Interfaith Fast Oct 12th for Proposition 8

Did you know that Proposition 8 discriminates against Jews and Mormons? No Jewish people are permitted to work for the legal defense team that supports Proposition 8 (Proposition Hate). And the proposition clearly outlines that marriage should only happen between ONE man and ONE woman. Where does polygamy fit into this equation? Discrimination against one group usually reflects discrimination against a whole wealth of groups. So why support discrimination? Why not support the right to let every United States citizen choose the path of his or her life? Let each of us be judged only by a higher power not of man’s making. I’m voting No on Proposition 8 because I believe in letting people live their lives, and I don’t believe the government should have any more control over how we live than it already does. I pray that God continues giving each and every one of us the opportunity to exercise our God-given free will in this country.

Carol,

Mormons don’t practice polygamy. Seriously. Even if we wanted to (which I’m thinking 99.9999% don’t)we’d be excommunicated if we did, which means we’d no longer be “Mormon.”

Carol,

The Proposition doesn’t discriminate – it *defines* what marriage is. If the state law says something and then a court overturns it (which was contrary to the people’s voice) the only thing the people can do is to put it into the constitution. If the courts wouldn’t legislate from the bench, there wouldn’t be a need for the propositions to put things into the constitution.

Laws can’t prevent anything, they only define what is right and wrong and the consequence for the infraction. In the case of CA Prop 8 (and AZ Prop 102), the consequence is simply not recognizing the “marriage” between same sex persons. It doesn’t prevent them from going to Hawaii or Massachusetts or some other country to do it. And in 99.999% of the cases; its a non-issue. Health benefits stay the same, visitation stays the same…etc.

To same its discriminating is misinformation.

If this proposition were about defining marriage rather than defining rights, it wouldn’t be an issue for me. But this proposition only parades as a definition; in reality, it’s an echo of the “separate but equal” situation. The truth is same-sex couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. A state marriage does not give a couple the same rights that a marriage recognized by the federal government gives. Marriage, my friends, has many different definitions, depending on the context. What gay people want is a marriage–a union–recognized by FEDERAL LAW so that if one partner gets sick across state lines, the other can visit him/her in the hospital. That kind of thing can’t happen with state marriage. The Yes on 8 people seem to want to define legal marriage using the religious context, but that does not foster equality for all. Let the churches decide what a holy marriage is; but let the government decide what a legal marriage is.

And then there’s the issue of another state, say Texas, which will not recognize a homosexual marriage. It could raise jurisdictional havoc. Don’t mess with nature, support the bill.

Happy Dae.
http://www.shoestringgenealogy.com

This is the most Orwellian concept I can imagine. Gay friends tell me that if they plan ahead there are no legal problems for them. So that is not the reason for Gay Marriage, a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron. Marriage is the tightest union of the greatest diversity, that of leaping the chasm of gender differences, and creating an eterprise that is the foundation of civilization. Other unions are of value and need to be protected, bu they are NOT MARRIAGE!! Remember Orwell’s fictional Newspeak? We are here. Gay Marriage is Newspeak, 1984 in the third millennium. All the legal protections a gay couple need can be lobbied for and achieved. Clearly. Look at the “progress” in this area the Gay commmunity has made. But they will never have marriage. They will have something else which they may happily argue is just as good. When we call a car a truck, we call corn wheat, all we do is dilute the language until all meaning is lost. Who ever heard of legally changing the meaning of a word?

It is not about choosing a lifestyle freely. It is about legally changing the definition of a word. All the discussion about inequality and lack of respect for diversity and all that is a school of red herring. Marriage is a word, like child, bread, water, husband, wife…foundation words. If Gays truly feel what they have is equal and equivelant, then there should be a proud holding up of their own proud word rather than a theft and distortion of an existing word.

It amazes me that Christian organizations have sent hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of an amendment that would shrink the freedom that homosexual individuals in this country can enjoy — the freedom to marry and live happily ever after with the one they love. How much closer to a cure for breast cancer could those dollars bring us? How many people could be fed and clothed with those dollars? Instead of healing the hurting, so-called Christians would prefer to get involved in other people’s private business to advance their own self-righteous agenda. Can you say ARROGANCE????? Vote “No” on Proposition 8.

Jared, It is not about freedom for gay couples. They are free to live, cohabit, make legal alliances now.
It is about language, communication, existing and natural social order which no manner of legal shenanigans on no matter how large a scale can actually change.
NO ONE is depriving gay couples of anything except the misuse of the word marriage. Well, it is about freedom. It is about the freedom of the heterosexual couples to conntinue to use a word and know what it means, what it has always meant. A simple thing.
Male parts and passions and spirit combining with female parts and passions and spirit with the natural outcome being children formed from both those people’s eternal genetic material.
Get a new word. Why is it so important to take this word?
There is nothing bigoted or intolerant or cruel in thinking that a word should not be legally redefined.

Why is it that Gays want us to respect them and give them equaly rights,but they walk in to the house of the Lord dress as nuns and mock one of the most sarcet ornances of the christan faith? Why should they be aloud to do what the want with no respect for others their rights don’t give them the right to step on ours.I’m not Cathalic I am Mormon but I felt the pain of the members of that church in San Fransico.

Unfortunately for members in my stake, October 12th is Fast Sunday this month anyway, but I will be sure to encourage my thoughts and prayers in this direction.

