Quantcast
Utah

Institute goes to bat for marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • False claims
    Feb. 6, 2009 6:45 a.m.

    Paul Mero shows his complete lack of integrity when he makes statements like Responsible citizens have a choice to make. Either we will discern law and policy using reason and truth or we will decide our future based on emotion and irrationality." The truth seems to be very relative to Mero and based solely on his own prejudices since the scientific evidence suggest that there is no reason to outlaw gay marriage or families. Every major scientific field that deals with human behavior and society have come to the same overwhelming conclusion that there is no harm to children or society. The American Psychological society, the American Pediatric society and the nation Association of Social Work have all drawn this same conclusion based on the research. Mero can rap himself in what ever false doctrine he wants to try to keep himself warm but the evidence just does not support his claims.

  • uncannygunman
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:07 a.m.

    Sad. In every sense of the word.

  • Svoboda
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:32 a.m.

    I happy that the Sutherland Institute is using their resources to defend marriage as between a man and a woman.

  • accendo
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:39 a.m.

    I think it would be nice if these organizations spend time, money, and effort dealing with real problems instead of trying to use the laws of the land to enforce their personal beliefs. To do so crosses a fundamental line in this country, a country that has far greater problems right now.

  • Anita
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:44 a.m.

    It's great that more people are beginning to speak out against the plans of sexual deviants.

  • Kevin
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:44 a.m.

    The Sutherland Institute is immoral.

  • Bev B
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:50 a.m.

    I agree with everything in this article. I loved the quote about "Defending marriage is an act of love for our children and children's children."

  • Albemar
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:56 a.m.

    Where is the love? This just sounds like fear and intolerance. Our world has a long history of using fear to whip up the troops and attack people who are different.

    The anti-gay groups in California, here and in so many places continue to use false claims and bold face lies to pit one human being against another. Who would want anything to do with these faiths? The light they shine on a hill is dark and lacks any appeal.

    Having just returned from out of state, it was such a nice break to get away from this daily animosity between citizens.

    Utahns will never be able to come together. They can't even agree that workers shouldn't loose their jobs or be kicked out of their homes for being gay. If Utah is that intolerant on the most basic of human rights, how can we ever find any common ground on any issues?

  • Instereo
    Feb. 6, 2009 8:45 a.m.

    Interesting that Conservatives who preach that they believe in "Live and Let Live" principles, who don't want government to interfer in individuals lives are so intent on defining what people should do in their bedrooms. They claim that liberty will be lost if gays have equal rights. I'm amazed at how fear works to get people involved in taking away freedom and rights.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 6, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    If marriage is redefined, everyone will be required to accept it. Churches will no longer be allowed to say it is against God's laws; individuals will not be allowed to refer to some other profesessional those who's life styles aren't in keeping with their moral values, as happened when the photographer who didn't want to photograph the wedding of a lesbian couple. He was sued, as was a doctor who didn't want to perform invitro for a lesbian couple. Forced acceptance is what is wanted, not just marriage!

  • anonymous #1
    Feb. 6, 2009 8:58 a.m.

    People want to pick at the gays for destroying traditional marriage, folks I hate to break it to you, but it is the participants of traditional marriage that are breaking it, causing it to continue its downward slop. Why are divorce rates so high? Why are you not support marriage councelors to ensure your traditional marriages stay in-tact? Because you don't care. The downfall of traditional marriage is not those who are unable to have it, it's those who can have it and are destroying it. Heterosexual couples world-wide are ceasing to be married. Millions live in civil unions, why are you not protesting them? THEY can get married, help THEM SAVE your traditional marriage, if you want to save your families and your traditional marriage, look no further than your own home. Stop the hate. Save your own life, because gays aren't the reason your marriage is falling apart, its completely and utterly your own. I see no one fighting to help any married couple stay together, "just get a divorce son, plenty of fish in the sea" you think thats helpful to families? Abandoning your partner is not the answer.

  • Peggy McConkie
    Feb. 6, 2009 9:11 a.m.

    Good for you. My family and I are so grateful for others who stand up for marriage as God intended it to be. There are so many who feel as we do, but the few for same sex marriage are making their voices heard, and we as "traditionalists" must stand and be counted and must fight as hard to have our voices heard as the gays do theirs.

  • Chris
    Feb. 6, 2009 9:12 a.m.

    Gays and anti-mormons are funny because they love living in heavenly Utah, with its low crime, friendly folks, #1 healthy ranking, etc -which BTW is due 100% to the moral code of the predominant religion, and yet they bash and bash against it. If we LDS people are so intolerant and mean, please move somewhere else. Oh you don't want to? Then shoosh your pie-holes.

  • From California
    Feb. 6, 2009 9:26 a.m.

    I find it very sad that the world's moral character has come to this. We fought hard and won in California, and this sickness called same sex marriage continues it's onslaught of our nation. Why is it percieved to be intolerant when one stands for moral goodness? Why does it have to be "in your face"? We fight for moral goodness, and protect marriage for a reason, that reason is basic to the building of society. All other forms muddy the water and dilute those things that are precious and sacred. Same sex marriage is in the same category as pedophilia, abuse, sex addiction, and infedility. It's clear. So, fight on we must, and fight on we will. It is going to take all we can muster to keep the fanatics at bay.

  • Bill
    Feb. 6, 2009 9:47 a.m.

    If you don't like what is happening in Utah please just leave the state and stop complaining. Marriage is and will always be between a man and a woman. You stand for what you believe in and we do the same. So, don't try to tell us we are intolerant when you are just as intolerant of the predominant religion in the area. Please, just move to Massachusetts or something.

  • umm...
    Feb. 6, 2009 9:47 a.m.

    I'll never understand a church that went through so much, who was discriminated for years, tortured, killed, and completely ridiculed for their choice of religion and beliefs and lifestyle could ever throw that back onto any other race, person, religion, entity.

    You guys are so much better than this, it is such a let down to see such hate go on. Whether you believe don't believe in the LDS Church, want or don't want rights for gays, the truth is, we are here, we are all on this planet. The anger and pain on this subject on all sides is so sad.

    When it comes to it, marriage and family isn't defined by the government, it isn't valid by a piece of a paper, its what you make it and create it. If you love someone, no matter who they are, that love is real, and it exists, and you can't take that away. If you love a religion and believe in it, no one can take that from you as well.

    Maybe we should all drop the labels, and just see each other as humans.

  • Svoboda
    Feb. 6, 2009 9:50 a.m.

    The sun rises in the East.
    The sky is blue.
    Good is good and evil is evil.

    Why does the GLTB community think that those who espouse something virtous, but at odds with their stand - then that is wrong, hateful, mean spirited? When it isn't.

    Remember, the sky is blue, and no matter what someone says, it isn't changing.

  • Atheist Goddess
    Feb. 6, 2009 9:59 a.m.

    Brainwashed hate mongers. But, thank you for existing, you definately make me and my family better people... at least compared to you.

  • Wayneo
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:05 a.m.

    Years ago I had two of my brother-in-laws young boys living in my home...about age 7. One always played with my daughters toys and liked to do his hair. Today he is an active gay. In my opinion he has always been gay. I am active in the music world with gay folks. Have no problem with them. My concern is deception in the 'active' gay community. They say they only want equality...they're not equal. A man is not a woman and the relationship is not the same. Twenty years ago a full page news article about gays said "we only want equality, we don't want your kids." Apparently that view has changed. I believe they actively recruit by the things they do in the schools. This is a power struggle. They are a minority and they want power. An erratic bunch of people who don't mind using any means to get their goals accomplished including lying. Jane can't have two mommies...that's a lie. Only one mommy. Man marrying a woman is equal to man marrying man... another lie...not equal. Math doesn't make sense.

  • Victor
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    "When it comes to it, marriage and family isn't defined by the government, it isn't valid by a piece of a paper, its what you make it and create it."

    Actually this is quite interesting, because Mormons were once persecuted when they tried to redefine themselves "marriage" and "family" when they were trying to live their obscene idea of Zion: a communist polygamist utopia. Thank God the government intervened and regulated the REAL THREAT TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILY: POLYGAMY. Since it was a manipulative scheme that destroyed many happy marriages (including that of Joseph Smith Jr). Whereas in reality, same sex marriages don't have any effect on people who choose traditional marriage anyway.

    The fact that now they redefine themselves as "protectors of traditional marriage" is ridiculous and hypocritical. But I agree they have the right to express their vile views.

    They have always been an unchristian and hateful people (racist priesthood ban, etc). And since their major curse is the belief that they are always right, their progress is pretty much damned.

  • @svoboda
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    and your observable evidence that any of your beliefs are true is? We should follow your unsubstantial beliefs why? Thanks but I will stick with the facts based in the observable world and those fact just dont support your vitriol.

  • unicorns and green grass
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:13 a.m.

    "Svoboda," your equating your beliefs about right and wrong based on no evidence to an observable fact like the sky being blue, why? I could just as easily claim that unicorns are real just like the grass is green it does not mean anything other then of course that I seem to think erroneous comparisons make for good arguments, is that what you think?

