Blah, blah...Prop 8...yada, yada, yada.

Move on!

@budwa - It just shows the hypocricy of those claiming the supporters of Prop. 8 were only out to spread hatred. The hatred spewed from those who opposed Prop. 8 is epic. No suprise really, they have simply found another way to try to focus some of their self-hatred toward others.

@budwa - Yeah, it's a funny world when all the heterosexuals want to avoid marriage and just live together, and all the homosexuals want to get married.

52% of Californians are not Mormon, therefore other people were involved. They don't go after Catholics because isn't that a scary thought. All of the SoCal Catholics retaliating. LDS church is an easy target.

I will believe their feelings about their cause when I see some equal discrimination.

@budwa - Rose,
The difference is that the catholic church didn't issue written statements telling their members which way to vote, nor did they encourage them to donate money to their cause.

@budwa - cromulent742- rallying people to vote for a cause conducive to the religious beliefs and practices of a congregation isn't exactly the same thing as encouraging in anyway the kind of violent retaliation against prop 8 supporters detailed in this report. Not even close.

@budwa - @Swank
Don't you see the difference between rallying the public for a cause versus commanding your brainwashed congregation to vote a certain way?

@budwa - The LDS church, understandably, feels it is their duty to speak to its members regarding moral issues. Just because you happen to believe differently than LDS church members on this issue doesnt mean LDS members are "brain washed". If so who has "brain washed" you to believe that evil is good?

@budwa - Cromulent

Brainwash??? -- no, that would be the Californicating Education system commanding the children to be tolerant of their perverted views.

@budwa - Actually Rose, your statement that 52% of Californians are not mormons is incorrect. Californians are only 2% Mormon. 800,000 LDS out of a total population of apx 34 million.

I find all of this facinating. The GLBT community is seriously hurting their own cause. They have done great damage upon themselves by the way they handle the situation. Those who had sympathized earlier probably will not be so quick to in the future.

Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.But none of this is ever talked about.

LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results. (That's never talked about either)

The large African-American turnout for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition (certainly not talked about) Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.

The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin; yep again, not talked about.

The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

So if the GLBT community has hopes of getting somethign passed, they probably should start to focus on the areas where they can get the most votes. Becuase, at best if every mormon in california had voted for the passage, it would have still failed.

@budwa - Why are Christians so concerned about everyones salvation. Live your life, you only have to answer for yourself on judgement day.

@budwa - Jim L.

"commanding?" Seriously?
Point out where any school board in CA "commanded" their students to be tolerant.

This is nothing more than a desperate, polarizing choice of words from someone who wants to continue to divide people.

@budwa - This same issue is on the ballot in main today. Again, lots of money from both sides.

"The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland coordinated $550,000 in contributions to the repeal campaign "

I wonder if the Catholics will be target by the gays, or if it's only PC to hate mormons. Bigots.

@budwa - this subject is so GAY!!!

@budwa - How come gay people have to be so gay!

@budwa - Marriage is a religious institution, as anyone can tell by reading these posts. Governments should not be in the business of endorsing religion. Therefore, marriage should not need to be defined by government, marriage should not be recorded by governments, and benefits for choosing to be married or single should not be a government policy.

Marriage should stay in our temples, churches and synagogues – where sacred things belong.

@budwa - @ cromulent742

"...[Mormons] issue written statements telling their members which way to vote"

"commanding your brainwashed congregation to vote a certain way"

Cromulent...LDS leaders advise their congregations TOO vote not HOW to vote. Get educated on the Mormon political policies and you'll see that leaders do NOT endorse candidates. They do go after issues that affect the nature of God's commandments and will educate their members on the issues but they will NOT force them or compel them as you are insinuating to vote a certain way.

@budwa - And if we read about a backlash in the 1950's and 60's against those who wanted to keep Jim Crow laws, we'd be proud that people cared enough about the discrimination against blacks to stand up and say this isn't right.

Now we are discriminating against Gays, and those who stand up and say that this discrimination is wrong, and protest those who do the discrimination, are called wrong.

Perhaps in the 50's and 60's, those who wanted to keep Jim Crow laws complained about those who wanted to stop the discrimination then also.

What if back then, Ford wouldn't hire blacks, and what if people started a petition to not buy Fords until the discrimination stopped? We'd all applaud.

But somehow it's wrong now.

@budwa - @waiting
Normally, you'd be right. But in this case, the first presidency wrote a letter that was read from the pulpits in California telling member not only to vote for prop 8, but to also donate their time and money to the cause. I've read the letter, and here's the last paragraph:

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

@budwa - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfqBC1bFuE

Really interesting video regarding one Pro Proposition 8 rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfqBC1bFuE

@budwa - @cromulent742

I appreciate you posting that and I agree that it is clear that the church is asking their members to support the cause. There's no denying that and I won't be stupid to try.

What I am arguing against you is that you are claiming that it is a COMMANDMENT and therefore if the members did not do as the leadership asked, they would be somehow punished. That is simply not true. There is/was no consequence for voting as you believe. The church did not punish, sanction, or rebuke any member for their vote.

Asking their members to vote a particular way is no different than reading the millions of pro-gay sloans, ads and banners that are printed by gay supporters against prop 8.

@budwa - @Waiting
You said, “LDS leaders advise their congregations TOO vote not HOW to vote. Get educated on the Mormon political policies”
This is from LDS.org and is what was read in Church to the congregations in Cal.
>Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.
We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage. <

So in the Temple Mormons make oaths to give everything to the church that is asked of them, and then the Church asks them to give money and time to ensure that the churches wishes on Prop 8 happens.
It was not as undirected as you make it seem. The church requires an oath of obedience to the leaders wishes, and the leaders said how to vote.

@budwa - DNA

So let me ask you this DNA. Ever heard of any Mormon inquisitions asking their members how they voted? Any disciplinary courts or excommunications because of the way a member voted?

Any? I haven't heard of one. Have you?

Cause you are suggesting that the leaders are acting like Hitler and demanding 100% obedience or they will be punished. Well...many Mormons voted against prop 8 and I'm sure they are still going to church and nobody in church leadership has or will say jack to them.

@budwa - Time for the gays inthe news story of the week.

@budwa - This is what all you bigots get for fighting against equality!!!!!!!

@budwa - @Waiting

I made no comparison to Hitler, you did. Interesting that you did though.

So if I follow your logic correctly, then those promises you made in the temple are really just suggestions that aren't taken too seriously, and Mormons don't really feel the need to keep the promises. After all, nobody is asking if they are fulfilling the promises.

So that whole Temple covenant and promises thing is just kind of a causal suggestion huh?

I'm thinking that some may have taken the covenants more seriously than you did, and would have felt compelled to vote as their leaders told them to.

@budwa - Especially because it was NOT YOUR FIGHT to fight in the first place!!!!!!!!! Hope you learned you lesson.

@budwa - Just shows once again why it is better to live by your morals than to foist them upon others. Why is it that religious types have such a hard time letting others live their lives the way they want and then get mad when the shoe goes on the other foot.
Tell you what: I'll let you worship however you want and you let Joe marry whomever he wants.
Is it a deal?

@budwa - Equality Utah, Equality Now,

"...it was NOT YOUR FIGHT to fight in the first place!!!!!!!!!"

How dare a church speak out on a moral issue! Perhaps you are just as upset about the role that the so-called "black churches" played in the Civil Rights movement? Or, do you only desire to exclude churches when they disagree with you?

@budwa - .
There were thousands of other people who also donated time and money to the cause, not just Mormons.

When my church leaders ask their members to to something, they have tthe right to verify if those directions are truely God's will or not. We don't follow blindly. If the president of the church asks me to do something and God confirms it to me, then yes I will act.

@budwa - @cromulent742,

Um, you want to talk brainwashed, look no further than the Catholic Church. There are over 1 billion memembers of that faith world wide, but it's safe to say that the majority of them don't understand the religion at all. They just go along with the crowd because it's tradition. Mexico and South America are living examples. The LDS Church at least encourages its members and especially those who join to find out all they can about their religion and come to a conclusion for themselves. That is hardly what one could call "brainwashed."

Get with it, dude.

@budwa - Marriage is both a religious and a secular institution.

Society--and society's government--rightly provide benefits to marriage because of the benefits that marriage provides to society: greater stability; reduced crime on the part of married men; reduced incidence of STDs; reduced crime and greater productivity on the part of children raised with fathers rather than being born illegitimate to single mothers; the mutual support that husbands and wives and children provide to each other; and so on.

Homosexual relationships have NOT been shown to provide these same benefits to society. Homosexual relationships have higher rates of infidelity and domestic violence than do other relationships. Homosexual individuals are several times more likely than heterosexual persons to attempt/commit suicide, to abuse or be addicted to drugs and alcohol, and to contract and pass along STDs. Society is well advised NOT to reward, encourage, or condone homosexual conduct. We may well have to tolerate it in the privacy of consenting adults' bedrooms just to secure all of our rights to be free from excessive government interference. But we don't have to reward or encourage it. Nor do we have to stop rewarding and encouraging real marriage just because we decline to reward homosexual conduct.

Indeed, throughout recorded history, marriage between man and woman has been given special benefits. Even in those societies where homosexual relationships were well tolerated, even viewed as normal or beneficial in some way (Greece, Rome, England) those relationships were NEVER given the same standing as honorable marriage between man and woman.

I also note that inter-racial marriage has widely accepted for most of history: from the Roman legions encouraged to marry into the populations they conquered, to English and French explorers marrying American Indians, to what may have been something closer to marriage than rape in the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings in France. Laws banning inter-racial marriage in this nation were not the norm, not supportable by evidence of need, but were a reaction to our unique and unfortunate history of slavery and then the evils of reconstruction.

I hope to see voters repeal or defeat laws that grant the title and/or benefits of marriage to homosexual conduct.

@budwa - Wow, this is like Fox News using The Drudge Report as a source. Poor picked on Evangelicals and Mormons, they have no political power and are the constant victims of gays and those who aren't religiously obsessed. All of the laws are written to discriminate against the poor religious people by the extreme minorities who demand that everyone be treated equally, no matter how much tithing they pay.

GET OVER IT!!!

@budwa - The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.

According to your logic and the statistics, forget about Gay marriage, divorce should be outlawed.

Also according to your logic Charles, does that mean that certain "racial" taboos prior to 1978 were evil?

@budwa - a few notes -

UTAH 101 - "governments should not be in the business of endorsing religion"

agreed - except it does - it rights God on its money, and puts God in its pledges. and since every christian LOVES to say that all the founding fathers were christian, and that this country was founded on christianity - well you christians usually are the only ones allowed in politics, somehow the government allows nativity scenes on government buildings, etc. and churches are exempt from taxes, (and they don't have to give a list of their earnings, so they could be screwing their members and tax payers out of their money just because their organization might (or might not be) performing community services)

if you want government out of religion - perhaps you should take religion out of the government.

DNA and WAITING -

DNA - you do make an oath in the temple.

WAITING - that would be considered a commandment.

WAITING - your argument about bishops not checking the ballots to see which way you voted... well of course they're not going to do that... anymore than the bishop is going talk 'jack' about you for having sex before marriage - he lets GOD be the judge - unless it's something bad enough to be excommunicated from.

BEN -

TRUE, the church does ask that you investigate the church - but then they tell you only to read their books, and only the books that highlight the great aspects of mormon history, joseph smith, etc.

THE MINUTE - you look at other versions of mormon history - you will be told that you can't trust those sources (even though most sources actually come from the mormon church itself)

and because of that discouragement from the church - i never did look up anti-mormon material.

and because of THAT - i lied numerous times on my mission about how many wives Joseph Smith had, and certain 'made up' stories that the church teaches us as well (such as when the 116 pages were taken, and joseph smith couldn't re-write them because evil people were going to mistranslate them)

yeah - actually there's no proof that any of that happened - and most likely what happened was martins wife just wanted to see if SMITH could re-write it.

IGNORING certain facts about their history - and then MAKING STORIES up... well, if taught at a young enough age could be considered brainwashing. because kids are incredibly trusting.

and at 8 years old to baptize someone - that's like saying at 8 years old they know the difference between right and wrong... which they don't.
if a pedophile who happens to be the parent of a child that's 8 years old wants to have sex with his kid - the kid is going to follow blindly not knowing it's wrong.

STOP BAPTIZING AT 8 YEARS OLD.

and catholics - STOP BAPTIZING AT BIRTH.

you guys talk about free agency - but agency comes from knowledge - if someone doesn't have knowledge of other religions, beliefs, etc. they don't really have a choice - they only have knowledge of YOUR RELIGION because that's the only religion you've taught them.

that's not free agency - that's cheating somebody out of THEIR LIFE - simply because you want them to think, believe and ACT just like you. well it's not your life, it's THEIRS - so help them find what THEY believe, not what YOU believe.

@budwa - Hey,what do you get when you cross a gay guy with a alligator?
I don't know either but I am keep trying until I run out of gay guys!

@budwa - RAY -

just a quick comment to your request to stop babtising at 8 and at birth.

I agree that 8 isnt old enough to make the decision that is claimed that they are making by the church - i would think a bit older would be better...

BUT the purpose of the Catholic baptism is different from that of LDS - in the Catholic faith baptism is a cleansing - washing of the original sin - etc (more akin to the LDS blessing - even though it shares the name of baptism) more akin to the LDS baptism is the Catholic Confirmation (in association with first communion) - and i forget at what age they do that - it is when a Catholic youth confirms their part of the religion.

just thought i would tell you that...

hope it helps...

and yeah i guess its off topic.

@budwa - @Charles h
Those are some bold claims you make. I'm sure you've got statistical data to back you up?

@budwa - Couldn't agree more Utah 101. This is a fight over a word. You could give more 'rights' to a civil union than there is in marriage and people would still whine that homosexuals can't marry and have it legally recognized.

I think a good solution would be to get the government out of the fight, let marriage be the realm of religion.

The government on the other hand should concentrate solely on the legal benefits provided between people. At that point who cares who files paperwork to share legal benefits since it's in no way dealing with a sexual relationship.

