OK - that one really made me laugh!

WRONG! Look at the official records. The millions came from individual Mormons, not the Church. Official records show the Church, itself, contributed a few hundred thousand, mostly in "in-kind" donations.

What seems absurd to me that millions of dollars went from Mormon (and Catholic) hands, whether individually (at the church's behest) or from the church, to deny civil rights to thousands of Americans, when millions of people around the world could have benefitted from food, clothing and other necessities of life that this money would have bought. Talk about mis-aligned values.

Because certainly the "church" didn't urge them to do so.

Apparently, you didn't read the letter..

I have never understood why these Churchs feel such a strong "need" to push their values and beliefs onto every other person in this country. This ruling for gays is a victory for the american people and what right does any church or group have to stop a marriage between two people regardless of their gender? I am really sickened and disturbed how much these Churchs and Christians feel they need to change "everyone else" and have us believe what they do. These groups need to stay out of personal relations, it is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

hypocritical of our overnment to persecute a religion for its relgious beliefs like plural marriage in the 1800s, and now persecute Us Mormons for standing up for moral values you once held in sacred regard while you now have the very same sick behaivior you once despised!

LMAO!

Separation of Church and State? They still used church funds to influence the state and preached from the pulpit. Could they loose tax exempt status?

You talk about how church "impose" their values on others. The gay and lesbian community has preached that their lifestyle is normal and that they have the right to marry. They expect everyone else to not only condone their decision but to publicly celebrate it with them as well. That is the same behavior that you've condemned.

That's a specious - and probably deliberately disingenuous - argument of the worst kind. The gay and lesbian community has never tried to insist that straight people be denied anything except the privilege (not a right) of denying them equal rights. They have never tried to take away the right of straights to marry, to hold jobs as teachers or to serve in the military, nor, indeed, ever insisted that straights stop being straight and turn gay. They don't give a rat's behind whether "condone" their behavior or not. In fact, they specifically repudiate your claim that you have any right to condone or not condone what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And they sure as hell don't expect you to "celebrate it with them". If that's what you are worried about, you can relax now. I seriously doubt there is any real danger that anyone will ever invite you to their gay wedding ceremony... and if you should be rude enough to crash it, they will (and should) probably have you escorted out by the police.

I don't expect anyone to "celebrate" something they don't believe in. I do, however, expect to enjoy the same rights and freedoms that every American is entitled to. And by the way, we could pay off our national dept with the money I've spent on wedding gifts for my straight friends! No regrets though as I believe love is something TO celebrate. Open your heart AND your mind!

Since I am a cop you are probably correct.

The Mormon Church regrets that all Americans have not joined their cult, but they will never give up

The Mormon Church regrets that they have not taken over our government yet

This "ruling" is going nowhere fast. Even if Prop 8 is struck down, gay marriage still won't be legal as a result of a court ruling. Since when does a court legislate anything? Courts are there to interpret the laws, not make them. The courts certainly cannot "legalize" gay marriage unless a law is changed or a new one passed through Congress or state legislators supported by the majority of the voters. I doubt gay marriage would get enough support to become law if a broad based vote were taken on the subject. The California voting block, like liberal Mass & Vermont, is an anomaly which won't be replicated in most of America.

niel Thomas

hypocritical of our overnment to persecute a religion for its relgious beliefs like plural marriage in the 1800s, and now persecute Us Mormons for standing up for moral values you once held in sacred regard while you now have the very same sick behaivior you once despised!

There is the famous Mormon persecution complex. That's why they call themselves saints.

See, the rest of us are all wicked, evil, Godless, satanic sinners and it's their duty to convert us and it's expected they will be persecuted for this reason.

Not because they are just plain delusional, and their founder used to get visions from God by gazing into a crystal in the bottom of a top hat.

• !

#1.7 - Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:48 PM CDT

Jobe-2144251 - I do, however, expect to enjoy the same rights and freedoms that every American is entitled to.

I hear this a lot. I'll leave aside for the moment the argument about whether marriage is a right or not. Under the laws that govern my state (and I assume this applies to all other states as well), I am only able to marry someone of the opposite gender who is not my first cousin and is over the age of 18. That same right or privilege (whichever you prefer) is extended universally to all citizens of the United States equally.

What a non story. Of course they regret it just like many of the other Churches and religious organizations. Are Catholics for gay marriage? Are Baptist for it? Like I said, Non story.

Sheesh. Can't even post a comment without getting my newsvine comment box filled up from the religious fanatics trying to "convert" me to their religion....... Hello? I don't NEED TO BE CONVERTED.....I have my own personal faith, that is none of your business....thank you.

To those saying ye-ha to the same sex marriage ruling:

Disagree with me where you will, but I see marriage as a religious institution between a man and a woman. I know the government uses that institution in many things, but establish a same sex union that has the same rights as marriage.

Write anything you want about the union not being equal because it's not the same name, but it's not your institution to change or redefine. To me, you're pushing your values on me, not the other way around.

but it's not your institution to change or redefine.

Didn't the Christians change and redefine a lot of Druid traditions into their own? They surely did.

Sorry but anything can be adapted, changed, redefined- even marriage. Laws can also be amended.

It is my understanding that the LDS Church essentially told its individual members how much each could afford to contribute to the campaign to pass Prop 8, and then waited for them to write the checks. LDS members constitute between 1-2% of the population of California, and yet LDS money accounted for more than 90% of the financial contributions to the campaign. Coincidence?

Disagree with me where you will, but I see marriage as a religious institution between a man and a woman. I know the government uses that institution in many things, but establish a same sex union that has the same rights as marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution. But its also a state institution with legal benefits attached as well. You can get married in a religious ceremony if you want to, but you will not receive any of the legal benefits or protections if you don't also complete the state required forms for legal marriage.

Write anything you want about the union not being equal because it's not the same name, but it's not your institution to change or redefine. To me, you're pushing your values on me, not the other way around.

Marriage should belong to everyone. No one "owns" marriage. No one is trying to change the definition of marriage, we are only trying to extend those rights to another group of people who should already have the right and are only being denied the right for no other reason than some other people don't approve. There are no practical or moral reasons to deny gay people the right to marry.

And I have yet to hear of even one legitimate example of how anything is being forced on anyone. No one can explain that to me. It's an empty excuse.

ZING! Oh, that was good. Too bad Shyamalan isn't the one leading the anti-gay movement, because then I know that it would be sure to fail. :)

There is a book out there whose title contains the words "The", "God", and "Virus". Google that and see if you can find it. Inside you will find a wonderful explanation of why the Mormons (and numerous other religions) are unhappy with this decision.

They are more upset all because people are now able to think for themselves and not have to be led by the nose and brainwashed by these charlatans. Church and Religion is all about controlling how people live their daily lives, and at the same time being pick-pocketed by these cretins.

I can think for myself and I am 100% for gay marriage and equal rights for everyone. These people need to learn to keep their noses out of all other people's business.

Yes for Gay Marriage, and Yes to taxing all churches and religions.

Why do you so-called christians feel it neccessary to try to force your religion down my and everyone else's throat ? Does not the freedom of religion ennumerated in the constitution also imply the freedom FROM religion ? If Iwant to hear your bible spouting, I'll go to church (which I haven't done in over 50 years ).

I think that it is like the insecure child that tries to put down others just to cover their own inadequacies. In my experience "bible-thumpers" fall into 2 categories: those that are too weak to face life without a crutch e.g. the reformed alchoholic or druggie who substitutes the bible for booze or drugs. Or those that have been brainwashed since birth to believe they are going to hell if they don't go to church.

I know of what I speak - my grandfather was a tent meeting evangelist ( the forerunner of the televangelist ) so I had religion poured into my head by the truckload. When I was 13, I was sitting in church and THOUGHT about what was being preached at me. I said to myself "this is B.S. "and walked out right in the middle of the serman and have not been in a church since.

For those of you who believe that the puritans founded the New World ( America ) on religious tolerance, think again ! All they did was flee the religious persecution of europe to practice their own intolerance ! Anyone that didn't dress in the right 'uniform', pray and go to church on the schedule set by the church leaders, was subjected to near drowning ( or hypothermia in the winter ) in the dunking pool and / or the stocks.

The new world was founded on religious HYPOCRISY !!!

Hey, all you bible quoters who say that god said this or god said that has anyone actually had a conversation with your god ? Of course I should qualify that question by adding without the help of peyote, marijuana, hashish, LSD, 'shrooms or some other mind enhancing substance.

BTW 'God' is actually a tribe of little green men inhabiting a planet orbiting a sun near Sirius- the Dog Star. If you don't believe me, watch "Ancient Aliens" on the History Channel.

Okay, enough MORMON BASHING! I am MORMON and am sick and tired of all you "Holier than thou's" that praise God on Sunday after getting drunk on Saturday Night!

First and foremost, NEVER IN ANY CHURCH WARD OR CHURCH SERVICE, HAS ANY ANTI-GAY INITIATIVES BEEN PREACHED FROM ANY PULPIT. In a news announcement distributed to the general News Media and made available to church members; our leadership stated their position on Same Sex Marriage. It is up to each members individual position to oppose or stand for the Same Sex Marriage Initiative. I find it ironic that you are singling out "Mormons" for taking a stand, when most of the faiths agreed with this position.

Yes, "Mormon's believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Why? Because God Almighty ordained it as such, when he created Eve and brought her to Adam; Blessing the Union and commanded them to "go forth and be fruitful and multiply." God Almighty didn't tell Eve to go find a girlfriend or Adam to find a male life companion did he? Plus, Old Testament or New, there are numerous passages regarding men laying with men, etc. So, how can Same-Sex Couples ask for God Almighty to "sanctify and bless" their marriage, when biblical, such a union is unacceptable. Either you believe in the Word of God or you don't, it's that simple! America was built on the foundation of faith and these principles; tearing them down, is tearing down everything your ancestors fought and died for.

We believe, each person has the free agency to make whatever choices they want; however, there are consequences to all actions and choices, both good and bad. Our belief stems from the Commandments of God regarding the sanctity of marriage. We hold marriage between a man and a woman in high esteem; because God held it to a high esteem from the beginning of Man's time on Earth. If you have a problem wrapping your mind around this concept; go ask your parents to re-teach you scripture; they will be glad to explain the concept of marriage to you!

So, appealing this decision is not about treating "Gays" as "Second Class Citizens", as we have been accused of. This is about each individual person standing up for what they believes is morally correct, voting our conscience, and using our own personal funds to help achieve those ends. America was founded on these same beliefs; that, we, as Mormons and Christians, still hold sacred and valuable.

So yes, we will fight this overturned bill. NO, WE DO NOT HATE THE GAY COMMUNITY; NO, WE DO NOT CONSIDER OURSELVES SUPERIOR TO THE GAY COMMUNITY; NO, WE ARE NOT A RELIGIOUS CULT HATING THE GAY COMMUNITY AND DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS; (do some of you cult accusers even know the definition of the word Cult? Last time I checked our Church was called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"; we are followers of Jesus Christ and looking at the world events, believe we are living in the latter days as foretold in the bible. If this is a cult, every faith or person believing in Jesus Christ is a Cultist!)

We fight to appeal this decision, because fighting strengthens the family unit; fighting sets boundries and lines in our laws that shouldn't be crossed; fighting stabilizes the founding principles this country was built on; fighting is the biblically correct thing to do; and, fighting this decision shows, we are not afraid to stand up for what we believe is right and will not cower to public opinion.

If any of you have a problem with this; too bad! You don't pay my bills, but, with the taxes I pay, I probably pay some of yours!

burrrrnnnnnnnn

Thank you so much for your comment, this is so true!!!

Thanks for this wonderful and TRUE stance- so real info was needed in this who bashing session.

It's too bad everyone has jumped on the band wagon and believes the skewed media that Mormons hate gays. That could not be further from the truth.

I am mormon here is California and have yet to hear a single mormon speak poorly about gays and lesbians. Too bad no one realizes the real issue here. I have read so many ignorant comments about mormons and our views on this issue that it's laughable

Please know what you are talking about before you spew your hate all over the internet...we didn't write the laws of humanity and if it were not for God, none of you would be here right now. Do you think that God cares what you do with your life or not? He DOES. You are not just a human living in 2010 on this place called Earth, you are a child of God- whether you except that or not, it's still true.

Thanks for this wonderful and TRUE stance- some real info was needed in this whole bashing session.

It's too bad everyone has jumped on the band wagon and believes the skewed media that Mormons hate gays. That could not be further from the truth.

I am mormon here is California and have yet to hear a single mormon speak poorly about gays and lesbians. Too bad no one realizes the real issue here. I have read so many ignorant comments about mormons and our views on this issue that it's laughable

Please know what you are talking about before you spew your hate all over the internet...we didn't write the laws of humanity and if it were not for God, none of you would be here right now. Do you think that God cares what you do with your life or not? He DOES. You are not just a human living in 2010 on this place called Earth, you are a child of God- whether you except that or not, it's still true.

To : Therese in NV

You are right HE did not say to Eva go and find a lesbian like you, you are right, but this days HE can say, isn't it? And unto Adam HE did not say Adam and Steve, HE say Adam and Eva, isn't it ?

Ask them Ask them, why are you bashing Mormons when you can bash your carpets by putting them on the line, be full of courage.

Ask them also why GOD got angry and remove the 10 Commandments from the city Halls around the nation, Ask them.

We should care what Mormons think? They breed like rats on crack and escape billions of dollars in taxes thanks to the benefits heaped on them simply because their offspring are measured in herds - not wholly unlike many Catholics. Tax exemptions, tax credits, tax-supported schools, etc.

But that's not enough. They are allowed to deduct the contributions they make in support of their cult - just like Catholics.

Until these cults - all of them, from Adventists to Zionists - lose their tax-favored status, they are de jure government-sponsored and government subsidized outfits. That is absolutely unconstitutional.

Graylodge . So that is why they want any Christian who runs a business to bow down to them and ignore their Christian values to service them.

Personally, I find religion to be "sick" and disgusting. Should I now be allowed to petition the gov't to disallow religious people from marrying b/c I find it abhorrent?

Just say the word and I'll start that petition!

To niel Thomas #1-7: It is hypocritical of a religion to claim superiority to to the rest of society in the 1800s because of plural marriage and now claim superiority because it champions heterosexual marriage. Mormons have claimed moral high ground regardless of how near or far they are from anything resembling morality. Btw, how would Mormons feel if their secret and exclusive temple marriages were outlawed by a popular vote? Mormons still practice a form of exclusivity with regard to marriage (which still allows for a form of polygamy) denied to non-Mormons. No American should be allowed to be denied civil right by a popular vote. No One!

To Grozavule #1.10: The gay and lesbian community has never imposed their values on others. No straight person has been forced into a gay marriage by the gay and lesbian community. Yet, plenty of gay and lesbian people have been coerced into straight marriages by various churches. As poiunted out by Judge Walker in his decision, Prop 8 arbitrarily sets up a situation where gay relationships are necessarily viewed by all of California citizens as inferior to straight relationships and this situation violates the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

To Therese in NV #1-30: "NEVER IN ANY CHURCH WARD OR CHURCH SERVICE, HAS ANY ANTI-GAY INITIATIVES BEEN PREACHED FROM ANY PULPIT." It is my understanding that a letter from the top Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City urging members to support Prop 8 (which is in its essence anti-gay) with monitary contributions and time was read from the pulpit of every Ward within California. This was only the beginning of the official efforts directed from the top Salt Lake leadership to solicit and coerce funds and spport for the proposition. Your statement is patently false - no matter how loudly you shout otherwise.

Farthermore, Therese in NV #1-30, you allegory of Adam and Eve is sophmoric. Human relationships are much more complicated and are much more involved than you describe. The fact of the matter is that gay people do exist and they deserve equal consideration regardless of the Old Testiment myths of Adam and Eve. With 2 billion more people on the planet than about 30 or 40 years ago, humans have been more than "fruitful and multiplied". And this is with the presnece of gays and lesbians who have maintained same sex relationships without the benefit of marraige. It is time to look at the real facts of the matter and stop relying on myths created thousands of years ago (and periodically modified over time to meet certain social and political changes) and reflects the personal prejudices of an ancient world. in America, we claim to calue Freedom which means the freedom to choose and to accept the consequences for our choices. Mormons claim to believe this as well, but the choice they offer is to either join and conform to their church or to be damned to the Mormon form of hell for all eternity. What kind of choice is that?? This is fine for those who CHOOSE to be Mormons, but your rules should not be forced on anyone else who CHOOSE not to belong to your suffocating church.

You shout, Therese in NV #1-30, in bold caps "WE DO NOT HATE THE GAY COMMUNITY" uyet your church does not allow gay individuals to be gay in any way. Gay and lesbian Mormon are required to either remain celebate - which means they are ALONE - or they must evter into straight relationships IF they can find a partner who will marry a person NOT sexually attracted to them. Either prospect is very unsatisfying! You also shout, "NO, WE DO NOT CONSIDER OURSELVES SUPERIOR TO THE GAY COMMUNITY. But again, I disagree because Mormons by their very nature proclaim their religion to be the only perfect religion on earth making Mormons and Mormonism superior to ALL others. This would necessarily include the gay community. But Mormons have also chosen to single out gays most recently because gays seek government recognized protection of their primary relationships in the form of marriage. Prop 8 sought to deny this protection of gay and lesbian citizens by reserving marriage rights and privileges to heterosexuals effectively making straight relationship SUPERIOR to gay relationships. If you read Judge Walkers decision, you will see where he addresses this very point in declaring the proposition unconstitutional. Finally, you shout, "NO, WE ... DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS". What I believe you mean to say is that you don't want to deny them equal right (but I could wrong) to which I call BS. The whole purpose and point of Prop 8 was to deny gays equal rights to marriage. If you support it, then you necessarily intend to deny gays and lesbians equal marriage rights. I don't see any other alternative.

