Mormon Church steps into the Prop. 8 battle

Everyone's got an opinion about Proposition 8, the proposed amendment to the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. Plenty of people and organizations are voting with their pocketbooks, both from within and from outside California.

Now comes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which grabbed some TV time in Utah to urge the 770,000 Mormon church members in California to weigh in on the matter. Here's the story from the Associated Press:

Two members of the church's second-highest governing body, the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, quoted from Mormon scripture on the sanctity of marriage as they laid out a week-by-week strategy for boosting Mormon involvement before the Nov. 4 election in voter registration efforts, phone banks and distributing campaign materials.

“What we're about is the work of the Lord, and He will bless you for your involvement,” apostle M. Russell Ballard said during the hour-long meeting, which was broadcast to church buildings in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho.

So far, Proposition 8 supporters have poured $19,778,208 to outlaw same-sex marriage, about $1.6 million more than opponents of the measure. Add the two sides together and that's about $38 million. Imagine the good it could be doing elsewhere.

The rest of the Associated Press story is after the jump.

-- Veronique de Turenne

Photo: Inside the LDS conference center in Salt Lake City. Credit: Associated Press

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is part of a coalition of conservative groups backing Proposition 8, which would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

Mormons have been active participants in the campaign both as volunteers and financial contributors, giving an estimated 43 percent — some $8.4 million — to the Proposition 8 campaign, according to the Web site mormonsfor8.com. There are about 770,000 Mormon church members in California, but Mormons from outside the state have been encouraged to give money and time to help pass the measure.

During Wednesday's taped satellite broadcast, church leaders asked for 30 members from each California congregation to donate four hours a week to the campaign. They also called on young married couples and single Mormons to use the Internet, text messaging, blogging and other forms of computer technology to help pass the initiative, saying the church has created a new Web site — PreservingMarriage.org — with materials they can download and post on their own social networking sites.

Church elder L. Whitney Clayton, who has been working as a liaison between the LDS leaders and the Proposition 8 campaign, said before the event that it was meant to energize Mormons for the weeks remaining before Election Day.

    “It's a political campaign, and time is short and there's a lot to do.”

Along with recruiting Mormons to work in California, church members from outside the state have been asked to call friends and family at home in California to encourage support for the measure, according to Clayton. He said many students attending church-owned universities have asked how they might help and could be enlisted to make calls.

“In California, the phone trees are up and running. We just want to be able to help, and one of the things we can do is we can organize,” Clayton said in an interview Wednesday.

Officially, the Mormon church is politically neutral and does not endorse individual candidates or political parties. The church does, however, weigh in on issues it considers morally important. The church holds traditional marriage as a sacred institution ordained by God and has actively fought efforts to legalize same-sex marriage across the United States since the 1990s.

Its involvement in the California same-sex marriage debate this year began with a letter from church President Thomas S. Monson asking California Mormons to give their time and money to pass Proposition 8. Monson's letter has been read repeatedly in Mormon churches, and opponents of the forthcoming initiative have credited LDS members with giving the Yes on 8 camp an edge in donations and volunteers.

Some Mormons have criticized the church for wading so heavily into the political realm.

“We know that it is not without controversy, yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the central doctrine of eternal marriage and it's place in our Father's plan,” Ballard said.

Besides Clayton and Ballard, the broadcast featured Quentin L. Cook, another member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

Comments

[Cory]

It's great to see the LDS church stepping up its involvement, just like they did with Prop 22. Yes on Prop 8 has new life and all polls are showing it is ahead of the No vote.

It's time to get other churches in California backing this proposition to the same extent as the Mormons!

[Dineall]

That's the conference center, not the temple. Go Prop 8!

[shocked]

Wow! Most of relatives are Mormon and none of them have ever been this closed-minded about civil rights! Religion has nothing to do with constituitonal rights of ALL citizens. What happened to separation of church and state? How is gay marriage going to affect the church? It ISN"T! It is a personal and private thing. Churches have the choice whether to embrace it or not. Gay marriage is simply a civil rights issue.

[vote4eight@gmail.com]

Good for the Mormons. Its about protecting the institution of marriage. No one is being denied any civil rights. Embodied within the California laws of "civil unions" are ALL of the "civil rights" that married couples have. The only distinction is that "married" is the traditional family anchored by a man and a woman "married" to each other. This model has sustained healthy civilizations for thousands of years. No one is being denied any "civil right" the "civil union" laws assure this. Societies fail and crumble when its citizens are not brought up and taught correct principles. The BEST environment for this is a healthy marriage between a man and a woman. This is the "Gold Standard" for rearing children to be good citizens in society. Are there dysfunctional marriages between a man and a woman? Of course. Are there instances where gay couples do an admirable job of raising children? Of course. However, on a broad societal scale marriage between a man and a woman who bear and raise their children in a postiive environment is the VERY BEST. Again the "Gold Standard." The state of California and its citizens have an interest in supporting this "Gold Standard" to the benefit of all in society. At the same time NO ONE is denied any "civil rights." "Civil unions" were created for that very wise purpose . . . to assure that gay couples have all the same civil rights. Protect Marriage vote Yes on 8. Your children (now or in the future) and society depends on it.

[Doug]

Your assumption that gay "marriage" is a civil right is contrary to the majority of state and federal cases that have weighed in on the subject. It is only valid in California (as in MA) because of activist judges which voted 4-3 to overturn Prop 22.

So far, courts in Maryland, Indiana, New York, Washington, Florida, Arizona, Vermont, New Jersey, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the European Court of Justice, The U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court of Human Rights have held that gays have no "right" to marry. Only split decisions in two state courts have said otherwise. In both of these legal decisions it was clear (if you bother to read them) that the justices in the majority were basing their positions, not on legally defined arguments/precedents, as they are supposed to, but were creating new legislation from the bench.

It appears that the California electorate is just now beginning to realize this.

[Concerned]

In response to:
"How is gay marriage going to affect the church? It ISN"T! It is a personal and private thing. Churches have the choice whether to embrace it or not. "

The Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts that closed-because its constitutional freedom to practice its religion was violated- is evidence of the falsehood of that statement.

Churches, institutions, and individuals that do not embrace same-sex marriage have already been persecuted in the United States and other countries, and the persecution will only worsen if proposition 8 doesn't pass.

Two gay or lesbian people having their relationship openly acknowledged by the government as "marriage" may not affect churches or people's individual lives. But the political agenda that seeks to discriminate against all who do not embrace homosexuality certainly has and will affect people's lives.

But don't take my word for this. Read for yourself at NPR's website:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

[rick]

Mormons:

I wonder how your god would weight in on your infinite tolerance?

[Doug]

It appears there is a misunderstanding of what the word "tolerance" means.

Please look the word up and after that, look up the word "condone".

You will find that they have very different meanings.

Once we can agree on the meanings of these basic words, we can then discuss this topic in a more beneficial manner.

[kyrsten]

It would be nice if church and state could remain separate. It seems to me there's a whole lot of "Sodom and Gomorrah"-type fear going around.

If LGBT people were picketing the Mormon church for the right to get married in the LDS temple, that would be one thing.

But why can't LGBT people have domestic rights, and all the rights afforded to married couples, without involving the LDS church?

Everybody here has some valid arguments. But the whole thing shakes me up a bit.

[googiecat]

I'm glad the Mormon Cult and other extremists fundamentalists are showing their hands, going all out to to rewrite the state constitution to read like their bibles. Maybe now No on 8 will get off their hands and expose the backers of anti-marriage equality agenda for what they are, would be Taliban style theocrats.

[matt]

the mormon church has publicly and very recently said they do not oppose civil unions or benefits for gay-partners. the issue is marriage and the mormons are against gay marriage. taliban-style theocrats? wow, that's a smart thing to say...

[Russell Stevenson]

The "imagine the good that could be done elsewhere" argument is rubbish. I don't want to think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are poured into academic conferences everywhere where no goods nor services result. That kind of money is paid in just hiring part-timers in government agencies that don't even need the help. Heaven knows the millions that is poured into fine clothing each year that is ultimately unnecessary...yet we don't hear a word about it from critics. It's just accepted as a way of life. The tactic is only used when you don't agree with the agenda being promoted.

Never mind that the Church already expends tremendous resources in humanitarian efforst.

Please do come up with a better argument...*sigh*

[meltingpot]

Unbelievable....It appears that the Mormon church is once again stepping in where they Do Not Belong. These are HUMAN BEINGS. My God cares for human beings who do right by their fellow man. I love my wife and kids more than I thought I ever could. I believe that every HUMAN BEING deserves the opportunity to experience that feeling under the eyes of God and there fellow human beings. And for a Church who portrays themselves as a caring religion shows me once again how backwards and sheltered this religion is. I am tired of having to explain to my children their backwards views. Please listen to your heart. It will always lead you in the right direction. I was raised Mormon. I have been married to my wife for 11-years and I have two incredible daghters. I am the Luckiest Dad in the world. I am glad that this doesnt affect me. I am sad for the good people that the churches view hurts....