The government should stick with legislating ethics, not morals.

To throw a cliche saying in "Ethics are doing what is right no matter how you feel. Morals are doing what you feel no matter what is right."

@budwa - Hey Raynelitsky,

You write: "TRUE, the church does ask that you investigate the church - but then they tell you only to read their books, and only the books that highlight the great aspects of mormon history, joseph smith, etc."

I would say that is true in some cases, but more often then not, there is an open invitation to look for the truth in a number of sources. But to get the answers about the LDS Church, it's best to look at their material. Who should people turn to?

- "The Godmakers"??? Oh yeah, that's real credible information.

- Dr. Walter Martin??? Oh yeah, he's a know-it-all because his great grandmother was one of the wives of Brigham Young, great credentials.

- Jerald and Sandra Tanner??? A couple that has spent their every free moment decrying the church they once belonged too. Jerald is now dead, I hope he can look back and be thankful for all that time he put into putting an organization down.

The point is, if you are going to find out the truth about any organization, you need to look primarily at their stuff. You can and should look at other sources, but keeping in mind that the information may be suspect at best.

@budwa - I disagree, sinder.

I think the government should be in the business of encouraging the types of family units that breed the healthiest society, and they should do that through financial incentives. That's why the government got involved in marriage in the first place.

@budwa - Ben, the suits at Enron agree with you on looking for data straight from the source.

Believe it or not Ben, the LDS church is very biased about what is said. They are very deceptive, and don't let much truth out. Joseph Smith and his marrying other men's wives after sending them out on missions? Not in the Joseph Smith lesson manual.

Three versions of the first vision, and only the third one claiming to see God and Jesus? That didn't happen till the third version over a decade later.

The bank failure in Kirtland and Joseph Smith's hand in it, and his prophecies about it's stability? Not in the lesson this year, a very sanitized version was told in the lesson manual. One of his councilors leaving the church because of it? Not in this years lesson manual either.

Brigham Young's prophecies about Adam being God, divorcing wives, etc. Wasn't in the manual we used when it was his turn to have a lesson manual.

I disagree with you that going to the source is the best place to get LDS history and theology information. Of course the members generally like it that way, and troll or vote offensive when people tell the truth on KSL. It's a great system, they don't tell the truth, and the members like it that way.

@budwa - Interesting stuff DNA, but tell me one thing. How do you know that all that you have laid out is true??? What are your sources??? Are they credible and how??? If the LDS Church is so rotten, why does it do so many great things??? Or are you going to use that old "wolves in sheep's clothing" bit??? Remember, if this is all a production of the Devil, keep in mind that the Devil does not push people to do good things. OK, like I told someone yesterday, you've put it all on the table, now produce the back up. In other words, put up or shut up.

@budwa - Thomas_

Interestingly, only somewhere between 11% and 30% of marriages end in divorce. See: www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

Crom:

Yes, I have plenty of stats to back them up. Let's start with undeniable fact that homosexual conduct correlates very strongly with suicide and drug abuse:

See www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Homosexuals are 6 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals. Even among twins where one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual, the homosexual twin is 5.1 times more likely to attempt suicide.

This article, drawing from numerous published studies also makes clear that homosexual conduct is strongly correlated with other anti-social behaviors or pathologies.

It further makes a strong case that such issues are NOT the result of social stigma. So bother wasting time with THAT tired old myth.

This article at the NIH makes clear that homosexuals are more likely to have drug or alcohol abuse or addiction: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2589133
This article also notes the higher rates of alcohol and drug use among homosexuals: www.narth.com/docs/symptoms.html

Do YOU, Crom, have any stats to counter these? Or when faced with overwhelming evidence, will you go silent just to surface again next time this subject comes up to again question what has already been pointed out to you?

A simple google of the terms "suicide homosexual" or "alcohol abuse homosexual" will turn up a host of sources--from across the political/ideological spectrum--to back up my claims.

@budwa - Charles, your link on divorce rates cited a study that put it up to 43%. And newlyweds 33%. Not exactly what you'd call great stats.

Why wouldn't suicide rates be high for homosexuals! Just look at the comments about them here about them. They are treated like outcasts. Parents have disowned them. Church "leaders" categorize them as sinful and just about every other derogatory term that can be thought of. Not very Christ like don't yah think!

Human sexuality is complex and varied. It runs the gamut from hetero, to bi, to homosexual. And for a segment of our society to treat people with such vulgarity and disdain because of their sexuality is absolutely disgusting and evil.

One thing is certain; I won't be silent on your ugly bigotry.

@budwa - Ben,

This isn't scholarly, but is informative and footnoted well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision

I learned it in a Mormonism class at a University from a professor with strong ties to BYU. I'm too lazy to dig out the books, so I cheated and went to Google.

If you really want to know a balanced view of Mormonism, you will find scholarly writings with footnotes referencing Joseph Smith's journals, the history of the church Volumes etc.

Be warned though, your comments in church will get similar treatment as my comments here. Church becomes a hostile place for seekers of the truth.

@budwa - Thomas,

The fact is, the divorce rate is well below even the "50%" number often bandied about. You are right, the rates of divorce are too high. I've SEEN the effects of divorce on families and even larger community in my own neighborhood. Divorce--like marriage--is not merely a private matter. It is a concern of the entire community. And I am on record on this site as supporting repeal of no-fault divorce laws, imposing harder conditions for divorce on those with children in the home, etc.

Amazingly, as high as divorce rates are, the rates of infidelity and break up among homosexual couples is even higher.

As for your attempt to claim that homosexuals are suicidal and drug/alcohol addicts because they persecuted, that won't fly. One of the articles I posted specifically deals with and refutes that claim. Further, one is hard pressed to find any persecuted group--from Jews to Catholics to Mormons to Blacks to American Indians--who responded to persecution with high suicide and/or drug/alcohol abuse. Even the American Indians did not develop widespread alcohol/drug problems until AFTER persecution was mostly ended and they were placed on permanent welfare status.

Finally, there is nothing bigoted in recognizing the truth about personally and socially destructive conduct. I don't hate or even dislike anyone because of sexual orientation or attraction to other consenting adults. I fully respect the rights of consenting adults to live their private lives as they see fit.

But I do not believe it is in the best interest of society to grant official recognition or benefit to homosexual conduct. Nor will I be silenced by empty accusations of "bigotry" or "hate." And since my arguments are NOT based on religious morals, you're going to have work really hard to counter them.

@budwa - DNA,

Interestingly, we've recently covered Joseph Smith's First Vision in our Sunday School class. While not covering everything presented on the Wikipedia page, various key elements were discussed very openly including the fact that several, slightly different versions of the Vision were published.

I don't know what your experience has been, but in my family growing up, and in every ward (LDS Congregation) I've attended, we've been very open about discussing these types of things, polygamy, the pre-1978 ban on black men being ordained to the priesthood, and church history generally. Of course, we've done such in the spirit of learning and understanding, rather than attempting to undermine or attack the faith. So maybe that explains the difference in reception.

There will always be more than enough conflicts over history to be stumbling stones to those who want excuses not to believe. More and more, I believe, we won't even have to look to history. As "mainstream" America moves away from their traditional values and morality even as the LDS Church stands firm, current events will be more than sufficient excuse for people to leave and/or hate the LDS Church.

But for those who have received a personal and sacred witness of the truth, none of that will matter very much.

@budwa - Hey DNA,

Given the way Wikipedia is open to anyone who can enter text, this can not be viewed as a credible source.

Who was your Mormonism professor with close ties to BYU and what university did you take the course from? How strong were those ties??? Was the professor fired from BYU because he/she couldn't be who they wanted to be??? BTW, just because someone has close ties to BYU does not make them credible.

What are these scholarly writings and who produced them?

Oh, I am no longer a member of the LDS Church so comments in church are a non-factor for me.

Bottom line, you have not produced anything concrete and you have admitted you are too lazy to do so. So you clearly demonstrate that you have no credibility.

ATTENTION, PLEASE FILE DNA'S COMMENTS UNDER "USELESS DRIBBLE."

@budwa - OK Ben, if you are going be that harsh and lazy to boot (wanting me to do your research), here's one for you.

The Angel and the Beehive The Mormon Struggle With Assimilation, by Armand L. Mauss.

Now it's up to you to read it. I won't spoon feed it all to you.

If you are too lazy to read it, you like having your eyes closed. There are many other good scholarly books on the subject too. So stop voting troll, offensive, etc. and read up.

@budwa - Thank you DNA for the information. At least you produced something. Others are far too willing to spew forth inanities and leave it at that. But now, I want to get back to my original question, how do you know that what you have read and are professing now is the truth???

@budwa - Charles h wrote:"Further, one is hard pressed to find any persecuted group--from Jews to Catholics to Mormons to Blacks to American Indians--who responded to persecution with high suicide and/or drug/alcohol abuse."

Yah think this just might be different? Same sex attraction occurs from Jews to Catholics to Mormons to Blacks to American Indians, does it not? Human sexuality is complex, a FACT you seem to completely ignore. You want to persecute a person with same sex attraction or transgender issues in your own faith I think is disgusting, and it is unconscionable outside of your own faith.

Charles h wrote: "Laws banning inter-racial marriage in this nation were not the norm, NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF NEED."

And neither was banning Blacks from obtaining the priesthood, isn't that right? The ban didn't affect the fact that Jesus is the Christ. Nor did it end His ministry on earth. It does show the fallibility of the natural man and just how far he will go.

I don't need to "stats" to hide behind. And I don't need a "leader" to tell me how I should feel about this. These pathetic attacks on someone that is "different" than you is NOT OF CHRIST. End of story.

Will this story reach 500 comments like other Prop. 8/Mormon stories?

@Roger B. - Roger B., I'm sure it will get up there, but the comments will be the same as the last 500. We need some new material people!

@Roger B. - Wakiza,

So True!

What a sick society we live in!

@Bob H. - Sorry cromulent. Muslims,Christians and jews worship the same God. Please see the Bible,Koran ,Torah and old testament.

While in Iraq, I actually saw a "pageant" not unlike the Hill Cumorah or Manti Pageant explaining Muslim beliefs to American soldiers. Totally off topic here folks but I could not let a stupid comment go unchallenged.

@Bob H. - A sick society, I KNOW. How could anyone not want equality for all people, even if it does mean California children will be taught that queer is cool.

support of prop 8 was and is GOD's WILL

@MyOpinion4U - Which god?

@MyOpinion4U - The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The same God the all Christians worship.

@MyOpinion4U - Religion is a great excuse for ignorance.

@MyOpinion4U - The God of Abraham happens to be two other major religion's GOD as well. Just a FYI, Christians worshiping GOD is irrelevant. It is also the Jews and Muslim GOD too

@MyOpinion4U - If you honestly believe that Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same god, you're sorely mistaken and might want to consider learning how to read someday.

@MyOpinion4U - The god of Islam is the god of Abraham through his son Ishmael. The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is the same for the Jews and the Christians, though the Jews do not believe that.

@MyOpinion4U - No, but you have to see the significance that three of the worlds major religions originate from the place. You don't have to believe in any of it to at least recognize this.

Believing in something bigger than your self is not ignorance. Those who reside in the plane scientific proof will only see what justifies that paradigm of thought. Those who attack other paradigms do so to help justify their own stance.

In saying this there are many religious people who believe in the extraordinary nature of philosophy of science and philosophy, but do so on their plane of religious thought. It is not a replacement for the discoveries of man, but an extension in understanding.

@MyOpinion4U - Rose is the much more accurate than the rest of you. Though the "gods" in question share similar origin stories as well as some mythology, in character and doctrine, the "gods" are very different.

@MyOpinion4U - Promise of skill... do you even know the meaning of ignorance? Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. This should not be confused with being unintelligent, as one's level of intelligence and level of education or general awareness are not the same. The word "Ignorant" is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware.

I am sure most of those who supported Prop 8 are perfectly aware and have knowledge as to why they they support it.

@MyOpinion4U - God doensn't need to tell me to be in favor of prop 8! I was the second they came up with this bull crap of gay marriage!

@MyOpinion4U - @MyOpinion4u
support of prop 8 was and is GOD's WILL

Unfortunately, Christian Gods are not the only ones out there. What about Ra? Thor? Krishna? Baal? Belial? Ceres? America is about Religious freedom for all, which means that your God is no more important than any other.

@MyOpinion4U - @Azagthoth
Thank you.

@MyOpinion4U - Tank Dog,
Please remember that Mormons by definition are not Christian. Please read up on the definition of Christianity vs. cult so you can comment intelligently.

@MyOpinion4U - My dad used to tell me a story about a couple down the street. They were a very happy couple expecting their first child. They didn’t have any insurance so the hospital wouldn’t care for the mother in her time of need. She had the baby at home and began raising the baby as her religion had dictated. The mother taught him all the things that would displease God, and how to be a very caring and loving young man. She taught him how to make it in the world, to use his two hands to create, to use his gift for a purpose. He grew up into a wise young man who had a vision of how the world should be. He talked to his father everyday, and His father told him he brought him into this world because people just didn’t get it. It was his turn to try to explain the rules God had put before the world.
The young man tried to explain to the elders in the church that God just wanted everyone to Love each other, and treat everyone as they wanted to be treated. Everyone was equal in God’s eyes, no one was better than the other. If we all just Loved each other, great things could be accomplished. We would be able to end would hunger, get medical care for everyone, and be as neighbors, not acquaintances. We would be able to help out Joe next door if he needed a babysitter, or someone to take him to the store. Through Love, all things are possible.
The elders of the church were mad that this young man was trying to tell them that the only thing God cares about is how you love Him and your fellow man. The elders were sure that God had said all the rules he wanted them to follow, and the punishments for each rule that was broken. They young man tried to explain that God is Love, that’s it. God loved you and only wanted to show you and everyone else that with love toward your fellow man, anything was possible. The elders threw the young man out of the church and called him the laughing stock of the town. The problem came when people started to really listen to what this young man said, and started to give to their fellow man beside them instead of giving to the church. The church was losing money and parishioners, not to mention influence among the town. The elders were so upset they decided to do away with the young man. This would put everyone back in line and know that their God was the one and only, and it was blasphemy to go against what God had taught for so many years.
The elders made up accusations against the young man and took them to the police, in the effort to get the police to side with the church. They wanted the young man to stop preaching and thought a long time in jail would straighten him out. The elders told all of their parishioners how evil this man was how he went against all of Gods teachings and was a heathen. The parishioners knowing that their elders were themselves next to God, believed everything the elders told them. The parishioners then called for this young man to be jailed. Mob mentality went through the crowd like fire. The young man was taken to the hill to be a testament to all to never go against the teachings of the church.
As the young man was strung up to die, his words would be echoed for years, “They just didn’t get it Father, You only wanted them to love and care for each other as they do you”

PROP 8 FAILED.

