Al Sharpton: Churches should focus on social woes, not gay marriage

New York activist Al Sharpton is of course the latest to join the Proposition 8 parade. In a speech over the weekend, he questioned why churches that backed the ban on gay marriage aren't focusing on bigger issues such as violence and poverty. From the Southern Voice website:

From the pulpit of Tabernacle Baptist Church on Sunday, Rev. Al Sharpton called out the Mormon Church and other conservative faiths for mobilizing to support Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage in California while refusing to be as involved in any other social concerns.

“It amazes me when I looked at California and saw churches that had nothing to say about police brutality, nothing to say when a young black boy was shot while he was wearing police handcuffs, nothing to say when they overturned affirmative action, nothing to say when people were being delegated into poverty, yet they were organizing and mobilizing to stop consenting adults from choosing their life partners,” Sharpton told a packed audience on Jan. 11.

“There is something immoral and sick about using all of that power to not end brutality and poverty, but to break into people’s bedrooms and claim that God sent you,” Sharpton added.

--Shelby Grad

Comments

[Zach]

More spin, Tom? are you seriously trying to tell me that my poll is invalid because it came out 40 months ago and your study only 36? That it is a more "unscientific" assessment of population than a government (not a scientific) report that didn't even assess public opinion? Wow, pull the other one. And once again, don't try to tell me about the study verifying anything, because those who conducted it were so deeply divided that some rejected the very parts you crow about. That was a political report, more compromise than consensus, far from a comprehensive scientific or legal study. The people of France didn't need convincing, they're already over half convinced, but as usual politicians catering to fundamentalist special interests are dragging their heels.

Sad as it is, there is no birthright to having two biological parents. Period. Further, it's totally irrelevant given that no one is talking about taking kids away from their biological parents and giving them to gay people. Some of these kids were parented by gay people in past marriages, so what do you suggest, forcing them back into marriage with the mother to create that birthright? Others have no parents and were adopted by gay people, what do you propose to fulfill the "birthright" of these kids? Something is not a right if everyone does not fundamentally have it, and you're delusional if you think stopping gay people from parenting can make living parents magically appear for every child.

[Teressa Spencer]

TomH you are repeating yourself and trying to make something out of a big pile of nothing.

One: I get that a same sex marriage is not the literal "same thing" as a traditional marriage. Of course not. Neither is a marriage of two white heterosexuals the same as a marriage between a Latino and a white heterosexual. They are not the "same thing" but the difference between them is not one that warrants second class civil rights under U.S. constitutional law. Neither is gender.

Enough with France! Who cares, it is not relevant to U.S. law and you know it. Beside, you conveniently ignore my Spain point which I think trumps your France point.

Your remaining argument is weak and will not last. Why? Because you hang your hat on: gay couples can't marry because children originate from heterosexual sex. That's like saying women can't have the right to vote because the sky is blue.

You still won't answer me about gay couples raising children. They are all over and becoming more and more common. You simply can't discriminate against those families in favor of the few left who are traditional families. Single parents, adoptions, gay couples parenting, they all deserve the same protections under the law as families. Period.

You have yet to give us one good reason why other families (and the children in them) do not deserve the same rights and protections as families with a heterosexual couple who are both the biological parents of the children.

Of course you haven't. There is no good reason. And certainly none that will stand up is U.S. courts.

So you can keep fooling yourself that's it's all about the word marriage but that argument is full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.

[TomH]

Zach:

Your criticism of my post is accurate in that France's Commission's report was after the ban against gay marriage was in place - which is somewhat irrelevant since gay marriage was never legal for French Citizens anyway.

The Commission's findings, after the fact, I think, raises its validity to new heights, AFTER having studied the outcomes of gay marriage in other countries, and finding that children's rights are superior to adult sexual preferences.

The point being that the open minded French could not be persuaded to believe that adult preferences are superior to chidren's birthrights and that it considers the ban, legal, moral, and constitutional based on the grounds that gay marriage can and would eliminate child birth rights.

The poll you cite was unscientific and of course is quite old.

Just think how this approach will play in the next vote for gay marriage. What do you think the American electorate will choose? Will they choose children birth rights over adult sexual preferences? Most likely.

Children are much more vulnerable than adults with strong, but unnecessary, sexual preferences.

The emotional appeal for the children will speak loudly to the sensitivities of the majority of Californians. Freedom loving people will choose children over the preferences of adults nearly every time.

Terressa,

About civil rights, most of us don't mind if gays and lesbians want to visit their partners in hospitals or inherit their estates upon his/her death. I don’t see any problem granting these permissions. The problem we have with gay marriage is the word "marriage." To argue that gays and lesbians possess a right to redefine marriage is ludicrous. We can certainly originate a legal contract that represents their "same sex" togetherness without calling it marriage. Why? Because marriage means something altogether different that is by nature, a union or a legal contract, and a social construct wherein the parties are of the opposite sex - a man and a woman. Gay and lesbians cannot enter into "marriage" because their union is the joining of "same-sex" partners. There is a natural and fundamental difference between the unions. I understand why gays and lesbians want their union called a marriage too - they don't want to be viewed any less than heterosexuals.

However, it has nothing to do with being "less" but rather being different in fundamental ways that make it impossible to be "the same." Same sex marriages, are by nature, either husbandless, wifeless, motherless or fatherless. Heterosexuals marriage have husbands, wives, and or mothers and fathers. The unions cannot be equivalent because they can never be the same. Non- equivalent unions must have different names to properly identify them clearly in society, in social studies, in the law, etc. If Adam wants Steve to be his partner, visit him in the hospital, or inherit his wealth, I don’t see a problem with that. If he wants Steve to be the legal guardian of his children, then so be it. However, Adam’s children do not need another father, unless Adam dies or is incapacitated – a designation that arises from biological connections, or from adoption, or from marriages. In marriage, these designations and connections are natural – within gay unions, they are contrived. Adam’s children, biologically, mentally, and emotionally need the care and love of a mother in order for them to have the best chance for the best life and the greatest pursuit of happiness, generally speaking. Gay “marriage” by design, eliminates that chance for children (existing, adoption, surrogacy, invitro) of gays and lesbians. This creates a legal issue for children’s rights. Every child (present or future) has the right to a mother and father, when a marriage is created.

[Zach]

TomH, A quick internet search shows that you're still misrepresenting the situation in France. Have you done your own research on this, or do the ends of propaganda justify the means? It seems the Parliamentary Report on The Family and the Rights of Children was a review of the country's tiered marriage laws ALREADY in place; those laws were not the outcome of that report. Even members of the committee which drafted the report have rejected the recommendations you cite, and with a poll in Figaro magazine in August 2005 showing a majority of the French support gay marriage, it looks like they are as divided as we on the matter.

So much for the "liberally minded French" being on your side.

[Teressa Spencer]

TomH - And why is France so relevant anyway? By your thinking, I could say it's equally significant that Spain, traditionally a very conservative and predominantly Catholic country, allows gay marriage, and so since they do we surely should. Spain is a "feather in the cap" for marriage equality advocates.