[Doug]

@kyrsten - gay couples DO have all of the rights that married couples do. It's called a civil union and by state law they are afforded every legal protection that a married couple has. The problem is, and the State Supreme Court even talked about this in their split decision, gays are a legally protected class in California. Once they are permitted to marry, their ability to marry and the marriages themselves are legally superior (by virtue of their protected class status) in the sight of the law to hetero marriages. This is not my opinion, it is fact. So in the case of a religious body refusing to perform a wedding for a gay couple, the gay couple has valid legal grounds for the state to remove that religion's legal witness authority required to perform a marriage under state law. Most people see these side issues and, in light of the availability of civil unions, don't want to go down that path.

@googiecat - it is nonsensical posts like yours that add nothing to the debate.

[Jennifer]

I am so very disappointed that the LDS Church has decided to take this aggressive public stand. I've not been active in the church for years, but I come from a long line of Mormons, have many relatives who are faithful members of the church--and many of them are quite accepting of homosexuality. Some of my Mormon relatives are gay (more likely to happen in big families!). I am sorry for all the good people who feel pressured by LDS church leaders on this issue. Saw the same thing happen with the ERA years ago.

[Jennifer]

I'm also happy to see that quite a few Mormons are taking a stand AGAINST Prop 8, as in
MormonsforMarriage.com
SigningforSomething.org
and of course Affirmation.org

[Doug]

Why are the real issues not being discussed here, instead of "that crazy mormon church that hates everyone" type posts. What good does it do anyone to moan about the mormon church? Does it add anything to the debate?

How about we discuss things like:

1. Will some charities stand to lose tax exempt status? (yes)
2. Will there be anything to legally prevent a gay agenda in elementary schools? (no)
3. Do gays gain any specific rights by being granted the ability to marry? (no)
4. Do non-gays lose rights? (yes)
5. Will those not willing to perform marriages for gay couples lose their State License to marry? (yes)
6. Will speaking out against the gay lifestyle endanger one of being arrested on hate crime charges? (yes)

The list goes on. How do I know these things? Most of them have already happened in places where gays have been granted the right to marry. Why is a civil union not good enough?

[singermom]

I am glad a large institution is supporting this proposition. I know what some of you are saying about how an institution like this shouldn't get involved, and you may not equate this the same way, since it's not religion, but I'm upset other big companies we all use, like PG&E, have donated millions to the anti-Prop 8 campaign. If I could, I would boycot PG&E. They shouldn't be getting involved either in my opinion.

Aside from that, it seems many people are arguing that this is a case of rights. Here's something to think about. What about my right to teach my child what our family feels about homosexual marriage rather than having it taught in public schools? What about my right to know what my child is being taught and not get put in jail when I say I don't want them taught that (yes, it happened in Massachusetts)? What about my right in Prop 8 doesn't pass, that traditional marriage and homosexual marriage be given equal emphasis in schools? If Prop 8 doesn't pass, you know homosexual marriage will get more emphasis in school because it's the PC thing. What about my right to be married in my church and not have my minister's license revoked because he doesn't feel comfortable marrying homosexuals? What about my right as a professional to not do something I morally or religiously feel I can't do? What about the basic first amendment religious freedoms this country was founded on? Prop 8 takes away no rights. If Prop 8 doesn't pass, the rights that will be lost will be the rights of those of us who don't agree with what society deems is "politically correct."

And no, I'm not against homosexuals. Some of my very good friends growing up were homosexual. I know too that the Mormons aren't against homosexual people either, because I associate with a lot of them. But, like someone said before, I do agree that a family with a mom and dad is where a child does best and truly succeeds. And that's a proven fact. Really, what this comes down to for me is looking at my own rights and the future rights of my children.

[Sunny]

I'm supporting Proposition 8. I voted for Prop 22 in 2000, which said the same thing but which wasn't an amendment to the State Constitution. When 4 of the 7 judges on the California Supreme Court voted to overturn Prop 22, they didn't just set it aside; they legallized same-sex marriage. That's judicial activism. Laws are to be made by the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch. This is the reason I am more involved this time around than eight years ago.

[Lloyd]

Mormons are afraid of gay marriage because the US Supreme Court was wrong about 100 years ago when it said that Mormons could not practice polygamy, notwithstanding the separation of church and state.
If gays get to marry, polygamy is next, and the irony is that now the last thing the Mormons want is for polygamy to be legal, because they will have to take a stand instead of letting the "next life" resolve whether polygamy is really of GOD or not.
The social DNA will evolve slowly. Gay marriage will one day be legal throughout the U.S., including Utah. In the meantime, gay people will go on with their loving lives without interruption, notwithstanding they are not equal under the law.
Peace, out.
Lloyd from Maui

[Laura]

HI Lloyd,

Actually, As a Mormon, I think we are most naturally opposed to gay marriage because it is the inversion of our most sacred sacrament / ritual -- temple marriage. Mormons believe that only when men and women are united together in this highest ordinance and then keep the covenants associated with it, will they be able to have a fullness of joy in the kind of life God has. We believe this kind of marriage will last beyond death and through the eternities. It is one of the most beautiful concepts we cherish as a people.

Moreover, I think you are unlikely to see any return to polygamy for many reasons -- the foremost of which is that we are now a worldwide Church, not an obscure frontier sect. Hence, just the logistics alone of implementing such a radical change on a complex international scale would be vitually impossible. In other words, even if polygamy becomes legal in the US, it remains illegal in most places around the globe.

And to further clarify, Mormons by and large believe and accept that God commanded polygamy for a time -- all CHristians have to wrestle with that as it is all over the Bible. And if God ever commands such again...Well, I guess we'll all have to cross that bridge if and when we ever come to it but that's not why I'll be voting Yes on 8.

Best to you Lloyd. Sure wish I was in Maui too ;)

[Let Freedom Ring]

NO on 8. No Taliban in the USA.

[Laura]

Hi Let Freedom Ring,

You know, I think trying to associate the Yes on Prop 8 side with the Taliban makes for potentially “good” propaganda but really doesn’t engage the issue. I recently read an article by ethicist Margaret Somerville that approaches the issue from a secular perspective and still asserts that it is best for a secular society to maintain the definition of marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. I think she makes a compelling case with very interesting and far reaching insights that people on both sides of the issue can at least appreciate. Those interested can read her thoughts at http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

Best

Laura

[Dave]

I voted yes on 8 today! The biggest joy in life is being part of a family and then having a family of your own, ask any child in the adoption programs. God loves ALL of his childern, but it doesn't mean he likes what they are doing. I know I did things my parents didn't like, but they never stopped loving me, that is "tolerance". Where would you be without a mother and a father..... you wouldn't.

[Spartaco]

Prop. 8 is simply institutionalized discrimination and intolerance. Its supporters are intolerant, homophobic bigots. History will remember them in exactly the same light as those who fought giving women the right to vote and allowing African-Americans the right to an integrated education.

If you're against gay marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex. VOTE NO ON PROP 8.

[Doug]

So you think my lesbian neighbor is an "intolerant, homophobic bigot" because she is voting yes on 8?

And, in your book, one who is against circumcision is a Jew hater too?

Don't like female genital mutilation, oops, that means you hate most Egyptians.

Care to re-think your logic?

[JasonJack]

Proposition 8 is important to society. The countries (such as European countries) where gay marriage has already been adapted has shown leads to a decline in childbearing and marriage as a whole.

This church views marriage as a covenant, which makes it clear that there is a link between marriage, childbearing and God. It is already hard in this culture for churches to teach the distinct roles of a man and a woman in the family. This measure will create less respect/expectation of some sort of covenant between a man and a woman to support each other in every condition until death (or, as this churchteaches, longer). and change it to be more a union, often temporary, between any two people, which terms are largely decided between them.

It won't change adults feelings about marriage, but it will affect the rising generation.

[Patti]

Yesterday I saw three "Yes on Prop 8" at the corner near my house. Today they were gone, and in their place was one "Vote No on 8" sign. The subscript on that sign read: "Equality for all." It makes me wonder how taking away three "Yes" signs and replacing it with one "No" sign fits in with equal rights. Shouldn't equality demand placing three "No" signs next to those three "Yes" signs?