  • Albemarle
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:16 a.m.

    The question of same-sex marriage isn't about whether homosexuals should marry. It is about whether Christians, Muslims, and Jews should give up their freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and parental rights so that homosexuals can marry.

    Our laws come from our "world view." Both world views (God's vs. liberal humanist secular progressives') can't inform our laws, as they are directly opposed to each other.

    Hence, the "culture war," which is likely to escalate into a civil war.

  • Bill F.
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:18 a.m.

    "If you love a religion and believe in it, no one can take that from you as well." Actually they can and will. If not in this life most certainly in the next. This moral relativism that you push is the scourge of our day and you would like it enforced by the courts

  • yeah.
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:19 a.m.

    just so everyone is clear there are THOUSANDS of different opinions WITHIN the predominant church here, and utah is growing faster than most states, what will you do when you can't throw words around like, "our predominant church lets us be the hate-filled people we are".

  • Robert Oh
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:22 a.m.

    Protecting Families & Children

    What we really need is a law prohibiting children and teenagers from being alone in closed room with a middle-aged man asking them about their sexual thoughts and behavior.

    What are parents thinking?

  • Interesting use of the word hate
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:43 a.m.

    Hate, as defined by the dictionary is to "dislike intensely or passionately" and although there are other similar definitions, I can see absolutely no place where it says that denial of a "right" is hatred. I don't hate you because you choose homosexuality. I don't believe that your choice of sexuality gives you certain rights.

    That isn't hatred. You, like I, have a choice. Make it. The hatred that is spewing seems more to be coming from that side than going to that side of the argument.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 6, 2009 10:49 a.m.

    To the 10:07 poster who wrote:
    "I will stick with the facts based in the observable world"

    If that is your standard consider this. Darwin proposed evolution as nature's way of improving the species. Those who do not engage in natural procreation between male and female, base on Darwinism, would be nature's attempt to weed out a undesirable trait in that particular species.

    That is part of the observable world based on a notable scientist, whose theories are accepted exceptionally well.

    I think we can all draw the conclusion from Darwinism that a homosexual life style is not approved by nature. Thus the description "unnatural".

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:06 a.m.

    "Good for you. My family and I are so grateful for others who stand up for marriage as God intended it to be..."

    Isn't that what the traditional Christians said when Congress outlawed polygamy? We sure screamed and hollered about discrimination then, but now it is us LDS who are now the persecutors rather than being the persecuted.

    D&C 134:4 says that believers are in compliance with God.."unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.."

    Liken this quote unto Civil Same-Sex Marriage -

    "Although the boundaries of individual moral rights are complex and controversial, as we have seen, vague notions of public interest cannot be relied upon in a utilitarian sense to extinguish individual rights.. While the majority of the community may find polygamous marriage relationships repugnant, repugnancy unassociated with entitlement claims cannot invalidate the rights of believers to practice polygamy.." (Mormonism, Philosophical Liberalism, and the Constitution by R. Collin Mangrum, BYU Studies, vol. 27 (1987), Number 3 - Summer 1987 131.)

    Why are we being hypocritical and violating our own doctrine?

  • @10:49 AM
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    Really you want to try this same tired and false argument all over again? how many times do you have to be told the same thing? People try this same argument on every thread about homosexuality. I will say this once homosexuality is a normal part of nature observed throughout nature not just humans. If homosexuality was part of the evolutionary process to eradicate an unwanted trait it would have done so millions of years ago. Please actually study science before trying to use it to support lame comments. Please also understand when I ignore your next post it is simply because I refuse to engage in this lame discussion yet again.

  • Kevin
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    @Svoboda | 9:50 a.m. Feb. 6, 2009

    "Why does the GLTB community think that those who espouse something virtous, but at odds with their stand - then that is wrong, hateful, mean spirited?"

    I'll try to answer that question.

    I'm seeing someone new. He has a 6 year old boy, who he adopted a few years ago because, like most human beings, wanted to be dad and have a family.

    If he and I were to become serious, there are numerous obstacles we'd face.

    1. If we moved in together as homosexuals, under Utah law, he could lose custody of his child.

    2. There's no legal construct I'm aware of that would allow me to also become a parent to the boy. If something happened to his dad, the child would go to the state.

    3. All of the benefits of legal marriage in addition to those I've mentioned would not be available. You've heard the laundry list of benefits, so I won't rehash.

    All I want is to have a family. We're going to have to move to Canada to live free. That's what you want.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:17 a.m.

    Wayneo - "My concern is deception in the 'active' gay community. They say they only want equality...they're not equal. A man is not a woman and the relationship is not the same."

    LDS - If a traditional couple is unable or unwilling to have kids, how is their marriage substantly different than a same-sex marriage? How is the former an asset to society while the latter is a drain on society?
    Gay families have kids. By refusing to allow their "parents' to marry, you are preventing those kids from getting the legal benefits that they need...probably need more than the kids of traditional marriages. There is no objective reason to deny gays marriage. We LDS are being hypocritical to our own history and to our own scriptures. How sad!

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    Albemarle - "The question of same-sex marriage isn't about whether homosexuals should marry. It is about whether Christians, Muslims, and Jews should give up their freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and parental rights so that homosexuals can marry."
    LDS - How are you giving up freedom of religion if gays are allowed to marry? Will we be forced to give up a doctrine or be barred from attending church, reading the scriptures or praying? NO!!
    Will you be barred from proclaiming the gospel? NO!!
    What parental rights will you lose? This I gotta hear.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:30 a.m.

    Interesting - "Hate, as defined by the dictionary is to "dislike intensely or passionately" and although there are other similar definitions, I can see absolutely no place where it says that denial of a "right" is hatred."

    Don't look in the dictionary...look in the D&C. 134:4 denounces those who use their religious opinions as justification to infringe upon the RIGHTS and liberties of others. Obey the sustained word of God.

  • RE From California
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:32 a.m.

    your comment "Same sex marriage is in the same category as pedophilia, abuse, sex addiction, and infedility."

    In all my days I have never heard such a ridiculous and uneducated comment. I have seen some ignorance in my day but this one is right at the top. Let me explain something. Same sex partnership or marriage is a joint decision by two adults who are in agreement to share their lives consensually. Liberties aren't taken away, there is caring and agreement. Pedophilia/abuse is about an adult stealing the rights, the innocence of a child, raping them or beating them, threatening them and creating major phsychological devastation, physical pain, and imprinting their sickness on a CHILD. Do you even understand the difference between rape and consensual sex? Infidelity is vowing to be loyal to a partner then going behind their back, giving away your body and love to another person. Your hatred has totally blinded you rational thinking. Would you prefer to have sex with your wife or husband or be sent to prison and repeatedly raped??? I can't believe anyone in this world could be so totally and completely out of touch with reality.

  • Bert
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    @10:49

    You should take an advanced course in logic. My parents were straight. Why am I gay?

  • Kudos to
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    Vince,

    I know it is tiring to continue trying to be reasonable in advocating for the equality and civil rights of ALL Americans, regardless of their religious (or sexual orientation) beliefs. So I just want to encourage you to keep it up. You do a great job and I am proud of you. You are on the side of right and goodness, and we will prevail someday.

  • Plubius
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:44 a.m.

    The great human experiment proves that when traditional family is center, societies progress. When family frays, crime, vice, and violence blossoms.

    Who committed the violence (physical and economic) during the Prop 8 events? The gays. From which segments of society do the vast majority of criminals emanate? Broken families.

    Anomalies can not mask the proven powerful track record of traditional family. Gay marriage, broken families, casual co-habitators are not stable units upon which society makes progress, they are counterfeits that destroy the greatest potential, happiness and satisfaction in the lives of those hurt by them or caught up in them.

    Upholding pillars of stability means drawing lines against those who so hate themselves that they must destroy the happiness of others to feel better.

    Adams said only a moral and religious people could handle this much freedom.

    When gays use that freedom to destroy the very foundation of their freedom, our national demise will end where all others have ended--cultural, economic, spiritual dust. It's too bad such self-destructive trends don't bear fruit faster so that those who cause such destruction can live long enough to see the end points of their blind foolishness.

  • @Kevin
    Feb. 6, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    While I respect and appreciate your willingness to be such a strong advocate for reality, I would not waste your breath trying to have the same conversation with these people they really do not care about getting truthful answers or trying to understand they just want to try to convince themselves they are right despite reality, nothing the claim has not been claimed and refuted a thousand times before on these thread.

  • Milo Johnson
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:00 p.m.

    I am against gay marriage because the prophet said to be. And yes, if the prophet said to go jump off a bridge, I would. I don't understand every reason we are given certain commandments. But I accept the prophet as the spokesperson of God on earth and that's that. You "LDS for gay marriage" people are not following the prophet plain and simple.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    What effect has economics had on traditional marriage? It takes two incomes to have a family. The lack of health care stains families. You marry someone and you never enjoy time together. Your kids are outsourced to child care. When you have time, you need to recover to go back to work.