But I think we both know I didn't bring that up earlier because it really is not relevant to U.S. law.

[Teressa Spencer]

The fact you include the word "surviving" in your challenge foreshadows that no matter what is cited you will claim that the same-sex unions are the reason the society no longer exists. 'Big bad gay marriage will bring the world to its knees.' More BS.

Ancient Greek and Roman cultures had same-sex relationships. The Japanese tradition of Shudo was prevalent from the medieval period until the late 1800s. In China through the Ming dynasty period people would contractually bind themselves to same-sex partners in elaborate ceremonies. It wasn't until the 4th century that Constantine made a huge fuss about same-sex relationships (based on his interpretation of Christianity) and began what is today a prevalent religious anti-gay sentiment.

Even since then, there are historic examples. Legal contracts from late medieval France have referred to "affrèrement," roughly translated as 'brotherment.' In the contract, the unrelated "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to joint property. Like marriage contracts, the unions had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe as well.

But all of this is irrelevant and you know it. There is no basis for requiring precedence in another culture from another time when forming American secular laws today.

You ask, "When have preferences ever been made into rights?" Hear me clearly: being gay is not my preference. It is my natural born identity. I would have to be a fool to prefer to be gay as long as their are people like you in the world. Your insistence that being gay is a preference allows you to justify your bigotry under the basic assertion that I bring it on myself. Garbage. Your bigotry is your problem, pal.

You say, "Domestic partnerships and civil unions address sufficiently" the need for equality. Not true. On a federal level there are over 1,100 rights and protections granted automatically upon marriage. Your statement sounds a lot like separate drinking fountains or bus seats for African Americans. Case law has proven "separate but equal" is not enough.

You say, "Sociology has proven that the children need a mother and a father." Baloney! Children need a loving, nuturing home. A man/woman set of parents who are neglectful and abusive do a disservice to children. Please, use just a little common sense. Good parents are good parents. They may or may not be the biological sperm and egg donors of those children.

Over and over you assert that "there is no human need for gay or lesbians unions." False. The need is called equal protection under the law. There is also no "need" for races to inter-marry but that doesn't mean we disallow it. Your argument holds no water on even the most basic logical challenges. Is that the best you can do?

You say marriage equality is not a civil rights issue. Rep. John Lewis, ally and close associate of Martin Luther King Jr., has written and said, "I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism." I think he's a greater authority on the subject of civil rights than you.

Do you agree that procreation is not (and never has been) a prerequisite for a marriage license?

And once again: please tell me how whether the gay couple next door to you is legally married or not affects you.

I'm also still waiting on this one: what do you propose for gay couples who are raising children?

[TomH]

In 2006, the French Parliament did research into whether allow gay marriage was in the best interest for its people. They wrote what is the called the Parliamentary Report on The Family and the Rights of Children. (January 26, 2006). They formed 14 round tables and traveled to Spain, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada to asses their reforms.

The recognized that the Family is the first locus for the development of social relationships, rearing children, and transmitting values. They also recognized that the rights of the children come first. They found that the rights of the children were more important, INCLUDING when the child’s rights conflict with the parents’ lifestyle choices.

The recommendations and outcomes of their findings:

• France prohibited same-sex couples from marriage.

• France prohibited same-sex couples from adopting children.

• France prohibited same-sex couples from using surrogate mothers.

• France prohibited same-sex couples from medical practices that would cause the birth of fatherless children.

• They found that the rights of French children were more important than the sexual preferences of French adults.

As progressive as France is when it comes to relativistic morality and equal rights, their reaction to gay marriage is a big feather in the cap of anti-gay marriage campaigns.

If the liberally minded French can’t be persuaded, how can gay marriage advocates expect conservatives to be convinced of their equal rights arguments?

[Zach]

TomH also misrepresents Sociology (and psychology, for that matter). No credible studies have "proven that the children need a mother and a father." Various studies have shown a child does BETTER with both his birth parents, but it's not necessary (no one's talking about taking such children FROM their parents, anyway) and no study has shown a child brought up by gay parents is any worse for it than a child with straight parents. In fact, it's been found that if a child lacks a parent of one sex, they'll simply find another adult to act as that role model.

[Jim]

TomH, you're misrepresenting the French case. Gays and lesbians are prohibited from adopting, in the absence of a same-sex marriage, if the child's biological parent has not relinquished parental rights over the child. In France, gays and lesbians may still adopt, a same-sex partner may still adopt their spouse's biological child, and same-sex couples may foster children.

Of course, what happens in France has no bearing on the U.S. or California Constitutions.

[TomH]

Terressa:

Your claim that there is a successful precedent of gay marriage in human history in an untenable position. While true that a small minority of humans have experienced same-sex attraction throughout history, gay marriage or rather gay unions have never been stable with or without governmental decrees. I challenge you to cite a surviving society in human history wherein the opposite is true.

Same-sex attraction is not a new human skin color, age, gender, sex or race. It's just an unnecessary sexual preference that causes intense feelings in some humans. When properly identified, it is contrary to one's gender - a contradiction of biological identity.

When we set aside religion and culture, we can clearly see that there is no human need for gay or lesbians unions. Human society does not need the union to survive or thrive.

Emotional appeals to your personal consciousness on these matters may seem a defense, but when have preferences ever been made into rights?

Gay marriage cannot be a civil rights issue - however, equal protection under the law is a rights issue - one which both Domestic partnerships and Civil Unions address sufficiently.

Marriage and these other contracts, by nature, can never be equal - because the unions of the partners within them are not the same.

The union between a man and a woman and its significance to society is superior to that of two men or two women. Why? Because human nature/human society needs heterosexual unions, but does not need gay or lesbian unions. The first union is necessary - the second union is not necessary.

We understand that gays and lesbians desire that human society "just decide" that gay marriage is just as necessary and valuable as heterosexual marriage but, in truth, and by nature, that can never be.

By nature, adults, children, and Government need heterosexual marriage to survive and thrive. This is why traditional marriage is so important.

Trying to force human societies to redefine traditional marriage as equal to homosexual marriage, just to validate the "feelings" of a small minority of people, perpetuates a fraud against human society.

The unions can never be equal because the unions are not the same. There are real differences between heterosexual marriages and gay marriages, as I have already outlined.

Child birth rights are indeed real and up until recently, have been taken for granted. Because they are self-evident, they have not been clearly defined in the law - because they are a part of human nature. Sociology has proven that the children need a mother and a father.

However, recently, the Country of France, and the U.N. have begun the process of legally identifying them. France banned gay marriage and from gays and lesbians from adoption, surrogacy, and in-vitro fertilization based on children birth rights, after studying the effects of gay marriage in Canada, the UK, Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands.

[Teressa Spencer]

TomH, you also wrote:

"Would I want a gay man to marry my daughter? Sure, if the gay man understands exactly what he’s choosing and is determined to honor his marriage. Contrary to belief, gay men have the power to refrain from gay sex and can have a normal and health [sic] relationship with women."