While commenter "Spartaco" has the right to call supporters of Prop 8 "intolerant, homophobic bigots" and I have the equal right to point out the intolerant, bigoted nature of such a comment, such argumentation leads to nowhere (at least nowhere I want to go). We have the great opportunity to express our views in this country, but we must be careful to not let the quest for equality silence the voices who disagree or intimidate those who are not inclined to speak out of fear of being labeled as intolerant.

Yesterday I saw three "Yes on Prop 8" at the corner near my house. Today they were gone, and in their place was one "Vote No on 8" sign. The subscript on that sign read: "Equality for all." It makes me wonder how taking away three "Yes" signs and replacing it with one "No" sign fits in with equal rights. Shouldn't equality demand placing three "No" signs next to those three "Yes" signs?

While commenter "Spartaco" has the right to call supporters of Prop 8 "intolerant, homophobic bigots" and I have the equal right to point out the intolerant, bigoted nature of such a comment, such argumentation leads to nowhere (at least nowhere I want to go). We have the great opportunity to express our views in this country, but we must be careful to not let the quest for equality silence the voices who disagree or intimidate those who are not inclined to speak out of fear of being labeled as intolerant.

And yet if we all take the approach of "I don't care what others do as long as it doesn't affect me,” we risk the chance that in three generations, all our great-grandchildren will remember is that we "We didn't care." Well I for one care. I care about my neighbors and the pains they might suffer. I care about this country and its future. I care about what my kids and their kids will have to face in the future. And although there are many who will, for the same reasons, vote no on proposition 8, I will be voting to yes. Why? Because I believe that the best way to teach a member of the next generation to love and respect the differences between men and women and how despite their differences they can work together for the benefit of others as well as themselves is to show them first hand in a strong, stable environment: a marriage.

[Deep Thoughts]

Church Vs State?

Yes, the state shouldn't force IT'S religion on the society like when a few judges thought it would be better for same-gender marriage to be accepted. This was the will of a few, forcing its view on the majority. Secularism, progessivism are State Sponsored Religions and they are forced upon children in school. This new State Religious Tenant of same-gender marriage will be the newest "morality" forced upon our children if we do not stand up for our rights.

[Kristen]

The funny thing to me is that marriage was put in place by God. From Adam and Eve, down to their posterity throughout the ages, all over the world--who can say when a civilization started making laws and calling it government. But, marriage has continued on and on. Why would God make marriage? To continue the human race. Yes, we know there have been millions of children born to unwed parents and that any male and any female can produce offspring.

But, why marriage? So those offspring can be brought up by those two individuals who, in the act of love, created them. It's sad to imagine those individuals who have no clue who their mother was or who their father was. Yeah, we live in a day when you can go and get a paternity test, or whatever. But, that's only been around in our lifetime! Everyone wants to belong. And if they can't be in a traditional family they'll find a substitute (i.e. gangs and unmarried partnerships) but nothing has proven to be as good for all parties involved as a traditional marriage and a loving, functional family.

So the funny thing to me is, if you are gay, why would you want to get married if you can never produce offspring with your partner, as God set it up? The idea of marriage must seem repulsive because it involves the opposite sex, and you have chosen the same sex. If you want to live together--you can!!

There have not been enough studies done to show that children are as well off or better in a home with two gay parents, than in a home with two heterosexual parents. Is it fair for us to subject the world's most largest unspoken population (children) into this type of experiment, just to satisfy some loud cries of a minority?

Prop 8 is about protecting marriage which in turn protects family. If God wanted children to be born to any arrangement of persons he would have made us transgendered.

I understand that many people are atheists, but nobody can deny that a baby can only be produced from one sperm (male) and one egg (female).

[ForProp8]

I have two children right now, both daughters. We have one more on the way. It worries me deeply that my kids could grow up in a world that accepts homosexualality. I do not want my children to come home from school and tell me that they learned it is ok for them to have a homosexual relationship. I am sorry if you think that makes me intolerent of another, but honestly...it goes against the core of everything I believe in. I believe in loving the sinner but hating the sin. Yes, homosexuality is a sin. Mankind can debate about it until the end of time if they like, but it does not change the truth. I guess it comes down to, do you believe there is a God and do you believe in universal right and wrong. It is not that I want to make anybody feel bad, or that I do not care about them, it is about what is right and what is wrong. I will probably move my family to another state if proposition 8 does not pass because my kids do not need to be raised in such an environment.

[Really?]

I used to think that Prop 8 was dumb. I used to think Gay marriage would not threaten my way of life, but in talking with others I realize that it will. I am scared of the lawsuits. Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender are suing doctors, churches, adoption agencies, and several other institutions because of a difference of beliefs.

Basically, I do not want my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to get sued. Our leaders are full of love, and this OF COURSE includes the GLBT community. However, I do not want my church involved in lawsuits over our religious beliefs.

So yes, I would support a law that said "GLBT people can get married, BUT churches DO NOT have to perform GLBT weddings or help them adopt through their agencies, and doctors can refuse doing abortions, transgender surgeries, fertility treatments, or artificial insemination."

Basically if GLBT can get new rights then rightly so churches and people should be able to get new rights.

[DJ]

Meltingpot,

My God cares for all human beings as well. The LDS Chruch, and many others supporting Proposition 8, share this compassion for all mankind. However, as with God, to love does not always mean to condone the actions of human beings.

When I first learned of Proposition 8, I was against it because on the surface it seems like closed minded zelots taking away rights from those who are different. I have learned through my own research, however, that it is not so simple.

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. The rights that many fear will be taken away from same-sex couples are already protected by civil union laws, unthreatened by Proposition 8. Under these laws same-sex couples enjoy every legal protection guaranteed by marriage.

Gay marriage is really about legitimizing homosexuality. There are many issues at risk including the education of children, tax-exempt status of chruches unwilling to perform same-sex marriages, closure many chruch sponsored adoption agencies unwilling to adopt children to same-sex couples, and the ability of churches to continue to perform traditional marriage while excluding same-sex couples.

I love gays and lesbians am happy they are protected by civil union laws, but I do not condone homosexuality and that is why I am voting YES on PROPOSITION 8.

[steve]

I know that one of the catholic adoption services in MA were required to offer same sex adoption but instead of offering such, closed down. do i believe those that brought up the claim are loving human beings? to shut down an adoption agency! i worked at an open adoption agency in California, it's not like you can't find them or they don't exist. to require it is so wrong! unbelievable... vote yes on prop 8. save california from ridiculous lawsuits, now. finally i have a reason to go to the polls, to save california from stupidity.

[Whitney]

I think that Proposition 8 is about a lot more than civil rights for gays. It is about civil rights for everyone! I don't want my church to lose its tax exempt status. I don't want to lose the right to oversee what my children are learning in school. I don't want private adoption agencies to lose their right to adopt unless they agree to adopt to homo-sexual couples. I have heard so many people say that they support it becuase they should have rights and it won't affect anyone else. It is true that they should have rights, but it is false that it will not affect anyone else! It will affect EVERYONE else!

I would support homo-sexual couples getting and maintaining rights, but I don't support changing the definition of marriage to do that. From the beginning marriage has been between a man and a woman, lets keep it that way!

[Seriously?]

Umm... Polygamy? Hello? Who most recently had non-"traditional" marriages? Hmmm? Oh yeah, Mormons! And now they are spending time and hard-earned money to protect the "traditional" marriage definition that they recently eschewed?

sounds like a word that starts with an H... next letter Y.... next letter P.... next letter O... you get the point.

BACK OFF OF CALIFORNIA! Your churches will not be sued. That is very clearly stated in the Supreme Court ruling.

Live and let live... this is a secular country.

[craigcalifornia]

YES ON PROP 8.

First, it all starts with an illogical and shallow analysis of "rick" above: dear LDS (mormons)--I wonder how your God would weigh in on your infinite tolerance?

Well rick, first of all, it's great to know that you understand nothing about LDS theology or Prop 8, as is displayed by your flat out wrong assumptions that are just wrong. It bespeaks of ignorance and the need to more fully research the issue on your part.

As Christians, we of the LDS faith have a bedrock principle of eternal marriage between a man and a woman, and that is eternal, and will never change. So, how will our Father respond? Why He'll say I'm glad that you stood up to peer pressure and fought for what is right and will always be right--the eternal institution of the traditional family, father, mother, and children.

Also, I love rick's other assumption that tolerance means a complete abandoning of one's own moral principles to support the views of others who might be incredibly wrong, such as this case. That's not the definition of tolerance, you might need to pick up a dictionary and go over that one. Two people can still have tolerance and respect for each other while holding divergent views, that's what creates healthy debate and diversity in this world.

So just as I tolerate your ability to speak and argue for same-sex marriage, your need to also tolerate my right to argue for my beliefs for the traditional marriage, and if you're not willing to do that, then i guess you're being that term that is thrown around too easily---narrow-minded.

