Ad campaign advocating same-sex marriage in Utah launches Tuesday

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • David Mohr Victoria/BC/Canada, 00
    April 11, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    As has been pointed out by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and by some of the comments here - legalizing something does not make it moral. We have two choices and only two choices, from my point of view - we can follow God's laws or we can be refused the opportunity to enter the Celestial Kingdom. God loves each and every one of us and wants to see us return to live with Him but He has clearly stated that there is only one way to do that. He also realizes that we would could not bear to be in His presence if we do not earn it. To that end go ahead and quote any man that you want - it will not make SSM moral or acceptable. Quote God, with source material, if you want to have me agree that SSM is moral. I love my gay friends as my brothers and sisters but in keeping with God's teachings, I sorrow for the life style they have chosen. Being gay is not a sin but a test God has given them. Acting on those feelings means they are failing the test.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 10, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    @Bob K does the prophet need to look harder for the answer you want to hear? Or should you be willing to follow the prophet on the matter? If you read the words of General Conference and the prophet for a long time you will know what they have said on so called same gender marriage. Don't need to pray about item already revealed. Since the Lord already revealed it and Joseph Smith said the Lord does not give a new revelation when he already revealed his will. Something to that effect.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 10, 2014 1:12 a.m.

    Centerville, UT
    "All gay and lesbian people deserve to have the rights and the privileges that we've had," Marge Bradshaw says.
    The next step in this argument, if the Bradshaws had a temple marriage do they expect the church to capitulate for temple marriages for SSM because they had the privilege.
    They say they don't advocate for forcing the churches but ... "the rights and privileges that we've had." Growing up LDS, children are taught about eternal marriage, and that takes place in the temple. Unless the church capitulates the concept of those espousing to be mormon, eternal marriage and eternal love of SSM couples can not be.

    Thanks for reminding us of the true reason the lds church and many members are "doing the ostrich thing"
    -- they are afraid Gays born into mormon families will press for the same rights as their straight siblings.
    -- they are afraid the love and logic of what the Bradshaws say will be accepted.

    LDS people should be imploring the prophet to look harder to God for an answer.

    --- the revelation about Blacks came an embarrassing 15 years late

    Young members are not going to countenance the inequailty

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    April 9, 2014 7:30 p.m.

    IF you believe SSM is immoral, don't enter into one. Nobody will make you.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 9, 2014 7:12 p.m.

    @Equalprotection and others you are looking for a church that agrees with you. The Book of Mormon talks about people that will donate to someone that tells them what they want to hear. Samuel the Lamanite. Why not find the mind and will of God and agree with him?

    To the person at BYUIDAHO are you willing to follow the prophet or not? We have been repeatedly told to support legislation that defines marriage between a man and a women. As for polygamy if you believe in revelation no hyporcrisy there. Most Lds men did not want to have more than one wife and glad we don't practice it. Several patriarchs practiced polygamy and the Lord commanded it or had no problem with it at certain times. Our time as restitution of all things. But same gender marriage never has and never will be allowed. To those that claim church leaders were wrong Do they ever admit to being wrong themselves? If you read the words of the Prophet you know the will of the Lord on the matter. Why not suit your views with his.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 9, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    OK, You don’t like the “gay lifestyle”.
    What part do you disapprove of? :

    Getting up
    Going to Work
    Having lunch
    Reading the Sports section
    Goiong back to work and then leaving for the day
    Going to the grocery store
    Fixing dinner
    Helping kids with homework
    Paying bill
    Doing laundry
    Watching a movie

    Somedays even
    Go to the little league ballgames
    Helping a neighbor
    Go to Church

    Repeat for 40-60 years

    Get sick, Grow old, and die.

    If you are talking about s-e-x,
    Then you are talking about s-e-x and not lifestyle.

    If anyone [male/female, gay/straight] gets married just for s-e-x
    Then you got married for all the wrong reasons.
    See my list above…

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice. Since 1888, the Supreme Court has consistently held that marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right of every citizen. The last case being two women (Windsor).

    Because marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, marriage discrimination by race or sexual orientation is a prohibited action for Congress, state legislatures, and public referendums.