I think I just realized what's going on here. Are you gay? I was asking myself why on earth you'd even remotely consider it a good idea for gay people to marry heterosexually, when we all know that's a lie, and then it dawned on me: maybe you have this hostility because you consider homosexual intimacy some great temptation that the wicked enjoy and the righteous deny. But why would you consider it a temptation at all unless you are gay and feel "tempted" yourself? If you are, please say so and we can get you connected to some support resources so you don't have to deal with it by lashing out at other gays out of some hatred you feel for yourself or your choices.

If that's not it, then I would appreciate you elaborating on why you think gay people marrying someone of the opposite sex helps anything. That really seems like a horrible solution. Horrible for the gay person, for their unwitting spouse, and for any children they may have. It perpetuates creating marriage built on lies over being built on love. That can't be right.

[Jim]

ThomH, You may want to read the minority opinions in the In re Marriages case. The judges were, in fact, unanimous that gays and lesbians deserve equal protection under the law. The disagreement was only about what the proper remedy is. (Two felt we should take a "wait and see" approach to determine if domestic partnership could somehow be made equal to marriage, one felt that the Court should have sent the issue back to the legislature [which had twice voted to legalize same-sex marriage] instead of just ordering marriage equality from the bench.) It's easy for the anti-equality crowd to portray a 4-3 ruling as a "deeply divided court," but that wasn't actually the case.

[Zach]

Funny, TomH, that you would accuse Teressa of stressing something incorrectly when you try to characterize a majority judicial vote as tyranny by the deciding voter. Shall we say that Prop 8 was forced on everyone by 4% of Californians? Some would, but it would be just as deceptive and inaccurate.

Sorry the basic laws surrounding the issue bore you, but Teressa is right all the same. Just because the majority vote decides some things in our government does not mean it is guaranteed to always be allowed to do so. It also doesn't mean that it can't be challenged for being inapprorpriate, though you marginalize such an action as an "experiment." And contrary to George Will's opinion, tradition is not the primary factor of judicial decision in the U.S.

Gay men "can have a normal and health [sic] relationship with women?" I suppose if you'd call such a sexless marriage of convenience "normal," sure. But I'd say such marriages to fulfill social obligation are exactly what's wrong with marriage today. People should be marrying to settle down with a person they WANT to settle down with outside of pressure by family or social expectation. They should be having and raising kids for the same reason - that they WANT to, as such desire leads to real effort. That effort is what makes marriage a stabilizing force financially and socially, at least in places where divorce is allowed, and that SHOULD be its purpose. Gay people have obviously shown the effort, and in a world where children often go without parents COMPLETELY, I'd say any argument about "birthright" or the ideal mother/father situation is the boring and irrelevant argument.

But then, we come back to the fact of a legal contract that discriminates by sex and a violation of equal provision of the law. Also boring stuff, but the true heart of the matter.

[Teressa Spencer]

TomH, you said:

"Therefore, the criticism that one justice should not decide the controversial issue of legal gay marriage, is valid."

I disagree. How many justices would be enough for you? They are empowered with a job and they performed it. Matters of equal justice under the law are not up for majority vote. You just don't like the ruling.

"...gay marriage has no significant precedent in human history."

That is incorrect. Do some research and you'll find that you are wrong. And besides, it's irrelevant to this discussion, otherwise we could say, 'Because women didn't used to have the right to vote the must therefore never have the right to vote.'

Of course people can amend the Constitution, but there is a process (in question here) and even when the process is properly followed "the people" still can not take away equality from a minority group of people.

"...(marriage) serves no real purpose as a union of two men or two women."

Wrong. What a disgusting thing to say. Every single purpose that it serves between an opposite-gender couple it also serves for a gay couple.

Not every gay couple chooses to raise children, but then neither does every straight couple and procreation is not and never has been a requirement for a marriage license.

"there is no necessary reason for gay marriage in human society."

How horrendously wrong and cruel you are. What do you propose for gay couples who do raise children? They're all over. Unwanted children placed through adoption or the foster system, biological children of former heterosexual relationships, planned children through surrogacy or in vitro. Those are families too, yet you offer not a single word or thought to their rights and status in society. Shame on you.

I disagree with your notion that a child has a right to a mother and father. Biologically, of course every new human life requires a male and a female. That does not equate to each offspring having some kind of "right" to access to, or love from, those biological donors. Where in our Constitution do you see a guarantee that every child born will have access to its biological parents? It's nonsense and you're clutching at straws.

Please explain to me what you mean by "imposition of gay marriage on the people." If gay couples get legally married that in no way affects you unless you are one of the parties in that marriage. Please tell me how whether the gay couple next door to you is legally married or not affects you.

Children need caring, nurturing, loving, supportive environments to grow up in. If that is provided by a mother and father, single mother, gay couple, straight couple who are non-biological, foster parents, grandparents, whatever, then the child is well served. If that is not provided (also regardless of household make up) the child is not well served. Pretty simple.

But surely your most crazy idea of all is that gay people ought to marry someone of the opposite sex and just deal with it. What a downright asinine thing to say. It only shows that you have no regard for the members of that sham family but rather place your dream of society being 'Leave It To Beaver' over the realities and liberties of the individuals. Absolutely crazy. I feel sorry for your kids that you would marry them off to a gay person who will never feel true love for them, just to suit your prejudices.

Why is someone like you who apparently is educated so completely unable to understand a simple concept like the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage? All of the statements you throw around about marriage are perfectly true (and not in question) within the sphere of religious marriage. They are not relevant to civil marriage, which is nothing more than a legal contract licensed by the state. Religion has no authority over legal marriage. Nor does whatever else might be driving you. No authority. None. That is why sooner or later you WILL lose this argument.

[TomH]

Teressa:

You’re stressing the wrong emphasis in your argument above. There is only one Governor, not a panel of Governors empowered to enact laws. However, in the case of the Court, there is a panel of Justices who have been empowered to interpret, and in this case, enact laws. Therefore, the criticism that one justice should not decide the controversial issue of legal gay marriage, is valid.

Your comments concerning the legal challenge of Proposition 8 are boring and irrelevant. I know full well the legal arguments that have been proposed to challenge the very legal constitutional amendment on Nov 4. Just like gay marriage, this latest legal challenge is yet another “experiment.” Just as the social experiment of gay marriage has no significant precedent in human history, the latest arguments against Prop 8’s success, also lacks any legal or constitutional precedent in case law. Further, the reasoning of the legal challenge is absurd:
“If people truly can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights, then by its reasoning, judges could declare unconstitutional ANY constitutional amendments revising judicial judgments.” Who is going down?

Your comments about pure democracy are irrelevant to this discussion since Prop 8 was successful because of a representative democracy. The right of Californians to make laws through the direct democracy of referenda is as firmly established as it is loosely exercised.