There are many other arguments that opponents of Prop 8 are espousing, but like the above argument, they are fundamentally flawed and wrong, and will be defeated, since right always wins out over wrong.

YES ON PROP 8!!

[Laura]

Seriously?

I think you are making a very poor comparison here. 19th century Mormon polygamists never once asked the rest of society or the government to legally recognize thier "alternative lifestyle." They would have just been happy if the US government would have left them alone. If those in homosexual partnerships were to follow the same approach as these early 19th century Mormons, we wouldn't ever be having this kind of debate

[carol]

I am an active member of the Church Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In addition to the Church leaders encouraging the members to protect traditional marriage, they also have consistently encouraged the membership to be kind, respectful, and sensitive to those who may not agree with our personal or collective views. I am glad we live in the United States where we can freely express our opinions, but hopefully all of us on both sides will do it with respect, patience, and kindness.

[Laura]

CraigCalifornia,

I really appreciate your commitment to defending traditional marriage and recognize that some opposing Prop 8 have been less than civil here but I don't think it helps the discussion to belittle rick or anyone else.

One of things I appreciated that was repeatedly said in the very meeting this article discusses was by LDS apostle Elder Ballard -- " there are good people on both sides of this issue. "

[Matt in LA]

I am supporting the passage of Proposition 8.

Children are the most under represented citizens in the world.

Let's let the children vote on Proposition 8. Children want to be raised in a home with a father and a mother.

When Prop 8 passes, we can eliminate the teaching of same sex marriage in public classrooms, and return our democracy to "We the People", not "We the Judges."

[Bess]

Why keep on harping about Mormons? Let us talk about the issue itself. Not the Mormons. Hello bloggers- please discuss the issue. We are not voting for or against the Mormons. They are not the issue here. It's funny reading some of the blogs. Way out of touch.

[Jhan]

Men and women, in raising children, have pivotal roles.

Natural, instinctual roles. Roles that cannot be replaced.

Not men's roles by women, nor vice-versa.

Homosexual marriage would undermine that which is only natural. There is a reason why a man and women joined produce offspring.

The human family is meant to mature and blossom through the union of a man and women.

Yes on Prop 8.

[Miguel]

To: "shocked"; Prop 8 is not about civil rights, as the domestic partnership laws in California are already extremely generous, and already provide same-sex couples will all of the civil rights that married couples also enjoy. It is about the legal, political, and most importantly, social ramifications that arise from forever changing the definition of marriage. For example - a class of first graders in SF were recently taken on a school sponsored field trip to a same-sex wedding ceremony as a "learning experience", despite claims that same-sex marriage would not be taught in schools. A doctor was recently sued by a lesbian couple that wanted to be artificially inseminated. He refused because it was against his beliefs, and even referred the couple to other doctors that would perform the procedure. However, they successfully sued him because under the law, as it stands right now, he was not free to choose according to his religious beliefs and was legally obligated to violate them. That is oppression. That is what is leaves me "shocked". Religious freedom is a civil right. Protecting my child from something I don't think he should be taught at 6 years of age is a civil right. Same-sex marriage laws don't create more rights, again, those rights are already provided for in so many ways. Same-sex marriage laws impose others beliefs on you and I in a legally enforceable manner. That is wrong.

[Kevin]

To all those undecided and to those willing to listen,

I'd like to give a little perspective from my own life and offer what I can to the debate. If all of us (both Yes and No sides included) would take a little bit of time to listen rather than throwing out attacks, we'd all be a bit better off in the long run.

I am a gay graduate student. I have been with my partner for about a year now, not yet long enough to realistically get married but certainly long enough to entertain the idea of it. Proposition 8 profoundly saddens me for many reasons.

The first, and most pertinent to me, is that in all likelihood it will determine whether or not I will ever be able to get married to the person I love. To those who are undecided, just think about that for a moment, and put yourself in my position. Put yourself in the position of someone like me who did not choose to be gay, who has gone through a lifetime of discrimination, and who has finally been granted a right available to every single other citizen of California, only to find yourself confronted by people who do not know you, your partner, or the life you want to live with that person, and would choose to deny you happiness.

To those who would argue that domestic partnerships are "the same" as marriage, the very fervor of your stance betrays your point. What is it that you are protecting if gay and lesbian citizens already have the same rights as you do? Is it really biological difference that makes a marriage a "marriage" or is it a celebration of finding one's partner in life? I challenge those who support domestic partnerships but not marriage to really sit down and ask themselves if they are ok with supporting a "separate-but-equal" institution.

What ultimately saddens me, though, is that there seems to be an assumption that homosexuality and spirituality are incompatible, moral opposites of one another. Not true. I come from a religious family, as does my partner. Our families, albeit shocked when we each came out, could not be happier that we have found somebody we love. They were happy that their children found someone that makes them happy. Every family should be so lucky.

God bless,

Kevin

[Scott]

This issue is not about tolerance but about religious freedom and maintaining the sanctity of marriage. If the LDS church was intolerant of homosexuals, then why would its previous highest general authority, Gordon B. Hinckley, prior to his passing, speak about showing unconditional love towards those of alternative lifestyles? As another general authority stated: "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."

We cannot allow the sanctity of marriage - the very foundation of a strong society - to follow down the same path of moral ambiguity that the rest of the world is following. There are things just too sacred to let that happen to. Marriage is one of them.

Domestic partnerships in California provide the same legal protections as marriage. That is an appropriate compromise on this issue.

[Scott]

To Kevin:

I understand and appreciate your point, but your argument that "Is it really biological difference that makes a marriage a "marriage" or is it a celebration of finding one's partner in life?" is the moral ambiguity that is ultimately weakening us as a society. If left unchecked, why couldn't you say that the 20-something teachers who "fall in love" with their minor aged students haven't "found one's partner in life" and they should be allowed to marry? Or why not allow one person to marry multiple partners they have "fallen in love" with? And why does that partner have to be human? Why couldn't soceity allow a person to marry a favorite pet or plant if that person finds the love of their life in that? It's not that those that support Proposition 8 want to deny anyone happiness or that I'm comparing the behavior of homosexuals to those clearly on the fringe of society such as child molestors or polygamists, but opening this can of worms, especially in a society as influencial as California, is asking all of us to go down a slippery slope of societal moral ambiguity. No on Prop 8 is merely a symbolic fight for proponents of same-sex marriage; domestic partnerships offer the exact same rights as those of married couples and that would not change if Prop 8 passes. However, not passing Proposition 8 would open the door to infringements on religious beliefs by making talk against homosexual behavior hate speech. So, the question is, should we not all live in a tolerant society allowing for the maximum amount of rights to everyone regardless of world view as the framers of the Constitution really wanted? Or should one's viewpoint hold hostage the rights of another?

Scott

[Rob]

Any church organization trying to use their religious nonsense to tell me whom I can not marry is a violation of my right to privacy.

I do not need religious approval about what I do and I find their enforcement of their religious doctrine upon me and millions of others, appalling There is no reason why we can not marry, NONE. The only reason that this is even an issue, which it should not be at all, is because of the bigots and their idea of marriage.

They do not have the right to keep other PEOPLE from having the same right to marry as everyone else does. You can not tell me that what is good for person A, is not acceptable for person B. forget it!

We should have the same damn right to marry whom we want, regardless. and people trying to use their religion as an excuse to be a bigot is unacceptable.

If marriage is so sacred, then ban divorce.

NO ON PROP 8! EQUALITY FOR ALL.

[Mageos]

What is marriage? It cannot be just a set of rights, as civil unions under California law demand that civil unions be granted the same rights as marriage. If that is the case, then marriage must be something more.

Is marriage about two people who are in love? On the surface, maybe, but diving deeper into marriage it is about families. It is about providing the best possible environment for the growth and development of the next generation.

This is why a yes vote on proposition 8 is so important. There are many that oppose Proposition 8 that will claim that there are those who marry and never have kids and that there are those who do have kids, but are not great parents. This is very true. There are also some very kind and loving homosexual couples who would make good parents, but this does not mean that they could ever be the "best parents possible?" The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman sets the model for the ideal family. Not all families will live up to this model. Too many marriages end in divorce or suffer from abuse, or start with just a single mom. This does not mean that the model is flawed, but rather an attempt to achieve the model has failed.

In 2000 Californians told their elected leaders that they wished that the model of the family be defined as being between a man and a women. If they were set out to abolish homosexuality they would have also written into the law that civil unions were unlawful, but they did not. It was not their intent, nor is it our intent now to deny homosexuals the civil rights that are associated with marriage, rather we wish to ensure that our children are taught that ideally they should raise their children in a home with both a loving father and a loving mother. If they choose differently, they are free too, it is their choice, but at least they will have been taught the best model.

