Excellent article. Right on target. Our society is on the precipice. I hope
we can avoid going over the cliff. If we do, there isn't much time left for us.
God will not be mocked.
I have no ill will towards the gay community, and I happen to have quite a few
gay friends. I can understand their feelings in this issue to a degree, but
this article does bring up a good point. If a church's doctrine specifies
homosexual acts are a sin, why would a homosexual person want to be married in
their church? The article also stated there are churches out there willing to
perform marriages for homosexual couples, but the writer quoted in the article
didn't seem to think that was enough. Why is it so important to force others
into their frame of thinking? Is it just so they can be married wherever they
please? Let religious practitioners believe what they believe. If the gay
community wants to be treated in a certain way, they need to afford religious
communities the same respect, and vice versa. No more anti-gay stuff from
religions either. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But as long as people
are going to do it, I still need and want to respect them and reach out in
fellowship. I can't define a person by what I consider to be their most
You saw this coming from miles away. It is the homosexual's 'in your face'
moment to the religions who believe their behavior is deviant and wrong. if that were to occur, watch for a federal law exempting religions from
having to perform gay marriages. so have the gays bring it on!
The target is the temple.
I am an Atheist (not gay, but that's beside the point) but I am all for the
churches right to refuse to marry a couple that goes against their beliefs (just
as much as I wouldn't expect a unemployed vegan to look for work in an abattoir)
It's wrong (in my opinion) to force someone to do something they aren't
Churches could simply refuse to perform ceremonies altogether and simply choose
to solemnify the civil marriages of their congregants.
It's too bad that government of any kind is regulating marriage. Marriage is a
social construct, and social organizations should be free to define marriage in
any way they wish. We would be better served if government got out of the
marriage business and focused on regulating rights of persons who choose to
enter into social unions. But, government is in the business of regulating
marriage, and that isn't likely to change.
This is a goood example of the next step for the gay rights folks. Since we have
enacted hate crime laws that make it a criminal act to even speak out against
homosexuality as a minority, enforcement of that law will be combined with the
legality of state laws for marriage. The next step is to bring legal action
against any church which teaches the practice of homosexuality is a sin in the
eyes of God. When that happens no church will be able to preach God's laws from
the pulpit. That is the plan of gay rights folks to force not only acceptance of
a deviant lifestyle, but total state and religious support of it. IIf a
person truly believes a church is of God, then doesn't it follow that We must
follow the teachings of that God? If it be of man then it makes no difference
what is taught. If it be of God then man can have no control of what is taught,
if it is to remain of God. The gay rights folks should take it up with God. But
only if they believe it is of God.
Howard Chuan-Eaton:Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't the real
thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of
their choice but not me?Quite simply because Homosexuality is
"...an abomination..." in the Bible and the Talmud. This excludes the
support of homosexuality.Were the Homosexual to repent and abstain,
they would have the full support of any Church that teaches from Scripture.
That abstention or celibacy would not require marriage.
The biggest threat to religious freedom is religion itself.If you
enact laws that prevent SOME religions from performing same-sex marriages, you
are infringing on that religion's freedom of religion. If you are willing to
deny another religion the freedom to practice it as they see fit, you run the
risk of losing your own religious freedom.In the end, the freedom to
practice your religion does not give you the right to infringe on anyone else's
freedom - in any arena, civil or religious.The first Amendment does
NOT give religion the right to infringe on anybody's freedom.
This article is a prime example of baseless fearmongering.Gays will never
marry in the temple. The California Supreme Court decision invalidating Prop. 8
stated that no church or clergyman would be force to perform gay ceremonies.
The recently passed NY law allowing gay marriage said the same.Even if by
some miracle some court ruled that churches, we LDS, along with other groups
would tie that decision up in court appeals until a constitutional amendment
(state or federal) that would allow churches to marry whom they will in their
own facilities could be passed. Such an amendment would get passed at light
speed. Many gays would support it as well. No politician would dare oppose it.
It would have overwhelming public support. The public may even support gays
being allowed to marry civilly, but FAR FAR more people believe that churches
have a right to deny marrying gays if it goes against their doctrine, especially
since gays could go to City Hall, a Vegas wedding chapel or other gay-friendly
churches to get married.Same-sex marriage in NO WAY threatens
religion. Religion is FAR FAR more of a threat to the equal civil rights of
Before "pagan" and others come on here and tell us how wrong we all
are and how this won't happen, please checkout what almost happened in the
"progressive" UK recently: legislation was voted on to take the
authority of performing marriages away from churches who refused to perform gay
marriages in their churches and temples. Where is the outcry from the gay
marriage supporters who swore this would never happen and they wouldn't support
it? And the slippery slope just keeps getting slipperier.
The "gay rights" movement has never been about equal rights under the
law. It has been and continues to be all about forcing acceptance and societal
approval - of activities that a generation ago were not only not called rights
but were in fact crimes through out the nation.Participants in
homosexual activity have never been an economically deprived minority grouping.
The goals of the movement have grown ever more far-reaching, being
redefined every decade: Legality. Employment. Housing. Public accommodations
(e.g. Boy Scouts). School curricula. Civil unions. Gay marriage. The
ultimate goal is forcing the Mormons, the Catholics, the Evangelicals and the
Muslims to allow gay marriage in churches, temples and mosques. The
Supreme Court cannot be depended upon to stop that last step. It opened the
door to the temples the day it found that states could not make sodomy a
crime.New York passed gay marriage with a religious exemption.
Expect immediate lawsuits.Federal politicians who have avoided this
issue by saying it should be left to the states are either fools or
charlatans.This will come down to an amendment to the US
Constitution...which takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose.
Howard Chua-Eoan was speaking for himself, not the "gay community."
It was an *opinion* piece. And though there may be other gays who share his
opinion, I wager that the great majority of gays--especially those who seek to
marry--would want nothing to do with institutions which deride their love. They
certainly wouldn't want to get married under the legally-compelled
"blessings" of those institutions.The whole battle for gay
marriage is predicated on separation of church and state. As more than one
person has pointed out elsewhere, for gays to insist that government should
force religions into performing gay marriages takes away the very basis for
legalizing gay marriage. It breaches the separation.Your churches
and temples will be inviolate, as long as you don't try to dictate public policy
from within them.
It is true that in both the UK and Canada governments have come close to taking
marriage authority away from churches to appease the LGBT activists. The
actvists in the U.S. are gearing up for such attempts here by writing articles
like the one quoted that separates belief, faith or obedience to any religious
principles from the legal right to have a marriage performed that will be
recognized by civil authorities. The Constitution's freedom of religion can be
construed as only protecting believers from laws that would dictate which
religious beliefs they must hold, or where they must worship, but not
guaranteeing that religious believers are free to choose their beliefs and act
on them. These are dangerous times for religious freedom.
The Mormon church was almost destroyed in the 19th century by the US government
dicating what forms of marriage could be performed in LDS temples. It could
absolutely happen again. Even if most gays don't have an anti-church agenda, the
militant minority definitely does. Lawsuits are inevitable, and we are just one
liberal swing vote away from it in the Supreme Court. The LDS is church is not
anti-gay. It is merely trying to protect religious freedom from encroachment by
anti-church forces masquerading as pro-gay.
Fred Vader..legislation was voted on to take the authority of performing
marriages away from churches who refused to perform gay marriages in their
churches and temples.LDS4See my comments above regarding a
constitutional amendment. Also, outside of the US and Canada, LDS temple
weddings are not recognized as legally binding and LDS couples must first be
legally married in a public wedding or at City Hall and THEN be sealed in the
temple. IOW, exactly as Fred's nightmare scenario envisions. So even if the
nightmare becomes a reality in the US, it won't be the end of the world since
most LDS live under it currently without batting an eye. Again, this so-called
nightmare won't happen because the citizens won't allow it and would pass a
constitutional amendment to prevent it.jimhaleThe Supreme
Court cannot be depended upon to stop that last step. It opened the door to the
temples the day it found that states could not make sodomy a crime.LDS4Gays makeup 2% of the population, women make up 51%. How successful
have women been in suing the Church to be ordained to the priesthood? More baseless fearmongering!
Why is government involved with marriage a social institution?Because...Marriage is a contract that is enforced by making it binding
in court. It allows you to sue for divorce if the contract is broken protecting
not only the spouse but children too with property, alimony, child support, and
visiting rights.Marriage changes the tax code since the contract is
considered long term.It is essential that all religions are free to
define marriage anyway they choose. Government should only be involved with
making it binding in court.
The Constitution protects the rights of churches to not marry whoever they don't
want to. That's why the LDS church is free to not marry... anyone they don't
want to. Even unworthy LDS members aren't allowed to marry in the temple. So how
would gay people accomplish something that has never been an issue? For that
matter who would support it? The Constitution says churches can not marry
whoever they don't want to. The vast majority of people support that position,
including the majority of those who support same sex marriage.
Allen: The Bible clearly teaches that all homosexual acts are sinful, as is all
human sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage. The Bible also
teaches against polygamy: and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
thee: If any be blameless, the husband of ONE wife, having faithful children not
accused of riot or unruly.(Titus 1:5,6) 1 Timothy 3:2. A bishop then must be
blameless, the husband of ONE wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to
hospitality, apt to teach;(1 Tim 3:2). Will the Mormon Church
evtually give women the Priesthood as liberal Christians do?
@free agency and others. The institutions in question do not "deride the
love" of gay couples. Most churches teach some form of "brotherly
love" as a primary principle. Love of one to another is Godly in
Christian, Jewish, and Moslem teachings. The issue is whether a church can
continue to preach that sexual activities outside of a marriage between a man
and woman are frowned upon by God, "sinful," or otherwise prohibited
by that faith.
Churches were even free to not have to marry interracial couples back in the
day. There's only one risk a church has to worry about when it comes to people
trying to get them marry gay couples and it doesn't actually involve forced gay
marriage. A court cannot require a church to marry same sex couples, however,
there might come a point in time when the public might condemn those who don't
so you might get protests. This would be similar to what happened when some
churches seemed to lag behind the general public when it came to racial
equality. The church can't be forced to do something... but people can make it
miserable to continue the course they were on thus possibly making the church
Some in the LGBT community insist that churches that teach religious principles
of exclusive sexual relations between a man and a woman are discriminating
illegally against a certain protected class of people. We should all recognize
that "some" of the LGBT community will likely become "most"
or even "all" in the future, much as the portion of LGBT advocating
for marriage rights, a small minority in the past, has grown to nearly 100% now.
Within ten years, I'm sure gay marriage rights will be granted all across the
country. At that point, I fully expect that "some" LGBT calls for
religions to abandon teaching homosexuality as a sin will turn into
"all" LGBT and their friends and families. Many more churches will
liberalize their doctrine to accommodate gay marriage, but some will hold firm.
The government will then be forced to decide: should those holdout churches be
allowed to carry on their discriminatory practices, or should they not be
allowed to make judgements on moral behavior any longer?
If any of you bothered to read the article by Howard Chua-Eoan, you would
realize it was wishful thinking from. Also I find it a little more than devious
that Lane Williams could not be bothered to include the last paragraph from
Howard...."The state cannot force a church to change its
beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks
that we're here, we will have to continue to march in parades and sing
"Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up Saturday morning,
I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore."I guess that is
because it would have shown his article for what it is and what others have
already mentioned, baseless fear-mongering.
"Free Agency" argues above that Howard Chua-Eoan was speaking for
himself and not "the gay community".The gay community may
well be diverse in its racial, political and religious make up. That is a part
of its power.But it only takes a minority of one - with a good
lawyer - to move our society.A generation ago gay leaders were
content to claim Pride in a decision to adopt a lifestyle other found
deviant.Now gay leaders say "we were born this way".They
found they could sell "rights" for a conscious decision.A
generation ago gay leaders ONLY wanted their "private" behavior
decriminalized. Then they ONLY wanted employment and housing
protections.Then they ONLY wanted civil unions.Then they ONLY wanted
civil marriage in some states.Then they ONLY wanted civil marriage in all
states.They will soon be demanding....After all, guilt is very
demanding.The gay movement is composed of at least two groups:
those that turn up the heat...and those who tell the frog in the pot that he is
silly to worry about the rising temperature of the water in which he is clearly
@Ron Hilton, You may be right, and I may agree with you; but your argument will
not wash in the long term because churches today (including LDS ) are more about
politics than religion.
What about the rights of churches who perform same sex marriages as part of
their faith to be free from government interference? Why is it always a one way
street? If religions are allowed to practice their religions free from
government interference, why does the government have the right to keep some
religions from marrying the people they wish to? I completely agree that those
who, for what ever reasons, don't wish to marry certain people and marry others,
but let's keep it the same for ALL religions, not just those who oppose same sex
Hi sharrona,I understand the Biblical teachings about homosexuality.
I don't think it is a proper role of government to decide what is a sin and what
isn't. Marriage is a social custom and should be left to social groups.
Governments at all levels shouldn't be concerned with marriage. Governments
should establish civil unions to protect property and other legal rights of
people who enter into the unions.Of course, two people who want to
have a relationship shouldn't be forced into civil unions. In deciding not to
enter into legal civil unions, they would forfeit any legal protections
established by those unions. Social groups could require the two people to enter
into a legal civil union as a pre-condition of the people being married by that
social group. Other social groups might not require legal civil unions.Proper role of government is to provide protection to citizens. Historically,
this protection has been coupled with marriage. I'm suggesting that this
protection be separated from marriage.
We need to look at this debate from a diferrent angle, and a very important one
at that. In 2004 the State of Massachusetts began to allow gay marriages,
citing that it was unconstitutional to deny homosexual couples from
"marrying". This was the first of the States to allow gay marriages.
However, it didn't end there...The next step in the Mass. gay
movement was to force social service organizations to perform adoption services
for those gay couples who wanted to raise "their own families".
Catholic, Evangelical, and LDS social service groups refused to perferm their
adoption services, and would not place children into homes of gay couples. The
State ruled that social service groups MUST include all "families" in
their services. Thus, these religious groups shut down their adoption services
rather than allow any child being placed in "unfit" surroundings.This will be the next step in the gay movement in California and New
York. You can almost bet the farm that marriages of gay couples will also
threaten the sacred nature of religious houses of worship and Temples.Its time for the majorty to take a stand against the minority gay rights...
For a more thorough treatment of the subject, please see the article "OR
FOR POORER? HOW SAME SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" that
appeared in a Harvard Law journal in 2007.Please read it. It will
take about 20 minutes of your time. Every person who has an interest in this
subject MUST become familiar with the legal issues.For example, if
you own a business, you could be sued for discrimination against gay people and
not even know it - you could be sued. Like the photographer. Like the fertility
specialist. You could be forced to change your business against your will. Like
eHarmony. etc. etc. Unfortunately, the militant nature of the gay rights group
will sue. Rather than let a Christian choose to not associate with them, such as
with the photographer, they will force their agenda on you and sue you. To call homosexual relationships "marriage" is nothing but an
attempt to force full social, legal, and even religious acceptance of homosexual
conduct. With emphasis on the word FORCE. By force of law. By suing. This is why Californians voted Yes on Prop. 8.