    While there are those who have opinions that oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, those opinions have NO rational or scientific or legal basis. While the expression of those opinions is protected by the 1st Amendment, such opinions have no validity and no weight and deserve no consideration.

    Specifically, the Supreme Court has never excluded same-sex marriage. Instead, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the universal nature of this fundamental right. There is no constitutional, no rational, no objective basis for any person, because of their sexual orientation, to be rejected, excluded, stigmatized, discriminated against, or in any way have their constitutional rights denied or restricted.

  • rusty68 Cathedral City, CA
    April 8, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    The Torah, the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and proclamations of popes, prophets, presidents, bishops, overseers, etc. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECULAR LAWS OF OUR SECULAR REPUBLIC.

    See the First Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution for details (and also the 14th).

    The subject under discussion is CIVIL MARRIAGE.

    I'm not aware of ANY GLBTQAI person wanting to be married in any ANTI-gay synagogue, church, mosque, temple, etc.

    There is a long list of bonafide religious organizations who include marriage equality in THEIR doctrines, canon laws, constitutions, etc.

    OUR First Amendment rights (I'm an Episcopalian) are being trampled by the State meddling in OUR doctrines.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:49 p.m.

    greatbam22 says;

    "Just because some states have redefined marriage in a certain way doesn't mean all states have to redefine it in those ways as well."

    Are you married when you cross state lines? Why shouldn't the LGBT couple married in MA or CA be married when they cross state lines? There's also the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.


    When you wrote that Civil Unions wouldn't be recognized, right along with marriage into Amendment 3, you basically wrote it's death warrant as Unconstitutional. Now that you're losing, you're willing to concede Civil Unions? Not on your life; why should we settle for less?


    Please provide your sources for your claim that most LGBT marriages are in their first relationship. Those I'm aware of have dated similar numbers to straights.

    Has it ever occurred to you that the earlier deaths and mental disorders you claim about LGBT couples could be due to the discrimination we've faced since, forever?

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 8, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    Idaho Falls, ID
    "Sadly on the other hand the statistics are just the opposite for gay intimate relationships and gay marriage."

    --- You mean the phony statistics trumped up enemies of equality.
    There are plenty of surveys, articles, etc, showing the real situation.

    All anyone has to do is look around online and on TV to see that today's atmosphere of acceptance (other than in Utah and some other States) causes Gay people to become more everyday and ordinary in their behavior.

    Yes, when people were living in the shadows in fear of job loss, imprisonment, beating, and being tossed out of their families and churches, they were more likely to act like someone outside society.

    We are living in 2014, and we all ought to recognize that.

  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    @ El Chango

    " And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man." D&C 49:15

    Satisfied? To me, it is disturbing and immoral that you would go out of your way to deny other Americans their RIGHT to marry.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 8, 2014 7:24 p.m.

    jsf wrote, "The next step in this argument, if the Bradshaws had a temple marriage do they expect the church to capitulate for temple marriages for SSM because they had the privilege".

    Well, "capitulate" wasn't the word I had in mind. Did the Church "capitulate" in 1978 when the President said that God had told him that the priesthood was open to blacks? Did they "capitulate" when they quietly dropped the claim that homosexuality was a choice? Of course, I have never heard an LDS president ever say "We were wrong" about the disenfranchisement of blacks prior to 1978.

    April 8, 2014 6:45 p.m.

    "A marriage is bond between two people based in love and commitment," William Bradshaw says.

    This may be the secular view of marriage, but the religious view of this bond brings God into the union and places the spouse above oneself. Certainly not what most couples marrying civilly would ever agree to...

    Civil unions would be a fine alternative for LGBT couples. This would also protect the sanctity of religious marriage and protect religious freedoms. The answer is smacking us right in the face and we ignore it....

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 8, 2014 6:38 p.m.

    Dear Editors: Can we have a moratorium on letters which liken SSM to father-daughter marriage or marrying your cocker spaniel? These letters certainly fit the definition of specious and disruptive. And referring to loving, committed SS relationships as "immoral" (or worse) seems to qualify as name-calling.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 8, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    @O'really: same gender couples can obtain all those rights without marriage. Gay couples just don't want to go through the work of getting attorneys and such.