A x

The issue is that the word “marriage” gives legal rights that the words “civil union” do not. If the word “marriage” did not give rights, then same-sex couples would not care about the word–a word is just a word unless it has power. And in this case, the word grants rights. So, to deny a same-sex couple access to the word denies them the rights that come along with that word.

Solution? If proposition 8 passes, all of these people who claim that they have no problem with gay people but that they merely want to keep the word marriage exclusive to heterosexuals, should, if they really aren’t homophobic, propose that the government find a new word that will give same-sex couples ALL of the same rights that a federally recognized marriage gives straight couples.

But I doubt any of the Yes on 8 people would want to make such a proposition because the truth is that they don’t want same-sex couples to be equal in society or to be recognized as having a love as valid as heterosexual love. So, until you righteous “yes on 8″ people come up with a proposition that gives gays rights instead of taking them away, you are only proving to the world at large that you really do think gay people are worth less than straight people, and that’s about as un-Godly as you can get.

For more information about why gays want to use the word marriage, please go here:
http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/doma.html

Thank you.

You are twisting the teachings of Christ. Christ would be accepting, preaching judge not that ye be not judged.

The lies of the television ads put out by the LDS church would offend Him. They are claiming that it would lead to churches losing tax-exempt status, preying on the fears of the faithful. In fact, all it would do is make it so that marriage continues to be legally available to GLBTQ couples. It would not force churches to perform marriage ceremonies, as those are a service and services can be withheld at their discretion.

Stop misusing the Bible to justify your bigotry. It offends true Christians.

I am sick of people misusing the word bigotry. Look it up in your dictionary and quit creating new definitions for words that have a long established meaning (like marriage). Being opposed to the militant gay activists who are trying to tear down traditions and institutions does not make one a bigot.

Y’all want marriage to be religious? Then it shouldn’t have legal rights associated with it.

All these folks want is the right to be life partners in the eyes of the law so they don’t need to fill out 50 million pieces of paper work and still deal with being denied the right to see their loved one on his or her deathbed at a hospital. Them marrying doesn’t threaten your marriage.

What YOU want is to deny them those legal rights in the name of religion, while taking Biblical scripture out of context like the illiterate fools you are.

You are not a Christian, and you shame all Christians by claiming it. You do not strive to be Christ-like. You are a bigot. Definition: “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” The shoe fits.

1. There are good people on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue.
2. There are gay people who oppose same-sex marriage and support Proposition 8. I am one of them.
3. Proposition 8 is about protecting those who disagree with same-sex marriage and not about denying rights to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 will not outlaw same-sex relationships. Under California’s domestic partnership law (Family Code 297.5), same-sex couples enjoy all of the same legal rights as marriage.
4. In other jurisdictions, government recognition of same-sex marriage has led to government endorsement of same-sex marriage and government hostility to individuals and organizations that disagree with it.
a. In Massachusetts, government threatened to revoke licenses to religious-based adoption agencies that don’t place children with same-sex couples.
b. In California, government has compelled physicians, against their conscience, to artificially inseminate lesbian couples.
c. In Sweden, a minister was prosecuted for hate speech.
d. In Canada, a political writer is being prosecuted for hate speech.
e. In schools, same-sex marriage will be taught to children against the wishes of their parents and against their religion.
5. Proposition 8 will support freedoms of speech, press, and religion to those who disagree with same-sex marriage.

Here’s a wonderful article that clearly explains why gay people, as well as straight people who know and love gay people, feel that this proposition is an attack.

http://www.kvsun.com/articles/2008/10/08/opinion/letters/doc48ecd2c74d5a6662072506.txt

JR, Thank you for your intrusion of FACTS into the wild discussion the nation is having. It is good to be shown that we do not have to be in constant agreement with a proposed process to prove our integrity and lack of bigotry. At least to some.
As soon as these messages become “you” messages and name calling, the power to achieve righteous objectives goes out the door.
I am not afraid of gay people. I have both friends and acquaintances who are gay. I am very afraid of people who have to prove they are tolerant and accepting of gay people by throwing out established order and pandering fearfully instead of negotiating an improvement to a situation.
As for the writer who suggested that heterosexeuals propose to the government a word instead of marriage to be used by gay people? Gay people took the word gay. Suddenly all the songs about being gay in May tra la tra la cannot be sung by schoolchildren. I am sure that the proven to be perfectly intelligent, grown up and responsible gay community can far better devise its own word to propose through normal social channels as well as government channnels, and it will take hold.
The current phrase non-gays already suggest is legal domnestic partnership. If the gay community wants a different word, it is smart enough to find one that would far more fully express their relationship than the misuse of marriage would, or a word that heterosexuals might conjure up for “then” to prove their own lack of bigotry. I think there would be implied bigotry in our thinking “we” should figure out “their” word for “them”. All that is being asked is that we not prove our acceptance by joining in this charade of changing meanings of words. That will tumble forever, because then the heterosexual community will have to figure out a new word for the lost word of marriage. We can go on forever having legal meaning of word elections.

1. There are good people on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue.

Good people can have bad judgment. Attempting to enshrine discrimination in the constitution is bad judgment.

2. There are gay people who oppose same-sex marriage and support Proposition 8. I am one of them.

I’m sorry you don’t support your community.

3. Proposition 8 is about protecting those who disagree with same-sex marriage and not about denying rights to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 will not outlaw same-sex relationships. Under California’s domestic partnership law (Family Code 297.5), same-sex couples enjoy all of the same legal rights as marriage.