The US Constitution established laws that guide the governance of social,
cultural and political groups within our nation. It is a step forward in the
fulfillment of Gods promise to Abraham, that he would the father over many
nations. Unfortunately US politicians, in my life-time, have taken 2 steps
backwards by exploiting the Constitution for their personal gain. The Holy Spirit has influenced our founding fathers to write the US
Constitution for the specific purpose of honoring the Son of God and His words
spoken at the Sermon of the Mount should have become the Law all of the land.Where have they gone wrong?
Everest: The "love" you talk of is based on religious doctrines,
without taking into consideration the love required--physical as well as
spiritual--by gays. Such love *is* derided by these religions. It's no love at
all to demand that others practice what you believe and that you do so because
you "love" them.JimHale: The fact that a minority of one,
with a good lawyer, might be able to change society can apply to any policy.
It's not the exclusive domain of gays. And your implication that gays are so
demanding because they feel guilty for being gay has no basis in fact. Guilty
people live in the closet, beg their religious leaders for absolution, or commit
suicide. I doubt they fall in love and then seek to marry the person they love.
Straw Man Logic. Civil Marriage rights have never implied Religious
Marriage rights.For 30 years in California after interracial marriages
were allowed, the LDS refused to offer them. The same is true for gay marriage.
You can even refuse marriages to people that eat shrimp cocktails or
cheeseburgers if you wish. They do not have the right to keep others from
marrying consenting adults for those reasons.Right now, there are
Christian and Jewish churches that believe that civil marriage benefits society
as well as the couple itself. The benefits to society and the individuals are
the same as any non-procreating couple. Someone to lean on when you falter,
without having to burden society. Human happiness is good for all.Also,
please stop denigrating the first amendment. It is the Supreme Law of the Land.
It is not just another statute open to the vicissitudes of public opinion.
The UK has no Constitution or Bill of Rights. On this Fourth of July, we
should all believe in the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"Is this writer demanding that government compel religions to violate their
beliefs?"The LDS Church has already experienced the
government's intrusion in its beliefs. Plural marriage was, at one time, an LDS
religious belief and practice. It's gone, due to government intervention. I
fully expect the government will inject itself into the LDS religion's ban
against gay marriage... including in the LDS Temple.Who woulda
knowed that the government (state) would authorize gay marriage Contrary to the
policy of probably all Churches and even most Americans? Perhaps the government
should be concentrating on religious organizations (who shall remain nameless)
who have as objectives, destruction of America?
Re Ranch Hand, I have not seen any law, proposed far less passed, which
prohibited any religious entity from performing same gender marriages. And I
have never seen, unlike one sees with regard to plural marriage pre-Manifesto
and by apostate sects today, any person or religious or other entity even
threatened with prosecution for performing a same gender marriage ceremony even
when the same was not sanctioned by law.Indeed, religious entities
can refuse to admit members based on the color of their skin. And they can
refuse to perform inter-racial marriages if they wish without sanction of law.
Even as much as many racial minorities may find that offensive they have never
sought, as the LGBT community has, to force those religious entities to change
such discriminatory policies.The LGBT community indeed seeks special
rights not afforded to others. And more importantly special rights they would
not afford, indeed which they would deny, others.
I have suggested a number of times that there needs to be a distinction between
civil (sanctioned by a government) and religious (sanctioned by a faith
organization) unions. Since religion had the practice and the word
"marriage" first (it's in Exodus and Matthew), I have proposed that
all unions be performed by a religious body be called "marriage," and
ALL those, straight or gay, performed by civil authority be considered
"civil unions." Every time I propose that, gay marriage
proponents attack me. One even said that it's the WORD marriage that they want,
and if religions don't like that THEY should have to come up with a different
term for their millennia-old sacred sacrament/ordinance.
It's very simple:Government can't tell you how to worship;
Government can't stop you from worshiping; and Government can't demand that you
must worship.That's it. That's all. Everything else is just fear
mongering and slippery slope hypothetical s (like gays will demand Temple
Marriages), that just don't hold up in reality, or under constitutional law.
Given the amount of disinformation and rampant speculation going on,
maybe its time for the LDS Church leaders to calmly educate their membership,
and clearly address the confusion?
@Allen: "Marriage is a social construct, and social organizations should
be free to define marriage in any way they wish."Marriage is
both a social construct and a legal association. Social, as it involves joining
two people through the emotion of love and appreciation. And legal as it
involves ownership of possessions, property and the legal obligation of seeing
to the well-being of children.
Gays will never stop until I can be arrested for child abuse because I told my
child that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful. Until they have full
marriage, adoption, tax (btw, who's the head of household in a gay marriage?),
property and inheritance laws with special protections for them that not even
heterosexuals have.If you think the ultimate goal is anything short
of this, please keep drinking their Koolaid.
America was established, in part, to prevent Government from forcing religions
to conform to the desires of Kings. This is a non-issue today. We have a
multitude of Lawyers to protect our rights in court so lets address problems in
America that need focus. Like the only way Democracy and a Republic can survive
is Honest People who will stand up to Criminal Acts committed by the lowliest
Citizen to the most powerful. Honesty is the most important aspect of a
persons right to own a Business or Run for Office. America needs more honest
people holding office and willing to run for office. Lets pledge this 4th of
July to investigate the people we vote for by watching what they said in the
past and what they say they will do if elected., Find out who really lives up to
our standards. Pray for your enemy's that their hearts will be softened.
Pray that all of us receive the same blessings we ask for others. An easy way to
keep our intentions worthy of our Father's Respect.
Leave the world alone for a season and they will prove their own foolishness;
they become bored easily and rapidly seek to turn the world upside down.
Boredom is the number one problem on the planet which comes from having too much
money and idle time. Poor people perhaps are the most blessed people on
earth----- so busy trying to put food on the table that they don't care about
these silly rights and obsession with equality.
What an elegant comment, "Civil Rights"! While this article is pure
fearmongering, I'm impressed by the thoughful refutations of it. ElkBowhunter: your facts are just wrong. LDS adoption services in MA is up
and running without state interference... because they don't take state funds.
Massachusetts contracted with Catholic Charities to perform the secular job of
adoption placements. The bishop wanted the state to change the state contract
funds into an unrestricted donatation to the Church to use at its discretion...
with discrimination against some MA citizens. This would violate the
Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. Many on the Catholic Charities
board publicly resigned to protest the bishop's crazy politics. .Thank the lord for those parents who gave loving homes to those children in
need... I bet none of these orphans were created through "accidents"
of gay couples.
zero_limits_33 showed that the DN article only told half of the truth when it
failed to quote the last paragraph from Chua-Eoan's article where he stated
that churches should be free to do as they please. Others who bring up the NM
photographer and the CA fertility specialist who were forced to service same-sex
clients likewise only tell half of the story. These people ran businesses in
states that required businesses to not discriminate against same-sex couples and
individuals. By opening businesses there, they agreed to be subject to kings,
rulers and magistrates and to follow the law. Should Evangelical photographers
be permitted to refuse to photograph LDS temple weddings because they think
we're a satanic cult?We need same-sex marriage opponents to tell the
WHOLE story and not just the half that promotes irrational fear mongering.
Marco Luxe wrote: "I bet none of these orphans were created through
"accidents" of gay couples"Ummmm....gay couples can't
have "accidents" ever......ever. Gay couples can't
procreate......ever. I'ts one of the most powerful laws of nature and of
God...."procreation"....Gay couples can not participate in this
law.....ever. So, if nature and God both exclude gay couples from this law then
how much more does nature and God exclude them from being parents?
@Demisana"tax (btw, who's the head of household in a gay
marriage"The male isn't always head of household in a
heterosexual marriage.@Weston Journey"Every time I
propose that, gay marriage proponents attack me."I support the
civil unions for all approach as an alternative to legalizing gay marriage.
Besides, many on the other side also attack those who hold that position. @Alfred"I fully expect the government will inject itself into
the LDS religion's ban against gay marriage... including in the LDS
Temple."If a court ruled in that fashion it would be appealed
and stayed (so it wouldn't go into effect until the higher court ruled on it).
In the meantime congress would quickly (even if Democratically controlled since
it'd be electoral suicide to do otherwise) pass a bill or even a constitutional
amendment on the matter to protect churches.
@Mr. Bean"Marriage is both a social construct and a legal
association. Social, as it involves joining two people through the emotion of
love and appreciation. And legal as it involves ownership of possessions,
property and the legal obligation of seeing to the well-being of children.
"That's right. As I stated in my previous post, I'm suggesting
that the legal association be removed from marriage, and that government
withdraw from marriage and focus on the legal obligation via civil unions.
I believe that no religious organization has the obligation to marry any persons
who do not live according to the dictates of that religion. To do otherwise
would be forcing government regulation upon religions and the ability of
adherents to freely practice what they believe.There are many
churches that perform same-sex marriages; more power to them. But to legally
rule that those churches that do not agree with such action must do so anyway is
completely against religious freedom.Why would anyone who respects
themselves want to be married by a church that believes their lifestyle to be
sinful? By doing so, they are not marrying for love or commitment, but simply to
spite such a religious organization and its ability to practice its form of
worship.Civil law must be able to perform such unions without
involving religious organizations, and should hold the same level of legitimacy
as would a church wedding.To me, the concept of a same-sex marriage
in a temple would be a complete mockery of God's plan and the purpose of temple
Sorry I don't have time to read all the other posts.Preachers have
been arrested and jailed for preaching against homosexuality in Canada,
Australia, and more than one in England. I believe there was another in Finland.
I'd be surprised if it hadn't happened in Germany, also. There is no such thing
as "free speech" in many other places, and it's endangered here in the
US. Why does it seem that everyone else's freedoms are being protected EXCEPT
Christians?I've had gay friends, I've had Jewish, Muslim and
Buddhist friends, and probably some atheists. Jews, Muslims and Buddhists would
not demand that a Christian preform a marriage ceremony for them. The bottom
line is, if you don't adhere to the teachings of a religion, you have no
"right" to force them to perform a ceremony through which you are
asking them to bless your "union." Get over it.
"Enrage them with lies so that they feel justified in their violence."
Does anyone wonder why this article's sole source is an opinion
piece that ran in Time? Is anyone asking why not a single gay-rights
organization or representative of such an organization is quoted here? Isn't it
odd that the authors of this article make it sound like the target is religion
rather than the rights and privileges afforded to the legal designation
"family"? Didn't the LDS learn this lesson the hard way in
the wake of the Prop 8 debacle? Wasn't that enough?
My partner and I were married religiously by a rabbi in a mainstream Jewish
temple, before our family, friends, congregants and God. This was the same
temple where my partner became Bar Mitzvah decades earlier, so having the
ceremony there wad very symbolic for us, and something we both thought would be
meaningful to his parents (mine had passed away a few years earlier). Before we made any plans, however, we contacted the rabbi and asked if
he would marry us. He immediately responded with, "Of course. How
wonderful!" Had he expressed any reservations whatsoever, we would have
moved on to one of the many other religious congregations that do welcome gay
couples--and asked.Our marriage is not recognized as legally-binding
in our state. We seek that legal contract in order to protect our relationship
under the law.I have never heard of Howard Chua-Eoan before, but no
matter his status, he does not speak for me, nor can he speak for other gay
individuals. I suspect Time Magazine published his opinion precisely because it
is so unusual.I believe in the First Amendment, and would fight to
protect it--even from individuals like Chua-Eoan.
People who try to argue that their religious liberties are in jeopardy are
grasping at straws. This is a non issue.I was raised LDS and I wasn't
able to marry in the temple because my husband didn't meet the church's
criteria. He wasn't a Mormon and wasn't interesting in becoming one. Every religion will always be able to set their own standards. Why would any
person want to get married in a religion that doesn't embrace them? Even as an
LDS member, I refused to be married by a bishop because I wanted to spare myself
and my guests of the mandatory lecture about getting sealed eventually. Crazy
me, but I wanted it to be a happy day. I honestly can't think of one gay
person I know who would want to force the LDS church to perform a ceremony. But
I know that there are still those who are determined to look like the victim
instead of persecutor in this battle for equality. If the day comes , I will
write 50 letters of protest defending the church's right to deny temple
marriages. On my honor. I'm opposed to anybody getting married in a temple for
To Sharrona: The answer is no. The LDS Church will never, ever, ordain women
to the priesthood. Holding the priesthood is the calling of righteous men.
Women have the wonderful opportunity of co-creating Heavenly Father's spirit
children here on the earth, to provide to them physical bodies, and caring for
and nurturing them and maintaining the family as a cohesive unit along with
their husbands. Picture the family of Jesus Christ, Joseph and Mary, with Jesus
as a child. Mary bore, nurtured, and cared for the child Jesus, and later
Joseph taught him the ways of the Jewish religion, such as studying the Old
Testament scriptures, thus preparing him for His great calling as He who would
restore the fullness of the gospel to the earth and atone for the sins of the
world, and become our Savior and Redeemer, and great teacher and exemplar here
in mortality. Picture also a righteous LDS family of the here and now. This is
the way ordained of God. I believe that with all of my heart. Women have just
as great a responsibility as do men who hold the priesthood, if not more so.
I have no problem with churches performing gay marriages. Without ridicule of
them, I choose to go elsewhere. If you disagree with the LDS church, just go
somewhere else. It's your American right to chose and it's just that simple.
You have to remember one thing, the government cannot force a volunteer temple
worker to show up and perform a temple marriage for a gay couple. The government also cannot force a person to perform a baptism for an openly
gay person. These ordinances are not performed for money. They are
done voluntarily. I have performed these ordinances and I personally will refuse
to perform them. We have freedom of association in this country. In
fact, we can all just refuse to show up for church, or to a baptism for that
matter. We will not be forced to associate our faith and our children to the
likes of the depravity promoted by the gay community.
"Should Evangelical photographers be permitted to refuse to photograph LDS
temple weddings because they think we're a satanic cult?"Absolutely! Yes! And I say that as a life-long active LDS woman. Just as we
have the right to freedom of association, that INCLUDES the right NOT to
associate. Just as we have the right to freedom of religion, that INCLUDES the
right NOT to believe in any religion. Otherwise we live in a totalitarian
There is no threat to religious freedom simply because one gay person expresses
his desire to be married in a church. Laws that permit gay marriage (as in New
York) exempt churches.It certainly is this person's right to voice
an objection, just as it is the right of the church to insist on not being
forced to marry gay people.But the right of a gay person to marry
someone of the same sex in no way interferes with anyone's religious beliefs or
principles. Any religion has the right to say no to a gay church wedding. But
some churches don't object, and they have religious rights too. Churches would definitely be correct in fighting any attempt to force gay
marriage upon their own domain, but no law is doing so. And if one is proposed
it can and should be fought. But no church has the right to speak for others
outside the church. Marriage is not just a church function. It
belongs to the government sphere as well and churches should stay out of that
fight. People should be treated equally when it involves government recognition
It is unfortunate that people who commit sin seek to remove the sin, not by
repenting and forsaking that sin, but by finding some way to make what they are
doing no longer a sin. I don't know who decided that God had died and left
someone else in charge, but I assure you God is NOT dead and He does see what is
going on. Truthfulness of a given idea does not depend upon your belief of it's
truthfulness. When a concept is true it is simply true and your not liking that
fact does not make it any less true. The scriptures are not silent on how God
feels about homosexuality and those who don't like what they have to say need to
repent and learn just what God does say. Most of those who deny this concept
have no idea just what the scriptures (and therefore God) DO say about the
action of homosexuality. We WILL have to face God and explain our actions
someday. This is definitely a fact some of us need to ponder -- seriously!