You say, Therese in NV #1-30, "We fight to appeal this decision, because fighting strengthens the family unit; fighting sets boundries and lines in our laws that shouldn't be crossed", and I agree that certain boundries shouldn't be crossed. One segment of society should not be allowed to deny the civil rights of another segment of our society even if they represent a majority. That is a boundary that should not be crossed even if tradition is with the majority. It is called 'Tyranny of the Majority' and one founding father, John Adams, once wrote, "That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world." Isn't it time that we recognize this fact and begin to honor such principles and Justice and Humanity for all people? You go on to say, "fighting stabilizes the founding principles this country was built on", and I would point out that this is why the gay community has brought this fight up in the first place. It is time for the founding principles this country was built on - Freedom, Justice, and Liberty for all - is applied to gay and lesbian Americans. You continue, "fighting is the biblically correct thing to do". Yes, I am aware of Biblical fighting - the genocide in Caanan for starters. There are plenty of good examples from the Bible of fighting in favor of one's own brand of oppression others. It really is un-American how the Bible favors oppressiveness over the principles of Freedom, Justice, and Liberty FOR ALL and not just for a select few. And you have even more to say, "and, fighting this decision shows, we are not afraid to stand up for what we believe is right and will not cower to public opinion." Bravo! Nor should the gay community along with right-minded Americans be willing to stand up for what they believe in which is in line with the principles this country was founded on - Freedom, Justice, and Liberty FOR ALL.

Now, Therese in NV #1-30, you conclude with, "If any of you have a problem with this; too bad! You don't pay my bills, but, with the taxes I pay, I probably pay some of yours!" How completely arrogant and presumptive of you! Earlier you claimed not to presume any superiority to gays, but here??? You undermined your own argument and proved yourself hypocritical! Gay and lesbian people have bills they pay as well as pay taxes. They may even pay a higher perceentage of taxes because they are denied marriage benefits which doesn't allow them to claim certain deductions. Why should your bills and your taxes be cosidered more important than theirs, especially when the rules you approve of are unfavorable to gay people? Why should the taxes gay people pay go to supporting a government you expect to cowtow to your heterosexual Mormon agenda? Mormons even represent a SMALLER proportion of the US population that do gays (roughly 2% vs 5 to 10%). I will say this for you, you do have nerve.

I believe it is clear to anyone who cares to actualluy think through the issues and who has bothered to study social issues to some degree (other than to re-enforce their own prejudices) that denying marriage to gay Americans is contrary to the promise of Freedom, Justice, Liberty, and Equality incorporated in our nation's founding documents. Judge Walker made the only correct decision he could in accord with our nation's founding principles. Fighting against it is effectively fighting against these very principles as well. I firmly believe that gays will eventually have equal rights - including marriage rights - throughtout these United States of America. Like Racial Civil Rights and Women's Rights, it will take time and it will be a fight, but these are the correct principles to fight for. Freedom, Justice, Liberty, and Equality are not principles which are dependent on anyone's individual prejudices or biases. When they are, they are not truly Freedom, Justice, Liberty or Equality.

This is reality. The Mormons don't even care what the Mormons think about what the Mormons believe. Even Scientologists find Mormonism, hard to believe.

no surprise. I was born and raised a utah mormon.

One of the core things that mormons claim to believe in is free-agency. We all the power to make our choices, good or bad, and we deal with the consequences.

But I guess they're the only once that are allowed to make their own choices. They're all about forcing other people to obey their beliefs.

Years ago somebody opened an adult toy store in Mesquite Nevada, which is about an hour out of utah. The different wards in southwest utah were all assigned different days to go down and picket in front of the store.

It's crap like that that make me proud to not be a mormon anymore. what a bunch of idiots.

It isn't about the money at all. The church has plenty of money (and gives more than your church I'm betting!) to the poor and needy and people who happen to live where natural disasters strike. It is a bout the loss of freedom and the failure of our political system to represent the people and what they choose.

If you're LDS, then you understand the controversy. Mormons are big on generational wealth and consider that the key to survival and prosperity in this country. . .

If gays can marry, adopt and use IVF then their advantage evaporates - maybe not in Utah but definitely on the two coasts. . .

Gay dynasties could compete with the Pew's, Dupont's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Morgan's, etc.

many regret the Mormon church and the catholic too but they are still in business.

No church has the right to enter politics and continue to be granted tax exempt status in this country

I regret that the government hasn't issued a warning to these churches on this and even more so taken the free ride away from them

Bopdaddytoo - you obviously haven't read the IRS's rules concerning tax-exempt status. Look it up - churches are able to participate in and lobby for and against public policy. They cannot advocate one political party or one candidate, but they are allowed to participate in the shaping of public policy. Go look this up on the IRS website.

To Proud to be American-2147417:

Let me clarify my statement. I placed the word "impose" in quotes. Because I don't feel like anyone is imposing anything on anyone else. I've mentioned in a few of my other comments that no one has the power to force anyone to think or act in a way contrary to their will. Religions in this country can no more impose their beliefs on others than others can on religion. All one can do is express a point of view and let others decide whether or not to agree with it.

To the contrary, I think it's imperative that opposing views and opinions be voiced, and yes, even their money be used for such purpose. This is democracy, and to have any less is to diminish our country.

If we have no trouble with gay-rights groups pouring their money and opinion in, why would we find offense with opposing views doing the same, whether we agree with them or not?

To Grozavule: Thanks or the clarification. My apologies if I misunderstood your comments.

To Ethan Hunt: The US is a Democratic Republic. We are a Republic because we believe in certain guiding principles and not on a pure Democracy which allows public opinion to run roughshod over the rights of whomever is unpopular. This is the reason that Prop 8 has been overturned in the first place. It ciolates the guiding principles set up as a guide for Freedom, Justice, Equality, and Liberty for the citizens of this country. Gay Americans deserve no less consideration than straight Americans do. They pay taxes just as everyone else does. Following our guiding principles may not be the popular thing to do. It wasn't where Women's rights (including the right to vote) was concerned or where racial civil rights was concerned. Yet today, most all Amercians view these rights as correct and essential to our American way of life.

First and foremost, NEVER IN ANY CHURCH WARD OR CHURCH SERVICE, HAS ANY ANTI-GAY INITIATIVES BEEN PREACHED FROM ANY PULPIT. In a news announcement distributed to the general News Media and made available to church members; our leadership stated their position on Same Sex Marriage. It is up to each members individual position to oppose or stand for the Same Sex Marriage Initiative.

Lie. The church authorities made it quite clear that they favored Prop 8, those who didn't "agree" were threatened with possible excommunication. The church has excommunicated members for far less significant "thinking for themselves", like supporting the Equal Rights Amendment.

We hold marriage between a man and a woman in high esteem; because God held it to a high esteem from the beginning of Man's time on Earth.

Don't you mean marriage between a man and as many women as he can afford? Sorry, I forgot, your church did drop that a century ago when it became too embarrassing, with all those young men unable to find wives because the old goats had all them in their harems.

So, appealing this decision is not about treating "Gays" as "Second Class Citizens", as we have been accused of. This is about each individual person standing up for what they believes is morally correct, voting our conscience, and using our own personal funds to help achieve those ends. America was founded on these same beliefs; that, we, as Mormons and Christians, still hold sacred and valuable.

No, it's about denying the rights that accompany marriage to a certain group, which is by definition treating them as 2nd class. Your church could have advocated assigning all those rights to Civil Unions, but they didn't even consider that option. It was Deny Deny Deny.

So yes, we will fight for this overturned bill. NO, WE DO NOT HATE THE GAY COMMUNITY; NO, WE DO NOT CONSIDER OURSELVES SUPERIOR TO THE GAY COMMUNITY; NO, WE ARE NOT A RELIGIOUS CULT HATING THE GAY COMMUNITY AND DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS;

Well, your church certainly didn't want Them to have equal rights, that was why they spent so much time and effort to push Prop 8 specifically to deny gays certain rights. As for the rest of that boldfaced claim, it's wrong - it is a cult, they do hate gays, and they certainly do think they are superior to gays. I speak from personal experience, having grown up in that cult. Granted, they no longer arrest gays or torture them under the guise of "curing them" by "aversion therapy", as that is no longer permissible, just as they changed their racist policies because their policies were not socially acceptable.

They don't "control" Utah...get your facts straight.

The mormon church has church envy of the catholic church who control entire countries

Funny how most people in Utah aren't Mormon.

Thank you. Mormoms need to go home and stay. The mindless followers are sickening. That goes for all of the religions who believe they should control everyone and we should all conform to their beliefs. I am straight, married with children, and voted for McCain. It's not just the far right who believes in equal rights for all!!! Perhaps we should take a look at the churchs not paying taxes. Helping our economic nightmare would be a much better place for their money.

It depends on how you define "control."

The LDS church does control the underlying culture of Utah, and the religion is primarily Mormon. Also, all you told him to do was tell him to get his facts straight while providing no argument for why his facts were wrong, if the headquarters are in Utah, why are they spending so much time and money campaigning in Utah and California?

Another point is that the Mormon church shouldn't be allowed to try and control the masses as they are, since there is a separation of church and state in the U.S.

Um, I live in Utah and its about 75% Mormon...........thanks though lol

If you live in Utah you are not up on anything, well known fact not even 1/2 Morman anymore and been like that for years.

Let's use the English language correctly. The Mormon Church does not control UT. That would be the Governor and State Legislature.

I'm mormon , Im 15 . We believe gay marriage is wrong . I do have friends that are gay . I respect it , but i don't support it .

Hold on just a tick...didn't the U.S. government outlaw polygamy as an indirect attack on the Mormon church's beliefs? I say that's a violation of Mormons' civil rights! What are the civil rights activists doing to challenge that piece of legisation? I think that if Mormons still wanted to practice polygamy, they ought to be allowed to. I mean, this is pretty much the same thing, right? If some people want a loose definition of marriage, I say we go all the way.

Take a look at those who do control UT....The Governor is a Mormon and it would be fair to say that the majority of the State Legislature are too.

Dear Bigotsgoaway,

Your post is completely hypocritical of your name.

@ Porkchop If you check the numbers, MOST (legal) citizens of Utah are, indeed, Mormon. As there is a very large immigrant population and many of them MIGHT be illegal, that could changte very soon.

Everyone is failing to remember that Proposition 8 PASSED at 52%!!! Those 52% weren't all Mormons. Members of the LDS church aren't the only people who are pro marriage between one man and one woman. Why vote on and pass a law if it's going to be overturned??!!

Kevin=the Church does not control Utah-that is a figment of your imagination. Sure, the HQ of the Church is in Salt Lake City and Utah is very LDS-oriented but the Church does not control the State anymore than the Amish controlling Pennsylvania.

@Johnny367

1. Banning polygamy was a condition for the entry of Utah into the United States. The Mormons had a chance to retain their policy towards polygamy and chose to abandon it in order to become a part of the United States. They don't get a "do over" on it.

2. The problem with polygamy (and polyandry) is that it undermines the legal premise upon which marriage is essentially based, which is the establishment of an orderly system to facilitate the transmission of wealth and property from one generation to another, as well as to provide a legal vehicle for combining estates. It is complicated enough as it is. Trying to adapt it to group marriages would be a legal and practical nightmare.

Everyone is failing to remember that Proposition 8 PASSED at 52%!!! Those 52% weren't all Mormons. Members of the LDS church aren't the only people who are pro marriage between one man and one woman. Why vote on and pass a law if it's going to be overturned??!!

Because in California any proposition can be put on the ballot as long as it receives enough petition signatures. That doesn't mean its constitutional, though. If its voted on and passes, it cannot become a law unless it is constitutionally sound, and Proposition 8 is not. In fact, gay marriage bans across the country are all unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. For a law like Prop 8 to be legal, some other laws have to be repealed first.

A huge part of that 52% were religious conservatives.

Marriage is a legal commitment. If you wish to marry within an organized faith so be it.
If you choose to be married by Pagan who is legally vested to preform a wedding that is binding as well.

This is all about fear. The fear that your beliefs are not and will not shared by everyone.
Same sex marriage should only concern those individuals who are involved.

To SOF1946, you left the comment,

1. Banning polygamy was a condition for the entry of Utah into the United States. The Mormons had a chance to retain their policy towards polygamy and chose to abandon it in order to become a part of the United States. They don't get a "do over" on it.

2. The problem with polygamy (and polyandry) is that it undermines the legal premise upon which marriage is essentially based, which is the establishment of an orderly system to facilitate the transmission of wealth and property from one generation to another, as well as to provide a legal vehicle for combining estates. It is complicated enough as it is. Trying to adapt it to group marriages would be a legal and practical nightmare.

However, knowing church history and being a proud Saint (i.e. new testament Paul's letters saying everyone who follows Christ is a Saint), I would point out that many men were imprisoned for following polygamy. This is nothing short of a blatant violation of our first amendment rights (remember, Utah was a territory at the time and citizens of a territory still have constitutional rights). Secondly, the first presidency of the church (The Prophet and his counselors) had to receive revelation from Heavenly Father to call a man to be a Polygamist in the first place, and never accounting for more than one half of one percent of the church. Only when the United States Government threatened to execute those imprisoned for polygamy did Wilford Woodruff (the Prophet at the time) go into the Holiest of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple to ask of Heavenly Father about what the church was to do. Only then did Heavenly Father reveal to Wilford Woodruff that he was to issue a proclamation that Polygamy was to stop to prevent the United States Government from destroying the temples and stopping the proxy work for our dead brethren.

In response to the Second part of your comment, we have wills now, why would that be complicated to discern property heirship?

Sorry, DB Lee, but your beliefs about same-sex marriage are not and will not be shared by everyone.

"Be afraid, be very afraid."

The mormon religion is anti-female. I find that abhorrent and UNNATURAL and want to make it illegal for them to ever get married.

The Mormon practice of polygamy is nothing to be admired. Beginning with founder Joseph Smith, he is known to have married girls as young and 14 as well as about a third of his 40 or so polygamous wives were also married to other living men at the same time as being married to Smith. This is accordign to a list of Smith wives compiled by his successor Brigham Young in response to Smith widow Emma and his son claiming that Smith never practiced polygamy. The first of Smith supposed polygamous wives was viewed by many - including some prominant Mormons at the time - as an adulterous affair. This event occurred about a decade or more before any written "revelation" on the subject were recorded. The majority of Smith's plural wives were married to him during the last 2 or 3 years of his life which would mean he was marrying a new wife on the average of 1 every 3 or 4 weeks. (Smith must have originated the "New Wife of the Month club").

The proposal process according to journals recorded by some of his plural wives went something like this: A woman was called into a visit with Joseph Smith. He would explain the "principle" of plural marriage to them and tell them that God had told him that she was to become his plural wife. She was then given a short time to decide whether or not to become his plural wife. Some of these women recorded that Smith told them that an angel with a flaming sword came to him commanding him to marry the selected woman. Others believed they would be condemned if they did not give consent to become yet another of his wives. Some women recorded that they were called to a room at the Nauvoo Hotel where they found Smith along with a number of other high ranking church officials. After the explanation of plural marriage and telling the woman she was selected to be Smtih's plural wife, she was given about 5 or 10 minutes to make up her mind whether or not to marry him. If she consented, the marriage ceremony was performed by the officials in the room who would then leave the newly married "couple" to their marriage chamber.

After Joseph Smith's death, Brigham Young decided that a man with a higher rank within the Mormon church could take the wife of a man with a lower rank within the church. As Smith did before him, Young married Zina Jacobs the wife of Henry Jacobs. Young told Hery Jacobs he could find another wife but Zina belonged to him.

In Utah, polygamy was not regarded with the same reverence as marriage is regarded today. When John D Lee was excommunicated for his part in the Mountain Meadows Massacre (another interesting story altogether), his 19 wives were told by Young that their marriages were annulled and that they were all free to seek other husbands. Lee claimed that only 3 of these women stayed with him and that the other 16 left and took the majority of his assets and property with them.

I have no doubt that not all stories of polygamy are horror stories, but many of them are. Just as the FLDS practice polygamy today, young girls were often married off to much older men. Wikipedia reports regarding Zina Jacobs mentioned earlier: "In later life, Zina commented that women in polygamous relationships "expect too much attention from the husband and . . . become sullen and morose. . . ." She explained that "a successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy."" (Charity Never Faileth at lds.about.com) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young#cite_note-Hall-9) Now, isn't that a marriage to look forward to?

Mormons had been brutally repressed at that time and saw polygamy as a survival mechanism. They finally found a place where they could settle in relative safety and started trying their best to be fruitful and multiply. . .

To jwtiii: I don't buy this argument. There are plenty of arguments about the reasons for polygamy and none of them hold up from my reading. There is no reason to think that Joseph Smith marrying the wives of other living men can be justified as any sort of "survival mechanism".

I'm not justifying it. Mormons scare the @!$%# out of me. But I do not see the harm in analyzing someone's motives. . .

Like what was that guy thinking when he shot Archduke Ferdinand? I know it was bad judgement but what was he thinking?

BTW, is Rick James a Mormon?

Joseph Smith only had one wife.

If this is true, I think the follow up would be "does that apply to all LDS practioners?"

jwtiii, I have no idea whar religion Rick James is.

listenin, Yes, Smith had only 1 'LEGAL' wife, but you may want to keep reading and studying. As I said, the list of 40 or so wives was compiled by Brigham Young in response to Joseph's widow Emma's and her son's claim that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. So you now have a choice. You can choose to believe the claims of Emma Smith (and possibly the current leadership of the Mormon church) which means that Brigham Young was lying when he put together the list of Smtih plural wives along with those Mormons who recorded events in the journals at the time, or you can believe Brigham Young and those Mormon journals which means that Emma, her son (and possibly the current Mormon leadership) are all lying. Since the D&C records a threat to Emma if she did not allow her husband to practice polygamy - since Emma was always cold on the idea of plural marriage - and several record show that Smith married some of his plural wives with Emma's consent, I am inclined to believe that Brigham Young was telling something closer to the truth (imagine that!). Mormons have made a big deal about the relationship between Joseph and Emma, but the evidence of history does not support their Polianna portrayal of it.

I have no idea where you are getting your information from because wherever you are getting it from is lying. He only had one wife. And if you are implying that he had mistresses that is another lie.

Thanks, Proud. . . And that seems to fit with the pattern of internecine disputes and conflicting facts that seem to cloud investigation into religious history.

But I was just kidding about Rick James.

You haven't done your research, listenin. There are a number of decent books written on the subject, and many decent Mormon church members are unaware of these facts as you appear to be.