It was a good day.

@UnderJamz - Prop 8 passed.

@UnderJamz - It seems that UnderJamz is UnderEducated.

@UnderJamz - FAilURE is a perception.

It was a good failure.

@UnderJamz - UnderJamz,

Outward signs of intelligence are also perceptions.
And I hate to point out that yours are dismal failures.

@UnderJamz - On the love hate meter, I Dark Matter, pass judgment that both sides failed.

I would think the supporters of Prop 8 would understand this happens on a daily bases against the opponients of prop 8. Civil rights should never be put to a popular vote, why else are people fighting for civil rights?

@wings2 - Uh how is marriage a civil right? Which number in the bill of rights lists marriage as in inalienable right?

@wings2 - @Robjas
So you're saying that the only inalienable rights that exist are those in the Bill of Rights? How cute.

@wings2 - cromulent742,

If someone prefers not to exercise one of their rights, are they being denied that right?

@wings2 - I'm saying that our legal rights are defined in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not included in that list and is thus not a legal right, depsite attempts by gays and other to make it so.

@wings2 - So cromulent742, what other deviant behaviors do you consider inalienable rights then?

@wings2 - 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

ALL rights are guaranteed, even those not specifically mentioned. More specifically, the Bill of Rights should never be used to deny other rights not specifically listed.

@wings2 - So you are saying marriage is a right retained by the people and not enumurated by the Constitution? Good thing people smarter than you think differently.

@wings2 - cromulent742,

I'm still curious about your answer to my question. If someone prefers not to exercise one of their rights, is the right being denied them?

We'll use marriage as an example. If someone elects not to marry (let's say they prefer to remain single), are they being denied their marriage rights?

What if they can't marry because the person they want to marry would not qualify under the legal definition of marriage (they are too closely related, for example)? Are they being denied their rights?

@wings2 - @Robjas
Your reading comprehension is astounding. The only thing I'm saying is that you cannot say that marriage is not a right just because it's not in the Bill of Rights. Luckily the writers of the 9th amendment were aware that ignorant zealots would eventually try to manipulate the Bill of Rights in the same way you are.

@wings2 - Only on KSL would people down-rank the 9th Amendment. Bravo.

@wings2 - cromulent742:

HA! Exactly. Group-think is the norm here at KSL.com. Indeed, where else is the 9th Amemdment swept under the rug in a flurry of "Troll" votes.

Head over the the Tribune's site, and I guarantee you wouldn't see any of these same posters there.

Why? Because they know they'd get their arses handed to them via comprehensive, logical comments as opposed to the "gay people are so GAY" nuggets of wisdom they're used to reading/authoring on this site.

@wings2 - Sheeple Say Baa,

As you appear to be concerned about "rights violations," perhaps you answer the question that cromulent742 has been so reluctant to address. Here's your chance to enter a logical discussion.

If someone prefers not to exercise one of their rights, are they being denied that right? For example, if someone is not allowed to marry a close relative (as it falls outside of the legal definition of marriage), have they been denied their marriage right?

@wings2 - @Sheeple Say Baa
Yeah, I spend plenty of time over at the Trib, but it's so much more entertaining to read the inane drivel that these mouth-breathers post.

@wings2 - Cromlulent
I think you are being sincere, and I applaud your effort for trying to understand someone elses point of view with civility. Since that seems to be lacking so much. With all due respect, I believe I did answer your question. It changes how people think of marriage in a way that many do not want changed. Its negative consequence is that eventually those who do not believe marriage should be changed will be bullied and outcast for believeing differently in the name of political correctness. How is that fair? It means my children will eventually taught in school things that I do not want them to be taught. It means a perception in society that I abolutely object to. The gays are not simply campaigning for us to allow them to be married, they are compaining for us to change our minds and agree with their theories about life. I do not agree. It is my right to vote against those perceptions.

@wings2 - Robjas,

The Prop 8 measure was titled: "Proposition 8: Eliminates RIGHTS of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." The ballot summary read that the measure "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the RIGHT of same-sex couples to marry in California." The Supreme Court has repeatedly defined marriage as a right, and marriage is legally treated as a right in our legal system, but a debate on this issue on this forum is not going to make any difference. The battle to stop the denial of equal protection (14th Amendment: Equal Protection Clause) will be won in future elections.

Well said Wings2,

The last bastion of bigotry will eventually fall. The percentage of Californians who are not willing to deny equal protect has grown steadily. You are correct that equal protection is not an issue for popular vote, but the last election was very close, and if the trend line continues, 2012 will ensure a victory for equal protection. Look at the percentage increase in those supporting equal protection between Prop 22 in 2000 (39%) and Prop 8 (48%). A 9% increase in equal protection advocates in 8 years! Young people are more likely to support equal protection. As the old bigots die off, the percentage of those who support equal protection will only increase. The nonsensical scare tactics will also have less effect and appeal.

Maine's protection of same sex couples to marry has not resulted in the dire outcomes predicted by the opponents to equal protection. Divorce rates remain among the lowest in the nation, marriage rates are still high, and the school curriculum has not been impacted as warned.

I agree civil rights should not be a matter for popular vote, but the popular vote will align with equal protection sooner than later.

@wings2 - cromulent742 and sheeple,

How cute that you think that because people disagree with you, they must not think for themselves. I'm sure the Tribune site is a bastion for people who have seen the light and thus agree with you.

I do have a question for you, though. Can you think of any other rights, other than marriage, that require a license? If not, I'd say that the government as it is presently organized would disagree with your enlightened thoughts.

Besides, your argument about the 9th amendment is superfluous. The debate was whether marriage is a right, not whether the 9th amendment protects things not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. People disagreeing with your statements were disagreeing with the idea that marriage should be considered one of the rights protected by the Constitution.

@wings2 - Junkmailfolder,

You're confusing things that you have to work for to get licensed (like drivers license) with things that the government prints out for you whenever you ask for one.

You don't have to pass a test to get a marriage license, they are just printed so happy couples can hang them on their wall. They do not say that people who own one are in any way shape or form capable of doing anything just because they hold that license.

We do guarantee the right to pursue happiness though, and I would posit that marriage to someone you loved is a right in that context. Who are you to tell someone that their idea of happiness is wrong?

@wings2 - Totally wrong bonekrusher. There are certain tests you have to pass to get a marriage license. You must be two people of legal age, opposite genders, and not too closely related. Those are just as much a test as a driving test or bar exam. If we're going to change one of the requirements, why not change more? Or all of them.

And your argument that the pursuit of happiness should somehow allow gay marriage is silly. We, as a society, do in fact decide what falls under that scope. The government has decided that polygamy and incest are illegal, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that is necessary for their happiness. The government is in the business of dictating what society will allow.

@wings2 - "Being" in and of itself does not constitute passing a test. So being a male and being a female is not passing a test deserving of a license.

You can frame your argument however you want but the government does not test you to get a marriage certificate, nor does a marriage certificate certify you to do anything. It affords you rights, like a birth certificate, which is another thing you don't have to do anything to get. All you have to do is be born live.

Polygamy and incest can be shown to hurt society. Incest because offspring from such relationships can be physically and mentally deformed and polygamy because if everyone practices it then you are left with a bunch of sexually frustrated males running around town causing problems that married men don't cause.

Gay relationships can only be shown to hurt the feelings of people who put too much stock in outdated religious texts.

The government is not in the business of dictating what society will allow, that's called a dictatorship. We don't have that here.

If it were in the business of dictating what society would allow then I'm sure we'd all be illiterate, like they were in the dark ages, when religion controlled what everyone should think.

@wings2 - It certainly is a test. I do not have the right to attend an all girls' school, because I do not pass the "test" of being a woman. Do you also think you have the right to start a business? Try doing that without a business license and see how far you get before the SEC gets involved, and for good reason.

A birth certificate is not a license, therefore it is not the same thing. And you said it yourself--a license grants you rights to do things. It grants you the right, which means you did not previously have that right.

And you’re right, I mistyped. The government is not in the business of dictating what society will allow, it’s in the business of listening to society, then dictating what society will allow and then enforcing it. It’s much more complex than what I said earlier.

Finally, YOU say that incest and polygamy hurts society. I SAY homosexual marriage hurts society. Research says nothing about polygamy hurting society, and the only way incest hurts society is the increased chance of birth defects. Yet society does nothing about legislating other proven ways of increasing birth defects. Mothers are allowed to smoke and drink while pregnant. They can take any legal drug while pregnant. So why should the government get involved in this one little area in which it MIGHT hurt society, and yet leave other situations with the same consequences alone?

Our history has become diluted with corruption and personal selfishness that it is hard to look to our past and see through the haze.

What was once a great republic has now become a confused society looking for it's identity. Corrupt politicians have seized upon the confusion to erase the memory of our history by not teaching it in public schools or legislating corruption from the benches of our judges.

There was once a time when the substance of our constitution was well understood by all. Kids could recite it's contends, Judges ruled upon it, and American basked in ingenuity and prosperity because of personal freedom. We knew what social norms were appropriate for our society to function and which once were dangerous. What do we have today? We have a haze of smoke between us and our founding fathers. Politicians don't want us looking back, they want us to forget.

Proposition 8 showed me that some of us do see through the haze, we do understand that certain socially accepted practices can and will destroy this great Nation.

@freedomsnotfree - This is an honest, sincere question. Please, please explain to me how gay marriage will destroy America? What is going to happen?

@freedomsnotfree - Good point, cromulent.

Trouble is, nobody on here who opposes gay marriage can answer that because the answer would be nothing more than their own speculations and/or religious hoo ha, in which I don't believe.

Then they start bringing up the (tired!) "slippery slope" arguments, and the "Well, what's next, can I go down and marry my dog? And why don't we just make pedophilia legal too???"

Idiots.

@freedomsnotfree - You know it's an interesting topic. I actually support gays getting whatever benefits in life they need. I sincerely have no ill will. I really dont care what they choose to do, but I do not support gay marriage. I'll explain why as respectfully as I can because I just wish people would listen without assuming that I hate anyone because of my position. Allowing gay marriage in society will absolutely change how society and marriage look. Homosexuality, will be taught and recognized as just another acceptable way to live, by our leaders, society, and it is only my opinion but, I believe eventually in schools. Look at the harassment endured for even daring to vote against it. These are perceptions and a way of perceiving marriage, I absolutely disagree with and do not want to become society norm.

@freedomsnotfree - @just be nice
I applaud your effort, but I still don't think you answered my question. You imply that being gay is not an acceptable way to live? Why? If society accepts gay marriage, why is that a problem? What are the negative consequences? Again, I'm being sincere here.

@freedomsnotfree - just be nice:

I appreciate your thoughtful comments, and I can see where you're coming from.

For the record, I could frankly care less if gay unions are called "marriages" or not. So long as they are afforded all of the same rights as those straight people who are married.

Trouble is, so many of the religious persuasion are opposed to even allowing that! Again, it speaks to my "slippery slope" comment mentioned elsewhere on this comment board.

You bring up gay marriage eventually being promoted as the "norm" in schools. Well, the thing is, the younger generation has grown up in an age that you and I did not. They already see, hear about and know gay people. It's not the big taboo to them that it was in years past, and most are like, "What's the big deal?"

Think I'm wrong?

@freedomsnotfree - @ just be nice
I saw your reply up above, and it seems to me that you personally oppose same-sex marriage and personally disagree with the lifestyle, right? You have every right to those opinions. I guess my question was a little bit different, I was wondering how gay marriage will ruin society, which seems to be a popular battle cry among prop 8 supporters.

@freedomsnotfree - Sheeple,
I see your point. I think that it is one thing for children to see things around them, which you are right they will. it is quite another for leaders, and teachers to be teaching it to them as fact. My job is to teach moral issues and character to my children. Not my government and not the school. My fear is that perception will change so much that those who oppose gay marriage will be outcast and bullied and branded as hate mongers for just simply believeing differently. That is slowly happening. The gays are not simply campaigning for us to allow them to be married, they are campaining for us to change our minds and agree with their theories about life. I do not agree. It is my right to vote against those perceptions.

@freedomsnotfree - cromulent,

For years the left has been attacking the very things upon which this country was founded. One of these things has been the family. The Gay community has put forth the notion that fathers are not needed, that families are not important. I have even heard it said on TV that marriage is not of God. Now that they have the family basically destroyed, they are aiming to destroy marriage as an institution ordained of God. Even if you don't believe in God, the family is still essential to society.

Our prisons are full of people who have suffered from broken homes. More prisons are beiing built instead of doing the things to strengthen the family. If the institution of marriage is destroyed, then we as a society lose the glue that holds us together and we descend into chaos.

@freedomsnotfree - Cromulent
Yes, I do disagree personally with it. But, I have no hateful feeling whatsoever for those who live it. I hope that makes sense. I wish them good lives. I guess the greatest threat to society is that it changes what is "right" in society. It's funny because people are always complaining about religion trying to push their values on others but society will do the exact same thing, and in greater numbers. If gays pass their gay marriage law, it will slowly become what is "right". all those who believe differently will be pressured to live contrary to very deep rooted beleifs. How do you like people telling you what to believe? I doubt you do at all. Neither do I. Except it will be society and government telling me I need to.