Hey Allen, I don't think it is a proper role of government to decide what is a
sin and what isn't.True,but they did and do. The right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness should be grounded in a Christians essential
beliefs as well as a Mormons. Bible believing Catholics and Evangelicals
agree,no flip flopping here(Romney).For you created my inmost being; you
knit me together in my mothers womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and
wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. ( Psalm
139:13-14 NIV).(Judgment) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily
I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least(elachistos*1646)
of these, ye did it not to me.(MT 25:45). Applicable to*smallest least,in
This is a ridiculous article. Nobody seriously wants to force a church to
endorse gay marriage if they don't want to. We just want them to not make it
illegal. You don't have to allow a gay couple to get married in your church,
but you shouldn't be allowed to prevent them from getting married in their own
church, or in front of a civil judge.To say that your religion views
it as a sin, and therefore it should be illegal is the real assault on religious
freedom. My religion says same sex marriage should certainly be permitted. And
who are you to tell me I can't have that viewpoint in my religious beliefs?The predominant religion in this area is the LDS church. They view
alcohol consumption as a sin. But does that mean they should be allowed to make
it illegal for everyone? Amish believe they should not use technology. Should
they be allowed to ban it from everyone? If they want to live without it, fine.
But don't push it on everyone. That's what religious freedom is.
If religious action is to exceed other action in the first amendment, then my
reaction is this: God says my religion trumps yours, which is all made up hooey.
I don't have to prove it any more than you do, so get out of my legislature and
keep it to yourself.
Ron Hilton | 9:52 a.m. July 4, 2011 Holladay, UT Mywife and I were married in
the Oakland Tempale, married and seald, we were never married cively, you got
your facts wrong.
Defense of "traditional" marriage is not just a religious idea, it is
good government and good biology. The accusation that, because a number of
religious organizations are working to maintain marriage as an opposite-gender
organization, they are somehow taking away rights that have lurked in the
ionosphere is ludicrous. Same-gender marriage, until recently, has never (or at
most rarely) existed as an institution because--even in societies that tolerated
homosexuality--the need for marriage to be what it is (the foundation of child
conception and rearing) was clearly understood and not disputed.Churches have every right to enter the fray and work through democratic means
to impose their beliefs on society. There is no possible argument that they
must abdicate their rights of suffrage in a democracy simply because someone
disagrees with their view.Embarcadero hints at what lies ahead for
churches that are repeatedly promised that no one will touch their rights when
s/he says, "Didn't the LDS learn this lesson the hard way in the wake of
the Prop 8 debacle? Wasn't that enough?" What happened to Latter-day
Saints after the Prop 8 triumph (not "debacle") is a taste of things
sfcretdennis | 6:15 p.m. July 4, 2011 You either misunderstood my comment
or confused it with another one. The issue is not whether a church has the right
to perform a civil marriage. The issue is whether the government has the right
to force church marriages to conform to a certain legal definition. In 1890, the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US government to do exactly that. That
established a clear legal precedent, well-meaning assurances to the contrary on
this forum notwithstanding.
If the government hadn't put pressure on the the LDS Church we would still be
practicing plural marriage and withholding the priesthood from black members.
Sometimes we all need a little reminder to do the right thing.
Mormons only do 'civil marriages' in chapels or otherwise by Bishops, as a
courtesy anyway -- I believe that temple ceremonies are 'sealings' anyway --
the vast majority of 'sealings' are for already married couples (if you include
'sealings' for the dead, as well as for those already married civilly) -- and as
stated by another wisely above, the vast majority of the world requires a civil
marriage outside the temple to comply with 98% of marriage laws of all the
countries in the world -- "Marriage" laws are just that, 'laws'
to regulate what the society in each sovereign nation desires, including during
that 'legal relationship' and upon its termination. No two nations have exactly
the same 'marriage and post-marriage' laws -- how can any one of us dictate what
is 'right' or 'wrong' with respect to civil laws related to civil marriage in
every country?There is not one of us who agrees with every single law in
our state and country, and the same goes for citizens in every other country.Come on folks -- please distinguish between civil laws and religious
doctrines. We could all be more relaxed...peaceful..'without contention'...
Never forget that "The power to tax is the power to destroy". No,
gays will never be able to force religions to marry people, but once holding
that homosexual conduct is sinful is "discrimination" becomes settled
law, it will be childs play to eliminate the tax deduction for donations
(tithing) to religions that won't get in line, as well as taxing, maybe even
punitively, their property and activities. After Prop 8, lawsuits to do just
that were filed to do just that in California.THAT is what religions who
hold to moral standards have to fear, and based on recent events, they really do
have something to fear.
Thers's no problem. If you don't believe in the Mormon church, than gay marriage
is no big deal. If you do believe, it's also no big deal, because of your
beliefs.It's just that simple.
This article discusses what is fundamentally wrong with gay marriage. The gay
community is not going to be satisfied until religious rights are diminished by
legal challenges in the courts. Gays know that homosexuality is fundamentally
wrong and the more the push for rights, the more they attack religion. They want
God out of the laws in our country or the concepts God has laid out to be
modified to their liking. As long as the religious teachings against
homosexuality are still valued by Christianity, homosexuals will feel
uncomfortable (guilt understanding their actions are wrong), so rather than
accept their sin, they would rather fight to get those religious concepts
removed. Of course this is unacceptable to the LDS Church and to many other
Christian religions as religious truths are not voted into agreement. What God
teaches is not based on consensus, but homosexuals want to try to make it that
way through popular opinion and the courts. In the end, homosexuals will never
be satisfied with civil unions, so they push for marriage. Then they will push
for forcing religion to accept it. That is when I can only imagine that the Lord
will need to intervene.
I practiced law in California for the majority of my 40-year career. The first
amendment only exists there for the politically correct.IMNSHO, we
are on a constitutional collision course. Either churches have first amendment
rights or gays have them. There is no middle ground -- not because the churches
are too harsh, but because our opponents will not be satisfied with anything
lds4gaymarriage: "Should Evangelical photographers be permitted to refuse
to photograph LDS temple weddings because they think we're a satanic
cult?"Of course! They should have the right to accept or deny
any business opportunity that walks through their door. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER
WHY! If they don't want take the photos because it's too hot, or they're tired,
or the bride is ugly or the groom is gay, IT DOESN't MATTER! Who are you, or
the government, to tell a business how to run their business? If I
want to *discriminate* in any way in how I run my business, it should be my
right to succeed or fail based on whether I make good or bad decisions. If I
want to put only Coke and no Pepsi in my vending machine and I lose the Pepsi
customers, THAT'S MY PROBLEM, NOT YOURS.So, yeah, if the evangelical
turns down an LDS wedding shoot, that's HIS business; maybe he gets more
evangelical jobs as a result of his "sticking to his guns". That can
be his business strategy, win or lose.Let the free market work,
please, and stay out of my balance sheet.
to clarify a few comments above, FWIW:At least in the U.S. (Arizona,
specifically), a sealing in the LDS temple is concurrent/equivalent with a state
sanctioned marriage. I don't recall any specific speech that stated "by
the power of God and the state, I pronounce you....etc" or whatever, but I
have a State Marriage License and a Temple Sealing Certificate. Both were
obtained by participating in one ceremony, not two separate events. The
sealer's signature appears on both certificates as the person authorized to
perform the marriage.
I heard a quote on the radio the other day. The well known radio personality
said, " When did liberals who are pushing for gay marriage start caring
about marriage anyway? They have been saying that marriage is old fashioned and
unnecessary for decades now." So it just seems to me that this
upsurge in homosexuals crying out for marriage is all about getting their
lifestyle validated...with benefits! And liberal politicians want it to gain
support from their liberal followers. Vicious cycle. I wonder how many of these
politicians really condone it in theri heart of hearts. Does anyone
have stats on the rate of "divorce" or separation of homosexual
couples? That would be interesting to find out. I would hope it's near 0% since
they are making such a big deal about getting married in the first place. It's all so very tiring to read about. Can't we turn time back to the
50s and 60s?
I am very upset at the Deseret News' editorial judgement to publish this
article. This is the type of stuff that fuels the irrational segment of the
anti-gay marriage community. As one commenter noted: why would someone want to
have a church bless his marriage if said church rejected him? Here's the answer:
He wouldn't. There are many Christian traditions that have been quickly
embracing of homosexual partnerships--the "liberal" part of American
Christianity from the groups historically in quick support of women's suffrage
and black civil rights like the Unitarian Universalism Association and the
groups that would come to form the United Church of Christ. This is the type of
Christian thinking that this Mr. Chua-Eoan is speaking in behalf of. He believes
that true and desirable Christianity is that which embraces homosexual unions.
His ideal wedding would be in conjunction with a spiritual connection--a view
not shared with the majority of homosexuals in the US.This article
is an attempt to defend gay marriage resistance as some way to protect religious
freedom from persecution: a total reversal of what actually is the case so glass
house stone-throwers can feel a clean conscience.
Here's the bottom line, if you want a hamburger don't go to Taco Bell and
demand one. Go to Burger King and have it your way. To the Gay community, if you
want your your marriage don't demand the Morman Church, or any other church that
is opposed to Gay marriage give you something they didn't get into the business
to make. If you wish to take God's authority, you'll have to square it away with
him in the course of due time.
RantBully | 9:49 p.m. July 4, 2011Re: your comment "Gays know
that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong and the more the push for rights, the
more they attack religion"Where are you getting this
information from? You have made an assertion that is utterly false - Do understand that the lawsuits, past and present regarding same-sex marriage
are against the state, not against the church. Where do you see that gays sue
churches over the right to coerce churches into performing same-sex marriages?
Moreover, you are making the assumption that gays are, by definition, not
religious. I venture to say you do not know gays, otherwise, you would know
that gays come across all manners of faith and traditions. Further,
the churches that do permit same-sex marriage within their
congregations/organizations, are in fact, churches that do so from their own
volition, and they have much to lose, sometimes causing schisms within churches
among their members over the very issue.sfcretdennis | 6:15 p.m.
July 4, 2011 By way of letting you know - when you were married and
sealed in the temple, you were in fact, also married civilly, check it out.
The stakes over religious libertyIf we look at the argument - that
religious freedom is at stake - let's take the argument for what it's worth if
"The stakes are high" - so to speak - The US Constitution
grantes freedom of religion. If, in this case, gays, are jeopardizing freedom
of religion and the state is more and more favoring the gays, to churches' right
to practice religious liberty, then I think only one thing is certain. The
state takes away rights from one group to give to another, in violation of
constitutionally-granted rights.Then, I think there is only thing to
do. Have the churches sue the state to give them back the right for religious
liberty - a First Amendment protection. As it is, ever since gays
have been the right to marry - i.e. in Massachusetts - I have not heard of
churches suing the state over religious freedom, at any level. Has anyone? Examine the actions, though, and the litigation comes in the form of
taking away gays' rights, never to demand churches' religious freedoms. I do
not see coalition of churches forming to take back their rights, except in the
form of campaign-laden misleading rhetoric.
This article is absolutely written to scare gullible people into thinking that
"the gays" are scheming to take over their religious freedoms and
rites. And from the comments, it appears to be quite effective. Let's sort
some facts: Gay marriage will one day soon be legal in all states. The LDS
church will never be required to perform gay ceremonies. Gay couples DO have
children (point to earlier post that stated otherwise) - difference being that
it takes a whole lot of planning and expense -- NEVER an oops. Gay people are
not all athiests, or anti-religious. Gay people do not have an
"agenda" to take religious freedom away from heterosexuals.I can
speak to these truths because 1) I am a native Utahn and a lesbian; 2) I am
legally (CA) AND religiously married to my wife of 17 years; 3) we have three
beautiful (planned for) children in our family; 4) we are active in our local
church and have a personal relationship with God that is very much like most of
yours; 5) There is nothing at all about my family or my relationship that hurts
you or takes anything away from you - and there never will be.
At this time the state cannot for a religion, any, to preform marriage. As it
is, for all intensive purposes, a civil union until federal recognition is
granted at city hall for around $75. This is even supported in the
article. "The state cannot force a church to change its
beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks
that we're here, we will have to continue to march in parades and sing
"Somewhere Over the Rainbow." Nonetheless, waking up Saturday morning,
I was very happy not to be in Kansas anymore." Bias against
homosexuals aside, it is not the intent of marriage equality to FORCE religion
to preform gay marriage. Just to make gay marriage legal. You are free to have you belief's, faith and all manner of your religion,
intact. But, unless you are gay, this is not even about you. As self-identified 'us' in the 'us vs. them', you are identifying as a
religious, heterosexual person. Ergo, you will NOT be getting a gay
marriage... will you? As such, gay marriage has not, and
will not harm you. 7 years and counting now. Propaganda article.
Why should the government have any laws regarding Marriage? What if a couple
(hetero or Homosexual) doesn't get a marriage licence...are they subject to
arrest once they either live together or engage in sex? The State (Gov.) has not
really had a dog in this fight for a long time, because there is no penalty for
not buying a so called State Marriage (revenue) license. They have given up any
claim as far as the "State" license having any legitimacy except as a
business contract between two people. The same (type of) legal
contract can be written up between any two or more people regardless of their
relationship, if they are having sex or living under the same roof.just take the word "marriage" of of the (state) form and be done
with it.A religious organization would not be forced to marry
anyone. The "Real" Marriage according to LDS beliefs (and mine) is a
marriage (sealing) in the temple and it is between a man and a woman (as one
party) and God as the other party. My wife and I are converts, and were sealed
in the temple. didn't require another state license.
To all those who are posting anything that says gay marriage would never be
forced upon a religion are perpetuating a lie. The whole gay rights agenda have
never been about equal protection, it has always been about power and coercion.