A hetero sexual marriage provides a framework where children can learn principals that are difficult or impossible to teach in a homosexual partnership that are important to the healthy development of a child. It is difficult for children to understand the differences in genders when exposed to only one. There are stages in the development of a young boy that are best supported by a loving mother. There are others that are best supported by a loving father. The same is true for young girls. There are physiological and chemical difference between men and women that make men and women look at situations differently. This difference is unique to each sex and the absence of this sex in a marriage is not fatal, but certainly is not ideal. In a healthy heterosexual relationship children can see first hand these differences and how to work with the opposite sex in a healthy way. Defining marriage as being between a man and a women protects this ideal without taking away legal civil rights of homosexual couples.

The LDS Church puts a high value on the importance of families and of marriage being the foundation of a family. The Church also suffers from divorce, children born out of wedlock, and other situations that do not fit the ideal model of a family. The Church's push for the passing of proposition 8 not as an attempt to ban homosexuality, but rather to protect the current, time tested model of the nuclear family.

Please vote yes on prop 8, not to stop homosexuality, but to protect marriage...or more specifically to protect FAMILIES.

[della]

In re: to a post I found by: Doug | October 09, 2008 at 07:10 PM

He asked many questions, but really gave no good examples, except to state "it is happeneing in other places". We have all played the game "telephone" and know how information gets distorted from person to person, and without investigating every incident ourselves, we must only use rational to come to our conclusions. I have given some hard TRUTHS to his postings, I would LOVE to hear anyones comments:

With that being said, let me state the TRUTHS in the same order:

1.)" Will some charities stand to lose tax exempt status? (yes)"~ TRUTH:The actual answer is no. If the service they are providing does not endorse a specific candidate, they will be entitled to keep their tax exept status. They are also limited as to how much they can contribute to any legislation. So, if they choose not to follow their rules, (which have been in place for a LONG time,) then they may face loosing their status. However, churches will not suddenly be forced to allow same-sex marriages, and will not lose their tax exempt status if they don't comply. That is not how it works.

2.)" Will there be anything to legally prevent a gay agenda in elementary schools? (no)" ~ TRUTH: There is currently nothing banning that agenda in elementary schools now, just because we allow same-sex marriages, we will not suddenly decide to teach "how to's" in schools. Just like any "sex" education in school, a note will be sent home asking if parents want their children involved in the discussion. If you don't want your child to participate, then don't sign the form allowing it. (To each their own.)

3.)" Do gays gain any specific rights by being granted the ability to marry? (no)" ~TRUTH Are you serious? Really, if a gay man is placed on life support, will his partner have the same right to make decissions that we would give to a wife? Absoloutly not. Do ALL companies allow same-sex couples to share on health insurance policies? NO. If a gay man dies, does his partner inherit his belongings the same way a wife would? NO. This question is so far from true, doesn't even make sense.

4.)"Do non-gays lose rights? (yes)" ~TRUTH Nobody can name ONE TRUE RIGHT that the "straight" person loses by allowing same-sex marriage, they only lose what they FEEL about certain issues, but the government isn't going to suddenly start treating a non-gay couple any different. (And if anyone can speak honestly against me, I would LOVE to hear it)

5.)"Will those not willing to perform marriages for gay couples lose their State License to marry? (yes)"~TRUTH: The government has NEVER told a church who they can or have to marry. Churches will not HAVE to allow a same-sex couple to be married under their roof. (But, can I also point out that no-one seems to care about the agnostic couple ir the athiest couple that gets married in a church? Are they less of a couple? Did the state FORCE them to be wed in that church? No, it is up to the church's discretion, and will continue to be that way.)

6.)"Will speaking out against the gay lifestyle endanger one of being arrested on hate crime charges? (yes)"~TRUTH: WOW, really? I am pretty sure that freedom of speech is one of our constitutional rights. . . .checking. . . YUP, still there!! In PLAIN ENGLISH!! You will still be allowed to speak your mind, but there is a difference between speaking your mind, and spray-painting someone's house. There is a difference between holding a banner, and keying words into someone's car. People, freedom of speach is not being re-defined here, and neither are your rights.

As a "straight" married woman, I believe that people are people. No one told you who to marry, so why should you get the right to tell someone else? My husband is Christian, I am agnostic. . . Oh my!! We are crossing lines!! We are not of the same beliefs!! The church must not recognize my marriage to my husband, because I am a sinner for not believing. . . . but on the other hand, the church does recognize his marriage to me, because he is a believer. . . . Does that mean I am only married half of the time? And if so. . . who decides which half?

How sad that we teach our kids not to be racist, not to judge others, that it is what is on the inside that matters, not judge a book by it's cover, and to love all equally. . . . . "just as long as they are not gay?" How sad = (

[Doug]

@della - I can see you have been reading the no on prop 8 propaganda. You have quoted it almost verbatim. All of the "points" you made are either completely false (as in hospital care decisions, health insurance availability and probate law - please read the state law concerning domestic partnerships, it is very clear), or are "almost" true (but are NOT) because of the way you've chosen to split hairs.

1) Tax exemption status has already been lost in MA.
2) The concept of marriage and WHAT IT MEANS is being taught in school today, RIGHT NOW. Are you trying to claim that if the definition changes, every teacher in the state will continue teaching what marriage used to mean? Of course not. It will simply be a convenient way for opportunistic teachers to promote their agenda. It has already happened here and in MA.
3) You really need to become aware of what the domestic partnership registration act says.
4) One week ago today the MA. supreme court ruled that parents have no right to remove their children from school when gay issues will be discussed. They also ruled that parents have no right to be informed of such teaching. This ruling was made possible because the definition of the word marriage has been changed in that state.
5) The state grants license to individuals to legally perform and witness marriages. That right can be revoked at the pleasure of the state. Most gays would never demand to be married by someone who they know is opposed to gay marriage. There are some that are always looking to push the limit and expand the sphere of influence beyond what "most" would (like the lesbians demanding to be artificially inseminated by a doctor they knew was opposed to it). In virtually every place in the world that has legalized gay marriage, over time, the right to refuse to marry gays has been eliminated. Those who don't comply lose their license to marry. I'm not saying this would happen in CA today or tomorrow. But it WILL happen.
6) Freedom is a funny thing when one type of freedom is pitted against another. We have already seen how gay rights have become superior to religious rights in the case of the fertility doctor. Can you imagine actually forcing a doctor to inseminate someone? In Canada, the right to verbalize against the gay lifestyle has been deemed a crime because, after all, there is no difference between a gay relationship and a straight one in the eyes of the law. One of the last things left that distinguishes one from the other here in CA is the word "marriage".

[J]

This is about rights. Rights alone. Not sex, not religion.

No matter what you tell yourself, if you vote Yes, you are voting for inequality.

Vote NO on prop 8.

www.myspace.com/j4gayrights

[Peas]

Marriage, at first, wasn't a religious act, it was a legal one, done by the state in order to continue legacies and set up funds for families.

Man, and those gays, wanting equal rights! CRAZY. Why don't we just take away the rights of African Americans, and women while we're at it. Seems the same!

I'm voting NO on prop 8. I am NOT condoning HATRED for the people others choose to LOVE.

[Doug]

Two posts in a row screaming about "rights".

Have you been paying attention even just a little?

Which "rights" are you referring to? The Domestic Partnership Registration Act took care of your "rights" argument. Please, instead of just repeating something over and over, try to address the topic in a more rational manner. You can start by listing the "rights" you are talking about.

[Norman]

It is sad how society is more comfortable of two men holding guns rather than holding hands.

[Jason]

For everyone posting: please substantiate your claims, especially Doug. There are a lot of claims being made but the facts to back them up are thin(other than theological, which are subjective).

Be informed.

Make informed decisions.

We've been fed scare tactics and fear propaganda for too long in this strong society of ours to make manipulated choices.

[Doug]

Okay, Norman which claim needs backing up? You do understand that, lacking a crystal ball with which to see the future, we must rely on what we can learn from other places around the world or here in the states where circumstances have unfolded in a similar way. For example, did you know that in Sweden gay marriages are 1.5 times more likely than straight marriages to end in divorce? How about lesbian marriages are 2 times more likely than straight marriages to end in divorce. The lessons we can learn can help us avoid making the same mistakes that have been made elsewhere, especially those lessons learned from the mistakes made in Mass.

[Paul]

First, why does anyone care about someone elses bedroom or household? Does a gay person make issue with the countless hetrosexual couples who marry not out of love, but sex? (see Sarah Palin daughter) or other reasons that make no sense?
Second, whatever happened to seperation of church and state? If any church "tells" it flock to vote one way or another is in violation and should have their tax exempt status removed.
again, worry about your own house. who cares if gays marry. are you blaming your own marriage problems on others? get a life.