@freedomsnotfree - @Dyed in the wool
If fatherless homes are destroying America, wouldn't a family with two dads be advantageous?

@freedomsnotfree - @Dyed in the wool
Even Jesus had two dads.

@freedomsnotfree - Just be nice....

Again, I appreciate your comments and the respectful tone and tenor. However, you just wrote:

"My fear is that perception will change so much that those who oppose gay marriage will be outcast and bullied and branded as hate mongers for just simply believeing differently."

My word.

You mean just like GAY KIDS have been bullied, and harrassed, and taunted, and teased, and tripped in the hallway, and demeaned, and abused, and beaten up, and threatened, and ignored, and discriminated against, and ostracized, and......(the list goes on and on).

It's not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it? I'm not condoning any of that, I'm just pointing out the blatant irony of your comment.

@freedomsnotfree - Cromulent,

No, because they need a mother as well. Each has a role to play.

@freedomsnotfree - Dyed in the wool:

I see where you're going with this, but it's a dead end.

What of:
Single dads who have no intention of remarrying?
Widowed fathers who have no intention of remarrying?
Children abandoned by their mothers?
Children left to rot in orphanages?
Children stuck in bad foster homes?

While I agree that it's great to have a loving mother and a father, the key word here is "loving."

You're getting hung-up on societal roles. Way too much falls into the category of "collateral damage" when we prevent children from being raised in loving homes despite the lack of a mother or a father. Try to see the bigger picture.

@freedomsnotfree - Just Be Nice
I believe you are totally correct that the people who fight against gay marriage will be pressured to go along with the rest of society when it becomes a generally accepted practice (which it will). Think of it in today's context regarding inter-racial marriage. This too use to be illegal and people firmly believed that it should stay that way, just like you firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong. Would you even think about condemning inter-racial marriage today? Bigotry has a hard time surviving in this country once it has been dragged out into the light.

As an FYI for all the trolls out there the Webster's definition of a bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

@freedomsnotfree - Cromulent,

Yes Jesus had two Dads, however he had a Mother as well.

@freedomsnotfree - Sheep,
What of:
Single dads who have no intention of remarrying?
Widowed fathers who have no intention of remarrying?
Children abandoned by their mothers?
Children left to rot in orphanages?
Children stuck in bad foster homes?

While I agree that it's great to have a loving mother and a father, the key word here is "loving."

You're getting hung-up on societal roles. Way too much falls into the category of "collateral damage" when we prevent children from being raised in loving homes despite the lack of a mother or a father. Try to see the bigger picture.

I have seen all of those situations you just described and more often than not the kids from those types of situtation come out so screwed up. They have difficulties with knowing who they are and where they belong. Quite often they get into trouble. When I was growing up I had a foster sister that when she left us she had a baby and put it in the dryer and turned it on.

yesterday i went to burgerking!!!

@the jonah - Please, please explain to me how gay marriage will destroy America? What is going to happen?

The exact same thing that happened to the Roman Empire. We are one nation UNDER GOD. When you take GOD out of the equation, he takes YOU out of his equation.

@the jonah - @agelessrocker
Nice try. Both Brigham Young and John Taylor taught that it was the evil of MONOGAMY that brought about the downfall of Rome. Look it up, you may be surprised.

And "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954; this nation was not founded as a christian nation. But don't feel too bad, that's a common fallacy among the religious right wing nutjobs.

Last November, 52 percent of California voters approved the constitutional amendment that limited marriage to between a man and a woman.


Government by the people.....move on, nothing to see here.

@agelessrocker - ...And so when it's eventually overturned and deemed unconstitutional (re: what about all of those gay people in CA who are STILL married??), I guess you'll still stand by your "move on, nothing to see here" comments, eh?

@agelessrocker - " when it's eventually overturned and deemed unconstitutional"


If wishes were fishes we'd all have a fry, slaphead.

Awwwww.... poor picked on Prop 8 supporters. *GAG*
And by the way, Jay B I have NO self-hatred whatsoever. In fact, I don't hate anyone (which is what I have always been taught is the Christ-like way to be).

@ami2mch - Yeah your comments are nothing but Christ-like.

If you ask me...Everyone is out of control. Why pick on Gay people, they aren't the ones draining the system. Hopefully, the gays are legal citizens, as long as they are I'll back them.

@Newe - Anyone who is destroying the moral fabric of society is draining the system. Gays included.

@Newe - after saying that, they may wanna back you.

@Newe - Methinks that "Andrew G." is really Sambecks.

Hi Sam. How goes it? Still in the closet, and spending all your time surfing gay topics online?

(...I thought so...)

The gays are wrong and will always be wrong.

Marriage is to be between a man and a woman only!

@Andrew G. - Andrew G.

(getting down on one knee)

will you marry me?

@Andrew G. - Hey Andrew, can I ask you a question? Do you honestly believe that Satan is a real person? I'm being serious here, I want to understand how people can disregard fantastical people like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny but believe in Satan?

@Andrew G. - Cromulent,

Since Andrew has been unable to answer you, I will. Yes, Satan is a real person. He does not and will never have a physical body, but he is a real person nonetheless.

@Andrew G. - @Dyed in the wool
So you must believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too, right? There's at least as much evidence for their existence. If you don't, what's the difference between them and Satan?

@Andrew G. - Cromulent,

The difference is that Satan is real and the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are inventions of man.

Christ spoke to Satan. Joseph Smith felt his influence just before Christ and God the Father appeared to him. There are other references to him I'm sure, but I can't cite them now.

@Andrew G. - the jonah - No, I will not marry you.

cromulent742 - Yes Satan is very much so real. If you deny the existence of Satan you deny the existence of God. If you deny the existence of God then you deny what makes the difference between right and wrong.

@Andrew G. - @Dyed in the wool
You may be surprised to discover that there are many literary references to Santa and the Easter bunny too. Doesn't make em real. And you do know that that's just one of several version of J.Smith's story, right?

@Andrew G
Morals can and do exist without religion.

@Andrew G. - Andrew,

Religious people do not hold the monopoly on morals. I keep reading here that God is reason we have morals and such but that is simply not true.

No matter how you rationalize it, denying people rights because of a book is WRONG! Anyone who says otherwise is spreading the lies of the willfully ignorant!

All this Prop 8 talk makes my butt hurt

@babneek - Hahaha. That kinda made me happy. Thank you.

if prop 8 had been overturned the "harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry"...against those who believe in traditional marriage would be HUGE. The people voted....America still has morals and values.

@guitar_eaterman2144 - Hey eaterman,

Hate to break it to you, but just because my values and your values may not match up 100%, doesn't mean that I lack values or morals.

And just be sure that you stand by your "The people voted..." thoughts come 2012 and subsequent years when gay unions are made legal nationwide.

It's not a question of "if" any longer, but rather a question of "when." Disagree with me all you like, vote me as "offensive" or a "troll", but it **will** happen. And all the wailing and gnashing of conservative, right-wing teeth won't change that.

@guitar_eaterman2144 - bonekrusher,

Just so you know, Joseph Smith was dragged out of his home, stripped and then tarred and feathered. In MO My Great(I get lost on how m any greats) Grandmother was there when the mobs came and raped our women and the ones that work left were forced to march several miles in the middle of night during the winter. A few months later they were slaughtered at Haun's Mill. These are only a few examples. There are many more instances when our people were imprisoned on trumped up charges in prisons where that would make alcatraz seem like the YMCA. What happened to Matthew was very sad. Those guys will have to answer to God for what they did.

@guitar_eaterman2144 - Dyed in the wool,

That happened in the 1800's. This guy was killed in the last decade. Why don't you tell me how many people in Utah are discriminated AGAINST for being mormon? Your church issued a statement not long ago saying they think their plight on Prop 8 is comparable to how the blacks were treated....

You are christians, you are not opressed in America. Stop acting like you're some kind of minority that gets picked on all the time. Every time I hear one of you guys talk like you're being discriminated against I just can't help but laugh, totally reminds me of monty python. "I'm bein oppressed! Did you see that, he's opressing me, Help Help".

Prop 8 was a California issue, the people of California voted, the bill pasted. So why are we talking about this?

@dawgdeelux - If you honestly think that Prop 8 and all of the fallout around it was simply a "California issue", then you are laboring under a very unfortunate, misguided apprehension.

Wise up.

@dawgdeelux - Baa, try as you might you will never convince me to make a California vote a Utah issue.

Awesome. So the religious fanatics know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of bigotry. Not quite the same level experienced by Matthew Sheppard though.

@happypocket - I agree. It is akin to the KKK and other racists during the civil rights era writing a report about how black people belligerently sat in the FRONT of the bus, used white drinking fountains and bathrooms despite laws against this behavior, insisted on attending white schools, boycotted and even rioted thus offending their belief that black people are inferior.

@happypocket - With all due respect to those who saw violence and mistreatment during the human rights era, this voter intimidation is frighteningly similar to the voter intimidation of that time. We're not talking about all of the other grievances during the human rights time which are obviously worse in every way. However, this IS voter intimidation and the comparison is worth noting. This is not mere bigotry. This is destruction of property and violence because of beliefs and intentions to vote.

I had no idea how widespread it was and am glad someone has made a note of it. We are going to disagree. Let's work things out with civility.

@happypocket - happypocket,

I assume you are referring to the LDS Church with that comment. If that assumption is correct, then you are very wrong. What happened to Matthew Sheppard while sad and regrettable still does not rise to the level of what members of the LDS Church were subjected to right from the get go.

@happypocket - "What happened to Matthew Sheppard while sad and regrettable still does not rise to the level of what members of the LDS Church were subjected to right from the get go."


Oh really? I didn't know they were all held against their will and tortured to death because of this thing.

Geez thanks for opening my eyes on that one.

@happypocket - Not all of them were, bonekrusher. But then again, not all gays receive the same treatment as Sheppard did.

@happypocket - That's very true Junkmailfolder.

I was just pointing out the problem with making such blanket statements.

Interesting video from one of the Pro Proposition demonstration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBfqBC1bFuE

Good.

Being libertarian, I was rather neutral on gay marriage with mild sympathies in favor of allowing gay marriage.

Now, I am absolutely against gay marriage. Guess what changed my mind? The following. Tell me one «no swearing please» good reason why I should EVER agree to a gay marriage proposal again. NEVER.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm


Vandalism and Sign Theft

Many reports of hostility toward Prop 8 supporters involve acts of vandalism. An elderly couple who put a Yes on 8 sign in their yard had a block thrown through their window.[8] A senior citizen who placed a pro-Prop-8 bumper sticker on her car had her car's rear window smashed in.[9] Some individuals with pro-Prop-8 bumper stickers had their cars keyed.[10] One woman with a "One Man, One Woman" bumper sticker had her car keyed and tires deflated while she was in a grocery store.[11] One man who placed signs in his yard and stickers on his cars and motorbike reported that someone egged and floured his home three times and egged, floured, and honeyed his car twice.[12] Someone also pushed over the man's motorbike and scraped the bumper stickers off the back glass windows of his cars.[13] Several other individuals reported that Yes on Prop 8 bumper stickers were scraped or ripped off their vehicles or defaced.[14]

Some individuals found their property vandalized with spray paint. Vandals spray-painted vehicles, garages, fences, and Yes on 8 signs in Yucaipa, California.[15] An Alta Loma resident who placed a Yes on 8 sign in her yard found the words "love for all" and "no on 8" spray-painted on her fifth-wheel trailer.[16] In San Jose, vandals spray-painted the garage doors of two homeowners who displayed signs supporting Prop 8.[17] Vandals also spray-painted anti-Prop-8 messages on commercial and residential buildings in Fullerton.[18]

Other forms of vandalism were more bizarre. One woman who placed a pro-Prop-8 sign on her balcony reported finding that her staircase leading downstairs had been covered in urine.[19] She also found a puddle of urine at the bottom of the stairs.[20]

Vandals also hit houses of worship. Perpetrators used orange paint to vandalize a statue of the Virgin Mary outside one church.[21] Offices at the Cornerstone Church in Fresno were egged.[22] Swastikas and other graffiti were scrawled on the walls of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco, a parish known widely as being "gay-friendly."[23] In San Luis Obispo, the Assembly of God Church was egged and toilet-papered, and a Mormon church had an adhesive poured onto a doormat and keypad.[24] Signs supporting Prop 8 were twisted into a swastika at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church in Riverside.[25] Someone used a heavy object wrapped with a Yes on 8 sign to smash the window of a pastor's office at Messiah Lutheran Church in Downey.[26]

In addition, reports of Yes on Prop 8 signs being defaced, damaged, dislocated, or stolen are almost too numerous to track reliably.[27] According to one source, the Yes on 8 campaign estimated that approximately one-third of an estimated 25,000 signs distributed in California were stolen or vandalized before the campaign ended.[28] Prop 8 supporters who replaced stolen signs often had their signs stolen again.[29] Sign thefts also often involved the added element of trespass or fear of trespass.[30] In some cases, perpetrators crossed fences and walls to steal signs or removed signs that had been securely fastened in place.[31] One individual reported coming home late and hearing male voices outside her home.[32] Another individual reported that a suspected perpetrator quickly drove away when spotted through the front window of his house.[33]

Harassment, Hostility, and Slurs

Several individuals who supported Proposition 8 reported receiving harassing telephone calls, e-mails, and mailings. Prop 8 supporters have reported receiving phone calls and voice mails calling them "bigot"[34] and using vulgar language.[35] Sometimes harassers called at work.[36] A public relations firm hired by the Yes on 8 Campaign received so many harassing phone calls from one person that the sheriff's office became involved.[37] Other Prop 8 supporters received e-mails, letters, and postcards using vulgar language[38] and offensive labels like "gay hater."[39] Through the contact form on his business's Web site, one individual received an e-mail stating "burn in hell."[40] One e-mail threatened to contact the parents of students at a school where a particular Prop 8 supporter worked.[41]