They will try and lull us all asleep and then as we become apathetic they will
slowly but surely destroy the very moral fiber of this country. Wake up! The
constitution is "hanging by a thread"
@ JancaI don't think the gays are "scheming" to take over
the rights of the religious. But unknowingly they are foisting their lifestyle
(which has been something that has been disapproved of since the beginning of
time) into the faces of those who prefer to live the traditional lifestyle. They
are demanding that all children growing up on the earth today recognize the gay
community as "special" with clout and privileges, simply because of
their sexual preferences. They think their gay marriage isn't harming the rest
of the world. But those in gay marriages cannot sit back and think their actions
and lifestyle aren't touching and influencing the lives of people around them.
In fact they are causing tremendous confusion and angst in the world, all
religious belifs aside. They are messing with the fundamentals of science and
procreation. Whether gays want to acknowledge it or not, it takes
male and female to create life. To marginalize the role of men and women (one of
each) in a marriage and the creation of a family is to tamper with nature and
life itself. I think the homosexual community is the one with their
heads in the sand.
@ JNA: I would really like to know how MY marriage and MY children and MY
family -- how are they "destroying the very moral fiber of this
country"? Exactly. No rhetoric or one-liners please. Exactly how is my
family destroying the moral fiber of this country? If you met my family, and my
extended family (all LDS); you would be quite surprised, I think, to find that
we are quite normal. We work, we pay bills, we are great neighbors, we serve on
the PTA, our children's teachers love us, our children are in Boy
Scouts-swimming-Karate-summercamp, we attend church weekly, we pay taxes, we
shop at the grocery store....etc, etc. How, EXACTLY are we destroying the moral
fiber of this country? It seems that "ignorance", "fear",
"hate", "distrust", "disgust", and
"rhetoric" are more likely the villians bringing on moral decay.
Wouldn't you agree?
'They are messing with the fundamentals of science and procreation.' - O'really
| 9:08 a.m. I disagree. If creating a child is REQUIRED
to be married, why is that standard ONLY applied to...
homosexuals? Not, heterosexuals. Octo-mom. 14 kids. No
husband. Kate Gosselin, from 'John and Kate plus 8'. Six children
created through artificial incimination. According to the Child
Welfare Information Gateway, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised
by gay parents. Where will they go, if stripped away from their gay
parents? 40% of all children in the US are being raised by
single-parents. Source? CDC. *'Single mothers less accepted than gay
or lesbian parents' - By Marjorie Cortez - DSNews - 03/16/11 An
IDEAL, is one thing. However, since heterosexual couples are NOT
held to the very same ideal that some wish to use as justification to deny gay
marriage...? Then it is not a requirement. It is an
ideal. That 50% of traditional marriages, fail to adhere too.
Janca said, we are active in our local church. Do they read the Bible?Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. 1 Cor 6:9 NIV. For this cause
God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the
natural use into that which is against nature: likewise also the men, leaving
the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with
men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence
of their error which was meet. Romans 1:26-27.
@o'really"Can't we turn time back to the 50s and 60s? "Actually that might be useful, then all you people against gay marriage would
realize you're using the same arguments as those against interracial marriage
While this current trend does trouble me, I would think it should trouble those
who are mocking God's commandments more. God will not be mocked. I seem to
recall Sodom and Gomorrah. And for similar reasons. If they continue to push
Him, I know He is perfecly capable of a repeat peformance. History bears out He
will only turn his head for so long. Noah and the flood are another perfect
example. I think one should ponder on those things and maybe reconsider ones
@O'really: I appreciate reading your point of view and respect your personal
opinions. I especially like that you feel gay people are
"unknowingly" trying to get "special clout and privileges".
Can you please let me know what special clout or privileges those would be? I
haven't found any. Not one. My head is certainly up high (not in
the sand), and my children were certainly not created by "tampering"
with "nature and life itself". And how is my family creating
"angst"? Am I causing you angst? I apologize, then. I did not have
any idea that my family could personally hurt you so much. Perhaps
you should actually meet, and get to know a gay family. I dare say that if you
were to meet my family and spend time with us, your ideas/misconceptions on gay
families would be changed in many ways. I have many (in fact most) friends and
relatives who are very staunch LDS faithful, and ALL OF THEM love and respect my
family. All of them. They may not agree, and they may not understand, but they
all respect me and my family. Love and respect. It goes both ways.
Gay people are going to have to get in line behind women because many churches
practice discrimination against women by denying them the priesthood, and having
leadership positions. The LDS church discriminated against black men long after
the Civil Rights Act, and churches are permitted to perform/deny marriages for
whomever they choose. This article is pure fear-mongering.
So many posters know so little about the Constitution.Amendment 1:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "The Federal Government
cannot force any church to do ANYTHING! Every church can set its own doctrines.
Every church can perform any ordinance as it pleases. No matter
how many protesters block the entrance to temples, no matter how many protesters
burn churches, no matter how many protesters commit acts of violence against
church members, the government cannot force a religion to change its
doctrines.Has government interfered with churches? Yes, it has.
Members of Congress who pass laws dictating religion automatically take upon
themselves the responsibility for any transgression caused by their prescribing
religious doctrines. They will answer directly to God for interfering in His
domain.The right to worship God as we please also contains the total
responsibility to account for our choice of worship. No one can blame
government unless government dictates to churches. Everyone will account for
every minute of life, for every thought, for every choice. In
America religious freedom means eternal accountability.
GaboonViper67 You have to remember one thing, the government cannot force
a volunteer temple worker to show up and perform a temple marriage for a gay
couple. LDS4BINGO! The worse that could happen would be that
the state could revoke the worker's license to perform state recognized
marriages. LDS couples could, like they do in Europe, get married at city hall
and then sealed later in the day. We LDS have no need to fear being forced to
perform same-sex ceremonies in the temple.Demisana LDS4"Should Evangelical photographers be permitted to refuse to
photograph LDS temple weddings because they think we're a satanic cult?"DemisanaAbsolutely! Yes! And I say that as a life-long active LDS woman.
LDS4Being a Libertarian, I agree 100%, but our society
requires us to treat all equally and business owners agree to be subject to
kings, rulers and magistrates when they open their businesses.**********As I regularly ask, Will someone PLEASE tell me how LDS
support gay marriage bans (Prop.8) doesn't violate 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C
134:4's condemnation of using religious opinions as justification to infringe
upon the rights of others. Thanks.
The Mormon Church does not consider homosexuality a sin. The church considers
homosexual activity a sin. Big difference. Writers should be careful to keep
it in mind.
'No matter how many protesters block the entrance to temples, no matter how many
protesters burn churches, no matter how many protesters commit acts of violence
against church members, the government cannot force a religion to change its
doctrines.' - Mike Richards | 10:00 a.m. I'm glad we agree. Now, can you please give me EXAMPLES of gay persons 'burning down
churches?' Acts of violence? Dates, names, places, etc. If not, your making those examples up. To incite violence against the
LGBT community. It's call 'incite to riot.' And we already have examples of this
being done in SLC alone. *Survey shows some LGBT residents dont feel
safe By Rosemary Winters SL Tribune 07/12/10 A gay man arrested
for kidnapping after being severely beaten by his neighbors. (sic) A kiss
between two men on the LDS Churchs Main Street Plaza that resulted in
trespassing charges. *'Charges filed against neighbors of gay man
acquitted of kidnapping - By Linda Thomson DSNews 03/03/10 *'5
plead guilty in beating of South Salt Lake man and his partner' - By Spencer
Garn - DSNews - 03/21/2011
I didn't read the article or the comments, but to me it is sad that people spend
more time commenting and obviously reading the controversial articles and they
don't take the time to read and comment on the ones that are of a spiritual
nature. Or the ones that tell of some inspiring person and so forth.
My previous post on this subject was blocked by the moderators, and once again
the PC police prove that you can not say/post documented facts that portray the
gay community in a negative light no matter how true and how well documented
these facts are.Currently there is a case before the US District
Court with Judge Benjamin H. Settle presiding in Tacoma Washington John Doe #1,
et al vs Sam Reed, et al. The crux of this case is gay activists demand the
names of those who vote and or sign petitions against their SSM objectives. The
Motion for Summary Judgement contains a lengthy list of affidavits documenting
intimidation, hate speech, death treats, and vandalism, and more than just a few
of these acts of political terrorism are direted at the LDS and LDS members
because of the LDS position against SSM. "Some groups and
individuals,certainly a minority, have resorted to advancing their cause, not by
debating the merits of the issue but by discouraging participation in the
democratic process through acts calculated to intimidate.What has emerged,
in short, is an established pattern of overt political browbeating designed to
cow the opposition into silence"
I do not agree with the actions of gays. I agree that it is a sin. But
government preventing them from doing what they choose to do is eerily similar
to the government stating that the mormons must be driven out because of
polygamy. Those leaders felt it was wrong, so they drove them out. That was
wrong of the government to do then, and it is wrong for the government to do
@Donn - It really isn't anyone's business but I will answer your question. Yes,
I STUDY (not just read) The Bible. Likewise I have studied (along with my wife
and children) many other religious texts and guides, including, but not limited
to: The Book Of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants,
The Qur'an, The Book of the Dead, A Course in Miracles, Dianetics, The Divine
Principle, The Book of Formation, and Zohar....(I admit I have not finished them
all) I have a great love for all the different words that God has made available
to us in this day and age. I wish I had more time to study more scripture -
there are so many beautiful and inspired words out there.Likewise, I
also plant my pea seeds and my bean seeds in the same plot of land, and I wear
cotton/polyester blends at times. I won't ask you if you have done the same
because I think it is a very personal issue that is between you and your God.
Pagan:As you wish. All these threats/incidents were taken from
signed affidavits submitted to the US District Court in Tacoma Washington. The
Los Angeles Times also summarized some of these documented incidents of threats,
violence, intimadation and vandalism by gay activists agains those who disagee
with SSM:I will kill you and your family."Im going
to kill the pastor"If I had a gun I would have gunned you down
along with each and every other supporter""a sacred text
was burned on the front steps of achurch, and in another case, a militant
homosexual group took over a church service while it was in progress, while two
women kissed each other near the podiumI fully support violence
against churches who are politically-active as anti-gay . . . .Can
someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I meanseriously. DO IT.YOU LOST!!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha Get ready
for retribution all you bigots!!!!!! Affidavits docuenting physical
assaults, keyed cars, slashed tires,swastikas left on lawns and walls of houses
of worship and bricks thrown through theirwindows and glass doorsThere are many more documented incidents of intimication and political
terrorism by SSM advocates
Stand fan - You claim that god will not be mocked.. That is true, but has no
point here. If they are the ones committing the so called sin, then what do you
personally have to worry about? I hardly think that you need to worry about
another persons sin or sins. Their sins, like mine and yours will have to be
answered to. But mine don't affect yours and so forth. So to say it is a sin and
should be banned doesn't make sense. With that reasoning there would be no porn,
no alcohol, no tobacco, no rated R movies etc. So just because something is a
sin doesn't mean it should be banned. If you don't agree with it that is fine,
but others do and should be able to do as they please just as you do what you
please. If it has no direct affect on your life then who cares.
22ozn44ozglass | 10:35 a.m., Thank you. I've only heard
bits and peices of this case. Now I have some reasearch to do. While
I, as a gay activist, have never supported the use of death threats, 'brow
beating' or any other form of intimidation (heck, I don't even support
'glittering.')... dosen't your post CONTRADICT the principle of this
story? That goverment is 'infringing' on religion... but
those who supported Prop 8, primarily religious... are not ASKING
for the goverment to protect them? I think that summary is accurate.
Public opinion is changing. And it has nothing to do with the goverment vs.
religion. *'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage'
- By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011 It's the people's
concience vs. religion. i.e. you cannot use religion...to justify
discrimination. People who follow the Mormon faith should be able to
relate. Missouri executive order 44, October 27, 1838.
When you create God in your image, you can do what you want...turnips marrying
cabbages, potatoes marrying carrots, cats marrying dogs...and the list goes on.
However, when you are created in Gods image, you had better follow his
rules...men marrying women and that is where it stops.....as far as marriage is
We all know that there are many gay couples who would jump at the opportunity to
be married in an LDS temple. And we all know the only reason: to stick it in
the eye of the LDS church.
To Idaho Coug and others: The Proclamation on the Family as stated by many in
General COnference and Priesthood Leaders through out The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints is Revelation. THat is plain and simple. You stated that
if the law had not been passed the LDS Church would still be practicing pologamy
and blacks would not be holding the priesthood. This is utter nonsense as
President Woodruff stated emphaticially that if the Lord had not revealed to him
what would happen and such if pologamy was not stopped. THis means that the
Lord ended pologamy not the courts. The same is said of the blacks holding the
Priesthood. This was also received by revelation. The courts had never
intervened in the so called civil rights issue of blacks holding the priesthood.
Your logic would thus make it that women should have the priesthood because of
the equal rights for women. Again nothing is further from the truth.Revelation, modern day has stated that marriage is ordained of God and is
between man and woman. It was ordained as such from the first parents, Adam and
Eve. Our Heavenly Father performed that marriage.
Continued:As Cats stated in the beginning: GOD WILL NOT BE
MOCKED!As such as President Packer so vividly stated, man can by the
courts and legislation make laws here on Earth. Man can't change the Laws of
God. Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. The fact is we are in the
image of our Heavenly Father. Any sin, cohabitating outside the bonds of
marriage, the Lord has set (between man and woman) is a grievous sin. Your
judgement will come from that. As the world gets more and more wicked and
further from the truths of the Gospel, the closer we get to the Second Coming of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It will be then that every knee shall bow and
every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.Our rights to worship as we please has been under attack and one of the
great minds of the US Constitution has continued to say and give revelation to
that effect. If you want to reject this then that is your choice, but remember
whether it be from the mouth of God or his servants, it is still the same.
The real threat to marriage is no-fault divorce. If marriage is kept strong
with the real consequences of being sued for divorce for promiscuity than only a
minority of the same-sex community will actually marry. And these will be the
ones that are committed to a relationship.Through no-fault divorce
people can marry for their own political agenda rather than for life-time love
and mock the marriage institution.
Religion continues to poison everything.Mark it down, Brother
@Bill in Nebraska;1) Polygamy was stopped because the US was going
to take LDS property.2) The Proclamation on the Family has never been
called a "revelation" by the LDS Church or its leaders.3) The
Blacks getting the Priesthood wasn't a revelation either. Check out Kimball's
journals (his son published them). He writes that he did it because he knew his
successor (Benson) would not because he was a racist.The LDS Church
does like it when the members start calling these things "revelation"
(it helps with the indoctrination), but they've never called them thus
RanchHand,Actually, if you read the Church missives from that time
period, the LDS church was preparing to leave the United States again, rather
than give up polygamy. They had a new location in Mexico picked out, they had
plans in place, and the people were directed to store up food and supplies.
They'd already left their homes multiple times over the years, and they were
fully prepared to do it again. It wasn't until they received revelation to stay
that they put those plans to rest.No, the Proclamation to the Family
has not been called revelation. But it IS a summary of all previous revelations
on the subject. You don't have to agree with it or follow it if you don't want
to, but it does contain the LDS church's doctrine about the family unit. You're
just splitting hairs on that one. President Kimball also said the
revelation about blacks getting the Priesthood came about because he'd prayed
long and hard over the matter and knew that it was time. Just because President
Benson also knew that it was time doesn't mean that the answer didn't come from
our Heavenly Father.