And had to fill out a ton of forms in order to enjoy it, instead of the ONE that they currently fill out. No matter what you’re trying to claim, gay couples currently have the right to get married and what you want to do is take it away.

4. In other jurisdictions, government recognition of same-sex marriage has led to government endorsement of same-sex marriage and government hostility to individuals and organizations that disagree with it.
a. In Massachusetts, government threatened to revoke licenses to religious-based adoption agencies that don’t place children with same-sex couples.

This has to do with adoption, not same sex marriage. It is irrelevant. Also, please cite claims like this.

b. In California, government has compelled physicians, against their conscience, to artificially inseminate lesbian couples.

This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, but with laws outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is irrelevant to your argument about same sex marriage.

c. In Sweden, a minister was prosecuted for hate speech.
d. In Canada, a political writer is being prosecuted for hate speech.

In Sweden and Canada, hate speech is illegal. In America it is protected by the First Amendment. Thus these are moot. As they are also not linked to same sex marriage, they are also irrelevant.

e. In schools, same-sex marriage will be taught to children against the wishes of their parents and against their religion.

Those parents have the option of homeschooling or sending their children to religious schools. Schools teach children about REALITY, so clearly with same sex marriage being a reality if the topic of marriage is brought up it would be mentioned.

5. Proposition 8 will support freedoms of speech, press, and religion to those who disagree with same-sex marriage.

No, actually, it doesn’t. You are free to speak and preach and write in opposition to same-sex marriage. None of those have ended with the advent of the GLBTQ community being granted marriage rights. All you are doing is attempting to take away marriage, to use your moral standards, based on a few out-of-context bits of the Bible, to enshrine discrimination into our constitution.

Proposition 8 is nothing but an attempt to remove rights from a minority group. Granting the GLBTQ community does not threaten your rights in any way, shape, or form, no matter how much you try to claim it does.

From your argument, it is clear that your support of Prop 8 is based on the potential of using it to remove other equal rights granted to gay folks. That, my friend, is hate.

Marie, straight people were the ones who started calling us gay. Please read you etymological history before making absurd claims.

JR, I tried responding earlier but it didn’t go through.

1. Good people can be bigots. In the case of “Yes on 8″ people, they are trying to take rights away from a minority.

2. I’m sorry that you don’t support your community. That is truly sad.

3. Incorrect. Proposition 8 enshrines discrimination in our constitution and TAKES AWAY a right that gay couples have enjoyed for several months without the various fallacies that those television commercials cite as reason to discriminate.

Here’s a list of differences between domestic partnerships and marriages:

Registration
1. Simple, notarized form registration
2. No ceremony
3. Office of Town Clerk
4. Conveys many marriage rights
5. A quasi next-of-kin status
6. Must cohabit
7. Must share finances
8. Ended by mailing a termination form

Legal Marriage

1. License required
2. No ceremony required
3. License officiated by clergy, court, or justice of the peace
4. Conveys hundreds of rights
5. A true next-of-kin
6. Can live apart
7. Not required to share finances
8. Divorce laws apply

Those are large differences.

4. Same-sex marriage has led to nothing but the granting of rights that other married couples enjoy to gay couples who marry.

a. This has nothing to do with marriage.

b. Again, nothing to do with marriage. However, a doctor does not have the right to discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation. It is not a doctor’s place to pass judgment.

c&d. Canada and Sweden ban hate speech. In the US such speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Again, this has nothing to do with gay couples marrying in CA.

e. How funny that a school would be expected to teach REALITY. I suggest home school or religious alternatives for people with that big of a problem. Clearly you doubt your ability to instill your brand of morality in your children if merely being EXPOSED to the fact that gay couples exist runs the risk of destroying it.

Only one of these examples have had anything to do with same sex marriage, and two of the other 4 had nothing to do with the United States. They had to do with equal rights for the GLBTQ community, which leads me to believe that your ultimate agenda is to remove protections from GLBTQ citizens so you can freely persecute them willy-nilly. How noble.

5. Same sex marriage is ALREADY legal, and those rights are still afforded to you. The TRUE purpose of Prop 8 is to instill discrimination based on cherry-picked Biblical passages into the California constitution. You want to take away rights. That is hate.

Same sex marriage does not threaten you, your marriage, your family, or your children in any way.

Christ taught tolerance and was against persecution. Your attempt to enshrine hate in the state constitution and make it easier to persecute those you disagree with is unChristian. Not only that, but since we’re talking about the LDS, who faced persecution for near a century, it’s all the more hypocritical.

Regarding supporting a community, suggesting that voting en bloc is the morally correct way. I respect the person who can stand outside his “community” long enough to see what is right, and generate respectful discussion. Otherwise, we would not need a voting mechanism. We would just count all blacks, or all Mormons, or Jews, or Gays…no voting would ever be necessary. A head count would work. Right based on demographics is not right at all, and in fact has supported some of the greatest evils of all time. It is the person who can support his community by opening debate and expecting that the result will be Truth There are more heterosexual people than there are homosexual people. Therefore, that this vote should even be considered has been a function of thinking process in both camps.

Marie,

I think it’s rather sad that he’s not only preaching against marriage rights for his GLBTQ brothers and sisters, but against equal rights in general. He actually feels that he should be persecuted. Thus I feel sad for him, as he obviously has never come to accept himself. It is sad when social bigotry causes self-hate.

What is right is equality, not enshrining discrimination in the state constitution and persecuting a group of people because you don’t like them.