Recently, George F, Will accurately identified the false vulnerability promoted by gay advocates:

“The breadth and depth of California's toleration regarding sexual lifestyles refute the worry that gays are a vulnerable minority menaced by majoritarian tyranny. Proposition 8 merely restored to California law the ancient and nearly universal definition of marriage, a definition resoundingly endorsed by the U.S. Congress (85-14 in the Senate, 342-67 in the House) and written into the laws of 47 other states. California advocates of erasing the right to same-sex domestic partnerships could not even get sufficient signatures to put their measure on the November ballot.”

Would I want a gay man to marry my daughter? Sure, if the gay man understands exactly what he’s choosing and is determined to honor his marriage. Contrary to belief, gay men have the power to refrain from gay sex and can have a normal and health relationship with women. Your statements about “appeasement” are irrelevant and the statement that “all males and females have equal access to marriage still stands.”

Marriage was created and designed for the union of a man and woman – it serves no real purpose as a union of two men or two women. To suggest that the union between a man and a woman is the same as between two men or between two women is the worst kind of absurdity and mistake in identity. Are you seriously that obtuse?

Allow me to help you make these important distinctions: a union between two men results in no wives or mothers. A union between two women results in no husbands or fathers. A union between a man and a woman results in husband, wife, potential mother and father.

That you wouldn’t understand children birthrights, holding the positions that you do, is not surprising. Take a moment and study France’s commission on keeping gay marriage illegal because gay marriage eliminates child birth rights. Legal gay marriage (where adoption, surrogacy or in vitro fertilization are employed) results in a child parent relationship, by design, wherein the child’s mother or father is eliminated by Government decree. Children do not need two dads or two moms. They need a mother and a father – this is the natural RIGHT that children have.

Adults, children, and government do not need gay marriage – there is no necessary reason for gay marriage in human society. That gay advocates want gay marriage is clear. However, human society does not need or require gay marriage.

The advocacy and the imposition of gay marriage on the people is “an unassailable tyranny of a minority -- judges -- over any California majority.”

[steve rodriguez]

I would like to respectfully disagree with Rev. Sharpton, but I do not want to be branded a racist!!!!!!

[Zach]

Hey Jasen, how does it feel to have written up all that doomsday rhetoric for it to be all complete nonsense? Marriage is a legal contract between two people. It's not about who simply WANTS to do what. No justices are considering this case thinking, "Hmm, well these people WANT to do this, so we'll have to decide if we're going to give in to them." Marriage about equal application of a legal contract to all people, not some moral decision. Sexual laws are rulanother creature entirely. Take a sedative, read up, and make an argument not spun purely from an overactive imagination.

[Teressa Spencer]

TomH, you are woefully misinformed. You conveniently do not mention that the California state legislature not once but twice in the last four years passed legislation allowing same-sex marriage in California only to have it vetoed by a single man, Gov. Schwarzennegar. The governor said he was deferring to the courts. And we know how that turned out.

Passing legislation is a long, rigorous process by elected officials held accountable by their constituents. Both attempts (2005 and 2007) were perfectly fair and I'd say a lot more robust than a slim margin of a simple majority vote, particularly after the lies and deceit the Prop 8 gang relied on.

So don't give me your "one judge" blather. You certainly wouldn't have a problem with a one judge majority if they had ruled your way.

And no, the March arguments will not just be rantings. There are at least two solid legal grounds that will be challenged, one of them being the revision vs. amendment process argument. It will be argued, and I think successfully, that a slim margin of voters can not be the basis on which to revoke something as basic as the right to legally marry the person you love. (Voters are not above poor judgment; if they voted to bring back slavery would you favor that too?) Just watch, your side is going down pal. I can't wait.

We are a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is basically mob rule, and that's not what we are. Look it up in any civic textbook. The rights and protections ranted to each citizen are not up for vote like a popularity contest. If they were equality would be out the window.

Oh and you say, "All males have equal access to marriage and all females have equal access to marriage." Are you seriously that obtuse? How would you like it if a gay man married your daughter? Or a lesbian married your son? That's a miserable marriage and a divorce waiting to happen, all to make buttwipes like you feel appeased? Gimme a break.

How would gay marriage "eliminate children's birth rights"? I don't even know what you mean with that. But I"m pretty sure it's something stupid. The only way gay marriage would affect children is that kids being raised by gay couples (adoption, surrogacy, in vitro fertilization) would be equally protected under the law. Why do you not want those children treated equally under the law? Just to suit your prejudices?

[Vern]

I don't always agree with Sharpton, but on this issue is correct!

[TomH]

Teressa:

The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 in favor of the so-called right that you consider unalienable.

So, when it comes down to it, what we're really talking about is "one" Justice is to determine the extremely controversial and unclear issue?

The citizens of California knew better and used the legal process to OVERRIDE the lone Justice who was determined to impose his/her will on the people.

A ban on gay marriage in California IS constitutional. The people voted (a legal process) and have made it so.

Within marriage, there are two recognized genders - male and female. All males have equal access to marriage and all females have equal access to marriage.

What gay advocates want is a "new" social experiment that nature itself has not identified. Homosexual men do not represent a new gender. Lesbian women do not represent a new gender.

Further, there is a larger issue. Gay marriage will eliminate Children's birth rights Even the liberally minded country of France decided to ban gay marriage for this reason.

I repeat, gay marriage bans are constitutional if they are written into the Constitution and follow the legal process- such is the case in California.

The arguments we'll here in March are the rantings over a lost election. The No-on-8 side had the media, Hollywood, Government, and millions of dollars more than the Yes side - they still lost.

[Teressa Spencer]

"Bob" -

1. In California marriage is indeed a right. The highest court in our state ruled last May that equal access to the civil institution of legal marriage is "a fundamental right." Which makes you wrong on that.

2. It doesn't matter who voted for Prop 8. This country is a representative democracy, not a pure democracy (aka mob rule). Check any Civics 101 textbook. The will of a majority can not be enough to take away rights from a protected minority.

So Prop 8 did something that the court had already ruled to be unconstitutional. Which is why eventually it will be overturned, it's just a matter of time. Arguments are scheduled for March.

[Brownz77]

RE: "The church does organize to fight social ills every day. Their humanitarian effort is well funded, systematic, and volunteer driven. See http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/humanitarian-services. There are over 50,000 missionaries in the world at anytime, paying for it from their own pockets to serve communities and help strengthen families from the roots. Every man and woman in the church is assigned families to visit, teach, and befriend, with the goal of helping fight these social ills.

Al sharpton did not question if whether or not the church organizes to fight social ills he said specifically and I quote "It amazes me when I looked at California and saw churches that had nothing to say about police brutality, nothing to say when a young black boy was shot while he was wearing police handcuffs, nothing to say when they overturned affirmative action, nothing to say when people were being delegated into poverty, yet they were organizing and mobilizing to stop consenting adults from choosing their life partners,”

A.) Nothing to say about police brutality- no outcry from the churches
B.)Nothing to say when a young black boy was shot while he was in police handcuffs-
No outcry from the churches.
C.)nothing to say when they overturned affirmative action-No outcry
D.)nothing to say when people were being delegated into poverty- no outcry
F.)Yet they were organizing and mobilizing to stop consenting adults from choosing their life partners.