  • RE: Anonymous | 10:49
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    that's ridiculous logic.

    1) If it's about weeding out an undesirable trait how do you explain the fact that homosexuality has been around almost since the dawn of man, and studies show that the percentage of gays vs hetero's in this world has remained static since they started counting? If anything the soundest conclusion is that being gay or not isn't persuadable, isn't contagious, and makes the case that people are born gay.

    2) YOUR conclusion based on Darwin shows you are no Darwin. Nature could well have furnished same sex attraction in order to curb overpopulation. Take all the gay people throughout history, convert them to heterosexuality, make them procreate children and there would be such an overwhelm in today's population that the world might well be unable to sustain the entire human race. These claims that gays would spread their "disease" and threaten human existence are ridiculous. Gays have been around forever. They've lived together, they've come out in public and their percentages haven't changed. They ALREADY live together, treat their partnership as a marriage, and they haven't destroyed the earth or threatened human existence yet.

  • Enter name: Pro-Choice Patton
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    As people who believe in the equality and liberty of all American citizens, our responsibility is not to give our lives to protect the rights of gays, but to make the Mormon fanatic freak shows give their lives in trying to take them away!

  • re Albemarle | 10:16
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:21 p.m.

    what is it about freedom or religion, speech, and parental rights is it that you don't understand? freedom of religion means any given group of people have the right to believe the same things, congregate, and practice what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. It translates into separate groups of people who are free to believe and practice different things without fear of reprisal or interference. what you say is like saying, "dang, if we let the catholics believe in a holy trinity it's gonna shut down my ability to believe in a God of flesh and bone..." Letting gay people have something you have in no way hinders you from your ability to practice religion as you see fit. It doesn't stop you from marrying or going to church or praying to god in any way, shape or form. If anything, you are interfering with their right to practice their beliefs. You're imposing your religious views on them, not the other way around.

  • Patsy
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:23 p.m.

    @Milo Johnson | 12:00

    Do you wear flip-flops and does your wife work outside the home?

    Prophets have made statements on these too.

  • Jamie
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    It is disgusting that these people think that they have the right to judge for other people what is immoral and what is moral...to each his own, live and let be, etc. etc. What you do in the bedroom does not determine whether you are a good person or bad person. I think that the moral thing to do is just to work on your own set of morals and not try to dictate them for everybody else!

  • re plubious
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:42 p.m.

    Man am I glad that you're not in charge of the human experiment. The gays are already here, they have been here throughout history. They do and have already lived together in partnerships. There numbers have been stable forever. If they as a minority haven't already displaced your traditional family from the center they're not going to do it in the future. Families fray over many things and having one gay child hasn't brought on crime, vice, and violence. Traditional Christian religions and other religions have killed more people than gays over the years. Families break up because heterosexual couples break up and divorce and devastate their children. Most gays don't have children at home. You have pedophiles in your traditional families, child abusers and beaters, heterosexual couples have opted for two working parents for an additional car. Heterosexuals put their kids in daycare with employees who do it for money, the kids don't get parental love. Leave the gays out of your condemnation. Own up to your own destruction of society and quit pointing fingers. Our national demise will end when YOU start seeing the problems YOU create.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:48 p.m.

    Does allowing same sex marriages take away the rights of other people somehow? If so please let me know. Many have commented on this but I am still unclear on how this will negatively affect ones own current marriage.

  • @Plubius |
    Feb. 6, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    please provide any hard evidance for any of your claim.

  • Rights
    Feb. 6, 2009 1:03 p.m.

    It takes away the rights of children to grow up in home with a mommy and daddy.

  • Definition of Hate
    Feb. 6, 2009 1:04 p.m.

    LDS4gaymarriage.org | 11:30 a.m.

    Non-sequitor! Your debate skills are lacking.

    I looked at your D&C 134:4 and I'm still looking for how you define denial of a right as *hate*. It talks about using religion to deny a right --which, I agree is wrong-- but that still doesn't define hate as being a denial of right.

    Perhaps you need a re-think.

  • Californian @1 @94131
    Feb. 6, 2009 2:08 p.m.

    * "What you do in the bedroom does not determine whether you are a good person or bad person." **

    This proves how obsessed the same-sex advocacy group is about sex, and how they can't avoid projecting your obsession onto everyone else. Marriage isn't about sex.

    What anyone does in our bedrooms has nothing to do with same-sex "marriage."

    Prop. 8 has nothing to do with forbidding sexual activity between consenting adults of any gender, age, size, shape, color, occupation, or political persuasion. If you and 20 friends of various genders want to have an orgy in the privacy of your home, then loudly proclaim your love and commitment for each other, feel free to do so. But don't ask society to call it a marriage or to teach in school that it is normal.

    Far-fetched? Maybe. But once we begin to tamper with the definition of any institution that has a specific, long-standing definition accepted by every civilization in human history(like marriage), it's wide open--in the infamous words of Gavin Newsom--whether you like it or not.

  • Milo Johnson
    Feb. 6, 2009 2:44 p.m.

    re: Patsy
    No, my wife does not work outside the home, and it is a financial burden but a great blessing to my children. I am not aware of the flip-flop commandment; enlighten me and I'll be happy to chuck my flops.

  • @1:03 p.m.
    Feb. 6, 2009 4:12 p.m.

    Exbound on that. What rights are you reffering to?What evidence is there that a same sex household is a more negative environment to grow up in as opposed to a household with a traditional marriage? Also, not every marriage involves having children. My sister doesn't have nor want any kids with her husband. But the children issue aside, what rights pertaining to current marriages does legalizing same sex marriage take away. The pamphlet that was handed out that night mentions this but did not specify any of these rights. I was hoping someone could answer this seriously, and not try to be argumentative. This is a serious issue and I am seeking real answers. Also you know of any studies done on any of these topics please point them out to me.

  • Jan
    Feb. 6, 2009 4:15 p.m.

    re: wayneo
    I too had a nephew who played with girls toys from the time he was 3. He always played Barbie's with the girls and never wanted to play with the boys. I'm perplexed by the Sutherland Institute. I don't know if I agree with the Prop 8 folks either. I'm LDS, but in my experience I think being gay is something your born with. Why does the Sutherland Institute have to make marriage into such a FIGHT?

  • CharlieBrown2292
    Feb. 6, 2009 4:59 p.m.

    To my knowledge, it has been less than twenty years in the history of humanity that mariage has been redefined by gay-rights activists as the possible union of two people of the same sex. This very fact should tell anyone that something has gone terribly wrong in the way the world defines the family unit. It takes indeed a lot of arrogance to pretend that 20 years are enough to prove the new family model valid after thousands of years when the contrary was the norm.

  • lds4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:02 p.m.

    Plubius - "Gay marriage, broken families, casual co-habitators are not stable units upon which society makes progress.."

    LDS - Wouldn't it make better sense to do what we can to make those MORE stable? Giving marriage to gay families will be a blessing for their kids. But I guess the kids in gay families can be considered as "collateral damage" in the war on equality.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:12 p.m.

    Check this out Milo -

    We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves. (Joseph Smith - Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595)

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:20 p.m.

    rights - It takes away the rights of children to grow up in home with a mommy and daddy.

    LDS - Then let's take the kids of divorce and single parents and put them in foster homes where they'll have both a mom and a dad. Since having both is SO VITAL for the kids, it would be easy to justify taking them away from their parents until the parent remarries. It's for the good of society.

  • LDS4gaymariage.org
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:25 p.m.

    Definition - I looked at your D&C 134:4 and I'm still looking for how you define denial of a right as *hate*. It talks about using religion to deny a right --which, I agree is wrong-- but that still doesn't define hate as being a denial of right.

    LDS - I didn't say that it defined hate. It simply states that denying others their rights based on our religious beliefs is sin.

    "Religious freedom does not imply nor provide license to infringe or impose upon the rights and liberties of others."
    (L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants )

    "That this Church, while offering advice for the welfare of its members in all conditions of life, does not claim or exercise the right to interfere with citizens in the free exercise of social or political rights and privileges. "
    (James Rueben Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

  • jw
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:52 p.m.

    Anonymous # 1. Why do you pick the hetero marriages that have failed. Dang you mean there are some..... I bet there are some homo unions that have failed too. Why not talk about the millions of heter marriages that have succeeded and actually produce offspring. Funny how everyone is saying that there is nothing to fear from gay "marriages". As soon as you redefine marriage, as someone stated there will be a whole can of woms opened. Don't go thinking, gay supporters that it won't. Once you change the definition all h*** will break loose. Allowing them to change the definition of marriage to suit themselves will be only the tip of the iceberg and it is the rest of the iceberg that those who are in tune are concerned about.

  • jw
    Feb. 6, 2009 5:57 p.m.