I also want to note that the vows exchanged in marriage are derived from a part of the Bible, where they are said between two women, Ruth and Naomi.

Re Ruth and Naomi — a good initial observation. But let us carry it further. Ruth and Naomi did not develop a sexual relationship, or have children together, or lobby to change what marriage is. They promised allegience and support. Love and commitment abound in the Bible and in today’s world, and are not confined to marriage. But then Naomi made sure that Ruth found a husband and married him. That is the part of the story that informs today’s discussion.

The fact that the vows were made between two women is what I was talking about, not whether they had a sexual relationship. Your mind really is in the gutter, isn’t it?

Y’all just keep grasping at straws trying to find a reason to discriminate. I figure God’ll judge you in the end.

I am sorry you are distressed. I don’t know how anyone on this list can be characterized as having their minds in the gutter by mentioning in a discussion of MARRIAGE of HOMOSEXUALS and of HETEROSEXUALS, which is what we are discussing, that two women who made promises did not fit the discussion because sex and marriage were NOT part of their life together. And I don’t see that in this context even indicating that two women DID have sex would be discussion in the gutter. Sex in this discussion, even between two women, is clearly not a gutter topic, but the essence of the discussion. That, and how to validate or legalize or whatever seems to be needed, without detracting from the existing sexual/social arrangement that has always been called marriage. We are here as friends and brothers and sisters to assist our society at large in achieving a loving, righteous solution to a dilemma. In this particular strand, sex and marriage must be discussed. Sex is not a gutter topic.

I am distressed, yes, because you insist that I should be separated from “normal” couples. You classify me and my community as unnatural, when we too were created by God. Everything that has been said has only indicated that you create God in your own image in order to justify your prejudices. So, yes, I am distressed. It is people like you who drove me to hate God for years, to turn away from religion because I felt excluded, until I realized that He loves me and you are merely too flawed to see that. For years, I could not celebrate my faith because of the actions and words of people like you. Does that not make you feel any sort of guilt at all?

I never mentioned anything about a sexual relationship between them. I just find it funny that a vow that took place between two women suddenly became the basis for marriage vows. Surely you have an understanding of the concept of irony?

“the existing sexual/social arrangement that has always been called marriage.” Funny, that. I seem to recall that as lately as a couple of centuries ago women were chattel. The “existing” arrangement has been in flux since the beginning. In Islam, it is permissible for a man to have up to four wives. The LDS only dropped polygamy in order for Utah to be allowed to become a state. Additionally, the concept of marriage predates both Judaism and Christianity. It has been practiced since long before in every society with every religion, including polytheistic. Again, I really suggest that you pick up a history book, because this seems to be an area in which you are fuzzy.

I have a righteous, loving solution. I can only assume you’re approaching it from a Judeo-Christian perspective and thus alienating Islam, polytheistic pagan religions that predated Christianity, Eastern religions, and various others. If marriage is truly a Judeo-Christian religious institution, then the United States has been violating the First Amendment by granting any sort of legal benefits to married couples, because it favors Judeo-Christian beliefs and excludes all others.

The simple, loving, and righteous solution is for religious marriage to have no legal benefits associated with it whatsoever. You may have the term, but not the rights currently associated with it. In order to get those rights, you still have to be equal to same-sex couples and get a legal union.

This should not be a problem, logically, unless the whole point of your insistence that marriage exclude homosexuals is to ensure that you can still the loving, healthy relationships within the GLBTQ community as less valid because they qualify as something different, something separate.

Hello all. I would just like to say that I believe and know to be true that whatever two opposing people want to discuss can be done with courtesy and decorum. Both sides can make there points, agree and disagree when they desire. With an open mind and open heart we can all come to terms with the fact that we are in a SOCIETY. With that fact, comes the responsibility to lay down laws that the Majority will abide by. What ever you believe God does love you. Our dear Father appreciates even more his children that love one another and can discuss differences with respect. I am sorry to hear that some people will fight with all there might and talk over the other person’s head, never accepting the other person’s point as that person’s opinion. I will fast and pray for each of you to approach this issue with a kind heart. You do not have to agree with the other person, but truly listen first. First seek to understand, then to be understood. Good luck to you all and may God bless the sacred ordinance of home and family. With all my love,
Christine

Jared,

The consequences of messing with nature (God’s) laws will cost nations more than hundreds of thousands of dollars. Let’s not play with fire – the consequences of our choices will affect everyone around us too. IMHO, the Church of Jesus Chris of LDS spends “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to help the voters to realize where the “fire” is, so that the voters would wisely choose to stop it before everybody gets “burned”. Vote “Yes” on Proposition 8.

Jo and Carol,

I believe all of your questions and concerns have already been addressed on these pages:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

http://www.preservingmarriage.org/

Here are just a few quotes:

“…The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

“The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.”

“The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people…”

“…Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.’ (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.’ (Matthew 19:4-6)…”

“…Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric.(M. Russell Ballard, ‘What Matters Most is What Lasts Longest,’ Ensign, November 2005, p. 41) Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, ‘The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.’ (United Nations, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights,’ General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948. )”

“Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family…”

“…Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that ‘tolerance’ demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for tolerance’ advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. ‘Love thy neighbor,’ He admonished. (Matt. 19:19) Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to ’sin no more.’ (John 8:11) Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not ‘tolerating’ transgression.”

“In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.”

“As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999)”
“The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term ‘hate speech.’ We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage…”

“How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.”