    Not really. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were US citizens married in Toronto. When Spyer died, Windsor owed $363,053 in estate taxes because US law didn't recognize their marriage. No amount of paperwork could fix that. She had resources to take it to SCOTUS and prevailed.

    Marriage has 1,400 legal benefits, from hospital visitation to inheritance to annual taxes. No amount of paperwork can fix or equalize most of those benefits.

    @O'really: "Sadly on the other hand the statistics are just the opposite for gay intimate relationships and gay marriage."

    Not Really. Anyone who is promiscuous runs a risk of disease. My husband and I are monogamous, as are many of the Gay and Lesbian couples we know. We have exactly the same risk of disease as any other monogamous couple.

    In the past society has said Gay relationships are second-class. As marriage rights become real, more and more Gays are rethinking relationships and finding value.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    April 8, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    I think what has often been missing in all the talk about Gay Marriage is how this debate impacts real lives. I have relatives, friends, and students who are members of the LGBT community. You view things much differently when you put a human face on this issue. I also have friends who are LDS. They are a notoriously kind and giving people. I believe that once the political debate dies down there will be reconciliation between the two sides. I honestly do!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 8, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    Vanceone says:

    "I think we need to apply some truth in advertising laws here. If you want to promote Same Sex Marriage, you should promote the health risks, the immoral behavior, the psychological trauma;"

    The SAME thing applies to heterosexual marriage.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    April 8, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    Logan, UT
    "As a Mormon, there is nothing more immoral than preventing people from marrying and expressing love."

    Would you mind sharing the specific scripture or General Conference talk which backs up your claim?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 8, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    I am always amazed that Samuel the Liberalite, who takes his screen name from Samuel the Lamanite of the Book of Mormon, has such a different message. S the L says we must not call the wicked sinful but accept them for who they are it is not our duty to cry repentance. That those that do, he laughs at as hypocrites.

    Samuel the Lamanite "came into the land of Zarahemla, and began to preach unto the people. And it came to pass that he did preach, many days, repentance unto the people..."

    Is he one throwing rocks and shooting arrows at the prophets because they decry the sins.

    And what was that karma Samuel the Lamanite promised those he preached to?

  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    All my love and light sent your way! I hope Utah's ban is thrown out and people can marry like everyone should. As a Mormon, there is nothing more immoral than preventing people from marrying and expressing love. I'll be watching this closely as I finish finals up here at BYU-I.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    Gay marriage advocates claim they will have zero impact on society, they will have zero affect on religious practices etc.

    If that is the case, then they shouldn't have an issue with laws being passed to ensure that peoples religious beliefs aren't violated. How can someone be forced to bake a cake for something they believe is wrong? What if someone wants a cake to celebrate their abortion and the baker refuses to make the cake. Should the baker be sued and boycotted because he/she doesn't feel killing babies is a good thing?

    I understand the argument that gay people want the same rights as non-gay people. But, what about single people? They're taxed higher. So why discriminate against singles?

    The fact of the matter is the institution of marriage is a religious institution, that the government has used to collect more tax dollars. Most religions teach that acting on homosexual feelings is a sin. As with other moral issues.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    Vanceone said: As for the Episcopalian point of view--Where is their revelation allowing them to change Gods law? I would be mighty curious to see it.

    ...and there you have the epitome of religion, to question all but their own, with authority and arrogance.

    Not everybody see's this as black and white.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    I have to laugh at the hypocrites.

    You know --

    Keep the Government out of my life,
    Stop "Forcing" us what to do,
    No Muslims and their Scripture based Sharia Laws,
    Protect our Constitutional rights of Freedom of Expression...

    Yah-da- Yah-da, Yah-da...

    It's called KARMA - Jesus taught it;

    What goes around, comes around.
    Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
    Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

    If you want those rights, and keep those rights,
    You must protect and given them to others as well.

    If you take them for others,
    You will loose them yourselves.


  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    April 8, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    @ Wilf Classic twisting of truth! Your explanation of Mormon sexual ethics is rather bizarre. The "courage" spoken of in General Conference was not courage to encourage our sons and daughters to break the commandments. It was the courage to stand strong in the face of those who would demean and belittle the Laws of God. The Bradshaws need not even mention their religion because what they are encouraging has no place in the one they profess to belong to. It's a farce and the committee knows it.