    From California. I am against gay "marriage". But I certainly don't agree with putting them in the same category as pedifiles and sex abusers.
    If two people love each other and want to live together etc. it doesn't bother me. There are gays who are wonderful people. All I am against is calling their relationship a marriage. How do we keep a marraige sacred and teach our children what it is really about if they keep changing the rules on us every time a group wants things changed that have been this way for centuries. I agree with whoever said if it is so dang terrible being around lds people and by the way there are a heck of a lot more people who are against gay marriage than lds or more states would agree to it..... then leave. Quit going into predominantly lds populated areas and the b**** about the lds influence. Get a grip on reality.

  • A Concerned Utah Citizen
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:41 p.m.

    Thank you to the Sutherland Institute for clarifying these issues. Please keep informing us. The future of the family is at stake. Bravo for the work you are doing!

  • Hey Bert
    Feb. 7, 2009 11:43 a.m.

    Because you have choosen to follow the main stream FADE like everyone else who thinks this is the cool thing to do.

  • KC
    Feb. 7, 2009 6:46 p.m.

    Excellent Article. Defining marital terms, "husband" is associated with a man and "wife" a woman. Why try to redefine what God has put on the earth that is between and man and a woman? If you want to be gay, etc. that is your choice, but you don't need marriage to act. You can enter into a legal contract and receive all the "rights" you want.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 7, 2009 9:16 p.m.

    KC - Why try to redefine what God has put on the earth that is between and man and a woman?

    LDS - Because our SECULAR laws shouldn't be based on religion. Read what Elder McConkie wrote in his DNTC regarding "rendering unto Caesar"

    KC - If you want to be gay, etc. that is your choice, but you don't need marriage to act. You can enter into a legal contract and receive all the "rights" you want.

    LDS - Hardly. The Federal DOMA prevents the Feds from giving gay couples benefits traditionally given to traditional couples. Even in Mass. where gay marriage is legal, married gay couples are still 2nd class citizens because of DOMA. Also, gays in Utah and elsewhere would have to spend thousands and thousands if dollars in legal fees just to get th fews rights that they can, while you and i got them by saying "I do" or "yes". That hardly sounds like "equal protection" to me.

  • wow
    Feb. 8, 2009 7:40 a.m.

    Let me get this straight, ahem. The world is at war, my nation has lost over 4000 of its finest soldiers, we have killed in collateral damages about 60,000 people in Iraq (Pentagon figures), people are losing their jobs in America and around the globe and we could be headed for a depression, global wamring is real and threatening, our children need more and better education in a variety of new and old fields of study, our prisons are full, and Utah turns its attention to whether two adults can... have rights like two other adults?

    and they drag God into it........ a God who is weeping at our hypocrisy...... and blindness and unwillingnesss to fess up to what a mess we have made.
    wow

  • It's about time...
    Feb. 8, 2009 9:55 a.m.

    that:

    1. Somebody took a public stand for traditional marriage
    2. The media printed a positive headline for pro-traditional marriage.

    Thanks for the pro-marriage headline, desnews.

  • Gay Mormon
    Feb. 8, 2009 10:13 p.m.

    NOTE TO MORMONS: The Church-owned business called Deseret Book sells a book called, "In Quiet Desperation." Read it. It will change your life.

  • Prop 8 Result
    Feb. 9, 2009 6:08 a.m.

    Mormon has become synonymous with anti-gay. Forget the carefully crafted image of perfect families and clean living. Thanks to Prop 8 (and rejection of even basic legal protections for gay couples in Utah), Far Right Anti-Gay activism is what is now most associated with Mormons. Congratulations!

  • CHOICES
    Feb. 9, 2009 10:39 a.m.

    Sexual orientation is a choice, not a race. Anyone who claims this article is intollerant or racist doesn't understand what sexual preference is! Its a verb, not a noun. In the English language, we can choose our verbs, but are born with a lot of our nouns. Example, I can choose to walk to work, which is a verb. But, I have green eyes, and therefore, I cannot choose my eye color in the morning. My eye color is a noun.

    Sexual preference is a verb, and its not discriminating to disagree with a persons choices. Good for this institute for standing up for what's right.

  • re CHOICES
    Feb. 9, 2009 10:58 a.m.

    Being an English Major, I'm pretty certain both Sexual Orientation and Sexual Preference are both Nouns.

  • Gay Mormon
    Feb. 9, 2009 1:45 p.m.

    Does anybody actually realize that the Church has not stated its position in the nature vs. nurture debate regarding homosexuality?

    To treat GLBT people as if they have chosen to "be gay" is not Gospel Doctrine; neither is treating them as if they were "recruited/taught" to "be gay."

    Until we know what exactly causes someone to have an affinity for the same sex (and it is probably a complex series of interactions), then we shouldn't treat them as if they are abominations.

    We should treat them kindly as what they are: Sons and Daughters of their Heavenly Father.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 9, 2009 2:40 p.m.

    Re: LDS4gaymarriage
    I disagree with you on so many points, it's difficult to just narrow it down to one point. You say that secular law should not be based on religion. Yet as a citizen and in our voting, I have every right to let my opinions be known (whether religiously based or otherwise).

    Are we not to be the "salt of the earth"? Are we not to let our "light so shine"?

    If you truly are LDS (active and believing), I suggest you reread the proclamation on the Family. I have no problem with all citizens being given equal rights, but marriage is not a right, it is a privileged.

    Furthermore, if you truly do believe that my religious inclinations are invalid in public discourse, AND if you are LDS (as mentioned before), may I suggest that you read Elder Neal A Maxwell's speech given in 1978 entitled, "Meeting the Challenges of Today."

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 9, 2009 2:48 p.m.

    Re: LDS4gaymarriage
    Just wanted to give you something else to consider regarding the discounting of religious convictions from Neal Maxwell:

    M.J. Sobran observed, "A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it" (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people's opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

    What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And-I repeat-the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs. [Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 5152, 6061]

  • To LDS4
    Feb. 9, 2009 3:29 p.m.

    As you seem to have taken on the advocacy role for this community, let's hear your reasoning as to why I should not fight the advance of the LGBT agenda into Utah. How about some assurances that my religious liberties will not be denied as your friends in the LGBT community force us down the slippery slope toward declaration of gay marriage as a right?

    Explain to me how I have nothing to worry about, notwithstanding the fact that well-funded LGBT activists have already gone after a Methodist organization in another state, forcing them to close down an area on their own property to Methodist marriages, or face fines for discrimination against LGBT who wanted to be married there. How is my ward or temple district different from the Methodist congregation?

    Tell me how I would benefit from the advance of LGBT "rights" into Utah law. Not how you would benefit, but how would I benefit?

    Don't just tell me what a bigoted lout I am, give me reasons why it's in MY interest to vote with you.

  • Alex
    Feb. 9, 2009 3:35 p.m.

    Thanks for providing us with that great quote, Michaelitos.

  • Alex
    Feb. 9, 2009 4:27 p.m.

    Gay Mormon:

    "Does anybody actually realize that the Church has not stated its position in the nature vs. nurture debate regarding homosexuality?

    To treat GLBT people as if they have chosen to "be gay" is not Gospel Doctrine; neither is treating them as if they were "recruited/taught" to "be gay.""

    How important is it that they do? If you accept the doctrine of the scriptures and the living prophets regarding homosexual intercourse, knowing whether the temptations to commit are learned or not is not going to change the bottom line. The bottom line is this: homosexual sexual relations are considered sin by ancient and modern prophets and are not condoned. Now that IS church doctrine.

    Now if homosexual acts are truly sin, then how can there not be a choice whether to act on homosexual temptations or not?

    If you are homosexually inclined and do not engage in homosexual relations, but instead shun temptation with faith on the Savior, reliance on the Spirit, and faithfulness to your covenants, then you are just as faithful and worthy as one who keeps his covenants who does not share your tendency. We all have tendencies that we must be masters of.

  • Vince
    Feb. 9, 2009 4:34 p.m.

    For all the justifications, rest assure, your heterosexual marriages will not change.

    I see page after page of protecting "families and children"

    How so?

    You are protecting families and children from what?

    Allowing gays to marry will not destroy "the moral fiber" of your families. If it did, then your family is not that strong to begin with.

    The technical definition of marriage will not change philosophically --- it will still be between two people who love and express their love, respect, and devotion to each other. It will just be extended to more people than just straight couples.

    Before you argue that marriage should not be extended to gays because --- after all, cousins are not allowed to marry, teens, etc.

    Gays are not asking to marry their cousin.

    Gays just happen not to be attracted to the opposite sex like that.

  • Vince
    Feb. 9, 2009 4:45 p.m.


    to CHOICES | 10:39 a.m. Feb. 9, 2009

    sorry --- You're way on that one.

    check dictionary dotcom --- "choice" is a noun.

    to "choose" is a verb.

    And you can put it through the linguistic test to see whether it is a noun or a verb.

    Nouns can take the word "the," "some," "an," or a number, such as "three"

    Therefore, "the choices"
    some choices
    A choice
    three choices

    It passes all --- check any book on linguistics and you will see.