Harassment sometimes took other forms. For example, two women painted an arrow and the words "Bigots live here" on the window of an SUV and parked the vehicle in front of a household that had supported Prop 8.[42] In another case, an individual who supported Prop 8 found himself the subject of a flyer distributed in his town. The flyer included a photo of him, labeled him a "Bigot," and stated his name, the amount of his donation to Prop 8, and his association with a particular Catholic Church.[43] At the University of California, Davis, a Yes on 8 table on the quad was reportedly attacked by a group of students throwing water balloons and shouting "you teach hate."[44] A professor at Los Angeles City College allegedly told students in his class, "If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist [expletive deleted]."[45] One Prop 8 supporter received a book, sent anonymously through Amazon.com, that contained "the greatest homosexual love stories of all time."[46]

Prop 8 supporters holding signs in public places also reported incidents of notable hostility. One woman who stood near a street with a Yes on 8 sign reported that a man stopped his car and shouted at her, "You despicable filthy bag of [expletive deleted]."[47] Other drivers circled the block and yelled things like "You [expletive deleted]" each time they drove by her.[48] Once a car with several men stopped, and a man in the back seat opened the door and threw something at her.[49] Another driver stopped her car and yelled, "Get the [expletive deleted] out of here. Who do you think you are, bringing that hate into my neighborhood?"[50] One Prop 8 supporter who witnessed repeated vulgarities at sign-waving events said she felt nervous and scared and chose not to take her children with her.[51] Another Prop 8 supporter concluded that in the future she would make sure that at least one man was with each group of wavers to ensure the protection and safety of the teenagers who participated.[52]

Prop 8 also triggered hostility against African-Americans, who were reported to have supported the ballot measure by large margins. "According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet," states one news source, "racial epithets have been used against African Americans at protests in California -- with some even directed against blacks who are fighting to repeal Prop. 8."[53] One man, for example, reported he was called a particular racial slur twice and said the anti-Prop-8 protest he attended "was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks."[54] Another man reported that "he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse."[55]

"Mormons in the Crosshairs" [56]

Mormons were particularly and systematically targeted for supporting Prop 8. One leading gay-rights activist in West Hollywood said, "The main finger we are pointing is at the Mormon church'"[57] Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign, echoed this sentiment on the Dr. Phil show when, in response to a question from a Mormon audience member asking why his church was being targeted, he reportedly declared, "We are going to go after your church every day for the next two years unless and until Prop 8 is overturned."[58] At least one of the Web sites targeting Prop 8 donors focuses specifically on Mormons.[59] And one anti-Prop-8 activist has filed a complaint asking California officials to investigate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its support for the marriage amendment.[60]

The "Home Invasion" television ad, in particular, sought to exploit anti-Mormon bigotry for political gain. The ad depicts two Mormon missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple, ransacking their belongings, and tearing up their marriage license. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," says one of the Mormon missionaries. "We're here to take away your rights," says the other. The ad concludes with script and a voiceover stating, "Say NO to a Church taking over your government. Vote NO on Proposition 8."[61] This manifestation of undisguised religious bigotry undoubtedly caused great concern to many people. The Los Angeles Times, on the other hand, lamented that same-sex marriage activists had failed to air more "hard-hitting" ads like it.[62]

After Prop 8 passed, crowds of same-sex marriage activists congregated for protests at Mormon houses of worship throughout the nation.[63] One video shows same-sex marriage activists massed outside the Mormon temple in New York City crying "fascist church" repeatedly.[64] Another video appears to show angry activists rattling the gates of the temple in Los Angeles and chanting "shame on you."[65] Images from various protests show signs like "Mormon Scum,"[66] "Get your filthy church off me,"[67] and "Keep your hate in Salt Lake."[68]

Anti-Mormon malice reached a new level when someone mailed packages containing suspicious white powder to Mormon temples in California and Utah.[69] At least one of those incidents triggered a domestic terrorism investigation by the FBI.[70] Meanwhile, in Colorado, perpetrators placed a Book of Mormon on the steps of a Mormon church and lit it on fire.[71] Police reportedly investigated the incident as a "bias-motivated arson" related to the church's position on Prop 8.[72]

Violence and Threats of Violence

Some of the animosity directed against people and groups that supported Prop 8 was openly threatening or even violent. In Modesto, for example, a Prop 8 supporter was allegedly punched in the face by someone who had stolen several Yes on 8 signs. According to news reports, Jose Nunez, who became a U.S. citizen just months before Prop 8 passed, was waiting to distribute signs outside his Catholic church when a man grabbed several Yes on 8 signs and fled.[73] When Nunez followed the thief and tried to recover the signs, the thief reportedly yelled "What do you have against gays?" and punched Nunez in the face.[74] According to Prop 8 supporters, Nunez suffered a bloody eye and wounds to his face and was taken by ambulance to a local hospital "where he received 16 stitches under his eye."[75]

In Fresno, the town mayor received a death threat for supporting Prop 8. The threat stated, "Hey Bubba, you really acted like a real idiot at the Yes of [sic] Prop 8 Rally this past weekend. Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."[76] The threat also mentioned a "little surprise" for a local pastor who supported Prop 8 and "his congregation of lowlife's" [sic]. "Keep letting him preach hate and he'll be sorry," the perpetrator threatened. "He will be meeting his maker sooner than expected."[77] The threat also stated that anyone in Fresno displaying a Yes on Prop 8 yard sign or bumper sticker was "in danger of being shot or firebombed."[78] Police took the threat seriously, launching a criminal investigation and taking extra steps to protect the mayor and pastor.[79]

In another incident, an elderly woman in Palm Springs was besieged by an angry mob protesting Prop 8. Video footage posted on the Internet shows several men shouting at the woman as a television reporter tries to interview her.[80] "Get out of here," one man shouts in the elderly woman's face.[81] Later the video shows the woman, who is carrying a large cross at this point, surrounded by several men, including at least one who knocks the cross out of the woman's hands and stomps on it.[82] Someone also reportedly spit on the 69-year-old lady.[83]

A small group of Christians encountered similar hostilities when an angry crowd apparently took them for pro-Prop 8 demonstrators as they prayed and sang hymns on a sidewalk in the Castro District of San Francisco.[84] One of the Christians reportedly later stated that the people in the crowd shouted words like "haters" and "bigots" and then "started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us."[85] Someone in the crowd allegedly threatened to kill the group's leader, and someone else allegedly tried to pull down the pants of one of the men in the group.[86] A woman in the group was allegedly struck on the head with her own Bible before being thrown to the ground and kicked.[87] Video footage posted on the Internet shows a band of police officers dressed in riot gear fending off the angry crowd and escorting the Christians to safety.[88]

Employees and Business Owners Targeted

Same-sex marriage activists have also targeted the places where Prop 8 supporters work. Businesses and other institutions that employ individuals who personally donated to Prop 8 have been threatened with and in some cases subjected to picketing, protests, and damaging boycotts. Some Prop 8 donors resigned from their jobs or took a leave of absence to protect their employers and colleagues.

For example, Scott Eckern was employed as the director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento before being targeted for personally donating $1,000 to Prop 8. Once Mr. Eckern's support for Prop 8 was discovered, the theater was "deluged" with criticism from prominent artists who opposed Prop 8.[89] Critics included Marc Shaiman, the composer of Hairspray, who stated that his work could not be performed at the theater because of Mr. Eckern's support for Prop 8.[90] Mr. Eckern resigned.[91]

Richard Raddon was the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival before he landed in the crosshairs of Prop 8 opponents. Mr. Raddon personally donated $1,500 to Prop 8. As in the case of Mr. Eckern, once information about Mr. Raddon's personal donation was disclosed to the state and published on the Internet, he became a target of Prop 8 opponents.[92] According to an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, "A threatened boycott and picketing of the next festival forced him to resign."[93]

The extreme nature of this crude, but effective new tactic was poignantly illustrated in the case of Marjorie Christoffersen, a 67-year-old restaurant employee who donated a mere $100 to Prop 8.[94] Once information about Ms. Christoffersen's $100 donation was published on the Internet, Prop 8 opponents launched a protest against the restaurant where she worked, prompting the restaurant to offer activists a free brunch and Ms. Christoffersen to offer an apology.[95] However, when Ms. Christoffersen refused to renounce her support for Prop 8 -- like Scott Eckern and Richard Raddon, Marjorie Christoffersen is a Mormon -- the meeting "turned ugly" and "[b]oisterous street protests erupted that night."[96] Ms. Christoffersen eventually decided to take a leave of absence to protect the restaurant, which is owned by her mother, and the other employees who worked there.[97]

In other cases, business owners who supported Prop 8 either personally or through their enterprises have had their businesses targeted for reprisals by same-sex marriage activists. A dentist in Palo Alto lost patients because he donated $1,000.[98] Purves & Associates, an insurance company in Davis, was picketed with signs such as "Purves Family Supports Homophobia" after family members donated to Prop 8.[99] Protesters rallied and handed out free ice cream to retaliate against a family-owned creamery that supported Prop 8.[100] Activists boycotted the Grand Hyatt hotel in San Diego because its developer donated money to help to put Prop 8 on the ballot.[101] Same-sex marriage activists also targeted a self-storage company because its owner and his family donated money to Prop 8.[102]

Boycotting businesses that engage in commercial behavior consumers find objectionable is a time-honored form of activism in American society. However, targeting businesses for the political and religious views of their owners or even their employees -- and the decision of these individuals to participate in democratic political processes -- has raised serious concerns about the state of public discourse regarding marriage and the condition of civil society generally. No individual should be compelled to choose between making a living and participating in democratic processes affecting fundamental matters of public concern, such as marriage.

Beyond Prop 8

The weeks and months after Prop 8 passed also witnessed other incidents of hostility directed against expressions of support for traditional views on marriage and homosexuality. Some of these incidents were not directly connected with support for Prop 8, which suggests, grimly, that some of the hostilities described in this paper could become more common in political contests concerning same-sex marriage and other issues involving homosexuality.

In one disturbing incident just days after Prop 8 passed, a radical group called "Bash Back!" allegedly invaded a Christian church in Michigan. The group's Web site featured photos of members dressed like terrorists and brandishing various objects as weapons.[103] A press release posted by the Alliance Defense Fund, a public interest legal association that is suing the openly anarchist group in federal court, states:

[M]embers of the group dressed in militant garb staged a protest outside the church during a worship service to distract security personnel, blocking access to the building and parking lot at various times. Other members of the group dressed in plain clothes then deceptively entered the building. At a coordinated time, they sprang up to disrupt the service, terrifying many attendees. The group shouted religious slurs, unfurled a sign, and threw fliers around the sanctuary while two women began kissing near the podium. The group pulled fire alarms as they ran out of the building.[104]

In accounts allegedly posted on the Internet after the invasion, Bash Back! described the Mount Hope Church as a "deplorable, anti-queer mega-church" that is "complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond"[105] and cited the church's "stance on queer identities" as one reason for the attack.[106]

Another case, more widely reported than the church invasion in Michigan, involved Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA beauty contestant. Ms. Prejean was competing in the final round of the Miss USA pageant when she drew a question from pageant judge Perez Hilton about legalizing same-sex marriage.[107] Ms. Prejean's answer -- that, in her view, marriage should be between a man and a woman -- generated a tidal wave of criticism, including from Mr. Hilton, who later described Ms. Prejean in crude and derogatory terms in a video blog on his Web site.[108] A co-director of the Miss California association also condemned Ms. Prejean, stating that "[r]eligious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss CA family."[109] Both Ms. Prejean and Mr. Hilton have speculated that her answer cost her the crown.[110]

Lessons of Prop 8 Hostilities

Several anti-Prop-8 activists have condemned certain types of hostility described in this paper.[111] Some of the incidents described in this paper have involved illegal conduct, meaning the wider community has already condemned it. Some acts of hostility have been perpetrated by random individuals acting in isolation or by unpredictable crowds expressing anger and frustration.

Yet none of these facts changes the reality that many Prop 8 supporters have paid a considerable price for defending marriage as the union of husband and wife. Indeed, no matter who is to blame for the hostility surrounding Prop 8, one lesson of Prop 8 cannot be denied: Individuals or institutions that publicly defend marriage as the union of husband and wife risk harassment, reprisal, and intimidation -- at least some of it targeted and coordinated.

Furthermore, although some same-sex marriage activists have expressed disagreement with certain types of conduct described in this paper, few activists would disavow the ideology underlying much of the outrage at Prop 8's success. Arguments for same-sex marriage, although often couched in terms of tolerance and inclusion, are based fundamentally on the idea that preserving marriage as unions of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons who want the state to license their relationships. As increasing numbers of individuals and institutions, including public officials and governmental bodies, embrace this ideology, belief in marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman likely will come to be viewed as an unacceptable form of discrimination that should be purged from public life through legal, cultural, and economic pressure.

Other sources have explained how changes in law based on this ideology will threaten the religious liberties of individuals and institutions that interact with the government or become subject to nondiscrimination laws.[112] The hostility surrounding Prop 8 shows how, once this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.

@BD - wow, well that did it for me, im going to vote against anything gay from now on.

@BD - So if you would have read an article about gays being targets of violence, you would have immediately become pro gay marriage? You understand that this article is a propaganda piece from an ultra right-wing organization, right? How about you exercise a little critical thought and try to formulate your own opinion on the topic?

@BD - cromulent742

I wasn't at all into this issue, but the people voted and the people passed prop 8.
but what concerned me was how they reacted,
they vandalized churches and personal property, they threatened people
thats no way to act.
if prop 8 didn't pass. would all the mormons and other churches go out and vandalize people??????
there only hurting their own cause,
if anything gay where to come up for a vote
i would vote against it.
cause now I just realized they don't deserve it.

@BD - @the jonah
My previous comment was directed at BD. And by no means do I condone any acts of vandalism or violence. My point is that this is a slanted article, with blatant right-wing bias.

@BD - BD:
If you're going to judge the entire gay community by the few who unfortunately stooped to violence or vandalism, can I judge all libertarians by the actions of Dell Schanze?