Natalie,

Your claim is laughable and full of so much logical fallacy that I can’t even begin to list them all.

Gay couples affirming their love and companionship and finally being legally recognized is not a “fire.” It does no damage, no matter how much you try to twist reality to make it seem as though it does.

A true “fire,” something that true followers of Christ are concerned about and that many people are being “burned” by, is the horrid amount of hate in this country.

Vote “No” on Proposition Hate.

Jo and Carol,

My previous post didn’t go through for some reason. There were a few quotes from the webpage that answer all your questions and concerns. Below is a link to the page. Just read the whole article, all your concerns have already been addressed there:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

And here is more:

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

http://www.preservingmarriage.org/

http://www.whatisprop8.com/

Vote “Yes” on Proposition 8.

Jo and Carol,

I believe all of your questions and concerns have already been addressed on these pages:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

http://www.preservingmarriage.org/

http://www.whatisprop8.com/

Here are just a few quotes:

“…The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

“The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.”

“The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people…”

“…Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.’ (Genesis 2:24). Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.’ (Matthew 19:4-6)…”

“…Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric.(M. Russell Ballard, ‘What Matters Most is What Lasts Longest,’ Ensign, November 2005, p. 41) Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, ‘The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.’ (United Nations, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights,’ General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948. )”

“Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family…”

“…Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that ‘tolerance’ demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for tolerance’ advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. ‘Love thy neighbor,’ He admonished. (Matt. 19:19) Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to ’sin no more.’ (John 8:11) Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not ‘tolerating’ transgression.”

“In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.”

“As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999)”
“The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term ‘hate speech.’ We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage…”

“How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.”

I’ve already addressed that, Natalie, in post 28.

You want the Judeo-Christian idea of marriage to be the accepted version? Fine. According to the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, it is unconstitutional to bestow legal rights upon it.

This means y’all need to reject the legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges that marriage bestows upon you and start getting your own civil unions if you must have those rights. After all, if marriage is truly sacred just being married ought to be enough for you. Otherwise your true justification is hate.

Also keep in mind that not all churches are as quick to reject Christ’s teachings of inclusion as you. Plenty already bless gay unions and will continue to do so regardless of your hate.

Also? If you don’t want your children being taught REALITY and feel that you’ve failed to teach them your own “morals” to the extent that merely being told that gay couples exist will destroy them, perhaps a public school isn’t the place for them.

Oh, here’s another fun thing:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425139380

“Hilary McLean, spokeswoman for California’s superintendent of schools, Jack O’Connell, said the ad’s claims are false.

“There’s nothing in the Education Code that requires schools to teach about marriage,” McLean said. In schools that do provide instruction about marriage, locally elected school boards determine the content, she said.

The ad is similar to one released last week that shows May 2008 footage of a giddy San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom telling a supportive crowd that gay marriage “is gonna happen whether you like it or not.” The spot also features Peterson repeating the claim about gay marriage being taught in schools and warning that churches could lose their tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex unions.”

The article is also VERY clear on the fact that allowing same-sex marriage to continue would NOT impact churches in any way. It would require that the STATE allow and recognize same-sex marriage and would not impact “religious organizations’ right to free expression.”

Please stop lying and fearmongering.

Are you kidding me?!?! I am a Christian as well but you know what? I’m getting sick and tired of some of these so called Christians who have small, tiny, miniscual brains.

First of all, Christ preached about loving thy neighbor. No where did he say “love your neighbor as long as he is straight”

Secondly, by the end of the day, this issue is about religion. Unfortunately Christians have the upper hand because Christians are known to be judgmental (Irony anyone?) The most conservatives often make the rules, in this case gay marriage.

Sanctity of marriage is about as BS as some of the crap these fanatical Christians are trying to preach. I can go on for hours about that but I’m going to try it keep it short.

1. First of all, not all marriage is based on religion. Not everyone gets married in your perfect little church with pews and pews of your fair weathered friends. Some people gets married on a boat, some without a pastor. Therefore your “marriage under God” propaganda does not apply.

2. Second of all, are you seriously still trying to preach sanctity of marriage?! You telling me that two hetero drunken couples who just met in Vegas can get married and get divorced 2 weeks later is more sanctified than two people of the same sex who truly love each other? Another irony.

3. Third of all, your sanctity of marriage once again doesn’t make any sense because the Bible clearly states against divorces. Clearly from the mounting statistics known to all, marriage is a failed constitution that almost always ends in divorce. (60% now?) If you fanatics want to preach sanctity of marriage, out law divorce. BAN DIVORCE! Divorce is spit on in God’s view so don’t go preaching anti same sex marriage propaganda when men haven’t even gotten commitment right. Three Irony in a row, I’m on fire.

All of you fanatical Christians, stop trying to quote the Bible like you know what you are saying. Read it. Truly read it. Listen, try understand. You may learn something.

All you other guys: stop being lab rats and think on your own for once. Stop listening to popaganda.

JR: Most of those points are bogus and invalid like Jo have already pointed out. Schools will not be forced to teach same sex marriage. That is a blatant lie.

Natalie: Sorry, but you are not a true Christians. Real Christians don’t live in churches or hold up churches as your name. Real Christians are out in the real world mingling with the world. But it is true, Children of Light do not know how to talk to Children of the World. Real Christians are out there in the rough, trying to spread the light to the dark places.