    To choose, on the other hand, is a verb --- there is a test for verbs as well, they take the suffixes "-s,"-ed," and "ing"

    Now then, coming back to your argument, is sexual orientation a choice?

    Many gays have tried to change --- don't you think if we could have done it, we would have foregone a lifetime of harrassment and being taken for less than equal?

    I sure tried --- to no avail.

    But enough of the self-loathing --- it does not do anyone any good.

  • Vince
    Feb. 9, 2009 4:52 p.m.

    To Prop 8 Result | 6:08 a.m. Feb. 9, 2009

    Sadly, I have to agree with that --- that is the perception.

    Regardless of how outreach programs may seem to be there for gay rights and that the legislation is not intended to deprive gays of any rights --- the PR perception is clearly there ---

    * Why would a Church spend so much money on a proposition that neither took away its constitutional rights as a church not encroached on its doctrine?

    Prop. 8, if overturned, will not change one iota of Church doctrine --- if it did, how so?

    To a fuller extent, it will not deprive any "traditional values" from the majority--- if so, which ones?

  • Vince
    Feb. 9, 2009 5:07 p.m.

    Prop 8 is not "inspired"

    I keep seeing comments that people who stalwartly hold on defending Proposition 8 on the basis that it is inspired.

    I submit that it is not.

    It is a political move --- simple as that.

    The logic ---

    This is what constitutes inspiration --- based on Amos 3:7 --- Also found in The Missionary Discussions ---

    God reveals his will to his prophet
    The prophet reveals his will to the people.

    Granted --- I have nothing against "A Proclamation to the World" --- that is LDS doctrine.

    Proposition 8, on the other hand, trace it through its inception.

    This time, Archbishop Niederauer invites leaders of the LDS Church to take part in a coalition of Churches to defend Prop 8.

    Inspiration?

    From its inception to now --- nothing of the sort.

  • C'mon Vince
    Feb. 9, 2009 5:17 p.m.

    "Prop. 8, if overturned, will not change one iota of Church doctrine --- if it did, how so? To a fuller extent, it will not deprive any "traditional values" from the majority--- if so, which ones?"

    It is the stated position of some of your friends in the LGBT community to do exactly that -- to enforce government-ordered changes to Church doctrine and use the courts to deprive us of traditional values.

    Now, you're the proponent here, Vince. Convince me that there is no LGBT agenda to take away rights or encroach on doctrine.

    You should address the case of the LGBT activists shutting down access for weddings of a piece of property belonging to a Methodist group because some well-funded LGBT activists brought a discrimination action when they were not allowed to be married there.

    You should also address the manner in which abortion opponents are now being required to fund abortions, assist in abortions, and provide abortion services. The analogue is clear -- if there is a "right" to gay marriage, like a "right" to abortion, then any organization objecting to those marriages would be denying that "right."

    Your nickel, Vince.

  • Gay Mormon
    Feb. 9, 2009 5:28 p.m.

    Well, Alex, it IS important. Societal rhetoric has moved beyond talking about gay marriage to gay-bashing.

    I've heard political comments and gay-bashing in EQ/Sunday School.

    Gays are vilified by Mormons, even within a Church setting. Despite the fact that the Gospel is true - that behavior is unbecoming and inappropriate.

    I used to think that knowing the "cause(s)" of homosexuality wasn't important. But it truly is. The position one takes (nature or nurture) regarding homosexuality sets the stage as to how that person will address all gay people and the political/social issues relating.

    It isn't known what "causes" homosexuality; even President Hinckley admitted that; for a supposedly active/obedient Church member to say that it is a choice and address it in such a manner is false doctrine. They can't have it both ways; the same people who espouse this reference Church statements when stating why they oppose gay rights.

    And to "be gay" doesn't mean you are acting on your feelings. "To be" is a "state of being;" you are in the state of having these feelings of attraction towards the same sex, not necessarily acting on them.

  • Gay Mormon
    Feb. 9, 2009 5:30 p.m.

    Well, Alex, it is important. Societal rhetoric has moved beyond talking about gay marriage to gay-bashing.

    I've heard political comments and gay-bashing in EQ/Sunday School.

    Gays are vilified by Mormons, even within a Church setting. Despite the fact that the Gospel is true - that behavior is unbecoming and inappropriate.

    I used to think that knowing the "cause(s)" of homosexuality wasn't important. But it truly is. The position one takes (nature or nurture) regarding homosexuality sets the stage as to how that person will address all gay people and the political/social issues relating.

    It isn't known what "causes" homosexuality; even President Hinckley admitted that; for a supposedly active/obedient Church member to say that it is a choice and address it in such a manner is false doctrine. They can't have it both ways; the same people who espouse this reference Church statements when stating why they oppose gay rights.

    And to "be gay" doesn't mean you are acting on your feelings. "To be" is a "state of being;" you are in the state of having these feelings of attraction towards the same sex, not necessarily acting on them.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 9, 2009 5:44 p.m.

    Furthermore, it is important because people like me who are gay but have decided to try and live the Gospel are STILL VILIFIED, whether or not I have acted on my feelings.

    That's not the way that Christ would treat me.

    And in regards to those who do act on it: just because someone behaves in a way that you don't like doesn't give you the right to vilify them.

    For example, one of the bills in the Common Ground Initiative would make it illegal for my employer to fire me (or any straight person) on the basis of my (or his/her) sexual orientation. That has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage, yet that is the Sacred Ground's argument against the bills and that is all that anyone is talking about.

    How is this particular bill wrong on moral or spiritual grounds? I would argue that it isn't.

  • Everybody makes this
    Feb. 9, 2009 6:10 p.m.

    so hard, but it should be simple. If you are a person that believes that marriage should be "protected" then protect your own families! If you don't like the gay lifestyle then don't participate, but know that they have their rights. They don't make your families unsafte....in fact the ones that want to committ are reinforcing the good things about committment! It has been the heterosexual affairs and such in the past that has been the problem, not the gays.

  • Vince
    Feb. 9, 2009 6:17 p.m.

    Re: C'mon Vince | 5:17 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009

    I believe the point at question is whether the pavillion could be used for public accomodations, not religious functions ---

    That in essence marked why it lost ---

    As to the question whether religious buildings --- not pavillions, not cultural halls, not centers, but churches, chapels, mosques, temples --- that is a different question --- those buildings are strictly for the use of religious weddings.

    I believe if such a phobia would exist, as many think it would, that in essence, LBGT couples, people, were to take on churches and take them to court against the discriminatory use of religious edifices --- it would have happened already. It has not.

    Point in fact: Religious organizations deserve the right to marry whom they will where they will --- does not the LDS Church, for one, have a process whereby if a couple wants to marry in the chapel, they need to go through the proper channels? --- i.e. the bishop, the Stake, etc? At any level, any of those authorities can deny or approve those marriages based on any number of criteria.

    Likewise, Jewish rabbi can refuse to marry whom they will ---

  • Not gay
    Feb. 9, 2009 6:21 p.m.

    Not gay but after listening to the hysteria, falsehoods, and out right illogical premises, I think I want marriage to be for all humans. Period.

    If we are worrying about rights of kids to grow up in a home with a mommy and daddy, then let's ban divorce. Or Polygamy, with its extras of mommies.

    Hypocrits.

  • Vince
    Feb. 9, 2009 6:25 p.m.

    C'mon Vince | 5:17 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009

    For example, Jewish rabbi can refuse to marry others because they are outside their faith.

    Catholic priests can refuse to marry people who have been divorced.

    Do those people sue the Churches because they do not meet the criteria for marrying inside their religious edifices?

    If they do, I have yet to hear about one.

    To that extent, religious organizations deserve the right to marry people of LGBT affiliation.

    Those churches that do marry LGBT people is because they extend those rights out of their own will to LGBT couples, not because they are forced, but because they hold the extension of those ceremonies as part of their tenets.

    That said, overturning Prop 8 will not change how religious organizations marry or not marry.

    The case in point which you used in your example, incidentally, did not happen in any of the states that currently allow same-sex marriage, but the case is used to promote mis-information and phobia.

    As to the point about abortions, different topic altogether. I, for one, condone abortion, and I do not want my money to go toward abortion "rights."

  • Vince
    Feb. 9, 2009 6:33 p.m.


    To Gay Mormon | 5:28 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009

    Thank you. I second the sentiment ---

    "Gays are vilified by Mormons, even within a Church setting. Despite the fact that the Gospel is true - that behavior is unbecoming and inappropriate."

    for as much as different people say in this blog repeat the catch phrase "It's over. Move on, etc." it seems they find a common forum in EQ and Sunday School.

    It isn't particularly easy to be gay, anti Prop 8, and LDS right now --- because Sunday after Sunday people keep with their remarks ---

    * About Prop 8
    * And Tom Hanks
    * Is Samuel L. Jackson the new person to villify at EQ? I don't know --- I stopped listening.

