Mormons facing investigation over Prop. 8

It's LONG overdue that churches of all types are scrutinized when it comes to political activism. It's beyond me how the Catholic Church, especially, has the audacity to try and curtail the right of two consenting adults who are in love from getting married, while they've silently endorsed child rapists within their own organization. They should be bankrupt in light of this, most likely ongoing, tragedy.

The First Amendment to the Constitution forbids government from establishing an "official" religion. You may do whatever your Invisible-Friend-in-the-Sky "tells" you to do, but the government is free to do what is in the best interest of the people it governs. This may include revoking tax privileges when your Invisible-Friend-in-the-Sky "tells" you to impose its will on the more rational majority. Those tax privileges were given based on the idea that your businesses would engage in certain (obviously non-religious), activities such as feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, etc. Everyone knows Jeebus didn't care a whit about poor people. Jeebus cares about gay marriage. And defeating Islam with superior military force.

P.S. Modern pharmacology has made great strides. If you would like to have a respite from hearing your Invisible-Friend-in-the-Sky's voice(es) in your head, consult a physician.

Tax exempt Section 501(c)(3) clearly states the organization should not be a legislative action group. The LDS and other churches get around this by saying their legislative actions 'only' comprise less than 20% of their activities. Clearly, these rules deserve greater scrutiny. Those god people think they have a right to bend the rules and make life hard for 'the others.' It is up to us law abiding, peaceful atheists, rationalists and humanists to not let them!

Take away all tax-exempt status of chuch-owned property. By doing this, they would take away the church's desire to build & expand, for-profit & non-profit business ventures.

It is unbelievable how many IRS EIN's that church's have. And with no property taxes being paid on these vast property holdings, the taxes are being paid by individual tax payers, by local, county and state tax assessments.

Hey isl777, you have set a new high water mark for stupidity with your massively ignorant comment about the Catholic Church and "endorsement" comment.

Human beings organs were designed for a purpose and that is for Multiplying with a mate-something that you cant do in same sex marrages. Its a shame Humans must misuse ther organs solely for pleasure and induce chances of infections and scarring of soft tissue that leads to other unwarrented health issues .

isl1777: The Catholics have settled a lot of those cases for lucrative sums of money to get out of having to be found culpable in court and have an even bigger publicity nightmare.

Don't worry about them, they'll be fine, they're the church, remember?

Multi-Billion dollar business that operates tax free and threatens you with hell unless you pay 10% of your income as protection money, errrr, I mean "tithes" and "indulgences".

Churches spending millions to fight something as harmless as gay marriage: what a disgraceful waste of money. Imagine those dollars spent on the needy, the helpless, the poor? I have no problem with religion. But when it sticks its smarmy puss into politics, my stomach turns and I'd bet God's does too.

If Churches are scrutinized like this then let's do it to universities and every other non-profit. The state run university I went to had plenty of professors that did things, offering academic credit or higher markings, to encourage students to advocate or advance their own political views. If you try and do these unprecedented witch hunts followed with fines, or if you try stripping the tax exempt status of Churches for merely seeking to advance a view that is tied to societal values then there sure as hell better be such a reckoning for all the other organizations. And BTW, there's purely secular arguments against gay marriage that hold water too-- http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

Rick - two points:
a. If people want to use their bodies for whatever purpose they wish, then you should not care. (I do not care that catholic priests choose to be celibate.)
b. Neither organs, nor any other aspect of biology are 'designed.'

And if they supported the gays, would you be demanding the same thing?

Bunch of hypocrites - you LOST, get over it.

KJR nah, his position is not stupid or nebulous-- its just not friendly to the big (& scarey political) Roman Church Church. Both in America, and th eWorld== the Mega Denominations have always tried to influence if not directly control the local, and national government. That a large reason why you, isl1777, and I prefer to live here. So tone it down. Let's all get over jealousy that we have towards the individuals with big pockets, others like big rich churches. Those big guys with their 'special' agendas rarely get their way unless they are the true majority in the given jurjurisdiction, in this case, sunny CAL.

