2, 2008 9:34 a.m.

    Some are calling homosexuals "sinners" on this board. When you think about it, we are all carnal sinners. That's what King Benjamin's people realized when they fell to the ground. We all have our problems. This is not an issue about judging others. It is simply an issue about the majority vote of man + woman marriage being overturned by a few judges. This is where MY main concern lies. If judges are allowed to overturn the majority vote in California, there's something wrong with the judicial system. I suspect most members of the LDS community probably would participate in upholding the vote made previously whether or not asked by the presidency of the church.

  • Hawkeye
    July 2, 2008 9:11 a.m.

    I have watched the code of conduct of this nation (California) decline from the 1950's. Everything the religious conservatives warned about has come to pass as we have yielded to the demands of those that cry foul of their rights to freedom of 'misconduct'. We are wallowing in a moral 'Pig Sty'. The next rights we will be forced to accept are those of Petafiles(Child Molesters). The security, prosperity, and emotional strength of this country hang in the balance! I know all of which I speak because I have lived it and suffered greatly as a result. The Homosexuals are maladjusted and substandard in their relationship maturity. Their relationships are noted for their lack of longgevity, with some exceptions. Divorce Lawyers will support this because they stand to benefit greatly. This movement is an effort to gain tax and other financial advantages. The supporters of the homosexuals are sympathizers that mean well but are blinded by the cries of persecution. The greatest disadvantage is to the children these people will obtain and raise! I am intimately familiar with every word I have written. Please take my word as those of a loving parent. The trueth is sometimes painful to learn.

  • interesting
    July 2, 2008 8:46 a.m.

    ...I've alway's observed that a person can leave the LDS church, but they can never leave it alone.

  • Relate to both sides...
    July 2, 2008 8:43 a.m.

    I can understand both sides of this issue and they are valid ones; however, my father always told me. You get a testimony of the Prophet and that he is the Lord's mouthpiece. "Whether by my voice, or by the voice of my servant it is the same." Then you only have two rules to follow in life:
    1. Follow the Prophet
    2. When in doubt - see rule number one.
    Basically, you either believe Pres. Monson is the mouthpiece of God, or you don't. So, although I can understand where those of you fighting for the LDS people to leave this issue alone are coming from - when the prophet speaks, I will listen and follow, because I know that it is coming directly from my Heavenly Father and Savior. And I will not argue with them. I can continue to love my gay friends without supporting them, but I have to do as the prophet tells me and I too will stand up against any measure supporting legalizing gay and lesbian marriages - because that is what the Lord is telling me to do. Choose which side of the fence you are on!

  • Tina
    July 2, 2008 7:53 a.m.

    Excuse but isn't "Gay and Lesbian Mormons" an oxymoron? The church has always been against the gay and lesbian lifestyle because it is contrary to Heavenly Father's will. Are you forgetting that the Lord is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. One of the reason's I love our church is the fact that we follow the commandments, we dont' bow down to society rules and norms.

  • Proudly Lutheran
    July 2, 2008 7:27 a.m.

    I am not associated with the LDS church at all, with the exception of some in my family are members. I applaud the LDS church and their stand they are taking on this growing PROBLEM we have in our country. As I read through a number of the comments that have been made, it makes me sad that so many no longer respect our Lord. It is a scary thing, knowing that some day God will say, "I have had enough!" Woe be to those who disrespect him!!! I am not judging, I am going by the Bible, God's word. Everyone will come face to face with our Lord someday. I feel sad for those who mock Him. In the meantime, I will be on the side of those who do everything they can to stop sin. Thank you to the LDS for taking a stand.

  • tigger
    July 2, 2008 7:05 a.m.


    **God teaches us to love each other and the Church teaches that someone can be gay/lesbian within the Church.**

    Yes, gay people can attend & be part of the church but you also know that if they do so, they are required to not practice the homosexual lifestyle & many gay members do that wholeheartedly because they understand why the Lord requires them to do so. Very sad how many here who claim to be active, faithful members are willfully opposing our prophet & his counselors. You say we who oppose gay marriage are blind, but it is you who are blind, hardhearted, stiffnecked, etc.,...the Book of Mormon parallels are very clear to see.

  • Enchanter
    July 2, 2008 6:52 a.m.

    I support the church's definition of marriage and their efforts to keep the definition of "Marriage" as it has always been, between one man, and one women. Nevertheless, I do support the concept that gay and lesbian men and women have a legal right to bond together in a relationship of love. The perspective that being gay is merely a sexual deviation and perversion is outdated and stereotyped. They are capable of the same kind of love for each other that a heterosexual couple has and although I disagree to the term "marriage" as being the definition of their union,gay men and women should have similar legal rights as "Bonded Partners" or some other acceptable term. Marriage has always been the sacred union that forms a traditional family. The family today in the world also is defined other ways as well such as single parent, or children as part of a related family. There are so many ways that families exists today that surely we can accomodate same sex couples into our broader sense of what a family is. Instead of fighting this all concerned should work to find an acceptable format of recognition.

  • Lope
    July 2, 2008 5:56 a.m.

    It is the duty of the Prophet to declare GODS WILL!!!
    Are you like the people of old that would stone him, or follow him. Think about it!

  • Amber
    July 2, 2008 5:41 a.m.

    I knew America is conservative, but I didn't know that it's even beyond that: this is pure intolerance!
    God teaches us to love each other and the Church teaches that someone can be gay/lesbian within the Church. Like anyone-else gays want to have a relationship too and because it's not allowed to have sex before marriage, the only solution is to get married.
    In Holland gays/lesbians can get married since a couple of years and it's no problem! My neigbours are a gay-married-couple and they're nice people.
    I agree with boiseguy: this is a political matter and the Church shouldn't interfere.
    Brothers and sisters lets love each-other instead of spreading hatred!

  • goodgeye
    July 1, 2008 10:56 a.m.

    It's sad to see so many people put so much passion and energy into things that are private individual choices that each should have the right to decide on for themselves. In the meantime, our land is languishing as over-zealouts are taking over all the rights we have that DO matter. Why can't we all just relax and enjoy life and leave all of these kinds of ridiculous activity to people that feel they're getting power and dominion over us by the mere mention of it?

    As for me and my house, I will serve the Lord and my family on my own terms. I really think the leaders need to stop prying into things that only cause controversy. Maybe it's good publicity, but is that all we're trying to obtain now? Moral or unethical, lawful or unlawful, our society is based on what happens in our individual lives. Let's all quit focusing on the world trauma that we can't control, and spend more time on the things we can.

  • Polygamy
    July 1, 2008 10:22 a.m.

    It states expressly in the Book of Mormon that Polygamy is only mandated if the Lord is to raise a people up to Him. Basically, if the Lord needs more of his people plygamy is a good method to do it. As for the quotes from General Authorities, there are millions of them out there --only a few are in context and quoted correctly. Anti Church people love to publish statements that were never made. Pro Church people likewise.

  • Not in my lifetime
    July 1, 2008 7:02 a.m.

    As hard as the church fights to be seen as mainstream, polygamy will never make a comeback.

  • Dave...
    June 30, 2008 11:13 p.m.

    ...the biggest reason the LDS oppose legalization of same sex marriage is their fear that legalization of polygamy will not be far behind. Since "plural marriage" as part of "The New and Everlasting Covenant" is still VERY VERY much part of the LDS scriptural canon (D&C 132), it will be all but impossible for them not to be under internal pressure to rescind the non-scriptural and totally political Manifesto which interrupted the everlasting nature of plural marriage.

    And you can be sure that not very many modern Mormons would be very keen on having to deal with that again. Scripture and the nature of "Everlasting" not withstanding.

    Myself, I'm ready for it, heart, mind, might and soul.

  • Followup to Dave's post
    June 30, 2008 9:21 p.m.

    Speaking of the church's practice of "traditional marriage", a few quotes during the days of polygamy:

    "the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immorality; it is a lure to temptation and has always proved a curse to the people" Pres. John Taylor

    "...if they (non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct...." Apostle George A Smith

    "Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth?...never (till the days of Jesus, Rome having dominion over Jerusalem)..was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife."
    Pres Brigham Young

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 9:06 p.m.

    Nice post, Dave!! That's true!

    All of you others who follow so blindly... Remember that questioning leaders isn't always a bad thing... In face, isn't that how the LDS church came to be?

    I don't understand why it is such a huge issue for everyone. I just don't see how gay marriage affects you at all. The LDS church will never be forced to perform marriage between homosexual couples. I just don't understand why it is such a big deal!

  • Apostate Dave
    June 30, 2008 5:27 p.m.

    Im confused. When did the Mormon Church become the spokesperson for traditional marriage?

    They've never practiced "traditional marriage!"

    I don't understand why they are so heck-bent on this issue when their own God apparently doesn't have a problem with changing the definition of marriage now and then.

    Examination of Mormon history clearly demonstrates that sometimes he commands people to practice polygamy, sometimes he commands them not to practice polygamy. Both will get you into the Celestial Kingdom.

    Go figure.

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 11:02 a.m.

    **And in 97 years Hincklely didn't? One would think that as a loving prophet, he would want to know that answer.**

    And how would Frank know what the prophet has/hasn't asked of the Lord??

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 10:59 a.m.

    **If enough faithful in California walk out, perhaps the First Presidency will clarify if this is their opinion or divine revelation.**

    If?? Our prophets have spoken out on those practicing homosexual lifestyles for a long time. Prophets are the Lord's mouthpiece to the world so why are LDS here looking for other opinions when the Lord has clearly spoken his will for mankind through his prophet?? Faithful followers of the Lord & his prophet aren't faithful when they go against divine counsel.

  • in Idaho
    June 30, 2008 10:52 a.m.

    I am disheartened to read all the comments that call homosexuals "sinners". The Church teaches a person "judge not, lest ye be judged". The pride of some Church members may alone cause the weakening or fall of the Church. The strength of the Church depends on the desire of its people to follow the word of God. If the actions of those outside the Church could really cause its fall, then member just might have more to worried about then same-sex civil marriages.

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 10:00 a.m.

    **You've never heard gay bashing in church before? I have. "They are trying to wreck society. They are sick and depraved and should be shot." There are more, but these are the ones I distinctly remember.**

    That's terrible. Any LDS talking like that should be ashamed & disciplined by their bishop. The majority of LDS don't talk or think like that about any human being - gay or otherwise. Even though we feel gay marriage or that practicing homosexuality isn't right, doesn't mean we have any hateful feelings towards gay people.

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 9:44 a.m.

    Sarah, thanks for a great post!

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 9:42 a.m.

    **Even Pres Hinckley stated that he did NOT KNOW if homosexuals were born that way. Does that sound like he has actually asked God for details about this issue? Why should we assume the questions have been asked and answered if they really haven't?**

    So, he didn't know...what's that got to do with anything? Even if it's inborn, it's still a sin & the prophet will speak out against sin.

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 9:17 a.m.

    **Its funny how similar the comments I've run across remind me of things said in the Old and even New Testament. I wonder how often Moses was asked, "Are you really sure you talked to God or is it just your opinion that we should go to the desert". Or Jesus having to deal with the advice "You know if you weren't against that it would bring you a lot more followers. What your doing is really unpopular with the majority."**

    How true!

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 9:00 a.m.

    **What I wonder is whether this letter is based on revelation or merely the opinions of men.**

    More questioning/doubting the Lord's prophet?? Unbelievable.

    **I'm wondering if I'm bound to follow this instruction or if I can in good conscience follow my own heart.**

    Get on your knees & ask the Lord & he'll tell you. I hope he'll also help you see that questioning his chosen prophet is not what you should be doing.

  • breeze
    June 30, 2008 8:34 a.m.


    **Why on earth would anybody with an ounce of compassion fight against this?**

    Why on earth would any faithful, steadfast & immovable LDS member fight the Lord & his prophet on this?? They wouldn't...if they do, it's themselves they need to question.

  • Anonymous
    June 30, 2008 8:18 a.m.

    **It will close doors and hearts eternally, that may have been open before, and it violates our own 11-13th articles of faith.**

    So you know better than the Lord & his prophet what is best for this church, it's people, & all of mankind?? Those who are steadfast & immovable in following the mind & will of the Lord & his prophet, are not the ones who need to take a long look at themselves & are not the ones who are hypocritcal over this issue...

    Again, bottom line, if you aren't for the Lord/his church, you are against him...plain & simple.

  • Summer reading material
    June 30, 2008 7:50 a.m.

    For those heterosexuals who believe this is a simple topic of people choosing to be evil, I would suggest reading about Stuart Matis, a gay person who desperately tried to live a righteous life but under the rancor of the prop 22 battle in CA killed himself or a married couple who wrote their story under the name of Lynn and Jim Conley in the book, "Peculiar People." Jim Conley was a married gay man. The Conley's loved each other and tried to work through his homosexuality. They budgeted $100,000 for whatever treatments they thought would help, prayed and fasted for a long period of time. In the end, nothing changed. They divorced as friends, unable to exorcise those feelings.

    Most gays are "born that way" for whatever reason. For the "iron rod" Mormons, this is good reading. It won't change your mind, but it will change your heart. Learning to understand gays is good for us all.

  • annoyed
    June 30, 2008 12:24 a.m.

    Why not make such huge public ordeal out of a man cheating on his wife? The bible says that's wrong also. So many more awful things going on today. Why worry so much about this. Besides, anyone been reading anything scientific about gays and lesbians? You know how it's GENETIC it some cases??? What right do we have to tell someone that they are not allowed to be happy? I quit attending services regularly 8 years ago or so because of this very issue and decided to start taking my kids back today of all days and guess what the first thing I hear is? come on. just let them have the same right to happiness as everyone else. We will all be judged on our actions eventually. And you will not be looked on any different than a gay person. So live your life the best you know how and let them live theirs.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 8:46 p.m.

    **I think that it is amazing that in the supposedly free nation of the United States where there is suypposed to be Freedom of speech and press, Mormons can voiced their hatred of gays and lesbians and even claim to have the right to dictate what rights other Americans can have or not have. This Mormon run press allows for continued homophobia but silences those who would speak against Mormonism. Mormons continuously moan and groan about how they have been mistreated in history. So what gives them the right now to mistreat another part of society. "with liberty and justice for all" least not in Utah.**

    True, we have freedom of speech & the press & that's why we can speak up against an issue we feel is detrimental to all of society. So, we're not suppose to speak up unless we agree with others/gay marriage? Our leaders are always teaching us to be compassionate & tolerant of others but that doesn't mean we have to agree with everyones actions/choices.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 8:39 p.m.

    **If you make it your business to deny basic human rights to gays and aware that there will be a backlash. You have NO right to dictate what we can do in our lives. This is Mormon gay bashing at its height. Leave us alone and we will leave you alone. Amazing that you have not complained that gays and lesbians, too, pay taxes...shouldn't you start that crusade? Saying that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage is like saying that the taxes gays pay will destroy the IRS!!! Grow up people and get a life...your own...and leave mine alone!!!**

    We have every right to speak up for what we feel is good & decent. Just because we disagree with your lifestyle doesn't mean we have to sit & be silent & we won't. We aren't concerned what mankind thinks of us but only what God thinks of us.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 8:18 p.m.

    Great comment!

    (**You can do what you want and I can do what I want. I'll just take my thread in the intertwined fabric of society and yank it out, and you can take yours and pull it from here to there. That wont effect the whole fabric will it? It doesnt matter what Bob does either, whatever he does to his threads wont effect society if theres no direct victim. Lets just hope nobody puts any stress on the fabric.

    I think however what each person is and does irreversably effects us all, whether the intention was that or not. No one is alone.**)

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 7:51 p.m.

    **You may be on the Lord's side, but the government can't. That is against the first amendment. Please understand that the government is what is at stake, not the church.**

    The government is a temporary institution but the Lord/his church is an eternal institution...easy to see which should matter most.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 7:47 p.m.

    **Although I'm not in California anymore, I fully support the first presidency of the church. They will never lead the church astray. Whose on the Lord's side who? Now is the time to tell. We ask it fearlessly who's on the Lord's side who??**

    Yep, that's the very bottom line on any issues such as this one!

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 7:41 p.m.

    **Is there no one here that feels the cognitive dissonance that I feel? I love my church and want to obey the leaders, but I love my country and feel that this is most UNAMERICAN. We do not have the right to limit the privileges of any minority group, even if we think they are sinners! They have only broken the law of God, not the law of the land. We have no right. HELP ME!**

    They have ONLY broken the law of God, not the law of the land??? Unbelievable...yet again another member wanting to please the world instead of the Lord. And we have EVERY right to stand up for truth & decency as the Lord & our prophet have asked of us over & over & over...

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 7:36 p.m.

    **Being LDS and supporting the freedom for a gay couple to choose to be married or not is NOT condoning sin, it is supporting free agency and God is all about us having free agency.**

    Sure it is as our prophet has stated as clearly & plainly as is possible that it is a sin in the Lord's eyes & why he/the prophet tells us to stand up for the Lord & vote against gay marriage. And sure we have our free agency, but that doesn't mean the Lord will condone any choice me make just because he's given us free agency.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 7:26 p.m.

    >>"The toothpaste is out of the tube." Gay people ARE living together, openly. Gay people DO have children. Gay people ARE adopting. Gay people HAVE gotten married in many, many places. Too late to undo what has already been done.

  • J. Durrant
    June 29, 2008 7:02 p.m.

    Second, free agency isn't free. We are all free to chose, to make choices. We are NOT free to choose the consequences of those choices. We are free to believe what we want. We are free to believe the sky is purple if that is what we want to believe. That doesn't change the truth though. The sky will still be blue, whether we believe it is or not. Deciding to act on those gay feelings, or that urge to Drink, or Beat up your spouse, or any other urge we feel, whether it is weak or strong, doesn't make doing it right, no matter how you might try to justify it.

    I think the church is right to encourage this vote for righteousness, according to it's teachings. I feel saddened that they would feel it necessary to even have to do it at all. The people should already know the principles and act accordingly. And really, we are all fooling ourselves if we think we can separate religion and politics. Religion should be a way of life. And politics tend to dictate how we live. Isn't that basically the same?

  • J. Durrant
    June 29, 2008 6:59 p.m.

    This is the beginning of the sifting the wheat from the tares. First of all, let me say this. I do not shun, persecute, reject, or hate gay people. I have two friends currently that are gay. I have known 5-6 others in my life, and there was a point where I considered it myself. In those struggles and associations, I have learned the following:

    First point, Being inclined to the gay feelings felt, doesn't make it right or ok. but it doesn't make YOU evil either. It is the decision that make or breaks you. Being prone to gayness, or Alcoholism, or violence, or shyness, or sexual addictions, etc. doesn't mean you should follow that path. That is what this is all about, seeing what decisions you will make, being faced with adversity and conflict is part of life. Having those feeling isn't wrong. Acting on them is. Again, it is the act, or action that is evil, not the person.

  • breeze
    June 29, 2008 6:44 p.m.

    **I believe marriage is ordained by God and only between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that marriage between same sex couples is their right as free agents. So...We may choose life or we may choose death. The choice is ours.**

    Does this mean you'll be voting for gay marriage?

  • breeze
    June 29, 2008 6:35 p.m.

    **Sorry, those gay couples that want children are having children NOW. They are not waiting for permission. This amendment will not stop them from having or adopting and actually hurts those children by not giving them more stability in their homes.

    Try again.**

    Children will never find stability in a home where parents are of the same sex...God made mothers & fathers for a very specific purpose & no matter how sick people are of hearing it, God made Adam & Eve & not Adam & Steve.

  • breeze
    June 29, 2008 6:22 p.m.

    To: To Sarah:

    **I'm sorry. But how do we know what Church doctrine is anymore? Is this current "request" from the First Presidency really "doctrine"? Or is it just the "opinion of men"?**

    The best way to know is to get on your knees & simply ask the Lord. Our prophet is not just any man - the Lord chose him as his mouth piece to the world. What more is there to say?

  • breeze
    June 29, 2008 6:14 p.m.

    To: Str8 saint in the golden state:

    **I've got a rainbow ribbon to wear on Sunday and I'm prepared to walk out of sacrament meeting when the letter is read. I'm also prepared to work against the proposed amendment between now and Nov. 3.**

    As always you, like all members, have your agency & can do what you will. Bottom line, though, is our actions show where our hearts truly are & by taking the action you plan to in your sacrament meeting, it's sadly obvious that your heart lies with that of the world instead of with the Lord & our prophet.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 5:59 p.m.

    Candace, great post!!

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 3:50 p.m.

    To Saddened:

    When our minds & lives are in tune/harmony with the Lord's will, then our minds & lives will also be in tune with that of our prophet's as his will is only ever to follow the Lord's will...therefore, our votes will be the prophet's votes.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 3:41 p.m.

    Re: CA Mormon

    Our prophet speaks the mind & will of the Lord. He's told us what the Lord thinks about homosexuality & gay marriage - they are sins. Bottom line, we are for the prohpet/the Lord or we aren't.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2008 3:36 p.m.

    Re: CA Mormon

    What is it with some LDS members on this board? Our prophet has spoken, therefore we know the Lord's mind on homosexuality/gay marriage - it's a sin. Bottom line - when we go against our prophet we go against the Lord!!

  • To re: 2:38 p.m.
    June 29, 2008 5:05 a.m.

    Anyone can tell the difference between booing and hissing to express disagreement with what was just said versus continually booing and hissing to prevent a speaker from being heard.