    If the same people that say "It's over, get over it" would stop finding a forum at church we could talk about, oh, I don't know --- doctrine for a change.

  • An Honest Assessment
    Feb. 9, 2009 7:10 p.m.

    Article quote: "Eric Ethington and Elaine Ball, two gay rights activists who were in attendance, said they were bothered by statements that homosexuality was a choice and an "addiction." "I just feel so bad", said Ball."

    Dude, I don't doubt it. What you're doing is sinful. What did you expect to feel? Happy?

  • Methodist Wedding?
    Feb. 9, 2009 7:29 p.m.

    What Methodist wedding are you talking about? The only one I could find was in California:

    "In a letter to bishops, 363 United Methodist clergy and laity urged the church to end its ban on celebrating gay and lesbian marriages."

    LA Times October 12, 1998

  • A story
    Feb. 9, 2009 7:30 p.m.

    One cold night, as an man sat in his tent, a camel thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the man, as he turned over and went to sleep.

    A little later the man awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Man, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 7:17 a.m.

    In 2004, a study, conducted by Ellison Research (which has done several Clergy Studies) among a representative sample of 695 Protestant church ministers nationwide, asked pastors of several denominations to identify the three strongest threats to families in their own community.
    The three most commonly named threats were divorce (listed as one of the top three by 43% of all ministers), negative influences from the media (38%), and materialism (36%). These were followed by absentee fathers (24%) and families that lack a stay-at-home parent (22%). The rest of the list included:
    Co-habitation before marriage (18%)
    Pornography (17%)
    Morality not being taught in schools (14%)
    Poverty, unemployment, and/or a poor economy (13%)
    Parental alcohol use/abuse (12%)
    Parental drug use/abuse (11%)
    Drug use/abuse among teens or children (8%)
    Teen sexual involvement/activity (8%)
    Alcohol use/abuse among teens or children (6%)
    Adultery (5%)
    Poor schools or quality of education (4%)
    Teen pregnancy (2%)
    Sexual predators or sexual abuse (1%)
    The expense of child care (1%)
    Other issues (12%)
    Note that neither homosexuals, nor gay marriage, even made it into the top 20 threats to families per the clergy.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 7:30 a.m.

    A story | 7:30 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009 -
    One cold night, as an man sat in his tent, a camel thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the man, as he turned over and went to sleep....

    LDS - This story can't be applied to Equal Rights for others. In the story, the man eventually gets shoved out since there is no room in the tent for him. How is giving others equal rights diminish your own rights? Were the voting rights of white males harmed when Blacks and women were allowed to vote?

  • FUTURE
    Feb. 10, 2009 8:28 a.m.

    The common ground initiative is nothing more than a step to achieve what they tried to do in California, plain and simple. Marriage is between a man and a women, period. These people won't stop until that is changed.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 10, 2009 9:31 a.m.

    @ LDS4gaymarriage
    You still have not responded to my comments earlier. I ask you. How do you reconcile being LDS (active and faithful, which includes accepting Thomas S. Monson as a living prophet) AND pushing for same-gender marriage? Unless your pen name is meant to intentionally misguide (which I think is unethical, by the way), I do not understand how it is possible. You want everything proven in secular terms, but that is not required. One of the great things about America is that a religious belief, any one as long as it does not violate the law, is just as good as any other belief (religious or not). Whether my opinion (and by extension, vote) comes from a religious base or not, as an American citizen I am entitled to it.

    I would like to present one more quote for your consideration, from Elder Oaks this time. It does not directly apply to same-gender marriage, but I think the principle holds true.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 10, 2009 9:34 a.m.

    If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God's servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law on this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

    Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.

    From Elder Oaks' "Weightier Matters of the Law". Can LDS faithful not apply this same reasoning to same-gender marriage?

  • True Doctrine
    Feb. 10, 2009 9:59 a.m.

    The Lord instructed us that homosexual activities are a sin (See Romans chapter 1). It is written in the book of Corinthians that we will "not be tempted above which ye are able to bare". Therefore, those who say they are gay and cannot change it are going against what Jesus taught, remembering that Jesus speaks through his apostles and prophets.

    Luckily, the atonement of Jesus Christ is still available for all men. Everyone can repent from their sins, including homosexual activity. If you don't believe you can change if you are gay, you do not believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ or have sufficient faith in Jesus Christ.

  • realitycheck
    Feb. 10, 2009 10:10 a.m.

    Sutherland group tries to pass itself off as a think-tank, but it is in fact a religious organization. It's too bad they feel the need to deceive rather than just be themselves. Tricky little religious zealots, trying to push their beliefs onto others and act like it's based on "research".

    it's too bad all organized religion seems to have forgotten the Golden Rule. So busy pushing their agenda they forgot the basics.

  • realitycheck
    Feb. 10, 2009 10:31 a.m.

    re True Doctrine 9:59am

    WHAT? You have no clue what God wants - all you've done is read some books written by old men in robes.

    stop thinking you have a better understanding of what God wants than the rest of us. That's the biggest problem with mormons and the like. You think you know it all, and push that agenda on everyone else.

    God is more likely to admit a kind homosexual into heaven than a bigot that thinks he knows everything and tries to get the world to conform to his way of thinking... and quit quoting books written by old men in robes - try to think for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. That's why God gave you free will.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 10:31 a.m.

    Michaelitos - LDS4gaymarriage,
    You still have not responded to my comments earlier. I ask you. How do you reconcile being LDS (active and faithful, which includes accepting Thomas S. Monson as a living prophet) AND pushing for same-gender marriage?

    LDS - I've answered you, but let me address the above - The prophets have stated that if their words violate scripture, that we are to ignore their own words and hold to scripture. This is the case here. If you can show me how D&C 134:4 allows "letting our religious opinions prompt us to infrnige upon the rights and liberties of others" when it specifically condemns it. See 1 Cor 10:29 as well.

    President Monson is NOT the Lord's ventriloquist dummy whose mouth only opens when the Lord pulls the strings and only speaks words the Lord puts in his mouth.

    Show me where D&C 134:4 allows what it condemns.

  • re Michaelitos 9:34am
    Feb. 10, 2009 10:58 a.m.

    you need to go back to the basics and apply the Golden Rule. That's the only one that matters. Everything else is simply out of some book you read.

    and you can talk about pro-choice vs anti-abortion, but you obviously don't know the difference between a chicken and an egg. Remind me not to order a chicken sandwich at your house unless I want breakfast.

  • Alex
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    "If you can show me how D&C 134:4 allows "letting our religious opinions prompt us to infrnige upon the rights and liberties of others" when it specifically condemns it. "

    Nobody is losing their rights. You can't lose a right you never had.

  • To LDS4 | 10:31
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:16 a.m.

    What a specious argument!

    By your assessment, if I claim a "right" to marry my gerbil, or to burglarize your home, D&C 134:4 would prohibit you speaking against it.

    The LGBT community wants to frame the argument in terms of rights and liberties. But that's a completely bogus and discredited idea. It neglects the FACT that there is currently no "right" to homosexual marriage to be infringed.

    You have no more right to gay "marriage" than the FLDS do to polygamy or the burglar has to steal your property.

    Here's the appropriate argument -- Gay marriage is currently illegal. You want to make it legal. OK, that's your right. But it is not your right to re-write the laws of the land without benefit of the political process, as was done in CA.

    If you, or the FLDS, or the burglar believe you've got the public support for a change to the law -- go for it. We'll see how it comes out.

    But don't cheat the system using threats, coercion, violence, and corrupt judges.

    And don't sell your integrity by arguing nonexistent "rights."

  • C'mon Vince
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:26 a.m.

    That's the best you can do?

    Those LGBT activists in NJ had no intention of trying to influence Methodist doctrine? LGBT activists have no interest in changing Church doctrine or practice?

    C'mon.

    Bottom line -- you're the proponents here. It's your job to convice us that we have nothing to fear by a change to our laws.

    Calling us bigots and telling us we're stupid to worry isn't cutting it.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 11:35 a.m.

    Elder Oaks - If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God's servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law on this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

    LDS - The obvious answer would be those laws that cause no objective harm. All of his examples are OBJECTIVELY harmful. Examples of SUBJECTIVE laws that could/should be changed would be Sabbath Closing laws, laws that outlaw the sale of sex toys, etc.. (things that are SUBJECTIVELY harmful should not be crimes. They may be considered as vices as is overeating, nail-biting, etc...) Vices are not crimes.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:00 p.m.

    Alex - "If you can show me how D&C 134:4 allows "letting our religious opinions prompt us to infrnige upon the rights and liberties of others" when it specifically condemns it. "

    Nobody is losing their rights. You can't lose a right you never had.

    LDS - Sorry, but gays in CA had a LEGAL RIGHT to marry. Even if you can claim it isn't a right, but it is still a legal liberty as the verse mentions. Our attempts to take away rights and liberties that others have is a violation of scripture.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:07 p.m.