But again, you have a choice. Either Joseph Smith had many plural wives, or he had one legal wife and many adulterous affairs. The choice is yours. The fact remains that he had liaisons with many women including many who were married to men of his church.

the first presidency of the church (The Prophet and his counselors) had to receive revelation from Heavenly Father to call a man to be a Polygamist in the first place, and never accounting for more than one half of one percent of the church.

Curious though how all those "called to polygamy" happened to be powerful leaders with an eye for the ladies. It certainly didn't include any who didn't want another wife. Curious how their god spoke from their crotch.

Of course it was only a tiny percentage, that's how the mathmatics works out. Brigham Young had about 2 dozen wives, other top leaders also had large harems, that meant that there weren't enough wives to go around and many young men had to do without, and were often expelled on trumped up charges, or executed if they dared to find satisfaction with another man or with livestock.

Only when the United States Government threatened to execute those imprisoned for polygamy did Wilford Woodruff (the Prophet at the time) go into the Holiest of Holies in the Salt Lake Temple to ask of Heavenly Father about what the church was to do. Only then did Heavenly Father reveal to Wilford Woodruff that he was to issue a proclamation that Polygamy was to stop to prevent the United States Government from destroying the temples and stopping the proxy work for our dead brethren.

Curious how their "all powerful God" was helpless to defend them against the US government, even more curious how that "all knowing God" didn't forsee major troubles arising from the practice of polygamy. That God of theirs has always been slow to react and very slow to correct mistakes - after all, it took 110 years after slavery ended and decades after the Civil Rights act for God to "reveal" an end to their racist church policies. Too bad they've still got bits of racist doctrine still stuck in their scriptures - you know, the "righteousness of the people determines their skin color" bit in the Book of Mormon.

• "Only when the United States Government threatened to execute those imprisoned for polygamy ..."

As I recall Utah history, the US government threatened not to execute prisoners held for polygamy, but they threatened to conficate church property including temple square in SLC. The LDS church might have allowed its members to become martyrs for the cause of polygamy, but have its assets taken away?? That, they couldn't allow.

Are any of you mormon? And decent books...that's debatable...some people consider porn to be good.

To listenin #2-35: Does it matter if anyone here is mormon? Do Mormons have some exclusive claim on history? And Yes, there are many decent books - not "porn" - written by recognized, scholarly historians who are worthwhile to read on the subject. It really doesn't take much effort to find them. Amazon.com is a decent place to start.

Why not say "ALL Christians and Christian Churches regret this action"

Because that would be a lie.

A license is not a right, it is a privelage. If you don't believe me, go tell the DMV that everyone has the right to a license

According to your logic, if the people of California voted that only men could drive, that would be perfectly all right.

California would never vote that only men could drive. This is about the definition of marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman.

A license is a privlege, but guess what is a right? We all have the right to religious freedom in this country. That means you have the right to be Christian, someone else has the right to be Mormon, someone else Jewish, and someone else Atheist. No one religious group or combined religious groups have the right to impose their beliefs on others. Marriage licenses are gained by county clerks at the state level. One does not have to marry in a church or be married by a church pastor for it to be a legal marriage. Religious views being imposed by laws are unconstitutional.

Lynn, that's not a very christian attitude. Jesus was not a bigot, and he did not teach his followers to exclude minorities. Rather, he encouraged his followers to stick up for the oppressed, the ill-treated, the cast-outs. Inclusion is fundamental to his teaching, re-read the beatitudes if you doubt that. You and your ilk give christians all over a bad name. Exclusionist and arrogant, you do not have a monopoly on the truth, and have no right to assume as such.

Thats because it would be perfectly all right, thats the country we live in. You see, the people get to vote for what they want, and that's how a law is made. To have one dude wanting to get his name in the paper get to overturn a law that was voted on by millions of people, now that sounds ridiculous to me.

Hey Lynne -

I agree, it should say "Christians" or something like that, not just the Mormon church.

However, because of who leads the LDS church (for real) and who inspires the liberal mainstream media (for real) this debate has been incorrectly framed as "the Mormons against the homosexuals".

Keep the faith. The Lord will triumph in the end.

@Lukeh

Actually Jesus only ministered to the Jews, and "excluded" the gentiles. It wasn't until after his death and resurrection that he had the Apostles minister to the gentiles. There are plenty more examples of "exclusion" in the Bible, but i'm sure you don't care about that, cause it doesn't go along with your opinion. Homosexuality is fundamentally wrong and should in no way be included in the sacred union of marriage. Bottom line. Give them all the rights of married people, but the word and union of marriage needs to be protected.

I am a Christian and I am glad that Proposition 8 was overturned. And, no, I'm not gay. But I am smart enough to realize the Bible was written, rewritten and rewritten many times by man. I believe in a loving and universal God. I don't believe he/she discriminates and only likes one race, one religious group or straights.

Unfortunatly, the Mormon Church not only used their opposition for propaganda purposes, but letters were sent out "asking" to donate $100 from each mormon family. This is a fact shared by me thru a relative who actually read the letter shown to her by her mother. So, to answer why is the Mormon Church was singled out is because they were capable of paying for all methods of advertising to support Prop 8. Apparently they feel they can violate the Separation between Church and State without any consequences. The Mormon Church is one of few very powerful and extremely wealthy organization.

I was referring to big J himself. There is plenty of exclusion in the bible, but how much attributed directly to Jesus? "blessed are the gay bashers" doesn't sound like the sermon on the mount to me

I am a straight woman with a child out of wed-lock, whom I have raised by myself and is now starting college. I am also Pagan (I am a witch). I know the Christians will say "oh well who cares what you think because you practice witchcraft and that is against the Bible". Be that as it may, please understand that we are not all under the rules of your God. I am a practicing witch and stay within the rules of my faith. "And so it harms none, do as you will". I live this everyday, with my boyfriend, his son, my son, and our four dogs. This country is based on freedom of religion, which does not mean YOUR religion. Lifestyle is oftentimes part of religion. If it's not your lifestyle or your religion, keep your nose out of it. I don't go into your bedroom and I expect you to stay out of mine. It is not your Christ we fear, it is you, his Christians. Christ said "whomever is without sin throw the first stone". Look at yourselves and ask if you are completely without sin. If you cannot honestly look to your God and say "yes I am perfect", then shut-up! A few more things I would like to remind you of include "live and let live", "treat others as you would like to be treated", and so on. If you want to talk about how Christianity is the ONLY way, please show the rest of us by ACTING like a Christian! I do not hide the Pentagram I wear around my neck, but I know many Pagans who do, because they are afraid of repercussions at their place of employment, with family and friends, etc. BTW, in our "congregation" we have Scientists, Engineers, Lawyers, Nurses, Teachers, Trainers, and Computer Analysts. We also have housewives, mothers, railroad workers, and office staff. We live just like you, our congregation is just like yours, and we love our children just like you. I am an Emergency Room nurse, in a Catholic hospital, on the overnight shift. I have a Bachelor's degree and am working on a Master's in Nursing Education. When your baby is sick, or your child can't breathe because of asthma, or your parent or spouse is having a heart attack or a stroke, you bring them to me. And when I am giving them antibiotics or pain medication, taking them to the cath lab, or giving them medications to stop a stroke, all the sudden you don't care that I am a witch! So maybe my opinion does matter.

@Jordan,

Giving the marriage rights to the LGBT community has already been tried in NJ. There, they call it "civil unions." However, it does not provide the equalty of marriage cuz many places (ie: hospitals, etc) as well as other states do not recognize the legality of these unions. How do you propose problems like this get handled? Btw, im straight, Christian, and believe in equality for all people, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual preference.

I just have a question for everyone responding to these posts.. Why did people get married in the 20's? Don't say it was because "they loved eachother". That's not why people got married. It was because they wanted to start a family. mom, dad, kids... I don't really care what people do in their bedrooms. I don't care who you love. I DO care about marriage.. because I am mormon, not married, female, in my 30's and marriage to me is when you want to start a family. I love alot of people, but I don't want to start a family with them, so I don't marry them. You get married when you want to have children, because marriage was instituted to help people start families.

Lukeh If you claim to have read the Bible then you should know it is sinful for a man to be with aman and woman with woman, unforgivable. Gen 1-27&28, Read Romans 1 1-32 then tell me its Ok and you are a Christian.

I think the comment was about the Mormon church. Oh, by the way, not all churches embrace bigotry just because Paul's ranting doctrine says its ok. Some gravitate towards Jesus's teachings, and last I heard He was no bigot and since He was the founder of the whole idea, I'm placing my trust there. Actually, I hear He was a nice guy to just about everyone. So to claim that "true" churches should regret it is misinformed of which church that would be - Paul's or Jesus's.

First of all, to one of the last comments, I do think it's a little strange that they said only mormons regret it. But secondly, to that same comment, I am a true Christian, and I am not against legalizing gay marriage. It is selfish to say that "all Christians 'regret'" the decision to overturn the ban, because there are millions of us who are Christians who support homosexual marriage. In the words of my sister, "If you don't like gays, don't be gay." I am heterosexual, but God did not put us on this Earth to judge other people. That's his job. Homophobia (or just against gays or whatever some people are calling it), racism, bigotry, etc. are all the same. God love's everyone, and if you are trying to be like God in his image, you should drop the hatred and love as well. Try living in his image and love thy neighbor. Let him do the judging, not you. My God did not put me on this earth to hate. Did yours?

This world is going downhill fast. What's next...are we going to let people marry their pets too? Cause we've all heard, that this isn't about sex, it's about companionship and legal rights. Gimme a break. Do you really want to be sitting behind a gay couple at the movies making out? Do you really want your young children to see that as a norm? I was at a secluded beach last week, wanting to look at the view, and wouldn't you know, there were two women making out. Grossed me out. Look at MTV, Jersey Shores, all these reality shows--are we teaching our kids any morals at all or are we back to the free loving of the 60's?

And I suppose you know exactly what "good morals" are? Do I want to sit behind a gay couple at the movies while they make out? Did you really ask that question? I don't want to be behind a strait couple making out, either. I'm at the movies TO WATCH A MOVIE!!

By the way, great job attempting to dehumanize people for not believing what you do. Marry their pets... No, I am not gay, and yes, I have children. I hope I can teach a more tolerant message than what you are preaching.

Kevin-2143570:

I must have missed that letter- I don't think I got one. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I do remember that that the First Presidency encouraged members to "get involved" in Prop 8, but I do not remember anything about a letter "asking" for $100. "This is a fact shared by me thru a relative who actually read the letter shown to her by her mother" You might want to check your source...

you actually made me laugh out loud at that!

the dmv doesnt decide weather or not you love your car

you are all misreading the statement. The Church regrets that the judge is overturning the people's vote. It is not regretting standing up for what they believe to be the doctrine of marriage.

The Church continues and will continue to teach that proper marriage, in the eyes of God and His Church shall be between one man and one woman.

One cannot be saved in his/her sins, but we are saved from our sinful nature into followers of God and His will.

So, while all these comments say that the Church regrets supporting Prop 8, they have not said this at all and the comments made here are in error on the subject.

tyo kozan...I welcome the decision and I am a Deacon and a former Elder at my Church. Just because you walked down to the front of your church during an altar call does not make you a true Christian!

HonoluluLady wrote:
This world is going downhill fast. What's next...are we going to let people marry their pets too?

Even pets show unconditional love- that puts them a step above you.

I am wondering why the only person or organization metioned that "regrets" the prop 8 overturn is the Mormon Church.

Because collectively, Mormons poured about $200 million into the Prop 8 campaign.That's a lot of money to spend to end up losing. Now they'll have to put even more money into it to pay for the legal team to defend Prop 8.

A license is not a right, it is a privelage. If you don't believe me, go tell the DMV that everyone has the right to a license.

No, a license is a right, so long as you follow the provisions and meet the standards to receive that license. But the standards have to be fair and equal to everyone. Gay marriage bans are an example of denying specific rights to a specific group for arbitrary reasons, very similar to interracial marriage bans.

The African-American community does not see the 'same sex marriage' issue as "similar to interracial marriage". In fact, I'm told they very much take offense to the suggestion that quote-unquote "gay rights" is in any way similar to their fight for Civil and Equal Rights.

Let's be honest about the matter. What gays want is a "special right" to marry a person of the same gender.

(What do you know, Pat Robertson was right about gays all along.)

so wat ur saying is ur the typical anti homosexual person who thinks that people who are gay made a choice to be hated and despised by damn near every religious cult ever created and yes christianity is a cult albiet a very large one and one that you mindlessly follow for ur spot in heaven but keep in mind that in the bible it says do not judge others for that is gods work not the work of mortals and yes im paraphraseing thats wat i find so funny about u christians u all are so damn judgemental even though the bible says not to be plus it says obey the law of the land in the bible yet u seem to think u should run the land instead of the government but wat i think is really funny is you seem to think your moralsshould be law and restrict freedom good for u ur just another hypocritical christian whos trying and failing at following the christian path but just cant seem to get past themselves good job give urslef a big hug

Let's be honest about the matter. What gays want is a "special right" to marry a person of the same gender.

You're hardly being "honest" there. Heterosexuals are the ones receiving "special rights" under the current marriage laws. They are allowed to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are not. They aren't asking for "special" rights, they're asking for equal rights.

The African-American community does not see the 'same sex marriage' issue as "similar to interracial marriage".

Incorrect. I know many members of the black community who consider gay marriage rights in line with civil rights. I know many interracial couples who agree.

To Janeinthisworld #3.27: There are some (perhaps many) elements in the African-American community who appear to resent any comparison between the gay civil rights struggle and the black civil rights struggle. Personally, I struggle to understand this phenomenon because I see many similarities between the two. In both situations, basic rights are denied to members of a subsection of the population based on some characteristic which members of society generally choose to discriminate against. Int the end, it doesn't matter if some blacks don't get that gays are due civil rights just as blacks and other oppressed minorities are. It isn't as if there is a limited number of rights to go around. It isn't as if recognizing one groups rights takes away from another groups rights.

It isn't as if there is a limited number of rights to go around. It isn't as if recognizing one groups rights takes away from another groups rights.

To Proud, Any parallels between the Gay marriage rights and the African American fight for Civil and Equal Rights is an illusion or delusion created by people who want to conflate the issue.

You're hardly being "honest" there. Heterosexuals are the ones receiving "special rights" under the current marriage laws.

Dear Janeinthisworld, Heterosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex. No gay person is denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. No straight person is allowed to marry a person of the same gender. There is no discrimination. Hence, there is no question of civil or equal rights.

thats wat i find so funny about u christians u all are so damn judgemental even though the bible says not to be

Common Sense Ppl

Do you feel better now that you've ranted and gotten all that off your chest? I hope so. Because you certainly have not done anything to advance the same sex marriage issue. By the way, your whole post was "judging" So that makes you the hypocrite.

To Rank on Rank #3.29: I would say the laws passed against restricting liberty of gays in America is very similar to the laws passed to restrict the liberties of black in this country. I would say that the stereotyping and discrimination, while different in content, is very similar in purpose and effect for both blacks and gays. I would also assess that the lynching of African Americans because they are black and the murder of Matthew Shepard because he is gay share a very real similarity. Like it or not, there are similarities between all oppressed peoples, regardless of the reason why they are oppressed.

Your response to Janeinthisworld is dishonest since you decided to delete the reasons behind the statement. The whole statement was: "You're hardly being "honest" there. Heterosexuals are the ones receiving "special rights" under the current marriage laws. They are allowed to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are not. They aren't asking for "special" rights, they're asking for equal rights." The issue is being able to marry another adult they are attracted to and not having to their selection determined by someone who is pregudiced against them.

Dear Janeinthisworld, Heterosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex. No gay person is denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. No straight person is allowed to marry a person of the same gender. There is no discrimination. Hence, there is no question of civil or equal rights.

This is the basis of the discrimination. The determination is purely arbitrary, just as the laws against interracial marriage were arbitrary. No hetero that I know wants to marry someone of the same sex. However, most gay people do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex, they want to marry the person they love, which is a right that only heterosexuals enjoy at this time. And it wouldn't be a "special" right, since heterosexuals would be free to marry those of the same sex as well, though I don't know why they would want to.

To Janeinthisworld #3.27: There are some (perhaps many) elements in the African-American community who appear to resent any comparison between the gay civil rights struggle and the black civil rights struggle.

Yes, I know this. However, there are some (perhaps many) elements in the African-American community (including many interracial couples) who think the comparison is quite appropriate.

I fail to understand the vague and random objections. Even if you disagree with homosexuality based on your religious beliefs, we're talking about state conferred civil rights here. Gay couples want to be able to file their taxes together, buy a home together, get their bills all under one account with both their names, have access to each others health insurance and other insurance policies, be able to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions for each other if necessary, etc., etc. There's no morality involved here, these are simple practical issues. I can't understand why anyone would want to deny gay couples these basic needs except to be exclusionary and superior. It makes no sense to me.

If you claim to have read the Bible then you should know it is sinful for a man to be with aman and woman with woman, unforgivable

If you had read the bible, you would have noted that the very same books that condemn gay sex also condemn eating any seafood without fins or scales, so no shirmp, crabs, lobsters or oysters, they are an ABOMINATION! In fact, there are some 613 commandments in the Old Testament alone, and I'd bet you couldn't name more than 2 dozen or so. So, you're picking and choosing which commandments to obey and which to ignore, please allow others the same right. As for me, I don't want any of those religious commandments, and since this is a nation of religious freedom, I want to be free to ignore your religious dictates.

Heterosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex. No gay person is denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. No straight person is allowed to marry a person of the same gender. There is no discrimination. Hence, there is no question of civil or equal rights.

What a facetious argument! Nobody wants to marry just anyone of the opposite sex, they want to marry the one they love, preferrably one that loves them back. The discrimination is that Gays are not allowed to marry the one they love, if they do marry it is a sham marriage to try and "cure" themselves (which doesn't work) or as a cover to hide. It isn't fair to them, and it really isn't fair to their spouses, and in some cases, children. There would be a lot less sham marriages if gay people were allowed to marry the one they loved.

And don't try that silly "pedo-marriage" argument, as mutual consent has always been required for marriage and always will. Children and animans are not legally able to consent, thus not eligible for marriage.

Your response to Janeinthisworld is dishonest since you decided to delete the reasons behind the statement. The whole statement was: "You're hardly being "honest" there.