    At the local university near where I live, which brings in speakers of all persuasions, it has happened that a conservative speaker was continuously shouted down and booed as soon as he started to speak, which continued until security was finally able to escort the instigators out of the building. Now just who is open minded and unafraid of the ideas of others?

  • re: 2:38 p.m.
    June 28, 2008 11:44 p.m.

    "See the note above about the school girl in California, and the arrests against pastors for teaching that homosexuality is wrong."

    Replace "gay" with "mormon" and see how your attitude changes. And don't say it doesn't happen. Fundamentalist Christians continue to this day claiming Joseph Smith was the anti-Christ and all LDS people are going to hell.

    "Scaremongering and threats are exactly what we see from the gay rights movement and you can see many of those threats in this thread. Try speaking as an ex-gay at a university and see how much the gay lobby respects freedom of speech then."

    In other words, you want your freedom of speech to call them "evil" but you don't want them to have THEIR freedom of speech to boo and hiss and criticize you. It always amazes me how right-wingers invariable try to describe criticism as "infringing on your freedom of speech"

  • re: 2:52 p.m.
    June 28, 2008 11:25 p.m.

    "You backhandedly undercut your own argument. In European countries where SSM has been in place for several years, there is also an influx of Middle Easterners who are having all of the children. The rest of the country is satisfied to have gay marriages that are unable to produce children, or to support their current lifestyle by choosing to none or maybe 1. In 20 years there will be no more "Netherlands" as we know it today.

    I'd call that a total societal breakdown where the culture you decry as broken down takes over the others that have the loosest rules."

    Ah, so homosexuality is bad because religious fanatics will take over? Are you trying to shoot yourself in the foot?

    Furthermore, this is yet ANOTHER example of someone taking a trend which is KNOWN to vary considerably and even completely reverse (population growth rates) and assuming its constant. Also a slippery slope fallacy too.

  • re: Breeze
    June 28, 2008 11:20 p.m.

    "I don't care who twists the heck out of scripture to suit themselves..."

    Simply quoting some of the insane laws in scripture is "twisting" eh?

    "God stated it very plainly & clearly how he feels about homosexuality."

    The same "God" who said it was OK to own slaves and murder disobedient children? The same "God" who said its OK to BEAT said slaves so long as they don't actually die? The same "God" who said that if a man rapes a woman who is not engaged to another man, the rapist needs to MARRY said woman?

    Face reality. No omniscient deity wrote the Old Testament. It was written by bronze-age ignorants who though hale and snow was kept in jars in the sky as a war reserve.

    Reality is on some level, you realize there are plenty of absurdities in the Bible but you don't want to face that fact and your response above proves it.

  • re: 2:38 p.m.
    June 28, 2008 11:11 p.m.

    "Why should a child who is molested by an older male and told "now you are gay" have no options but to accept that lifestyle?"

    A) Exactly WHO is doing this. Stop citing unreferenced claims.
    B) This falls under pedophilia which NO ONE (claims from the religious right not withstanding) is advocation legalizing. If a gay man molests a child, he is imprisoned just the same as a straight man molesting a child.

    Once again, allow me to elaborate on the ENORMOUS difference between homosexuality and pedophilia/rape/any other criminal activity folks try and equate with homosexuality. In a homosexual relationship between two adults, BOTH PEOPLE ARE CONSENTING ADULTS. The same cannot be said for pedophilia, rape, etc.

  • re: I don't understand
    June 28, 2008 11:05 p.m.

    Its simple. The Prophet is still HUMAN. He is still entitled to his own opinions about things. An I have seen many known falsehoods come out from the mouths of "the Brethren" in conference.

    I've heard them proclaim that homosexuality does not occur in any other species besides humans. Completely false. I have personally witnessed a male dog mount another male and there are many documented cases.

    I've heard President Packer himself utter several of the standard strawman distortions about Evolution theory from the pulpit (The Pattern of Our Parentage)

  • Anonymous
    June 28, 2008 10:59 p.m.

    "Funny how Mormon's are called narrow minded bigoted and nasty when we are only expressing OUR beliefs."

    But you're NOT just "expressing" your beliefs. You're trying to get your beliefs enshrined in LAW that would require EVERYONE to follow them, regardless of whether they accept them or not.

  • re: 2:38 p.m
    June 28, 2008 10:58 p.m.

    "Threats to not only enact legislation limiting religious freedom, but actual policies are in place."

    Plain English translation: they want YOU to stop forcing YOUR subjective religious-based rules on them. Your freedom ends when they infringe on someone else.

    "See the note above about the school girl in California, and the arrests against pastors for teaching that homosexuality is wrong."

    Yes, thats called "hate speech" and is no different from saying any other group is evil.

    "Scaremongering and threats are exactly what we see from the gay rights movement and you can see many of those threats in this thread."

    Plain English translation: they want you to stop calling them "evil" without any justification. You want to say the behavior is wrong, you need MORE than just "my church says so".

    "Children adopted by same-sex couples are twice as likely to be gay themselves than those adoped by hetero couples"

    1) Source?
    2) Circular reasoning. Using your conclusion that being gay is bad to support itself.

  • To Breeze
    June 28, 2008 10:30 p.m.

    "God" also clearly stated that the Word of Wisdom was not to be a commandment (Read your D&C). But that didn't stop the "prophet" and the church for over ruling Him on that one did it? Last time I went for a temple interview I was asked if I kept the commandment on the Word of Wisdom.

  • What's good for the goose
    June 28, 2008 10:23 p.m.

    Let me see if I've got this right.
    Jesus loves me and I can continue to go to church and pay my tithing and be happy member of God's true church if I remain celibate while the rest of you get to do what "comes natural."???

    No thank you.

    I'm a practising homosexual and that's what comes naturally to me. Now I cannot wait until I can get married to multiple men. What's good for the goose is even better for the ganders!

  • Anonymous
    June 28, 2008 7:16 p.m.

    The LDS has had prophets who were senile. Senile! What does it mean that to have prophets who are the mouthpiece of Heavenly Father and are senile, for cripes sakes?

    Meanwhile, a senile prophet could do as well as Monson has on this issue...

  • To I don't understand
    June 28, 2008 6:39 p.m.

    You state "This is from the PROPHET." There was a time when I was much younger that this would have been enough for me. As I've gotten older I've learned that not every word uttered by past prophets have been actual doctrine. How do we know this is not simply "advice" or personal "opinion"? Even when I pray about it, my mind remains confused. Somehow I just can't get the feeling that this is right. Sorry, but I don't know what else to do. If it is truly right then why does it feel so WRONG?

  • to breeze
    June 28, 2008 6:14 p.m.

    I can understand why you chose your moniker. Whew!

  • I don't understand
    June 28, 2008 5:23 p.m.

    I cannot believe that there are actually members of the church who are stating that they will not support the church's position. This is from the PROPHET. Have you forgotten who he his? He is the mouth peace of Heavenly Father!! Do you now pick and choose which commandments you will keep as well as what directions from the prophet you will follow. I am so saddened this day that some of you are allowing the world to influence you so much. The church is not saying that gay people are bad, we are to love all people as Christ does. The church is simply restating what is already written for the world to see, that is the "Family Proclamation". Most of us have this hanging in our homes, I love this document and I pray that you will read it again before speaking out against our prophet.

  • advice
    June 28, 2008 4:45 p.m.

    If you read some published personal histories some of the advice gays have received it gets pretty amazing. Some felt that masturbation led to homosexuality. I read one personal history where an LDS man, who was trying to distance himself from homosexual feelings, was advised to not touch his penis while going to the bathroom for fear of having his homosexual feelings increased.

  • re: john lambert
    June 28, 2008 4:09 p.m.

    I think Mr. Lambert's distinction between advice and inspiration would be simple. It's inspiration when the advice works. It's advice when the advice doesn't work.

  • to Funny
    June 28, 2008 3:40 p.m.

    No one was making noise when you were keeping your ideas to yourselves as individuals or within your communities. When the LDS reaches its arms out from SLC and tries to enshrine undemocratic discrimination into the constitution of CA there is blowback.

    All I can think is thank God that Mitt Romney will never be President of this country. This example will be a clear indication forever of what the tampering with the federal government would be if there was a Mormon in the White House.

  • To Re: John Lambert 12:39 pm
    June 28, 2008 2:52 p.m.

    Your comment:
    Once again, the one of the worst places on Earth with the biggest signs of society breaking down is the Middle East, where sexual rules are the STRICTEST, not the loosest.

    You backhandedly undercut your own argument. In European countries where SSM has been in place for several years, there is also an influx of Middle Easterners who are having all of the children. The rest of the country is satisfied to have gay marriages that are unable to produce children, or to support their current lifestyle by choosing to none or maybe 1. In 20 years there will be no more "Netherlands" as we know it today.

    I'd call that a total societal breakdown where the culture you decry as broken down takes over the others that have the loosest rules.

  • Funny
    June 28, 2008 2:50 p.m.

    Funny how Mormon's are called narrow minded bigoted and nasty when we are only expressing OUR beliefs. I guess us Mormons have no right to the first ammendement because our speech is hate speech? Whatever. We have every right to express our views. We will forever stand firm on this issue because we KNOW this is God's law and word on the matter.

  • To re: John Lamber 4:04 | 9:54 a
    June 28, 2008 2:38 p.m.

    Thanks for clarifying what you meant by justification, so no *bzzt* needed.

    Scaremongering: Threats to not only enact legislation limiting religious freedom, but actual policies are in place. See the note above about the school girl in California, and the arrests against pastors for teaching that homosexuality is wrong. Scaremongering and threats are exactly what we see from the gay rights movement and you can see many of those threats in this thread. Try speaking as an ex-gay at a university and see how much the gay lobby respects freedom of speech then.

    Children adopted by same-sex couples are twice as likely to be gay themselves than those adoped by hetero couples (although the rate for adopted children is higher overall - a good area for further study).

    Natural adolescent curiosity about gender are increasingly sexualized, and the GLA in the local schools embraces these kids before they even know what is going on. They are naturally categorized and integrated - and trapped.

    Why should a child who is molested by an older male and told "now you are gay" have no options but to accept that lifestyle?

    200 words are not enough. There is much more to say.

  • Anonymous
    June 28, 2008 2:15 p.m.

    breeze- I hate to say it, but you exhibit very radical and partly medievil thinking here. Where is the love? And who made you the spokesman for the church? I am shocked. By the way- What exactly is the homosexual lifestyle? Do you mean they sleep around more than heterosexuals, or are more into drugs? What makes them so different from you except their (mostly inherited)sexual tendenciies? Some of them might be even closer to God than you- ever thought about that?

  • to maude
    June 28, 2008 12:40 p.m.

    I'm with you, babe! If they want to make public policy let them asssume the public responsibility of paying taxes.

    In the end it wouldn't make much of a difference tho. The direction of public opinion is to tolerance. Mormons should be grateful for that. Especially when they're showing their nastiest, most regressive and narrow-mindedness because it will take a whole lot of tolerance on the part of most of us to accept their negative undemocratic thinking.

  • To re: John Lamber 4:04 | 9:54 a
    June 28, 2008 12:39 p.m.

    "your assertions are simply wrong. The teaching has been justified repeatedly. Please see the Family Proclamation for beginners. I understand that you may not agree with it, but it has been there."

    *bzzt* Sorry, but 'the church says so' does not constitute a justification. Once again, people in this thread have repeatedly CLAIMED that allowing gay marriage will destroy society. Not ONE SHRED of evidence has been presented to justify this accusation.

    Name ONE piece of scaremongering that has come from the pro-SSM side?

    Once again, the one of the worst places on Earth with the biggest signs of society breaking down is the Middle East, where sexual rules are the STRICTEST, not the loosest.

  • breeze
    June 28, 2008 12:08 p.m.

    Re: Moral law -

    Great post!!!

  • breeze
    June 28, 2008 11:38 a.m.

    Re: Time to pick sides:


  • maude
    June 28, 2008 11:27 a.m.

    If the church wants to directly reference and influence politics I fully support them. I also fully support that they need to pay taxes then.

  • breeze
    June 28, 2008 11:25 a.m.


    **If the LDS Church had remained steadfast and unchangeable in its doctrine there would have been no need for the FLDS to break away.**

    Nonsense...they left because of their own pride & selfishness, wanting to live as they wanted to instead of being obedient to God's laws/living as he would have them do.

    **Why are the faithful not praying, as they did for their fellow blacks, for full blessings for all of god's children.**

    LDS faithful don't pray for God to do something he condemns in scripture/OT, which is the homosexual lifestyle. I don't care who twists the heck out of scripture to suit themselves...God stated it very plainly & clearly how he feels about homosexuality.

    **Afterall, the blacks were held back due to the perception of carrying the sin of Cain.**

    Not a happened.

  • breeze
    June 28, 2008 11:08 a.m.

    Re: Steve:

    **I'm not making this up. Just something to ponder before you continue to speak out against anyone who isn't straight. I'm sure if many "straight" people can be honest with themselves, they can probably think of at least one instance in their life of same gender "curiousity".**

    What you're forgetting is that there's a Huge difference between curiosity & actually acting something out.

  • To re: John Lamber 4:04
    June 28, 2008 9:54 a.m.

    I am not John Lambert, but your assertions are simply wrong. The teaching has been justified repeatedly. Please see the Family Proclamation for beginners. I understand that you may not agree with it, but it has been there.

    The most serious "scaremongering" I have seen is coming form the pro-SSM crowd.

    And what kind of "evidence" are you looking for, and in regards to which question?

  • A Wise Man Wrote this
    June 28, 2008 9:46 a.m.

    You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment. I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents. I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the unreasonable and unjust call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family.

  • To: love for sure | 6:43
    June 28, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    Your comments about written dialogue and how each "hears" opinions similar to his/her own are very true.

    However, I don't interpret a suggestion of a relocation program as a serious threat. It has no chance of ever occurring and I've never seen someone so disposed ever do anything about it or disrupt pro-gay gatherings.

    On the other hand, threats about introducing legislation and putting in laws and policies to limit religious practice are happening as we speak. See the reference to the Mormon girl in Santa Rosa, Cal who was harrassed about her religion and responded with the flippant "that's so gay" to her harranguers. She was put on probation and the aggressors suffered nothing. Notice if an ex-gay or person who does not conform to the gay-approved agenda is publicized as a speaker on a university campus, and how that person is shouted down and continuously interrupted while speaking by pro-gay hecklers. Look at some gay-affirming countries who have outlawed churches teaching that the gay lifestyle is wrong. These are where the real threats exist because they are being carried out before our eyes.

    Yes, written dialogue has its limitations. However, my eyes and ears are capable of observation.

  • re: John Lambert | 4:04 p.m.
    June 28, 2008 12:35 a.m.

    "The church has always clearly taught that homosexual behavior is wrong."

    Yet no one has ever been able to JUSTIFY this teaching. All I've seen in the church and even in this discussion here is scaremongering without a shred of supporting evidence.

  • Alex
    June 27, 2008 11:16 p.m.

    To "to Alex":

    "Good for you! But this may be a case where your bigoted church's actions speak louder than their BOM words. "

    I don't know how you can believe that my views are any different from the First Presidency. In case you haven't read my posts, I am a Mormon's Mormon. Everything that the church leaders teach urges me to act in a way so as to share the gospel I've received with whomever with kindness and love.

    I want the gays in the church as much as I want anybody else. However, mankind is not saved by the Lord IN their sins, but rather from their sins. That means that the adulterer must abandon his adultery and a homosexual must abandon his homosexual relations. These are basic. Once the homosexual in diligence and faith on the Lord Jesus turns away from that sin, the Lord can begin to make that man or woman into a new creature. That person is baptized, and receives the gift of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. By diligence and faith, over time a person develops a power over the temptations through the power of the Lord. The change is possible.

  • love for sure
    June 27, 2008 6:43 p.m.

    @ To: to Alex 3:08 | 4:17
    I'm guessing you don't consider "relocation" a threat to those supporting same sex marriage. It was called for and seconded by several on this topic thread. Scary and threatening that people see that as a way to close discussion they no longer want to hear. Scarier still that you don't view it as a threat.

    My guess is most people read comments with which they agree with the voice in their head being soft-spoken and reasonable sounding while that voice changes to shrill, foaming vitriol as they read the opinions they don't agree with no matter the intent or reasonableness with which they were written. Written dialogue does have its drawbacks.

  • what the ...?
    June 27, 2008 5:10 p.m.

    Isn't Larry Craig a member of the LDS church?
    What is an admitted gay person doing as a co-sponsor for the Federal Marriage Amendment? Blowing a smokescreen?

  • interesting co-sponsor
    June 27, 2008 4:24 p.m.

    It's very, very unlikely to pass, but the Federal Marriage Amendment has just been reintroduced in the Senate.

    If the FMA is enacted, an amendment would be added to the U.S. Constitution that would read, in part:

    Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
    Out of the 10 senators sponsoring the bill, two names stand out -- Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and David Vitter, R-La. Craig, of course, is the man who became infamous for his arrest on charges that he tried to solicit another man for sex in an airport bathroom. Afterward, other men came forward to say they'd had sexual relations with him.

  • To: to Alex 3:08
    June 27, 2008 4:17 p.m.

    Check out the messages in this string and then tell me who the bigots are, who the name-callers are, and who are promising real, invasive threats.

    If you don't agree with the gay/lesbian lobby, they will seek to shout you down. Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as you agree with them.

    If you don't want people to fear you, then quit threatening them.

    I have never seen as much love as I have witnessed in my experiences in the LDS Church - and this includes toward individuals with same-sex attraction.

  • John Lambert
    June 27, 2008 4:04 p.m.

    The church has always clearly taught that homosexual behavior is wrong. The various forms of advice on how to overcome it have varied. However we must accept that this advice is meant to be applied to the individual person and the various societal pressures involved change.
    The advice on how to overcome homosexual behavior is only that, advice. The basic doctrine that homosexual behavior is wrong does not change.

  • Does any of this matter?
    June 27, 2008 3:37 p.m.

    It really doesn't matter, does it? It honestly doesn't make one bit of difference. If someone were to revoke my marriage license right this minute, I'd still live my life exactly as I am. I'd still stay with my husband and kids. And if anyone ever tried to keep me away from my husband's hospital bedside--I'd climb right through the roof, or a window, or whatever it took, to get to him.

    No law that is ever enacted or revoked could really make a difference to me.

  • to Alex
    June 27, 2008 3:08 p.m.

    Good for you! But this may be a case where your bigoted church's actions speak louder than their BOM words.

  • Re: John Lambert
    June 27, 2008 3:00 p.m.

    I commend you for defending your church and your faith and their stand on homosexulity. That said, if you go back and read the pamplet used by Priesthood leaders when the church started having a policy they blamed the parents, then they changed that and blamed causual circumstances. Then they advised the men to get married and procreate and that would solve their problems. Then when that did not work they reccommended that you not get married, but do so if you are competely sure you can control yourself.

    How much more confusing can it get all these changes in policy. I guess is it good they can have standardized doctrines that "never change" just the interpretation of said doctrines and then policies they can change when the fancy strikes them that way they become somehow infalable. I also find it interesting that church members just go along with these policy changes no questions asked.

    Which begs the question why should we listen to a church that can't even figure what to do and has ever changing policy in regards to homosexuality.

  • Alex
    June 27, 2008 1:37 p.m.

    To "Lot of conversion opportunity":

    "Yup! This Sunday when lots of non-Mormons will be attending their local chapels. "

    A rather unusual opportunity to share the gospel, don't you think? I'll take it. ;)

  • Lot of conversion opportunity
    June 27, 2008 1:28 p.m.

    Yup! This Sunday when lots of non-Mormons will be attending their local chapels.

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 12:43 p.m.

    Re: Homosexuals:

    *The new boogey man, scape goat, excuse for all the wrongs in our society.

    So much easier to just blame others for whats wrong than to accept our part (i.e. who you voted for time and again because of the letter beside their name) in the way society is heading.*

    Oh, yeah, poor gays, everyone blames them for all of societies ills. Nonsense, they just like to shift blame to everyone & everything else because they can't accept responsibililty for their sinful, perverse actions/choices.

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 12:19 p.m.

    Re: to lakers:

    *The fires are mainly in areas where Conservatives live. They are the Republican strongholds of the state. No West Hollywood fires or San Francisco fires. Interesting...*

    They'll get their turns in one way or another as God will avenge all of their sins regardless of if they're Christian or not.

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 12:19 p.m.

    Re: Hypocritical...again:

    *Think about what might have happened if they encouraged their members to do all they could to stop poverty, racism, bigotry, helping those who REALLY need a hand especially now and all the other social ills that are the REAL threats to our country. Aren't there a couple verses in the same bible that cover doing just that? What? Nobody wants to acknowledge those?*

    We (LDS) are encrouged to help others all the time - we do & the church is always going to others' aid here & abroad.

    *Gay marriage is a nice distration from the REAL issues that are destroying our country. It's the magician's assistant. It distracts you from what is going on behind the scenes until it's too late to notice you've been duped.*

    Gay marriage IS among the issues that will bring this country down to it's knees - literally. America will answer for acceptance of such perversions as we're beginning to see with all the commotion & turmoil going on in this country/the world. The only ones being duped are those who reject & trample on God's laws.

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 12:03 p.m.

    Re: Liberation or enslavement?:

    "If a hunger for liberation destroys morality then immorality will destroy liberty...."

    Whoever wrote this back on June 24th, I love it!

