Emily W. Jensen: MormonTimes.com: Bloggernacle Back Bench: A Proposition 8 roundtable discussion

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Arkansas boy
    Oct. 10, 2008 11:52 p.m.


    If homosexuals marriages are permitted, why not plural marriages? Wouldn't it then be their right? Then if plurall marriages are permitted, what about other group marriages? If that's permitted, what's the purpose of marriage?

    This is why I feel that permitting homosexuals marriage breaks down the term marriage.

  • 8ButNoHate
    Aug. 31, 2008 11:45 p.m.

    Proposition 8 will not take away any rights the state has granted to domestic partners. Gays and lesbians have all the rights any married citizen has, and can live whatever lifestyle they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

    Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. Although death and divorce may prevent the ideal, the best situation is for a child to be raised by a married mother and father in the bond of marriage.

    Proposition 8 says to activists courts "you can't contradict the will of the people and impose your liberal views."

    Proposition 8 restores the definition of marriage as it has been defined since the founding of our nation, since the beginning of the world.

    Proposition 8 puts CA back in synch with the rest of the states and Federal law. The majority of Americans and both presidential candidates are against same-sex marriage.

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

    Ryan,

    If we can marginalize bigots, fascists, and sociopaths in our society, then that is a good thing!

    Vote NO on Proposition 8.

  • Ryan
    Aug. 29, 2008 11:09 p.m.

    I have learned of situations where the Boy Scouts of America are not allowed to rent public buildings because they are considered a hate group for excluding homosexuals. That is just one example. There are other repercussions as well, but you get the picture. My point is: What will happen if churches who oppose gay marriage are put in the same category?

    It seems to me that it is a way to marginalize those who oppose a homosexual lifestyle.

  • Dr. StrangeLove
    Aug. 27, 2008 5:51 p.m.

    That is a strange sort of "love" you are showing your gay "brothers and sisters" -- passing a constitutional amendment that guarantees them status as second-class citizens, removes their equal protection under the law, and hedges up their way to the pursuit of their own happiness?

    Saying you "love" gays but hate homosexual behavior as an excuse for taking away their fundamental civil rights and equality is the biggest lie Mormons have told since Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God!

    You can stop saying you love us. We know it isn't true. You only make yourselves fools by doing so.

  • SFC RET DENNIS
    Aug. 27, 2008 12:05 p.m.

    predicition: It is not just the LDS church, the Catholics and evangelical Christian churches that supports Prop 8, I know cause I am part of the coalition to save marriage and all three groups are hard at work to get it passed.

    Lets get another thing straight this is not about hate, we love our gay brothers and sisters, what we are saying is that marriage should be between a man and women as GOD has ordained. Read the bible it tills us so.

    I have a Uncle who is gay and he suports passing Prop 8. He belives that marrage should only be between a man and women.

  • anon
    Aug. 27, 2008 5:44 a.m.

    2008: What, racist? The Church has never been racist.

    2028: What, homophobic? The Church has never been homophobic

  • Products
    Aug. 26, 2008 11:45 p.m.

    We are all products of a mother & father. Those who don't recognize the inherent differences between males & females are confused. Marriage should remain what it's always been. I will vote against any measure that promotes gay marriage. Call me hateful, call me a bigot, call me ignorant, and that says a lot more about you than it does about me. Vote for what you believe in and I'll vote for what I believe in and hopefully neither of us has any ill feelings towards one another.

  • In 20 years
    Aug. 26, 2008 11:30 p.m.

    As soon as "Official Declaration #3" is issued allowing temple marriage for gays, I'll leave the fold.

  • Southern Gentleman
    Aug. 26, 2008 10:24 p.m.

    Now if you lived in Alabama and what those heathens on the west coast are trying to do makes you wonder why any live there and put up with such nonsense, if more of those people lived in the South they get back on track to God's ways. I hope there's enough sensable people left in California to do the right thing and pass the proposition. Repent and be saved. John 3:16.

  • To Gay lover
    Aug. 26, 2008 10:23 p.m.

    "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Of course you should tell his wife. She certainly doesn't deserve a sexually transmitted disease if he is having unprotected sex. Would you want to know if your partner was being unfaithful?

  • To Memo
    Aug. 26, 2008 9:58 p.m.

    I agree with you completely. "It's not rocket science. Protection of marriage is good for EVERYONE." Encouraging MORE people (including gay people) to stay in their loving, committed relationships will be the best thing for society in general. Let's all do what we can to encourage marriage.

  • Gay lover
    Aug. 26, 2008 9:43 p.m.