    Secondly, same gender couples can obtain all those rights without marriage. Gay couples just don't want to go through the work of getting attorneys and such. But strangely, roommates or dear friends who don't ever want to have sex or call themselves "married" can obtain those same rights. But apparently they have to be "married" to get them as easily as gays now. It just makes no sense.

    @ Ranch- There is a difference between questioning the prophet and making a mockery of the doctrine by publically defying it.

    @ Ranch Wh

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    @ Hey Its me, "Why do we need to change the definition?"

    How so?

    Did the definition of marriage change to something less than it was, when convicted spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers were allowed to marry?

    How so?

    Did the definition of marriage change when interracial couples were allowed to marry?

    How so?

    Did the definition of marriage change when non procreative couples were allowed to marry?

    How so?

    To my knowledge there are no abuse or felony marriage licenses, nor are there interracial marriage licenses, nor are there non-procreative marriages. There is only one certificate of marriage which means the same for everyone.

    Did the traditional institution and definition of voting change when women were granted the right to vote? It was a gendered institution, and became genderless, but for most folks, like marriage, voting remains the same as it always has. Allowing folks to participate or Including them seems to strengthen the traditional institutions of voting and marriage.

    So again I ask, How so? How is marriage redefined?

    Please explain.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    @Shadow01 "You may ask why LDS are so vehemently against same sex marriage, it is because we know it is wrong and to endorse it is to endorse behavior that is against God's Law."

    What you're describing is indeed one religious view, but there are many others that honor, perform, encourage and support same-sex couples, their children and marriages.

    My question for you is: Which religious view, yours or the ones below do we codify into our nations civil marriage law?

    Affirming Pentecostal Church International
    Alliance of Christian Churches
    Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
    The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    Community of Christ
    Conservative Judaism
    Ecumenical Catholic Church
    Ecumenical Catholic Communion
    The Episcopal Church
    Evangelical Anglican Church In America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
    Inclusive Orthodox Church
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Old Catholic Church
    Progressive Christian Alliance
    Reconciling Pentecostals International
    Reconstructionist Judaism
    Reform Judaism
    Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
    Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
    Unitarian Universalist Church
    United Church of Christ
    Unity Church

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 8, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    Vanceone writes "If you choose to disobey him, how, exactly, can you sustain him as a prophet? "

    But, we hear time and again how many times the prophet was merely speaking as a fallible man. So, do your words apply to everything the prophet says, or just when he is "speaking for god?"

    And the bigger question. How do you know the difference between the two?

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    "Pairage" instead of marriage. Why do we have to change the definition of a word to suit everyone? Why can't marriage be between a man and a woman and "Pairage" between two people who love and are committed to each other. I don't have a problem with them being united just don't change the definition of what I did. New words and definitions are always being introduced to society, like twitter, e-mail, facebook etc.. So lets have "Pairage" uniting two people who are of age that love each other. Problem solved. Everyone has the same rights!

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    To Wilf 55

    You can't be serious? The courage we heard about in general conference was the courage to stand up for our belief that marriage is between a man and a woman!. It was about the courage to have compassion and love for our gay children and friends and not to "disown" them but to also help them understand that same-sex marriage is contrary to nature and to God's law and that their eternal happiness cannot be achieved by violating God's laws.

    It is sad that the Bradshaws cannot differentiate between their love for their children and the difference between right and wrong. They can love their children but they should never condone a concept that has been shown to be a failure in many many ways. Same-sex marriage is a dishonest impostor for the real thing.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    What some of my fellow Mormons in previous comments fail to understand is that same-sex marriage is not about sex. If two persons want to have sex they do not need marriage to do it. Same-sex marriage is about equal rights, hospital visits, joint tax returns, estate issues, and all the other rights that married people who love each other can have.

    And if someone still wants to see "sex" in the equation, according to Mormon sexual ethics, it is preferable for two people to marry rather than having sex outside the bonds of marriage.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    I think we need to apply some truth in advertising laws here. If you want to promote Same Sex Marriage, you should promote the health risks, the immoral behavior, the psychological trauma; and in Utah the sure certainty that if you are Mormon or Christian you are disobeying God.

    Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

    I did like the comment above about how you can be a good Mormon and not obey the prophet.... heh. In actuality, no you cannot be a good Mormon if you don't follow the prophet. That's kind of the point--you know, man who speaks for God on the earth right now. If you choose to disobey him, how, exactly, can you sustain him as a prophet?

    As for the Episcopalian point of view--Where is their revelation allowing them to change Gods law? I would be mighty curious to see it.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    April 8, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    The nation’s first black attorney general, Mr. Holder has said he views today’s gay-rights campaigns as a continuation of the civil rights movement that won rights for black Americans in the 1950s and ’60s. He has called gay rights one of “the defining civil rights challenges of our time.”

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 8, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    So if an LDS couple has a kid that likes to drink and smoke should they get the church to change the Word of Wisdom? Tolerance means helping someone repent not condoning the sin which the Lord cannot look upon with the least degree of allowance.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:21 a.m.

    Advertise, or more correctly, propagandize all you like. It still will not make gay marriage moral or right, only accepted and legal.

    Look at the tidal wave of prominent gay people in "entertainment" ranging from sitcoms to "house hunting" TV shows. They are indeed an activist community, well organized. But still wrong.

  • Capsaicin Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    I support the right for any two people to marry. But I also support the right for people to refuse business based on "religious" grounds.

    Anti-discriminatory laws are a oxymoron. They are contradictory. Because one group is going to feel discriminated against. NO MATTER WHAT.

    Coexisting should mean tolerance. Even for gay marriage.

    However, a photographer refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding should be completely within their right. It may be discriminatory but its their right, just like its the right for people to choose whom they want to marry.

    Coexisting shouldn't be about being forced to observe someones lifestyle, just like I don't force someone to except mine.

    If you want to sacrifice twinkies to your twinkie god while humming the "moving on up" tune from the jeffersons, go ahead. If that's your thing, that's fine. Just don't force me to provide you twinkies just because you don't want to be discriminated against.

  • shadow01 Edwardsville, IL
    April 8, 2014 7:14 a.m.

    Personally I believe and agree with what was said in conference over the weekend. We should be compassionate and understanding of all people; however, when Christ forgave transgressions, he did not remove the law from the books, he said "Go and sin no more."
    Let me think, where are those passages where Christ said “It is now OK to steal, commit adultery and have homosexual relationships.” I must have misplaced them. Perhaps you can find them for me.
    You may ask why LDS are so vehemently against same sex marriage, it is because we know it is wrong and to endorse it is to endorse behavior that is against God's Law. Oh, I am sure that given the current spiritual state of the nation, within a very short period of time SSM will be the law, but it will not receive any help from the Latter Day Saints and certainly not from me.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 8, 2014 6:29 a.m.


    What ever happened to freedom in the Church? Today, if you don't agree with everything the "prophet" has to say, you can't be a good member? Wrong.

    @Laura Ann;

    Would it really hurt you that much to see how other people feel about the issue based on REAL LIFE?

    @David Mohr;

    Marriage creates a familial bond that previously didn't exist.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 8, 2014 5:40 a.m.

    We hear over and over from the LDS that "marriage is between one man and one woman" and that it is Gods way and it has always been that way. We hear about how traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years.

    Do you seriously not see the hypocrisy in that coming from Mormons in Utah?

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 8, 2014 2:12 a.m.

    Good fences make good neighbors. They are a visible line so people can see. A trespasser is who crosses the line. We all have out boundary, limits, lines and fences. we'll come to our senses and see the fences and respect peoples property, Weather it's physical, mental or spiritual.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 8, 2014 12:42 a.m.

    "One of the ads features William and Marge Bradshaw, who say they met while serving missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the parents of five children, including a gay son, and 18 grandchildren."

    --- Many times I have written in DN comments, "large mormon families produce many thousand Gay kids each year" No one ever responds with any way to handle that. I feel that there are a lot of ostriches around here.

    50 years ago, "live 2nd class, leave, or lie about it" was an accepted way in America. Now, it seems completely ridiculous.

    I think the Utah ads are to promote acceptance by showing the "normalcy" of Gay people and their love.