[Jason]

Massachusetts court ruling on choice of books to read for school children:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1528.01A

Sweden? This is the USA. I don't care about divorce rates in Sweden. Gay and lesbian divorce rates may be higher there because heterosexual divorce rates are likely very low. Show me research to back this up.

It seems tax exemption for churches is being challenged in Canada for refusing to represent homosexual parishioners. But again, this is the USA. Last I checked Canada was ruled by a different government (about which I'm sure they are pleased).

Granting homosexuals the equal right to marry will not make them citizens above the law. Although this does evoke images of superhuman gays and lesbians... League of Justice- eat your heart out!

If God is really telling you to vote yes, vote yes. Far be it from us to claim what God says about this issue. Don't let the propaganda sway your decision.

[Jason]

(It's USA Today, but at least it's something)

Divorce rates in Sweden:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2005-07-17-marriage-lite_x.htm

[mageos]

Paul, it's not about someone elses bedroom or household, if it were the amendment would not seek to define marriage only as between a man and a women, but civil unions as well. We do not wish to strip any legal from the gay community but rather preserve that marriage be defined as between a man and a women. To me marriage is about the "ideal" family. Not all who enter into marriage have the ideal family, but its definition provides a standard all should try to achieve. Ideally, a child would be raised by a man and a women, thus marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.

[Doug]

Jason - I gave the Sweden example as just that, an EXAMPLE of something that could be learned. Maybe it's germane and sheds some light for us here in CA, maybe it doesn't. You seem to indicate there is absolutely nothing to gain from looking outside CA for insight into this issue. I very strongly disagree, especially in a situation where some want to change a definition that's been around since before the foundation of this country. This is not something to be done lightly.

The article you posted the link for sheds some insight into what happens when marriage is not treasured as a sacred institution and the cost for doing so is children being raised in unstable environments. This underscores the need for maintaining the concept of the "ideal" in which to raise children. There is no dispute that the "ideal" is a loving mother and father. If you have information to the contrary, please post it. Many relationships fall short of the ideal but this does not diminish the need to strive to achieve it. The entire Prop 8 issue centers on fostering the ideal.

[Kirt]

Rather than fighting over the word "marriage", I wish the two sides could approach the issue more pragmatically. What gay couples desire is to have hospital visitation rights, protection from testifying against one's partner, inheritance benefits without a will, evidentiary immunity (not needing to testify against one's partner), and the other legal benefits that accrue to marriage. While I understand that conservatives do not want to "degrade" marriage, I don't think providing civil unions with these rights would fly in the face of God's plan. Gay men and women are sons and daughters of God as well - making their lives difficult does not seem to fit into the commandment to "Love your neighbor". I have known many gay men and women who were more kind and loving than some of the best practicing Christians.

[Doug]

Um, Kirt, are you familiar with the Domestic Partnership Registration Act? Here's a small part of it.

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

Read the rest here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Reasonable people who think like you do are voting for Prop 8 because gays couples in California already have all the legal protections of marriage.

[Jenni C.]

I support Prop 8!!

[Jason]

"ABSTRACT—Does parental sexual orientation affect child development, and if so, how? Studies using convenience samples, studies using samples drawn from known populations, and studies based on samples that are representative of larger populations all converge on similar conclusions. More than two decades of research has failed to reveal important differences in the adjustment or development of children or adolescents reared by same-sex couples compared to those reared by other-sex couples. Results of the research suggest that qualities of family relationships are more tightly linked with child outcomes than is parental sexual orientation."

More:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118584105/HTMLSTART

Prop 8 is the last thing heterosexuals need to worry themselves with when it comes to fostering the ideal of marriage.

[Have you seen this?]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tEKK6La6pk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUlQPnUUGU0

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IypN3c8fBw

[Doug]

Jason - you continue to miss the point. It is a proven fact that the ideal environment in which to raise a child is in a loving home with a mother and father. I invite you, again, to offer any information you have to the contrary. This does not mean there has never been a gay couple capable of raising and loving a child. It does not mean there has never been a hetero couple that fell well short of the ideal. It means that, if we are honest with ourselves, we will do everything within our power to maximize the number of children that are raised within the ideal environment. Telling a gay couple that their union is equivalent to a hetero union with respect to raising children is not the way to do that. A gay couple can never provide the ideal environment. If you can find something factually incorrect about this reasoning I am anxious to hear it.

If anything, we should be taking positive steps as a society to strengthen marriage, not weaken it. We owe that to children.

For some reason you believe that nothing can be learned by looking outside California to see what's happened (then you post a study that uses data from outside CA? Hmm). I urge you to do some research into what happens to the status of marriage once gays are permitted to marry. No matter where you look you will find the same result. Read about how civilization after civilization crumbled and fell after embracing the gay movement of the time. The lesson learned from all of this is once the nuclear family falls, so does society.

Only a few generations ago the "norm" was for two people to enter into a sacred commitment for life. Now, with "no fault" divorce, and all the other changes that have trivialized the marriage commitment, it is no wonder so many children find themselves being raised in make-shift "families". This is not fair to them. Please have compassion on our children, vote to strengthen marriage. Vote yes on 8.

[Jason]

Doug,

Your arguments are speculative and subjective. They have no merit. I appreciate your opinion, but I do not agree.

Being a child of divorce, I agree that it would be ideal to strengthen the institution of marriage. I do not believe that in order to do so we need to place strict constraints on who can or cannot get married or get divorced. I do not believe this is possible. The solution lies within exploring what marriage and family are. We all have differing opinions about this, but whatever it may be, it deserves the same protection and dignity if it is going to strengthen our society.

I do not believe that civilizations falter because of the homosexual rights movement. Civilizations falter because of poor leadership and an apathetic populace. If you have evidence to support your view, I would be very interested to learn about it.

Thank you for engaging in the dialog.

[mageos]

Jason,

Again it boils down to rights. There are no rights associated with marriage that are not available to those in a domestic partnership. Preserving the definition of marriage is about preserving what is seen as the ideal core of a family.

There are distinct physical and emotional differences between men and women. These difference help provide balance in the development of a child. I don't by any means mean that a homosexual couple cannot raise a socialy healthy child or that all heterosexual couples are better than a homosexual couple.

Civilization may not falter immediately because gay marriages, but over time I think it will contribute to the already denigrating demise of the family.

[Doug]

Jason - a wise person will gather insight from the world around him and use that information as a weapon against being blind-sided by unexpected outcomes. You call my assertions speculative and subjective. Do you prefer learning from history or ignoring it (even very recent history)? Please google the works of Pitirim Sorokin, a preeminent sociologist at Harvard. Here is a snippet that describes his work.

"Pitirim Sorokin, the founder of sociology at Harvard University, pointed to the regulation of sexuality as the essential first mark of civilization. According to Sorokin, civilization is possible only when marriage is normative and sexual conduct is censured outside of the marital relationship. Furthermore, Sorokin traced the rise and fall of civilizations and concluded that the weakening of marriage was a first sign of civilizational collapse.

We should note that Sorokin made these arguments long before anything like homosexual marriage had been openly discussed. Sorokin's insight was the realization that civilization requires men to take responsibility for their offspring. This was possible, he was convinced, only when marriage was held to be the unconditional expectation for sexual activity and procreation. Once individuals--especially males--are freed for sexual behavior outside of marriage, civilizational collapse becomes an inevitability. The weakening of marriage--even on heterosexual terms--has already brought a harvest of disaster to mothers and children abandoned in the name of sexual liberation."

This is not speculation. The cause and effect are universal. Look what the Welfare State has done to the African American Family. Did you know that less than 100 years ago fewer black children were born out of wedlock than white children. Now, more than 60% of black children have no father in the home. This all relates to Sorokins conclusion that civilization begins to collapse when males no longer take care of their offspring, which has happened at alarming rates, especially in the African American community.

This is serious business and deserves careful consideration.

[Jason]

While the domestic partnership rights afforded in CA are quite generous, at the Federal level they do not stand a chance. Marriage rights afforded at State levels at least have some traction to challenge Federal definitions of marriage.

You are correct, it is about rights. And about preserving everyone's definition of marriage and family. And about protecting the children raised in one of the many views of how these terms are defined.

[Jason]

Doug,

You are correct, a wise person does look to the world surrounding him or her and makes critical evaluations of the environment and social behaviors.

Your offering is compelling, but seems to argue that allowing homosexual marriage would actually strengthen society. If gay men and lesbians are granted the right to marry and have equal protection under the law, these men and women would take the responsibility for themselves and their families in a way they are not currently allowed to. You are also offering a theory, an old one at that, and using the argument of the welfare state to back this up in an incongruent way.