@BD - Cromulent742

people reporting that their personal property and churches destroyed is propaganda?
these are all facts.

@BD - Hey BD:

You cut and pasted a lengthy bit from www.heritage.org.

Seriously?!

And you expect some sort of credibility or recognition to come from that?

Consider the source is all I gotta say to that. May have well cut & pasted something from AnitaBryant.com.

@BD - @ the jonah
No, it's propaganda because it only tells one side of the story and is pushing a very specific agenda.

@BD - cromulent742 and SSB,

So, do either of you have any legitimate response to the facts presented in the report? It's obvious that you don't like the messenger, but is the message somehow less-than-factual?

FYI - Every message you post that promotes a cause is propaganda by definition.

Oh, and I can't help but notice that neither of you has responded to the questions I asked you earlier...

@BD - cromulent742

these were crimes that were committed.
these gay people who committed the crimes should be charges with a hate crime.
I don't need to hear the other half. the house with the sign out front and the car with the bumper sticker
these people where terrorized for expressing what they thought.
if someone kills someone else or a guy robs a store
do we seriously need to hear the "other half"???

@BD - so...

yes there were some crimes committed...

yes there have also been countless crimes committed against homosexuals also...

what does that have to do with the underlying issue of equal protection and basic rights?

BD - your statement of never supporting gay rights because of certain crimes committed by gays would be akin to saying... well I will never support the Mormon church because that seminary teacher abused his student... not a good reason

The interesting part about the report is the effect on business. Some businesses took a stand and were upset that opponents to that stand picketed and boycotted their business - which was hurtful to their business... guess there was support on the other side of the issue. isn't that whats great about taking a stand both sides can voice their ideas and can choose to protest, hold rallies, boycott etc (I'm ONLY talking about the PEACEFUL ones - i don't agree with the violence)

isn't fee speech great - you get to say what you want - AND deal with others that disagree - AND face the consequences of your choice of words.

@BD - My 02,

I'm a little confused by your use of the term "equal protection." Are you referring to equal protection of people or preferences?

Everyone is bound by the same rules of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. There is nothing that one group is allowed to do that the other is prohibited from doing.

If someone prefers not to exercise a right, should the government be forced to treat whatever alternative they pursue the same as if they had exercised the right?

@BD - guitarcr:
The "equal rights" argument is ridiculously flawed.

Back when interracial marriage was illegal, everyone had the same rights -- the right to marry someone of the same race. Everyone was "bound by the same rules of marriage."

Did that make the interracial marriage laws appropriate?

No, because it turned out people want the right to marry whom they loved. Well, it turns out gay people love, too.

@BD - sheeple,

Those are all incidents reported externally to the Heritage Foundation.

cromulent742 and My02,

The pro-gay marriage community has made a statement by the numerous incidents of violence and other acts as listed above. These are not "isolated". There are too many of them. Also, the non-condemnation of these acts (or very, very few pro-gay marriage folks) condemning or speaking out on these acts is in my opinion a "de facto" thumbs-up approval on the incidents. The pro-gay marriage community has shown their true identity - "that you are a possible target of violence if you disagree with us." That is reason enough to be opposed to a political agenda when its supporters attempt to force or scare its opponents. They encouraged people to look up donators of $$ of Prop. 8 and encourage actions to publicly shame and humiliate them. That's not democracy, and it certainly is not American, in my book. If Prop.8 comes up again, and if gay marriage passes in California or elsewhere, to me it would be a terribly sad day, but I would NEVER encourage bigotry and hate and targeting of those who support gay marriage, and I would never support forceful silencing of those I disagree with. Of course, if any anti-gay marriage person speaks with bigotry or commits acts of violence to a gay person, I whole-heartedly condemn that also.

My02,
The Mormon seminary teacher that abused students has been utterly and whole heartedly condemned by members of the LDS community and church. And those acts of abuse were not in response a vote or the democratic process. Please spare us the "apples to oranges" comparison.

@BD - Howl,

The New York Court of Appeals, citing the Supreme Court of the U.S., has rejected similar comparisons between the two issues of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage (see Hernandez v. Robles). It is especially significant because this was in a state where sexual preference was even a protected class.

Perhaps you could consider answering my argument in a way that hasn't already been rejected by the courts?

@BD - guitar -

equal protection and basic rights are the issue at hand -

I tried to not take a stand on either side of the issue just stated what the underlying issues are.

for the record i do believe homosexuals are not offered the same rights as everyone else - such as claim "married" on a tax return when they are in a committed relationship.

If you want gov out of marriage - get it all the way out. if you want marriage to have certain gov benefits associated with it - don't discriminate. Change taxes to be single, civily unioned, civily unioned filing single. bingo - get gov totally out and make marriage a religious thing.

Tired arguments...
poligamy - right now there are certain benefits for two people who enter a certain type of relationship. so it should be able to be any two people. if they open it up for poligamy - it should be any form of poligamy - ie 6 husbands and no wives, 6 wives 1 husband, 6 husbands 1 wife, 6 wives with no husbands.

bestiality.. oh what about someone who "loves" their dog. when dogs file taxes and you want to claim married for you an your dog... that is the day i would argue for the same benefits - animals are (like it or not) property not persons. If "animal rights" activists get their way this argument may change.

pedophilia - children under certain ages are not able to enter into a marriage - it stays that way - they are not considered by law to have the capacity to contract or consent until certain ages.

I take the pragmatic approach - I don't think being gay is "right" or "wrong" it just is. so why should one committed couple get benefits that another doesn't.

the greatest number one cause of divorce is.... marriage :-)

@BD - guitarcr:
It's not a comparison between race and homosexuality, it's pointing out the severe flaws in your "equal rights" arguments. "Equal rights" does not a appropriate law make.

If it were laws against interfaith marriages (which were illegal too in some countries) it's the same result. It doesn't have to be race.

So, find a new argument.

@BD - guitar... just cause the courts say something doesnt make it right - remember "separate but equal"

BD... The vast majority of the gay rights community has condemned acts of violence or other illegal activity. just because the heritage foundation doesnt tell you that doesnt mean it isnt happening. BUT that is still way beside the point - the point IS you should not decide on an issue based on what the supporters or dissenters actions are - you should decide an issue based on the issue itself. IF you dont agree with gay marriage that is one thing... to say you dont agree because someone threw a rock through a window is dumb.

You should not decide an issue based on the actions of a subsection of the people within the group. -- That is why the seminary teacher is a valid comparison.

@BD - My 02,

Again, you appear to be confusing people with choices. Anyone, regardless of sexual preference, who makes the choice to enter a legally defined marriage will receive equal treatment under the law. It requires more than just "a committed relationship" to receive the benefits of marriage.

By the way, no unmarried person can claim "married" on their tax return, it is not just homosexuals who cannot. They aren't being singled-out in the matter.

There are a variety of reasons why people choose not to enter a marriage. Some prefer to remain single. Some would rather their relationship not be solidified. Others would rather pursue a relationship that is not considered a marriage (could be with a member of the same sex, a closely-related family member of age, a minor, etc.). It is the decision, not the orientation, that differentiates people.

People are guaranteed equal consideration under the law, not preferences.

@BD - You people are hopeless.

@BD - guitar...

you are just wrong.

in several ways actually...

if a heterosexual couple chooses to not get married long enough but live as if married - guess what they can by law be considered married. (research "common law marriage")

a homosexual couple can not receive the same benefits that a heterosexual couple couple can. PERIOD that is differentiating between people based on the nature of their relationship. that in my opinion is wrong.

a homosexual couple can NOT choose to enter a legally defined marriage.

IF you are suggesting that homosexuals "marry" a person of the other sex just to get the benefits of a marriage on taxes etc - then that is a much worse perversion of the sacred institution of "marriage" then getting gov totally out of marriage all together.

@BD - Howl,

Your perception of the appropriateness of a law doth not a "rights issue" make. This is my point. There are many who cry that "civil rights" are being violated, where, in fact, they are not.

The courts have ruled that everyone should be given the same options (which is why "separate but equal" did not work). The same guarantee has not been extended to ensure that every preference yield the same result. It would be ridiculous to suggest that every choice should, by default, be treated equal to its alternatives.

Americans have the right to pursue happiness, but the government has no obligation to reward all preferences equally.

@BD - My 02,

Remember that entering a relationship is a choice. Whenever you mention "couples" you are referring to the result of a choice. Not all choices need to yield the same consequences for rights to be protected.

The person who chose to break the law may not have access to every job that others do. Is this a violation of their rights?

More applicably, the person who falls in love with a close relative may not be able to have their relationship considered a marriage. Is this a violation of their rights? It was only their preference and they are with someone they love after all.

@BD - guitarcr:
It has nothing to do with my perception. It's about your argument that because everyone is "bound by the same rules" that it somehow makes it right. you're conveniently dancing around that now.

Do you still think that everyone being bound by the same laws makes it right? If someone was asking for the right to marry someone of a different faith or a different race in times where those were illegal, that they should have been denied that request because everyone was subject to the same laws? Because that's the justification you're using against homosexuals now.

@BD - Funny how you would bring up something being "right." Most supporters of same-sex marriage claim that "right/wrong" have no place in the discussion, only "fair." As soon as it is opened to "right/wrong," then you must respect the position of those who feel that same-sex marriage is "wrong" and do not want it to be a part of society.

Everyone being bound by the same laws (which apply equally) and having the same choices before them establishes that this is not an issue of creating equal rights, as many claim. It is about creating a new option that would be equally available to everyone. "Additional rights" is a more accurate descriptor.

@BD - ok one more try...

guitar.... lets use an analogy... Freedom of religion - Lets just say that the gov decided to give tax benefits and write offs for Catholics but only to Catholics... Everybody would have the same right to be catholic and get the tax benefits. Just if someone choose to be LDS or Protestant they just wouldn't get the benefits. Is that fair? is that giving the same rights to everyone? is that equal protection?

That is the same argument you are making about marriage.

... supporters "have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry."

Gee, and from those who preach "tolerance". I guess that's a one way street for the GLBT crowd.

@Pointy Haired Boss - The Catholics and the Mormons also preach tolerance, but that hasn't stopped priests from abusing their alter boys and bishops from scamming their congregations.

I don't judge those religions based on the acts of a few. Please don't judge gay people based on the acts of the few who stoop to violence or vandalism.

Not surprising. Whenever a "report" comes out, it pays to check WHO produced the report. EVERYBODY....check out the WHO part of the report.

Out.

After talking with people who know some things that are not ever mentioned in the media I understand more abotu why this proposition was important. There were plans in place to take the freedom of religion out.

@lsecho - Oooooh, a conspiracy! Dun-dun-duuuuuuuun!!!!!
My, how the religious types love THAT!

"People?"
Who are they? What are their roles in this? How are they stake-holders?

"Plans in place?"
Really? And your proof would be, where, exactly?

Just givie it up, Isecho. What a pathetic attempt.

@lsecho - Just an observance.

In the past few hours I've been labeled a Troll for my comments to Isecho.

And yet Isecho is nowhere to be found. Hasn't stood up to defend his claims one iota.

Typical.

Fear, threats and rhetoric: the death rattle of the uninformed, bigoted and superstitious.

Satans greatest acheivement was getting mankind to not believe he exists.

@agelessrocker - Mmmm-hmmm.

Stop stealing lines from movies, and get on about your day.

I love that I live in a country where I have rights. Just because I don't believe in homosexuality doesn't mean I am a bigot or I hate gay people. I dislike anybody who is an A-Hole to me or my family. That said, if a law is passed or repealed by the voice of a community/state/ etc. that doesn't mean that the people are hating on a specific topic or whatever was up to being passed or whatever. What I am trying to say is just because I think the thought of a man being with a man or a woman being with a woman(not just being friends/family) is absolutely repulsive and makes me want to throw up, doesn't mean I am a bad person. I just don't agree with you. And because that belief crosses over the line into religion and I believe that God has ordained marriage between a man and a woman isn't going to change with the times.
I am glad that the Church stands behind what they preach because most people/organizations won't make a stand because they are afraid of the perception of others.
Gays fight for the rights they want. Why can't I or why can't the Church? Don't we have the right?

@Micah I. - I think everyone on all sides of the issue should be able to speak freely without fear of retribution.

However, there is a pretty big difference between the goals of the LDS church to take away the rights of others and those that just want to be married.

Why does the church feel the need to insert itself into the lives of those who don't believe as they do? How does two gay people that love each other threaten them in any way? What happened to the religious freedom of those who believe in gay marriage?

@Micah I. - So Micah, can two women kiss each other and still be a member of the LDS Church in good standing?

@Micah I. - Two gay people threaten society and the true nature of human beings. THAT is why the church got involved. We believe in the true nature of marriage and believe it is important enough to side with.
It also goes both ways with whole "insert itself into the lives of those who don't believe as they do" thing. If you are gay don't try to insert your beliefs into my life and try to tell me it's okay.
Once again it comes down to the vote. It was overturned.

I liked a previous comment from a few hours ago on this thread that said that if every LDS member in California voted in favor to overturn the law, it still would have been overturned. The Mormons weren't the deciding factor.

@Micah I. - Thomas_

In my opinion, heck no. But people can hide some evil stuff and lie about it to whomever they want.

@Micah I. - Micah, could you please provide quotes/references from Church leadership that says:

"Two gay people threaten society and the true nature of human beings."

Thank you.

@Micah I. - So if they aren't lying and doing evil, a Gay person can be Gay and still be a member in good standing, correct?

@Micah I. - Don't need to Thomas_. But they have talked extensively about the family and how it is fundamental to society. WHen i say family, i mean a Father, Mother, Children. I guess anything different would NOT be fundamental to society but would do the exact opposite.

@Micah I. - As long as they don't act on it, Thomas_. Be careful about your thoughts, though. Is this for you? Go talk to your Bishop. He'll help you out.

@Micah I. - My thoughts EXACTLY, Micah!! Well said!