I'm totally against gay marriages and is this the only problem the churches consider worthy of
standing up against? Does it mean that everything else that happens in our social setting is less important? i.e. Police Brutality and the overturning of affirmative action. There is a lack of moral obligation if the churches only chooses to fight the battles they deem worth fighting and ignore others. Churches were build on helping and serving humanity unconditionally, especially the poor. Thats God's will and purpose, for all of humanity to serve the poor and less fortunate, regardless of the battles presented. Yet you have some church organizations who choose to organize and fight against consenting adults, and who these grown up adults should spend the rest of their lives with as opposed to organizing against police brutality and poverty with the same vigor and outcry. I Agree with Mr. Sharpton 100%. Their are issues just as and much greater than organizing against same sex marriages, that should be addressed and these issues just just fall short off the radar when everyone, especially the churches can detect and see the injustices and choose to do nothing about it.

[Jasen]

One of the greatest precepts about the United States of America is that everyone can voice their opinion, even the dull and ignorant they too have their story. Keep humble and continue to do good works for humanity. Service to your fellow human being is one of the greatest honors in life. To succeed in life is to make even one person's life easier. Humanitarian efforts make peoples lives' easier; conveying the message to abstain from moral decay, filth, and perversion and assisting to enlightening people's minds is another. Al Sharpton is confused and trying to grasp power any way he can. How hypocritical to demand gay marriage from the pulpit of a church that claims to honor God and his decree. How twisted and illogical. How can one claim to adhere to the precepts of the Bible and then say that we should condone a man sleeping with another man. The travesty is that our society in general is on slippery slope with a declination that is ever quickly increasing, we will not be able to correct it after it becomes acceptable. For the love of God please people of faith stand your ground. The very foundation of our nation’s strength is continually undermined by validating (legalizing) worse and worse sins. Eventually it will be “OK” to marry your sons and daughters and have sex with them. Hey if Hollywood says it’s hip and cool then eventually the young will grow up brainwashed and accept whatever they see on MTV and CNN. Hey if you son or daughter doesn’t radical oppose you marrying them what is wrong with it. Why can’t I marry my grandmother and make sweet love to her. We are both consenting adults right? Also who are you to tell me I can’t marry my son and my daughter and my grandmother at the same time and have wild orgies every night? We all consent and aren’t hurting anyone else right. We aren’t infringing upon your inherit God given freedoms. Also when everyone in my family develops Aids I expect the highest quality care because I deserve it. I can’t work and give nothing back to society but I want make love to my grandmother who has been making love to another man behind my back without my knowledge and the man has a fetish about having sex with animals and his diseases are transferred back to me. It’s my choice. It’s my life and I want the best possible care you perfectly honest taxpayers can or can’t afford. Forget your stupid lattes and your new BMWs and your expensive hooker habit, PAY FOR MY FULL BLOWN CASE OF AIDS right now. Yeah I’ve made some bad decision but they are mine to make and it my choice… remember. And while your out hard at work (paying for my first class health care treatment) I’m sleeping with your husband or wife because I’m bi-sexual and now it’s our choice. Don’t try to control your significant other he/she/it is an adult too can do whatever they please. It doesn’t concern you… what is that you say? Oh you don’t want me to infect your significant other but we’re consent and it’s our choice. Oh well he/she/it will probably just leave your ignorant ass anyway. Tah tah I’m off to F everything because nothing matters and it’s my life to do what ever I wish with… it’s called agency and you don’t know better than I.

[Dustin]

Reading comments like these from both sides just make me certain that the only way to really deal with this issue is for U.S. Federal, State, & Local Governments to simply cease dealing in the admittedly religious institution of marriage. So, starting Jan 1, 2010, all governmental entities will no longer recognize or deal in marriages; from there on out, the government will recognize and offer Civil Unions which will offer all of the rights, priviledges and responsibilities previously afforded to marriage. Any two consenting adults (and humans, at that, for those of you nutjobs that want to argue that it's just a slippery slope to _____) may obtain a Civil Union. It is simply a partnership between two people that is recognized by the Government and afforded all kinds of special benefits.

For ease of continuity, all previous marriages will be converted to Civil Union Status automatically. New Civil Unions will be available immediately for all who qualify and apply. Civil Union status is NOT automatic and is wholly separate from the religious ceremony/committment/ritual known as marriage; if you would like to also obtain Civil Union Status, you will need to apply separately from any religious ceremony/activity/agreement of your chosen faith.

Problem Solved! You can keep your marriage, and you can keep goverment out of your religious beliefs.

But you will keep your religion OUT of my government.

[Terrence]

First of all he is refering to the black church and its stance on many social issues other than gay marraige. He has a point a valid point. I may not be a suppoter but mine is a religous reason but i cant change no one's mind its up to God he has to touch there heart

[Bob]

1. Marriage is not a right! It has never been defined as such and cannot be equated with rights set forth by the Founding Fathers. Yelling, blaming, and whining will not make it a right or overturn a constitutional amendment.

2. Minorities, including African Americans, voted significantly in favor of proposition 8. Start preaching tolerance to your own people, Rev. While you're at it, practice it yourself. You've become the persecutor you once stood against!

[Zach]

Jason, I agree on your final statement, that government getting out of marriage is probably the best solution. But the arguments which preceed it are full of holes. As Teressa pointed out, "separate but equal" is not acceptable, nor is it ever equal. Federal benefits are still denied gay couples because a "civil union" is not a "marriage." But because some people don't like the semantics of it, gay couples should just accept that? That's unfathomable in America!

You might remind me that they should accept it because they cannot procreate, but the facts that they CAN raise children and that no straight couple has ever been denied a marriage license due to being infertile are gaping holes in that logic. Now that marriage has been "defined," I'd say the next step is to rule the whole institution unconstitutional, being as it now discriminates by sex and fails to provide equal benefits under the law. Convert all marriages to civil unions and be done with it.

If you can choose to have sex with a man or a woman, you're bisexual, only they have a choice. Homosexual behavior IS as much a choice as skin color - or rather, racial identification. You suggest gay people ought to change who they are to get equal rights (again, unfathomable in America). How, through expensive therapy and misrepresentation? How is one's race any different then? Expensive skin therapies can change your skin color. We just elected a black president, who, having 50% black heritage, obviously made a choice about his race. The bottom line is that no one should HAVE to change who they are to be treated equally in America.

[Teressa Spencer]

For those who claim gay couples in California are just raising a fuss and already had equality, guess again. if you would take a little time to educate yourself by reading the California Supreme Court decision from 5/15/08 it is spelled out in perfect clarity exactly why the state's domestic partnership laws are not sufficient. It essentially amounts to "Separate but equal is a concept that's been proven to be insufficient and unconstitutional." That is the word from the highest court in the state. It's available online.