It is up to more than just the men to care for society. Our patriarchal system still skews the power and the control to favor straight white men, unfortunately, undermining the potential of women and minorities too excel (hence the welfare state). This is changing, slowly, but still to our benefit- solidifying the foundations of what makes America great. Again, it is a pivotal time to examine our definitions of marriage, family, and what our responsibilities as citizens are in this nation.

[Dallin]

I believe that marriage is between, and only between, one man and one woman. I believe that any other definition of marriage is not correct. I believe a parent should have a say in what kind information is taught to their children in schools (see link http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815820715?bctid=1822459319). Please vote YES on Prop. 8 to preserve the traditional family.

[Jess]

Yes on Proposition 8!

I am glad to see that churches are taking such a strong stance on such vital issues!

[Jason]

Less than 100 years ago multiracial marriages were against the law, African Americans were denied their right to vote, women did not have the right to make decisions regarding their own health, and, oh yeah women couldn't even VOTE.

Are we in a worse state for it?

I implore you to back up your claims regarding African American families. Much of the data would be suspect given the treatment blacks in our country's history.

[Jessi]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in a cause and is standing for the cause which they believe to be right. Good for them, they are courteous and respectful in what they say and how it is stated. The following link shows this church's political message:

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

VOTE YES ON PROP 8

[Eric]

I'm glad to see that churches are getting involved. But that influence my vote. What will is the 61% of Californians who voted YES on this same topic 8 years ago as proposition 22.
Yes on 8!!

www.protectmarriage.com

[Doug]

No, Jason. Please read a bit before drawing such conclusions. It's been tried before. Embracing homosexuality has never lead to more stable families. Are you willing to take the risk just because it "might" work out? I am not willing to make that gamble and I hope the majority of Californians agree.

[booger]

Yes on 8: homosexuals will continue to have taxation without representation.

No on 8: churches will continue to have representation without taxation.

[Doug]

Jason - you can start by reading Marvin Olasky's "The Tragedy of American Compassion". You may not agree with some of his conclusions but his numbers come straight from government sources. When you get done with that, check out "The End of Welfare" by Michael Tanner. I'll admit I was a little fast and loose with the figures for out-of-wedlock births because I was going by memory but the general trend is accurate. In fact, a quick google check says the rate is even higher than 60% now - looks like it's about 70%. This is terrible. In Tanner's book he talks about how other races have smugly watched from the sidelines as the Black family has disintegrated and the inner cities have decayed because the damage was only being done to the Black family and nobody else cared enough to put a stop to it. Sadly, he demonstrates the how this is no longer the case and all races, even recent Latino immigrants, are following the same trend.

[Kari]

Its a shame the yes on 8 campaign has to rely on lies. The professor they use in their ads has caused Pepperdine University to ask that their name be removed from the ad. Notice new ads say "titile for identification purposes only" And why is it no newspaper endorses prop 8? Not even the ultra consevative Orange County Register? Because they see the lies. If Prop 8 does not pass, churches will not be forced to marry same ex couples. Churches have the right to not marry anyone who does not adhere to their beliefs. Even a straight couple can not force the Mormon Temple to marry them, if they are not Mormon. So there is no chance of churches losing their tax exempt statis. Children will not be forced to learn about gay sex, nor will parents rights be taken away. Besides, parents have the right to keep their child out of any and all health ed classes. And voters who are showen both the yes ad and the no ad plan to vote no. Prop 8 is only ahead because they have had more money to fill the airwaves with lies. But the truth is a yes vote on 8 will take away civil rights. Please DO NOT BELIEVE THE LIES VOTE NO ON 8

[Daniel]

How dare you use “the benefit of the children” and “social values” to hide their personal bigotry?

Admit it! You don’t like gay people. You think they are disgusting. Admit it. You wish they were all carted away to a camp somewhere out in the desert and this proposition is just your first step to reaching that goal. It’s okay, really. Admit it. We all know that’s how you really feel anyway.

It’s funny how you aren’t teaching our children about the 54% divorce rate in this country, or how you can go on a game show and win a million dollars for marrying a perfect stranger. But those horrid, nasty, evil homosexuals will lurk outside the kindergarten class making sure all the wee little kiddies hear about gay marriage.

That’s what’s disgusting… using kids as a scare tactic.

The people who are for Prop 8—whether it passes or fails—will not be effected in any way. Yet this proposition serves to literally hurt the civil rights of a specific group of citizens in order to please the personal and religious beliefs of another. No matter how you slice it, that is discrimination… and that’s what should scare people.

I refuse to allow my State Constitution to be changed in order to reflect the blatant discriminatory beliefs of an unambiguous sect which will outright harm the civil rights of a fellow citizen.

What’s next, are you gonna go after all the non-Christians? Why not? There’s room in the desert from a few more camps.

[Michael]

I was actually very disappointed by the “Yes on Prop 8” ads. That’s why I’m voting NO. I respect people’s opinion., but when you try to scare me with lies. I can’t believe you or your cause.

The “Protect Marriage” people are telling us our children will be affected. It’s been legal since June, and my kids are just fine. I teach them that “love” is “love”… whether it is between a black man and white woman, a Christian and a Jew, or a Man and a Man. As for them teaching it in schools. FALSE. They are NOT ALLOWED to teach sex in schools. All that will be taught is what’s taught in Massachusetts, that marriage is a bond between 2 consenting adults. Teachers are not required (and in many cases forbidden) to say anymore.

As for Churches losing Tax exemption or Preachers being arrested, guess what? Gay Marriage is ALREADY LEGAL… and no preacher has been arrested, no Church has lost tax exemption for funding Prop 8 or coming out against gay marriage, which they have been doing all over the State.

Freedom of Religion, remember??!

So let the gays have their civil freedom. It doesn’t concern you.

[Jason]

Apparently the Mormon's have forgotten their roots of polygamy. Let he is without sin... well, I'm sure they all know the rest since they are the words of Jesus Christ.

[Doug]

These last few posts seem to indicate the effect of Prop 8 is still not clearly understood. Several times it was mentioned that it would remove "civil rights". Please tell me which one(s) it removes. I really want to know. It is my understanding that the Domestic Partnership Registration Act affords the same rights to gay couples as what straight couples have. Is this not correct? I am baffled as to why something like this would be confusing. Please, if this is true, could everyone else point that out to the next person who says it isn't. This is pretty cut and dried and if we can't at least agree on this there's something wrong.

Next, folks are claiming that because "bad" things haven't happened since June that nothing "bad" could possibly happen in the future. Is that sound logic? Some of the effects will take years or decades to completely play out. For example, it is a certainty that any person unwilling to marry gays will eventually lose their State Authorization to marry. I have never heard any legal expert state otherwise. The reason is that these people who marry couples are "agents of the State". Sure, they represent their particular religion but, in the end, it's the State that grants this authority. Remember, it took 8 years in the courts to overturn prop 22. These things don't happen over night. Up till now there hasn't even been a legal challenge to any church to force them to marry gays. This would have to happen first. Then the case would have to make its way through the system until it reached the Supreme Court of California. Again, this is logical, right?

Then the discussion moves to the children. Please understand that there are very legitimate reasons why some people don't want to equate all adult unions to marriage when it comes to teaching children. You can't change the definition of a word without changing what the word means. To many people it means more than "two people love each other". We have already seen what happened in Massachusetts. It took four years to happen but it finally did. Parents now have no rights regarding this very sensitive subject. Why? Because the legal definition of the word "marriage" changed.

Then, inevitably, anyone who is in favor of Prop 8 is instantly an agent of hatred and bigotry. Do you really believe that? Do you honestly believe what you're typing, really? You do realize that probably all of these people you throw these names at have a beloved friend or relative who is gay as I do, don't you? All of these people are just making all of this up simply because they hate? In my heart I just can't believe this can be true. I can tell you of cars being spray painted, homes vandalized, people being verbally and even physically attacked and property being stolen by those against prop 8. It never occurred to me after observing these actions to assume ALL people against prop 8 are this way. Why would you assume that ALL people for prop 8 automatically hate anyone? By that logic, every parent hates their children. Please don't use these words when you know they aren't true.

[Jason]

Doug,

We will continue to agree to disagree. I appreciate all the arguments you have offered, but there is nothing more than biased support for your views. You have your right to your opinion, and I honor that. The fundamental issue I have with this campaign is that, in any society, when one group is denied the same basic freedoms as the rest of the group, no one is free. I leave you with the quote by Pastor Niemoeller:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

The church can denounce homosexuality all it likes, that is its right. However, our government is built on the ideal that all citizens are extended the same rights and protections. Affirming the churches views of homosexuals by enacting them into civil law takes away the protection, freedom and dignity of gays and lesbians. If this is allowed to happen to one group, it can happen to any, including the group with which you identify yourself. This is not the type of society I want my children raised in. I love this country too much to let something like this happen.