Proud to be American, you also make the mistake poor Jane makes, in that you impute the charge of dishonesty to my arguments. But I was being honest with both of you, What is being demanded by gay marriage proponents is the "special right" to marry a person of the same gender. What you think is the relevant issue, is not the same as what I consider to be the relevant issue. For me the relevant issue is that marriage is for one man and one woman. Any questions? Let's no make this about us. The majority of the people of California, as well as other states, have spoken.

And it wouldn't be a "special" right, since heterosexuals would be free to marry those of the same sex as well, though I don't know why they would want to.

Dear Janeinthisworld, (First let me say I admire your sense of humor.)

No American currently has the right to marry anyone of the same gender. So gay marriage advocates are demanding a right that no one currently exercises. That's why this is called a "special right." A special right would be granted to people based upon and because of their sexual orientation. How fair is that?

I fail to understand the vague and random objections. Even if you disagree with homosexuality based on your religious beliefs, we're talking about state conferred civil rights here. Gay couples want to be able to file their taxes together, buy a home together, get their bills all under one account with both their names, have access to each others health insurance and other insurance policies, be able to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions for each other if necessary, etc., etc. There's no morality involved here, these are simple practical issues. I can't understand why anyone would want to deny gay couples these basic needs except to be exclusionary and superior. It makes no sense to me.

There are other ways to address the issues that concern same sex couples without redefining marriage for the whole country. Civil union with added legal protections would be granted equal social status as a traditional marriage would seem the best way forward. Most everyone would accept accept and acknowledge that those persons civilly united were equal to married couples. The argument separate but equal does not apply here. Because heterosexual couples and gay or lesbian couples are in a separate category. The argument separate but equal is founded on the fact that schools were not equal. But in the case of civil unions, the mechanisms are already in place to guarantee every legal benefit and protection accorded to married couples can be accorded to civilly united couple.

If you had read the bible, you would have noted that the very same books that condemn gay sex also condemn eating any seafood without fins or scales, so no shirmp, crabs, lobsters or oysters, they are an ABOMINATION! In fact, there are some 613 commandments in the Old Testament alone, and I'd bet you couldn't name more than 2 dozen or so . . .So, you're picking and choosing which commandments to obey and which to ignore . . .

CM,

First I am not condemning gay sex. The subject has not even been touched upon.

The dietary laws you allude to were given to the Hebrews for reasons you will not now understand. If you had read the New Testament, you would know that Christians are not under the constraints of those OT dietary laws. So committed Christians don't pick and choose which commandments to obey as you have said. I certainly have no desire to ignore any. Yet, I know how to rightly divide the Word of GOD. Meaning, I know what belongs to the Jew under the OT and what belongs to the Christian under the New

Next, the bounds of matrimony were set in the beginning when GOD made male and female. Jesus Christ confirmed the fact in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter. Marriage = One man and one woman.

Also under the category of "not eligible for marriage" you provided are gays and lesbians. Because marriage is one man plus one woman which many here have argued would not be the natural choice for a gay person who would desire to be with someone of the same gender. There are other alternatives. The best one, taking in the all the needs and concerns of a same sex couple, is civil union.

If you had read the New Testament, you would know that Christians are not under the constraints of those OT dietary laws.

OK, so you have one commandment cancelling others, so much for "unchanging God" notion, apparently commandments are added and subtracted whenever God feels like it. Problem is, the "dietary laws" that were "cencelled" in the NT were just a portion of the 613 OT commandments, you're still short a few hundred holy rules.

Because marriage is one man plus one woman which many here have argued would not be the natural choice for a gay person who would desire to be with someone of the same gender. There are other alternatives. The best one, taking in the all the needs and concerns of a same sex couple, is civil union.

I see you're still pushing the same facetious argument, and cleverly ignoring my counter-argument. No matter. I would have no problem with "civil unions" if they had all the same rights as marriage. In fact, in other posts I've made just that argument, that the State should get out of the marriage licensing business and issue only "domestic partnership contracts. Then your religion would be free to define "marriage" for its members, and could restrict their marriage cerimonies to the opposite sex and same religion. Since I am not of your religion, your religious rules would not apply to me.

Ah, but there's just one problem. Many of your cohorts for Prop 8 have also been trying to deny granting to "civil unions" any of the rights enjoyed by married couples, and even adamantly opposing "civil unions" entirely. In short, they really do want to persecute sinners by denying rights to gays, and "defense of marriage" is simply a smokescreen to cover their bigotry and hatred.

Problem is, the "dietary laws" that were "cencelled" in the NT were just a portion of the 613 OT commandments, you're still short a few hundred holy rules.

CM,

Perhaps if you just take a few minutes to think, repeating to yourself "Old Testament/ New Testament", you might just get a revelation. GOD is unchanging, but He has made a New Covenant through Jesus Christ's death, burial and resurrection. You remember hearing about that somewhere, don't you?

Ah, but there's just one problem. Many of your cohorts for Prop 8 have also been trying to deny granting to "civil unions" any of the rights enjoyed by married couples, and even adamantly opposing "civil unions" entirely.

Well, I think they are wrong to try to deny granting civil unions.

No American currently has the right to marry anyone of the same gender. So gay marriage advocates are demanding a right that no one currently exercises. That's why this is called a "special right." A special right would be granted to people based upon and because of their sexual orientation. How fair is that?

At this point the marriage laws are biased toward heterosexuals, they are based on being heterosexual, which is completely arbitrary and unfair, just as marriage laws biased toward race were arbitrary and unfair. There is no logical or legal reason to limit civil marriage rights to those of opposite gender. None. Not a single one. Right now, heterosexuals enjoy the right to marry the person they love and want to commit their lives to; homosexuals do not. Your "special" rights argument falls flat. There would be no "special" rights, because the same law would be extended to everyone, gay or straight.

As for the labels "marriage" or "civil union", we're bickering over semantics that don't really have a lot to do with the real argument at its core. Who cares what we call it? It doesn't really matter. If you get all worked up over a word, then you've got bigger problems than just being biased against homosexuals.

Again, your arguments don't make any sense. (As for my "humor", I wasn't trying to be funny...I'm just as serious as Judge Walker here. At least he can form a coherent argument.)

To Rank on Rank #3.34: Once again, you failed to put the whole comment in proper context. I even put the important part of Janeinthisworld's in italics. Here it is again in bold: "They [heterosexuals] are allowed to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are not." Being allowed to marry the person you love is the 'special right' straight people currently enjoy but gay people are denied. This is the equal right that gay people seek. It is about being able to protect one's primary and most important relationship. To suggest that gays can marry an opposite sex partner as somehow equal to straights being able to select from that same pool of potential partners is insulting not only to gays but to straight people who may find themselves in a relationship with someone whose sexual interested doesn't include them. I am aquainted with several straight people who found themselves in this situation. It is not something anyone should be advocating.

Regarding Civil Unions, I personally did see this as a possible solution to the gay marriage issue except for one problem. The primary reason to keep something separate is in order to discriminate against it. It may not be the initial intent, but it would very likely occur at some point in time. Just as the ruling in Brown vs The Board of Education stated, "Separate but equal is not equal". Based on our national experience the led up to Brown, we can clearly see that "Separate but equal" was never intended to be equal. I would say the only way to avoid the problems inherent in "Seaparate but equal" is to avaid making them separate. The term marriage means (among other things) a joining, a coming together of two entities. In this way, the term applies as well to gay couples as it does to straight couples and no real redefinition is necessary.

• Next, the bounds of matrimony were set in the beginning when GOD made male and female. Jesus Christ confirmed the fact in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter. Marriage = One man and one woman.

And yet, there are many throughout the Bible for whom the marriage was one man and many women including Abraham, Jacob/Israel, David, and Solomon. These are among some of the God of the Bible's most favored servants. It is also clear that Paul - if we can trust that Paul is the correct author of all the letter attributed to him - felt that men should remain celebate and should not marry unless they were too weak to resist the alure of women. The other issue, however, that your comments bring up is that your argument is a religious one. Since we as Americans claim to value freedom of religion as guaranteed by the US Constitution, your argument is automatically offset by anyone of another faith or tradition that recognizes gay marriages. Unitarians have recognized and performed gay marriages from a very long time. The rights and religious freedoms of Unitarians should not be trumped by your particular faith tradition. It is the role of government NOT to discriminate through the establishment of one religion over another. This is again unconstitutional. You are free to practice your particular faith tradition but you are not allowed by the US Constitution to infringe on the rights of others to practice their's.

Finally, you claim to CM that "GOD is unchanging" yet the way in which humans view God is constantly changing. So much so that portions of the Bible have been altered to changed to reflect the new understanding of God. As you point out, this includes the practices within the religion. It is also clear to anyone who studies the subject from a broad spectrum (not just to re-inforce one's current belief system) that religions regularly barrow concepts from one another. Under polytheism, Gods from one culture become adopted into that of another culture. Gods also merge their identies from time to time as the people with power find reason to consolidate various sects and individual cults dedicated to particular Gods. Robert Wright discusses in "The Evolution of God" how this apparently occurred in ancient Israel when the God of the northern areas known as El (as found in 'El-Shaddai') was originally held as the supreme God over Yahweh which was from the the Southern areas. Over time, the power structure shifted to the south and Yahweh became the predominant diety eventually become the only God of the both regions.

Who cares what we call it? It doesn't really matter. If you get all worked up over a word, then you've got bigger problems than just being biased against homosexuals.

Dear Janeinthisworld

"Who cares what we call it?" Obviously you do along with all those who support the redefinition of "marriage". If you don't call it "marriage", you don't have a problem.

To suggest that gays can marry an opposite sex partner as somehow equal to straights being able to select from that same pool of potential partners is insulting not only to gays but to straight people

Proud to be American,

That's why I didn't suggest it. What I was saying is that it becomes a special right to "marry" someone of the same gender. A right that is not currently enjoyed by anyone, straight or gay.

The primary reason to keep something separate is in order to discriminate against it.

Even a child can understand that a marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil union is between two men or two women.

The term marriage means (among other things) a joining, a coming together of two entities.

And you know what, Proud? So does the word "union".

And yet, there are many throughout the Bible for whom the marriage was one man and many women including Abraham, Jacob/Israel, David, and Solomon.

Are there any for whom marriage was either two men or two women? Because that would solve your problem as far as Christian opposition in this country.
Jesus Christ Himself defined and confirmed what marriage was. One man and one woman. I don't know why you keep bringing up the Apostle Paul. No apostle was married to another man, or ever recommended it. How is that relevant to gays being 'married' ? ? ?

Finally, you claim to CM that "GOD is unchanging" yet the way in which humans view God is constantly changing. So much so that portions of the Bible have been altered to changed to reflect the new understanding of God.

You lost me right after "the new of understanding of GOD". I like most Americans, am not even the slightest bit interested in polytheism.

El Shaddai which is translated as "The Almighty" and Yahweh which is translated as "The Lord" or "The Sovereign Lord" are the very same Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who made sex, made both genders, and instituted marriage to include one of each.

Rank on Rank: You need to study more history. You might come to learn that the ancient Hebrew were not always monotheistic. You have a set your opinion based on specious sources. Although I doubt it, you may want to expand your base of study. There are many decent scholarly book on how the Bible came to be the form that it is in today. They examine ancient sources you might find enlightening (although again, rather doubt it).

Rank on Rank: "Even a child can understand that a marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil union is between two men or two women."

This response does not address my comments in any way: "The primary reason to keep something separate is in order to discriminate against it." How a child may or may not be able to perceive marriages and civil unions has nothing whatever to do with an intent to discriminate. Defining marriage as a government defined uniting of two individuals does nothing to diminish the union when those individuals are a man and a woman. No heterosexual marriage is threatened with dissolution and no proposed heterosexual marriage is threatened with being prevented if the definition of 'marriage' includes same sex couples. The argument against same sex marriage as 'marriage' is based solely on prejudice - typically religious prejudice - and I would suggest for some a desire to continue discrimination against gays. This is effectively what the court has said in its ruling against Prop 8.

You need to study more history. You might come to learn that the ancient Hebrew were not always monotheistic

Why would the fact that the ancient Hebrews were not all monotheistic concern me? The Bible fully chronicles their idolatry.

This response does not address my comments in any way: "The primary reason to keep something separate is in order to discriminate against it." How a child may or may not be able to perceive marriages and civil unions has nothing whatever to do with an intent to discriminate.

Forgive the oversight. Let me address them now:

How many same sex couples in civil unions do you know? How many people who are civilly united feel discriminated against? What active discrimination against civil unions is being practised now and by whom? Can you document this discrimination against civil unions?

I would suggest that gay marriage proponents get over themselves, (but like you I have my doubts they will,) that preserving marriage is all about prejudice against them. Most people don't care if others are gay, or if they cohabitate with each other forming lasting and legal domestic partnerships.

What people even those who have gay friends, family members, and co-workers don't want is to be forced to have marriage redefined for them when the majority of Americans both religious and non religious agree marriage should remain between one man and one woman.

This is effectively what the court has said in its ruling against Prop 8

I can wait for this to reach the SCOTUS and be settled with a ruling that is final. Can you?

Thanl you Lynn, I agree with you completly.

Rank on Rank: Why would the fact that the ancient Hebrews were not all monotheistic concern me? The Bible fully chronicles their idolatry.

You still don;t understand. As I wrote earlier, the different names of God - El and Yahweh - were at one time two separate dieties recognised in a polytheistic pantheon of Hebrew Gods. This was the norm among the Hebrew and not an aboration as described in the Bible. The Gods were eventually merged which is a process that has been observed in many other cultures. El was dominant in the north of Israel and was the primary diety in the pantheon when the northern regions dominated the country. The name switched to Yahweh later on when the soutern region became dominant. The stories concerning the Gods changed over time to reflect the changing nature of how these Gods were viewed. As they merged into being one God, the names naturally become seen as variations referring to the same diety. This is the tradition as it arrives for us to view, but it was not always the way it was viewed by the ancients. You are misconstruing your perspective as the only one available when it is only the latest one that has evolved to our time. You have not researched to see the evolution and what it once was.

Rank on Rank: How many same sex couples in civil unions do you know? How many people who are civilly united feel discriminated against?

Since where I live does not allow either gay marriages or civil unions, I know of no same sex couples who feel discriminated against. What I am aware of simply from observing the news and discussing the issue elsewhere on-line is that a great number of same sex couples feel discriminated against because of civil unions which typically affords gay couples fewer rights than opposite sex couples have through marriage.

I am also aware that the issues leading up to the California Supreme Court's overturning of the state's Defense of Marriage Act in May 2008 resulting in the court's ruling that gays bee allowed to marry in California included this very issue of discrimination of a "Separate but Equal" designation allowing gays civil unions/domenstic partnerships and straight marriage. The California Supreme Court ruled against the "Separate but Equal" concept which meant that same sex couples should and would be allowed to be married the same as opposite sex couples.

Rank on Rank: I would suggest that gay marriage proponents get over themselves, (but like you I have my doubts they will,)

The same could be said of those who oppose gay marraige - they should just get over themselves. But like you, I doubt very much that they will.

The fact of the matter is that no opposite sex marriage is threatened with dissolution because gay marriages are allowed, and no proposed opposite sex marriage is under threat of being oprevented because gay marriage is allowed. There is absolutely no harm done to the institution of opposite sex marriage because same sex marriages are allowed and recognized by the state. No one has provided any reliable evidence what-so-ever to demonstrate any harm to striaght marriage. This is in part what Judge Walker pointed out in his ruling.

Rank on Rank: What people even those who have gay friends, family members, and co-workers don't want is to be forced to have marriage redefined for them when the majority of Americans both religious and non religious agree marriage should remain between one man and one woman.

What these people don;t realize is that the populace does not have the final say on what is correct and proper in how our government deals with its citizenry. We (supposedly) believe in a principled government that guarrantees certain rights of the individual. Among these rights is that of Equality. Government is to provide equal treatment to all its citizens and we also belive in the concept of Liberty which means that government is not supposed to unduely control its citizens. Since the role of the courts is to ajudicate the laws passed by the other two branches of government and test their constitutionality, the ruling of the courts are not always popular since they do often go against the feelings of the majority. But again, we (supposedly) live by the principles written into our Constitution and not everyone always agrees with the decisions of the court in this regard. This has often been the case with civil rights. It was true when the courts tossed out the old Jim Cro laws and did away with the "Separate but Equal" standard. The court said then - just as as the court is saying now - that "Separate but Equal Is Not Equal".

Rank on Rank: I can wait for this to reach the SCOTUS and be settled with a ruling that is final. Can you?

Yes, I believe this will go to the Supreme Court of the United States. I believe Judge Walker expected it to go that far as well. The result may very well be that the laws and amendments to state constitutions prohibiting gays from being able to marry in every state across the United States will be overturned. It may not happen, but I firmly believe that gays will eventually be allowed to marry in every state in the US. Just as it was right and correct or women to be allowed to vote the same as men, just as it was right and correct that blacks not be subjected to Jim Cro laws, and just as it was right that all states must recognize and not ciminalize interacial marriage, it is right and correct to extend the same rights to gay couples as currently enjoyed by striaght couples by marriage. Call them all Civil Unions if you like, I believe that the state should not discriminate against gays by allowing a lesser designation for their unions as afforded straight couples. Marraige can be determined by the churches if you like, but I must say that the MCC or the Unitarians will allow their gays couples to be "married" whether or not Mormons, Catholics, or any other denomination recognizes this title for them.

Hope at least one of your children is gay.

Yep - heard the same thing when the Supreme Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriages.

Surprise - we are all still here.

completely agree. Pedophiles will want the right to marry 12 year olds soon, and guess what? we're gonna give them that right, cause there people to right?

TOlsen -

Stick to your guns and yield to no fool. You speak the truth.

TOlsen - you are a sad individual.

Is there any chance we could stick to the facts when debating people's rights? I don't care who you love or why you love them. Its not perverted to be able to commit to the person you love. To force people to live in secret and shame because they do not share you beliefs is NOT what America is all about. Sometimes the majority should not rule, because frankly the rights of minorities would be at risk.

@Jordan-2143344 - Because gays and pedophiles are the same boat. Talk about sounding ignorant.