  • jfb
    June 27, 2008 11:57 a.m.

    I sometimes wonder why we LDS are so one dimensional on social issues. We, like the evangelicals, can never see past the issues of abortion and homosexuality to the real issues Jesus raised in the Sermon on the Mount and his other teachings: poverty, war, greed, materialism hatred of your neighbor. With millions of people in our own country unable to properly feed themselves or receive decent medical care why are we so focused on these issues?

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 11:31 a.m.

    **"How great the goodness of our God who set up familial units to have a mother and a father!"

    He didn't. Learn some history. During most of "traditional" society, your average marriage lasted about eleven years before one member of the couple was DEAD, usually the woman through childbirth. Thats how "God/nature" made human society and mankind has been desperately trying to improve the crappy product.**

    What's death got to do with the quality of a marriage? Sinful, selfish humans can never make any improvements over what God has made...pretty arrogant statement.

  • re: Breeze
    June 27, 2008 11:30 a.m.

    "No new revelation will ever come condoning the gay lifestyle as God's laws are unchanging, period."

    Funny how his dietary restrictions completely changed 2000 years ago.

    Were you aware that the Word of Wisdom was initially NOT a commandment, but rather just advice?

  • To 11 pages:
    June 27, 2008 10:20 a.m.

    Compromise is foreign to the LDS, which wants to impose its values on the 98.3% of Americans who are not Mormon.

    The Mormon gay-bashing amendment will be defeated in California. Within 20-30 years, the LDS will try to wiggle out of its present position via a new revelation. Thus is was with polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, and now gays.

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 10:07 a.m.

    Re: New revelation will come:

    No new revelation will ever come condoning the gay lifestyle as God's laws are unchanging, period.

    Any who choose to embrace the gay lifestyle & allows it to break up their marriage is on them & them alone. And if they choose to drink themselves into oblivion or end their life, that's also theirs to bear alone as a consequence of their sinful choices/lifestyle...same as anyone has to bear the consequences of their sins.

    The dark days will come to this country as a result of more & more embracing those things which mock God/pervert his ways i.e. the gay lifestyle.

  • Alex
    June 27, 2008 10:01 a.m.

    To "11 pages of comments":

    "Why hasbn't someone tried to find a workable compromise instead of acting like politicians and point fingers at the other guy? "

    What kind of a compromise did you have in mind? In my view, the two views are irreconcilable. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

  • re Breeze....
    June 27, 2008 9:27 a.m.

    So you ARE comparing gay people to the absolute bottom of society, on par with Murderers, Rapists, Pedophiles and Drug Dealers? Fortunately, most people in this country don't. Thank you,however, for strengthening the thesis I have regarding Religious Extremists in this country.

  • 11 pages of comments
    June 27, 2008 9:26 a.m.

    And all of it is just repeating the same thing over and over. I think the only thing to have happened is a bigger divide has been created, more bigotry towards each other on BOTH sides. What a waste. Why hasbn't someone tried to find a workable compromise instead of acting like politicians and point fingers at the other guy?

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 8:49 a.m.

    **If its "all about the children" then STOP SMOKERS FROM GETTING MARRIED. Children of smokers are twice as likely to pick up this "lifestyle choice" as children of non-smokers. Something that kills 400,000 Americans every year. Yet I don't hear a peep from anyone demanding a law against letting smokers get married.**

    Lame comparison - smoking can harm others but it doesn't corrupt societies like perversions such as homosexuality do.

    **We'll let alcoholics, pedophiles, rapists, drug dealers and convicted murders get married. NO ONE is out demanding they be prohibited from getting married. Can anyone show me one sane reason why any of these would be LESS of a threat to children than a gay couple?**

    Of course not - they're all a threat to children including the gay lifestyle. Let's turn that around and say let's just forget any kind of laws & let everyone do what they please i.e. be pedophiles, homosexuals, rapists, drug dealers and murders. Who cares what they do...let's just live & let live...everyone should be able to choose without consequences to them or anyone else, right? WRONG!

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 8:34 a.m.

    Re: I'm worried

    **I already see this problem with my young nieces and nephews. Over half of them have left the Church mainly because of the stigma they feel that comes along with being a member. Instead of being an organization they feel "proud" to belong to, I'm afraid they now feel ashamed.**

    It was their own choice, no one else's, that they left the church. Any stigma they felt was because their faith was weak...they are obviously much more concerned about what the world thinks of them than the Lord. The only shame is that they sought the opinions of men over that of God's.

  • Welcome...
    June 27, 2008 8:30 a.m.

    hate to break it to ya is a prime example of what was stated earlier that people will accuse the LDS church of hatred where none exists.

    So what we have here is generally decent people trying to follow the Lord who more and more are to be despised and mocked. Welcome to the great and spacious building.

    And by the way, if nobody cares what the LDS think, why would they be despised and mocked? The very acts of despising and mocking indicate somebody cares enough to attempt to counter the influence of the LDS people, wouldnt you think?

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 8:22 a.m.

    Re: Silly Mongoose

    **Even the Church has adulterers and abusers.**

    The LDS church has sinners just like any other religion or all of mankind but they need to repent of those sins the same as anyone else including those who practice the homosexual lifestyle/marry someone of the same gender.

  • Alex
    June 27, 2008 8:11 a.m.

    To "hate to break it to ya...":

    "...but nobody who isn't Mormon cares what the LDS thinks about gay people. "

    Tell that to the same-sex marriage proponents and the gays. Why are GLBT groups always trying to meet with the prophet to persuade him to change the church's long held position? Why are there over 500 comments on this article? Why the vitriol if nobody really cares? No, I'm not buying it.

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 8:10 a.m.

    Re: Ten Commandments

    **Isn't it interesting that the Ten Commandments don't have a word to say about homosexuality. Why do we treat it as though it's the worst sin anyone can commit?**

    Pedophilia, rape, etc. are also not mentioned in the ten commandments but they are among the most grievous sins to God as is homosexuality.

  • breeze
    June 27, 2008 7:47 a.m.

    Re: The real tragedy

    **The Mormon promotion of anti-gay laws has not decreased the rates of divorce and infidelity--but it has increased the rate of Mormon suicides.

    I keep hoping for more love and compassion from my Church, yet I'm afraid I will always remain disappointed.**

    Any who commit suicide do it of their own choice. The LDS church's stance on anti-gay laws is one that seeks for decency & morality in society.

    The church won't change it's stance to appease it's members as Gods laws are unchanging. You will remain disappointed if you ever expect them to do so.

  • hate to break it to ya...
    June 27, 2008 2:37 a.m.

    ...but nobody who isn't Mormon cares what the LDS thinks about gay people. Y'all are welcome to remain in your ghettos of hatefulness, that is your right as Americans. But please don't think your hateful proclamations will have any general effect. The LDS will only become more despised and mocked. Ask Mitt what that feels like.

  • Why?
    June 27, 2008 12:44 a.m.

    Why waste time blogging, go vote for what you believe!

  • Jake
    June 27, 2008 12:32 a.m.

    I really don't see what the whole big deal is (regarding this article, not the issue of gay marriage). The church issued a statement encouraging it's members to exercise their civic duties and support an issue that they profess to believe in as shown by their membership in the LDS Church. The church statement was issued to it's own members, not to the Governor of California or the California Supreme Court. This is not a case of the church meddling in political affairs, but only one encouraging it's members to be good citizens. I would think any church in this country would do the same, and it's not too much to ask members to vote according to their beliefs.

  • John Lambert
    June 26, 2008 11:06 p.m.

    To Alex on what,
    I am not sure that What has heard digs in any of those places either. It may have been while he was playing church basketball, at a ward social, sitting in the foyer at church before, after or during a meeting, or in many other cases.
    I have known some people who would bring up the most irrelevant and off the wall comments in Sunday School though. Then there was the incident the Sunday before I got to my mission when an investigator in the middle of the hallway between classes at church yelled out that he did not believe the prohet was a prophet. Actually, I never got told the story, only heard the echoings of it, so I am not sure what the guy said. My point is that just because people say something in church does not mean that it is in anyway endorsed by the church.

  • John Lambert
    June 26, 2008 10:58 p.m.

    To the 3:36 commentator,
    How would knowing the exact cause of homosexual behavior solve anything. Also, if you think that making a statement about the need to support an admendment has caused people to rise up in anger, what would happen if President Hinckley had told us exactly what caused same-gender attraction.
    Well, at least some people would claim it did not agree with the science on the matter, no matter what he said. Beyond this, since sciences ideas are by their very nature in flux and not dogmatic, it would at some point not agree with science and cause problems.
    This issues you have brought up does not affect the churches stand. If you had asked Heber J. Grant what caused alchoholism he would have probably told you he did not know, but that would not have undermined his teaching against the use of alchohol as being the revealed word of God.

  • John Lambert
    June 26, 2008 10:52 p.m.

    To what,
    People say lots of stupid things about who should be shot. I think it is all wrong. Of course, some people think I take life too seriously.
    However, this is not about gay bashing. Sometimes, especially here with only 200 words we may not be clear.
    However, what we have issue with are those who want to try to change the basic rules of morality. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
    It is not hateful to say such things. However it is now seen as hateful by the homosexual lobby.
    Another problem is that when I talk about homosexuals I mean those who commit the acts. When I talk about the homosexual lobby I am talking about the people who march in parades.
    Unlike some posters, I do not think that everyone who has ever felt homosexual tendencies is evil. I do not mock them. I also hate it when people assume that guys who know about fashion, or who are ballet dancers are gay. Our societies attempts to stereotype some people as gay makes my blood boil.

  • John Lambert
    June 26, 2008 10:40 p.m.

    To to Frank,
    Why should President Hinckley ask God what causes homosexuality? I believe that The Proclamation to the World on the Family is the reveled word of God. I do not think there is an issue here. The church is able to go to every nation, kindred tongue and people without accepting degrading actions. There is no long promised day when homosexuals will be able to practice perversions while holding the priesthood.
    Beyond this, there are two other possibilities you did not consider. One is that President Hinckley did ask and plead with the Lord to recieve an answer on what caused homosexuality but was not given one or was told it was not to be revealed at this time. It is also vaguely possible that the Lord told him exactly why people are homosexual but not to reveal it.
    What President Hinckley probably asked was what was the best way to help people overcome homosexuality. This is why the leaders of the church have come out with "God loveth his children".
    Those of you who are looking for an Official Declaration three allowing people to practice perversion and hold the priesthood will keep waiting.

  • John Lambert
    June 26, 2008 10:32 p.m.

    To the person who wishes to attack the President of the twelve,
    Elder Packer was not attacking all intelectuals. What he was speaking against is those who allow intelectualism to displace their trust in the prophet.
    Read 2 Nephi 9:28-29 to get a full image of the issue. Also, I once had a prophessor point out that some of the so called scholars who attack the church from within do not deserve the title.
    Last of all, I doubt Elder Packer would care if you denigrated him as an apostle. You do not seem to believe that Elder Packer has a speacial witness of Jesus Christ, so why should he or anyone else care whether you hide your disbelief or express it? You have done so already, so doing it more often might just allow people to know that you need to recieve nourishing by the good word of God.

  • John Lambert
    June 26, 2008 10:17 p.m.

    To to Sarah,
    What is your source for the quote from Elder Packer? Where can we look it up to verify that he really phrased it that way?

  • breeze
    June 26, 2008 7:29 p.m.

    Re: Clare - **As I have said before, "You cannot dictate to God his commandments." If you choose not to obey those laws, then you are saying you don't believe in the Bible. Satan is slowly chipping away at our moral standards.

    As a native Californian who ended up in Utah, I pray that my native state will make the right decision about this matter. I will always miss it, but if this passes, I'll miss it a lot less.**

    You seem to contradict yourself - first saying we can't dictate to God his commandments but then saying you'll be disappointed if California doesn't pass this. Which is it?

  • To titleist 5 @ 3:32
    June 26, 2008 6:35 p.m.

    You say "...if you do believe in God then you must accept his word..ALL OF IT..." I think most Mormons believe in the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly" not all that is written. Most religions can't even agree on who is, and isn't, a prophet and what works are, or aren't, scripture.

    In the United States I think issues like same-sex marriage must be decided civilly, not religiously. Or are we going to start enforcing laws from the Bible about stoning disobedient kids and Sabbath breakers.

    Just wish ALL the religions would stay out of this one.

  • Steve - Re: So Cal Resident
    June 26, 2008 5:22 p.m.

    Good question. Why the focus on the LDS Church's involvement (because it's Utah of course)? You say the Catholic Church is on the same side as the LDS, surely other churches are as well. So I think it would be nice if our local Utah media would run a story or two on the Catholic and other churches involvements, then in any further stories mention them alongside the LDS... rather than making it look like the LDS is the lone religious institution stepping in.

    Please do this Deseret News.

  • Arthur
    June 26, 2008 5:14 p.m.

    Is the structure of marriage worth fighting over? The oldest organization on earth? I hope so.

    re: To Sarah 4:03 p.m.
    1) No one has shown that it wont. 2) I have a traditional family, my fiancee has a traditional family, hopefully together we will have a traditional family. I guess all this is a matter of individual perspective and the history part is just as subjective.

  • re So Cal Resident
    June 26, 2008 4:54 p.m.

    The problem with the Amendment voted on 8 years was that it was found to be Unconstitutional. As a California resident, you must also be aware that the Legislature twice passed bills making same sex marriage legal, which the Governor vetoed, saying it was a matter for the State Supreme Court to decide, which they did.

  • Our fault not his
    June 26, 2008 4:46 p.m.

    Re: I just want peace | 3:44 p.m.

    Sorry "I just want peace" but not even the Son of god could pull that off.

  • Alex
    June 26, 2008 4:39 p.m.

    To "I just want peace"

    "If only there were some inspired prophet or religion out there that could actually unite us--I'd join it in a heartbeat! "

    Is it the job of a prophet to unite us, or is it rather our job to unite ourselves with the truth? Why do you even need an inspired prophet if his counsel is of no consequence anyway? After all, anything goes.

  • Frank
    June 26, 2008 4:34 p.m.

    Re: To Frank | 3:36 p.m.

    Its quite possibly he did want to know, and possibly not. He may be face to face with the Lord and still not know right now. When I die, heaven help me if I should find myself face to face with my creator, "Is homosexuality determined at birth?" is not going to be the 1st or 100th question I'd ask.

    I'm not an expert on revelation, far from it. But if I were to give my opinion it would be that there are things the Lord finds important for us (including his prophet) to know, stuff we have to act on now, and theres stuff we aren't ready for.

  • So Cal Resident
    June 26, 2008 4:34 p.m.

    I find all of the comments very intersting. Such anger. Satan is the author of contention, maybe each of you should look within to find out why you are so angered by this? This is DEFINATLY a moral issue. And for the record, the LDS faith is not the only one to support it. Why aren't the papers reporting on the Catholic Church's support of this measure? I have friends and even family members that are gay. I still love them, although I don't agree with their lifestyle, just like I don't agree with the lifestyle of friends and family that think nothing of sex outside of marriage or getting drunk every weekend. AND as a So Cal girl, this is also a constitutional issue. We voted 8 years ago to recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman, and now my vote is thrown out by a liberal court. When the majority vote stops meaning something, then what is the use of voting?

  • To Sarah | 1:30 p.m.
    June 26, 2008 4:03 p.m.

    "We have ALWAYS supported measures that speak out against the breakdown of the traditional family"

    Except 1) no one has shown how this issue will result in the breakdown of the "traditional family" and 2) what we have now is NOT the traditional family. Learn some history for crying out loud.

  • and in the end ...
    June 26, 2008 3:48 p.m.

    In the end the U.S. Supreme with plenty of conservatives among them, will ultimately rule in favor of people marrying people of any sex.
    But if it makes conservatives feel good about whining and carrying on about this ... good.
    I hope they are less miserable than how they are now over this.

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2008 3:47 p.m.

    In the immortal words of that inspired leader, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

    Is this issue really worth fighting over?

  • Alex
    June 26, 2008 3:44 p.m.

    To WHAT?:

    "You've never heard gay bashing in church before? I have."

    If calling homosexual sexual relations a sin is considered bashing, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, I have never heard digs from either the pulpit or classroom or priesthood quorum. I'm sorry that you have.

  • I just want peace
    June 26, 2008 3:44 p.m.

    To me it just seems sad that we have to fight against issues like this. It would be so much nicer if we could come to a peaceful solution. So many innocent people seem to get hurt while we are fighting for our principles.

    If only there were some inspired prophet or religion out there that could actually unite us--I'd join it in a heartbeat!

  • To Frank
    June 26, 2008 3:36 p.m.

    And in 97 years Hincklely didn't? One would think that as a loving prophet, he would want to know that answer.

  • titleist5
    June 26, 2008 3:32 p.m.

    I have heard so much about rights and rule of law, law of the land, personal choice, what's the big deal, and can't the church leave us alone, and so on and so on... It is open for anyone to have an opinion and that's great. Opinion and Commandment are very different things indeed. Moral law is at the heart of this. What is best for the divinely appointed work and glory of God Almighty is the bottome line. His work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man is frustrated by the practice of same sex marriage. It is not God's opionion on this, it is his commmandment. If your one who does not believe in God, then you need to read no further. But if you do believe in God then you must accept his word..ALL OF IT, not just the convenient ones. Thou shalt not is pretty clear. And don't try to say it's not in the bible, or that it is unclear how God feels about this. Whether your heterosexual, or homosexual and having sexual rel. outside marriage, thou shalt not applies. That decree has not changed since Adam.

  • to RE: This is helpful
    June 26, 2008 3:23 p.m.

    Whether hate is intended or not, encouraging supporting an attack on simple "legal" marriage in church, signals to people that homophobia is acceptable. My heart goes out to the father with the gay son. Please don't let other's words hurt or anger you. Forgive them for the know not what they do, literally.

    We have a legacy whether we like it or not. One of Matthew Shepard's killers was allegedly LDS, and Stuart Matis, a returned missionary killed himself on the steps of his wards church in 2000 over what he felt was unacceptable and hatred towards people with same sex attractions in his ward. That's just the start of a very long list.

    This letter being read on Sunday will only pour salt in those wounds. If enough faithful in California walk out, perhaps the First Presidency will clarify if this is their opinion or divine revelation.

  • This is helpful
    June 26, 2008 3:18 p.m.

    Without searching for specifics, the shrillness of the rhetoric on both sides is pretty evident. From my own church life, I have sat in HP group meeting and had my HP group leader let us know that AIDS is God's punishment for the gays (i.e homosexuality is a capital crime) and our Relief Society President let my wife and I know that we would never have "the Spirit" in our home if we continued to support our gay son.

    The latest letter and campaign in CA where I live will just bring more of the same.

  • Frank
    June 26, 2008 3:08 p.m.

    I feel silly defending my statement but:
    1. Enron or the Donner Party arent/werent headed by men who claimed to speak to God. As far as I've heard.
    1a. From what I heard of MM the local leaders did claim divine direction, and in my opinion will take full responsibility for all that happened due to that claim. But thats would be Gods call.

    3. I love Hinckleys statement, and No, Hinkley did not ask God for details about this issue as far as we know because he has passed away. That question was popped on him during an interview. What we are talking about now is different, it has spanned many days. So Yes, I believe that Monson has asked the Lord about this particular case. He's had plenty of time to.

  • WHAT?
    June 26, 2008 3:05 p.m.

    You've never heard gay bashing in church before? I have. "They are trying to wreck society. They are sick and depraved and should be shot." There are more, but these are the ones I distinctly remember.

  • RE: This is helpful
    June 26, 2008 2:47 p.m.

    It seems to me most of the negative comments have been directed at the LDS Church or its leaders.

    I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say you are now prepared for the negative things members of your congregation will be saying about your son. I don't see anyone here advocating hatred of gays or anything like it. I only see the advocates of SSM accusing others of hatred where it doesn't exist.

  • Frank
    June 26, 2008 2:19 p.m.

    re: This is helpful

    You have my sympathies for what you will have to prepare for. Thats something any of us could or may have to go through one day.

    And no matter how awsome or understanding the ward there always be a few that will share their negativity. I hope you and your son can work past those few because there's many others that want you and your son there and understand that you've got as many difficulties to go through life as we do.

  • This is helpful
    June 26, 2008 1:31 p.m.

    I appreciate all of the comments on this site. They vary all over the lot. It helps me, the father of a gay son, prepare for the negative things I will hear about my son this Sunday from the ward members, most of whom don't know about his situation.

  • Sarah
    June 26, 2008 1:30 p.m.

    Frank is right. Whether it's popular in the eyes of the world or not, whether the church loses members over their stand or not, it is the obligation of our leaders to follow the will of the Lord. We have ALWAYS supported measures that speak out against the breakdown of the traditional family, and we have ALWAYS spoken out against sin that the world finds acceptable. We will continue to do so, no matter how unpopular it makes us.

    Consider all of the prophets throughout the ages. How many of them were rejected, imprisoned, stoned, beaten, mocked, or killed because of their messages against the sins of the world? The majority of them. Our own Savior was sentenced to death by a mob of people unwilling to heed His message.

    That which is right in the eyes of the Lord has RARELY been popular in the world. It doesn't mean the world is right and we're wrong just because they have the majority, and it doesn't mean we aren't obligated to continue to stand up and fight for our beliefs.

  • To Frank @12:27
    June 26, 2008 1:16 p.m.