When you speak of the disintegration of society and civilization, it begins when we have our rights taken away, not when rights are granted to all. Extending rights to every American only strengthens our nation and brings protection to everyone.

No on 8.
"...liberty and justice for all."

[mageos]

Jason, I too have appreciated reading the comments between you and Doug. One comment on your last comment is that all laws take away the rights of someone. Laws against theft take away the rights of thieves in favor of the property owner, Speeding laws take away the rights of a fast driver in favor of safety and so forth. The right to have the title of married is not a basic right. Gays would have every right to date, live with, be intimate with, raise kids with a same sex partner. The only right that is at stake in prop 8 is who gets the title of Married, all other rights remain the same. One could say that you are being just as biased against those in favor of a traditional marriage. My biggest disappointment with those opposed to Prop 8 is how the have tried so hard to paint the Yes campaign as intolerant when in my opinion (based on domestic partner rights) they are being just as intolerant of my opinion.

[Jaime]

This is how the presidential and vice-presidential candidates stand on the issue of gay marriage:

John McCain: NO on gay marriage
Sarah Palin: NO on gay marriage

Barak Obama: NO on gay marriage
Joe Biden: NO on gay marriage

Both conservatives and liberals understand that gay marriage is not good for our country. Vote "YES" on Prop. 8

[Doug]

Jason,

Please do more than just claim my views are based on "biased support". Be specific about which claim and why. Have you read the two books I recommended? I wish you would. After that, read the report here: http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf. It says much better than I can why true "marriage" can only exist between a man and a woman.

You seem to possess an underlying assumption that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal in every respect. I think this is the root of our disagreement. They certainly are equal as individuals but we are not talking about individuals. When discussing the union of heterosexuals and the union of homosexuals there is an incredibly huge difference between the two. This is not some crazy notion I'm speaking of. Very few State Supreme Court Justices disagree with me. It just so happens that four of them are in California but, as a whole, those four are in the minority. Is this just another one of my opinions based on "biased" support? Why is it okay to ignore the fact that one group is responsible for propagating the species? Why is it bigoted to recognize this gigantic difference? Are the three dissenting California Justices bigots? Do you understand why it is not unreasonable to treat the two groups differently - yes, even with respect to the law? Please tell me specifically where the the logic fails. Domestic partnerships are specifically designed for couples who are inherently incapable of procreation. Marriage is specifically designed for those who can. Did you know that a heterosexual couple can't form a legal domestic partnership? This is consistent with the reasons homosexual couples should not be allowed to form a marriage. They represent two different things.

[Linda]

I'm deeply disturbed by the LDS church's strong advocacy of yes on 8. This is for two main reasons. One is that this is another typical reason why I fell away from the church and secondly, we are in terrible economic times.

As someone who once believed in their teachings and even attended BYU, I was able to open my eyes to their long history of inequality - against blacks, against women, against homosexuality. I realized it was not a religion that I wanted to be associated with. This yes on 8 campaign makes me cringe. I'm increasingly ashamed of my Mormon upbringing and still active extended family members. I wouldn't be surprised if future church leaders will have a revelation 100 years from now that will disprove this latest issue as well. It is simply sad. I have two young children and have no concerns if they grow up to be gay. I want them to grow to be happy and healthy. If they are gay, then that is what it is and I'll accept and love them unconditionally.

Secondly, the economic factor. Millions of dollars have been given by Mormons to this campaign in spite of the thousands of families losing their jobs and losing homes in foreclosure?? I'm disgusted. I implore LDS people to please not spend any more money on this campaign. Instead, perhaps sponsor a family that could use some financial assistance - many (hetero) families are suffering so why not support them. And, yet your church thinks it is more important to not lose their "tax-exempt status" (whether or not that is even reality). What a wildly inappropriate use of power over their members. It's disappointing.

[ddo141]

YES ON 8!!! EVERYONE...DON’T BE FOOLED by the position that Prop 8 is about Equality, Love All, etc. IT’S NOT AN EQUALITY ISSUE! It’s about same sex advocates aggressively pushing their agendas down the children’s throats in schools when parents are not there. This is not an equality or "just love everyone" issue. A No on 8 vote denies children their RIGHTS. Of course, gays don’t care about this. Marriage between a man and woman gives an unborn child the BIRTHRIGHT to know his/her father and mother, and for parents to teach their children moral laws. A Yes on 8 vote protects children’s rights and moral laws. I’m no gay hater. After Yes on 8 passes, gays will have all the same rights they have today. Gays can call it a civil union, a peace accord, a love commitment, but it’s not marriage. Sorry guys, but it’s as if that “domain” name (or term) is taken. You need to find another term. VOTE YES ON 8!!!

[derek]

dd0141 - I'm so sorry you are so close minded. Some day, someone will discriminate against you, and it's going the hurt. Badly.

NO ON 8! Separate CHURCH and STATE! Stop DISCRIMINATION of gays and Lesbians! WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE! What changes? Gay and Lesbians have been in committed relationships for YEARS. What difference does it make to any supporter of Prop 8 if they are officially married?

Discrimination should NEVER be part of a state's constitution! It fundamentally opposes who we are as Americans. We should have the FREEDOM to make our own decisions.

$47 million has been spend on this proposition -- both pro and con. Think of what we could have used that money for, if we had just let our government do it's appointed job. Shame on all of us. We all lose this one.

[Heather H]

Mormons are not the only religion supporting a YES vote on prop 8. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim denominations are also rallying to support moral unions between one man and one woman as outlined in each group's religious texts. I'm thrilled that these religions are faithful enough in their practices to take a stand. It is not inappropriate to acknowledge that some things are right and some things are wrong.

VOTE YES ON PROP 8!!

[Doug]

Present and future parents,

Please realize that some of you will have gay children no matter how hard to want not to believe this.

And realize that your gay child will grow up knowing that they can not enter into loving committed relationships equal to those of your other children. Can you feel how different and inferior they will feel at their core? So many of us gay people know this now.

Know that your gay child will feel less equal no matter what you say and how hard you try to talk yourself out of how your pro-stance on 8 cemented this inequality.

You want to control how you and your family deal with gays but please realize that for 10% of you your gay child will pay the price for your short sidedness.

[Doug]

Doug (not me, you),

Are you asking people to disregard their moral convictions because if they don't they'll hurt people's feelings? Is this how you read your moral compass?

All of us have our crosses to bear. Some have crushing burdens and others seem to have it much easier. Condoning a person's behavior simply because they are predisposed to it is not a rule I choose to follow. If a person decides to follow their predisposition and create a legal union with a member of the same sex, that is their business and I won't stand in their way. When those same people decide to call their union the same thing that mine is called, thereby creating a new legal definition for my union, now it's my business.

There are unions that are inherently procreative and there are unions that are not. They each have their legal definitions and they each have identical state rights. Why in the world is that not good enough?

[R]

Because civil unions aren't recognized outside of California. Access to equal status under federal law trumps your medieval bigotry.

[reality]

mageos, you are comparing homosexuals with criminals.

[mageos]

R, Same-sex marriages are not recognized outside California in a number of states, so that wont change anything.

reality, I appologize for appearing to compare homosexuals to criminals, that was not my intent. Rather I intended to show that the law is biased and discriminates. Motorcyclists are not allowed to ride without a helmet even though many would like to. People with a hybrid car are allowed to drive in the car pool lane with out a second passenger. This discriminates against those who don't have the money for a hybrid or those who have jobs that require vehicles that are not currently available in hybrid models. But that does not mean that their basic rights are being violated.

The same is true with gay marriage. The basic rights are all there through domestic partnerships, why do I have to give up my right to have marriage as between a man and women? Should we also legalize plural relationships? Bestiality? Necrophilia? Should we allow the legal age of minors to be sexual involved with adults to 14 or 16? I am sure there are a number of 14 year olds who legitamately are attracted to older adults. And of course we should not have to tell their parents about the relationship because that might cause them to be abused, like if they need an abortion.

[Doug]

Yep, we're all just a bunch of "medieval bigots". Barack, Joe, John, Sarah, 9 State and Federal courts, the majority of State Supreme Court Justices, 3 International courts, the European Court of Justice, the U. N. Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and even William Jefferson Clinton and his dang old Defense of Marriage Act (which is the reason your gay unions can't be federally recognized).

BIGOTS I tell ya. Every one of 'em.