I live in CA and beg to differ with Tolsen. Every weekend for weeks...particularly after church on Sunday morning "gangs" of Mormon and Christian churchgoers stood on the corner near my home yelling and name calling the few courageous souls in my very conservative community who had the courage to demonstrate quietly and peacefully in opposition to Prop. 8.

The meanness, intolerace, bigotry and absolute venom expressed by this people, some with their children in tow, was disgusting.

Jordan.....No, we will leave that to the Mormons...

regarding your statement: Pedophiles will want the right to marry 12 year olds soon, and guess what? we're gonna give them that right, cause there people to right?

It's a sweet day here in So Cal!

Decent people? Seriously? Because your sexual orientation determines whether you are decent or not??

How about Catholic priests who sexually abused children? Or a preacher who cheats on his wife? The 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals?

You can believe what you want to about gays - but so can I. Our constitution is based on equal rights for all.

Last I checked... God is love - Jesus sat down and eat with the dregs of society - he didn't cast them out - he embraced them. He chastized the 'religious' people of the time. "He who has no sin can cast the first stone."

Pedophiles will never be given the 'right' to marry and 12 year old - because that infringes on the rights of the 12 year old.

Gay people aren't the end of this world or the introduction of evil. That began with Adam and Eve.

They won't "cause any protest" because their basic human rights are not being taken away from them.

TOlsen....."I'll bet the folks who supported prop 8 wont cause any protests, violence, slander and all the other perversion tactics the opponents of prop 8 used after it passed in the election." No, the supporters of Prop 8 utilized protests, violence, slander and all ther other perversion tactics prior to the passing of Prop 8 before it passed.

luvmy2boys-

To what are you referring to when you say "leave that to the Mormons"? Examples please. Underage marriage does NOT happen in the church.

It HAS happened in some of the off shoot groups that are not part of the church.

True, Made in Montana, but those "off shoot groups" are closer to the teachings of Brigham Young than the modern LDS church. Luvmy2boys made a rude and insensitive joke, I'll admit, but having grown up in SLC and been taught Mormon doctrine that was disguised as state history, I can say that the joke is at least based in historical fact.

katie5-

gay people arent the end of this world or the introduction of evil. Thet began with Adam and Eve.

last i checked adam,was a man, and eve, was a woman. if thats the way it all started thats the way it should stay. if it was suppossed to be any other way it wouldve been adam and eddie, but its not.

True- they are closer to what B. Young had taught, but as we know in the Church- we follow the CURRENT prophet and his teachings along with the teachings of Jesus Christ all the while learning from the past. Yes, Brigham taught that plural marriage was what God had wanted as it was as in the Old Testament as well as the New, but Joseph Smith had taught before that that we follow the laws of the land. As plural marriage was outlawed in the land (Utah was applying for statehood and this was a no-no)- so the Church followed- but Brigham had passed away at this point. They still teach this method in the splinter groups, but it has no bearing on the mainstream Church itself.

As for underage marriage- this was also a thing of the past. It was an acceptable practice by almost EVERYONE (prarie brides), not just the church- but again, over a hundred years ago- it was banned. To equate these things to this day and age is nonsense- but it goes a long way to perpetuate myths about the Church that are simply untrue- people still believe it though...

Oh how pissed you must be right now! You see, I don't believe in discriminating anyone for ANY reason, especially "your beliefs"

by that theory eve brought evil into the world are you implying all women are evil?

TOlsen, did you know that the man who just helped successfully defeat Prop 8 in California is named Theodore Olson?

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage by Ted Olson

last i checked adam,was a man, and eve, was a woman. if thats the way it all started thats the way it should stay. if it was suppossed to be any other way it wouldve been adam and eddie, but its not.

Last I checked Adam and Eve were never married, so what difference does it make?

Adam and Eve are fictional characters created to tell a story. There was no Adam and Eve. There's also no stork that brings babies, no Easter bunny, no tooth fairy and no Santa Clause.

Last I checked Adam and Eve were never married, so what difference does it make?

DS Vet, you need to check again. The Bible calls Eve Adam's "wife". Genesis 2:25

Marriage is GOD instituted and ordained between a man and a woman.

Wait there's no Santa Clause? When did this happen?

I stand corrected.

Though I will say that marriage being "GOD instituted" is no longer a viable argument in our society. You do not have to be religious to be married, you don't have to be married by any religious man, believe in any God, or involve any aspect of religion whatsoever.

Bringing up rules of the bible at this point doesn't hold any water. All aspects of religion have already been long removed from what we know as 'marriage'.

Sorry, listenin, I didn't mean to burst your bubble.

Marriage is GOD instituted and ordained between a man and a woman.

Incorrect. Marriage is not solely a religious institution. It is also a civil one. There is no state requirement to be married in a religious ceremony. However, if a couple is married in a religious ceremony they will not receive any of the state conferred benefits unless they complete a civil marriage license. If marriage were only a religious institution then no one would be legally married in civil life and no one would receive the state benefits.

TOlsen: I'll bet the folks who supported prop 8 wont cause any protests, violence, slander and all the other perversion tactics the opponents of prop 8 used after it passed in the election.

The denial of Rights found in the State's Constitution was plenty destuctive enough for this particular group

TOlsen: That should tell you that the perverts don't really care about what civil society wants, they just want to have their pervision and decent people are not allowed to decide or choose that they don't want it.

The real perversion here is the institutionalization of bigotry. This alone make society uncivil. It sets up a subclass of the citizenry to be singled out for undue discrimination. No one will be compelled to enter into a same sex marriage; so if you don't want it, you don't have to have it. Allowing gays who do want to marry will have no effect on anyone who doesn't want to marry someone of their same gender. And gays are as decent a people as any straights. Go look at the studies conducted by the APA and you will see.

TOlsen: As soon as society embraces homo lifestyle (When the Supreme Court says it's ok for Gays to marry and be the same as Heteros), the clock begins to tick and total destruction will surely follow.

Let us remember that the ancient Greeks - often considered the founders of Western Civilization - regularly engaged in homosexual practiced. They had rituals and a code of etiquette surrounding such relationships. Rome essentially adopted a similar stance as the Greeks from the beginning of their rise to domination of the known world, and Alexander the Great was also believed to have maintained longstanding homosexual relationships throughout his life. There is no credible evidence to suggest that allowing homosexuals rights within our society will cause any harm. All that exists along this line are contrived conclusions based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Jordan, don't sweat the pedophilia for now. Show a little tolerance. You don't hear us griping about your well-documented problem with livestock do you?

To Janeinthisworld #4.26: The Christian church did not get involved with marriages until somewhere around the 12th or 13th centuries. Prior to this time, marriage was considered a civil matter and not a religious one.

If I remember by New Tesiment reading correctly, Paul wrote that he felt the most pure state of a person - both men and women - was to remain unmarried and celebate. Marriages were condoned only because Paul recognized that men would be tempted "by the flesh" and marriage would allow those who were not strong enough to resist to sidestep the sin of fornication.

If we are to truly recognize religious freedom in the US, then we need to recognize those churches - Christian and otherwise - that accept same sex marriages among their congregations. Whether it be the Metropolitan COmmunity Church or the Unitarians, these religions should have the religious freedom not to be subject to the Mormons, Muslims, Evangelicals, or any other homophobic church.

Jordan-2143344 #4.3: Pedophilia is a completely different issue involving a person's ability to give informed consent. Our nation already has laws in place to prevent adults from taking advantage of underaged persons. This is true of same sex or opposite sex situations.

Proud to be an American,

The Christian church did not get involved with marriages until somewhere around the 12th or 13th centuries. Prior to this time, marriage was considered a civil matter and not a religious one. If I remember by New Tesiment reading correctly, Paul wrote...

The Christian Church has always followed Christ's teaching on marriage in the Gospel of Matthew 19:4

'And Jesus answered and said unto them, Have you not read, that He Who made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'

Bringing up rules of the bible at this point doesn't hold any water. All aspects of religion have already been long removed from what we know as 'marriage'.

DS Vet, Not in the minds of the majority of your fellow American. "All aspects of religion have been removed from what we know as marriage"? I suppose that is why most people get married in church! LOL.

To Rank on Rank #4.31: You may want to read some more about the history of marriage. Marriage under Roman law has always provided for an ability to divorce and Christians apparently took advantage of this law until the church became involved in marriages around the 12th or 13th centuries. It became a problem because married individuals could no longer divorce most likely because of the passage you site. Individuals in bad marriages had no remedies as they did before.

You may also want to read some on how the Bible came to be in its present form. Bart Ehrman is a good source that I am familair with. You may want to discover when the passages you quote were written. A good portion of the New Testiment is regarded by Biblical scholars as forgeries and the rest of it was written by individuals who at best had a second or third hand knowledge of Jesus. Paul who was the earliest writer in the New Testiment never met Jesus in the flesh and only has a claim of supernatural knowledge of him. This is no better that what Joseph Smith - founder of the Mormon religion - claims. The Bible - especially the New Testiment - cannot be relied on for accuracy or historiocity to any reliable degree.

To Janeinthisworld #4.26: The Christian church did not get involved with marriages until somewhere around the 12th or 13th centuries. Prior to this time, marriage was considered a civil matter and not a religious one.

Yes, I know that. Tell it to the religious fanatics who think God invented marriage when he created Adam from the earth and Eve from his rib.

At this point in our history, most people believe marriage is a religious rite and a religious rite only. They are correct in that most churches have taken the rites of marriage and incorporated them into their dogma. What they fail to take into account is that there are no religious requirements for a civil marriage, which is really what we're talking about here. They fail to remember if it weren't for their state conferred marriage license they would not be eligible for all the different benefits allowed them under the current marriage laws.

The Bible - especially the New Testiment - cannot be relied on for accuracy or historiocity to any reliable degree.

You get an AMEN and a HALLELUJAH from me for that!

I'll vote your comment up too! ;-)

I'll bet the folks who supported prop 8 wont cause any protests, violence, slander and all the other perversion tactics the opponents of prop 8 used after it passed in the election

When their rights were stripped away, what did you expect? Would you have been quiet and submissive if your marriage had been declared invalid and you were denied the right to marry the one you loved? I don't think so.

There has been a long history of certain minority groups being persecuted, and when they rebelled against that persecution, that rebellion was used by those in power to condemn the rebels, and a convenient excuse to justify their persecution and to increase the repression. That happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany, to Palestinians in Israel today, and of course it happened to the Mormons back in the 19th century.

DS Vet, Not in the minds of the majority of your fellow American. "All aspects of religion have been removed from what we know as marriage"? I suppose that is why most people get married in church! LOL.

What I mean is that marriage today can take place completely void of any aspect of religion and it's socially accepted. You certainly don't see people objecting to marriages that happen outside of religion.

I personally think that most marriages take place in courthouses rather than in a church. People wait in line to get married every day at the courthouse. In Los Angeles they have long lines to get married like waiting at the DMV.

DSVet #4.35: In most states, no one gets married in a church or anywhere else without first going to the state to obtain a license. Unless a state recognizes some form of common law marriage (and I believe very few do these days) it isn't a marriage - straight, gay, or otherwise - without the state issued license.

As you point out, the marriages we are talking about include those completed without a church service and of those persons who do not believe in God or who believe in a God different from those religious folks who wish to control government.

If I remember by New Tesiment reading correctly, Paul wrote that he felt the most pure state of a person - both men and women - was to remain unmarried and celebate. Marriages were condoned only because Paul recognized that men would be tempted "by the flesh" and marriage would allow those who were not strong enough to resist to sidestep the sin of fornication.

If that's true then if religion had it's way, the human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago. Wow, that's frightening.

To Kozakura-1552259: The gospels of the New Testiment would appear to indicate that the end of the world was expected to be very near. Jesus tells his disciples that there would be some present who would see the end of the world. Some scholars whom I have read believe that this passage indicates that Jesus was saying the the world would end within the next 50 to 100 years. If this were the case, them it wouldn't matter if children were born or not because there would not be a world for anyone to live on anyway.

well, lol, that certainly would have been a self fulfilling prophesy. Thanks for that info, can't say I ever paid attn in sunday school.

Neither is it yours to dictate how people lead their lives. Being gay is NOT a choice. No one chooses to be gay.

I never said it was a choice, and I never dictated how people live their lives. I've been raised a Mormon all my life, and I wouldn't want it to be any other way. I don't appreciate you making remarks like that to me. I didn't do it to you.

I think if the Mormon Church wants to get involved in politics, that's great. We'll just yank their tax exemption status - the country could definitely use the extra income.

The Church does not get involved with politics, only moral issues. This is a moral issue.

Shanaynay - you are trying to control people's lives. I have gay friends and believe me, I'm sure they didn't choose to be gay. Not with what they have to go through daily. I believe God looks at the people who treat people badly - just because they are different - and doesn't approve of that.

qclars - when you are talking about a vote on people's rights, that's politics.

Kind of like it's not your decision who people decide to love?

Lynn Lustig said that "Being gay is NOT a choice. No one chooses to be gay"

Wrong. Absolutely Wrong. People may not have a choice in being gay. But they DO Have a choice of acting gay.

TOlsen - you may not have a choice in being stupid, but you do have choice of not acting stupid. So please stop posting.

@Lynn (et al.) - Please. Everybody who is gay chooses to be gay. The old argument of being "born" with your choices already made for you has been worn out and discarded. These days, we teach our children from a very young age that they can grow up to be anything they want to be. Why do we teach that? Because it's the truth. I am free to love whomever I choose. Ask some gay people; most who aren't just repeating rhetoric will be able to relate when why and how they chose to be gay. Your wish for one of everybody's children to be gay? Fine. As long as they realize that as individual people they have both the right and the obligation to choose the life they will live; adults are responsible for the choices we make.

Do you really think anyone these days would teach their own child: You can grow up to be anything you want: be it a doctor, nurse, lawyer, pastor, etc.... but you don't get to choose who you love?? c'mon. real love is not "implanted" cosmically for any of us.

The judge explained exactly that -- that moral issues [as defined be a Church] have no place in defining the laws of the state. The moral issue is between you and your Church. Having two people who love each other have all the rights of marriage is only fair and right, regardless of the gender of the individual. -- If you don't think same sex couple should marry because they are homosexual and it is immoral, let's stop having homosexual pay taxes because they are being denied their rights (not to mention the right to pursue happiness).

Oh my god! Anyone who thinks being gay is a choice does not really know a gay person. My sister is gay, and I could have told you when she was 5 years old that she would be. You are born that way it is not a choice. And to say that people have told you when they choose to be gay, is hilarious. You must not have been listening it in when they choose to let people know they are gay if they ever do because of people like you.

We just want to stand up for something we believe in. Wouldn't you want to do the same for your beliefs?

You can stand up for what you believe in. But be prepared to be faced by those of us who are doing the very same thing. I believe that denying gays the right to marry is wrong. I will stand up for that. We are standing up for it in California.

Pink:

Though I do not possess the faculty to make sense of your last sentence, I did notice you replid with the "victim" rhetoric of:

You are born that way it is not a choice.

wrong.

The major city I live closest to has the 4th largest gay population (by %) in the US.

they ALL recognize that being gay is a choice.

At least the ones who are adults do.

It is childish to live in the victim mentality and refuse responsibility for the choices we make.

Regardless of what you thought, please have a talk with your sister and don't be afraid of the truth.

The majority of the population can tell you about major events in their lives: why fear the truth from the gay minority?

@joe-1884424, We don't control anything. We just want to stand up for something we believe in. Wouldn't you want to do the same for your beliefs? So please don't say whether or not we should stay out of something, because it's not your decision.

Personally, I believe there is a vast difference between practicing your beliefs and standing up for your beliefs. When you practice your beliefs it "feels" good. When you push against someone or something it "feels" bad because you are creating a vibration of resistance. This vibration of resistance prevents you from practicing your own beliefs.

If everyone was the exactly the same this world would cease to exist which is why diversity exists. Diversity is a blessing. Diversity defines who YOU are. You have the ability to either focus on what you want that makes you happy or you can focus on what makes you miserable. It is YOUR choice. You choose your OWN life experiences and others get to do the same.

To TOlsen #5.8: What is wrong with someone acting gay if they ARE gay?? Especially if they don't have a choice is whether or not to BE gay? Who else do you require to act in accord with your particular confort level?

Why should it make any difference whether being gay is learned or genetic or chosen? It is their life, chosen or not, and their love life, not yours.

Maybe your religion doesn't like it, that's fine, but this nation isn't a theocracy, this is a nation of religious freedom, and your religious rules shouldn't apply to anyone outside your religion.

Amen, brother!

But to enter the debate with money to influence and election is a violation of their tax exempt status. As far as 1st amendment right..they do have one but they can not preach from the pulpit...also a violation.

Yes- we can preach from the pulpit, but only on moral issues- not political. When the sermons become political- we would indeed lose that staus, and rightfully so. It is widely known NOT to get into political discussions at church. We do indeed talk at home with each other as I'm sure you do with your friends. When the letter was read to the church- it said to "get involved". The 1st Presidency did not say how to get involved- just to do so. We also say to be involved in elections- not who to vote for, but to make sure we are informed. The Church has never dictated what we MUST do- only to use our conscience to dictate our actions.

I am sorry to all those that believe there was something sneaky and underhanded here, but it was simply a call to be informed and involved. If you want to you can go to any meeting you want to at any time and see for yourself. We encourage involvement and knowledge- for everyone.

I am sorry to all those that believe there was something sneaky and underhanded here, but it was simply a call to be informed and involved.

Informed, involved....and raising $200 million for a political campaign, many of whom didn't even live in California.

Am I reading this right randytexas? The Mormon Church provided funds? It's my understanding that members were encouraged to stand up for their morals and contribute, but it was THEIR personal money. Not every penny of income of a Mormon goes to the Church. If a Mormon was to pay money towards their tithe to the Church (which they do) then why can't they pay more towards a political or moral belief. Check the Church tithe records, not a cent went to political funding. Believe it or not, a Mormon can live their religion, and have political position at the same time. And it is completely impossible to fully separate Church and state. Some religious doctrines naturally intertwine with political concepts...we just have to figure out how to make them work together.

Mormons overwhelmingly donated funds to the Prop 8 campaign becoming the top contributors.

