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

[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 = (