@ Ranchhand: I'm sorry, but you can read Wilford Woodruff's reasons for
stopping polygamy. It was a revelation. While the Proclamation on the Family
has not been publicly called a revelation, it has been repeatedly emphasized as
binding on the the members of the Church, and it was stressed during the Prop 8
campaign in California (I know, I was there). Blacks getting the priesthood was
a long-awaited revelation (previous prophets had said that it should be expected
at some time). Whatever President Kimball's intial motivation might have been,
all who were present in the subsequent meetings with the First Presidency openly
state that there was a revelation given to all. As with polygamy and the
Proclamation on the Family, in the Church, one man's inspiration (or revelation,
if you prefer that word) must be ratified by the other general authorities and
the Church membership.Revelation in the Church, in order to be
accepted as binding on the Church membership must go through exactly the
processes that the Manifesto, the Revelation on Priesthood, and the Proclamation
on the Family went through, which is why those are, currently, binding on the
First not one place did I say it was a sin. And yes you have your freedom to
choose how you live, as do I. But it still doesn't change what God says about
it. Or what he could do about it. But to say your choices or mine don't affect
others? Come on. You could not possibly believe that? That's like standing in an
elevator full of people and having someone pass gas and pretending noboby else
can smell it. That is the oldest of Satan's lies. Yes what you do and say, for
good, or bad, has an effect on others. The most hurt I have ever experienced in
this life was a mistake a friend made. This issue effects a lot of us because we
can't turn on our TV's, or our radio's. or open a magazine, or walk the mall,
without having it crammed down our throats. Where are our rights to not have to
see it, or listen to it? Many don't seem to realize to a lot of us it's
repulsive. So don't try to make me stand in the elevator and tell me it's rose's
@ Janka Here is how your marriage hurts my family. I feel it is in the best
interest of my children to marry someone of the opposite gender and raise
children in a traditional home. My kindergarten daughter checked a book out of
the school library about a girl with two mommies very pro lesbian. It told the
story of two mothers who loved the girl very much. Sweet. But it didn't explain
anything about how the girl was conceived, who her real father was or why the
mommies don't want to be married to men. My daughter asks these questions. I
must (according to my conscience) tell her that I don't believe these two
mommies are following the commandments and that God punishes this kind of union
in the next life. My children have to be exposed to the knowledge of a type of
intimacy that I believe is unnatural and potentially harmful physically and
psychologically. I am labeled a bigot and a hater by the LGBT community and I'm
supposedly raising little bigots. MY children have to grow up in a world that is
confusing and dangerous. The LGBT agenda contributes to this confusion and
Finally, someone in the media points out the TRUE gay rights hidden agenda.
It's not just gay marriage that homosexuals want. It's social acceptance and
spiritual relief from feeling guilty of what most of society considers
sinful/taboo. This does not stop at marriage rights my friends! Whenever
they ask, "so how will my marriage affect you?"...remember Mr.
Oh, if everyone knew just how high the stakes really are. How do we get across
to people that our happiness and well-being as individuals and as a society are
tied up in that which lies at the very core of life and existence itself - the
divine creative power. Can you not sense the depth and greatness of it's
capacity for creation and joy when channeled in paths divinely designated for
its use? Conversely, can you not grasp the greatness of its power to damage and
destroy when perverted and misused outside of those designated paths? Why does
this argument of the obvious even go on? Are we not supposed to be the superior
species? When will the human race start using their supposedly superior
brains?!! When will we start listening to our hearts and souls and just do the
right thing?!!You are a being of truth because your source is truth.
You don't have to take anyone's word for anything. Just ask yourself. Just ask
your mind, your heart and your soul where the truth lies in this matter. Let the
truth within you tell you what is true.
@Jeff;Then perhaps it should be better labeled "A Proclamation
on the MORMON Family". It doesn't, and shouldn't apply to Non-Mormons.@O'Really;Then you should teach your children to marry the
opposite genders and leave other people to make the decision whom they will
marry to them. Who better to know who they love then the people involved?
Certainly not you, an uninvolved bystander.And fyi, the religious
agenda creates and contributes far more confusion and danger to the world than
gays getting married. You all can't even agree on which god is god, much less
if the god someone else worships even exists (and you go about killing them for
it - again "you" as in "you religious folks", not
Another article and another reminder to many Utah residents that they are still
considered second-class citizens and sinners by their neighbors. It's time to
find a newspaper that has more uplifting stories.
The easy solution is for churches not to have any legal authority to perform
marriages. Anyone who wants to get married should have to go to a Justice of the
Peace to make it legal. If the couple has completed the legal formalities and
they want to have a separate, non legally binding religious ceremony for their
own personal reasons then the church in question can decide whether or not they
will perform it for that couple. Also, if a church can discriminate on the basis
of sexual orientation then a gay group should also be allowed to exclude members
based on religious beliefs.
I really don't see where the problem is. If a church's viewpoints do not support
homosexuality then don't marry gays in the church. You can go to any number of
places and have a very nice non-religious ceremony, or you can find a church
that supports homosexuality and marry there. Again, this is why I
believe the government should have no place in marriage PERIOD.Marriage is a contract between two persons and whatever deity they worship. If
a couple wants to be joined in the eyes of the law there should be a completely
different process for that. One that does not discriminate against anyone.
Bill / Jeff - The Proclamation on the Family ... is Revelation...and binding
upon the ChurchKJK - Sorry Bill, but the proclamation wasn't a
revelation. It was written by a committee and wasn't approved by GBH until the
3rd draft. "The only one authorized to bring forth any new
doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as a
revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and
sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which
contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same
token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." Harold B. Lee"I do not doubt that the brethren have often
spoken under inspiration ..., but that does not become binding upon the Church
unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and
later to the vote of the people."Hugh B. BrownThe
proclamation has never been declared a revelation nor sustained and therefore is
NOT binding. Its call to infringe upon others rights also violates sustained
@Allen If you don't want government involved in marriage then you need to make
sure marriage no longer confers any legal or tax benefits in the eyes of the
law. If marriage is a social and not a legal status then spouses should not have
legal exemption from testifying against each other in court. They should not be
able to file join tax returns or automatically inherit money from the spouse if
there is no will. They should not automatically be allowed to visit a spouse's
bedside in the hospital if non-family visitors are restricted and they should
not be able to make decisions about whether to resuscitate a spouse who is on
the edge of death.
@ Ranchhand: As a former Latter-day Saint, you know that the purposed audience
of a proclamation from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve is to be
to the world, not just to Latter-day Saints. Proclamations are rare in the
Church, and are always addressed to a large audience outside the immediate range
of believers. Of course, the leaders as well as a the rank and file of the
Church know that many will reject a proclamation, but it is well within our
rights in this country (and other countries as well) to allow this proclamation
to guide us in our actions and activities in elections.In your
response to o'really, you say that we should teach our children to marry the
opposite gender. We want to do that; our desire to do so is one of the key
arguing points of the debate over "gay" marriage. In California
schools, gay activists are frequently invited into classrooms to teach our
children that homosexuality is good and normal (!), and that people who are
against it are evil hatemongers. We would like to stop that teaching, and
preventing "gay" marriage is one way to help do it.
@ Jeff | 2:29, Do you have documented cases of gay activists actively teacher
California school children about homosexuality? I suspect that to be a current
urban legend. You know, the type where a friend of my uncle's second cousin's
boss told me that it happened. I do believe it is important to
protect all students from bullying, and that is probably what is actually
happening. Do you have a problem with that?
I fully support Gay Marriage, but I agree with this writer... why should
religions have to support it? A marriage from a judge in a courthouse is every
bit equal to a marriage in any church... if the "bells and whistles"
are what you're worried about I'd have to ask if you're getting married,
regardless of sex, for the right reasons.
re - Jeff | 2:29 p.m"In California schools, gay activists are
frequently invited into classrooms to teach our children that homosexuality is
good and normal (!), and that people who are against it are evil
hatemongers."not true. they teach that it is normal...
because it is. and they teach that if someone bullies gays they are a
hate-monger... because they are. But at no point has anyone ever said being
gay is good. Nor is it bad, regardless of how many times you people say it is.
It is neither good nor bad. Race is neither good nor bad, gender is neither
good nor bad. etc, etc, etc.Since most mammal species have a gay
population, I don't understand why you don't think it is a normal occurence."We would like to stop that teaching, and preventing
"gay" marriage is one way to help do it"why would you
want to stop that teaching? shouldn't your children understand gay people? are
you actually afraid one of your children will turn gay because of it?if one of your children becomes gay, you have only you and your wife to blame,
since it came from your genes.
Does the author of the Times article recogmnize that religion also got an
exemption in the Constitution? There is a huge reason why religion is listed
first in the 1st amendment. The battle is clear now. Gay marriage
and rights is a religious issue not a civil one. The gay and lesbian community
clearly wants to destroy religion. We've been lied too by them for years.
re:22ozin44ozglassThe threats you cited in your 11:00 comment
appeared in World Net Daily as coming from blogs, not the LA Times as you
stated. World Net Daily was one of the leading publishers of
Obama's citizenship conspiracy theories.
What we as Mormons hold sacred as scripture say's this. The voice of the Lord is
unto all men, and their is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not
see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be
penetrated. And the rebelious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their
iniquities shall be spoken upon the houstops, and their secret acts shall be
revealed. And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my
disiples, who I have choosen in the last days. And also "What I the Lord
have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and
earth pass away, my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled.
Wheather by my own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. So you
see simply "The Family a Proclomation to the World" to us is from God
thru his servants, and we will not excuse it. Nor will He. Believe as you will,
and so will we.
To charlie91342, just wanted to say thanks, your post was excellent and one of
the few on this board in touch with reality.
Only if the practice of your religion involves societal, institutional, and
legal discrimination against those who believe differently than you, does
same-sex marriage create any conflict with your religious
"freedoms".I think most reasonable people agree with these
kinds of statements:"We believe that religion is instituted of
God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it,
unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and
liberties of others;""We believe...that all governments
have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to
secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the
freedom of conscience.""We do not believe it just to
amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society
is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the
individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."We
believe that all religious societies...can only excommunicate [their members]
from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."To
my thinking, these are perfectly consistent with the legalization of same-sex
marriage, and cannot be used to support denial of same-sex marriage.
I am for full human and full religious rights. I don't think many of you
understand what it is to truly love a religion and its teachings while dealing
with a personal issue that you were taught was wrong. I don't think you really
know what it's like trying to hide a secret because of the hateful comments you
have heard people say at church, school, and even home. I don't think you know
what it's like to hear for years that you can change, but it requires hard work.
Do you have people telling you that you are the way you are because you didn't
pray hard enough or have enough faith? Have you had suicide thoughts because of
it? Have you had friends or family tell you that you aren't welcome any more
because of your "choices?"
RE: LDS4 gaymarriage. As I regularly ask, Will someone PLEASE tell me how gay
marriage bans (Prop.8) doesn't violate 1 Cor. 10:29. OK The
Pericope is helpful or, The Believers freedom. The exercise of ones
personal(conscience) freedom is governed by whether it will bring glory to God
in the Christian church and to encourage the unsaved to receive Christ as Savior
and Lord. Sin does not bring Glory to God.RE:Janca, The sanctity of
the family. God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve. Eve was to bear children
of the couple, who in turn were to fill the earth with descendants. Thus the
family unit is a part of creation and the Adamic Covenant.Furthermore,
since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave
them over to a depraved(*reprobate) mind, to do what ought not to be
done.(Romans 2:28 Greek N.T.)*adoikimos, Greek #96, A mind God cannot
I suggest many of you go and read an article written by Henry B Eyring of the
First Presideny written in 1998, three years after THE FAMILY: A PROCLAMATION TO
THE WORLD.First he states that it is written to the WORLD. That
means every living soul who lives or will live on the Earth since it was given.
Secondly, that only the President of the Church is authorized to speak for the
Lord where this is concerns. Since, the First Presidency and the Quroum of the
Twelve signed the proclamation, it makes it binding on the world as they are
sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Third, whether it is by the voice
of the Lord or his servants it is the same. So, yes it is revelation. It
doesn't have to say this is revelation to be binding. All it has to be is come
from the Prophet of the Lord. Since, in Relief Society and as President of the
Curch, Gordon B. Hinkley read this proclaimation it became then revelation and
binding on the world as a whole. That means if you don't believe, that is your
right but it is binding on you.
Pagan: It took me all of 60 seconds to find a PDF copy of the Motion
for Summary Judgment, so I dont know that the problem is. Perhaps this will
help Case 3:09-cv-05456-BHS Document 209 Filed 06/29/11. This is a legitimate
legal document that clearly spells out a pattern of threats, hatred and
vandalism by gay activists against those who do not agree with SSM and most
particularly against religions. Pagan: "You also say the
Los Angeles Times reported those quotes...Response: I made an error,
the article and quote are from the New York Times and not the LA Times. Here is
the article Prop 8 Donor Web Site Shows Disclosure Law Is 2-Edged
Sword New York Times Brad Stone February 7, 2009 Here is another
article on the subject of the hate displayed by gay activistsJohn
Diaz, The Ugly Backlash Over Proposition 8, S.F. Chronicle., Nov. 23, 2008,From the days of Stone wall the gay agenda has been to attack on three
fronts: repeal all laws prohibiting homosexual sexual relations, force
psychaitry to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and to pressure and intimidate
It's not just the right to practice religion freely that some seek to take, they
also are trying to keep the religious from voting, donating, being politically
active etc. They have been attacking religion in general since long
before prop08. It really bothered me when Elder Oaks was voted
"worst person" by the Tribune after speaking out for religious rights
and mentioning the intimidation tactics going down. I didn't know at the time
that the Trib is very much involved in misinforming us about homosexuality. After hearing Elder Oaks speak I began educating myself about these
issues, and it is apparent that activists aren't seeking for "Rights"
or "truth" but for power. They actually threaten those who speak the
truth. There are some very interesting articles on narth showing
the tactics of these activists.
standfan - "..my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled.
Wheather by my own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.
..""If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church,
were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church
works..you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only
one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church,
who, when he does, will declare it as a revelation from God, and it will be so
accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.
And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church
works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to
accept it as truth." Harold B. LeeBill - "Since, the
First Presidency and the Quroum of the Twelve signed the proclamation, it makes
it binding..""..(Something) does not become binding
...until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later
to the vote of the people."Hugh B. Brown
O'really | 1:24 p.m. July 5, 2011 I am questioning your statement
that your kindergarten daughter checked out "Heather has two Mommies, at
the school library!I checked the catalog at the Idaho Falls Library
and it is not listed there. Unless your elementary school is extremely
progressive (which I doubt) they don't carry it either.