    Even Pres Hinckley stated that he did NOT KNOW if homosexuals were born that way. Does that sound like he has actually asked God for details about this issue? Why should we assume the questions have been asked and answered if they really haven't?

  • Tejano
    June 26, 2008 1:07 p.m.

    I agree the toothpaste is out of the tube and that even if the California amendment passes this time around, gay marriage will likely be allowed by California and a number of states in a few years anyway. Its fairly easy to predict given how the young people of today have become so acculturized (through TV shows, movies, magazines, school curriculum, etc.) into disassociating sex from any moral standards.

    But at least I can still advocate for what I feel is right, as those on the opposite side of the issue can as well.

    By the way, besides the toothpaste is out of the tube may I add another expression which might be applicable here?... The fig tree has put forth its leaves.

  • Steve - Re: To Agki
    June 26, 2008 1:05 p.m.

    The chances of the entire human race turning/deciding to be gay is about as slim as... well I can't think of a good analogy, but you get the idea... it just isn't going to happen. But IF it did happen the human race wouldn't come to an end for two good reasons:

    1. Gay people can still have sex with the opposite gender, gay people can still procreate the normal way if they wanted/needed to.

    2. With today's technology people could quite easily be artificially inseminated and become pregnant to continue the human race.

  • to Frank
    June 26, 2008 12:57 p.m.

    True enough. But the same things might have been said by the Donner Party, the folks at Mountain Meadows or people who kept investing in Enron.

  • re: Packer quote
    June 26, 2008 12:47 p.m.

    Since he calls scholars or intellectuals "so-called scholars or intellectuals", I wonder if he would mind if we called him a "so-called apostle".

  • Frank
    June 26, 2008 12:27 p.m.

    Its funny how similar the comments I've run across remind me of things said in the Old and even New Testament. I wonder how often Moses was asked, "Are you really sure you talked to God or is it just your opinion that we should go to the desert". Or Jesus having to deal with the advice "You know if you weren't against that it would bring you a lot more followers. What your doing is really unpopular with the majority."

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2008 12:03 p.m.

    Maybe it's better for *lots* of people to go investigate the LDS on Sunday in CA.

  • Worried in LA
    June 26, 2008 11:45 a.m.

    I wonder if we will have to pass through demonstrations to get in to SM on Sunday?

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2008 11:44 a.m.

    Is it more effective not to go to sacrament meeting on Sunday at all or to go and leave when the letter is read?

  • Kathy in California
    June 26, 2008 11:36 a.m.

    A BIG thank you to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints! I am behind you 100% and will go door to door again if I have too!!
    The PEOPLE of CALIFORNIA have already made their choice known back in the year 2000. What right did the courts have to overturn the will of the people? I think we all need to step back and take a long look at what's happening in these United States of America?? What has happened to the will of the PEOPLE? 61% of the people in California voted that Marriage is between a Man & a Woman in the year 2000. How can our courts overturn this?

  • Alex
    June 26, 2008 10:41 a.m.

    "Mormons can do what they want, but this type of action will only encourage more and more people to distance themselves from the Church. "

    Why are you suddenly so worried about what happens to the growth of the LDS church?

    It is laughable how all of these "objective", "above the fray", "observer", and uninvested LDS Church critics have now got to step in and "save the church from itself".

    Why is it that, on average, those who are most invested in the Church itself are the least worried about the direction the church is going?

    Look, the church has been encouraging the members to involve themselves in efforts to support the marriage between men and women all over the country for a while and we have done fine. People are fickle.

  • Frank
    June 26, 2008 10:31 a.m.

    I love being told not to interfere in others lifes or express my convictions by people who are telling me how to live my life by expressing their convictions. I think we all deserve each other.

  • What I Wonder
    June 26, 2008 10:28 a.m.

    What I wonder is whether this letter is based on revelation or merely the opinions of men. It seems so sad that our Church claims to be run by direct revelation from God, yet it insists on using precedent and prejudice as the basis for our current practices.

    Has President Monson directly asked God about this issue? Or is he waiting for some future prophet to do so, as Spencer W. Kimball finally did for the blacks? I'm wondering if I'm bound to follow this instruction or if I can in good conscience follow my own heart.

  • To Sarah | 4:28 a.m
    June 26, 2008 10:26 a.m.

    Here is the quote from Elder Packer:

    "The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."

  • To I wonder
    June 26, 2008 10:07 a.m.

    I doubt that any bishops will refuse to read the letter to their congregations. Most men in that high of a position are pretty much willing to do whatever the Church says they should do. (At least that's been my experience with bishops and stake presidents.)

    But you never know, there might be a few mavericks out there.

  • Had enough
    June 26, 2008 10:03 a.m.

    Reading this letter in Church on Sunday is ALMOST enough to make me go back. It would be so fun to walk out in protest.

  • Lost their way
    June 26, 2008 9:59 a.m.

    It is sad to see a church cede moral authority by focusing on Constitutional law and evolving words in the dictionary.

    The impending defeat at the polls and the isolation and alienation of others appear the least likely practices for a people professing religious faith.

    When LDS members decide to discard bibles for dictionaries and civil codes the battle for the human soul is lost.

  • My thoughts...
    June 26, 2008 9:59 a.m.

    Mormons can do what they want, but this type of action will only encourage more and more people to distance themselves from the Church.

  • Alex
    June 26, 2008 9:54 a.m.

    To "I wonder":

    "Will there be bishops who refuse to read the letter to their congregations? "

    Perhaps, but they might not be bishops for long if they do.

  • I wonder
    June 26, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    Will there be bishops who refuse to read the letter to their congregations?

  • To Tejano
    June 26, 2008 9:07 a.m.

    I would agree with you except the "toothpaste is out of the tube." Gays are out of the closet now. They are living next door to our own families and raising children of their own. They are not going away, no matter how much we deny them rights. They are just going to continue to live openly and without shame. Sometimes I think that we think that if we pass this amendment, gays will quit being a problem. Not true. We need to teach our children the very hard lesson of living our religion yet not condemning our neighbors and their children for living different morals than us. That is a hard thing to teach, but not impossible. That is our challenge - not limiting others.

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2008 8:58 a.m.

    Cherilyn Bacon Eagar writes, "...For every example of statistics of heterosexual domestic, child abuse and marital problems, the statistics are higher for same gender relationships."

    As a social worker, I can promise you that what you claim is a hateful lie.

    The truth is every study that has looked at children raised by same sex parents either finds no difference, or less child abuse, more support, and generally better socially adjusted children.

  • sburg
    June 26, 2008 8:49 a.m.

    This is a travesty. It will only serve to further marginalize our church and will likely have the opposite of the intended effect. It will close doors and hearts eternally, that may have been open before, and it violates our own 11-13th articles of faith.

    Lastly I would not be surprised if the IRS doesn't come knocking at the Church Office Building.

    Same sex couples are getting a legal document that entitles them to some of the same rights we all take for granted. No clergy of ANY religion is being asked to marry them. Why on earth would anybody with an ounce of compassion fight against this? All it does is hurt same sex couples and their children ... ya some of them have kids too. This all from a Church that believes in strengthening familes and loving your neighbor.

    Any one who sits through the reading of this letter on Sunday should take a long hard look at themselves and decide how hypocritical they are.

  • To John Lambert | 10:13 p.m.
    June 26, 2008 8:38 a.m.

    The problem with your argument is that the people who are allowed to drive (marry) now are not being policed and are causing all sorts of problems (divorce, abandonment, live-in arrangements, etc.). To deny one group of people the right to marry because it offends another group is insane, especially when the offended group has not done much to get the drunk drivers that are in their group off the road. Maybe this new group won't be any better, but who are we to limit them when it is us (heteros) who have really been tearing apart society and causing all the problems on the road.

  • Tejano
    June 26, 2008 8:09 a.m.

    To Help! again.

    I was not equating gay people to 12 year olds, blind people, or pedophiles. You had made the blanket statement that we have no right to limit the privileges of minority groups and I was simply pointing out examples in our society where WE DO place restrictions on privileges granted to some groups in our society.

    Then I was stating that the restrictions we place through our laws are generally in accordance with the VALUES we hold collectively as a society. I have no animosity toward gay people; I have and have had close working and personal relationships with gay people (including family members) and my wife, as an R.N., worked for some time in an AIDS Hospice facility where almost all patients were gay.

    I, however, feel that while homosexual behavior will certainly continue in our society, I do not support state-sanctioned marriage between persons of the same sex and I'm not confused into thinking we don't have the right to fight for the type of society we want our kids to grow up in.

  • Sarah
    June 26, 2008 4:28 a.m.

    John, thanks for the reply. I knew I'd never heard President Packer say anything so divisive or ridiculous, but couldn't recollect his exact phrasing in the talk. Thanks for the clarification!

  • Amazed
    June 26, 2008 2:22 a.m.

    I find it utterly shocking how people in this day and age continue to quote morality from a book that features talking animals. The vast majority of you have never even read the bible cover to cover and have no idea how insane some of the "commandments" contained within it are.

  • Anonymous
    June 26, 2008 12:33 a.m.

    I think someone failed to teach teacher that discrimination is not an American value and that freedom of religion means that we leave religion in the family and the church where it belongs. Because Americans and Californians have a lot of different religions and beliefs and all are protected under the law.

    Maybe teacher can do a little research and see that the suicide rate in the quasi-theocracy of UT is much greater than in CA where we value diversity and tolerance.

  • Teacher
    June 25, 2008 11:52 p.m.

    All 9 voting members of our LDS family will be voting to bring in this state constitutional amendment. As a teacher, I see the changes in our state educational curriculum already coming. It's reading math and "alternative lifestyles". Gay and Lesbian groups know if the schools teach it, it will become the norm of society in one generation. Also as California goes so goes the country, better beware. I've lived long enough to see the calamities already coming upon us and it isn't due to global warming. Wake up America.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 11:00 p.m.

    Whatever happens in Nov is one thing. I'm pretty clear that the amendment will go down but that's only part of the issue. The other part is that the LDS is creating a tremendous amount of bad feeling and even anxiety about itself.

    Consider the number of people who have always been wary of what goes on in an organization that operates in secrecy. Now there's evidence that the organization that operates in secrecy interferes in the process of government -- to discriminate no less!

    What's that going to do for public relations?

  • Betsy
    June 25, 2008 10:33 p.m.

    Who established marriage ? God did. Don't like how He defined it take it up with Him. Nations and Courts will never be able to define it for Him. Some may permit actions that violate the laws of God hence free agency. That being said for violating God's law. God alone will mete out consequences for the violation of His laws. No court has the power or strength to override the consequences of actions. Regardless of consequences one nevers needs to worry about gay marriage in the temple. Will never happen. One of two things will happen the LDS church will close the temples or the Savior will come either way gay marriage in temples will not happen.

  • John Lambert
    June 25, 2008 10:20 p.m.

    First off, I am glad that the Orthodox Jews have been among those defending traditional marriage. My grandmother was a Jew after she had been a Jehovah's Witnees and before she became a Mormon, so I have no dislike for Jews inherently. However there is a broad array of Jewish groups, including Humanist Jews who reject God totally.
    However, I have an observation. If there was a hypothetical Reconstructionist Jewish sect that only performed same-sex marriages they would not suffer any disability due to this under current laws. Why, because currently marriage is defined between a man and a woman because the state has vested interests in it. At least seven courts have explanaed in rulings upholding marriage laws what these interests are so I will leave those who really want to know the option of searching google about public policy and marriage.
    However under California's ruling, since distinguishing gender in marriage is now "discriminatory", out hypothetical Reconstructionist sect is now engaged in discriminatory dehaior that may bring the anger of the public policy formulators on it. This is why California's supreme court decision was the worst of all worlds.

  • Support
    June 25, 2008 10:17 p.m.

    What about the Church supporting the family in Las Vegas who left there kid in the car for 17 hours and died. Those the church support neglectful parents who can't keep track of there kids? One child or seven, there should never be an excuse for not knowing where your son is for 1/2 an hour let alone 17...As a member, that is disgusting!

  • Cherilyn Bacon Eagar
    June 25, 2008 10:14 p.m.

    1. SSM denies children the right to a mother and a father 100% of the time. For every example of statistics of heterosexual domestic, child abuse and marital problems, the statistics are higher for same gender relationships.

    2. There is no successful historical precedent of a culture that has legalized SSM, except cultures that destroyed themselves. Name one.

    3. Once SSM is legalized, it must be taught as a normal relationship in schools - public and private. Sex ed is indoctrinating our children. This is a parental rights matter and parents must stand up to the public schools that have made sexual orientation a proletariat cause clbre under national standards that bow to international standards.

    4. Once SSM becomes law, religious liberties will be in jeopardy. Either churches will be forced to modify their doctrines or they will be challenged by the law. Laws will punish churches for their anti-homosexual doctrines and law suits will challenge them as they have the BSA.

  • John Lambert
    June 25, 2008 10:13 p.m.

    In defence of Tejano,
    Tejano did not equate gays to blind people. He equated restrictions on who can marry to restrictions on who can drive.
    Since marriage involves the state pro-actively recognizing the validity of a relationship than the equation works. It is not a perfect equation. The car does not have to consent to you driving, and the effects of poor driving are more obvious than the effects of poor marriage. Yet in the case of driving, it is when people start treating it as a right and oppose higher ages for drivers, more strict removals of drunk drivers from the roads and so forth that the system stops working. In the same way, once we proactively define marriage as something other than between a man and a women we put those who only accept marriage by the tradition definition out of line with the government.
    The current system does not do this. No one is out there claiming the Unitarians, Quakers and Reformed and Reconstrutionist Jews should loose their tax exempt status. More to come.

  • John Lambert
    June 25, 2008 10:01 p.m.

    The prophets did not lead people astray on African Americans. The First Presidency issued a statement in favor of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.
    That there were members of the church who taught wrong doctrines does not mean that the president of the church was teaching false doctrines.
    Personally I think that most of the real hard core supporters of same-sex marriage in the church are not a rising generation, but a dieing one. They are people who grew up around people who would say "to be a homosexual is almost as bad as to be black". They realized that hating blacks was bad, so now they think this means that we have to accept homosexuality as real behavior.
    Those of us who have grown up in the days since the prophet of the Lord has boldly declared that every man is worthy to recieve the priesthood of God without regard to race or color have seen that what matters is not race but righteousness. Homosexuality always has been and always will be an unrighteous behavior.

  • Re:Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 10:00 p.m.

    "This move is absolutely stupid.

    1) They will never effect the amendment in CA. CA voters have become very tolerant on this issue in 8 years and 51% are in favor of the Supreme Court ruling as opposed to 42% disapproving of it.

    2) Mormons are only 1.79% of the CA population. Their votes will be statistically insignificant,"

    Why is it stupid. When other Christian churches see the position the LDS Church is taking they will be encouraged to do the same. Not only them but Jews and Muslims or any religion that believes in the sanctity of marriage between an man and a woman. Maybe one small religion cannot do it alone, but when they all unite, they become a formidable force.

  • John Lambert
    June 25, 2008 9:53 p.m.

    Sarah at 11:53,
    I think the person who made the comment you responded to thinks "The Mormons" by Helen "I am making a respectful production (although it spends half the time talking about MMM and Polygamy)" Whitney is a truthful and accurate portrayal of fact.
    It is not, but is riddle with inacuracies, lies, misrepresentations and distortions. One of these is the claim on what Elder Packer said in a meeting aout 15 years ago. The person who makes the claim was not even at the meeting. Elder Packer did say that intelectualism, homosexuality and feminism as ideologies were a threat to the church. However he also addressed how to reach out and help people who were being lead astray by these false Gods.
    The images men worship are not just of stone and wood.
    Stop reading Michael Quinn and his unending lies and start reading the scriptures and the words of the Living Prophets, and you will not be confused.

  • re:Maureen
    June 25, 2008 9:32 p.m.

    You cite the 61% prop 22 vote against same sex marriage in CA as the reason it shouldn't be legal. I guess that means when that % reverses itself, you will agree that it should be legal.

    That percentage will soon reverse itself, if it indeed has not already.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 9:22 p.m.

    I think that it is amazing that in the supposedly free nation of the United States where there is suypposed to be Freedom of speech and press, Mormons can voiced their hatred of gays and lesbians and even claim to have the right to dictate what rights other Americans can have or not have. This Mormon run press allows for continued homophobia but silences those who would speak against Mormonism. Mormons continuously moan and groan about how they have been mistreated in history. So what gives them the right now to mistreat another part of society. "with liberty and justice for all" least not in Utah

  • to John Lambert 9:02
    June 25, 2008 9:21 p.m.

    You're wrong about the Catholic Church's relationship with Jews. It wasn't until 2000 that Pope John Paul II apologized to Jews for the variety of sins committed against them such as a long tradition of anti-Semitism and the Inquisition during which Jews were persecuted, horribly tortured and had all their property confiscated by Rome and Catholic Spain.

    At that time, to the disappointment and disillusionment of Jews everywhere, they did not include remaining silent and giving tacit acceptance as one of the major ecclesiastical powers in Germany to the Holocaust of WWII.

    John Paul's apology was an effort to resolve a major rift that had existed for some 400 years to that point.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 9:12 p.m.

    If you make it your business to deny basic human rights to gays and aware that there will be a backlash. You have NO right to dictate what we can do in our lives. This is Mormon gay bashing at its height. Leave us alone and we will leave you alone. Amazing that you have not complained that gays and lesbians, too, pay taxes...shouldn't you start that crusade? Saying that gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage is like saying that the taxes gays pay will destroy the IRS!!! Grow up people and get a life...your own...and leave mine alone!!!

  • John Lambert
    June 25, 2008 9:08 p.m.

    To Steve at 6:00,
    Personally I think Freud was a confused individual, whose thought was based on a study of disturbed Austrian males in the early 20th century and should not be interpreted to have revealed eternal truths.
    However, if the theory that virtually everyone is born "bi-sexual" is true than a main argument for creating same-sex marriage is exploded. If sexual orientation is not fixed but is environmentally and socially determined, than it can change and thus is not a fixed category that deserves legal rights.
    What is most clear from your comment though is that there is not a universal agreement on the causes of variation in sexual orientation among scientists.

  • John Lambert
    June 25, 2008 9:02 p.m.

    To Eowyn,
    I could not have said it better. I agree with you 100%.
    For the person wh brought up pogroms, crusades and inquisitions. Evidently you do not know about the LDS teaching on the apostasy. We believe that by 150, and probably before that, the primative church had rebelled against God. President Grant in either the 1920s or 1930s clearly denounced anti-semitic feelings by church members.
    Many of the aspersions cast on the Catholic Church, especially related to events in the last hundred years are more based on the hate of ex-seminarians and communists than any real event. In general pogroms have happened more despite than because of the Catholic Church, with the Popes long being defenders of the Jews of Rome. I hope we can find ways to work with the Los Angeles diocese and other groups to put through this constitutional admentdment.

  • to Maureen
    June 25, 2008 8:19 p.m.

    You don't seem to have any concept of what "unconstitutional" means.

    If the CA electorate passed a referendum that gross polluters could be built next to elementary schools or Mormons could taxed at a higher rate than their neighbors it would be unconstitutional or not permitted because these things violate people's right to be secure and not discriminated against. Prop 22 was unconstitutional because it violated one groups' right to equal protection under the CA constitution.

    It's simple. It's consistent. It's logical. And it's correct. There was no "activism" involved and, in fact, the Justices who reached that conclusion were overwhelmingly conservative jurists appointed by Republican administrations. Their willingness to protect the rights of ALL Californians is what assures every other Californian that our constitution is alive and well. ...even when hysterics go passing hateful or discriminatory referenda.

  • John Lambert
    June 25, 2008 8:14 p.m.

    Where in the statement did the First Presidency say anything against homosexuality. They just spoke in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a women.

  • GrimmieMD
    June 25, 2008 8:05 p.m.

    The same thing happened with sodom and gomorrah ... hasn't society learned anything? And to think that just because we live in these times that we are more "forward thinking" .. perhaphs we should first seek to learn from the past.

  • John Lambert
    June 25, 2008 8:05 p.m.

    This debate is not as some people want to make it about what actions should face criminal penalties. This debate is about what actions will recieve the proactive endorsement of the law.
    To endorse same-gender relationships and put them on the same legal footing as real marriage is very different than the question of whether a state should have sodomy laws.
    This is not an issue of freedom of choice, it is an issue of what the government will make a positive goal of public policy.
    On another issue, the President of the church does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" for him to be pronouncing the word of the Lord. If the first presidency issues an official statement they are pronouncing the word of the Lord.

  • nes
    June 25, 2008 7:01 p.m.

    We are born on Earth to be tested and to overcome many temptations. One can be tempted to drink or to take drugs; another to gamble; someone else to show his or her temper; even to kill. Sexual temptations are the most powerful. The easiest way is to yield because "you are born different". Yet, in fact, you are not more "different" than any other sinner. It is easy like that. Children in gay "families" is another issue. Broken lives. I know what i am talking about. Any church supposed to be a moral institution, and it's responsibility is to warn the society. Don't see any problem with this.

  • Maureen
    June 25, 2008 6:53 p.m.

    No matter how one feels about the issue itself, it cannot be ignored that the will of four individuals on the California Supreme Court overturned the will of millions of California voters. Proposition 22 passed in 2000 with 61.4% of the vote, a clear mandate from the people.

  • Fabric Breakdown
    June 25, 2008 6:38 p.m.