    I also think (and this probably means I will not see the comment approved) that the way the lds church is set up makes it very hard for fast-moving social progress to be accepted and incorporated. The Civil Rights era was mostly 1954-68, but the Blacks as priests revelation took ten more years.

    Respectfully, I think God's though evolves faster than any leader of any church.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 7, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    "As Christians, we cannot be silent as our state’s highest laws discriminate against segments of our society based on the personal biases of those in power, particularly when a majority of Michigan’s population now supports marriage equality. To remain silent is to be complicit in the decline of our society through demonizing unprotected minorities, segregation based on sexual orientation, denial of benefits to selected groups, and fear-based prejudice. Our continued silence can lead only to further discrimination, bullying and other forms of physical, emotional and spiritual violence.

    Love and grace ought to be welcomed in abundance and without qualification or restriction. We need to remove discriminatory policies and support granting of benefits and privileges afforded other members of society.

    We need to create a Beloved Community in which all persons are equal, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sex, class, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. And we need the full opportunity to recognize faithful and covenantal relationships between any two people seeking our blessing, both within the church and within our civil society.

    We look forward to the day when all people receive equal treatment from one another and under the law."

    May justice prevail.
    Michigan Episcopal Diocese

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:57 p.m.

    @David Mohr "mother and sister marriage"

    Sexual orientation has been determined to be fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood. A requirement to change someones (heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual) sexual orientation in order to civil marry is not only unreasonable, but un-constitutional. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is no right at all.

    Current civil marriage law has a presumption of intimacy, a type of relationship that is fundamentally different than the one you have with your sister and mother, where a legal family relationship already exists. Same-sex couples through civil marriage establish the same family relationship with the presumption of intimacy as opposite-sex couples.

    What Jesus would say: "LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less." 2014 Episcopal message

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    Re: O'really " They [the Bradshaws] don't represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints beliefs or doctrine in the least." I don't think they claim to. They are simply telling us what they've learned through having a homosexual son, and that they support him. There is nothing quite like direct experience to develop perspective.

  • David Mohr Victoria/BC/Canada, 00
    April 7, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    "A marriage is bond between two people based in love and commitment"? So does this mean if my mother and I wish to marry it should be allowed....or me and my sister? At point do we return to our Christian roots and follow the teachings of the Lord? It is sad that the more we claim to follow Christ, the farther away from his teachings we get. He taught us not to judge others but at no time did he accept the average man telling him what was right or wrong. We are to accept what the Father taught and there is no place in the Bible where Same Sex Marriage is taught. Yes Gays and Lesbians deserve the same rights and privileges we have. And they ARE allowed to marry already - they just don't like the form that marriage takes - a man to a woman. Not liking something does not make it wrong - just as liking something does not make it right. When God lets us know that SSM is acceptable, then I will agree to it.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:16 p.m.

    Not certain what audience this campaign is intended to sell. The advocates and the opposition seem not very susceptive to this kind of persuasion. Minds are already made up. What difference does a TV ad make to the appeals process already in progress? Perhaps it demonstrates more money than sense.

    LDS members had their traditional marriage ideals reinforced again during the General Conference. If this ad campaign is targeted at Mormons, I'd say it will be a hard sell.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:01 p.m.

    Thank goodness I have a remote. They have a right to air their opinions, but I won't be watching.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    April 7, 2014 9:46 p.m.

    Just because the Bradshaws are (were?) LDS doesn't mean it's acceptable with church members or with the Lord. That was clearly spelled out this last weekend in General Conference. The Bradshaws are being deceptive to even mention their religious affiliation, whether it's current or not. They don't represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints beliefs or doctrine in the least.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 7, 2014 9:37 p.m.

    I commend brother and sister Bradshaw for their courage -- the very courage we heard about in conference last weekend. They do it in a worthy, loving manner with the right spirit. As Mormons we cannot force our standards upon others, hurt the relation of a loving coutple, and deny them their rights.

    Many advanced countries approved same-sex marriage years ago. Their situation shows that there is no threat to traditional marriage or to religious freedom.

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    April 7, 2014 9:21 p.m.

    That didn't take long at all...