The Mormon church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. So when they encourage their parishioners to get involved, stand up for their morals, etc, there is an unspoken encouragement that they should get involved and stand up for the morals that are consistent with the church's teachings.

Believe it or not, a Mormon can live their religion, and have political position at the same time.

Yes, but they can't have a political position that church leaders oppose and remain Mormons. Granted, the church leaders don't often post political positions, but when they do they expect their members to fall in lockstep behind their position, and anyone who dissents is excommunicated. That happened to several Mormons who supported the ERA, and it has happened to several that supported gay rights. I have no doubt that they'd excommunicate any member that opposed Prop 8.

And it is completely impossible to fully separate Church and state. Some religious doctrines naturally intertwine with political concepts...we just have to figure out how to make them work together

Separating church and state is easy if you aren't a theocrat. It's simply a matter of making a secular government where laws are made on a rational logical basis without resorting to scriptures.

Apparently you aren't familiar with the millions of dollars in aid the Mormon church sends to countries around the world after natural disasters (including this one!), the programs it has established to give villages in Africa clean drinking water, its efforts to train midwives in newborn resuccitation to reduce infant mortality, or its continuing efforts to educate the masses in farming techniques meant to yield greater production with less environmental impact all without regard for religious denomination.

The LDS (Mormon) church does those things as well......

They already do!

Well, they could have sent another $10 million dollars to the poor instead of flushing it away supporting a proposition that any legal scholar would have told you was going to get overturned in court.

And they ought to invest ALL of their money in these efforts.

I was Baptised in a Mormon church. I have been a member, and I know plenty of active members who don't support Prop 8.

@Cal, then they don't have an understanding of the gospel lol. Thats like saying I know plenty of active Catholics that don't believe in Jesus. HAHAHA

I believe I remember the verse "judge not lest ye be judged."

I'm another very active life-long Mormon who doesn't support Prop 8. I have a very thorough understanding of the gospel, thank you very much, as well as church history and policies. Your analogy comparing disagreement with a specific political stance to Christians who do not believe in Jesus is nonsensical.

I agree with you solei7- I am a member and also against Prop 8. I did a lot of soul searching on it- as we were told to get informed and get involved. I have a firm testimony and a pretty thorough knowledge of the gospel- but this is wrong on a couple different levels. First- we support the laws of the land- and this is (or will be). Secondly- God loves ALL His children and we are the caretakers of those children- ALL of them- and would never ostracize my child because of this. I have a very close relative that is gay and wouldn't think of him out of my family. I love him and respect him for his courage- though he says it is his choice- not a birth thing. I don't think a loving God would condemn me because I love my brother (I AM my brother's keeper) & he's gay. It would be very similar to the Garden of Eden- eat of the fruit or procreate (which they could not do without the fruit of the tree of good and evil- knowledge)- pick one- either way you break a commandment. I can either stand for God's law- where a man does not lie with a man OR love others as myself. Either way- I kind of lose. For me and my house- I will chose the path of Christ: "For I give unto you a new law- love one another."

Thanks for speaking up.

As a gay man, I will tell you that I think there are many reasons why someone might be homosexual. Some of us would never have "chosen" to be gay; I actually prayed to God as a teen to change who I was becoming. For me and many others, it has not been a choice.

In the end, I'm not sure that it matters how you "got here," but what you do when you arrive.

I love my Mormon friends. I love my gay comrades. I feel like there is so much more in this world to get done than to argue about who gets legitimized by the state.

Let's invest in goodness and take note of all of the people dying every day that just pennies on our dollar might save. Let's try and focus on what matters and work with what we've been blessed with.

really? ur contradicting urself. u say u have a firm testimony of the gospel yet th book of mormon itself does not condone homosexuality. neither do any of the teachings of the church yes we are to love one another; yet u seem to confuse that with CONDONE their actions. we are not to condone anyones sin, seeing as God doesnt either. God DOES love ALL his children, but that doesnt mean he approves of our choices. last i checked he cursed and punished Laman and Lemuel, and Samson for their unrighteous decisions. he still loves them but hey he is a God of his word and upholds his laws, punishing them. we ARE to support the laws of the land, YET ONLY if they are in harmony with God's principles so news flash: homosexuality isnt one of them

No one asked for your support. They asked for your tolerance.

ctrboy-

Are YOU his judge in Israel? Have you been called to be so? I haven't either- so it's not my job to judge. If I was called (and could very well be)- and this case was before me- then, and only then, would I have to side with Church standards. Otherwise- I will leave that up to proper authorities. Please do not confuse your sense of right and wrong with judgement. I can recite many scriptures that kill your argument. I believe the New Testament is the final authority here, as I said above- love one another. Jesus Christ himself said this as a replacement for the Mosaic laws- Love one another. Do I need to condone the behavior? no I don't, but I am not the judge in Israel on this matter and have not been called to do so, therefore I have no authority to do so. Does my family know my views on it- yes they do, and it is one of- I will leave you alone on it if you do the same.

Yes- I have struggled with this one. But I have come to terms with it and I'll take my chances on my views any day.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Very true. But that doesn't mean that its ok for homosexuals to marry. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Jordan - so you get to choose what parts of the Bible you follow? How convenient!

Careful! You're implying that christians don't condemn those things. True christians DO condemn things such as extramarital sex because they DO read the entire bible. It's amazing to me how many people make such comments about christians when they apparently don't know much about christianity.

Oh yeah, and you're right "all sins are to be repented"

James says:The Bibe doesn't say that homosexuals are so evil why these other sins "aren't quite as bad". All sins are to be repented.

...Oh yes it does! Re-read the story of sodom and gomorrah if you doubt it. God wanted to blow them up before even seeing if there were any innocent people in the cities there. And after Lot and his family left-they were the only ones found to be innocent of the dispicable acts of homosexuality-God blow up the cities by raining hell fire and brimestone. Not only did He destroy them but made sure the land was salted so nothing would ever grow there again.

I think this is a clear message to those of us today that homosexuality is wrong-God did not say those who were "born that way" are exempt, He made it known that he abhors it. I do not recall him burning up anyone who committed adultery, etc.

Christians who read the Bible know that there are many things that God and Christ instruct us not to do because they are unhealthy and wrong-There are only a handful of things that are described as being something God ABHORS, homosexuality is one. And mind you, the Bible explains to us that God and Christ Love everyone-even those in Hell-that doesn't mean that on judgement day that He is not going to send you there because you have chosen to ignore His Word and do what you feel is pc.

Live in the World but be not of it.

So God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality? You're sure it was just that or the dozens of other things they were doing that a majority of Mormons and Christians do and ignore because they choose to? Selecting only one sin to fight against is really hypocritical and un-Godly.

I find it hysterical that you mentioned that Christian's disapprove of extramarital sex, but you left out the oral sex part!

I was brought up Mormon and value many things I was taught but always questioned some of the beliefs they held close, mostly related to discrimination of one kind of another, whether it be based on race or sexual preference. Unlike many same-sex people, I believe that some people DO have a choice, but that does not make it any more right or wrong. I am in a beautiful relationship that I thank God for every day; it is a same-sex relationship and we do have a family together. I am close to many people confused by my decision but I will not hide it or be ashamed. I am happier now in my life, supporting my partner in her decisions, raising wonderfully bright children, helping others whenever the opportunity arises, and being completely grateful for every blessing (and trial) I have been given. I am waiting for the day that I can celebrate my partnership with her in the same way I celebrated my very unhappy but extremely supported union with my hurtful ex-husband. There is no way that I believe such a terrifically loving and kind God would send us to hell because we have found a love in each other that is more than I ever imagined.

If the only purpose for marriage is to create a family, how do you support same-sex couples who are sterile, paralized, separated by distance, etc? We should all have the right to express an intimate union with the person we want to spend the rest of our lives with and enjoy the legal benefits that are given to other couples for nothing more than being a man and a woman.

I would think Christians would be more concerned with the divorce rate and domestic violence than the union of same-same marriage.

Oops...typos can't resist correcting: "same-sex couples who are sterile, paralized," should read: "heterosexual couples who are sterile, paralyized" and of course same-same in the last sentence should read same-sex

@ Don't Tread: For pete's sake, if you're gonna start bringing Lot into this debate, then please don't leave out the part of the story where his two daughters get him drunk and have sex with him because they think they need to perpetuate the species. That's the classiest part of the tale!

What if they want to marry a child, or a father wants to marry his adult daughter because he loves her? Or a man is deeply in love with two women and maybe another man too? Who has the right to decide on these cases? When do we have an obligation to speak up about what we believe? Don't you ever speak your mind about anything? Do you really think that society's moral code of conduct will Never effect you? That seems to be the general thinking until someone gets their new tax bill and they say "What???" Why aren't any of you asking why a federal judge weighed in on a state decision? Is California so unept at making their own decisions? No, it's because they have their own social agenda that's why.

What would you do if you didn't agree with a ruling? Stick your head in the sand and give up? Look the other way and say it doesn't affect you? What if I feel it would affect me? Shouldn't I have a right to speak my mind. Only unlike most people on here, I hope I'd do it in a decent and respectful manner to all people, regardless of their beliefs.

Beck the "what ifs" you bring up are really poor attempts to deflect the topic. We have justifiable reasons for those "what ifs" from happening. Please don't deflect the topic it confuses people who only want to hate.

Why aren't any of you asking why a federal judge weighed in on a state decision? Is California so unept at making their own decisions?

Actually, yes...kind of.

In California any proposition can be put on the ballot as long as it gets enough petition signatures. But even if it gets on the ballot and is voted into law, it still must be constitutional. You can't just pass an unconstitutional law. The law was challenged in the California Supreme Court. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker presided over the trial.

Lynn Lustig, I agree totally.

Just to set the record straight, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practice of polygamy was banned by the church itself in 1890. It has not been in effect for 120 years. Any group or organization practicing it today is not part of the official LDS church. Any member of the LDS church found practicing polygamy is excommunicated.

but who decides what "rights" are right? or which ones are good? Wouldn't you think a pedophile would want to keep his "right" of having sexual relations with children? of course we can't allow that because its wrong! we can't just say 2+2 is 8 because some people believe it.

Jordan - there is a difference between consenting adults and raping children. Get real!

But I can say Jordan-2143344 = idiot.

For the record, the Mormon church still practices polygamy to this day. In fact, polygamy is considered an "eternal principle" and once faithful Mormons die, their husbands will continue to marry other women and produce what they call spirit children in their afterlife. The LDS scriptures of Doctrine and Covenants say so (D&C 132) and those who marry inside a Mormon temple make a covenant to follow such a principle. Now, those who in THIS LIFE actively practice it, as in marry many wives, have kids, etc. are excommunicated when found out, but again, if this practice is part of the eternal plan of salvation for families, you can hardly say that the church is against it to the extent some say they are.

Amen....there is nothing any religion does for anyone or any group without a motive to spread THE WORD OF THE LORD. I have said it once and am saying it again ..Does your god really want you religious people to have more rights than an other group? I do not belive that is the case. i think it is your own personal prejudice and bigotry. Your god created all of us to live on this planet.

Jordan has a point. WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? Should a 17 year old have the "right" to consent to sex with a 19 year old? If members of the same gender have the "right" to be married because they "love" each other then shouldn't 3 or 4 people have the "right" to all be married to each other because they "love" each other? Once again, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? Same sex marriage would be the beginning of a very slippery slope and that is why christians are so concerned.

Jordan, you're not an idiot. these other people are just caught up in your example and they are not really hearing what you're saying.

They already due....it's called polygamy which is a "Christian Belief " in more than one religion.

Lynn Lustig (and many others), So you are saying that it's NOT o.k. for 19th century mormons to have a "right" to polygomous marriage but it IS o.k. for people of the same gender to have a "right" to marriage.

Hmmm..... So one group of people can have a right to marriage but another group can't? It sounds like you're contradicting yourself. A little hypocritical don't you think?

In other words, it's o.k. to deny 19th century mormons the "right" to what they thought was marriage but it's not o.k. to deny gay people the "right" to what they think is marriage? This is all very interesting!

steffie-2143655- check your facts before you spout nonsense- The Church outlawed plural marriage as a matter of law (of the land) in 1890 as seen in Official Declaration 1 (circa 1890). It has been outlawed in the Church for 120 years and will be as long as the laws of the land say so. Those that practice it are excommunicated- period. There is no underground polygamy going on in the Church. If you know of it happening- you should speak up- I would!! But be prepared to back it up- and don't just believe the show "Big Love"- that's a load of crap too.

Personally- I don't want a second wife- it's difficult enough with one! Not sure how she puts up with me...

But when the Mormons were forced to stop by the government that assures everyone these so called civil rights they did, excluding the groups that broke away.

There's really no arguement in your statement because in your reasoning brings up another issue; why is polygomy so bad? They must love each other and are just as misunderstood as Gays and Lesbians. It's simple, to give one group something would cause uproar in other groups as to why they are being denied their so called civil rights. When will it end? And don't say when everyone is equal because that leads us to Communism.

@Christian - I actually don't care if a marriage is polygamous, to be honest. I'm not interested in that kind of relationship, but I sure as hell would never take that right from consenting adults.

I might be more opposed, though, to young under-age daughters being forced to marry an old man who already had 13 wives and was just looking for another baby maker and kitchen maid. I think that's probably why so many people are horrified by it when cults perpetuate the practice, but aren't so up in arms if mature grown-ups enter into a polygamous relationship.

Of course there, it's all a matter of choosing to be polygamous, while one does not choose to be hetero or homo sexual. One just is. So I guess polygamy isn't really relevant to the discussion anyway...

FinallyProud- That is, unless you are born polygasexual, right? Apparently people are born with sexual preferences and can't do anything about it.

So...polygamy is relevant to the discussion, as well as any other sexual preference one might be "born" with. Once again, it's a SLIPPERY SLOPE people!!!!!!!

It isn't a "slippery slope". The majority can never be allowed to vote to deny rights to the minority. Never. Gays and lesbians in California are law abiding, productive citizens of the United States who pay taxes, hold down jobs, serve in the military and the police departments, and have done nothing to have their civil rights denied. The fact is simply that any vote whatsoever of this kind is un-Constitutional.

The "slippery slope" is actually allowing this kind of bigoted BS to stand. What would be next, Alabama votes to reinstate Jim Crow because the majority of voters there never got over the Civil Rights movement?

Christian-2143634

FinallyProud- That is, unless you are born polygasexual, right? Apparently people are born with sexual preferences and can't do anything about it.

So...polygamy is relevant to the discussion, as well as any other sexual preference one might be "born" with. Once again, it's a SLIPPERY SLOPE people!!!!!!!

Ummmm, "Christian," dear. You are aware of the fact that "slippery slope" is a kind of logical fallacy, right? That is, if you are claiming something is a "slippery slope" that you are, in fact, making an illogical argument?

By the way, 17-year-olds can consent to sex with individuals who are within 3-5 years of their own age, depending on what state one is in. In fact, so can 14-year-olds. Most of the information you are spouting out here mostly demonstrates that you are a really poorly educated person who knows little about the world.

If men will start marrying dogs, and brothers will start marrying sisters, and grown men will start marrying preteens if gay people are allowed to have unions--and this is inevitable--why is it that this has yet to happen in the states where marriage is legal for straights and gays and the countries where marriage is legal for straights and gays?

Personally, I think that people like our friend "Christian" here are too many in the US--such people are too freaking stupid to understand that if you take taxes and grant benefits to people in a particular domestic arrangement via the government, that all citizens engaged in parallel domestic arrangements should get the same tax breaks and benefits. Biblical beliefs are irrelevant, since as the founding fathers told us (look it up--this was during a debate on whether or not to continue postal services on Sundays) that the United States has a secular government.

So, because people in the US are very, very stupid and do not know their own history (they still love to claim that the founding fathers were all Christians, which they very definitely were not) and do not understand their own Constitution, one does have to deal with this. I think that the government should stop recognizing marriage as a special status. I think that everyone ought to be able to designate whomever they want as "next of kin," that hospitals don't have any business deciding for a patient who will handle their care and be allowed to visit, that a person should be able to designate whomever they want to handle their funeral arrangements, and that any group of people in a household should be able to transfer health care benefits, etc., as they choose.

That is, I think we should be free to manage our own business and not have the government decide that the people they choose to recognize should get to do these things. I think we should all have the right to pick for ourselves and that others should have to abide by our decisions as regards all civil and community rights.

In that case, there would be no need for gay marriage because we would all have the same rights--which is exactly what gay people want. I am cool with them having exactly the same rights as everyone else, and the right to protect themselves against greedy, hateful, and very distant relatives whom the state decides to give power over them when they are not able to care for themselves.

Of course, the easiest way to do this is to stop recognizing religious marriages and only recognize civil unions for everyone--but frankly, I'd rather stop recognizing any sort of relationship based on "family." The mindset that only "blood family" matters is at the base of it racist. I think we should all be free to name whomever we like as the person who will care for us if we become ill or unable to care for ourselves--and the government and community should have to abide by our wishes. How is this a problem?

Finally, someone who makes sense! I have been reading many of the comments with some making me laugh way too hard and others I can feel the frustration. I have been in the medical field for 25+ years and what Bean states here is true. Back in the 80s those of homosexual orientation as well as those in general relationships (not married) were not allowed to have anyone not "blood-related" or married to them visit in the hospital. Even if they were dying. One particular case a young person was dying with AIDS. All the heterosexuals were too good to bother with this person and their partner was not allowed to visit. I was put on this persons care watch and when I walked in they were shivering and had not been given a blanket or any human comfort. At this time in my life I was still under the old Christian teaching and the general public opinion that gays were not equal and should not be treated so, hence the great indifferent treatment by my healthcare colleages. I learned a deep and humbling lesson that night. Its not the sexual orientation that makes us better or less than others - the fact that we are all human and love and hate and feel pain makes us equal in this manner whether we like another person's lifestyle or not. As long as they are not harming or taking the rights of others, they should enjoy all the same rights as everyone else. I still see this young person's physical, emotional , and soulful pain being so alone that night. When I treated this person as I would my own family member they were shocked and unsure. They were even more surprised to learn I am Christian. As Bean has so clearly stated, if the powers that be would just allow people to be with their loved ones and to choose of their free will who will take care of them, their health surrogates, etc. then this entire debate would not need to be. However, it is a simple fact that there are those in our society who cannot help but to stand in the way of a same sex couple loving and caring for each other. Love has no prejudice, and being gay does not mean "being a 'sicko'". For the record I am extremely straight, married 20 years, and have two very wonderful children - not that I should even have to clearify this as it really has no relevance to the injustice that many of these couples have to endure all in the good name of morals. Question: Is it moral to beat the living hell out of two fellow humans because they are both of the same sex and love each other so much they would stay by each others side during the attack??? Easy answer - NO!!!!! To reiterate teh bible clearly states to not judes other lest we be judged. Here here!