    You can do what you want and I can do what I want. I'll just take my thread in the intertwined fabric of society and yank it out, and you can take yours and pull it from here to there. That wont effect the whole fabric will it? It doesnt matter what Bob does either, whatever he does to his threads wont effect society if theres no direct victim. Lets just hope nobody puts any stress on the fabric.

    I think however what each person is and does irreversably effects us all, whether the intention was that or not. No one is alone.

  • Resume plural marriage ? ! ? ! ?
    June 25, 2008 6:26 p.m.

    Perhaps that is the main reason why the LDS are so afraid of legalized same-sex marriage? They fear the resumption of polygamy? Is polygamy still a matter of scripture for the Mormons? D&C 132? Was the Manifesto really nothing but a matter of political necessity, forced as an adaption to the times? Does the Manifesto say "Thus sayeth the Lord", and is it a matter of scripture for the Mormons, just like D&C 132? Is the Manifesto part of The New and Everlasting Covenant?

    If a covenant of an unchanging God (the same today, yesterday and tomorrow) is really "Everlasting", then can it really be dismissed by a Manifesto of political and temporal necessity when something like D&C 132 is still the revealed mind and word of God?

    So, then, is this really the biggest reason the Mormons oppose same-sex marriages? I mean, will that legal recognition force the Mormons to engage in same-sex marriages against their will? Or merely allow same sex couples to marry while Mormons practice and preach what they want?

  • Changing the definition
    June 25, 2008 6:24 p.m.

    What if Harvard decided to start giving out Bachelor degrees to people who just attended one semester? Now those people could put the same degree, that took me four years to earn, on their resume too. How would that change everyone's perception of a Harvard degree? It would lessen the meaning and make it worth less. Gay marriage does likewise to those of us who realize how important real marriage is.

  • To Agki
    June 25, 2008 6:18 p.m.

    If behind closed doors someone teaches it's ok to commit adultery, it's ok to lie, it's ok to be completely lazy and live off of the governement, etc. It does affect me. What I'm saying is whether criminal or not, immoral behavior can impact society as a whole. Thought processes are changed by movements such as this and some of those movements are extremely dangerous. If everyone turned gay, the human race would end. If everyone committed adultery, trust, integrity, & love would suffer. Immoral behavior is wrong regardless of who is involved and where it occurs. My opinion of what is morally wrong is just as valid as your opinion of what if morally ok. My current opinion is that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

  • The only two effects
    June 25, 2008 6:08 p.m.

    When same sex marriage is finally legalized, and constitutionally protected, as it most certainly will be, traditional heterosexual marriages will constitute no less than 90% of all marriages, and probably closer to 95-97% of all marriages. Hardly a threat to traditional marriage, which will continue to thrive.

    There will be no increase in the incidence of homosexuality.

    What will happen?

    1. It will become harder for traditionalists to indoctrinate their children into believing that homosexuality is some heinous sin when those same children see homosexuals and homosexual couples, with or without their children, living in loving, committed, nurturant relationships and families (including children) of empathic, responsible and law abiding people. Many of whom will enjoy committed relationships to their churches and religions. And which same-sex marriages will succeed or fail in approximately the same proportion as traditional ones. Nevertheless, Mormons, like all Christians, can continue to preach & practice whatever they chose.

    2. Polygamy will then also eventually be legalized, the totally political Manifesto can be rescinded, and Mormons can finally go back to practicing and enjoying their plural marriages consistent with the New & Everlasting Covenant of D&C 132. HAPPY DAY!

  • Arthur
    June 25, 2008 5:39 p.m.

    RE: Steve
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the first solution you gave is actually in practice. Hospital, insurance, taxes and all, its just not recognized with an official legal ceremony till now. If I'm wrong I think that would be a nice solution but I dont think it would last for long.

    It no seems to be about equal rights so much as including homosexuality as part of the definition of real civil marriage. To be the same 100%

  • Dianne
    June 25, 2008 5:07 p.m.

    I want my children and grandchildren, to grow up in a country that has a constitutional ammendment stating the fact, that marriage is only between a man and woman.God didn't create George and Thomas,and tell them to go have children. He created Adam and Eve,and that is the way it should stay.

  • En Hedu' Anna
    June 25, 2008 5:02 p.m.

    Mmmmm, did anyone else just get a hankering for freshly baked brownies and vanilla ice cream?

    I have the ingredients so I'm going to crank up the A/C and make a batch. Later it's brownies a' la mode for everyone who'd like some.

    ...when was the last time you said "a' la mode?" :o)

  • Classicalmusic
    June 25, 2008 4:54 p.m.

    ... In passing, allow me to observe that after I read each and every posted comment, here's what was evident: every (non-emotional) comment that was directed in opposition to the "LDS Church position statement," (that is, comments stating that the marriage ballot issue was NOT a moral one), tacetly employed a moral argument to back their position! I ask candidly, how could this basis be defended logically (e.g., using a moral argument to defend a supposedly non-moral issue?). The greater question here seems more like a mental health issue, to a casual observer like me.

  • Who cares
    June 25, 2008 4:41 p.m.

    12 million lds members, 6 billion people on earth. You are not even a fly on an elephant's backside.

  • Steve - A Solution / Solutions
    June 25, 2008 4:18 p.m.

    I have a solution to this whole problem...

    Why not rather than restructure the institution of marriage, we instead fix the laws in regards to couples commited to each other even if they're not married? For example, if no immediate family is forthcoming then let the gay man's partner speak for him at the hospital? Also, don't restrict visitation at hospitals to family only.

    Perhaps all a gay couple (or any straight couple living together) need obtain is a form signed by say 3 people who are willing to testify that the two people in question are indeed in a long-term commited relationship and this causes all rights given to married couples to be given to them.

    OR, let the rules of common law marriage apply to everyone (not just straight couples)? And let those who are "married" under this common law rule reap the legal rewards of those who've actually had a marriage ceremony.

    OR Give all this marriage rights also to those who are united by Civil Union.

  • To Tejano from Help!
    June 25, 2008 4:14 p.m.

    I can't believe that you just equated gays with 12-year olds, blind people, and pedofiles. Please. My brother is gay and I know that he is hurting no one. He is a contributing member of our society and my family.

    Reasons for this? Rational reasons. I understand why blind people cannot drive and 12 year olds too. Pedofiles are using sex to dominate and control, not for sexual gratification. That is a crime with victims. This is not a crime nor are there victims. Now, give me some real reasons. I am feeling torn apart by this. How can we do this? They have only broken the law of God, not the law of the land. We have no right. HELP!

  • Tejano
    June 25, 2008 3:56 p.m.

    To Help!

    Of course we have "the right" to limit the privileges of any group, minority or otherwise.

    It is a privilege to be able to drive on our public roads, yet we don't issue driver licenses to 12-year olds or blind people. So, yes, we do limit the privileges of minority groups and it is quite reasonable to do so. (In this case the reason is public safety.)

    Pedophiles may claim we are restricting their privilege to seek sexual gratification with whomever they choose. Society's answer is, "Yes, we are going to restrict your privilege in that regard. Even if the child is "willing", we are going to say emphatically NO!, we are not going to allow it in our society."

    We should expect that our government and laws should UPHOLD our values, and while we do value freedom we also place restrictions on that freedom to provide the framework within which we raise our families and go about our daily business.

    Don't get caught up in the buzzspeak of this "enlightened" era that wants you to believe freedom means never telling anyone NO.

  • to Teresa
    June 25, 2008 3:50 p.m.

    You may be on the Lord's side, but the government can't. That is against the first amendment. Please understand that the government is what is at stake, not the church.

  • Teresa
    June 25, 2008 3:32 p.m.

    Although I'm not in California anymore, I fully support the first presidency of the church. They will never lead the church astray. Whose on the Lord's side who? Now is the time to tell. We ask it fearlessly who's on the Lord's side who??

  • Consumation
    June 25, 2008 3:14 p.m.

    I would like to cite for the pleasure of the forum a famous case of annulment due to lack of consummation. The case of famous artist/writer John Ruskin who was married to Effie Gray in 1848, their unhappy marriage led to an anulment (not a divorce) 1854 due to the fact that he never sucessfully had relations with Effie (major impotence).

  • To Frank
    June 25, 2008 3:10 p.m.

    Even if a marriage has been consumated, it can be annulled for the reasons listed above. But if children have been born to the couple, courts are generally going to push for divorce.

  • re: Help!
    June 25, 2008 3:04 p.m.

    I'm a bit torn myself, but from what I've understood we arent talking about the privilages of a minority group, we are looking at California redifining the definition of marriage.

    From what I understand gay couples who fufill the right conditions have the same legal rights as a married couples, but they aren't called "married" its called something else. What the law changed was not the benifits they already could recieve but that they can now be called and considered a "married" couple.

    But I might be wrong, thats just what I've understood from the discussions so far! So if anyone wants to add or clarify.

  • Frank
    June 25, 2008 2:58 p.m.

    I never said that marriage was only for or about sex. My point is that marriage DOES imply that sex happens or happened. And YES I agree you can get an anulment for a whole Variety of Reasons ONE OF WHICH is never consumating the marriage.

    I can understand an exeption for medical reasons.

  • to Frank
    June 25, 2008 2:48 p.m.

    A marriage can be annulled for the following legal reasons:

    Didn't know spouse was a close relative
    Mental Capacity lacking
    Below legal age
    Threat or force used

    It has nothing to do with comsumation. Sorry.

    Marriage is not just about sex either. It is the legal recognition of two people who love and commit to each other. There are many marriages that have to forgo sex for medical, physical or emotional reasons, but they are still considered a marriage. That is true love and commitment.

  • To Frank
    June 25, 2008 2:35 p.m.

    Frank, Frank, Frank!

    Sex is not what a marriage is about. It is about committing yourself to one person. Gays do not want to marry to be able to have sex. They want to legitimize their relationship and gain the legal rights and privileges that other committed couples have through marriage.

    PS Many marriages have been annulled even after it has been consumated.

  • Help!
    June 25, 2008 2:29 p.m.

    Is there no one here that feels the cognitive dissonance that I feel? I love my church and want to obey the leaders, but I love my country and feel that this is most UNAMERICAN. We do not have the right to limit the privileges of any minority group, even if we think they are sinners! They have only broken the law of God, not the law of the land. We have no right. HELP ME!

  • Frank
    June 25, 2008 2:25 p.m.

    When to people get married many dont consider it a full or legal "marriage" till they consummate, otherwise its a farce and can be annuled, so yes; A marriage implies sex at least once.

  • Steve - P.S. to my 6/25 2:01pm
    June 25, 2008 2:16 p.m.

    After submitting my last reply (refered to in my subject line) I realized I made a slight error. In the last paragraph I didn't mean to imply it's OK to be hateful towards a gay or Bi person who is sexually active. It's NOT OK to be hateful towards anyone period, that is Christian doctrine... that is what I should've said.

    Christ requires that we love and show love towards everyone (that means no matter what sin they've done or what their sexual prefference might be).

    I meant to say if you are shunning someone simply because of who they love or what sins they've commited, then you're not being a good/true Christian.

  • Steve - Re: Follower of Christ
    June 25, 2008 2:01 p.m.

    God/the Bible doesn't ever use the word "homosexuality"... nor does it refer to the attraction (something within the mind only) specifically that I'm aware of. All the Bible states is something along these lines: "For man to lay with another man is an abomination".

    If you'll note it speaks of the ACT of sex, and NOT the attraction. The Bible is stating that only the sex act itself is the sin, not the attraction (being gay or Bi). This is also the official stance of the LDS Church.

    So according to LDS doctrine and teaching you can be gay or Bi (have the attractions) and you're fine... but if you act on them then that is where sin enters in, the act itself is the sin (not the attraction).

    God and Christ are not against being gay or bi, so if you're being hateful towards someone who is gay or Bi but isn't sexually active, then it's YOU who isn't being a true Christian and not following Christ's example of showing love to everyone.

  • Steve - Re: Glad to See It
    June 25, 2008 1:51 p.m.

    I'm on the Lord's side and I support freedom of choice in all things (as does God and Christ).

    Something to remember here: Marriage does not automatically equal "sex". There are plenty of straight couples who go for years without sex in their marriage. Just because people are married doesn't mean sex is happening.

    So if a gay or Bi couple get married to the same gender as themselves, don't assume sex is going on. The two men (or two women) could very well be active Christians who understand that God doesn't recognize the union, so any sex between them would be a sin (fornication) and as such purposely choose to abstain from sex... just be married as a symbol AND mainly to use the legal benefits that come with it (so that for example hospitals can't ban them from decisions about their partner).

    Being LDS and supporting the freedom for a gay couple to choose to be married or not is NOT condoning sin, it is supporting free agency and God is all about us having free agency.

  • My 2 cents...
    June 25, 2008 1:51 p.m.

    "The toothpaste is out of the tube." Gay people ARE living together, openly. Gay people DO have children. Gay people ARE adopting. Gay people HAVE gotten married in many, many places. Too late to undo what has already been done.

  • to "Just one question...WHY?"
    June 25, 2008 1:48 p.m.

    Have you considered that in this nation of laws and rights that the LDS church has a right, just as another other organization, group, or individual, to voice their views on a particular topic? They have made their position clear on this issue. Within these shared rights, they have expressed a viewpoint and have "ASKED" their members to consider this and support it. LDS members are of course entitled to their own opinions and they have free will to choose what they will do.

    To answer your question of "WHY?" would they do that? I guess if you are not a LDS, or perhaps if you are, you may not realize or have forgotten that a LDS believes and has committed to certain religious principles. The LDS church does not twist anyone's arm to join or to remain a member. They can only express their beliefs, ask you consider them, and leave it to you to decide what course to take. This is free agency which has consequences. Standing your ground for a principle does NOT mean you stop loving someone that chooses to do the opposite, and the LDS church has said just that. from altec90210

  • To Sarah @ 1:15
    June 25, 2008 1:39 p.m.

    Appreciate your comments, but feel the need to disagree. So many members of the Church in my generation WERE "led astray". We were taught things about blacks that later proved to be untrue.

    Many people, who were ahead of the Church leadership in their understanding, actually left. And some chose never to return.

    I can't help but wonder if the Church will end up re-canting what it is teaching now about gays. Just feels like a case of deja vu. Get back to me in about twenty years, and we'll see what has happened.

  • Steve - Re: Matt 6/24 6:09 pm
    June 25, 2008 1:39 p.m.

    Why should the LDS Church or any other church for that matter lose tax exempt status just because they voice their opinion on political matters publicly or privately among it's members? Though some may disagree with their stances I think it's within a church's rights to speak in the political arena just as much as it is for any regular individual.

  • Prophecy coming to pass...
    June 25, 2008 1:38 p.m.

    Why did the Church issue this statement? Just like the prophets of old, the Prophet of today is issuing a warning.
    Romans 1: 27
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    2 Ne. 1: 9, 20
    Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land;...
    ...but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

    Also, yes, the Church is ALL about families, but, the Lord does come first, and therefore the Church, After all, "Salvation is a personal thing." See:
    Matt. 10: 37
    He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

    One more though, the Church does greater humanitarian aid than any organization of its size in the world.

  • Re: Str8 saint in the Golden Sta
    June 25, 2008 1:32 p.m.

    You have my full support. I walked out when they read over the pulpit the letter to support an amendment to the U.S. constitution. I cried for days, but my life is so much better and so much happier since that day. I would rather burn in hell knowing that I stood up for those without a voice than to live eternities knowing that I compromised my beliefs out of fear of punishment.

  • Mormons need to chill out
    June 25, 2008 1:25 p.m.

    If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away. - Henry David Thoreau

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 1:23 p.m.

    I know that some of you feel that Mormons have been bashed in this thread. I am sorry that you feel that way. It is only what you are doing that we want to contend with. We love you individually. It is your actions that we hate. You know, love the sinner, hate the sin.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 1:15 p.m.

    I guess the First Presidency has blown the doors off "nice", huh?

  • Sarah
    June 25, 2008 1:15 p.m.

    To commentator at 12:21,

    When the First Presidency issues a letter to us in sacrament meeting, when they post the message each month in the Ensign, when they speak to us at General Conference, and when they issue proclamations and pamphlets to the youth, to the members at large, and to the world, that becomes doctrine.

    When it does not come from the First Presidency or solely from the Prophet himself, whether it's from an Apostle or one of the counselors or a member of whatever local authority he is a part of, it's considered an opinion. It may be an highly informed opinion, and it may be a direct personal revelation, but unless it comes from the Prophet, it's not official church-sanctioned doctrine.

    Many statements that are personal opinion are passed on as doctrine by the members, but that isn't always the case. Usually, they're just pearls of wisdom that are often quoted and requoted until people are unsure whether it's official doctrine or not. By all means, research anything that sounds questionable to you, unless you hear it straight from the First Presidency.

    They will NOT lead the church astray, whether they have universal approval or not.

  • Jenny
    June 25, 2008 1:13 p.m.

    If the agenda were just for equal rights, the promoters of gay marriage would be happy for civil unions where there would be legal rights for all that they seem to care about....which when insurance benefits, employment benefits, inheritance benefits etc. add up....all equal money.
    This is more an attempt to mock God who ordained marriage and redefine marriage to a point that it is no longer recognizable as a protection and blessing to women and children in this society. Family law will take a beating in an even greater way, and it is the children who will suffer most. To those who are angry at people of faith who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage in our society, may I say, that we defend your right to believe and speak your mind and morals, but we do not stand idly by when a group or movement seeks to destroy our society. We do have a right and obligation to speak up also. Perhaps you can see the fairness in that. If not, it explains the motives even more clearly to take away the rights of the moral majority.

  • Consider this
    June 25, 2008 1:10 p.m.

    The First Presidency's letter is not going to conclude anything.

    1) They will never effect the amendment in CA. CA voters have become very tolerant on this issue in 8 years and 51% are in favor of the Supreme Court ruling as opposed to 42% disapproving of it.

    2) Mormons are only 1.79% of the CA population. Their votes will be statistically insignificant,

    3) CA Mormons are, if not as tolerant as Californians as a whole, at least much more tolerant than mountain state Mormons. They will not receive this message well and it will challenge the loyalty of a good many.

    4) Younger voters will only get MORE tolerant to same sex marriages.

    5) The whole country has now seen the Bretheren as intolerant and meddlesome. This gives credence to other efforts they've previously made more circumspectly and denied.

    6) This reignites an issue many Mormons are already ambivalent about or just don't feel good about. Many, many Mormons have gay family members and many have holes in their hearts for someone who was hounded into depression and despair and even suicide in the past.

    This will come back and haunt the LDS for a generation or more.

  • To John
    June 25, 2008 1:07 p.m.

    "as defending the rights of the unborn children, who would be adopted or artificially inseminated into a family contrary to the laws of God."

    Sorry, those gay couples that want children are having children NOW. They are not waiting for permission. This amendment will not stop them from having or adopting and actually hurts those children by not giving them more stability in their homes.

    Try again.

  • to Stand a Little Taller
    June 25, 2008 1:08 p.m.

    When God gave Eve to Adam did he already have in mind a point in time when incest would be wrong? When do you suppose that was because there must have been an awful lot of it for many, many generations.

    When do you suppose the first "unvaliant" spirit children were born to them or their descendants? When do you suppose the unvaliant spirits with the dark skin started being born in only families who were also dark-skinned? And only being born in certain areas around the Equator?

    There's a lot I still don't understand.

  • To Sodomy, Sin & Morality
    June 25, 2008 12:47 p.m.

    I think the scripture that you shared deserves to be repeated:
    Ezekiel 16: 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

    Who does this remind us of? And why are we wasting time and money on laws against those with a different orientation than us when we could be helping "the poor and the needy"? (Remember, once you've spent that time and money for one thing, it can't be used for something else.)

  • Palm Springs LDS
    June 25, 2008 12:46 p.m.

    I believe marriage is ordained by God and only between a man and a woman. However, I also believe that marriage between same sex couples is their right as free agents. So...We may choose life or we may choose death. The choice is ours.

  • Stand a Little Taller
    June 25, 2008 12:41 p.m.

    I think we all need to Stand a Little Taller, and have the courage to stand up for what we believe. The Church has every right to encourage its members to stand up for what our Heavenly Father has set as the standard for ALL of His children: marriage between a man and a woman. While others have their freedom to choose whether they want to obey their Heavenly Father or not, so do those members of the LDS Church have their freedom to choose to obey the laws which Heavenly Father has set for the happiness and blessing of all of His children. He did not have Adam choosing to be "married" to another man or to a woman, Eve. He gave Eve to Adam, and that is the way He still wants it to be.

  • John
    June 25, 2008 12:35 p.m.

    Thanks "To AWB." In the Church's view and in my own, a child is a stewardship, to be raised on behalf of God. For that reason, I reject the notion that it is always a woman's right to have an abortion (though I stand with the Church that, under certain circumstances, it is a personal question). For that reason, the Church is not so much assaulting the freedoms of those who would enter into gay marriage, as defending the rights of the unborn children, who would be adopted or artificially inseminated into a family contrary to the laws of God. The Church has an interest in the happiness of all humankind, including those not yet born. Do the proponents of gay marriage have more of a right to decide those people's futures than the Church has?

  • It's coming, anyway...
    June 25, 2008 12:33 p.m.

    Society is evolving, and our attitudes are changing. Mixed-race marriages are now accepted, even by the Church. Blacks have been given the Priesthood. Most younger people are okay with same-sex marriage.