You are no better than mormons or cultis who just uphold your judgment and whatever your church spews

I’m a Mormon for NO on 8. Religious organizations should stay out of politics. I don’t support church officials telling me how I should vote over the pulpit and I think this proposition promotes hate and hasn’t had any positive effects on members of the church or society. I’ve seen so much hate, bigotry, negativity, pride, arguments, and even the eating away of heterosexual families come of this. How does this fit in with the 3 missions of the church? It doesn’t. Some proponents for 8 in the church say they love gays, but let’s be honest … many members are homophobic, use derogatory words when speaking of gays and then claim they only jest. I’ve heard so much of this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_el_st_lo/gay_marriage

You know, extortion isn’t very Christian, either.

The Yes on 8 folks are stepping over as many moral lines as possible in an attempt to force their particular brand of morality. I doubt Christ would approve.

Hate speech is illegal in the United States of America. Just thought I’d clear that up.
I’d like to say that I, too, am disappointed that politics had to get involved in this. This was decided, I believe, years ago by a vote of 61% of the people of California. If homosexual couples would like to have more rights, or easier unions, why not just change the current laws that are in place regarding their unions instead of changing the laws that heterosexual people enjoy today? Power of Attorney would take care of the issue of people visiting their partners in the hospital or what not. There are ways of settling this issue without anyone feeling their toes are being stepped on, and without people making accusations of bigotry. Not all heterosexual people are bigots, just like not all homosexual people would key people’s car calling them such, destroy private property for desplaying a Yes on 8 sign, or be spit upon or yelled at (in front of children no less) for holding to their faith and promoting their values, and yet these things still happen.
Gone are the days when Gay people had no legal standing for their safety. If one is threatened they have every legal right to file a complaint with the justice system, just like I have every time I’m called a “cracker” by people walking down my street. There are people of intolerance for every subject one could cook up.
Let’s talk about tolerance. I know of 25 Yes on 8 signs stolen in just 1 1/2 hours today. If people really want to support opposition to 8, instead of just talking about it, or destroying property, or calling names, why not work for it? I drove around today looking for No on 8 signs and couldn’t find a single one, whereas there were several Yes on 8 signs. I haven’t seen a single No on 8 bumper sticker, either.
Why is it, when someone wants to hold to their faith and beliefs, and to those of their children, it is called hateful? I have only explained to my children that God has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman, as is taught in our scripture. What about this is hateful? This is my belief, this is my religion. If you say that Prop 8 has nothing to do with taking away my religious rights, then don’t I also have the right to support prop 8? Vulger people opposing Prop 8, calling me hateful, are taking away my rights, and the election hasn’t even taken place yet.
Will I be able to still teach my children that marriage is only between a man and woman if prop 8 fails? Will I be able to hold to and practice my religious beliefs if “marriage” is redefined?
I don’t propose to know what God is thinking about this, except perhaps sadness that people have become so hateful over the entire issue. Those who claim to know God would not approve us denying rights to all individuals might be mistaken, though. He clearly defines marriage in several passages of scripture as being between a man and a woman. I don’t think He’d take too kindly to those trying to use His sanction for their own gains and purposes.
There are ways to gain all rights of marriage, without redefining the term “marriage”. Sure, it may take longer, but are you then saying your union is not worth it? Are you doing this out of pretense to be “equal?” Equality, in my mind, has nothing to do with it. Homosexual couples will never enjoy the right to conception between the two of them, so they are automatically unequal there. Are they going to then want to redefine the term “family?” where will it end?
In reference to Carrol’s first comment, it is also in the Constitution of the United States that polygamy is against the law, and hasn’t been practiced by “mormons” (a nic-name given to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in over 100 years. However, if prop 8 fails, it could very well be reinstituted, as it has in the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been legal, and a union between a man and two woman has recently taken place.
Perhaps people don’t see that this goes beyond just one moral issue.
Tolerance. Where has it gone? On both sides of the issue. So many comments have been hateful that it is sad to think this is where our country is leading. Can we not agree to disagree on some points without becoming hateful? Can heterosexuals and homosexuals live next door to each other, have neighborhood parties, and still hold their own beliefs?
To call All Christians who don’t believe in homosexual marriages hateful, or bigots is generalization. I do not deny there are some who claim to hold to the name of Christ and persecute people who choose not to follow his faith. Does that mean all do? I also can accept that there are Jews, Muslims, etc who do the same. Does that mean all do?
I might want to also point out that in biblical times the term “divorce” is not what we use it for today. It was a separation of sorts where a man put away his wife in order to take another. It was not because of anything else than he didn’t want the responsibility of taking care of his family anymore, and then chose to take up concubines for his own pleasure.
Schools may or may not be forced to teach children about gay marriages, but since marriage in and of itself is a required field of teaching in the early elementary years, it most likely follows that homosexual couples will want their union to be taught as well, even if it is against the beliefs of others parents. It has already happened in other states, it has happened in this state (with a Kindergarten “coming out” day), where the parents were not notified in advance, nor were they allowed to opt out.
Why is it that when we talk about “loving thy neighbor” it means we have to accept what he/she is doing to the point that we tell our children it is ok, or we change our beliefs? Our neighbor smokes. We teach our children that it is not good to smoke. Does this mean we don’t love our neighbor? No. If there were an election for a proposition supporting the law that smoking is banned in restaurants, would we be “hating” our neighbor by supporting it? We can still love our neighbor and hold to our own beliefs.
Also, Jo, for anyone to feel guilt about letting other people dictate how you believe and live your religion should fall on your own shoulders, for you fear men more than God when you let them do that. Your feelings are completely up to your discretion. You have the means of controlling your actions and feelings and by letting others dictate how you feel or behave is only weakness on your part. I am happy to hear that you have given up that hate and weakness and have once again embraced God. Only by studying His words can we become closer to Him. Also, Ruth and Naomi were reciting vows made earlier, when the two women were joined as a family when Ruth married into the Israelite family and became Naomi’s daughter-in-law. When they recalled these vows it was after Ruth’s husband was killed and Naomi was telling Ruth to return to her family. Ruth claimed no family but Naomi’s because she had embraced the Jehovah as her Savior and could not return to her unbelieving family.
I agree that when new topics need to be addressed, sometimes a separation has to be made. When one is adopted into a family, though that child is a legal heir, he/she is still termed “adopted” and not “first-born”. Not everything has to be redefined. It’s just the way things are.
I’m hoping that when this passes tomorrow all the hate talk will end. It is not hateful to hold to one’s beliefs, or to promote it, which is a current right we have today, and not one we are voting on tomorrow.