But of course it's easier for all you bigots to blame it on the very same gay couples you are discriminating against. Unbelievable, you even blame your own bigotry on the victims of your bigotry. Very charitable, very Christian .

People whined and complained that gay people had transient relationships and too much casual sex. Now that more and more gay people want to settle into stable, committed lifelong relationships and we get blamed for that too, and we're not allowed legal equality. Face it you bigots: you're going to discriminate against gay people no matter what they do.

None of us care what your personal opinion of us is, or if you "accept" us. Who cares? You don't have to understand gay people, or like them, or ever associate with them if you don't want to. Truly, none of us cares anyway. But you do have to shut your yaps and allow us to gain equality in the scular society we all share. That is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Seeking social acceptance and demanding equality under the law are two different things. We're doing the latter.

[Jason]

“It took 117 years — until 1947 — for the Church to grow from the initial six members to one million. … The two-million-member mark was reached just 16 years later, in 1963, and the three-million mark in eight years more.” http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/growth-of-the-church

The Church would have had little ability to impact any issue outside of Utah and Idaho in the 1950s and 1960s, let alone any national issue. Those numbers quoted about are world-wide membership, not just United States membership.

Also, if the Teamsters Union asked its union members to contribute directly to a given political campaign instead of using its union member’s dues to support that political campaign, would anyone be raising a stink over it? Maybe so.

[Kristal]

I don't think Rev. Sharpton was trying to imply that the Mormon church does not help people. I think what many Christians myself included take issue with is spending upwards of 20 million dollars to take rights from fellow Americans when there are people hungry and homeless in this great country. Marriage is a sacrament that everyone of God's children deserves. If people want to protect marriage why not mobilize against divorce or polygamy? Not that it makes a difference but I am STRAIGHT and A Christian and I am appalled at the actions of these churches playing in partisan politics.

[Jason]

No doubt this has been brought up before, but “The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage” (linked below) provides a good non-religious perspective. http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

A male-female relationship is inherently procreative. A male-male or female-female relationship is not. Same-sex civil unions in California already had and still do have all the legal protections marriage, and have had it since 2005. Same-sex couples still have the adoption rights just as much as anyone else in California. Proposition 8 was all about redefining the word "marriage" not about legal rights, rights that have already been extended to same-sex couples in California. No one’s rights have been taken away. Only the use of the label "marriage" has been taken away. Gays still have the right to "marry" in California, just not someone of the same sex.

In a same-sex relationship there are no husbands or wives. One partner can’t father the other partner’s child in a same-sex relationship, which is what husbandry is about. Which one provides the sperm? Which one provides the egg? Marriage is recognition of that inherently procreative relationship, even if no children result from that relationshhip. The other legal perks attached to marriage have already been extended to same-sex couples in California since 2005.

Regardless of the drives behind it, homosexual behavior is still a choice, as is heterosexual behavior. Skin color is not a choice. I can not choose to be black or white. But I can choose whether I have sex with a male or a female.

Even so, I expect that a possible course of action is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and to provide only civil unions instead. This is what Spain does. You go to the government and get your civil union. Then if you want, you go to the Church and get married. I think that would provide an adequate separation of church and state.

[Shelkennedy]

It is very apparent that Al is absolutely right. It isn't about religion at all, it's about the ethics of what is true. Rather Gospel, Morman, or whatever you are, this is a classic case of having to much time worrying about someone elses house when yours needs cleaning. Bottom line, regardless of the fact of none belief, gay people are still going to sleep with one another. Al said one thing that we should pay attention to...the church didn't come together when Bell was shot fifty times by a policeman and killed, but two gay consenting adults whose alive are the worlds greatest problems. Get real...these people are just like those of the sixties don't want to change there way of life. It's going to happen any way...just get over it and spend time with your own family.

Signed straight woman.

[KLS]

As a Black woman I usually despise Rev. Sharpton. I've always see him as more of an opportunist than an activist. I agree wholeheartedly with what he's saying about the churches. Ironically this is what I've always said about him. I believe than instead of phishing for racism, and making Black people look petty, that he should also focus on bigger issues. I'm sure he probably does lots of good work for our communities. However, I only see him when someone says N*gger. We have bigger issues than that. Who really cares whether someone says that word anyway? I don't. It only makes that person look ignorant to me.

[Mark]

Sharpton's point was: How much faster the Jim Crow laws could have been over turned years earlier had the members of Mormon Church acted with the same vigor to overturn Jim Crow that they acted to support Prop 8? Sharpton's point was the Mormon church can't be bothered to speak out about issues of social equality, except to take away protection for gay couples. Sharpton's point is all of the charity work the church might do is negated by the churches at best questionable records on civil rights. I've looked, there was no prominent 1960s or 70s era civil rights leader from the Mormon Church. At best they passively supported racist institutions, and more likely actively supported segregationist policies as the banned blacks from their clergy until 1978.

To those who believe the church itself wasn't involved and it was just church members acting on their own behalf, please live in reality. We've seen the leaked strategy memos, we've seen the donor list. There was an organized effort by the Mormon church to support Prop 8, to say otherwise is to deny reality.

[Jason]

It is interesting to me that Al seems to make this an "either, or" situation. By supporting a ban on gay marriage, the LDS church must then obviously do nothing about other injustices. It isn't possible in his mind that the LDS Church does both. If the LDS church spoke out on every crime, every injustice, every problem, the leadership wouldn't have time for anything else. We could make a list of all the injustices that Al Sharpton never spoke out on. No one can possibly speak out on everything. So what the LDS church does is try to speak out on major issues and empower individual members to be activists about other injustices. The other breakdown in his comments is that the LDS church has seen more persecution than nearly any other major religion in America. Joseph Smith is one of the best know religious martyers in the world. The LDS Church knows what it is like to be persecuted and has worked ever since to be at the forefront of helping others in need.

[Mizlady]

I have no respect for Al Sharpton. He only shows up when the camera and microphones are on. He has no behind-the-scenes work to show for all this "stop the violence" talk. He is the least bit active in the communities he claims to represent. When a black man is shot by a white officer then "Rev" comes out from under the rock.

The subject of God and his take on gay marriage does not need to be defended. He said in his word how he created Man to live and how he populated the Earth. People have their own opinions about what that means for gay marriage.

But I will say if gay people are monogamous and happy with their "Life Partners" then why do they need a socially acceptable word to define their unions and cry out for people to accept homosexuality as a social norm- if they don't care about how others receive them? No one is saying in the gay marriage debate that gays don't have the right to choose, but that gays would like to take a word like marriage and define it as something other than it's originally intended meaning as a "religious" or non-religious union between man and woman- This "fight" energy could be placed to better use also. California has problems just like the rest of the world- the church is doing what is suppose to do and have done for years. Sharpton and others can call them and me bigots or what ever you may, but may the real GOD have mercy on us all if the "GOD" that "non-bigots" want everyone to know inspired the bible and then contradicts himself/herself/themselves so that we can all do what WE want to do, then what purpose does GOD and the bible serve to his creation and why was "religion" created? People the world is doing exactly what the bible said it would- the signs of the end are ever present. Don't lose yourselves in this MADNESS!!!