    To LDS4 - What a specious argument!

    By your assessment, if I claim a "right" to marry my gerbil, or to burglarize your home, D&C 134:4 would prohibit you speaking against it.

    LDS - Since your gerbil has no right to enter into a legal contract, it can't accept your marriage proposal Mr. Gere

    TL - The LGBT community wants to frame the argument in terms of rights and liberties. But that's a completely bogus and discredited idea. It neglects the FACT that there is currently no "right" to homosexual marriage to be infringed.

    LDS - Sorry, but there WAS a legal right to marry in CA. Prop. 8 took that right away. If there was no legal right to marry, then there would be no need for Prop. 8.

    TL - You have no more right to gay "marriage" than the FLDS do to polygamy or the burglar has to steal your property.

    LDS - Since polygamy is not objectively harmful when practiced by consenting adults, polygamy should be legal. Theft is objectively harmful and therefore is justly outlawed.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:18 p.m.

    TL - Here's the appropriate argument -- Gay marriage is currently illegal. You want to make it legal. OK, that's your right. But it is not your right to re-write the laws of the land without benefit of the political process, as was done in CA.

    LDS - Huh? Our divinely inspired constitution and the CA one allow their courts to overturn laws that violate the federal/state constitutions. You may disagree with any specific ruling, but their rulings are legally binding.

    TL - If you, or the FLDS, or the burglar believe you've got the public support for a change to the law -- go for it. We'll see how it comes out. But don't cheat the system using threats, coercion, violence, and corrupt judges.

    LDS - Threats, coercion, and violence were done by both sides, but admittedly the most by the gays due to the fact that it was THEIR rights being taken from them, not ours. Regarding corrupt judges, there is a method to remove them. Since you think the CA ruling is so bad, go ahead and try to get them removed. Their rulings are law.

    And don't sell your integrity by arguing nonexistent "rights."

  • Alex
    Feb. 10, 2009 12:41 p.m.

    "LDS - Sorry, but gays in CA had a LEGAL RIGHT to marry. Even if you can claim it isn't a right, but it is still a legal liberty as the verse mentions. Our attempts to take away rights and liberties that others have is a violation of scripture."

    By that reasoning, the state of California has the right to interpret scripture for the LDS Church.

  • To LDS4, Alex
    Feb. 10, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    You have got a really tough row to hoe! Convincing me and others like me that we are better off supporting gay "rights" legislation, than we would be with the status quo. You've got a long way to go, my friends, and you don't seem to be headed in the right direction. We refuse to be cowed by false accusations of bigotry or buffaloed by dissembling dismissals of my concerns.

    I didn't sign on to your website (that you dishonestly advertise here in violation of the comment rules, BTW), but, I think I've saved myself the time and effort by reading your posts here.

    It appears you have nothing to peddle that would convince me, or any reasonable voter, that we are better off supporting you.

    It's sad that all I can see is a future of continual fighting for what is right, against a well-funded, radical activism that sees me as an enemy to be overcome, not as a friend or ally to be won.

    Too bad -- there may have been some middle ground that protected both of us.

  • Alex
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:00 p.m.

    To LDS4, Alex | 1:37 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009 :

    "You have got a really tough row to hoe! Convincing me and others like me that we are better off supporting gay "rights" legislation, than we would be with the status quo. You've got a long way to go, my friends, and you don't seem to be headed in the right direction. "

    You must have me mistaken for someone else. If you read my posts, I am not supporting these special gay "rights" by any stretch of the imagination. Very often I will quote someone who is arguing for it and then respond to their statements. I use quotes to indicate that they are not my statements.

  • You are mistaken
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:44 p.m.

    LDS4gaymarriage.org:

    How does the act of wanting to keep the definition of marriage to mean between a man and women have anything to do with taking away rights because of religious opinions? There are no religious reasons mentioned in Prop8 as to the reason for keeping marriage between a man and women, so your reference to section 134 is not valid.

    People when they vote will vote their consciences and many times it will be influenced by religious beliefs but we cannot read minds so we really do not know that is why they voted. By your standards then, any Latter-day Saint that ever votes for anything basing their decision on their religions beliefs would be in violation of D&C 134:4. What should the Church do then, tell the members to never vote if it would conflict with Section 134?

    There is another scripture you are probably aware of, 2 Pet 1:20-21

    Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:48 p.m.

    @ realitycheck
    You are an angry person. You do not listen to any real argument, you simply tout the "Golden Rule" and then cast stones.

    I'm sorry, but you have no credibility.

    @ LDS4
    It seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways. You cannot claim that Pres. Monson is a prophet and then disregard his prophetic counsel as words from a man, not when they are given in his full role as prophet and echoed by the rest of the 1st presidency.

    I refer you to a talk entitled "Fouteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" given by Ezra Taft Benson in 1980. A few nuggets from that talk include:
    -The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
    -The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
    -The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
    -The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.
    -The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

    And lastly, "The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know." I'm sorry this issue contradicts your personal views, but I wish you success in this trial of faith

  • Why I Support Prop. 8
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:57 p.m.

    My brother and law and one of my best friends growing up are both gay. They are both wonderful people and have many good qualities I admire. I support civil unions, hate crime legislation and anti discrimination laws. So why do I support Prop. 8?

    If gay marriage is legal any group that will not perform this type of marriage will be breaking the law and subject to prosecution. The supreme court held in a ruling against an Indian Tribe in Florida that smoking peyote was against the law and therefore their religon was not protected by the first ammendment to the constitution.

    Prop. 8 is about a lot more than gay marriage it is ultimately about freedom of religion. It also makes you wonder why anti-Prop. 8 activists are not satisfied with civil unions when they afford all of the legal benefits that marriage would. What is the real motive I wonder?

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 10, 2009 2:59 p.m.

    @LDS4
    With your objective vs. subjective interpretation of Elder Oaks statement, I actually agree with you to a point. However, Elder Oaks has also said:

    Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and theres no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.

    Given that he supports a constitutional amendment barring same-gender marriage, how can you think that he would support laws (or interpretation of laws) that redefine an honored institution that is over a millennia old?

  • "Protect Marriage"
    Feb. 10, 2009 3:18 p.m.

    By all means by protecing YOUR marriage and YOUR family and leave OTHERS alone to do the same. Any religion doesn't have to believe in certain types of marriages (Mormons, Catholics etc perform marriages which they recognize as the only true or best form of marriage). However, the government (civil courts) also perform marriages and they do so by the laws of the lans which are supposed to be non-discriminatory towards TWO people (not polygamists for obvious reasons of chld support and inequality of women in this type of relationship). So they will decide this issue and religion can decide their issues, but the two shouldn't combine. (Separation of church and state).

  • Sign me up
    Feb. 10, 2009 3:57 p.m.

    I want to join this institute. How do I sign up?

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 3:58 p.m.

    Alex - "LDS - Sorry, but gays in CA had a LEGAL RIGHT to marry. Even if you can claim it isn't a right, but it is still a legal liberty as the verse mentions. Our attempts to take away rights and liberties that others have is a violation of scripture."

    A - By that reasoning, the state of California has the right to interpret scripture for the LDS Church.

    LDS - Huh? Gays had a legal right. many got legally married. many came from out of state to marry. They had that right secured by the CA Constitution as interpreted by those who their constitution says may interpret the laws. They had the right and we allowed our religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (gays). it can't be any clearer.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:08 p.m.

    To LDS/Alex - You have got a really tough row to hoe! Convincing me and others like me that we are better off supporting gay "rights" legislation, than we would be with the status quo.

    LDS - Hmmm...we LDS were a small and unpopular minority in OH, MO, IL, etc...We pleaded with others to respect our rights and we were laughed at because the majority thought we were a non-Christian cult. Many still do. The same goes for the gays today. You'd think we'd be sympathetic to an oppressed group in obtaining their legal/civil rights. I mistakenly thought that avoiding hypocrisy and obeying the clear words of scripture might elicit sympathy. The oppressed have become the oppressors.
    You've got a long way to go, my friends, and you don't seem to be headed in the right direction. We refuse to be cowed by false accusations of bigotry or buffaloed by dissembling dismissals of my concerns.

    I didn't sign on to your website (that you dishonestly advertise here in violation of the comment rules, BTW), but, I think I've saved myself the time and effort by reading your posts here.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:14 p.m.

    To LDS4, Alex - It's sad that all I can see is a future of continual fighting for what is right, against a well-funded, radical activism that sees me as an enemy to be overcome, not as a friend or ally to be won.

    LDS - It sure is sad that the gays were hoping to have the Church as an ally based on our experience with persecution, but the Church didn't care about avoiding hypocrisy regarding persecution, obedience to scripture, and showing Christ-like love. It wasn't the gays that withdrew their hand of friendship.

    TLA - Too bad -- there may have been some middle ground that protected both of us.

    LDS - The gay coalition has offered some middle ground about employment and housing rights. I bet that there will be no room in the inn for moderation either.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:43 p.m.