This is certainly one of those culture wars issues that it seems almost
impossible to debate. No one is talking about the same thing. I believe we need
a new paradigm for addressing these very hard issues in a productive manner.
Traditional debate, politics, and war aren't cutting it. We need our brightest
and best to focus on new ways to address these tough ones--not just choosing up
sides and brawling as I see here.
lds4gaymarriage: you are severely mistaken. Getting married in an LDS temple is
absolutely recognized and you do not need to be married in city hall or have a
public ceremony first. You have to have a marriage certificate, that's it. You
bring the certificate to the temple, they perfom the marriage, sign the
certificate and you are legally and lawfully wedded. You may get married civilly
first, if you are not worthy to enter the temple, then go back and get sealed
@charlie91342 Sylmar, CA: "Since most mammal species have a gay population,
I don't understand why you don't think it is a normal occurence [sic]."People are born without limbs too, but we don't consider it normal or
desirable. All nature drives to reproduce. The homosexual life style is a
rejection of procreation and is therefore both contrary to nature and
@lds4gaymarriage: "Again, this so-called nightmare won't happen because the
citizens won't allow it and would pass a constitutional amendment to prevent
it."We already have a constitutional amendment protecting
religious freedom. If the one we have doesn't protect freedom of belief and
practice what makes you think another one will.
let me give my 2 cent's worth.tooelemommyof5 - lds4gaymarriage: you
are severely mistaken. Getting married in an LDS temple is absolutely recognized
and you do not need to be married in city hall or have a public ceremony
first.KJK - You misunderstood his point. LDS4 was saying that if
the courts forced those authorized to perform state-reconized marriages to
perform gay marriages, the Church could simply refuse to perform legally
recognized marriages in the temple and LDS here would be like those elsewhere
who get married at city hall and THEN are sealed in the temple. If temple
sealings aren't legally recognized, gays have now legal cause to demand them.tonyloaf - @lds4gaymarriage: "Again, this so-called nightmare won't
happen because the citizens won't allow it and would pass a constitutional
amendment to prevent it."LDS4 - "We already have a
constitutional amendment protecting religious freedom. If the one we have
doesn't protect freedom of belief and practice what makes you think another one
will. "KJK - They one we have now is very vague/ambiguous. Any
new one would be VERY specific and therefore VERY effective. There
is NO WAY gay marriages are going to performed in the temple.
@ my slc OH how clever to check up on me. First of all, my family
moved to Idaho only recently. The book was checked out at a public school
library in the midwest. The book wasn't the one you talk about about. It was
"Molly's Family". When I complained to the librarian that I thought it
crossed a moral line and that parents should be able to approve the book before
it's sent home from school with a 6 yr old, I was given such a run around with
forms to fill out and official complaints to send to the city school board, I
gave up. Not because I didn't care, but because school was ending in a week and
we were moving to Idaho. I wish I had inserted my own "review" of the
book before returning it to the library to at least warn other parents of it's
content.@ charlie91342 yes some animals display gay behavior, but
humans have a far superior brain with the ability to reason, and hopefully use
restraint where necessary. Also, there is no evidence to a genetic link for
homosexuality. No parent is to blame unless they teach it by example.
I'll bet that those of you who'd like to see our society's laws based on the
Bible are the same Constitution-lovers who wail and gnash about 'encroaching
Sharia law'. I'll also bet that not a one of you strident
'traditional marriage' defenders, who are so afraid that a gay couple's marriage
will erode your own, do not personally know any families with gay parents. My husband and I have been married 17 years. We have 2 kids.Our good friends, a lesbian couple together for 17 years, also have 2 kids.
These women are two of the best parents I know, miles above and beyond some
straight parents I know.There is nothing to fear. People don't want
'special rights', they want equal rights. That's it, nothing more.Those of you who 'teach' your children that it is wrong to be gay are no
different than the people who taught their children that people of color were
inferior. No different at all.
To Kirkam: Sorry but not all revelations are given to the people for a vote.
The President of the Church has the sealing power. Thus what he states is
sealed in Heaven as well as on Earth. The Family - Proclamation on the family is
binding to all of us. It was so because the brethern you speak of unitedly and
unanimously signed the Proclamation. The vote was the Twelve Apostles and the
First Presidency. That is all that is required. The whole church doesn't have
to approve revelation. It wasn't so with the revelation on pologamy. It wasn't
so with the revelation on all worthy males getting the priesthood and it isn't
so with the proclamation.It is binding to the world. It is binding
to us as members of the Church and it will not be changed. The Lord has defined
marriage and nothing man does will ever change that.
BillThe whole church doesn't have to approve revelation. It wasn't so with
the revelation on pologamy. It wasn't so with the revelation on all worthy males
getting the priesthood and it isn't so with the proclamation.KJK -
Sorry Bill."General conference convened on 4 October 1890, and
on the third day, 6 October, Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the
Twelve, presented the Manifesto to the body of the Church. It was unanimously
accepted." (Institute manual)"September 30, 1978, in
General Conference by the common consent of the members of the Church. N. Eldon
Tanner stated, "Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as a prophet, seer, and
revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it
is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word
and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand.
Any opposed by the same sign." (Conference Report)The
previouslt posted quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee and Hugh B.
Brown all show that Common Consent IS required to make ANY statement official
and binding. Plenty of other First Presidency statements are ignored w/o any
Re:O'reallyI'm curious as to what you found so objectionable about the
book "Molly's Family." The Midwest isn't usually thought of as the
bastion of "liberal" values. Perhaps in Idaho your child won't have
classmates like Molly, but I wonder what you would teach your child if he/she
did have a classmate with 2 mommmies or 2 daddies. Would you forbid your child
becoming friends with Molly? What would you do if your child was invited by
Molly to come to her house to play? You've got to be taughtTo
hate and fear,You've got to be taughtFrom year to year,It's
got to be drummedIn your dear little earYou've got to be carefully
taught.You've got to be taught to be afraidOf people whose
eyes are oddly made,And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,You've got to be carefully taught.You've got to be taught before
it's too late,Before you are six or seven or eight,To hate all the
people your relatives hate,You've got to be carefully taught!
Universal rightsThe City University of New York, among other
nation's universities bring back to history a time in the 19th century when
women had to subjugate to The Cult of Domesticity and True Womanhood. This was
the "God" argument, which among other things, kept women from
achieving full marriage rights equal to men, the right to own property, the
right to vote, and the right to equal employment. Women were taught that the
four "pillars of domesticity" were - piety, purity, submisiviness, and
domesticity - all good traits - but in today's age - we call domesticity - if it
is the woman's choice to stay at home.Similarly, advocates against
marriage between races also used the "God" argument and such
literature abounded in church circles as late as fifty years ago. Whose God are we talking about? Or was the rhetoric more in line to achieve
political ends? Gays aren't anymore asking for "special
rights" as much as for universal rights - and this country's constitution
proves that it is a living and breathing constitution and that the essence of
Thomas Jefferson's words "all men (and women) are created equal" was
not, in fact, a reality, in 1776, but an ideal to work towards
I don't agree with gay marriage, but I don't feel that the law should prohibit
two adults from entering into a relationship of their free will. The is a big
difference between constitutional law and religious law.That said,
the idea that a group should have the ability to compel a private organization
such as a church to conform to their way of thinking just because they want the
benefits of association of that group without having to live their lives in
agreement with the beliefs of that group is craziness. If you want a Catholic
wedding you live the Catholic standards. You want a Mormon or Jewish wedding,
you live those life styles. But you don't tell those groups to chance simply
because you can't live their standards.If you think religion should
be based on popular trends and beliefs, start you own or join one that shares
Jeff says:"...but it is well within our rights in this country
(and other countries as well) to allow this proclamation to guide us in our
actions and activities in elections."---You have the
right to vote any way you wish. What you do NOT have the right to do, even
following your proclamation, is to DENY the rights that YOU possess to other
individuals, even if you don't like them. Period. You do not have the right to
vote on the rights of others.Bill in Nebraska says:'THE
FAMILY: A PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD.... but it is binding on you."--- Uhm, No. Your 'prophet' speaks for a fictional being, it is not
binding on anybody, actually.UtahBlueDevil says :"If you want a Catholic wedding you live the Catholic standards. You want
a Mormon or Jewish wedding, you live those life styles."--- I couldn't agree more.
Bill - you appear confused again on what is and isn't revelation. It is typical
for apologists like yourself to twist statements to fit your own agenda and
opinions. You simply are trying to deceive by saying it is a revelation. I
hardly think that god was required to "reveal" this proclamation to
the twelve and the three, respectively. It simply is not the case.
Again and again we read the same old and tired arguments about the dangers of
same sex marriage.Mr. Lane Williams and the DN are not only
distorting the "intent" of the opinion of an unknown (at least to me)
gay activist. But promoting incendiary feelings in the hearts of those who are
already corrupted by fear, hate and bigotry.The Deseret News would
do well in presenting all issues in a balanced manner. All issues have at least
two sides. Present all sides and allow the reader draw its own conclusions. Of course, as is usual with organized religion, it is easier to give its
followers information that is censored, and tailor made for their ears. After
all they blindly in "their truth".One of the things I
admired the LDS Church is the idea that "the glory of God is
intelligence". Intelligence doesn't mean we have to be in agreement, it
only means we can reach conclusions (although different) based on facts,
analysis, objectivity and a desire to reach the truth regardless their
consequences. We cannot achieve a healthy dialog if we come to the table with
fears based on the differences of others.Journalist should inform.
For those who claim they are fighting for some kind of "universal
rights,"While the euphemistic language sounds nice, I can't
help but question whether that is truly what you're after. After all, those
posters who call for "universal rights," but for only two people to be
able to enter into the contract, are already excluding people of one preference
from inclusion. Additionally, there are people with several other preferences
who would not qualify for your "universal" approach.Bottom-line: At least present your position with honesty. There are several
groups that you feel are not fit for marriage (those involved in incest, for
example). Your approach is far from "universal" and is akin to
fighting for equal rights for one race, but not another. You are deceiving
yourself if you claim any more than simply serving a narrow interest group.
The underlying premise of this article is simply incorrect. In fact, the 45
words of the First Amendment do not anywhere guarantee, or even imply, special
privileges to religions, any more than it guarantees them to the press, those
who peaceably assemble, or those petitioning the government for redress of
grievances. The freedoms to worship and speak and act are not listed to propose
that certain groups should enjoy "special" rights, but are identified
because those groups had been particularly oppressed in the past, and protecting
these behaviors were of special concern to the Constitutional framers. I have
the right to start or join a church, speak in public, write for a newspaper,
peacefully protest, and sue the government, and neither churches nor the press
enjoy "special" privileges over and above those I enjoy as a citizen.
Unfortunately, Elder Oaks' assertion quoted in this article is
consistent with his other public statements on this topic, which have overstated
the rights of churches to behave in ways that the Constitution simply does not
support. Basing an article on such a false premise is a slippery slope, and
often promotes baseless speculation, prejudice, and fear where none is called
I am intrigued by the way worldviews of religious people (primarily LDS) are
formed and maintained throughout life. It is fascinating to observe how the
majority of LDS never question a word uttered by a living Prophet or Apostle.
Being LDS my whole life I absolutely understand why that occurs but it is
fascinating to notice how LDS opinions must fit with the current teachings and
position of the Church. For me, this argument rests on the fact that
I believe same sex atttraction is based on genetics. And for me that ends the
debate. Because God would not create one of his children a certain way and then
expect society to treat that person differently because of that. It is the
reason I know the restriction of Priesthood blessings for black members was
absolutely a MAN MADE policy.I knew the author, Lane Williams,
growing up. Very nice guy. But I think we need to realize he writes for the
purpose of defending the LDS Church. And he does a good job of that. But let's
not pretend he is trying to impartially offer information for the reader to make
an informed decision.
re - tonyloaf | 7:25 p.m"People are born without limbs too, but we
don't consider it normal or desirable"then the question is - do
you withold rights from those people just because they have no limbs? and no
one said anything about desirable. Certainly it is more desirable to be born
with limbs (or heterosexual, to get back to the subject). and being born with
no limbs is a VERY rare occurance, while gays have been around since the
beginning. In fact, prior civilizations found it to be perfectly normal and
accepted, because they understood that some people are simply that way. Which
is pretty smart considering they didn't have animal planet to watch and explain
it to them (as you do)."All nature drives to reproduce"not true. gay animals don't try to reproduce - they are gay. And the
only people that make constant reproduction a major part of their goal are
religious people (muslims and mormons), the duggars, and octomom."The homosexual life style is a rejection of procreation and is therefore
both contrary to nature and antisocial."I would say continually
pumping out massive qtys of children is about as anti-social as you can get.
re - O'really | 8:40 p.m"yes some animals display gay behavior, but
humans have a far superior brain with the ability to reason, and hopefully use
restraint where necessary"why should gay people
"restrain" from who they are? Your type has forced them to do that
for 1000s of years and I guess they got tired of it. If gays were attracted to
the opposite sex none of this would even be an issue.Haven't you
noticed that many people you would never have thought were gay are now admitting
it. Do you think they are just faking it? why should those people not be as
happy as you are?re - Bill in Nebraska | 9:38 p.mBill -
do you understand how far-fetched your beliefs sound to the average person? and
yet you would impose them on everyone on the planet. please try to be rational
and stop saying your leaders talk to God and whatever they say is "sealed
in heaven". I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but you simply sound
like a crack-pot to us non-mormons. You need to use logic rather than trying to
force your beliefs onto everyone.
Pagan: Without verification, how can we know this was threats, or simply
vilification?Response: Interesting that you want to minimize what
gay activists say and do to simply vilification, but the gay activists
immediately label anyone who says a negative word(no matter how true it is)
about gays as hate speech, homophobic and bigotry. The quotes from
the affidavits that are listed in the Motion for Summary Judgment are all
documented and submitted to the Court. There are documented incidents of
vandalism to houses of worship by gay activists, assault, hate speech and hate
symbols painted on churches by gay activists. The Mormon church
(just like most churches) is a cesspool of filth. It is a breeding ground for
oppression of all sorts and needs to be confronted, attacked, subverted and
destroyed.If you were afraid that your kids learning about
homosexuals would corrupt them, you have no IDEA what Im going to do to them.Evidence of at least one physical assault against the thirteen year-old
child of a prominent supporterEven more telling is the lack of
public condemnation of these acts by gay activitst leadership
@PagenYou have me thinking again, perhaps unintentionally. There are
far more gays than Mormons, and gays and heterosexuals both defame, mock,
harass, and even hate Mormons. They misrepresent us in musicals, TV big love,
and other media. There is name-calling, portrayals of Mormons as bigots,
uneducated,extremists, imbeciles with a persecution complex, blaming for
national respect for marriage, and some even want to violently destroy Mormons.