Made in Montana- The only one spouting nonsense is you. I indeed mentioned that the current church policies excommunicate those who practice polygamy in this life. However, that means very little when you realize that polygamy is an ETERNAL PRINCIPLE to be practiced in the afterlife. It matters not whether you want a second wife after you die, the fact is that you have that job as part of fulfilling part of the Lord's Plan (LDS style). It again speaks to the fact that the church is more than happy to follow the law of the land, but that their doctrine actively seeks to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to one man and as many spirit wives as his heart desires.

Now, this is all in the afterlife, but the policy is still there, still embraced, and for many anticipated as another reward in heaven. As weird and sexist as this policy sounds, no one is asking you to change your doctrine about it, though the church thinks same sex marriage is far more sinful, weird and wrong??? Yeah, cause polygamy as part of Heavenly Father's plan is so mainstream. Please.

WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? Should a 17 year old have the "right" to consent to sex with a 19 year old?

The age of consent laws vary considerably in the US, and in most states a 17 year old would indeed have the right to consent to sex. In one state, a 12 year old can get married and "consent" but only if the parents agree, not surprising that state is in the heart of the bible belt.

If members of the same gender have the "right" to be married because they "love" each other then shouldn't 3 or 4 people have the "right" to all be married to each other because they "love" each other? Once again, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? Same sex marriage would be the beginning of a very slippery slope and that is why christians are so concerned.

In that case, we can't allow men to marry women, because it would start a slippery slope with old men marrying young women, then the next thing you know there would be geezers marrying babies!

The "slippery slope" argument is bogus, because it pre-supposes that if we move the line, we somehow loose the ability to make any lines anymore. So consent is still required, and as minors are legally considered to be unable to consent, statutory rape makes a good line against "pedo-marriage".

As for polygamy, I'd say it's fine as long as all parties are fully informed and agree to it. I'm not personally interested in having more than one spouse, but legalized polygamy would cause no end of trouble for the Mormon. church, and that I'd like to see.

Great post.

In this post of yours, are you not also being discriminatory? towards Christians? Let he who has never sinned or judged be the first to throw a stone. God is not made up. And He is not the one responsible for death and destruction...For every good there is a bad. The hate and disgust that you are feeling towards Christians and anyone else who believes differently than you is put there by the one power that IS responsible for death and destruction...and that would be Satan. Don't believe me?? I dare you to pray about it...

Obramyc - I can tell from your post that you are a person dedicated to ending "hate" with tolerance and understanding. The whole concept of mariage is rooted in a various religious traditions. Secular authority was the LAST entrant into the "marriage regulation business". Your railing at religion for trying to retain control of its definition therefore is incongruous. The judge and you are incorrect in defining it as a right. Any government may, by decree, bestow equal benefits to couples, life partners or whatever unions it chooses. To do so by defining a godless union as a "marriage" is an assault on religions and therefore religious freedom. You have made it clear enough that you would destroy religion altogether which is exactly the agenda this judge has moved forward.

"let he who has never sinned or judged be the first to throw a stone" There seem to be an awful lot of "Christian" pitching stones. Build homes, schools, bridges etc. with those stones and let God sort us all out.

Try some compassion and tolerance for a change.

If God allows evil and cannot stop it, He is not omnipotent.

If God can stop it, but does nothing, He is malevolent.

If either is true, why call him God?

compassion is one thing, gay marriage is another. No ones throwing stones, just saying that the sacred union of marriage is not something to be toyed with.

Robust and Jordan - Marriage is not a Christian event. It is a legal rite. Marrying in the church makes it a religious event but people can marry in a civil ceremony and still be married.

To Tolson & Lynn...Did your parents have any children that lived?....You are both obviously brain dead zombies who have the morals of illiterate inbred family members...Congrats on letting the world know that the freaks they read about really do exist!

Marriage is a religous ceremony. All "marriages" are civil unions anyway supported by the community on a state and federal level. It should be up to the individual church whether or not it wants to support and conduct gay marriages. Gays should have the right to civil unions. The govenment and judges of California do not have the right to tell any church or private organization what they can and cannot hold a ceremony for or what they do or do not believe in. It is also wrong for a judge to overrule a decision that was balloted and voted in on a proposition. You can not reverse the majority rule. This country is no longer a democracy because votes and majority doesn't rule. Lets just file a lawsuit against Obama because he is not holding up his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Look up Wimar rebublic or the Weather Underground and you will see that this country is heading in the wrong direction.

If marriage is so sacred why do half or more end in divorce. Even Mormons in case you haven't noticed. Other than for legal and human rights reasons I fail to understand why gays want the right to marriage. The state can collect more fees for licenses, the florists, caterers, churches, social halls etc. can benefit and the married gays who do break up later can pay the lawyers to settle distribution of assets and child custody. Seems like a win win for capitalism. Seriously, God bless them for fighting so hard to win that right. It would be fantastic if the US Supreme Court in the end rules in favor of gay marriage which would force the legality nationwide. What sweet revenge that would be on those who spent "tens of millions" in CA and how much more to continue fighting this battle.

Excuse me but I do not agree with a thing you say. I am a Mormon and you have no "legal" right to get married. Gay marriage ruins the scanty of marriage. Marriage is from God what you are doing is not of God. salhead if you'll excuse me we Mormons are not a pervert we are not a sect. You must be thinking of the FLDS. Our missionaries go out to spread the Gospel to those who are willing to receive it. We do not force it on anybody. Alot of people have a lot of misconceptions of Mormons. Many people think all the mothers and daughters do is bake bread and wear clothes not bought from stores, they think we can't wear make-up. They also think men can marry more than once. Our church does not do anything against the law. And purl marriage is. Don't speak of things you know not of

W.Goin - You give into the same flaws in logic as the judge. Why should civil authority have anything to do with marriage? Your statement that "Marriage is not a Chrisitan event" is true; only because of it's incorrectly limited. The true statement is "Marriage is a RELIGIOUS event" and should have always remained so. If two persons want to make a civil partnership, then let them! I don't care if you want to make your home with a monkey! Just don't call it a marriage.

All of our "licenses" and "permits" are NOT rights, they are privileges that you have to meet the qualifications for. In the past it has always been those who are anatomically matched and free from v.d.s. who qualified for a license to wed. Until we started allowing perversion in. Christians and Christianity is not what has caused deaths or bigotry or racism, etc. False religions have caused that. Following the Christian teachings in the Bible KEEP YOU FROM doing, being a part of, or causing that kind of bad behavior, including that of homosexuality.

Striker991, Of all the comments on this article you said it best. As a "recovering Lutheran" who lived for years under fear of the wrath of God I commend and thank you for your observation.

Years ago while participating in a community religious event my pastor commented to us "look around you, these are the people you would spend eternity with if the world ended at this moment". Whew! That was scary. I don't want to spend eternity with most of the conservative "Christians" I've known. The "bad", "sinners" are much more fun to be around and much more interesting to visit with. I think I'd rather spend my time with them.

Oh, and for any of you who are tempted to reply that I'll burn in Hell, save your typing. I don't believe there is such a place and if there is, the "all forgiving God" will forgive my transgressions and let me into paradise with you anyway where I can irritate you forever.

The judge overturned the proposition because a law suit was brought against it; as an interpreter of law, he recognized the unconstitutional nature of prop 8. That is why we have courts...to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Also, marriage was founded as an economic and political idea. And back in the good ol' days before certain monotheistic religions were created, woman had an equal right to the benefits of marriage, such as power, property, and familial protection. It was only when men decided they needed to own their wives that marriage became a religious act. Before marriage, people just loved whom they loved, and the rest of the world acknowledged the commitment. They could have children out of wedlock and no one called them bastards. A society wanting to control the family is what corrupted marriage, not the defense of equal rights in a democratic nation.

I am a Mormon and you have no "legal" right to get married. Gay marriage ruins the scanty of marriage. Marriage is from God what you are doing is not of God

So as a Mormon you have the power to determine what legal rights I have? When did this country turn into a Mormon theocracy? Begone, your religion doesn't rule me.

If marriage is from God and sacred, why aren't you protesting and demanding a denial of marriage to Athiests? And what about other sinners - I've seen no effort to ban marriage for prostitutes, pimps, or their clients, or pornographers, or swingers and wife swappers (though admittedly being married is sort of a pre-requisite for spouse swapping). Drug addicts, spouse abusers, criminal records, no problem. We've even had murderers in prison allowed to marry with nary a peep of protest from your people. Yet when two law abiding, faithful and devoted guys want to marry, suddenly that cannot be tolerated!

Sorry, but your double standard is showing.

PS - is that really "ruining the scanty of marriage" or did you misspell "sanctity"?

Homosexuality is nothing more than a sexual perversion, like zoophilia. And like all other perversions, homosexuality should be kept behind closed doors. Following along the evolution hoax, homosexuality cannot possible result in survival of the fittest but will, in fact, end mankind.

The fact of the matter is that our laws and the very foundation of our country is based not around religion but upon Christianity itself. There were only 2 or 3 books of reference used when writing the Constitution, one of which was the Bible and the others were very much like commentaries on the Bible. The phrase separation of church and state does not even appear in any of our founding documents but merely in a correspondance between Jefferson and a panicky Baptist preacher. If you were (and everyone should) to read the letter you would learn that Jefferson was assuring him that no one Christian denomination would become a state church (or a government church, if you prefer) as was such that many people fled in Europe (the Angelican Church) which, before the Reformation was guilty of many atrocities (once again, you may want to read your history on this and not just take my or anyone else's word on it). So, because our country, our laws and our government are inheritantly Christian, it would deem to be a natural conclusion that gay unions are UnConstitutional. However, those few people that appear to be so much more intelligent than us, the little people, have decided for us that our history is not what it actually was and have, for our own benifit, mind you, determined that we are incapable of thinking, reading, and drawing our own conclusions and have gone against the majority of the people in their wise ruling.

In the future it would be a wise investment for all to actually read and research, not just gulp down the bits that are tossed to us by people we've been taught to worship and believe to be infallible (ie, professors, teachers, ministers, politicians). They are, after all, human, just like the rest of us and are prone to all the shortcomings we all possess... pride, ignorance, jealousy, ... the list goes on.

You want one reason why homosexuality is a bad idea that isn't based on religion? I'll give you two to consider: 1) Check out the medical statistics on homosexuals--there is no way to get around it. Promoting homosexuality means to promote an unhealthy lifestyle. It is unbelievable how disease promoting this life-style is, and we want to encourage this? Check out the facts. 2) Every society that embraced homosexuality quickly became a fallen society. Again, check the facts. It may be that there is no connection between homosexuality and the complete break-down of a civilization, but if there is, I guess we will quickly come to learn for ourselves how that all works. After all, history repeats itself.

onemoremom - the country was founded on religious freedom - not Christianity. In God We Trust was not originally on our currency but was added in the early 1900's. The separation of church and state was just that - separating our governing bodies from the church. But, if churches want to be involved in making law and politics then they should no longer be tax exempt.

How about, it defies nature. If scientist are correct then the only purpose for people and other animals to be here is to procreate and continue thier DNA line. So, how can homosexuality be a natural thing when it denies the very purpose of nature?

Homosexuality is nothing more than a disorder. A person may be born with it but acting on it is unnatural. Just because a whole lot of people become ill doesn't mean we classify it as normal. Yet that is what has been done with this. It makes no sense.

Kevin - so if someone doesn't have children then they are unnatural? What about people who can't have children? What a moronic post!

Kevin did not say that people who don't have children are unnatural. He said that HAVING children is nature's purpose and natural.

Let me preface my reasoning for being against same-sex marriage by saying that my opinion is not driven by hatred of gays and lesbians. To me, they are fellow citizens in this country and deserve to be treated with the same respect that I expect from them.

I agree that part of our physiology is to reproduce. While it is true that nature occasionally precludes this in heterosexual couples, it does not mean we should willingly forfeit that obligation to our species.

I also object to the idea of publicly condoning same-sex marriage because I do feel it has a negative impact on our society and on the individuals that participate in that lifestyle. My uncle was homosexual. He contracted AIDS from one of his life partners and died a very unpleasant death. I miss him very much. His decisions notwithstanding, I still love him greatly. However, I recognize that he may still have been alive today had he observed God's commandment of chastity.

Again, I would ask that you not misunderstand my views. I do not hate gays, lesbians, or anyone else who chooses to side with their cause. I simply do not feel that the decisions they are making will ultimately bring them the happiness I know they are looking for.

G - since you are so concerned about my happiness, being one of the lesbians you speak of, I thought it might put your mind at ease to read my post above.

I know that when people get to know our family or any gay family they soften and realize that marriage is about taking care of each other and our children. Marriage is about the willingness to be responsible (emotionally and financially) for another human being. For that commitment, our government gives families benefits. I intentionally had a child with my partner. She adopted him. If there were not two parents willing to raise him, I would not have had a child. However, when she died, our family was denied part of the social security benefits we would have received if we were federally married. It had and still has very real ramifications for my child. He lives a different economic reality because we could not marry. I was with her for 15 years. I took care of her in sickness and in health. I financially supported our family and paid all of our taxes. I loved her, we had a great life. I also cleaned her, bathed her, feed her, listened to her cry in the night becasue of the extreme saddness of the prospect of dying when our child was only 3 years old. Then, I sat by her side while she slowly died, over 2 mos, in the hospital. I know for a fact, that some of the healthcare providers who were by our side realized that we were a "real" family. They realized that we were as much a commited couple as they were to their respective spouses. I know for a fact several now feel differently about the meaning of marriage and commitment. They no longer oppose gay marriage. When you think about real people, about supporting our children, I do not know how you could oppose gay marriage.

The fact of the matter is that our laws and the very foundation of our country is based not around religion but upon Christianity itself. There were only 2 or 3 books of reference used when writing the Constitution, one of which was the Bible and the others were very much like commentaries on the Bible

What theocracy do you live in? Please do tell, so I may avoid it like the plague.

The country I live in, the United States of America, has a constitution that is in no wise founded on the Christian Religion - I know that because the Treaty of Tripoli said so, and it was negociated durning the George Washington presidency, ratified by the Senate, and signed into law by President Adams. There is no mention of "Jesus", "Christ" or "God" or "The Bible" anywhere in our Constitution, nor is there any excerpts from any scriptures found anywhere in it. The only mention of religion in the Constitution is "No religious test shall be required as qualification for any public office" (Article VI Clause 3), and the First Amendment to the Constition which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

To have founded my country on "Christianity" would have violated both the Constitution and the First Amendment, so obviously that didn't happen. Being free here is much better than living under the tyranny of a "Christian" theocracy.

but upon Christianity itself..........one of which was the Bible

Wait wait wat....the first half of the bible is Jewish....I can just as easily say this country is founded off of judaism by your reasoning......good now I expect to get the week off for Passover....I expect to see giant mezuzah's on everyone door.....I expect everything to shut down on saturday instead of sunday......We can replace all those crosses with stars of david.....we replace the christian prayers at the beginning of games with the Shema......

If this is a christian nation, why isn't jesus christ or chistianity mentioned once in the constitution???? Don't christians love to go on and on about jesus???? Wouldn't a good christian have filled the constitution to references to Jesus????

What is a waste is the fact that the people voted for prop 8 yet it only takes 1 federal judge to overturn it. Religion aside, has anybody read the constitution lately?

Kevin - yes and the judge has the right to do exactly what he did. Have you read the constitution lately?

W.Goin - I am beginning to think you and I are the only two who understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

But all the haters on this board are not going to let something as trivial as the Constitution get in the way of a good rant.

Here's a good rant for you:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to

the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That would be the 10th amendment. So, tell me again how a federal judge has the right to overturn the will of the people.

Chris and W. Goin, please include an old California Liberal on your "team".

By the way to all the "good" conservative folks out there, how and when did Liberal become a bad thing? My Merriam Webster, and I suspect your's also, defines liberal as " Bestowing in a large and noble way; generous, bounteous, openhanded. Bestowed in a large way; hence, abundant, bountiful, ample. Not confined or restricted to the literal sense; free. Not narrow in mind, broad minded.

We all have the right to our own opinions and beliefs however trying to force those on others is wrong. Certainly we need laws to protect us however if what you do and how you choose to live your life poses no threat to me or my family you should be free to live however you wish and enjoy happiness with whoever you choose.

Kevin, it is called 14th Amendment of the Constitution, also known as the Equal Protection Clause, which says in part:

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

I suggest if you are going to quote the Constitution that you actually take time to read it.

That's what the judge is trying to use to justify his ruling but it doesn't fly because no one is being denied rights. The question isn't giving gay people equal rights, they already have those. The question is the definition of marriage. The people of California voted to define marriage as one man and one woman. The 14th amendment doesn't apply.

If I may add my own opinion, marriage shouldn't be recognized by government at all. Partnerships yes, but marriage is a religious thing and the government should keep out of it. My disagreement here is about the state's rights which are clearly being undermind by the federal government. This is never really was about individual or couples rights. It's about government taking control over yet another aspect of our personal lives.

Nice opinion - but fortunately, it is not the law. Like it or not, there are legal rights attached to marriage and there is no legal justification for denying same sex couples access to those rights.

The Government is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Granting same sex couples access to the same rights isn't taking control over people's personal lives, it is just telling people who want to deny others the rights that they enjoy that this country doesn't work that way.

the article was written by some individual person?

Mom. The LDS church is a man-made religion known for blatant discrimination against its own followers.

Al Quida also provides aid and assistance to Afgani citizens.

See the difference?

Of course you don't.

I completely agree with everything you said. Mormons take way too much heat for standing up for what they believe in. I've never met a Mormon I didn't trust and respect.

Humanitarian works should always be commended; bigotry, suppression of people, hate, etc. should not be.