    The Church may succeed in stopping gay marriage in California, by pouring their time and money into it, this time. But eventually, other states will adopt it.

    I'm no prophet, but it seems like this is just a matter of time, and it seems sad to see so many people wasting their precious time and energy fighting the inevitable where there is so much else that needs to be done.

  • Tejano
    June 25, 2008 12:23 p.m.

    I agree that there is a vocal minority that is becoming more and more dictatorial. There is a group pushing society into "conformity" with their beliefs. It is that group pushing the homosexual agenda.

  • to -toaltec90210
    June 25, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    Funny how just a few years ago gay marriages were not even on the radar because of public outcry. Funny how all the amendments to have marriage between a man and a woman be the only legal arrangement under the state laws were instigated by Christian and non-christian groups. Funny how history is NOT on the side of Gay relationships in societies of the past (that no longer exist) Your policies and lifestyles of gay marriage are the REAL problem and have been all along historically. Oh, I forgot most gay activist ignore history, distort history and just blatantly lie and name call. Well , what is new?

  • John
    June 25, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    On heterosexual marriage, briefly: Just because there is a history of infidelity, abuse and divorce in marriage, does not make it wrong or unworthy of protection. It means that people casually enter into it unprepared, do not cherish their spouses as they should or regard those sacred bonds as temporary. That reflects on certain participants, not the institution. Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal way for them to learn love and to grow, and to raise children in that love. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has that view (see The Family: A Proclamation to the World) and, to its credit, fights the premarital sex (have you attended high school or college recently and seen its extent?) and infidelity that lead to single parenthood and broken homes. Do we have enough sociological evidence now to denounce premarital sex? Unfortunately, too often, we don't have the courage. The Church has the right to defend marriage because of the community and moral impact (See the statement on political neutrality on the Church's website, under Newsroom and then Public Issues.)

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 12:20 p.m.

    "that the founding members of this country...were Christian standard individuals"

    On the contrary, Our founding fathers were a mixture of deist and christians. Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and George Washington were deists. All of the aforementioned names wrote in books and letters they authored an utter DISBELIEF in the bible as the word of God, they all also stated on numerous occasions their disbelief in the deity of Jesus Christ, and the trinity.

    Thomas Paine even wrote a lengthy book called "The age of reason" to disprove the bible and christianity.

    Ben Franklin could even be called an atheist.

  • Sodomy, Sin & Morality
    June 25, 2008 12:20 p.m.

    Ezekiel 16: 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

  • To Sarah @11:53
    June 25, 2008 12:21 p.m.

    I'm sorry. But how do we know what Church doctrine is anymore? Is this current "request" from the First Presidency really "doctrine"? Or is it just the "opinion of men"?

    I'm truly confused. Things I've been told were doctrine, I'm later told were not. I believe it was Boyd K. Packer, a current apostle, who made the statement that "gays, feminists and so-called intellectuals are the greatest enemies of the Church." But I know it's possible that this is not really "doctrine" just some quote from an apostle.

    Whatever it is (doctrine or not), it still seems terribly mean-spirited and unbecoming of the Church I once loved.

  • Str8 saint in the Golden State
    June 25, 2008 12:15 p.m.

    I've got a rainbow ribbon to wear on Sunday and I'm prepared to walk out of sacrament meeting when the letter is read. I'm also prepared to work against the proposed amendment between now and Nov. 3.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 12:13 p.m.

    Beyond the varying definitions here of what is or is not moral (here homosexual behavior), it seems that even the posters' sense of morality's essence varies. Many here express views that no behavior is immoral (as long as it is a victimless crime). We may perhaps not like something but hesitate to define it as wrong, because maybe it is right for someone else. Maybe, freedom itself is our sense of right and wrong. Other people can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't bother me. Have we lost the notion that there is an absolute right and wrong out there? And I don't claim that God rigidly controls what we do just for His own personal pleasure. He teaches us what is right, and what is right is what makes us happier, healthier and more capable. As to my opinion, can we really claim that we know all the ramifications, personal and societal, of gay marriage? Unless we're pretty omniscient ourselves, reading others' minds, we can't. But God can, and maybe He's lovingly telling us that it is wrong, and not just because He doesn't like it, but because it will affect us negatively.

  • Just one question...WHY?
    June 25, 2008 12:09 p.m.

    Does the Church even have a clue how many people they are alienating? Members seem to be abandoning the Church in droves. I've seen it in my own family, and it's splitting us apart. People are being forced to choose between Church and family. Is this really what the Church wants to do?

  • to altec90210
    June 25, 2008 12:02 p.m.

    "Can't anyone see how moral and civil standards are eroding in the United States?"

    What I see is that a very vocal minority are becoming more and more dictatorial and that people who resent that are becoming more and more rebellious as the push down becomes unbearable.

    This didn't start out a nation of busybodies. People were free to be individuals. People who were different saw other possibilities and opened the West, invented technologies and produced the Arts. Even the most egregious "outlaws" were celebrated as cultural icons whose legends survive to this day. One such freethinker got a vision and revelation and restored the gospel. He said.

    That's when the country was great. Now it's dominated by small minds that want conformity and produce mediocrity.

    You, sir, are the real problem.

  • Sarah
    June 25, 2008 11:53 a.m.

    I don't recall any statements from the First Presidency saying that all gays, feminists, and intellectuals were enemies of the church. Please stop putting your biases against the church forward as church doctrine.

  • altec90210
    June 25, 2008 11:50 a.m.

    Let me start off by saying I am LDS. Knowing this, let me say that I support the church's decision to encourage California members to "do all you can" to support a state constitutional amendment to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.

    Can't anyone see how moral and civil standards are eroding in the United States? Let's NOT loose sight of the fact that this is a nation where we have unsurpassed individual rights, yet that does NOT mean the every group has a right to do whatever they want whenever they want. If certain individuals want same sex marriage, they are welcome to move to a country that allows it.

    I do NOT believe that same sex marriage is moral. While I have a niece that has adopted this lifestyle and is raising a family, I do not feel it is appropriate.

    It is clear that we as a nation are losing sight on the fact that the founding members of this country, while wanting to keep church and state separate, were Christian standard individuals, this is what the LDS church is suggesting we do, let our moral conscience be known to all in our vote.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 11:47 a.m.

    Since when do we have the right to vote on someone elses civil liberties? When did that happen?

    What has happened to the constitution?

    What are you doing to this country?

  • To Saddened @11:09
    June 25, 2008 11:28 a.m.

    I too, am saddened at the recent stands the Church has chosen. When an organization labels all "gays, feminists, and intellectuals" as "enemies of the Church" then who else is left to support it?

    I guess just the "straight, traditional, non-thinkers". I'm afraid the Church is losing many of it's best and brightest because of this attitude.

  • Saddened
    June 25, 2008 11:09 a.m.

    While I think the LDS church is entitled to take a stand on political and social issues, as member I resent being told how to vote. It contradicts what I've been told my entire life about using my conscience. It saddens me that the church increasingly attempts to dominate its members in every facet of their lives. There is much good in the LDS church; I can never deny that. Regardless of where I stand on the gay marriage issue, what upsets me the most is the way the church is handling this. They have issued a Proclamation to the Family, yet don't seem to trust that their members will vote accordingly. I suspect this will result in some members, including me, questioning the nature of the church they belong to and what its doctrines really are. Call me chaff if you must, but I can no longer, in good conscience, remain an active member.

  • candace
    June 25, 2008 11:00 a.m.

    I am a California LDS member. Yes I believe that people have the freedom of choice, and so does the LDS church. And By taking a stand against Gay and Lesbian marriage, doesn't mean that they still don't have a choice. By Limiting our constitution, to define marriage legally recognized as only between a man and a woman, doesn't take away anyones choice. Regardless of the law they will still commit their sin and live thier lives as they see fit. This law doesn't take away choice.

    I also do not hate gay people, but I do not condone thier choices, jsut like I don't condone choices of child molesters or adulters. I will support the church on this matter, and every other matter they bring to me. They are not "forcing" my vote as some members feel they are, they are asking us to stand up for something we claim we believe in, and as a member they shouldn't even have to ask you, or encourage you to stand up for all things good and right.

    For any of those who doubt the words of the prophets, get down on your knees and ask God for his will.

  • Tejano
    June 25, 2008 10:46 a.m.

    To Boiseguy and his ilk:

    By what reasoning are irreligious people and irreligious organizations the only ones that have a say in how our laws are structured and how our government is run?

    I have been under the impression that ALL citizens are allowed to take a stand on what our society's laws condone or condemn.

  • Brooke
    June 25, 2008 10:46 a.m.

    A constitional ammendment is absolutely essential for our state, not to mention our nation. I've been a CA resident for 32 years and I can't think of anything I've felt stronger about supporting with my time and money than legally defining traditional marriage. Our future as a country depends on it. It sickens me that a small group of corrupt judges can overturn a decision that more than 60% of our state approved. Gays and Lesbians need to find their own definition of marriage--because they aren't going to take mine. For 6,000 years we have had the traditional definition of marriage. It's how we continue to exist as a society. The fundamental unit of mankind is a man and a woman. A man and a man or a woman and a woman will never have offspring and will never allow our society to continue--just as in the fall of Rome. Lifestyles like these I will tolerate--but I will not define as marriage. We should not let a minority define what marriage is and has been for 6,000 years. The LDS Church is involved for the future of mankind and their involvement is essential--as yours should be.

  • Re: Anonymous 10:29
    June 25, 2008 10:42 a.m.

    "CA Mormons are, if not as tolerant as Californians as a whole, at least much more tolerant than mountain state Mormons. They will not receive this message well and it will challenge the loyalty of a good many."

    It's called separating the chaff from the wheat, my friend. The LDS church has been predicting for more than a century that in the last days many, including those who were thought to be strong pillars of the church, will fall by the wayside and renounce their religion.

    If we don't trust in the Prophet and his counselors and the rest of the Twelve, if we don't follow the counsel of our Heavenly Father, we're not going to make it with our testimonies unscathed.

    When a letter from the First Presidency is read over the pulpit, it becomes doctrine. This is now official Church policy. If we choose to ignore it, we will held responsible for our actions someday.

    Unfortunately, some will fall away because of this. Some will fall away for other reasons. It's only going to become more difficult to remain faithful from here on out. The scriptures are pretty clear on that. We all have to choose our sides.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 10:39 a.m.

    If the Mormon Church is going to behave like a political action committee, then they should be regulated like one. That means opening their books to public scrutiny.

  • Anonymous
    June 25, 2008 10:29 a.m.

    This move is absolutely stupid.

    1) They will never effect the amendment in CA. CA voters have become very tolerant on this issue in 8 years and 51% are in favor of the Supreme Court ruling as opposed to 42% disapproving of it.

    2) Mormons are only 1.79% of the CA population. Their votes will be statistically insignificant,

    3) CA Mormons are, if not as tolerant as Californians as a whole, at least much more tolerant than mountain state Mormons. They will not receive this message well and it will challenge the loyalty of a good many.

    4) The whole country has now seen the Bretheren as intolerant and meddlesome. This gives credence to other efforts they've previously made more circumspectly and denied.

    5) This reignites an issue many Mormons are already ambivalent about or just don't feel good about. Many, many Mormons have gay family members and many have holes in their hearts for someone who was hounded into depression and despair and even suicide in the past.

    This will come back and haunt the LDS for a generation.

  • Re: JScott
    June 25, 2008 10:01 a.m.

    "I'm working on a local ordinance which will require weddings to be public (i.e. an official can attend to make sure that it is legit, or a video will be available for review). What happens when LDS temple marriages are no longer considered legally binding?"

    What makes you think they won't be? Temple marriages follow the laws of the land according to how a ceremony should proceed. And even if they weren't legally binding for some reason, the solution's pretty simple. We'd get a civil marriage and then get sealed in the Temple for time and all eternity. God's law is higher than the federal law, no matter what you guys want to proclaim.

  • CA Mormon
    June 25, 2008 9:58 a.m.

    The church should stay out of the politics of the state of Ca. Mormons should be able to thoughtfully think and pray about this issue and come to their own decision. By reading out a statement over the pulpits of every ward, it becomes doctrine and the member is under condemnation if he/she does not comply. I am sad to once again to be told what to do by my church.

  • re Toni
    June 25, 2008 9:54 a.m.

    If your church doesn't hate them, why are they so firmly committed to them having no legal rights for themselves and their partners? And don't say civil unions, because this state (with the Church's blessing)made them illegal too with the very hateful Amendment 3.

  • toni
    June 25, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    Someone in all this talk said that the church hates gay and lesbian people. That is so untrue. We may not approve of their lifestyle, but we are all God's children. And how He must grieve for them. I taught history for many years. The members of the court should have paid attention and not slept through their history classes. Those individuals who shaped this nation understood that you cannot separate (totally) church and state. What is prohibited is forced membership in a state-established church. What has happened to the rule of the majority? At the same time the majority rules, the minority is free to convince others to join them. But the majority still rules until this happend. If I were a voter in California, I would want to know what has happened to my rights as a citizen. It is frightening when a small group--judges--desirous to keep their power--rule against the will of the people. What is needed is exactly what the church is advocating. Step up and speak out for the cause. That's how the minority got the right to marry in California.

  • TO debi | 8:56 a.m
    June 25, 2008 9:23 a.m.

    Debi dear,

    If gays were trying to change your church, then you can cry "foul"! They are trying to obtain legitimacy for their unions by claiming that their CIVIL rights are the same as anyone elses. By not allowing them this sanctioned approval, you are stating that your beliefs are more important than their legal claims. That is all it is.

  • debi
    June 25, 2008 8:56 a.m.

    I am an active member of the church. I have friends and family that are gay and love them. I don't agree with their lifestyle, but love them as I know God loves them. The church must make a stand because it is God's moral law that is being violated. Remember God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

  • to Imagine 11:10
    June 25, 2008 8:30 a.m.

    Methinks John Lennon is rolling over in his grave. Taking a riff on his words and advocating a group you disagree with "disappears." Nothing like cleansing the field to make it just the way you'd like. Imagine. Scary.

  • Agki
    June 25, 2008 6:36 a.m.

    "Just because something happens behind closed doors and I'm not present doesn't mean it doesn't effect me. There are numerous criminal acts that could occur between consenting adults behind closed doors, but it doesn't make it ok."

    Homosexuality is not illegal and neither are homosexual acts! They are not criminals. You have confounded what you don't like with illegality. And it DOESN'T affect you.

  • re: Standing Firm and Free in Ca
    June 25, 2008 2:41 a.m.

    "Now it's becoming against the law to be least that is the goal of these groups."

    I don't suppose you'd care to back up this assertion with actual evidence? No? Didn't think so.

  • re: Tenderheart, aching
    June 25, 2008 2:37 a.m.

    "Today some people are claiming that same sex so-called "marriage" is their right and nobody else's business and won't harm others. Just because they can't forsee widespread devastating effects doesn't mean there won't be any."

    The onus is on YOU to show that there WILL be "widespread devastating effects" in order to justify denying them something that everyone else in the country enjoys.

  • Think outside the box for once
    June 25, 2008 1:40 a.m.

    To the guy who says he is working on a regulation to
    require all weddings to be public, and thinks that
    would affect LDS weddings in the temple - hey, try
    thinking outside the box, use a little imagination.
    Such an act of stupidity would have no effect on
    temple marriages. The worst case scenario would be
    that we might have to go through an additional civil
    ceremony outside the temple in order for you gentiles
    to consider us legally married. No big deal.

  • Guy Waters
    June 25, 2008 1:06 a.m.

    The California Supreme Court did not rule that gays were entitled to marry. Their ruling was that same sex couples were to be treated equally as opposite sex couples by the State, in their participation of the official State recognized civil institution currently defined as marriage. The Courts ruling stated that it would be less disruptive to current society to allow same sex couples the term MARRIAGE, then to change the name for everyone. However, the Legislature is free to change the name of that civil institution at some future date.

    If the proposed amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman is approved in November, it will not invalidate the May 15th decision of the California Supreme Court, as its proponents claim. Instead it will only add the definition of MARRIAGE into the California Constitution as between a MAN and a WOMAN. It will not overrule the Courts decision that opposite and same sex couples must be treated equally under civil law. If this amendment is approved, effectively November 5th ALL MARRIAGE will END in California.

    The Courts decision is about California CIVIL LAW not RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!

  • En Hedu' Anna
    June 25, 2008 1:04 a.m.

    to JScott
    Many countries already deal with this issue by requiring all couples to obtain legal status union before whichever religious recognition they pursue. The LDS Church members in such countries yield to the law of the land.

    There is a similar situation in which some countries require cremation due to lack of space or hygiene or whatever. After recruiting membership in those nations, the previous "no cremation" policy was adapted and now the LDS Church accepts the option for all their members. My mum chose the cremation with packet placed in the box with her option. Humorously to me, she still chose burial over scattering due to her concerns of who would end up with her atoms in the resurrection were some forest critter to dine on her remains.

  • En Hedu' Anna
    June 25, 2008 12:53 a.m.

    to SFFC 11:39
    Verily. Who asked the children? They do not have rights of decision-making for society's policy. Can you imagine a world where the innocent and uninformed determined law for the rest of us? Get real.

    "How to totally complicate a child's life! No one has that right." Then stop getting divorced. How complicated is a child's life who must move out of their neighborhood and family every other weekend or even several times a week to serve the terms of their parents' custody decrees? How complicated for children to have demands placed by parents who have again married and procreated to love half-siblings and step-siblings whom they see sporadically and who now get more of their parent's attention than they do? What about the dinner table that never looks the same as halfs and steps are pulled in and out of the picture on different schedules?

    Time for people to stop pointing the finger of who's destroying what and clean up your own family situation. Definitely. Think of the children.

  • Cas Knies
    June 25, 2008 12:16 a.m.

    I understand why the Church has chosen to support the pro-heterosexual (or anti-gay depending on your point of view) marriage movement. However, in my opinion, this position will eventually find itself to be a loosing proposition because of the equal opportunity protection clause cemented in multiple case law.

    This principle of equal protection under the law must be applied without passion or prejudice, regardless whether we "like" or "dislike" the notion of gay couples amongst us desiring to obtain civil marriage licenses. Religious bigotry is not a valid argument for the law of the land to withhold a civil right to those who have chosen a different kind of life style. Religious bigotry is also not conducive to persuade people of the 'rightness' of your cause. To demonize an entire 'class' of people merely because of a different choice of sexual orientation is an outdated and cruel notion of objective reality. It is disappointing that outmoded stone-age myths on gender and sexual orientation are alive and kicking in our religious communities. Indeed, it would be wise to consider the question: "what would Jesus do?"

  • Regurgitated
    June 25, 2008 12:09 a.m.

    Same old arguments day in and day out. Some who support gay marriage claim those who don't are bigots or religious fanatics. Some who support gay marriage shout tolerance & open-mindedness. Very ironic to read the posts and see which bloggers resort to name calling.

    Just because something happens behind closed doors and I'm not present doesn't mean it doesn't effect me. There are numerous criminal acts that could occur between consenting adults behind closed doors, but it doesn't make it ok. If people do illegal drugs behind closed doors and I vote for harder laws against illegal drug users, it doesn't mean I hate drug addicts, it means I want to curb illegal drug use because I believe it's a negative detriment to society. I don't hate soccer players, I just hate soccer. I don't hate CEO's, I just think most are over-paid. I don't hate gay people, I just think the lifestyle is morally wrong. You are free to disagree with me and I won't think you're a bigot or a freak, I just believe you see things different than me. Please allow me the same right to vote for what I feel is best.

  • JScott
    June 25, 2008 12:00 a.m.

    I'm working on a local ordinance which will require weddings to be public (i.e. an official can attend to make sure that it is legit, or a video will be available for review). What happens when LDS temple marriages are no longer considered legally binding?

  • To Imagine
    June 24, 2008 11:49 p.m.

    Thanks for excluding women. It says a lot about your ideology.

  • Standing Firm and Free in Canada
    June 24, 2008 11:46 p.m.

    to clear point...The Church does feed starving persons, physically and spiritually...that is why these temples are built...for spiritual sustenance...which is just as important if not more so, that physical sustenance. The cure for all that ails mankind is in this Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. As works...on every level.

  • Standing Firm and Free in Canada
    June 24, 2008 11:39 p.m.

    Homosexuality is gender identity confusion. Homosexuals cannot reproduce as heterosexual couples so they must as a group recruit. Where do they find their recruits. Well, it has been my experience that they find them from the offspring of heterosexual couples. Herein lies the danger.
    Some 30+ years ago in Canada I found myself engaged to a man who it turned out was a homosexual. At that time it was against the law to be homosexual.
    Now it's becoming against the law to be least that is the goal of these groups. So then, where will they find their recruits? Artificial Insemination may be all neat and tidy for these people but did ANYONE ASK THE CHILDREN??? Let's ask a child who has been raised in a home such as this??? Who wouldn't rather have a loving and devoted male and female set of parents.
    How to totally complicate a child's life! No one has that right. We will all bear the brunt of this chaos but especially OUR CHILDREN!!! We must fight this on every level with whatever resources we have.

  • Tenderheart, aching
    June 24, 2008 11:34 p.m.