[Jason]

For recent information about humanitarian efforts, look at this link:

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ddf3515e04f5e110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

... and then scroll down to the following reports:

“Water Project Provides More than Just Water,” Ensign, Jan. 2009, 78
“Church Sends Atmit to Ethiopia,” Ensign, Jan. 2009, 79
“Aid Brings Hope to City in Iraq,” Ensign, Jan. 2009, 79

Looks like the LDS Church is working on the poverty issue. One could also argue that by asking 50,000 missionaries (on their own dime) to invite others to "come unto Christ" via Mormonism is one way to tackle the violence and brutality issue as well.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11/29-30#29
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/4/13-15#13
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/42/27#27

[Teressa Spencer]

What a bunch of hypocrites here. "Protecting marriage"?? Protecting it from what?? If a gay couple wants the same legal status for their union that a straight couple has, there is no threat to straight couples. To assert there is is nothing but a lie. That is exactly the same as a white person saying that to grant equal rights to other races hurts the white race. It's garbage. The heighth of bigotry, and you bigots who spew it don't even have a clue you are bigots.

If you're really interested in strong families: when a gay couple in love commits to a life together, and adopts a child, why does that family and that child not deserve the same rights, protections, and priveleges that a traditional family automatically gets with the simple act of purchasing a marriage license?

Bigots! You are horrible bigots who are mentally incapable of separating your personal religious beliefs from the Constitutional concept of legal human equality. The church does not hand out marriage licenses. You should be ashamed of yourselves, yet somehow you are proud of the way you use your church as a weapon to keep gay people from legal equality. Disgusting.

Time will show it. Gay civil marriage equality will happen eventually, and all of you will be shown for what you are: bigots pretending what they care about is families.

[Don]

Al Sharpton (the "reverend") doesn't have a clue about thet extent of humanitarian good the LDS church does. That's because his view of church is that it is to be used as an extreme liberal political platform. So according to the good reverend, when a Church doesn't speak specifically to the beating of a black man, it is borderline criminal. Yet I have never once heard Sharpton decry the beating of a white man. He is racist to his core, and should be the last one preaching to the choir.

[Paul T]

This is sad, just reading all of these post. Not recognizing social woes and gay marriages are both an abomination to God. So before we get on here and start saying what we think and what we feel let us go and find out what is written. Jesus was the biggest conservative and the biggest liberal their ever was. We don't need Al Sharpton to, because it's already laid out for us, just read the bible.

[Zen]

TO.: Russell | January 13, 2009 at 10:54 AM

From jst reading that link of yours. Its sends a message to my brain that it was MADE from the mormons. And prob. has a biased level of info.

[TomH]

Al Shaprton's call to focus more on poverty and brutality is important. But his logic can't withstand the smallest amount of scrutiny.

First, Sharpton's position that God wants men to partner with men or for women to partner with women is untenable. The Bible is very clear that such a relationship is not in God's plan and is against his wishes (that means his commandments.) I bring in the Bible because Sharpton made his comments in a Baptist Church and Baptists believe that the word of God is infallible.

Second, churches nor prop eight did and do not prevent gays and lesbians from choosing life partners. It only prevents the government from calling that a marriage, an institution created and designed for heterosexuals. it also prevents gay and lesbian groups from forcing the government to enforce this new definition and social experiment on individuals, schools, and churches. Gays and lesbians will continue to choose "life partners" with or without prop 8.

Third, Churches nor prop 8 did not break into people's bedrooms. Gays and lesbians will continue to sleep together and have sex.

Fourth, what if some conservative Churches can do both social outreach well and defend traditional marriage? What if they are extremely effective at taking care of the poor and also very effective at mobilizing the people to act to protect marriage? What then Mr. Sharpton?

Finally, the Mormon church is such a church that can effectively do both. However, in California, it wasn't the "Mormon Church" that had the power - it turned out to be the citizens of California who are also Mormon, who got out there, went to work, got the donations, and created the awareness. They accomplished that task in spite of the power of the media, Hollywood, California government, and gay activists.

Al Sharpton would be wise to stick to politics outside the Church rather than make fallacious claims within it.

[ster]

I don't think the Mormon chuch spent very much money if any money at all on the prop 8 campaign. Many many people who prescribe to the Mormon faith, however, did personally give money as also did many Catholics individuals, Born Again Christian individuals and other interest groups. I think there is a difference between a private citizens bank account and the coffers of a church. I think that the people who donated and organized so heavily for the yes on prop 8 campaign did so to protect something they thought was in danger. The exact same thing that any body does on either side of any issue that comes up for a vote. I think that the Reverend Sharpton should stop trying to incite followers for his own gain next time. Any body with an internet connection could do a quick google search and read about the millions of dollars in humanitarian aid that these churches provide to war torn countries or about the family counseling and adoption services available to struggling families and unwed mothers. These different regligious organizations do mobilize and spend countless hours and dollars on causes aimed at elevating the standard of living for mankind, they just don't get the press that prop 8 does. The great Reverend Sharpton ought to be less critical. If he were engaged in helping as heavily as he is engaged in complaining the world would be a better place.

[S. Crockett]

Teressa, I couldn't agree more. A person's beliefs or ideologies (whether religious, political, or philosophical) shouldn't be imposed on others. If all these freaky education-at-all-costs eggheads would mind their own business and focus on educating their own kids instead of making everyone else pay for it, no one would have an issue with school funding.

But no, these people insist on forcing everyone to pay for more education, even though there is no law that says we have to spend and extra $500 million on school funding.

It's unconscionable that we have a system where people can use opinions to shape public policy. Come on people, the world would be a much better place if we all just focused on doing good.

[John Adams]

When Al Sharpton visited Salt Lake he toured the LDS Humanitarian Center and Welfare Square. He thus knows that his statement about the Mormon Church refusing to be "as involved" in any other social concern is a bigoted lie.

Prop 8 did not prevent gays from chosing their life partners, it was about protecting the institution of marriage between a man and a woman with the benefits to society of children being raised in families with a father and a mother. The Black vote in California which was highly in favor of Prop 8 had far more impact on the passage of Prop 8 than the relatively few votes of the Mormons. Why did Sharpton not speak about the votes of the Black community?

The Mormon Church and its members not only speak up on social concerns but put those concerns into action in their daily lives. How many of Sharpton's congregation members fast for two meals every month and donate the cost to the poor like the Mormons do for most of their lives? Mormons operate 400 welfare farms (to grow food to give away to the needy), 220 canneries operated by volunteers to can food for the needy, providing wheelchairs to the disabled, clean water projects, neonatal resuscitation programs, vision treatment training programs, emergency response to disasters, adoption services, employment services, ...

Al Sharpton needs to to make a remedial education trip back to Utah.

[Kevin Porter]

DOES SHARPTON KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT?