Mormons rarely get the love and media attention that gays do, not that
gays dont deserve attention and love, yet Mormons have relatively low suicide
rates and high happiness. So the habit of blaming Mormonism for gay depression
(even justifying hating Mormons for it) is perhaps a form of bigotry itself. It is sad that heterosexual marriage is becoming less sacred.
Homosexuals marrying will not cure this. Promotional studies are often
used to support claims that gay parents are equal or better than traditional
families, but more neutral research disagrees. Keeping heterosexual,
adult, non incestuous marriage sacred is a "right." Polygamist,
incestuous, gay, and child marriages are typically not necessary, and thus not a
There are many wonderful people who call themselves gay, but a few seek to
control and alter the very fiber of our country, which is the family.As they do this they also sue to take rights of the religious minorities that
they have long bullied, especially singling out Mormons (some of the activists
commenting here are unmonitored on the Tribune and call for violence, to destroy
Mormons, drive them into the ground, exterminate, bomb, and persist in name
calling and defamation, etc.Nationally activists also manipulate media
(read Crafting Gay Children), alter studies, even manipulate and intimidate the
APA (the former APA president, who is gay, received a "warning" phone
call from what he called the "special interest mafia," who seek to
control therapists. His crime? He spoke the truth to narth, that gays can
change. From Former APA President Supports NARTH's Mission Statement, Assails
APA's Intolerance of Differing Views By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH)If the people dont vote their way, some activists will go above government by
the People. For more info, check narth, Trayce Hansen, and many
articles on the internet. Remember, many people at narth are truly wonderful
Lane is setting up and argument that is not really fair and not really there.
Here is what Lane did not quote from what the gay writer said in Time Magazine:
"The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people
realize that is wrong." I think his point is that all of us who belong to
Churches that would not allow gay marriage should understand should be sensitive
to the fact that such a doctrine/policy will always make gay members of those
Churches feel like second class citizens. I think he is hoping for the day when
all churches fully accept and recognize gay relationships. I am not saying that
will ever or should ever happen, but Lane is setting up an argument that the
writer clearly did not put forward. Probably to generate a lot of hysterical
Same Sex Unions are un-natural. We were NOT designed to propagate our species by
having sex with someone of the same sex. What people do in their own bedrooms is
their business, I have no problem with that, but Homosexuality should not be
paraded as normal. Men are NOT designed to have sex with men, just as women are
not designed to have sex with women. The world has gone PC mad, it now seems to
be a proud moment when announcing to the world, one is Homosexual.I
know, I know, There are many out there who'll call me "homophobic", I
accept that, as there is nothing wrong with being so. I guess I'll sit back now
and dodge the flack! But, you did ask for comments.
So, assuming, as the gay writer in Time magazine clearly states, that (most) gay
people are not trying to force churches to perform gay marriages if they do not
want to, how is gay marriage by another church or by the state, a threat to
religious freedom? I understand the argument that it is a threat to the
institution of marriage or to the family. But, religious freedom? If no one is
telling your church what to do?
To be honest, what is at issue here is possibly the tax exempt status of some
religions. Let's just be honest about that.
GLobetrecker - no flack here. I agree with you. Setting religion
aside, anatomy does not support the normalcy of same sex unions. That is not
something any law can change.
re - Jeanie b. | 3:09 p.mtell that to the 4% of the entire animal
population that is gay. And tell it to your God that created man (and gays) in
@ a number of questioners: I know what is taught in the LA Unified School
District about homosexuality because I've witnessed it first hand. I know about
the increase in same-sex relationships among latino girls in LA because I've
witnessed it. I know about recruiting done by homosexuals because I've
witnessed it.The question of rights being taken away from
homosexuals is a euphemism for a non-existent right that was never granted and
would not be granted by most homosexuals: the right for anyone to marry the
person they love. This is not a right, nor should it be. Most homosexuals
would not grant the rights for incestuous couples or couples with an underage
partner or even larger groups to marry. The line is being drawn at perversion
of natural sexuality.@ Christy in Oregon: I'm not sure why you
would assume that opposition to same-gender marriage is simply arising from not
knowing enough gay couples. It is possible to have a vast acquaintance with
homosexuals (both positive and negative) and still be adamant that marriage
remain between men and women. The issue is not the quality of individuals, but
the definition of the core of humanity.
I'll second what mcbillay posted. The New York law has religious exemptions
included and it's already been well established that no religious group will be
forced to perform or recognize any same-sex union (Not the ones that don't take
government money, anyway.) No LDS temple will ever have to perform a gay
wedding. This is about your own bigotry, pure and simple.(And why does the DN keep picking at this topic over and over again? Guess
it's easier to keep playing the victim than having to deal with something that
The Deseret News is way out of line here. You've completely taken the Time
Magazine article out of context. You left out these important lines:"The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people
realize that is wrong. And so, just to remind folks that we're here, we will
have to continue to march in parades" The article does not
advocate forcing churches to marry gay people. It points out the obvious and
that is that laws do not change people's hearts. That has to come through
patience and education.
Like the Energizer Bunny the gay marriage debate keeps going and going . . . Gay marriage is simply wrong and an endorsement of a gay lifestyle as
normal, which it is not.
BobP.... I agree with you... not a fan of gay marriage. But that is not the
point. The point is does the government have a place in decided what kind of
relationship two consenting adults can have. As a point of law, on a
constitutional basis, this will ultimately end in a decision that the government
does not have the right to decide who gets to love who - male or female, white
or non-white. That doesn't mean you can't teach your kids that you
don't accept that life style - choice or predisposition. You can't
be for a limited small government and at the same time feel government has the
right to decided who falls in love with whom, or what people do in their own
privacy. It just doesn't work.I personally cherish my freedoms, and
the price I have to pay for that, is equally granting others freedoms to believe
in things I do not. It secures the freedom of conscience for all of us.
Jeff | 4:20 p.m. July 6, 2011 The issue is not the quality of
individuals, but the definition of the core of humanity.=============What is the 'core of humanity'? The family, I'm
assuming you'd say, and I'll agree. I know you don't think that gay people were
born and raised in gay families. Gay people aren't some new species, it isn't
some new 'trend'. Gay people have ALWAYS been a part of the 'core of humanity',
part of a family, just like you and me, and they ALWAYS will be a part of the
'core of humanity', just like you and me. My daughter, or your son, say they
were gay. Are they not a part of the 'core of humanity'?Gay people
make up about 4% of society, always have. I'd hardly call that the ability to
knock the 'core of humanity' off it's over-populated axis. Hardly. These
people are A PART of our families, of our core - they are our mothers, fathers,
sisters, brothers, daughters and sons, NOT just 'acquaintances' held at arm's
length. How can you look them in the face and tell them they don't
deserve the happiness you enjoy?
Hey Jeff, Temple CityWhat is being taught in LA School District?
Are you suggesting every school in the district is teaching the same
thing? How would you know? BTW, there are over 50 high schools in
Hawkeye79 | 9:27 a.m. July 6, 2011This is the difference when it
comes to differentiating between different groups -Unlike LGBT
people, polygamous groups are not born polygamous neither do they claim to be.
Neither are people who enter into incestuous relationships.How is
that deceiving? You are widening an argument with premises that are never made.
Someone posted the following: "The next step is to bring legal action
against any church which teaches the practice of homosexuality is a sin in the
eyes of God." Given that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps
homophobic hate demonstrations at funerals, I think the poster's opinion is not
supported by any substance. Free speech is strong in America. If you want to
say hateful things about gays, you are person without character, but it's your
Homosexuality disgusts me. So do alcoholism, obesity, MLMs, used car salesmen,
atheists, people who like rap music, and people who don't clean out their
refrigerators regularly, not to mention people who get grotesque body piercings
and tattoos.But that isn't the point. This isn't about what I find
disgusting. It isn't about what a majority might find disgusting or
"unnatural". From an evolutionary perspective, monogamy and fidelity
are "unnatural", as are wearing suits and ties to Church.But people who do "disgusting" things are still Americans. They
should have every right to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. They
should be treated as equals under the laws of this land, not segregated and
separated into second-class status.I will continue to support
equality in the exercise of the legal rights associated with marriage, for ALL
US citizens. I strongly encourage my fellow Latter-day Saints to stand up for
the principles of liberty and equality upon which this country is built.If you do not, the day may come when you are deprived of liberty and
equality, and who will stand with you then?I give same-sex couples
benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
charlie 91342"Since most mammal species have a gay population,
I don't understand why you don't think it is a normal occurence."So we should start acting like animals? Just because someone has urges does
not mean those cravings are morally right. That doesn't mean the person is bad,
but it also does not mean that we should just think that any urge or feeling we
have is okay and that we should justify or act on it.
@ alt1234"all you people against gay marriage would realize
you're using the same arguments as those against interracial marriage
used."Please someone explain logically how the color of
someones skin is akin to a person's sexual preference. I don't see how they are
related. As far as I understand, those who are gay HAVE civil rights- can have
civil unions and the benefits that come with that. It seems that what is wanted
is approval of their BEHAVIOR. Race isn't behavior, it just is.@
Pagan"However, since heterosexual couples are NOT held to the
very same ideal (creation of children) that some wish to use as justification to
deny gay marriage...?"You are missing the point- being that a
homosexual union does not have even the POSSIBILITY of creating life. This isn't
a punishment, but is the way things are DESIGNED. A heterosexual marriage has
the POSSIBILITY of creating life, even though individual situations vary. Yes, there is divorce/abuse and things that should not be in
heterosexual unions. But that's not an excuse to justify sexual behavior that is
wrong. Children need a Mother and Father.
On gay marriage:"Make no mistake: This is an argument about the
socialization of homosexuality, not the homosexualization of society. It
demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays." Some religions get it. Some don't. The ones that do are the same
ones that supported civil rights when it mattered.Unitarians and
reform Jews were martyred in the South while others spouted nonsense about
blacks having damaged souls to child and adult alike. The people who believed
this nonsense were not evil. They were misled. There are tens of
thousands of teens that are assaulted because they are gay. I haven't heard of
those religious leaders lifting a finger to discourage bullies.Worse, some followers spread blood libel putting gays in the same category as
child molesters, etc. My survey of headlines show more opposite-sex child rape
than homosexual. No one should conflate pedophile behavior with hetero or gays.
The core of morality is that individuals are responsible for their behavior and
to bear false witness against people is bad. 9 out of the ten commandments is
not good enough.
I agree. Comparing homosexuality to race is wrong. And,
children need parents of both genders. Legitimate research supports this.Also we should love gays but can't justify homosexual marriage with
claims that animals do it, thus it is natural. Animals do many things that we
should not do, they practice cannibalism, and eat waste, these things may be
"natural" but are unnatural for intelligent cultured societies. I know activists frequently claim that animals are gay, but I've never
seen a strictly homosexual animal. I've seen bisexual animals, but I don't
believe bisexuals are seeking marriage are they? But has anyone seen a strictly
homosexual female cat that engages only in sexual activity with other female
cats and maintains a long term relationship worthy of marriage?
Civil Rights - as the parent of a multi-ratial family, I am really tired of the
Gay crowd comparing themselves with the civil rights movement. While at the
subject line, the issues look the same, the impact and implications are
completely different.A gay person can go about their business never
having to disclose their preferences in life. It need not impact one item of
their lives, if they so choose. On the other hand, a black person can't hide
their blackness... the judgement is instance without any other ques. Do all people deserve the right to be treated fairly, absolutely. I support
many peoples rights to believe and act as they will so long as they don't try to
dictate to me how I should feel or believe. So in that sense, I see gay
marriage as a protected right - eventually.But please don't go down
the road that you all suffered the same as those who were held in bondage, with
no rights, for generations. It is an order of magnitude different. It would be
likewise if gays tried to compare themselves to european jews. I
wish all people would keep their love life choices private.
@ Christy ORI am by far not perfect, but try to teach my children to
love everyone, no matter who they are or what they choose. I hate bullying. It's
wrong to hate another human being.But it's also wrong to teach them
that sin is okay and that it hurts no one. Race isn't a choice. CHOOSING to ACT
on homosexual urges is a BEHAVIOR that is morally wrong. (I know others disagree
with this and they have that right). It is not accurate for you to
accuse those who oppose homosexual marriage as being automatically bigoted or
hateful. I am neither. I realize some feel they are born this way. I
believe they have urges that are unbidden. But I think every human being has
urges that aren't good, that if acted on not only harm themselves and loved ones
but society in general. IMO I think every human being has heart-rending
challenges that we go through in this life and we should help one another.But love isn't always just smiling and saying anything goes. Love has
limits to help us be happy in the long run, even though challenging in short
I repeat that I love my wonderful gay family members, friends, coworkers and
all. Love for gays and all requires that we speak out against
legally binding into homosexuality. Bullying is repeatedly
denounced. The arguments presented to support gay marriage are
misinforming, and others (even pedophiles) use similar unsound arguments to
support many harmful things (claiming it hurts no one, they were born that way,
comparing opposition to racism, etc see narth "On the Pedophilia Issue:
What the APA Should Have Known").Gay marriage is no more
necessary than polygamy currently is, most gays do not want to marry, and
research indicates gay marriage is harmful, gays are not born gay, traditional
parents are better for children, and many gays can change (although if they do
not change we still love them, but I am very much opposed to mainstreaming
homosexuality, teaching children it is normal and as sacred as heterosexual
relationships. I oppose those assaulting gays and gays attacking religious
minorities and faith, controlling the APA and media, pressuring politicians,
trying to shut down narth, and blaming others for homosexual problems such as
suicide, violence, addiction etc).See my comments on previous pages
for studies, research, references.
I believe in gay marriage--a happy marriage between a man and a woman.
Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and is a big tool of satan to destroy the
Marriage has always been a union of opposite sexes throughout all of recorded
history, throughout the entire world. I find it amazing that the argument is
now gaining so much traction that this definition has actually been about
bigotry and discrimination all along. Only now have we reached such a degree of
enlightenment that we can declare that, of course, gender is irrelevant to
marriage? Sorry I don't buy it. I'm in favor of domestic
partnership laws. My heart goes out to gay people. I can't imagine being told I
should change my sexual orientation. It must make life difficult to be inclined
to homosexuality. But I stop short of saying that there is no legal or moral
difference between a gay union and a traditional marriage.Society
has every right to recognize that there are important differences in the sexes
and give special recognition to the age old institution of marriage.
UtahBlueDevil | 11:42 a.m. July 7, 2011 Durham, NC Civil Rights - as
the parent of a multi-ratial family, I am really tired of the Gay crowd
comparing themselves with the civil rights movement. While at the subject line,
the issues look the same, the impact and implications are completely
different.-----------------Many in the black community
disagree with you, ie, Coretta Scott King, Mildred Loving, Al Sharpton, and
Julian Bond for example. "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful
children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I dont think of Richard and
our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom
to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the wrong kind
of person for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no
matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same
freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some peoples religious
beliefs over others. Especially if it denies peoples civil rights."