    How many of you remember when smokers claimed it was their right to smoke and that it was nobody else's business and wouldn't harm others? Now we know that second-hand smoke has devastating effects beyond the damage to the smokers themselve.
    Today some people are claiming that same sex so-called "marriage" is their right and nobody else's business and won't harm others. Just because they can't forsee widespread devastating effects doesn't mean there won't be any.
    Seeing those kinds of unintended results is a job for a prophet. Hmmm.

  • Follow the Prophet
    June 24, 2008 11:28 p.m.

    Just because the Prophet opposes the Union does not mean he hates Homosexuals.

  • To: Just a thought|10:57
    June 24, 2008 11:17 p.m.

    I'm pretty sure God created Steve too! He is my neighbor so I have testimony to that fact.

  • Anonymous
    June 24, 2008 11:16 p.m.

    It not a question of whether god loves his "gay" or not.

    He has his laws.

    We can conlude from the answers to my questions gays think these two things:

    Children are NOT entitled to a mother and father.

    And animal behavior excuses their behavior.

    Talk about muddled thinking.

  • Anonymous
    June 24, 2008 11:11 p.m.

    Bet they're busy in the COB trying to figure out who leaked the letter.

  • Imagine
    June 24, 2008 11:10 p.m.

    Imagine there are no liberals.

    It is easy if you try.

    No one to say you hate them, if you only disagree.

    No activists judges, legislating from the bench.

    All the lovely people, living like they should.

    You may say that I am a dreamer,

    But I am not the only one

    I hope someday you will join us, in the brother hood of man

  • Jesus loves all...
    June 24, 2008 10:56 p.m.

    You people are all very crazy. I would think the mormon jesus loves the gays just the same as the christian jesus loves the mormons.

  • Just a thought
    June 24, 2008 10:57 p.m.

    God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

  • clear point
    June 24, 2008 10:52 p.m.

    I find this letter very hurtful. I am so disappointed in the church. They forget their own history...polygamy and future temple marriage for men only to more than one woman??? If we took the bible literally we would have one messed up world. The Bible has more upsetting crazy stories than any other book I've read. It makes me realize even further that the prophet does not have a direct line to God. He had a chance to do such good but no he had to go with the crazy Christian rights and have good people fight good people who just love each other and want the same rights to do so. They don't want to take anything away from anybody or demean marriage. Why would anyone else's marriage demean mine? I pray God will forgive for spreading more divisive hurtful prejudice that would deny anyone the same rights that everyone else has. My wish is that the prophet would have sent out a letter telling members to do everything they can to help the poor and the needy. That instead of building beautiful temples and fighting to descriminate, they would be spending their money on saving a starving person.

  • Incredible
    June 24, 2008 10:46 p.m.

    Billions | 8:03 p.m.--how paranoid can you get?

  • Anonymous | 5:49 p.m.
    June 24, 2008 10:39 p.m.

    "Sin is the breaking of Gods Commandments, all of which protect freedom."

    Wrong. Of the "Big ten" the first four are INFRINGEMENTS on freedom, particularly freedom of religion.

  • Anonymous | 5:49 p.m.
    June 24, 2008 10:39 p.m.

    "And by the way man was created in separate creation from the animals and was given dominion over them."

    In what is clearly (to any scientifically educated person) an allegorical parable that did NOT literally happen.

  • Anonymous
    June 24, 2008 10:33 p.m.

    I wonder who will be outside LDS meetinghouses on Sunday. Maybe they'd even like to come inside and investigate the LDS.

  • Erosion of Marriage?
    June 24, 2008 10:29 p.m.

    I am struck by comments about erosion of marriage of America. I am struck that claims of homosexual marriage is further evidence of this erosion. Yet, marriage seems to have been eroding long before the first states even considered same-sex marriage. To say that gay union will further destroy marriage is unfounded and perhaps wrong based on case studies in other countries were gay couples are allowed to marry such as Denmark. I think this statement by the church was expected based on the previous example they have led on the same issue in California a few years back. However, it is still disappointing to see the lack of consistency in their Christian teachings. It would seem that the gospel is one of exclusivity meant for those who are straight. I wonder how the church would feel if such organizations as PFLAG, GLAAD, or ACLU lobbied for the revoking of recognition of the church as a religious institution. To me the church's statement would be similar to that.

  • re: Alex | 4:48 p.m.
    June 24, 2008 10:23 p.m.

    "[Homosexuality] is equal to Wife Abuse and Child Molestation."

    How do you figure?

  • Nice Try.... Anon|10:11
    June 24, 2008 10:22 p.m.

    Ummm, I don't think your prophet or your first presidency speaks for God... I think that job is already taken by the the Pope; Thank you very much!!

  • re: RE: Nature | 4:42 p.m. June
    June 24, 2008 10:19 p.m.

    "Animals are not sentient beings. They act out of impulse."

    You've obviously never owned a dog.

  • re: Which Way America?
    June 24, 2008 10:17 p.m.

    Murder, forced robbery, child porn, wife beaters and child molesters HARM OTHER PEOPLE. Homosexuals do not.

  • re: Anonymous | 4:05 p.m. June 2
    June 24, 2008 10:12 p.m.

    "So are children entitlesd to mother AND father or not?"

    Obviously they aren't "entitled" to anything. Once again, for most of human history, children lost one or both parents quite early in life. THAT btw is how "God" made things and it has been MANKIND that has allowed people to live longer to raise their children to adulthood. Or are you people really so ignorant that you think the entirety of human history was like the 1950s?

  • Anonymous
    June 24, 2008 10:11 p.m.

    Whether you believe it or not the First Presidency is guided and speaks for God. Believe God and follow him and with that, understanding comes, whether in this life or the next.

  • Complete Lack of Revelation
    June 24, 2008 10:10 p.m.

    For years there was no revelation within the LDS Church to overturn the archaic view that a person's skin color was something other than genetic. And it is clear again with this issue that leaders are years from recognizing the fact that sexual preference is as natural and God-given as we know the color of one's skin or gender to be today. For years it has been blatantly obvious that the Church reacts to pressure or simply follows the moral majority rather than in any way leading by revelation. It is all about PR and acceptance while the heavens remain closed to the modern Church. So while dissapointing there really should be no real surprise here.

  • Kris
    June 24, 2008 10:10 p.m.

    Again this issue captivates people much like Hilter did Germany. I do not think Jesus the Christ intended these type feelings. What say you my friends??? or have you been so well trained in hatred that you you would not even know the difference. Do you even personally know a Gay to make such a decision?

  • Follower of Christ
    June 24, 2008 9:59 p.m.

    Christ was un afraid to condemn outright sin when He saw it. He was very forgiving to those who were WILLING TO CHANGE, but not once, ever, in recorded scripture, did He forgive one who refused to change and follow the commands of God. Those unwilling to change He openly and publicly denounced as HYPOCRITES and SINNERS.

    God has said, unequivicably, and in no way can it be twisted about, that homosexuality is a SIN. Period. In His own words, it is an ABOMINATION. Why would any church, not just the LDS faith, but ANY church that claims to follow Christ, support legalized abominations. Every church that claims to follow Christ MUST oppose homosexuality. If they give an inch, if they support gay marraige, then they are acting contrary to the will of God. They cease to be christian, since being christian denotes following Christ.

    I openly oppose gay marraige. I openly oppose homosexuality itself as the abomination it is. I stand with the Lord. The Good Book says that not all that say Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but those that do the will of the Father. Christians, get off you duffs and speak out.

  • re: Even more clarity
    June 24, 2008 9:56 p.m.

    "You are wholly wrong. The practice of homosexuality in my family would deprive me of offspring."

    No one is forcing you to be a homosexual, so you're still wrong. The gay community is NOT a threat to you.

  • To Who's right|9:37
    June 24, 2008 9:44 p.m.

    The real problem is that only around 1% (or far less)of population follow what you would call your prophet of god. Just because you say he is your profit doesn't make it right; I believe in a prophet as well a she has pointed me in the other direction.

  • boiseguy
    June 24, 2008 9:43 p.m.

    If the mormon church is so opposed to it then why are they not promoting gay sexual acts to be illegal? seems they're understanding and loving until you actually choose to express your love to someone and build a life with them. I think this nation should be more focused on promoting family values for EVERYONE.. and not just subjecting everyone to one belief system. Gays getting married and building lives together is a much better outcome than being constantly treated as outcasts and scum of the earth. And we wonder why as a society that dangerous and destructive behaviour exists in the gay community with drug abuse and illness. People with no purpose or value will destroy themselves. Its easier to keep them in their place and consistantly point the finger at them, rather than allow them to build and live healthy lifestyles.
    As a believer in God, I personally believe gay people wanting to get married is a GOOD thing, it shows they are willing to step up to the plate and live constructive positive lives with love and family values. You oppressive christian soldiers do not see this nor care. Your minds are closed and set.

  • Who's right
    June 24, 2008 9:37 p.m.

    So is it right to say that if the ballot lost, as in marrige remains legal in CA, then what the LDS Church leaders say about this matter is not right then? As in, the prophets of God are just voicing their own opinion and not really inspiration from God? Remember the "fatherly advice" that, I think, President Lee gave many decades ago?

  • Flaming Ray
    June 24, 2008 9:31 p.m.

    Silly you all are. The mormon church does not hold enough power, yield the influence, and does not have the numbers to stop the will of the people--yes other people whom worship Jesus Christ.. maybe not the mormon Jesus but still the son of God. Well anyway, you have fun but you are further more making your man made hatred at odds with mainstream society; but of course your hatred is caused by me and not of the indoctrination process you have been through.

  • Anon
    June 24, 2008 9:21 p.m.

    We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

  • To Billions
    June 24, 2008 9:20 p.m.

    Conspiracy theory, much? Your paranoia is glaringly visible.

  • Louis
    June 24, 2008 9:14 p.m.

    Germany rallied as much around a cause as well in the 30's and 40's. I think you all need to take a step back and look at the cause and rabidness that the faithful are going after this one. And yes the faithful claimed christianity back then. Funny how wrong is just wrong when in the right perspective.

  • boiseguy
    June 24, 2008 9:13 p.m.

    What goes around.. comes around.. and you would think what has already come around to the LDS people would not be passed back around to minority groups. Sadly, it is. It only leaves the door open for it to come back around to them. What is the cost of one battle in a war for equal rights? for people fighting for their equal rights under the law.. there is no end. People will demand their freedom and rights, whether you agree with it or not. Giving equal marriage rights under the law does not make you have to agree with it. Most gay people could care less what you think. They just want their rights. The church acting in this matter, will eventually alienate itself from society at large. Eventually same sex marriage will be allowed, whether you want to acknowlege it or not. Every ban that is enacted can and will be continually challenged in the courts because it contradicts discrimination laws.
    I hope for your sakes, that what you push around doesn't come back at you again. like I said earlier, don't expect an ounce of sympathy from me. What goes around comes around.

  • TetonMike
    June 24, 2008 9:12 p.m.

    This one isn't so tough...what part of "with Liberty and Justice for ALL." is the church leadership having trouble understanding? Don't like gays getting married? Don't marry one.

    How interesting this will be in the fall elections if Mitt has to defend his faiths history of plural marriages AND try to tell another state what they can or cannot do in that regard.

    Speak out Both Sides of Your Mouth much?

  • ken
    June 24, 2008 8:18 p.m.

    the LDS church should ask its members to do everything and anything possible reguarding the constitutional amendment to ban same sex civil marriages in the state of California. The church should not speak out to non members on this issue which I dont think they are doing.That would put the church in a position of playing politics and I dont think the church needs to do that.It's up to its members to take a stand on issues, not the brethern in Salt Lake City,but there is nothing wrong with the idea of the brethern to incourage its California members to voice the churches opinion on this issue.Then its up to the members to either follow that request or not.

  • RC
    June 24, 2008 8:11 p.m.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but in this country we enjoy many individual freedoms and rights: freedom of religion and freedom of speech being two of them. Even though we are members of the church do we not also still enjoy the freedom of speech and the ability to speak out against political policies we do not agree with? Shame on CA's liberal judges (who by the way do not create legislation)to strike down what the people overwhelmingly voted down.

  • Anonymous
    June 24, 2008 8:07 p.m.

    If I want advice about how to vote I'll go to a source that *doesn't* venerate and name it's premier educational institution after a man who said Adam was God; was a flat out racist and declared war on the USA.

  • Re: AWB
    June 24, 2008 8:03 p.m.

    As an active member of the church I am already committed to giving all of my time, means and energy to supporting the doctrines I hold dear. The letter given by the first presidency is just reaffirming what I am already doing. I don't understand why we can't be just as zealous, open and organized as those organizations who support gay marriage.

  • Billions
    June 24, 2008 8:03 p.m.

    Billions are being spent in the USA by the insiders and the corrupt government to promote homosexuality. The government and the insiders have hired Marxist oriented professors to rewrite history, to revise history favoring fascism and secularism. They have spent hundreds of millions publishing new textbooks that promote homosexuality and N.W.O. propaganda and placing them in the schools of America. They have spent many millions discrediting the Founding Father, the Constitution and Christianity. They spend hundreds of millions producing T.V. shows, movies and educational information encouraging homosexuality. They spend millions creating unjust laws and propaganda supporting gay and lesbian behavior and stifling Christians freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The insiders have a many trillion dollar slush fund to implement the N.W.O. and they can always create more out of thin air. They are attacking our nation from every angle. There has never been such an onslaught of deliberately organized, promoted evil. They have paid organizers who arrange new homosexual organization throughout the country and their materials and their goals are the same. They sponsor the gay pride parades. Satans power has always been economic and political and he is pulling out all the stops.

  • MY SLC
    June 24, 2008 8:00 p.m.

    The comments here are redundant. No body is convincing the others the change their minds.
    Those who are in support of the LDS church are claiming religious text and thought. Those who are opposing are claiming equal rights and fairness.
    The fact is same sex marriage is going to cross the nation. It already is in 2 states and several others recognize marriage from other states, i.e. New York.
    Will the LDS church change it position? who cares!
    Will it happen, even in Utah? Yes!

  • plather
    June 24, 2008 7:48 p.m.

    the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round... Do you people ever get tired of hearing yorself's plather on and on about the same tired old things everyday? do you really need a boggy man to be afraid of this badly? .....

    the babies on the bus go waah, waah, waah

  • Jon Salley
    June 24, 2008 7:46 p.m.

    I love the Mormon Church, but I'm very uncomfortable with the Church officially backing an initiative of this type. Why? Because I think it's discriminatory. For the life of me I do not see how gay marriage will hurt heterosexual marriage. Gays and lesbians constitute a tiny minority and always will. They have abnormal biological sex drives. So let them marry. It's not going to hurt the rest of us and it the fair thing to do. The only concern I have about gay marriage is gay couples adopting children. I'm not sure it's emotionally healthy to grow up in the home of two same sex parents, although it's preferable if the same sex parents are more loving than a neglectful heterosexual couple. Tough issues to be sure. But let's stay politically neutral on this issue, as we do with most every other issue.

  • Tell me?
    June 24, 2008 7:43 p.m.

    Repeating because it's an important question:

    Who takes marriage advice from a church that esteems leaders and prophets who had 30-50 wives (Jos. Smith & Brigham Young), married teenagers (Jos. Smith & Brigham Young), disposed of women's living husbands so they could marry them (Jos. Smith), intimidated fathers into giving up their daughters under threat of damnation (Jos. Smith), and sealed plural marriages for 10 years after their Manifesto abolishing polygamy (Wilfred Woodruff, Jos. F. Smith and other GAs)?

  • Glad to see it
    June 24, 2008 7:33 p.m.

    I am glad to see so many fellow saints proudly proclaim that they are on the Lord's side also!

    " Who's on the Lord's Side WHO?"

    Can you honestly belive that you are on the Lord's side when you support and attempt to legitimize sinful behavior? Homosexuality is abomination and those that practice in such deviant behavior will suffer consequences in the world to come.

  • Judge Fairly
    June 24, 2008 7:21 p.m.

    Its interesting how anyone who condemns a poster for judging is in fact judging the poster himself. So should we judge? Of course we should. We do it every day. It is part of living. We should judge fairly, righteously, honestly and not for the purpose of hurting anyone. In our judgments we should be careful not to do evil or in other words not to injure anyones God given rights. Is speaking out against evil, sin and crime an evil judgment?. No, its our duty. Is it wrong to bring people to justice? Nope! Thats why we have policemen, judges and juries. We all judge if something is good or evil every day. In our minds we judge peoples morality, capability, intelligence, etc.. Thats why we have resumes and interviews so employers can make sound judgments. We all judge the rightness or wrongness of man made laws, of government actions, of trends and fads and doctrines etc. Homosexuality has been judged as evil by the Great Judge of the this earth. Governments have judged it as the abominable and detestable crime against nature. Thats easily demonstrated and thats good enough for me.

  • War
    June 24, 2008 7:16 p.m.

    "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" a movie that stars Adam Sandler, Kevin James and Jessica Biel in one of the most blatant politically correct, anti-Christian movies. The movie is nothing more than anti-Christian, pro-homosexual propaganda that attacks the traditional, Judeo-Christian moral values of American culture. The excessive homosexual content is just more psychological conditioning from the neo-Marxist, anti-Christian politically correct philosophers of our day who are trying to normalize all such aberrant behaviors. Some of these opinion leaders even support lenient prison sentences for pedophiles who abuse children (unless, of course, the pedophile happens to be a Christian leader or white male clergyman). Of course these opinion leaders are indeed sponsored by the establishment with unlimited funds. Anyone who has done their home work realizes that there is a war against morality sponsored by the rich schemers of this world. They have attacked morality on every front. Its called the war between good and evil.

  • Dutch
    June 24, 2008 7:15 p.m.

    The voices from the large and spacious building are getting louder and it is sad many members of the church have let go to join them- The speration of the wheat from the tares has begun.

  • MY SLC
    June 24, 2008 7:13 p.m.

    Way to go Deseret News: Not only 1 article but 2 articles in 2 days! WOW! the hatred is coming out on both sides. There are many other important things to worry about. This issue is not about Utah.

  • Justice
    June 24, 2008 7:11 p.m.

    There is a spiritual environment just as surly as there is a physical environment. No one has a right to spew trash and garbage throughout the community or in peoples faces. Like wise no one has the right to spew immorality and wickedness through out the community or in peoples faces. No one has the right to seduce children, youth or adults into immorality and wickedness. We all have a right to have a clean spiritual environment just as we have a right to a clean physical environment. There is absolutely no right of homosexuality and its train of evils. You cannot harm another to your advantage and ever get away with it in eternity. The universe will pass away before retribution will be escaped. Retribution may not be immediate, but it will be exact and absolute right down to the last atom. If we truly understand God perfect justice upon us then no one could be induced to harm another for money, for fame, for pride, for pleasure or for anything. The test of mortality is an environment allowing us to imagine we can hurt or take advantage of others with impunity. Not so!!

  • En Hedu' Anna
    June 24, 2008 7:07 p.m.

    For those claiming an angry god's judgements being meted out on deteriorating society - actually the past few decades have been among the most peaceful in recorded time. Loss of life from natural disaster is way down compared to 40 years ago. These are relatively quiet times in terms of death by natural disasters, the apparent favorite punishments of displeased gods.

    Are we possibly doing something right?

  • Sin & Crime
    June 24, 2008 7:03 p.m.

    Sin is the breaking of Gods Commandments, all of which protect freedom. Crime is also the breaking of Gods commandments which protect freedom. A sin and a crime are essentially the exact same thing. A law commands us to do something or forbids us to do something and has a punishment attached. In our society we have come to think of crimes only as the breaking of man made laws which are punished by civil government. Man made laws are frequently Gods laws as they should be. Many man made laws are utterly unjust, they violate Gods laws, destroy freedom and when enforced are in fact a crime and a sin. Homosexuality is a crime and a sin which should be punished here and now and certainly will be in the here after. The very reason for punishment is to make it so sin & crime doesnt pay. Punishment is to deter crime & sin. Civil government should only punish the most serious sins such as murder, homosexuality theft, adultery etc. Otherwise we would spend all of out time and money punishing our many sins and would miss out on the more important things of life.

  • Moral Law
    June 24, 2008 6:58 p.m.

    There are laws prohibiting the abominable and detestable crime against nature. If governments do not follow Gods standards in public affairs then it is a free-for-all as to whos standards they will follow. The Golden Rule is based upon the universal need and desire for freedom. When government action violates the Golden Rule, strife and contention arise. The Golden Rule is the only code which may with justice be enforced against all men. Governments either legislate morality or immorality. It would be stupid to legislate immorality. Morality preserves freedom, immorality destroys freedom. Every act government performs is either morally right or morally wrong. All governments are for is to compel citizens to obey a code of private morality. There are two types of laws: 1. Those which condemn and punish certain conduct as evil and harmful, 2. Those which compel the performance of other conduct considered good and beneficial. Gods law should be the source of all civil law. Gods law is for the purpose of protecting mans unalienable rights. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

  • Conscience Registers 10
    June 24, 2008 6:51 p.m.

    All men have a conscience which register 10 on the Richter Scale when they are about to commit a dreadful sin. Our consciences work perfectly until we refuse to listen and pile sin on sin. If we continue to sin then our conscience becomes seared over and we are then insensitive, spiritually dead and past feeling. We have become hard and numb to right or wrong. When one boasts about his sins and criminal acts he no longer cares about who he hurts or about right and wrong. Is this not exactly what has happened to homosexuals when they deliberately flaunt their filth in the faces of our families, virtuous ladies, children and youth. No wonder decent people stand up against such senseless insanity. And no wonder hardened homosexuals cant or refuse to understand the difference between right and wrong. They do indeed become spiritually dead, hard , numb, blind and insensitive. Light and truth withdraws from them and they dissipate them selves into the grave. Thank goodness there are thousands of homosexuals who get a handle on life and with Gods help crawl out of the pit before it is too late

  • Gays can kill civiliation
    June 24, 2008 6:46 p.m.