But of course, you will hear from "them" in the negative, of course~

@Micah I. - No need to worry about me. My wife and I are quite happy not being bigotted. ;)

So same sex attraction isn't a sin.

And a divorced mother and father are NOT fundamental to society, so that should be outlawed also, correct?

@Micah I. - Last comment from me Thomas underscore. Same sex attraction isn't of God. If you have those feelings, they can be overcome. So if you aren't living the lifestyle and don't act on those feelings and are doing the best that you can to fight the thoughts that are in your head and are receiving help from God, of course you can be in good standing with the Church. Remember, homosexuality is a perversion, not an orientation. We are NOT born that way.
Don't go into the whole divorce thing. You understand that. Don't be stupid.
I can't wait for next if-then statement from you.

@Micah I. - Don't worry about me Micah my wife and I aren't Gay. Do you think that someone who doesn't believe in bigotry is Gay? Is that your problem?

Are you still angry Blacks have the priesthood? BTW, is there some fundamental reason they were refused the priesthood? Do Blacks repulse you also? Could you quote some scripture or leaders reasoning for that bigotry as well?

So you didn't like your stupid logic being applied to divorce, get over it.

@Micah I. - I know I said that was my last, but don't bring blacks into this. I have no problem with them having the priesthood. And it is for us to know the reasonings of God and why he does what he does. HE IS GOD.
Black people repulse me? Are you kidding? Heck no. Don't bring that topic up again please. We are talking about homosexuality.
I didn't respond on the divorce thing simply because, even though it isn't a great thing, it isn't a sin to get divorced. Some sin to get divorced. Divorcees still have a role in the family, dumb dumb.

I can tell you were a member of the Church and you left because of some little thing or were offended. Now you fight against the Church. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Enjoy your life of encouraging sin.

@Micah I. - Micah, try to think for yourself. Believing in Christ has nothing to do with whether some human knows if Blacks should or shouldn't have the Priesthood and whether or not Gays should be allowed to marry.

If you are so concerned with the well being of children then outlaw divorce. That is far more detrimental to our children then worrying about same sex attraction.

BTW, God had NOTHING to do with denying Blacks the priesthood anymore than He has anything to do with denying Gays marriage or civil unions, for that matter. You don't believe it, then pray about it.

@Micah I. - Your logic being applied to divorce doesn't work, Thomas.

Certainly, divorce goes against what the government is trying to encourage. Same sex marriage also does this. The difference (and it's a big difference) is that one is a remediation, while the other is an establishment. One corrects errors at the expense of hurting society, while the other sets up a situation which BY DESIGN is contrary to the motives of the government.

@Micah I. - If you are going to use Gays are harmful to a family and therefore shouldn't be allowed, then why not disallow divorce? It is a threat to society and the true nature of human beings, is it not?

@Micah I. - Micah, are you one of those closeted gay Republicans, that engages in vicious gay-bashing because you are ashamed of yourself?

Just another Mark Foley...

@Micah I. - Did you not read what I wrote? The two are completely separate ideas and serve two purposes. It would be equivalent to outlawing amputations because they result in fewer limbs. Sure, it hurts the overall body, but it is a necessary remediation for something that has come up unexpectedly. No one amputates an arm before there’s anything wrong with it, which is what gay marriage would be equivalent to.

And yes, I would be against people marrying if they knew they would divorce one day.

"...have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry."

So as long as your bigotry is backed by religious belief, it's okay? What about the bigotry gays have been suffering for years? I'm pretty sure offenses like these have been demonstrated against gays, but no one said anything then.

@schecterd6 - Then I guess Jesus and God himself are bigots.

@schecterd6 - What about the bigotry that the LDS Church has suffered for years? Don't talk about what different people/groups have suffered. It came down to a vote and it was overturned. Honestly, how can you argue with that?

@schecterd6 - I didn't say anything about Mormon's and LDS. Mormons weren't the only ones fighting this.

I didn't see anywhere were Jesus said homosexuality was wrong. Can you tell me where I can find that?

KSL didn't get it right. The washington referendom:

Referendum Measure 71
Ballot Title Full Text
The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.

This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.

What is it about Mitt R’s religious faith ....that makes it his biggest political liability?

Gay Advocates: an unprincipled mob of uncivilized counterculturalists who seek the destruction of the moral footings of civil society.

@Feste Ainoriba - But isn't denying a minority group the same rights the majority has also contributes to the "destruction of the moral footings of civil society"?

@Feste Ainoriba - The majority has the right to enter a legally-defined marriage.

Those of the majority who prefer not to enter a legally-defined marriage (for any reason, including preferring something else) will not receive the benefits thereof.

The minority has the right to enter a legally-defined marriage.

Those of the minority who prefer not to enter a legally-defined marriage (for any reason, including preferring something else) will not receive the benefits thereof.

Looks like the same rights to me.

Americans are free to pursue happiness however they wish. There is, however, no mandate that every preference and choice yield equal results. Preferring an alternative in lieu of exercising a right is not the same as being denied a right.

@Feste Ainoriba - You're still missing the point, guitar.

Homosexuals do not have the right to marry whom they love. And that's what marriage is about, right? If the only right is the right to marry a random SOMEONE, then your argument might apply.

For the same reason that we now allow interfaith marriages, and interracial marriages, we should allow same-sex marriages. Everyone had the "same rights" when interfaith marriages and interracial marriages were illegal. But it turns out they were being denied a very vital component of marriage, and that's the right to marry whom they love.

@Feste Ainoriba - "Americans are free to pursue happiness however they wish. There is, however, no mandate that every preference and choice yield equal results. Preferring an alternative in lieu of exercising a right is not the same as being denied a right."

Well guitarcr, if that were the case then the 19th and the 26th amendments should have never been enacted because those two are the alternative to a right that was being denied.

@Feste Ainoriba - re; guitarcr

Put the word religious in front of minority and majority and you get a more accurate picture.

Many religions accept gay marriage. The majority of religious folks do not accept gay marriage.

@Feste Ainoriba - "the right to marry whom they love."

Would you care to share where that right has been legally defined in that way?

Actually, the existence of various marital restrictions implies that there is no universal "right to marry whom they love." There are age requirements, paperwork requirements, ID requirements and requirements on how distant a relative the two must be, to name a few. Each limits the right to marry a person's "love."

I would guess that we both agree that some restrictions on marriage are appropriate (which mitigates any "equal rights" claim). It is just a matter of haggling over where the line is drawn, which is why society should be able to decide the issue through the democratic process.

@Feste Ainoriba - Lonnie,

Amendments have been passed to ensure that everyone has the same choices available to them (ex. women aren't prevented from doing something that men could [voting] based solely on who they are).

Interestingly enough, certain choices can prevent one from voting. Failure to follow the registration process or the committing of certain crimes can affect one's voting rights. Again, while everyone is given the same right to vote, not all choices result in being able to vote.

While everyone is given the same right to marriage, not all choices result in being able to marry (choosing to be with a close relative, for example).

@Feste Ainoriba - guitarcr:
And again, all you have is straw man arguments. Marriage doesn't have love anywhere in a legal definition. What's your point? Are you going to try and argue that love isn't a vital component?

Why, then, should we have allowed interfaith marriages and interracial marriages if not for love? Would you prefer we go back to those times?

Or should we go even farther back, to biblical times. When "traditional" marriage was a father arranging the marriage of his daughter for business or political gain? When the woman in the marriage had no say in the matter? Is that the type of marriage you want?

You see, we evolved over time. And heterosexuals were the first to REDEFINE marriage to be about two people who were mutually in love with each other. It's a relatively new concept, historically speaking, and one that the heterosexuals were perfectly on board with.

@Feste Ainoriba - Howl,

Love is a vital component of marriage, but it is not the only component, as you might suggest. We both agree that there are certain situations where "love" may exist that still should not be considered "marriage."

We simply differ in what we consider the vital components to be. This is why the people of our nation should be allowed to decide the issue and declare what the vital components should be. Some are upset that people in 30 states have done so by amending their state constitutions, but I would argue that it is their right to do so. Marriage is being defined to prevent any misunderstanding.

@Feste Ainoriba - guitarcr:
Well, I'm glad you've given up on your "same rights" argument.

As for the democratic process, I believe in the checks and balances of our government, which is not a true democracy.

If you look at the civil rights gains of our country, they were not made by popular vote. If put to a popular vote, they would have failed. But we see in hindsight that these were the right decisions to make.

Our government has checks and balances to (among other things) protect against the tyranny of the majority. So if a judge in California rules that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, that judge is doing exactly what our system was set up to do.

That's not to say people don't have a voice when these decisions occur, they still have the right to amend their constitution, and to elect officials who will replace judges. California did just that.

Believe it or not, I stand by the results of the California elections. I'm disappointed by it, but it is the way the country works. I also know that attitudes towards gay people are changing, and it's only a matter of time before our laws reflect that. I can wait.

This report is from a "Conservative" think-tank. The only people it is targetted at is other "Conservatives", so let the "Conservatives" get excited over it. Anyhow, isn't odd that this report was released on the same day Maine and Washington state are voting on gay marriage? Just take it as a grain of salt and stop the pointless arguing.

This gay marriage thing just gos to show how far our society has fallen. homosexuality is a perversion not a orientation. the Medea, TV, radio, movies and schools have spent the last 25 years trying to change the way young people think about the perversion homosexuality. they call it a orientation so our young people grow up with a different view and will vote to make it legal. If homosexuality is a orientation then we would also have to call BDSM,pedophilia, bestiality, and every other perversion a orientation. One difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. With homosexuality you have 2 adult willing participants and with pedophilia it is rape. but they are both still perversions.

@Whity9 - Crawl back under your bridge, Troll.

@Whity9 - Hay sheeple say baa I must have hit a nerve. you know im right

“Remember how cool smoking was? Whatever happened to that politically correct, cool, suave, debonair habit that was all the rage among college students, profs, teachers, Hollywood actors, big business and just about everyone purporting to have "intellect"? In a nutshell, some scientists at the National Institutes of Health got together in the '60s, '70s and later and did some pioneering studies that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that this cool habit could kill you. Now "alternative" sexual lifestyles are all the rage. They, too, are killing people and the scientists are proving it. And again, it's the "intellectual" cool, liberal, worldly, suave thing to do. The usual suspects are involved. All the big name colleges have special programs for promoting "alternative" sex. Businesses promote the Gay Olympics. Politicians like Barney Frank think they can foist alternative sex on people through their power positions. Hollywood uses its influence to turn the Marlboro Man into a spokesman for today's popular deadly activity, and major companies like Ford contribute funds from the shareholders' coffers to promote same-sex marriage. It's just like the bad old days of Big Tobacco, and the Grim Reaper is having a gay old time.”

@M.C.H. - Wow. Just, wow.

@M.C.H. - Hey MCH....

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

That's about all I can respond to your ridiculous post with. Heh. Yeah, homosexuality is a fad....just like the hula hoop and pet rocks were.

Moron.

I support the gay lifestyle 100%, as long as both chicks are hot.

For the record, I am one of those people who is on the fence on this Gay Rights issue and can be easily swung either way. I hope you Pro gay marriage crowd understands there is alot of people like me and we are watching your actions concerning this issue. The whole temple square incident and the retaliation of prop 8 didn't help your cause.

No satire here.

@Butters Durst - Butters,

While I appreciate your willingness to be open to both sides of the debate, I have a bone to pick with you.

Peaceful protest is something that a lot of people take seriously. I was at the Anti-Prop 8 rally last year in downtown SLC after election day. Guess what...? There were angry, frustrated people there --- gay, straight, all types. And there was no violence.

If something happens in this country that you're not happy with, how is it wrong to stage a protest and let others know about it?

That protest was just one of the efforts of the gay rights supporters. And apparently it made quite an impression as we're still discussing it a year later.

Also, even if there were SUBSTANTIATED cases of retaliation after Prop 8, if you blame the entire gay rights movement for those isolated events, then that's just ridiculous.

In their own more shrouded and subtle way, the GLBT are screaming, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." This is not about rights, it's about the infiltration of filth and sin into a society. No matter who's your friend, loved one, or no matter how pitiful the plight- sin is sin. It doesn't mean we stop loving or caring, but no matter how it's argued, sin cannot suddenly be embraced or nurtured.

For those who fight against movements like Prop8, they fight against the commandments of God. It doesn't matter how complex one chooses to make the issue- intimate homosexual relationships will never be allowed or accommodated in any way by the true church of God- referring to the movement in general and not specific denominations.

Harsh, I know. But, for believers, that's just the way it is.

How many countries, or states, or cities will the Lord find worthy to stand?

@Rhubarb - You're free to believe how you want. You can believe homosexuality is filth, you can believe it is sin. But don't try to enforce your beliefs on others who don't believe the same as you do.

And before you go to the predictable and tired analogy of gay people to murders or rapists, please keep in mind that two people who love each other in no way relate to those that infringe upon the rights of others.

@Rhubarb - Howl:

Take your own advice with the enforcing your beliefs stuff on this issue. That is exactly what the GLBT are trying to do to all of us. The LDS Church took a stand on this, they didn't try to convert you to the Church. Two gay people send the wrong message to the world and more importantly to the children growing up in society. They may not be infringing on our rights but they are causing the filth to be spread where it doesn't need to be spread.

@Rhubarb - Please, Micah, explain how I am not taking my own advice.

I don't care if the LDS Church ever accepts homosexuality. I have no desire to change the church's beliefs in any way. If I don't agree with a religion, I just don't join!

I'm not trying to invalidate the marriages performed in the temple. I'm not trying to pass laws that would require the LDS church to do anything.

So please, tell me how I am not taking my own advice.

The only thing you have to decry gay people is your religion. And that's fine, you can believe what you want. But again, not everyone believes the same as you.

And gay people will still exist, and gay marriages will still exist (in other states and countries) regardless.

How you treat them, and in turn, how you want to be treated, is the question here.