    We'll this had to turn ugly. I don't hate gays. God doesn't hate gays. The church doesn't hate gays. (Here it goes...) My best friend is gay... (Not LDS). Won't tell his wife, is promiscuous, and I let him know he should not be cheating or putting himself at risk. But I won't abandon him, even while I struggle with my own conscience I am trying to "honor" his confidentiality. I hate what he's doing to her and the kids...I don't hate him. If he was heterosexual and unfaithful I would be equally concerned and not at peace. What's your advice here? If I love him and his wife, do I tell? Point is...my religion doesn't have one effect on my confusion. The church cannot do an about face on sin.

  • Memo
    Aug. 26, 2008 9:10 p.m.

    Our societal structure, like every stable societal structure throughout history, is based upon the traditional family unit. Whenever this traditional family unit has been undermined, and no longer supported by laws and/or social values, that society has collapsed within a few generations. This situation occurs in times of war, famine, or as in the case of the Roman Empire, moral decay. It is the children who suffer, as men and women reproduce, but then fail to maintain a relationship long enough to raise the child to adulthood. Usually this results in poverty and emotional stress for the remaining parent, and this intern leads to increased risk of abuse and/or neglect for the child.
    Abused and/or neglected children are in turn impaired in their ability to form and maintain normal social relationships.

    It's not rocket science. Protection of marriage is good for everyone. It was established by God for a reason.

  • Prediction
    Aug. 26, 2008 8:50 p.m.

    I predict that LDS will continue to hate gay people for about 20 years. Then the Church will have an about face and pretend it never happened.

  • RE Demopublican
    Aug. 26, 2008 7:09 p.m.

    Your Hatred filled rant against religious people is completely off target.

    The religious people just want to be free to practice their religion publically and have the right to decide what their communites will be like.

    It is hate fill liberals like you and commmunist based organizations like the aclu that have sued to force your ways and views on everyone else,

    thus forcing the federal government into the argument.

    Those fighting to define marriage have been fighting state by state passing laws to define marriage, no attempt to appeal to the federal govenment has happened.

    In fact by vote of the people of califonia had already decided for themselves, it was the liberals that have gone to the courts to take that decision away from the good people of the state of CA.

    It was the liberal that allowed the federal government get involved in abortion and not allowing the states to decide for themselves.

    It has been lawsuits and seeking federal funding by liberals/aclu/unions, that've forced federal control into our schools,

    I cannot think of one thing the religious people
    have petitioned to the federal government for unless its for the safe guarding their religious freedoms.


  • Demopublican
    Aug. 26, 2008 4:59 p.m.

    The issue of marriage laws is a State's Rights issue, not a Federal one, not a religious one, not a special interests one... but for each and every State in the nation to determine for their own selves.

    If Utah is straight-based marriage in its laws and California is not, then those who want to same-sex marry, need to go to California and get married there and if they want their marriage to be recognized then they need to stay in California and reap the benefits of that State's stance on the law, and not go back to Utah expecting the same.

    Believe it or not, it's the religious conservative wackos who have created this morass that has taken more and more away from States, while giving the Federal government the permission to meddle. Thank you, but NO THANK YOU for what you neo-con religious zealots have done to ruin the Constitutional check-&-balances and safeguards this nation was predicated upon.

  • Chris D.
    Aug. 26, 2008 3:03 p.m.

    I support Proposition 8 for two reasons: One, because I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's my personal belief based on my religious teachings. I agree that there may be good arguments against it, but we don't have to always have the better argument just to excercise our right to vote.

    Second, I support it because it's a state proposition on marriage, which is a state issue. 'Caulifornia' has the right to choose for itself.

    Additionally, heterosexuals should know that when they don't take their vows seriously, they do a disservice to any moral argument regarding marriage. It's kind of like the US telling Russia to respect Georgia's borders. The problem with taking the moral high road is that everyone can see you when you're on it and when you're not.

  • CA Resident
    Aug. 26, 2008 1:39 p.m.

    James...I'm fine with your situation, although I could argue "logic" all day with examples on both sides. I don't want my children being taught BY LAW that gender just doesnt matter in ANYTHING, as its already basically eliminated in CA (including areas than have severely hurt women). I actually believe children deserve a good mom and dad (even if utopian in thought). I want my clergy to be able to decide if they want to NOT do same-sex marriage or face STATE/FEDERAL controlled consequences. Doctor's should be able to use their own moral guide and not be punished...no different than you not wanting to be punished. To me it's not about preventing relationships...it's when the majority is ruled by minority wants. Remember...this was already voted on and passed with more than 60% in the most liberal state in the USA! Its not the failure of the proposition I fearits all the legal elements that will follow that I believe can negatively affect society and tie up the court system for years. Polygamist will have a field day here, since all the traditional marriage laws (including minimum age) will be challenged. I just dont think everyone has thought this out.