    An earlier post mentioned that there has been homosexuality since the beginning of time, and that may very well be true. But it's also a fact, chronicled by the chair of sociology at Harvard, that many great societies that embraced homosexuality and relaxed sexual norms were soon conquered and/or destroyed.

    So you wonder what effect you two happy gays getting married has on my and my family?

    Well, it doesn't immediately affect us even if you marry a dog, but EVENTUALLY the effects to society are catastrophic! It's already a fact that children stuck with homosexual "parents" are more messed up than anyone else, so sometimes the effects are much more immediate.

    He who fails to learn the lessons of history is doomed to repeat it. Wake up, America, save marriage before it's too late! Gay marriage is not the end of their desires, it's only the beginning! It will be rapidly followed by gay sex education in school, hate speech legislation, mandatory special rights in the workplace, discrimination laws that force people out of business if they refuse to accommodate gays (already happening in California), and more... HERE IT COMES!!! FIGHT FOR MARRIAGE WITH ALL YOU'VE GOT!!!!!!!!

  • En Hedu' Anna
    June 24, 2008 6:35 p.m.

    to IronClad -
    Oh, yes. Much more civil to marry many women so you have spares to take your stripes when you are caught in flagrante delicto. Barring that give praise your parents bore your sisters to stand in your stead.

    Using the outrage of one immoral philosophy's adherents as reason to support another immoral position is rather silly.

  • Paid posters?
    June 24, 2008 6:33 p.m.

    I just heard that homosexual activists are sometimes PAID to blog and make comments on every site that they can, so they can be perceived as a larger and more influential portion of society than they really are.

    Makes sense since they probably have a lot more time on their hands than I do.

    I'm usually too busy with my FAMILY to put in post after post after post.

    I dare any of you paid posters to admit what you're doing, and I doubt anyone ever will because it undermines the credibility of their posts, which are intended to sound like different people with different points. How incredibly dishonest that is.

  • Marriage is a choice we all have
    June 24, 2008 6:30 p.m.

    Anyone can have heterosexual or homosexual sex, that's why it is a choice. We are all born with characteristics and traits that give us different interests, but attraction comes with and grows by where we place most of our thoughts. Attraction is not well understood, but who is to say that I am wrong in saying no one is born gay? Where is the proof that we are born with sexual attractions?

    Point 1: Sexual organs correspond with female or male parts and develop through puberty creating procreative functions that only together with the opposite sex perform the procreative purpose of those functions.

    Point 2: If it isn't a choice then only gays could do homosexual acts.

    Pretty cut and dry, but backed up...

    Blacks are born with black skin. Whites are born with white skin. All other colors of people are born that way. Males are born male. Females are born female. All of us fit in these categories and already have the rights that pertain to whatever the color of our skin, or whatever our gender. Marriage is available to all who choose a relationship between a man and a woman. Gay unions are a counterfeit.

  • Time to pick sides
    June 24, 2008 6:28 p.m.

    These are indeed the last days, and this may well be the issue that gathers everyone to one side or the other.

    The LDS church has come down unequivocally on the side of traditional marriage, as they have consistently done. So is Tom Monson a prophet or not? If so, your choice is clear. If not, your choice is not so clear, as this controversy proves.

    The LDS church is a voluntary organization who has ZERO power over its members beyond excommunication of membership. Those who belong, choose to belong. And if tomorrow they turned from the worship of Jesus Christ to the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then the members would have the choice to stay or leave, just as they do now.

    So choose your side carefully, because if the prophecies are true, it will not be fun to be on the wrong side of this fight.

    As for me and my house, we prayerfully--not blindly--CHOOSE to follow President Monson and other ordained LDS leaders. WE WILL STAND FOR THE FAMILY WITH EVERYTHING WE'VE GOT.

  • To Left Handed
    June 24, 2008 6:17 p.m.

    Sure. I have no problem with you being a "south paw." I do have a problem with you pushing for laws that require people to read right to left as well as left to right in order to accomodate you.

    I also have a problem with being called a hate-monger for being a righty who thinks English SHOULD be read left to right.

  • IronClad Steve
    June 24, 2008 6:16 p.m.

    Is it any wonder the Muslims hate us so much as infidels. We have Madonna, Britney, Hollywood deivates, lust for money on the NYSE and rampant sexual perversion i.e., homosexual lifestyle and the fruit of it; GAY Marrige. And a few judges rule the people. The leaders of the LDS Church are telling the members stand for what is morally and legally right, members of their faith combined with other good honest christians can get involved with the decision process and take back law and order.
    This may be the last spiritual chance for the good of the nation. If we're not overcome with pestilance, famine, adverse weather occurance etc. Our Arab muslim brothers will surely standing in the wings to convert the good ole "USA" to Islam and they'll definetly take care of GAY marriage. And that's the bottom line!!!

  • En Hedu' Anna
    June 24, 2008 6:14 p.m.

    For the sake of the children, strengthen your marriages, spend your discretionary time with your kids, take walks, ride bikes, watch movies, inspect nature happening in your backyards. Re-learn to love and cherish your spouse. Forgive. Be less selfish. Improve your family financial situation to alleviate that stressor. Hope. Dream. Have joy in your family.

    Ranting on a comment board does nothing to give your children a more secure, grander view of this amazing life.

  • Matt
    June 24, 2008 6:09 p.m.

    This so-called "church" deserves to lose their tax-exempt status over this.

  • Homosexuality
    June 24, 2008 6:10 p.m.

    Sex btween humans of any kind without the sanctification of marriage is a sin according to the LDS Church. Marriage is a sacred covenant between man, woman and God according to the LDS Church. Members of the Church professing to have a testimony need to support Church leaders. People who participate in sexual acts prior to marriage are breaking the Lord's commandments. The LDS Church makes no judgement on a person's inclinations until they are acted upon.

    Happiness is not dependent upon your marital status. If you are unhappy as a single person marriage will not change your emotional state no matter if you are a homosexual or not.

  • Alex
    June 24, 2008 6:04 p.m.

    RE: my comment (Kathyn). I am not saying the church should keep out of this argument. Far from it....I totally support the Prophet, and follow him. I didn't mean to come across as namby-pamby. I do believe in standing up for what is right. But there are those who like bait us (like those who pass out all of the anti-LDS lit at conference) who are better to ignore because we'll never convince them to change and it just promotes contention. The letter from the church handled it just right.

  • unchangeable
    June 24, 2008 6:03 p.m.

    If the LDS Church had remained steadfast and unchangeable in its doctrine there would have been no need for the FLDS to break away. Times change. Churches change by their own perception of the times or by revelation from their god.

    Why are the faithful not praying, as they did for their fellow blacks, for full blessings for all of god's children? Cover all the bases and get it done once and for all. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps god is awaiting your petitions to reveal his love for all his children? Perhaps you need to catch up in your hearts and the decree will be made. Afterall, the blacks were held back due to the perception of carrying the sin of Cain.

  • Steve - Bisexual FYI
    June 24, 2008 6:00 p.m.

    Just thought I'd share this info:

    First, before I make my main statement which is sure to send some of you off the deep end... let me explain this fact about Bisexuality. Being "Bi" doesn't always mean an equal 50-50 split between both genders (it can be 30-70, 80-20, etc.), nor is it always a fixed split (it can vary from time to time).

    OK, my main point...

    Some scientists believe that EVERYone is born bisexual, but where each person is on the scale of bisexuality differs and how events around them can mold them more one direction than the other. Those who are say 99% for the opposite gender are what's thought of as "straight/hetero" and the opposite of that are what is deemed "gay". Or there is Freud who thought it was a normal part of development and that everyone can go through periods of being Bi.

    I'm not making this up. Just something to ponder before you continue to speak out against anyone who isn't straight. I'm sure if many "straight" people can be honest with themselves, they can probably think of at least one instance in their life of same gender "curiousity".

  • Eowyn
    June 24, 2008 5:59 p.m.

    The California Marriage Amendment is nothing like the government's oppression of polygamy in the early days of the LDS Church. Nothing in the Amendment requires the forfeiture of property for organizations that support homosexuality. It does not revoke voting rights for those who merely believe homosexuality is acceptable. It doesn't even require that those who are homosexual abandon those loving relationships under threat of imprisonment. That is what the government did to the polygamists of the 1800's.

    All the Amendment does is set in stone something that was once written in the hearts of the people --that marriage is between male and female. It doesn't oppress, it preserves.

    There IS a difference.

  • Chris Plummer
    June 24, 2008 5:59 p.m.

    Lets see here...
    D&C 134:9
    We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

  • yo, 3arwax, et al
    June 24, 2008 5:56 p.m.

    I suppose I will take comfort in the fact that at least at this juncture the Christian community isn't likely to exert their influence through inquisitions, crusades and pogroms. Talk about suffering under an ideology.

  • Alex
    June 24, 2008 5:55 p.m.

    To @ Alex:

    "I would love to see you try to say that to someone's face . . . sad fact is you, like all true homophobes (and by true I mean the real definition of HATING gay peopel) lack the courage to do anything other than post anonymously on this web site. "

    True homophobe, huh? A friend I studied with for many, many hours in college was gay. That's right, gay! And you know what, he came to my wedding reception after he came out because I invited him. I invited him because he is my friend and always will be. I told him that while I couldn't approve of his homosexual sex, he would always be my friend. So this accusation of being a true hater is a big joke. There is no anonymity about my association with homosexuals.

  • Anonymous
    June 24, 2008 5:49 p.m.

    Again the gays refuse to anwers the question.

    what are the children entitled to?

    Are they entitle to moather and father.

    The questions are simple.

    And by the way man was created in separate creation from the animals and was given dominion over them.

    Besides how can one justify one's actions by using animals. That the weakest justification I have heard so far.

    Just gays grasping at straws.

  • lfarknagel
    June 24, 2008 5:45 p.m.

    The appalling thing about this is the twisted logic the Court used. It (a majority Republican panel) said that marriage must be allowed between homosexual couples because the civil union statutes already allowed essentially the same rights. In other words, the California legislature let the Camel's nose in the tent so far, that the whole camel must now be let in. Civil union statutes will now be used as a sword in order to compel recognition of gay marriage.

  • Alex
    June 24, 2008 5:44 p.m.


    "We can be compassionate and Christ-like and not condemn anyone, without changing our personal standards. This is such a sensitive subject and I'm glad I'm not the one who will have to judge. All of the mud-slinging and unkind rhetoric help none of us. "

    Are our convictions only Christ-like if they do nothing? How can maintaining our standard and letting it be known be anything but compassionate and Christ-like?

    The only way that the gay marriage lobby will ever consider us Christ-like is if we give up our principles for them. They would then congratulate us for our enlightenment, sweep us away like useful idiots who have served their purpose, then move on.

    They are trying to manipulate your compassion by trying to convince you it is only Christ-like if your stands are compatible with their agenda. I have nothing to prove as far as my compassion goes. I have never treated a homosexual any different than a heterosexual. I am not beholden to the same-sex marriage supporters to prove "me, me, me. I'm compassionate too."

  • Truth, not Hate!
    June 24, 2008 5:44 p.m.

    Oh, how those who promote the Abominable sexual crime and try to foist it on our children and America hate to be exposed for what they're really doing. They cannot stand light and truth. Every truth written about homosexuality is branded as hate. Permissiveness is not love! Teaching the difference between right and wrong is love and exposing evil falsehoods is every mans duty.

  • Nature Revisited
    June 24, 2008 5:42 p.m.

    No I meant sentient in the context of "conscious thought". I am ascribing this to humans because we can actually overcome impulse by concious thought.

    As for equal rights. It is not part of the argument. I believe all are equal, I also believe in the republic of which I am a part. I beleive that I can act outside of my impulse to procreate with every girl I meet, to live a monogomous relationship and procreate. I do not however believe that homosexuality is natural but an aberration in nature.

  • Re: Holy Smoke!
    June 24, 2008 5:40 p.m.

    Brigham Young said that when we would no longer listen to the Lord, then He would preach His own sermons. Don't you think he's already started? Look at the hurricanes, the floods, the earthquakes, etc. We've already started hitting the bumps.

  • @ Alex
    June 24, 2008 5:38 p.m.

    I would love to see you try to say that to someone's face . . . sad fact is you, like all true homophobes (and by true I mean the real definition of HATING gay peopel) lack the courage to do anything other than post anonymously on this web site.

  • Crop of Fools
    June 24, 2008 5:36 p.m.

    We are witnessing the unraveling of the moral fabric of society. Every year a new crop of fools comes on. They conceive themselves to be so clever they think they can beat the system (Gods laws). They snatch goods from natures store and run (Break Gods commandments), but one by one they all come back and pay the price in blood and sweat and tears. Children of God should control their urges and passions. That the effort involved dignifies and ennobles has been recognized by the world's great thinkers. Dante, for example, put it this way: "Consider your origin; you were not formed to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge." By cunning deception the alternate lifestyle people are pretending to preserve their so-called right of homosexuality, but there is no such right.. We all have a right to do good, but not to do evil. There is no right to do evil. No one has a right to murder, steal, lie, or blow up a school room full of children. We all have the agency to do hideous evils, but there is no such right!! Freedom cannot exist without obedience to Gods laws.

  • kathyn
    June 24, 2008 5:34 p.m.

    The problem that I see with the marriage amendment is not that gays can marry...(I don't care if they do or not)...but rather, this will ultimately end up making church leaders guilty of hate crimes if they have the audacity to preach that homosexuality is a sin. If you don't believe me, it's already happening in Canada and Europe. The Gen'l Authorities will not be allowed to use the airwaves to televise their addresses to church members because they'll be policed for any supposed discrimination. It is a slippery slope. It's not against's to protect the church from what is to come.

  • Naughty by Nature
    June 24, 2008 5:33 p.m.

    All this gay living stems out of..flower power,hippy living,one with nature and mountain..etc and it has no substance to anything that makes sense,we are not animals we are a higher being created in gods image and at times we degrade ourselves by imitating the beast of the field.
    Anything of the flesh is not lasting no matter how much you want to justified the course.

  • Holy Smoke!
    June 24, 2008 5:29 p.m.

    We are ripening for destruction... Whether it be some "natural" force, or otherwise, I think the morality ship is sinking. And unfortunately, I think we're all going down! Hold on... It's going to be a bumpy ride. If you thought high gas prices hurt, wait until our society is given a real wake up call...

  • The Fruits
    June 24, 2008 5:27 p.m.

    As a man sows so shall he reap. So if one sows homosexual acts what does he/she reap? Some of the fruits of homosexuality are: broken lives, broken homes, broken families, broken hearts, guilt, insensitivity, injured self esteem, broken societies, ruined nations, enslavement, loss of freedom, fire and brimstone on whole cities, destruction, no posterity, disease, rejection of God and moral laws, sickness, death, self rejection, spiritual blindness, insanity, troubled minds, twisted moral values, no real joy or happiness, wasted time, suicide, faulty reasoning, idiotic rationalizations, child abuse, hate, out of control life, public nuisance, rape, bad example, lack of self control, etc. Not one positive thing comes from homosexuality. So why would any rational, intelligent person participate in and promote this horrible sex crime? Why would a sane, sensible, child of God royally mess up his life and others with homosexual wickedness?

  • rere nature
    June 24, 2008 5:24 p.m.

    this is semantics, but i think you are thinking of the word "sapient"- you have the meaning of sentient wrong.

    in any case, we will probably never agree, because i believe in equal rights for everyone. time will tell what will happen, but i have a feeling that eventually same sex marriage will be protected by the u.s. constitution, and no, that world will not end because of it.

  • Jim
    June 24, 2008 5:24 p.m.

    I do find it interesting that usually in gay relationships, there is always a male/female type. Why do they try to copy heterosexual relationships? Because what they are doing is mixed up???

  • maria
    June 24, 2008 5:23 p.m.

    How odd that a group of people, the Mormons, who suffered under govt. are using govt. to deny other people the right to be happy. How odd.

    What hypocracy. I guess once you get a little taste of power you soon corrupt yourself to take away other people's rights.

    Mormons trying to dictate what others can and cannot do, though the people being zapped are of no threat to anyone. Hmmmmmmmmm. What was that quote about absolute power corrupts absolutely????

  • Cathy
    June 24, 2008 5:21 p.m.

    I am LDS and have a cousin who is gay and has been in a relationship for about 20 years now. Do I love him? Absolutely. Do I reach out to him to keep in countact? Yes. Does he answer? No. I have never brought up the subject of my belief's and tried to talk about anything other than family. It's not always the religious side that cutes people off. They are not comfortable with us. If there is nothing wrong with how they are living their lives, why do they cut family ties?

  • Corrupted Laws
    June 24, 2008 5:18 p.m.

    So why do we have homosexual mania raging in America? It is because we have corrupted our political laws and thus opened the floodgates of immorality and evil. Why have we corrupted our political laws? It is because a criminal conspiracy, a secret combination of evil schemers have bought off the congress, the executive branch, the judicial branch, the military, the FBI, the CIA, the media, and academia etc. These rich men own the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, the drug companies the oil companies and nearly all the major corporations. They own the CFR, which is the shadow government that runs our nation. They have and are deliberately promoting every immorality (drugs, homosexuality, adultery, pornography, dishonesty, abortion, unjust warfare, etc.). They have indeed planned the moral collapse of America. They could only do this by corrupting our laws and thus legalizing crime and immorality. They call good evil and evil good. They have to destroy our morals before they can enslave us. Fools mock the importance of morality, but they shall mourn. The judgments of God are staring us in the face and the ax will fall if this continues.

  • Nature Revisited
    June 24, 2008 5:15 p.m.

    I said homosexuality simply gratifies a desire to procreate. It has no natural result other than fullfilling a physical impulse to gratify themselves. Thus those born with the inclination to homosexuality are an aboration if they act on the impulse and do not procreate. I did not say homosexuality does not exist in nature.

  • Re:Re:Nature
    June 24, 2008 5:12 p.m.

    Animals are not capable of reason within the context of consciousness. They reason on the natural instinct to survive and procreate. I (a sentient animal) decide how to improve my lifestyle, interact with nature, attempt to control my desitination all out of a concious effort.

    Your meaning of sentient is out of context.

  • kathyn
    June 24, 2008 5:10 p.m.

    You know what? This is an issue that is a matter of faith for LDS. Others will disagree with the Prophet, but it's really not appropriate for us to have such contention in our hearts. We can be compassionate and Christ-like and not condemn anyone, without changing our personal standards. This is such a sensitive subject and I'm glad I'm not the one who will have to judge. All of the mud-slinging and unkind rhetoric help none of us.

  • Re:Re:Re:WOW
    June 24, 2008 5:09 p.m.

    You missed the point.

    Whoever he was or whatever his religion has nothing to do with the LDS faith, and if he is a member and is guilty he will likely be excomminicated.

    Second. Small population or large population it does not matter. It still goes against the laws of nature (particularly to continue the species - procreation). Homosexuality can not reproduce.

    Osama Bin Laden is a Muslim. Therefore, with your fallacious logic one could conclude that all Muslims kill people living in towers in New York. I am stating to you unequivocally your logic is fallacious. I can no more accept that because a Mormon was involved with the murder of a young the Mormon church condones it, any more than I can accept that because OBL ordered attacks on New York, the Muslim faith condones murder.

  • lakers
    June 24, 2008 5:05 p.m.

    I wish that gay people could be open minded and stop trying to discriminate against straight people. They are all perverse in there logic in the first place but still should have compasion and love towards people that do not agree with their life style.

  • Anonymous
    June 24, 2008 5:07 p.m.

    wow, if this is "religion" and you people are a product of it, i want no part of it. and by the way, whoever said all of the hate is coming from the pro-equal rights side, you need to go back and read the last 6 pages of comments again.

  • Adrienne
    June 24, 2008 5:04 p.m.

    One thing about California is that if someone leaves a child in a carseat on a hot day, they are charged with child endangerment at the very least. I believe that people are born gay, but the majority of us are heterosexual, so the human race is in no danger of dying out. In fact, a recent study showed that the more sons a mother has, the greater chance there is that the youngest boys will be gay. I know that's the case in my extended family as I have at least one uncle who is gay.

  • re re nature
    June 24, 2008 5:01 p.m.

    "Animals are not sentient beings"

    animals are in fact capable of feeling and sensation, or do you not know the meaning of the word "sentient"?

    2nd, animals (and humans for that matter) are 'of nature', so if it occurs in the natural world, it IS a manifestation of nature.

  • Re:@BCA
    June 24, 2008 4:59 p.m.

    Having been a member of the LDS Church, all the way through law school, I was constantly ridiculed in the same fashion. My answer has always been, I can always stop smoking, start fornicating, start drinkig, but when can I stop. I have chosen to accept my individuality in the context that my life is eternal. I don't have to follow the herd off the end of the cliff simply because they want to. In matters of personal lifestyles, I can live as I wish, but that does not have to mean my choice is not a sin. I don't blindly follow the Prophet, I accept that he is the Prophet and therefore draw conclusions to that end and either accept it beyond my personal inclination or knowledge or reject.

  • Anonymous