SoCalChris | 1:55 p.m. July 7, 2011 Riverside, CA Marriage has
always been a union of opposite sexes throughout all of recorded history,
throughout the entire world.----------------You need to
read history a little bit more and make sure that what you have been told is the
truth.Gays married in China, and Rome. This is not the first time
in the history of the world that this has happened. Read the history of
marriage. It might surprise you.
Herbal Tea Partier | 12:24 p.m. July 7, 2011 Kearns, UT I believe in
gay marriage--a happy marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage is
an oxymoron and is a big tool of satan to destroy the family. ------------------Tell that to the child that a gay couple adopted
because no one else wanted him. Tell him that if his parents are allowed to
marry and be able to provide the most stable environment that government can
offer for him to be raised in - it will only allow Satan to destroy other
families.He will look at you like I do and say you have absolutely
no proof that it will do anything but be a boon to those who want to bind their
partner and children together legally. Look at MA. Seven years of gay
marriages and still the lowest state in the nation for divorce. Where is your
proof that same-sex marriages will destroy marriage? I think it will just add
another layer of success on the word "marriage."If you
enjoy this legal benefit, why shouldn't this family?
I'm am so grateful that our country is getting closer to affording freedom for
all. The religious zealots need to clam up or leave this nation.
@mgr63Ironic that you mention freedom and clamming up in the same
breath. The reason why so many came to this nation was FOR religious freedom. We
have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, just as you have the right to
Lane - you clearly didn't understand. No one is saying this issue at the topic
level is not about civil rights..... but the "civil rights movement"
was something much greater. A black child could not hide his or her
blackness - and was legally prevented from attend schools with white kids in his
or her town.A gay child can go through school - picked upon if they
choose to disclose their preferences - but they have a choice. Black children
had no choice.Black men were prevented from holding most any decent
job, by virtue only of their skin color, something they could not choose to
disclose or not. Gays have never faced this same immediate judgement - they
could chose not to disclose their views.As an LDS, you can have gay
feelings, but so long as you didn't act on them, you could enjoy all the
blessings of the temple. A black man had no such option, regardless of
actions.What those you quote are talking about is something quit
different. Most of the gays around you, you have no idea who they are, as it
should be. It is their personal life. "Blackness" is more
obvious.Its at deeper level.
In my church (Roman Catholic) marriage is not a right, it is a holy sacrament.
To speak of marriage as a right is to regard it only in a civil context, not a
religious one. I believe I speak for most Christian churches when I say the
church draws its authority for celebrating the sacrament of marriage through
sacred scripture. There is no authorization found in sacred scripture for
performing a "gay marriage," hence it cannot be done. The church has
no authority to perform such a ceremony. There is no way it could be valid.
Legislatures can pass laws, but there is no way they can write new scripture.
God loves gay people. People who love God, love gay people. Love or hate are not
the issues here. Proper authority is. God ordained marriage in scripture as a
covenant between man and woman. This is in accord with His purpose for marriage
as the foundation of family life, and especially for the care and nurture of His
divine creation, His children, who need both a father and a mother, united in
holy sacrament. This is integral to the meaning purpose of the estate of
@loaf said, The reason why so many came to this nation was FOR religious
freedom. We have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong, just as you have
the right to believe otherwise-----------But you are trying to
prevent mainstream churches and synagogues from exercising their beliefs. You
have the right, under the 1st amendment, to restrict religious marriages in your
church, not his or mine.You can believe anything you want. Civil marriage
equality won't change that.I've been with my wife for over 20 years and
frankly I would be outraged if someone had prevented, interfered with, or
destroyed our marriage. That is what you are doing to the many good couples I
know. Please forgive them if they occasionally lose their temper.
Churches already have all the right in the world to deny performing marriages to
whomever they want for whatever reason they want, or no reason at all. And so,
this article about gay marriage being a threat to religious freedom is pure
Ridiculous. Gay Marriage does NOTHING to religious "freedom". At no
point ever is any religion forced to marry gay people. And in fact, religions
are fully 100% free to argue that Gay Marriage is against their teaching and
immoral. Nothing about about a government's willingness to recognize a marriage
performed by a County Clerk impacts religious freedom in any way. All religions
are free to reject gay marriage if they chose. Noting about the government
forces them to do otherwise.
~shrugs~ I don't know what this guy's problem is... He just found a soap box to
stand upon. I personally don't see how being able to "choose any church or
temple" would be considered all the "bells and whistles" of
marriage. You can have a very nice ceremony pretty much anywhere you like (aside
from those few sacred buildings) and have an independent pastor preside over the
wedding (in the lucky states that are now starting to allow same-sex marriage at
all). I am gay, I was raised LDS, and I have absolutely no desire
whatsoever to enact a same-sex marriage in the temple, or any other church that
didn't support my decision... I personally wouldn't feel comfortable. but I
guess that's just me...
*SIGH*Being a bonfide member of the "gay rights" team let
me first say 99% of us don't care if churches don't want us to get married in
your churches - all we want are the rights afforded by marriage.What
happened here is that the churches went too far in trying to restrict gays, and
then (yes you know it's true) even saying gays were unfit parents. Truly sad
and not inline with the religious values you espouse on this board. Why shouldn't a woman be able to sponsor her same-sex partner for immigration
purposes? Why shouldn't a man be able to visit his partner in the hospital,
make decisions for him, and if he should happen to die receive the survivor
benefit from social security or federal pension if there is one?For
all the talk and judgements everyone is doing here on this board, we all know
there is only one true judge of right and wrong and sorry but you are not it.
@UtahBlueDevil: "A gay child can go through school - picked upon if they
choose to disclose their preferences - but they have a choice"-------Scary, you don't even condemn the bullying. Blame the
victim. Sad ...
I love everyone saying "just hide it" so then you won't be beaten,
taunted, harassed, picked on - even murdered. First off, the rights. That's
the ticket that gays are looking for. We certainly are not asking nor do we
care about you "accepting and approving" our relationships. Honestly
I could care less what you think about it. Secondly, as to hiding it. It's
quite obvious many of you have never had a water cooler conversation at work:
"what did you do this weekend". A question as simple as this.
Pictures at your desk. You can have your wife's picture, or your husband's
picture but what you're asking us to do is stuff all that in a drawer, and lie
to your coworkers about who you really are. No wait, then when it all comes out
you proclaim your disgust at our propensity for lying. Truly hypocritical ....
Utah Blue Devil,Civil Rights are not only for race, age, disability
or other overt signs of being different. They also are for differences that can
be hidden, such as religion. Any citizen is protected from being discriminated
against because of their religion here in the good ol' USA. I guess you could
argue that no one needs to know about your religion, so it shouldn't be
protected, but, like sexual orientation, it is part of who a person is. It is a
choice that a person makes but is still protected. "I still
hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay
people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said.
"But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone
who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of
brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," Coretta Scott King. -
Reuters, March 31, 1998.
honestly, many of you are seriously delusional. You think that a country
populated by, governed by, and completely controlled by an overwhelming majority
of Christians is going to be forced by a tiny percentage of the population to
teach homosexuality in your churches and turn your schools into homo factories
or something.yet you don't hesitate to demand legislation to tell
them what they can't do, or to prevent other people from getting abortions, or
to stop doctors from developing cures for diseases using stem cells. hypocrisy and lunacy.
@Bill McGeeElder Oaks is a former state Supreme Court judge with
decades of Constitutional law scholarship behind him. He was on the shortlist of
possible USSC nominees for a decade, under two different Presidents, before he
was called to the Apostleship. He also clerked for USSC Justice Earl Warren.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure he's more than a little better
versed in what the Constitution guarantees than you are.
My family is also multiracial. We agree with the vast majority of blacks that
gay marriage is not a right and comparing sexual preference to race is
offensive. Gays vote, work, are protected, etc. They don't
need to announce sexuality.Extreme activists are powerful enough to
scare normal gays, and are often the antithesis of Civil Rights. They bully
religious minorities, "vilified" blacks for overwhelming support of 08
(before focusing attacks on less popular Mormons), override voting rights,
refuse rights of the religious to be involved in decisions affecting our
children, hide truths about homosexuality etc. We can't throw
Mormons off bridges and exterminate anymore (although some activists call for
it) but "Special Interest Mafias" manipulate media (read Crafting Gay
Children), threaten APA (see Former APA President Supports NARTH's Mission
Statement, Assails APA's Intolerance of Differing Views (he is gay)), litigate
against free speech and call centers, overturn constitutions, mock minorities in
musicals, BigLove etc, promote hatred, fire based on religious beliefs, and
admittedly terrorize (imitation anthrax, rocks etc) etc. Worse,
activists increase the destruction of marriages through promoting abandonment of
heterosexual spouses for homosexuality. Voting and safety are
rights.Marrying everyone isn't. Keeping heterosexual
marriage sacred preserves America.: )
Tell me true, Mormon Church and Deseret News: How do you get from
this..."The state cannot force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay
people realize that is wrong"...to this inflammatory headline: "Gay
marriage debate shows threat to religious freedom"??? This is called fear
mongering by an organized religion.The Mormon Church, through its
extension the Deseret News, chooses fear-mongering over human respect and
compassion. I say again, this statement is unequivocal: "The state cannot
force a church to change its beliefs. Even gay people realize that is
wrong." I'd call the hysteria being expressed here delusional,
but let's call it for what it really is: LYING. Pure and simple. When that lying
is done by an organ of an organized religion, that is truly despicable.
To firstamendment | 12:15 p.m. July 8, 2011 You said: "They
don't need to announce sexuality."My answer:When my
husband (of almost 42 years) and I walk hand-in-hand, or with our arms
around each other's waists or kiss (chastely), or when we talk about our
children and grandchildren, or where we are going on vacation as a family,
we are publically declaring that we are straight. When I have a picure of my
husband and family on my desk at work, I am publically declaring that we are
straight. When my husbnad and I attend company parties or clients' parties
together, and introduce each other as spouses, we are publically declaring that
we are straight. Those are just a few of myriad examples concerning how my
husband and I declare publically that we are straight. Are you claiming that I
am out-of-line for doing so? That I don't need to "announce my
sexuality?" Sorry -- you're the one who is out of line for
seeking to deny gay couples the right to do the above-referenced things
that my husband and I do as a mater of course.
The issue is not really about the legality of same sex relationships as much as
the legitimizing in the public mind the "normalcy" of homosexuality.
Let us be quite clear, homosexuality only barely exists in a tiny proportion of
the population; homosexuality is intrinsically dysfunctional and deviant
(deviant as in deviating off the norm). Do we want to be manipulated
by a small number of disordered people or put our energies into supporting the
basis of society - the family consisting of one man and one woman. The gays are certainly making enemies on this one, the claws come out when
people disagree that their sexuality is not normal. Never has been. Sorry to
burst your bubble.
@Globetrecker -Throughout history, people like you have tried, and
failed, to throw a wrench into the wheel of progress. To get so worked up over
something that personally affects you, nor harms you in ANY way, is really sad.
It's a waste of your energy and time. Of course, so is it a waste of mine
trying to convince you of that.
LDS4gaymarriage, the very sad and scary thing is you either don't care about, or
don't realize the REAL EVIL that is connected with the group you are supporting.
Being gay doesn't make you evil, but there is true evil at the basis of this
movement. You affiliate with groups that are definitely not in harmony with the
CHristy 9:10I think you mistook "progress" for
"regress" What the world is becoming is not progress. ALthough, if
EVIL like this continues on its current course and speed, it can only bring the
Savior here to set things right for a final time. BOy will he be disappointed at
those who support and encourage evil. He probably won't be too happy with those
who stood by and let this happen either.
So if all churches cannot agree on whether or not homosexuals can marry, than NO
churches should allow homosexuals to marry? Is this the way we guarantee
religious freedom? I don't see the Catholic Church being compelled
by law to marry divorced couples. To be clear, I don't think the law
should require any church to marry homosexuals. Neither do I think than anyone
should say their own rights are jeopardized by granting those same rights to
The argument is a logical fallacy of the slippery-slope. "If we allow
Gay's to marry, the next thing you know, they'll be suing to marry in our
churches and temples." I believe this excuse is used as a "just"
way of arguing why Gay's shouldn't marry without trying to sound
un-compassionate or homophobic. There is no legal base for this argument, in
fact quite the opposite. Churches have long been able to discriminate in many
ways. Churches are not required to hire non-members or people not of their own
faith. Churches can legally ex-communicate a member for virtually any reason.
The boy scouts of America is a prime example, they won a legal battle to
prohibit Atheists and Gay's to join. So you see, there is plenty of case law to
back-up not allowing Gay's to marry in LDS Temples and other "holy
places" as those organizations see fit. The argument that the government
allowing Gay's to marry is like arguing that because cigarets and booze is
legal, that people might be bringing those things into the Temple as well, and
therefore they should be banned everywhere as a result.
@SLCBORN "I'd call the hysteria being expressed here
delusional, but let's call it for what it really is: LYING. Pure and simple.
When that lying is done by an organ of an organized religion, that is truly
despicable."A threat to religious freedom is real, and the
nation's top law school, Harvard Law, allowed an analysis of that threat to be
published in their journal. Read the 2007 Harvard Law publication "OR FOR
POORER? HOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY". "delusional" and "LYING" are simply words used by the
Could someone please give me an example of a another historical movement they
admire that predicates its rights on the denial of those same rights to others?
The unceasing negative campaigns against those with differing views on
homosexuality will not be happy until they have rewritten and edited the
scriptures to support their views. It does not matter to them that their way of
life is clearly called sinful in the scriptures by God, Jesus and the prophets.
As my dad used to say; just because you can do it doesn't make it just or right.
It is laughable that I ever seriously thought the Mormon Church and its
"news" organ might really allow an open and fair dialogue on this
issue. I returned here after receiving an email that my initial comment
attracted 11 "recommendations" for being "particularly insightful
or enlightening," and inviting me to "continue to participate in the
dialogue."I have now failed in at least five attempts to
respond to a direct personal attack ridiculing me as "uninformed." In response to vague, emailed form-letter "guidelines," I can
state that my careful response never used vulgar or offensive language, and was
precisely on-topic. I excised anywhere I might have violated terms with capital
letters or multiple punctuation (even though I was allowed to use it in my
initial post). Where I mentioned a brand name, I excised it. I am not directly
addressing or aiming to provoke any particular reader by name. Still, my comment
is "denied" for no apparent, valid reason. It is
abundantly clear to me that this articles real purpose was merely to provoke by
using "gay" and "threat" in the same headline, and not allow
reasoned responses to this ridiculous, sky-is-falling "essay."
The gay rights movement certainly has its sights on the temple because of the
eternal principle of families and personal progression to exaltation taught
there. Were they to succeed it would set the world back to the dark ages when
mankind had no concept of a higher existence than pawns and power.
Existentialism has never produced a civilization much higher than animal
instincts. Christianity has raised the hope of all mankind to a kinder, gentler
existence. And the hope of eternal families is the capstone of Christianity.