I am not a Mormon and that does not make me a bad person. That is what is so GREAT about our Country. Religious freedom. Separation of Church and State.

wait a sec! i 'am a Mormon myself! and while i have been discriminated against by my own leadership that in no way should reflect the ideal that Mormons are such persons! this is NOT the church standard! the church leadership was acting in good faith when they oppsoed proposition 8! I hope all of these same sex types etc have LOTS aand LOTS of sunblock with them when they die! they will need it for rejecting Gods word!

@easy, I have met some mormons I had absolutely no respect for. There are good and bad people in every so-called religion. "Religion" is not what I follow!

Robert, the church is true the book is blue, and Jesus was a Mormon..........sorry bud.

Jordan - no he wasn't

@ Jordan...... ok, that was the dumbest comment i've read from you yet, and im tired of all you close-minded idiots who think you have the right to judge someone. i am a man, I am not gay, and i am in a commited relationship with someone i love very much, but the futile fighting over something like this is childish, it was overturned because it was harmful towards peoples rights. get over yourselves.

Mom -

Any folks who 1) set fire to each other's houses in the middle of the night, 2) teach their kids (until recently) that black people don't have souls because God (in his infinite wisdom)designed them to fit between dogs and white people in the natural order of things, 3) needed a revelation from the elders that Coca-Cola was not the Devil's potion when Coke stopped buying sourghum from Utah in response to the ban and 4) needed a revelation from the elders that maybe blacks were human after all because BYU - like Alabama and Texas - clearly needed to start recruiting black athletes in order to keep the football team from getting it's ass kicked on a regular basis can send all the money and missionaries they want to Africa or wherever. . .

I just can't take them seriously - sorry.

Harry - The Mormon Church may have been mentioned because they pumped so much money into the effort.

I agree! This is just awful! Why do we bother to vote then?

It's called separation of church and state.

At one time, marriage was a completely religious ceremony. If it were still that way today, I would completely support whatever position each religion wanted to take on gay marriage.

But it is not. Along the way we attached a whole series of legal rights to marriage. Legal rights that are denied to a small group of people solely on religious grounds.

When the masses can't understand the difference, it is the duty of the courts to step in, which is what they did.

God bless America!

It's sickening to me how the feds only uphold the law when and how they want to. I didn't get shot up in Iraq to have voters rights trampled on !! Bastards...

So, by that argument, if the majority of people voted to legalize murder, you'd be offended if a judge overruled the decision?

The Constitution exists to serve as the backbone and litmus test of our nations laws. If citizens vote for laws that violate it, those laws must be overturned.

Prop 8 was never about your or my versions of morality. It's about whether one group of people have the same rights as the rest of the population. It's about fairness under the law.

Bravo, Judge Walker!

Harry, there are still many states in this country that if a proposition were put on the ballot to outlaw the Mormon church in that state it would pass with a clear majority. In less liberal minded areas than here in the West Mormonism is still viewed as a dangerous cult. Would you not want the courts to step in and overturn such a law?

I keep reading comments about "separation of church and state". This concept was meant to protect religious views from government interference. It does not in any way prohibit a religion from expressing its views publicly. That right is firmly guaranteed in the 1st Amendment which gives one the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

Chris is onto the real issue at hand: who should define marriage - government or religion?

If indeed we want our government to recognize two people as a social unit for purposes of carrying out government functions, e.g., taxation, public assistance, etc., then why can't the government just recognize any two people, regardless of gender, who choose to be joined in such a civil union or social unit? Don't call it marriage. Call it a domestic partnership or whatever. Entering or dissolving such a partnership would be a purely legal transaction, just like forming or dissolving an LLP.

Then religions can join people in marriage or any other religious ceremony they want. Religions can dictate who is eligible to enter or dissolve such religious unions. The government won't be involved in marriage and religion won't be involved in government functions.

Under such a system if any two people want to form a legal partnership, they can do it through the government. If any two people want to form a religious union, they can do it through a church that supports the kind of arrangement they prefer.

As a straight Christian, I understand the fear that allowing homosexuals to marry will pervert our society and influence our children's moral views. But that's a battle to be fought by teaching our friends and neighbors the truth about God's laws and letting them decide if they want to share our morals, not by legislation.

I view the government's involvement in marriage as just one more unnecessary intrusion into my private life.

There are too many so called Christian churches out there to count. All i know is that the bible is against it so why wouldn't any Christian faith be against it? I don't go to church. I'm not religious. Coming at this from a common sense approach i would think that a child raised by homosexuals would be teased and harrassed and is probably not a great idea. That being said i'm sure there are many, many worse home environments provided by heterosexual couples out there. I'd like to see a study done on children raised by homosexuals and how those children fair in life. That would be interesting.

I'm with you. I'm completely offended that my faith is being called into question because I believe that gay people should be afforded the right to marriage. I am a Christian, regardless of the opinion of intolerant people.

The Bible also says women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church, slaves should be obedient to their masters, men can have multiple wives, the heads of our enemies' babies should be smashed against the rocks and that children who talk back to their parents should be stoned to death (so should people who work on the Sabbath, by the way). Just because something is in the Bible does not mean that the church should be for (or against) it. Much of the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, and all of it is a product of the times/places when/where it was written. If we disregard any piece of the Bible (and I've yet to find a group that doesn't disregard at least some portion of it), then we have to wrestle with every portion and the easy answer "the Bible says so" just won't cut it. Would a God of love really want two people who love each other and who want to covenant to each other to be prevented from doing so? The world didn't fall apart when slavery was outlawed (people argued it would because, after all, the Bible supported slavery) and it didn't fall apart when women were recognized as people not property (again people argued it would). It won't fall apart just because homosexuals look at marriage and, despite the mess heteros have made of it, say they want to make life-long commitments too.

I will make that claim... Any Christian Church that claims that Sodemy and Homosexual relations are ok is an obomination before god and will reap their eternal reward. But good luck with that...

First, I want to Correct Chris-854277 - Marriage has never been "a completely religious ceremony. At least, not in the Bible, which is the ONLY place we can learn where marriage came from in the first place. God ordained and commanded it. A man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife (this term means a female). "Husband" is used for her male mate. The wedding we read of in the New Testament that occurred in Cana is NOT said to be a "religious ceremony". It is required by God of qualified candidates and by the land. It doesn't matter where or how a wedding occurs, as long as God and man sanctions it by following His, along with the States' laws. The Catholic church taught for many years that a wedding performed outside the "church" was not a wedding, but that was a manmade doctrine they came up with. It is NOWHERE in the Bible.

To Attorney Ann: Where do I shart? The New Testament teaches that a woman is not to teach over a man. A man and woman were each given their roles by God. The man's role in the church, as well as in a marriage, is in leadership. A woman is not to usurp that leadership role in the assembly. The woman's role, given to her by God, does NOT change when she becomes a Christian. It is a role of showing respect for God's order. She can participate in Bible classes but cannot "teach over a man". The "slaves that should be obedient to their masters" applies to employer/employee relationships also, as well as citizens/rulers relationships. It simply means that becoming a Christian does not give one the right to become lazy or disorderly to those who have authority over us whether, as in Christ's time, it was a master, an employer, or a ruler. As far as parents stoning their sons, you need to remember that the Jewish people were being groomed to show the world God's holiness and that it is a very serious thing to have the honor of being chosen to do that. A grown son who constantly and continually dishonored God and his parents, despite all efforts, was to be stoned. He was showing the worst of dishonor towards both and the tragedy is not that he died, but that he was deemed by his God as no longer fit to live! The same thing was true for the Jewish people for profaning the Sabbath. God is holy and they were to be holy. He gave them everything and it was NOT too much to ask of them. Go back and read all the blessings they received from God. The only parts of the Bible that aren't meant to be taken "literally" are those parts that tell you that. There are many teachings that are "signified" or "sign-i-fied", meaning they are representations of a truth, event, or concept. They are identified, such as in Daniel and Revelations. There are also parts we can understand are not literal - like when Jesus called Herod "a fox". We can know that is NOT LITERAL if we understand human language, and we do. The groups that you know that "discard some portion of it" are also known as false teachers and false religions that have strayed from its truths. A God of love made 2 different kinds of people ONLY - a man and a woman. They fit. They match. He told ONLY THEM to marry - each other! Only they can procreate. Animals know that. They follow His plan. Only humans were given free will - it is our most special gift from God aside from His plan of salvation when we misuse it. The fact that we might choose to do that, whether it is turning to the unnatural use of the same sex, beastiality, child abuse, etc., is NOT His fault - it is ours and he cannot and will not condone it and we shouldn't either. The Bible does not "support" slavery any more than it supports divorce. Unfortunately, there have been times in history when man has totally ignored God's commands and, for periods of time, he has allowed, but regulated it. But those times of ignorance are no longer overlooked. Read Jesus reminder of what marriage is to be in Matthew 5 and 19. Then follow it, for your soul's sake. Husband and wife. Male and female. ONLY!

More faery tales... whatever.

A Traditional marriage according to the bible

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Ah the good old days

The only way to see by faith, is to shut the eye of reason. -Benjamin Franklin

Hey, Utah is a nice place to live. Beautiful land. Just saying...

Does getting your daughters married as early as possible ,with as many kids as possible, and obedience to your husband mean 'good family People". Is it okay to be accepted only to give a ccertain percentage of your income to the Mormon Church? And if you leave the church you are often being ousted. Well, if that's what you respect, power to you

Don't you see the irony in your comment? Mormons were once persecuted for their belief in polygamy, which many people thought was morally wrong.

What a bunch of hypocrits.

I beleive it is a poor statement to say all gay people are bad/good or all mormons are bad/good. I beleive that Christian values teach us that the highest moral achievements are being good people and treating others with love, compassion, forgiveness and understanding. I think that being a true Christian means to look beyond the stigma and care about the person. I don't understand why any Christian would begrudge homosexuals getting married, especially since we know now that being gay is not a choice. Would Jesus really want suffering for homosexuals? I don't beleive that to be true.

And yes, mormons will be singled out here because of the unified message they worked so hard to spread; alienating and causing suffering for innocent people.

If those who beleive in true civil rights for all Americans don't fight, then the bigotry continues. As many have mentioned, interratial marriage had a similar path, fighting blind hate. I'd like to know the practical reason for this hatred. Why do some people use their christian beleifs as a weapon? Can you explain that? I truly can't understand the purpose.

Getting married is what the couple wants. It has nothing to do with the parents. If they happen to be young then fine but that is not just a mormon thing. The whole "having as many kids as possible" has got to be one of the funniest things i have ever heard, right along with "obedience to you husband". Don't talk about what you don't know. You have an image in your head about mormons that is clearly wrong. Stop listening to rumors and find out for yourself before you talk crap. Giving 10% back is something that is gladly done. Its giving back a small amount of what god gave you. i know its a hard concept to understand.

MegMac - whoever "taught" you that being gay isn't a choice lied to you. WE (adults, that is) take responsibility. Each of us is free to love whoever we choose. Now THAT is a basic unalienable civil right.

Passing along the outdated lie to the next generation is wrong. Kids today are taught that they can grow up to be anything they choose, not that their future is "implanted" in them by some cosmic force or such. Take Responsibility!

I live in a small town in California where there are very few Mormons and lots of other Christian denominations. Just before the Prop 8 vote, a full page ad ran in the local paper in support of Prop 8 and it listed all the churches who had formed a local coalition to to fight for Prop 8. It had over 100 churches (I didn't even know there were that many churches in our town) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not listed! So, for the record, there were a lot of other religions who gave their time and money to support Prop 8.

Also recall that racial "minority" groups, blacks and Hispanics specifically, voted in large majority for Prop 8. Yet you don't see the mainstream media outlets painting Hispanics or blacks as bigots - just Mormons. So what is the liberal media's real motive - to report the truth or to alienate political enemies of the Left?

Well said phillll

Let me get this right phillll, you can decide who you will fall in love with and who you won't fall in love with? AND YOU have the power to determine who you will or will not find sexually attractive? That is some mind you have there!!!

Absolutely Bugaboojda, Churches can use tax free money to support or fight against a candidate or proposal they favor or oppose. Individuals like me have to use after tax dollars to fight them. If a religious "corporation" wants to use their influence and money for politial purposes they need to be taxed. Regarding comments that vast money was donated by members of the church, not directly by the church this may be true but the leaders of the church threaten their "flocks" with eternal damnation if they don't follow the church's directives.

Before Ron-2143385 decides to tax all religious-affiliated entities, you need to realize that thousands of those entities provide orphanages, free or low childcare so that parents can work, hospitals, nursing homes, and on and on, which saves the government MILLIONS of dollars every year. Start taxing them, and YOUR taxes will go up to provide all the services, etc., that they would no longer be able to provide.

If you look at what was donated, you will see that it was the members who donated the majority of the time and money, which is the right to any citizen of this country. Does taking a stance against something you disagree with make you less of a citizen? Funny, I thought that was one of the reasons this country was founded for.

The "church" did not invest their money in the prop, individuals who were members, who do pay taxes did.

What I think is funny is that a certain group of people is being harrassed for taking a stance on what they think is wrong, which is a right to any person in these United States. Why are we promoting a atmosphere where someone shouldn't speak or vote against something because they will be unpopular for doing it? I say good for them, i wish more people follow their example on not just this but every issue. This is a government for the people, by the people; and the way I see it, the people already decided with the 52% vote.

I haven't see or heard of any harassment of Mormons for their beliefs. Did I miss something in the news? I do hear of gays being harassed, attacked and even murdered on a fairly regular basis. Further, I believe the intolerance for the rights of these persons, as advocated by the various churches, plays into this persecution.

you are still Mormon, once an LDS always an LDS. why would you leave? i 'am fighting tooth and nail to return to the church! even enduring the guards my stake president ordered deployed each week i can go. explain that to me please?

I agree. I was once Mormon until I 'opened my eyes' and saw the judging of others that goes on. I have two family members who are lesbian. One is out (brought up Mormon just like I was) and the other was brought up Mormon but is too afraid of that side of the families reaction. This breaks my heart, because I am here for her when she wants to come out. (She doesn't realize that some of us already know). I see how happy my realitive who is out is.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (some people call us Mormons). I think for myself. I am not ruled by my church or brain washed into doing anything I don't want to do. Our religion is all about freedom of choice! We also support the laws of the land and fight for those laws to be just and morally acceptable. My religion and myself know for a fact that being gay is a choice! Some people may be more prone to homosexual tendencies just like I am more prone to certain sins, but it is still my choice as it is theirs. They are not "born that way". It is their choice! I am not for gay marriages, and I don't think it would be a benefit for anyone to have that law passed. It is a mockery of marriage in my opinion, and I think a lot of them just want the tax benefits that go along with marriage. This is my opinion thinking for myself; not some brain washed opinion that was implanted in my brain by my religion.

Robbing people of their ability to choose for themselves is a power that even God will not use, nor has He given it to anyone else. Lots of comments have been made about churches that are supposedly trying to control our thoughts and way of life. Churches, like any other individual or organization on this planet, can only present their view. We each have the ability to either subscribe to or reject that view. As evidenced by the volume of posts on this page, everyone has been able to freely exercise that ability.

The LDS (Mormon) church will never regret standing up for what is right no matter what the rest of the world does. The only thing that matters in this life is following Heavenly Father and trying to become more like him. We are here on this Earth to learn to become the best people we can. Gay relationships are a perversion of something that is sacred and beautiful. It's another weakness among many that we seek to overcome in this life. Just as an alcoholic, or drug addict has a weekness. Our country has legalized so many things that only bring us pain. Let us not make gay marriage another one.

The Mormon church does not control the minds of it's members nor should it. What it does have is influence over the members, and influence is different than control. And yes the LDS church is a political entity, just not in and of itself. That goes for all other religions too. It's not the the religion, it's the people who decide to use some of what it teaches to choose a political stance. I'm sorry that you left that church but to say everyone else follows blindly is just your view of things and cannot be a judgement on others, because what's to stop me from looking at your views and saying that you are a blind follower of your what seems to be hate for a church that looks like you feel has wronged you in some way? According to your arguement your arguement has no ground.

Realer,

If the Mormon church can make a person eventually disown their family members who are not

Mormon, than I think they most likely are into mind control and cult-like applications of elder

rules and regulations.

I am glad that in America it is becoming legal to same sex partners to be able to marry.

When the Mormons not so wayward relatives, the FLDS, begin to treat their "opposite sex

partners" with love and dignity they might gain more respect.

You want to know what it's like to be in the Mormon church?

I am a Mormon in California, but I was not raised a Mormon. When I was in my early 20s I very very cautious of all there alleged "cult" theories and warnings my family and friends were telling me. I learned about the church for 5 years before I joined. NO ONE told me to join- even when i asked them if i should! They told me, " we can't make that decision for you, you have to pray and know for yourself." I did just that and made the decision 100% on my own. I have been a Mormon for 8 years and I have never for a moment regretted it. I do regret listening to all the lies that were told to be about what the mormon church.

Everything you read in the media about the Mormon stance on this is wrong. My leaders have encouraged me to be politically educated and to know what is going on. We never ever talk political topics as a church unless it involves morality. This does. This involves a way of life that was started from the moment the first man and woman were placed upon the earth. You want to argue the definition of marriage? Go argue it with God; he's the one that made it, we are just trying to defend it.

The issues are skewed by the media and I have yet to hear any gay bashing going on by Mormons. The media ASSUMES that since we support GOD's definition of Marriage, that we disapprove of gay people but this is not correct. Gay and Lesbian people are children of God too and he loves them just the same. We do not have anything against gay and lesbian people, we do, however, have an issue with the U.S. STATE changing the DEFINITION of an institution that has existed since before this country (or any other) even existed!!

Caligirl, I hate to tell you, but the progenitor of your "church," the one you call the "great and abominable whore," was performing gay marriages up until about 1200 years ago.

And your cult does have a lot against gay and lesbian people. Otherwise, why would the powers on Temple Square arrest two men holding hands there yet not do anything to a man and a woman making out there?

GOD say : "I do not want the sinner to die but to come to repentance", when the sinner do not come in this case then GOD makes an little effort and distort the sin and the sinner as HE has done with Sodom and Gomorra.

Look in your dictionary at the word Sodomy.