@Rhubarb - Howl, we do not live in a free society where people are allowed to set their own moral terms and live by them. I'm sorry if you were operating under that illusion. I do appreciate the civilized manner in which you addressed your concerns. As Micah said, those who were for Prop8 feel much the same way you do- that something they hold sacred is being thrown to the dogs. We don't want to be dictated to as much as the next person. So if a person says you "must" define marriage in a way that strikes at our most core values- you can bet we'll fight it just as passionately as those who opposed prop8.

Believe as you may, please don't force your beliefs on me, my children, my country or state. And if you must engage others about your beliefs, please be civilized about it- as you have been. My sense is that it's the institution of marriage that's under fire, not the equal rights/treatment of gay couples.

@Rhubarb - What we don't understand is why you consider gay marriage taking something sacred and "throwing it to the dogs." If gay people had no respect for the institution of marriage, they wouldn't want anything to do with it!

The sanctity of your marriage can be defined only by you and your relationship to your spouse. How can anyone else's behavior, anywhere, affect that?

How is it that only your definition of marriage is the valid one? Heterosexuals themselves have been redefining marriage throughout written record. It's no longer about a father arranging his daughter's marriage for business or political gain. It's no longer unheard of for people of different faiths or different races to marry.

These were tenets of "traditional" marriage that have changed over time. It was the heterosexuals themselves that changed marriage to be about a mutual love between two people. Gay people love, too, and want to be a part of that.

In a free society such as ours, each individual has a right to be heard at the polls. Laws are enacted and enforced by a government that is supposed to be by the people, for the people and of the people. Each side in this debate and election had ample opportunity to make their case and rally support. In the end, only one side could win - and one did.

If you like democracy and the protections, freedoms and opportunities it provides, why argue so virulently against those who have exercised their rights as citizens? They have done what they believe is best for the society as a whole, just as you have. We cannot all have our way. I usually have to put up with government leaders I didn't choose and with whom I am frequently frustrated. I could castigate my neighbors and fellow citizens for thinking differently than I do, or I can do my best to show them a better way of thinking and hopefully prevail in the discussion.

Attacking the result of an election is an attack on the electoral process and the founding principles of our great nation. The civil unrest which followed the election results of this particular proposition are very puzzling to me as a firm believer in our constitution. While I rarely agree with John McCain, I found his concession speech in the last presidential election very refreshing and a welcome change.

If you reject the voice of the people, you reject democracy. Do you want to live in a nation where voters feel intimidated to choose a certain candidate or approve a ballot measure? Or are you suggesting that we take the vote away from the people altogether and just let a select few make all the decisions?

Little Daddy said it all perfectly. "Howl" the majority voted,and you lost. Stop whining and deal with it

@WhiteSquall - Strange, it was the anti-same-sex marriage crowd who just published this report. Aren't they still "whining" by your definition? And for what purpose was it published? And why right before an election?

Points to ponder.

Question: Will you not say a peep when Maine voters uphold same-sex marriage this election? Or will you "whine" about it?

Will you not say a peep when California restores it in 2012? And other states follow suit?

Will you not say anything when the younger generations, who know gay people and know they aren't a threat to anyone or anything, start to enact gay-friendly legislation?

Whether you choose to admit it, those who hold your beliefs are a dying breed.

@WhiteSquall - Nice, Howl. Couldn't agree more. A thousand dittos.

@WhiteSquall - Howl said,

"Will you not say anything when the younger generations, who know gay people and know they aren't a threat to anyone or anything, start to enact gay-friendly legislation?"

Not a threat to anyone or anything? See my post above.

@WhiteSquall - BD:
The people who committed violence or vandalism as a result of Prop 8 do not speak for the gay community. They were completely out of line, and deserve to be brought to justice.

Gay people have been on the receiving end of violence and vandalism for a long time, but I don't go around judging all straight people as violent extremists. Please return the courtesy.

When I have an opinion on this subject it's my opinion.It does not that I'm a homophobic. It's an opinion. The whole world does not hate you. Don't blame the world that I think your silly.

I'm not sure how this will play. Historically, the Mormons have benefited by persecution. But they have also been able to disavow (or downright lie) about their persecution of other groups. African Americans and Native Americans are a perfect example of this. Since the Mormons won't be able to sweep this one under the carpet anytime soon, they could suffer greatly. And deservedly so,

LDS church loses its tax exempt status in California, maybe other states
will follow


Mormon Church should lose tax exempt status over Prop 8 ...

The LDS Church should also lose their tax-exempt status for attempting to influence legislation. ...

Howl,

This is a Democracy, so yes if the vote went the other way I would respect that. But are we really a dying breed? How come prop 8 was voted by the majority then? You really think in 2012 it will be overturned? No chance, that's just arrogance

@WhiteSquall - WhiteSquall,

Burst forth from your bubble, and/or pull your head out of the sand. The tides are changing nationally in FAVOR of gay/lesbian rights. You may not believe that, as most of UT tends to be in denial over it.

Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote. Is that slim 2+% enough for you to assuredly stick by your claim that it won't be overturned three years from now? Heck, if a vote were held a YEAR from now in CA, I'm pretty sure Prop 8 could be overturned.

@WhiteSquall - White squall

You are right! I'm all for democracy... The voters have spoken. The people should be making the laws, not congressmen corupted by big business.

I would like to point out that currently 56% of california are in favor of legalizing marijuana.

I really hope you agree with democracy when the voters of the golden state repeal an unjust law.

Off topic... but this goes to all those that love democracy as much as I do. Personally, I would have voted no on prop 8. But respect democracy far too much to argue the outcome. It was a fair vote. Plain and simple.

@WhiteSquall - I absolutely think it will be overturned. Prop 22 won in California with 64% approval in the year 2000. Prop 8 only won with 52% approval 8 years later. Notice the trend? Some want to try as early as 2010, but I personally think 2012 is more reasonable.

If you look at the age breakdown of the Prop 8 exit polls, you'll find something amazing. If people 65 years old and older had been prohibited from voting, Prop 8 would not have passed. It still would have been a close race, but it wouldn't have passed.

The younger generations know gay people on a personal level, and they know that gay people are not a threat to anyone or anything. As they grow up and replace the older generations, the will of the people and the laws of this country will start changing.

If a hunger for liberation destroys morality then immorality will destroy liberty. The homo faction of evil is proceeding under the fashionable banner of liberation. Such trends do not a truth but a tragedy make. Deafness to scriptural history is fatal. The more normal abnormalities seem the less reason people have to be wary of them. Homosexuals try to normalize immorality so people will not be wary of it. The more coarse and crude people become, the less they are aware of it. "To confuse tolerance with permissiveness can be fatal, since it is like not knowing the difference between a mushroom and a poisonous toadstool." Evil people are not polite pluralists - they are predators. The wicked are never tolerant. The hardness that produces insensitivity toward large-scale abortions and homosexuality will not confine itself to one expression. The insensitivity will spread, it will find other focal points. Once society loses its capacity to say firmly that certain things are wrong per se, then it finds itself forever building temporary defenses, drawing new lines, falling back further, and losing its nerve. A plea for freedom to sin soon ends up in a demand for all to sin.

@M.C.H. - "homo faction of evil" would be a great name for a rock band.

@M.C.H. - Wow.

Well stated, MCH (not!!). Fred Phelps would be proud.

As a side note, I'm enjoying reading thru your last post using the voice of that creepy, old, dead preacher character from "Poltergeist 2." I'm finding that his voice and your words are quite complimentary to one another.

Seek professional help.

Homosexuality hurts many others. Numerous husbands and wives with children have left their married heterosexual spouses to run with a gay man or a lesbian women thus devastating the children, the family and even the community. No crime or sin affects only one person.
A particularly serious form of the sexually transmitted bacterial disease syphilis has been detected in gay and bisexual U. S. men infected with the Aids virus. The U.S. center for Disease Control and Prevention traced 49 HIV infected gay and bisexual men who had “Symtomatic early neurosyphilis” from Jan 2002 to June 2004. The CDC cited the report as further evidence that gay and bisexual men, many also infected with HIV, are the driving force behind increases in the U.S. syphilis cases this decade. Since dropping to the lowest level on record in 2000, the U.S. rate of syphilis has risen steadily, Gay and bisexual men accounted for 7 percent of syphilis cases in 2000. But more than 60 percent in 2005, so said the center for disease control. Many of the men involved have the attitude that they do not need safe-sex practices because they already are infected with HIV. A seared conscience??

@M.C.H. - If homosexuality were accepted, these people wouldn't feel the need to pretend to be straight and enter into these marriages to begin with. And for the record, plenty of people can be good parents after their marriages have ended, gay or straight.

If homosexuality were accepted, maybe a lot of gay people wouldn't feel the need to rebel against society as much and engage in drug abuse and risky behavior.

Persecution of gays creates these problems. You want to help? Start treating gay people with respect and dignity.

@M.C.H. - Exactly, I agree Howl.

MCH, you're so quick to reference the Golden Rule. Gosh, if memory serves me correctly, the basic idea behind the Golden Rule is to treat others as you wish to be treated, correct?

Sounds like you need to look in the mirror and assess your OWN shortcomings, MCH, before judging so quickly the actions and lives of others.

There have been several comments suggesting that beliefs, in and of themselves, are discriminatory. If the belief of one individual offends a second individual, the second individual has the problem. Each of us has come to conclusions through our life's study and experience and those conclusions are valid to us.

Actions we take on our beliefs, however, can begin to infringe upon the rights of others and can become discriminatory. Individuals and groups who have suffered unfair treatment often draw upon problems of the past to seek preferential treatment in the future. It is true that early members of the LDS church suffered much hardship for being different. It is also true that many gay people have also suffered because they were different.

But those past events aren't relevant to this issue because in this case, the due process of law was followed. There was nothing unfair about how the election was held. There was nothing unfair about one group or another making their points and expressing their beliefs. I haven't heard of any case where anyone was denied a right to participate in the political process.

So where is the injustice? Is it unfair that a simple majority in one state has a certain belief? Is it unfair that they are allowed to make political decisions based on their beliefs? Is a group who all believes one thing discriminatory because they also believe another thing? Why are so many people in so many other states so concerned with the outcome of the election in a state they may only visit on occasion? And why would anyone really care about such a statistically insignificant voting block and condone instigating punitive measures against them?

Everyone seems to love democracy when it helps them and bemoans the conspiracies conjured by oppressive majority when it doesn't. Does anyone still espouse the principles our nation was founded upon? Is everyone so beguiled by the political parties, their icons, platforms, and rhetoric that they have forgotten how we became the greatest nation on this planet? What good is any political platform or campaign if you turn your back on the system that gave it life?

California will eventually accept some form of same-sex marriage, probably through democratic channels. When it does, everyone who is angry, will still be angry. The issue is not really the issue here.

Perhaps the greatest deception of our day is the belief that the laws of God do not apply to our political conduct or to the actions of government. One of the worst evils of which men are capable is to disobey the Lord’s commandments when acting through the agency of government. Unrighteous dominion or injustice imposed by government looms above all other problems. Millions and millions have been tortured, murdered, plundered and enslaved by their own political masters and this because government did not abide by the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Everyone’s politics should be the politics of freedom and justice for all or in other words the politics of the Ten commandments and the Golden Rule. It has been clearly proven through the centuries that homosexuality destroys families, injures children, weakens nations, is an enemy to freedom and is a corrupting influence on society. It should be illegal and punished. We are ripening for destruction because we have corrupted our political laws. We have legalized immorality. We had splendid freedom when we abode by our glorious Constitution because it’s foundation is the Ten Commandments and the Golden rule which protect freedom.

@M.C.H. - M.C.H.
Everyone’s politics should be the politics of freedom and justice for all. Frightening how this one sentence in your rant stands in stark contrast to the rest of your post. Substitute Ten Commandments and Golden rule with Koran and you are no different than the Taliban or Saudi Morality Police.

The Taliban and the so called Saudi Morality Police do not live by the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule and that is exactly why they are so evil.

Cleverly, homosexuals are trying to disguise their abomination by calling it an "alternative lifestyle." By cunning deception the alternate lifestyle people are pretending to preserve their so-called rights by defending and promoting homosexuality, but indeed they are destroying our inalienable right to have a pure spiritual and physical environment. There is only one reason homosexuals call sin and wickedness “an alternate life style”, or why they call standing for morality “hate and intolerance”, or why they call stating the truth about homosexuality, “discrimination” and that reason is to silence any opposition to the homosexual outrage. The reason that the establishment is pushing hate laws and have invested billions into the promotion of homosexuality is to destroy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the family and national sovereignty.

Freedom cannot exist without obedience to God’s laws.

The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments are indeed the bedrock foundation of the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect God given rights. Protecting God given rights insures freedom. There are five elements of freedom, life, liberty, property, knowledge and work. “Thou shalt not kill” protects life, “Thou shalt steal” protects property, “Thou shalt not lie” protects knowledge and so on. If you take anyone of these five elements away you loose the other four. They are dependant on each other. The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule do nothing, but protect and enhance the five elements of freedom

The only reason we call an action sinful, evil, criminal or immoral is because it destroys or injures one or more of the five elements of freedom. There is no right of homosexuality because homosexuality injures life, liberty, property, knowledge and work.

If governments do not follow God’s standards in public affairs then it is a free-for-all as to who’s standards they will follow. The Golden Rule is based upon the universal need and desire for freedom. When government or individual action violates the Golden Rule, strife and contention arise. The Golden Rule is the only code which may with justice be enforced against all men. Governments either legislate morality or immorality. It would be stupid to legislate immorality for that would destroy freedom and that would be contrary to the very purpose of government. Morality preserves freedom, immorality destroys freedom. Every act government performs is either morally right or morally wrong. All governments are for is to compel citizens to obey a code of private morality. There are two types of laws: 1. Those which condemn and punish certain conduct as evil and harmful, 2. Those which compel the performance of other conduct considered good and beneficial. God’s law should be the source of all civil law because God’s law is perfect in preserving freedom.. God’s law is for the purpose of protecting man’s unalienable rights. “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

If Governments and people would live by the Golden Rule there would be no need for jails, police or a court systems.