    Mistaken - How does the act of wanting to keep the definition of marriage to mean between a man and women have anything to do with taking away rights because of religious opinions?

    LDS - OK...REAL slow...we LDS may keep our definition of a proper marriage as being between a man and a woman. In Calif, gays had a legal right to marry. many did. We LDS were offended by that because of our RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. Those opinions prompted us to infringe on the rights and liberties of gays by contributing to the effort to infringe upon those rights. We gave almost half of the money and 90+% of the foot soldiers in that effort.

    Mistaken - There are no religious reasons mentioned in Prop8 as to the reason for keeping marriage between a man and women, so your reference to section 134 is not valid.

    LDS - There doesn't need to be. prop8 was ONLY about taking marriage rights from the gays. Taking away the rights of others is forbidden in scripture.

  • Finally
    Feb. 10, 2009 4:57 p.m.

    Finally a little push back to the in your face sexual deviants who have been harranging the world to prove they know better how to engineer the family.

    Same sex marriage is a myth. Marriage is a contract to bear and raise children. Same sexers can't make that contract. Its a biological impossible contract, rendering the whole thing mute. Just call it was it is. Two sexual deviants getting their thrills and wanting the rest of us to dress it in the traditional trappings of home, family, and community. Marriage is about the conception and rearing of children. You can call same sex hanging out what you want, but it will never be marriage. It just isn't

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 5:00 p.m.

    Mistaken - By your standards then, any Latter-day Saint that ever votes for anything basing their decision on their religions beliefs would be in violation of D&C 134:4. What should the Church do then, tell the members to never vote if it would conflict with Section 134?

    LDS - If the proposition being voted upon takes away established legal rights of others, the Church should encourage the members to vote against it or at least don't vote and don't contribute or campaign for it. Removing rights is in league with Satan's Plan.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 10, 2009 5:04 p.m.

    Mistaken - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    LDS - OK, I've been asking for an official interpretation of this verse. I've been asking for 8 years. I've met with bishops and stake presidencies to see how God is pleased with men, "unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" in reality means "Feel free to let your religious opinions prompt you to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others".

    It would have to be an interpretation that "depends on what the definition of `is' is". Peter also condemned twisting the scriptures. I'd love to see the Chinese contortionist moves necessary to neutralize it's effect.

  • Re: Protect Marriage
    Feb. 10, 2009 5:11 p.m.

    Unfortunately once the Supreme Court set a precedent that a religon's practices can not be seperated from the law (see 2:57) your final point is invalid.

  • Alex
    Feb. 10, 2009 5:46 p.m.

    LDS4gaymarriage.org:

    "Gays had a legal right. many got legally married. many came from out of state to marry. They had that right secured by the CA Constitution as interpreted by those who their constitution says may interpret the laws. "

    No. The California Court, in violation of the laws of the state of California regarding same-sex marriage, invented a new definition of marriage and declared it as a legal right. The people of California corrected the court.

  • Marriage
    Feb. 10, 2009 7:02 p.m.

    A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. This law doesn't discriminat based on race or sexual preference. A gay man can marry a straight or gay woman and a gay woman can marry a gay or straight man. There is no discrimination about it.

  • GK
    Feb. 10, 2009 7:05 p.m.

    If you are going to rely on scripture to justify your support of same-sex marriage, that is a losing option because the Prophet of God has said that it is wrong and what he says is scripture.

  • Some of these posts
    Feb. 10, 2009 7:31 p.m.

    are very limited in their thinking. A significant number of heterosexuals either can't have children or have already had children. These people sometimes adopt children. Sometimes parents die or are not fit parents and family members (male or female) adopt their children. It doesn't matter if two Aunts, Uncles or grandparents are raising the kids (this is not the issue). It is that fit adults raise the children. Gay people currently do this either from assignment from family members or from foster parents or adoption. The people that feel that parents must be able to have children to be married are very limited in their thinking, indeed! Also, people get married out of love for one another and to make a commitment. Children may or may not come of the union and this is a poor argument. In ancient times propagation of the species may have been an issue, but in a world of six billion (and counting) people it is not.

  • Re: Marriage 7:02 PM
    Feb. 10, 2009 10:16 p.m.

    That's the best argument I have seen on this whole message board! Thank you for summing it up. Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite gender, no matter if they are gay or straight!

    Well said, because that's the law, and its already been passed & approved in California and in Utah.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 11, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    Michaelitos - Given that (Elder Oaks) supports a constitutional amendment barring same-gender marriage, how can you think that he would support laws (or interpretation of laws) that redefine an honored institution that is over a millennia old?

    LDS - Considering that gays historically make up 2-3% of a population and that the rights of unpopular minorities have only been protected in the last 40 years, it's easy to see why the traditional definition of marriage is as it is.

    A constitutional amendment would eliminate the fight and allow us to abide by scripture. Would he want one that ALLOWS states to have same-sex marriage if enacted by the voice of the people?

    As with his "teaching function of the law", he is playing with a double edged sword. We LDS sure whooped and hollered when others used the law to teach us about marriage. Ben Franklin said that democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat for lunch. 125 years ago, we were the sheep (a small/unpopular minority) but on this issue, we are a wolf. The next time LDS are treated like sheep, how would his logic NOT be hypocritical?

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:04 a.m.

    Alex - LDS4gaymarriage.org:
    "Gays had a legal right. many got legally married. many came from out of state to marry. They had that right secured by the CA Constitution as interpreted by those who their constitution says may interpret the laws. "

    A - No. The California Court, in violation of the laws of the state of California regarding same-sex marriage, invented a new definition of marriage and declared it as a legal right. The people of California corrected the court.

    LDS - No, the CA constitution has a "equal Protection" clause requiring all to be treated equally. Prop 22 (a statute) passed with Prop 8's wording. Gays sued saying 22 violated that clause. The Supremes agreed. Prop8 is simply prop.22 but instead of being a statute (subject to the Constitution) it is a constitutional amendment which means that there is no conflict and thereby nullified the court's ruling.

    Gays claim that since 22 drastically alters rights, that the requirements to put it on the ballot should have been those requirements, per CA law, that such drastic changes require. The Supremes could overturn 8 on this and force supporters to start over gathering signatures and meeting the tougher requirements.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:15 a.m.

    Marriage - A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. This law doesn't discriminat based on race or sexual preference. A gay man can marry a straight or gay woman and a gay woman can marry a gay or straight man. There is no discrimination about it.

    LDS - That's what the Whites in the South said defending their law banning Blacks and Whites from intermarrying. A White man can marry any White woman of his choice, etc.. The Supreme Court (in the Loving Case) threw out the idea that such subjective requirements were a violation of Equal protection. Gay marriage is also banned based on subjective requirements and logic. It should be overturned by the Supremes using the same logic they used in Loving.

    See the essay entitled, "Mixed-Race Marriage vs. Civil Same-Sex Marriage" on our website for more details and quotes.

  • LDS4gaymarriage.org
    Feb. 11, 2009 9:39 a.m.

    GK | 7:05 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009 -
    If you are going to rely on scripture to justify your support of same-sex marriage, that is a losing option because the Prophet of God has said that it is wrong and what he says is scripture.

    LDS - Consider these 2 quotes -

    The "lay" members of the Church are under obligation to accept the teachings of the authorities, unless they can discover in them some conflict with the revelations and commandments the Lord has given. There are times when the leading brethren have expressed their own opinions on various subjects.
    (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 112.)

    If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it."
    (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

    The scriptures trump the prophets unless/until their words BECOME scripture via Common Consent. read, "What Do The Prophets Say About Their Words vs. Scripture?" on our site for more quotes.

  • Michaelitos
    Feb. 11, 2009 2:18 p.m.

    @LDS4
    I thought you had integrity. I didn't realize that all you do is pick out arguments you think you can win and ignore others. With D&C 134, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc. you harp on the same topic of being able to pick and choose which revelation you happen to like.

    At the same time, you ignore my quoted reference of President Ezra Taft Benson's comments on following the prophet even when it does cut across your personal social and/or political opinions.

    As the dialogue has continued and the evidence has mounted against you, you have gotten more and more entrenched in the same arguments, rather than engaging in more thoughtful consideration.

    That, my friend, is why you have lost your ethos (and unfortunately your faith in the living prophet, apparently). If I would have realized that I was arguing with an organization, not a sincere person, I would have never engaged you.

    I invite all of you at your organization to come back into the believing fold and encircling arms of Christ, His church, and His prophets. May you find your way through this trial of faith.

  • Dave
    Feb. 13, 2009 8:58 a.m.

    What a stupid headline. They are not going to bat "for marriage" they are going to bat for perpetrating discrimination and hate.

  • GK
    Feb. 13, 2009 10:03 a.m.

    Those are fine quotes you provide, but where do the scriptures say that homosexuality is ok.

  • GK
    Feb. 13, 2009 10:04 a.m.

    Also, the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson ruled that banning same sex marriage is not an Equal Protection violation.