Celia (referenced by Carol in #17) failed to thoroughly read the Bible, where it clearly states several times the abhorance of God to the act of homosexuality.
Lev. 18:22
Deut. 23:17
Rom 1:27
1 Cor 6:9
1 Tim 1:10
etc
etc
etc
For homosexuals to claim the Love of Christ in this act is rediculous. Not only did he not accept it, but he condemned it. If you want to use the Love of Christ, do so by advocating love towards each other as we make and decide our own views, not in trying to persuade one to take your views. If you want to use Christ to further your agenda, research a bit first.

Hillary, unfortunately I wasted so much time reading your post. Everything you’ve said was essentially blah blah blah. Especially that huge block of text made it almost impossible to read.

Yes you have your right to religion even if it’s riddled with hipocracy and flaws. I am a Christian as well but I am not a selective one like many of them out there.

You have your right to religion. But your right of religion should not strip away other people’s rights. Plus if you really are a Christian like you claim to be then you would know that Christ also taught about tolerence and I’ve seen less of that than anything.

You have to realize that not everyone is religious and not everyone cares about your religion. Not everyone has a religion marriage either. So religion should have no part in that. You want to be married for religoius reasons and uphold religion in your marriage fine, that’s your right. Don’t tell the government to tell people what to do because you believe God hates gays (which He does not)

Anyone can misquote 3 quotes from the Bible. have you even read those passages I wonder? In those passages, God “abhor” (your words) act of homosexuality which is clealry wrong because if you read it again, it does not say that anywhere. God is against anal sex between men and other men. No where does it say anything about women or gay love. The rest is just made up by other Bible thumping gunho religious nut jobs… gosh that reminds me alot of Hitler.

If you want to continue to use the Bible as an excuse like many out there then let’s quote more than just 3-4 verses.

God also spits upon divorces. let’s take a look at the divorce rate shall we? Should we also have gun ho Christians have propositions outlawing divorce? No because Christians like you are only selective in quoting the Bible as long as it furthers your cause.

The bible also says no one can have any relations with a woman who’s on her period. Let’s have signs about that on street corners shall we?

The Bible also states that women should keep their mouth shut (which is once again taken out of context) which means you shouldn’t even have the right to voice your opinions on religious matters.

All sins are equal in the eyes of God. He also said you shall not lie for even a little one is a lie. Are you saying you are beyond even just a little lying?

Hillary I guess you are as corrupt, sick and condemned as those gays and lesbiens.

Stop your Bible thumping hatred. You are free to your own religion but do not think you can impose your belief on others. Preach the Gospel, not intolerence.

Keep in mind that gay marriages are already around for several months now and the world hasn’t fallen apart yet.

So go sit down, shut up and read the Bible. But don’t try to say God should tell the government what to do.

Telling gays to come up with their own word for marriage is bogus. Ever heard of separate but equal? See how well that worked out?

Black back then weren’t allowed use the same school as white but oh wait! They’re still equal just using different things…

Satan comes in many faces, prejudice is one of them

CONGRATS CA!!!!! way to take a step back in Human Rights!!

I am so ashamed to be part of California right now. Way to take a step backwards… what’s next? Black people can’t marry white people again? You 52% sicken me.

i am a mormon. my husband has chastized me for questioning proposition 8. i think that the mormon church should stay the hell away from innocent people’s lives. you don’t see gay couples knocking on the mormon doors asking for food, help or acceptance. i am so ashamed of the mormon church!

Prop 8 has passed, and I’m personally devastated. But I’ve read all of the posts here, and wanted to share a few thoughts as a gay woman living here in California.

First, a sincere and heartfelt thank you to those Mormons who have stood up to your church and did not support the church’s efforts on Prop 8. I can only imagine how difficult that must have been, and I have tremendous admiration for your principles and bravery.

Next, for those who got your wish — it is really difficult to not hate you the way I feel you hate me. And I understand that you don’t think it’s hate, but I hope you can understand why I think it is. Can you imagine if a state put on its ballot an initiative to ban Mormon marriage, because other Christians viewed Mormonism as destructive to their families, harmful to their children, and the beginning of the end of society as we know it? Sounds preposterous, doesn’t it? Well that is what I just experienced.