  • KingM
    Aug. 26, 2008 12:48 p.m.

    Texas wrote: "James--You can set up any straw man you want, but until you and your boyfriend can make a baby, there's no reason to get married."

    My sister and her husband were unable to "make" a baby, and recently adopted through LDS Social Services. By this logic, they should never have gotten married. Yet they did. In the temple, even.

    My widowed aunt married a nice older gentleman. Her children were grown and she was past menopause. Yet she, too, got married. Also in the temple.

    There are reasons to get married that don't involve having a baby. While my wife and I certainly had children in mind when we married, the number one reason we got married was because we loved each other. Absent evidence to the contrary, I assume that gay couples have the same motive.

  • CA Resident
    Aug. 26, 2008 12:13 p.m.

    You people need to study CA law. Marriage (by law) is taught starting in Kindergarten, and the curriculum would be re-written and FORCED (that is correct...FORCED) to ignore gender as even a consideration. Fertility doctors refusing to artificially inseminate a female (even for personal reason) will not be able to obtain malpractice insurance. BIG ONE HERE...Churches refusing to marry gays (who would have state CONSTITUTIONAL law protection) will lose their tax exempt status. YOU THINK NO WAY? This will be the first challenge in court, as religions cant refuse CONSTITUTIONAL rights and be tax exempt. Then there is the list of "who knows what will happen" stuff. Rememberin CA, gays already have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT under family laws for health care and social program support. Believe me...it's coming your way. Once the federal government determines it must provide "joint" filings for taxes to same-sex couples (already on the agenda)...it will spin through the country like wildfire. THIS is what "separation between church and state" actually was meant to protect. You bloggers need to study the changes before you post your opinion or you will look ignorant to those of us actually being affected.

  • Texas
    Aug. 26, 2008 11:43 a.m.

    James--

    You can set up any straw man you want, but until you and your boyfriend can make a baby, there's no reason to get married.

  • LA
    Aug. 26, 2008 11:09 a.m.

    Government recognition of same-sex marriage leads to government endorsement of same-sex marriage and hostility to individuals and organizations that disagree with it. This has led to government revoking licenses to religious-based adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples and compelling physicians to inseminate lesbian couples. This has also led government to withhold funding to religious schools that refuse to teach that same-sex marriage is okay. In Denmark, ministers have been prosecuted for hate speach. In Canada, a political commentator is being proscecuted for hate speach.

    Proposition 8 is more about protecting those who disagree with same-sex marriage than denying rights to same-sex couples. Under California's domestic partnership law, same-sex couples enjoy all of the benefits of marriage.

    There are good people on both sides of this issue. And there are gay people who oppose same-sex marriage and support Proposition 8.

  • GB
    Aug. 26, 2008 11:00 a.m.

    KingM said: "Because my great-great-great grandfather had two wives didn't mean that traditional marriages started to dissolve all throughout the country. Similarly, having gay couples marry in California isn't going to force my wife and me to get a divorce."

    Do you really think that's the main argument that opponents of gay marriage rely on--that gay marriage will somehow force heterosexuals to divorce?

    The Newsroom's statement (linked in the article) discusses the Church's reasoning. I'd invite you to read it and provide an intelligent response to it.

  • Trash Calls
    Aug. 26, 2008 10:00 a.m.

    Well, it was a serious discussion until it ended with a quote from Trash Calls.

  • KingM
    Aug. 26, 2008 9:39 a.m.

    Matilda wrote: "If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage."

    I know, it might even lead to polygamy. Horrors.

    Seriously, my ancestors fled the United States in large part to practice a unique definition of marriage. Because my great-great-great grandfather had two wives didn't mean that traditional marriages started to dissolve all throughout the country. Similarly, having gay couples marry in California isn't going to force my wife and me to get a divorce.

  • james
    Aug. 26, 2008 9:35 a.m.

    keeping marrage sacred...lets see, for me and my boyfriend of 23 years to get married would be bad but if a drunk, hetrosexual couple meet in a bar after a one night aquaitance and after a huge booze and drugs binge and decide to get married....thats ok. call this bias what it is homophobia. just like the whole embarassing blacks issue is now swept under the lds rug, one day there will be a lot of sweeping on this issue. get over your homophobia now and save embarassment later!

  • Chino Blanco
    Aug. 26, 2008 3:41 a.m.

    Kudos. An excellent summary of where the Bloggernacle is currently at with this issue.

  • Matilda
    Aug. 26, 2008 1:46 a.m.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.