MORMON ANTI-POVERTY EFFORTS:

These activities are centered on education and relief:

The Perpetual Education Fund:
Since 2001, the Mormon church has assisted more than 28,000 young people throughout the world. Approximately half of them men and half of them women, have received Perpectual Education Fund loans. The program premiered in Mexico, Peru, and Chile, and has now expanded to assist people in 40 countries throughout the world, including Mongolia, Cambodia, Kenya, Ghana, South Africa, some Pacific islands, and virtually all of Latin America.

http://www.lds.org/pef/0,12038,2073-1,00.html

Tsunami Victims:
The Church’s monumental efforts in Indonesia concluded in December 2007. Major projects included building 902 homes and 3 community centers, constructing 15 schools, building 3 fully equipped health clinics, rebuilding a hospital wing, and completing 24 village water projects.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e6d2556975cba110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

Other facts:
Countries Receiving Humanitarian Aid Since 1985 165
Humanitarian Cash Donations Since 1985 $259.8 million
Value of Humanitarian Material Assistance Since 1985 $750.9 million
Welfare Service Missionaries( Humanitarian Service) 3,974

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/statistical-information

[Mark]

Homophobes are dying a long, slow death.

Go, Al!

[Roby H]

The breakdown of the traditional family has hurt many of these same people Reverend Sharpton refers to. I think the point LDS are trying to make is that traditional families can do more to fight poverty, improve education, and prevent hunger than any other social organization. While they have spent multi-millions, if not billions in humanitarian aide, they have spent far more than that in trying to protect traditiional families so they can care for themselves.

[Teressa Spencer]

Ron H., since it boggles your mind I'll help you out. Poverty and violence are real problems, right now, concretely infront of us as fact. The alleged "problem" of homosexuality is no problem at all for gay people and for many (and ever increasing numbers of) straight people. THAT is the difference.

If all you holier-than-thou judgmental religi-bots would mind your own business, allowing your beliefs to run your own life instead of everyone else's too, there would be no problem whatsoever with homosexuality.

But no, you insist on other people living by your morality even though they are breaking no law (it's not illegal to be gay) and hurting no one. It makes me sick.

It's not the Stone Age anymore. And the world of Leave It To Beaver is not real. Stop persecuting gay people and go do some REAL good in the world.

[Ron H]

I boggles my mind that Rev. Sharpton, even if he disagrees, cannot comprehend the fundamental religious idea that a church may be more concerned about things that according to their own doctrine negatively affect the eternal future of a person (i.e. salvation) rather than the "other social concerns" which will end (for that person) when that person passes on.

I agree with Donnie and others that the LDS Church has done and does an incredible amount of good (i.e. money donations, donations of food, medications, and other needed goods, countless hours of service of its members, community classes, etc.) to alleviate those "other social concerns," even if their actions have not received any media coverage

[Teressa Spencer]

To "DK" - the highest rates of HIV and AIDS (by far) are in sub-Saharan Africa. Is God punishing them too? What a moron. Of course what should we expect from people like you who put supernatural beliefs about logic, reason, science and fact?

[DK]

Al Sharpton doesn't understand the definition of a "social woe" if he excludes homosexuals trying to legitimize what is clearly a SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE and UNHEALTHY behavior and lifestyle that has been proven to significantly shorten the lifespans of those who engage in it. HIV is not an imaginary disease and has been proven to disproportinally affect the homosexual community! Indeed, there is nothing "gay" about homosexual pathology!

This man lost his credibility with the piblic a long time ago and can never seem to set aside his own personal interests and self aggrandizement for what is best for the greater good. Every statement this man makes regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage should have a disclaimer about his homosexual sibling!

Indeed, these days we ought to be very careful whom we take advice from in an age where it is clear that satan is alive and well in the church itself and in many who call themselves "Reverend".

[Rich Evans]

The LDS Church does more in any given day to help those in need than Al Sharpton has done in his life. And the church does it with far less fanfare, chest-beating and self-promotion.

[Donnie]

Oh please, you folks, don't even bother trying to defend the Mormon church. After the obscene amount of money it shoveled into the anti-gay Prop 8 movement they have no room left on the high road.

Judgment Day:

God: And what's this about gay marriage you were doing?

Mormon/Christian: Thanks for asking God. I fought my little heart out to keep monogamous, happy, committed gay couples from legal equality. Aren't you proud of me?

God: How did you think that would help feed the poor, shelter the homeless, or in any way expand compassion, love, and faith?

M/C: Well....I....um....

God: You just don't get it. How would you feel if someone fought to keep you from committing your life to the person you love? Get out of here.

[David T.]

The LDS Church provided 200 semi-truck loads of aid and 42,000 man-days of labor in response to Hurricane Katrina. Also dozens of semi-truck loads of supplies were sent to the Gulf Coast to aid those affected by Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Ike.

Additionally, two planes carrying over 47,000 pounds of supplies flew from Salt Lake City to Haiti in September to help the Haitians recover from the effects of Hurricane Ike. This included 12,000 food boxes, which contain rice, vegetable oil, peanut butter, fruit drink mix and assorted canned goods. Each food box can feed a family of four for several days. Also included were five truckloads of water, 185,000 hygiene kits, 55,000 cleaning kits, 20,000 pounds of clothing and 1,500 tarps. Additional assistance of food, water, generators, tools, sleeping bags, chainsaws, tarps, fir strips and other items have been given from regional LDS Church storehouses.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not even getting into the strong response to the Indonesian tsunami disaster or countless other disasters around our country and across the globe.

The good reverend's righteous indignation is a self-serving stunt to draw attention and political approval. He knows what the Church has done over the years, but he'd like to point to a black kid shot in Compton and say, "Where were you when that happened?" When Katrina hit and LDS Church members flooded the area with supplies and manpower, Sharpton was busy getting his face in the media saying how the government's slow response to aiding the victims was due to racism-- even though the census of the affected area was 72% white.

Hey Sharpton, stop strutting and start helping.

[Russell]

Ironically, the LDS (Mormons) do more for humanitarian causes than most other churches could ever dream of:

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Humanitarian_Efforts

[Warren]

The church does organize to fight social ills every day. Their humanitarian effort is well funded, systematic, and volunteer driven. See http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/humanitarian-services. There are over 50,000 missionaries in the world at anytime, paying for it from their own pockets to serve communities and help strengthen families from the roots. Every man and woman in the church is assigned families to visit, teach, and befriend, with the goal of helping fight these social ills.

[Jim]

Yay, Al Sharpton! I just wish the other churches and religious leaders who feel the same way would also get press, so people can stop believing that Christianity is a religion of hatred and intolerance.

[Zach]

Strikingly well said. With so much poverty and suffering in the world, even just in THIS country, there IS something very wrong with churches using money to meddle in the semantics of secular government. And what does it say when condemnation, not care, for one's fellow man is what motivates the faithful?

[John]

Here we have yet another dose of Al Sharpton's rhetoric- poetic yet 115% void of understanding.