I had the right to marry here in California, and you just either donated or volunteered or voted to take it away from me. And I really hope you can understand how hurtful it is to walk around my office at work, or see my neighbors, and wonder who among these people that I have loved, respected and trusted just decided that I should have second class citizen status, because they view my entire life as one big sin — no matter how many good things I have done, no matter who I have helped or the dignity with which I have strived to live my life and treat others — solely on the basis of who I love, as if it’s something I can just turn on and off. You don’t know anything about me, but you have judged me to be unworthy of what you have, and that hurts. For those of you who say you support equality for gays but just don’t want gay marriage, I’d like to know how many of you donated, or phone banked, or put any sort of effort into shooting down that vile Arkansas ballot initiative which now prohibits “unmarried” (aka gay) couples from adopting or fostering kids. From fostering kids! As if these kids would be better off in no home at all over a gay home that wants them. Or really, how many of you donated to anything other than Yes on Prop 8? Equality for gays? I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.

Your justifications to ban gay marriage are based entirely in religion and what the Bible says. The Bible has been used and quoted for centuries to justify all sorts of horrors — slavery, rape, genocide. I know it’s impossible for you to think the Bible could be wrong yet again in this case, but I’m not going to get into an argument about that — we just won’t see eye to eye.

I will say that marriage for gay citizens is not about your religious marriage. I can assure you I have no desire to be married to my girlfriend in a Mormon temple (and no, no Mormon temple would be forced to do that if Prop 8 had failed — I hope all of you cheering your victory are satisfied that lies and fear-mongering fueled your win). But domestic partnership rights are NOT the same. For one thing, heterosexuals in California can choose domestic partnership, or marriage. If there was no difference, why can heterosexuals make a choice between them? Because there is a difference. Domestic partnerships are like marriage-light on one hand — relatively easy to get into and out of, and give some marital benefits. But they are like marriage-extra on the other. If you are married and your spouse, say, goes to graduate school for a year out of town or out of state, you are still married. But for a domestic partnership, you have to live together. You have to share finances. You have to basically PROVE to the state that your relationship is “for real”, like getting a green card for someone. Married people can go on some bender and get married in Vegas and it’s perfectly well recognized by the State, no questions asked. In that regard, the law is different, and is discriminatory against homosexuals.

Some people have posted that gays can just go out and get power of attorney forms or get these commitments by contract. These “contracts” would cost thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the same rights and benefits — between each other, mind you, getting nothing from the state — when a marriage certificate would automatically bestow those same rights and commitments. To say that we could just go get some contract between each other as if it’s going to buy a carton of milk is just flat-out wrong, and doesn’t mean anyone else, like the government or hospitals, has to recognize it.

Also, what if we leave California? What if I get some great job in Texas? Oops — sorry, any rights between me and my girlfriend disappear. Someone wrote that 99.999% of places give us 99.999% of the rights of marriage. That is completely, completely false. More like 5% of places give us anywhere from 2-20% of marital rights.

Why is that? Because federal law doesn’t recognize ANY gay union. We can’t file joint federal taxes (the bulk of everyone’s taxes). Only one of us could claim dependents if we have children. We cannot pass on our Social Security benefits to the other if we die. We cannot get on each other’s health insurance plan unless our companies allow it. Many of you probably read that and think “Good — we don’t want to encourage those gay relationships!” But who are you hurting? It’s not just gays. Like it or not, millions of gay couples have children. Children who have no control over who their parents are. And those children are not given ANY of the legal protections that your children have. If the biological parent dies, a child can be taken from the other parent, because of laws like what passed in Arkansas which prevent gay partners from even being able to adopt children they have raised from birth. That is who you are punishing, the CHILDREN of gay couples for all of you “discriminate for the sake of the kids” people out there. Oh yeah, and the same percentage of children raised in gay homes grow up to be gay as children raised in straight homes. Just an fyi.

All of these laws to “protect” families? They can destroy gay families. I read a NY Times article about a gay male couple with an adopted 5 year old boy. They are married in NY (recognizes the marriage they had in CA) so get state benefits of marriage. They also carry around a thick folder of proof that they are a family (birth certificates, adoption papers, etc.) any time they go on vacation out of state, just in case heaven forbid some accident happens and hospital staff doesn’t allow them to see their little boy because they are not “family”. Yes, gays make PLENTY of sacrifices to have the kind of family and stability you take for granted.

For you Yes on 8′ers — I’m not going to call you names. I’m not going to scream or shout, or make you uncomfortable. But don’t you dare expect me to respect you, as you have demonstrated how little you respect me.

The Mormon church says they are not anti-gay, but pro-marriage. That is double talk; it’s another way of saying a select group of individuals are “separate but equal.” That is wrong. What’s sad is we’ve been through this before! Bigotry is wrong and immoral. The Mormon church insists on influencing government, and that, most of all, is wrong. Ironically, the LDS Chuch members were once persecuted for their plural marriages. The oppressed are now the oppressors.

Something needs to put the church in its place. Tax credits need to be revoked, exemption statuses needs to be yanked. Financial sanctions need to hit the church’s pocket book to really make this nonsense stop. It is against IRS regulations to influence legislation and tell memebers how to vote. What is happening right now is frighting.

For those of you who do not know (here I make reference to comments 48 and 49), the CoJCoLDS has been specifically attacked a number of times by the federal and state governments.
This includes multiple official military actions, as well as federal marshalls seizing the majority of church property.
A number of laws were created by Congress in the 1800s with the specific intent of disincorporating the Church.
The more recent ones have barely hurt it enough to receive honorable mention in the history books.