Based on a lot of the comments I have previously heard, and on what I saw when I was working on the Prop 102 in AZ campaign because I supported it not because I belong to a certain church, it sounds like if you belong to a religion that supports heterosexual relationships that you should not have a vote. Truth of the matter is Prop 8 and 102 got enough people behind them to pass. Both from people actually voting and from people donating their time and money.

I don't know what goes on in most churches because I dont go, but all of my friends of several different denominations have said that the message in the month of October was to get out and vote, to exercise our duty to country. Not that homosexuality is evil, or that anything like that but to get out and vote. Apparantly it worked and enough people with the same views voted.

Lets remember many people of faith voted "NO" on 8. The Uniterian Universalists in California did it right - they set up a Political Action Committee for NO on 8 and did the campaign work via that organization, accountable, visible, responsible. Churches must speak to issues of the day (otherwise, there is no purpose) however, what gives me pause are the number of litle white lies the Morman Church is telling. If they demand that each member donate to the campaign, and to fail to do so is a sin - and then declare that those funds do not fall under the 20% rule because it is individaul gifts - well, it's just misleading.

Less involvement by religious groups in the public arena will mean that a significant force for policy discussion will be silenced. The ban on specific endorsement of political candidates is legitimate; however, an effective gag rule applied against religious organizations engaging in the public discourse is as abhorrent to our free speech and assembly laws as any could possibly be.

If the solution to the issue is to eliminate tax deduction for contributions to religious organizations, that would be a far better solution than to ban all contribution by religioun to the national debate.

Haha the Church didn't donate anything, it was the members, so this is an empty case.

Bottom line: God created Gays! Why? For God's reason! Who are we to question why...maybe over population...maybe to care for those heterosexuals abandoned...only God knows! But you gotta trust God, and have Faith in the plan.

The Goliath Churches have been able to smash the smaller David Gay communities...who are God's children also. Hurting two innocent people in love from forming a lifelong contract with each other, that will not harm anyone, has got to be wrong. It's too easy for "straight" people to fling "judgements" against others because they were born different. I know given a minute in the shoes of a Gay person, and they would change their perception immediately.

I say to all Gays...continue to do good to others as you have. The day will come when all those, including the large churches, who spew discrimination and bigotry, will have to REAP what they SOWED!

Steve Leong

That organized religion exerts undue influence on their parishioners and, through them, the greater population is without question. They are businesses in the truest sense of the word and have used their tax exempt status to reap enormous benefit. The power they have has been misused on so many occasions that we should really consider changes to their tax exempt status. By all means give them tax breaks on charitable contributions and activities but tax the rest as if they were businesses. I was more ambivalent on this issue until I discovered a local priest handing out lists of names (that share our values) to voters during the last election!

kjr; turning a blind eye, a deaf ear is silent endorsement. sorry if you can't comprehend that. this is some of what happens when a beautiful spiritual being's words and actions become codified, overburdened with doctrine, they become superstitions, or religions, which feed on people's fears.
rick, i'm sorry that you have such a limited sense of what you can do with your penis. i do not. nor do i look to you or your myopic paradigm for guidance. humans and other species do not use their genitals SOLELY for pleasure. pleasure does, however, assist in driving our sexual instincts. your lack of pertinent education regarding anatomy and it's 'problems' i.e. infections and scarring is obvious, as these problems are not solely the concern of any sexual group. they are certainly none of your concern as they pertain to anyone but yourself. so, keep your limitations to yourself and i'll take care of mine. as the wiccan say, 'DO AS YOU WILL, AND HARM NONE.' a lovely axiom to live by.

Well yeah, I don't think the Mormons violated their tax-exempt status over 20%... to do so would have put hundreds of millions of dollars which I doubt they did... I voted NO for Prop 8, however the provision of the law is what must be followed in this hot issue. It is unlikely that the Mormon or Roman Catholic church spent hundreds of millions of dollars to support Proposition 8----therefore they have not violated their tax-exempt status because they did not spend more than 20% of their money to fund a political cause. Even though it saddens me that they support their cause to Yes on Prop 8... they are still safe because they did not go beyond the 20% quota limit yet still expanded their latitude to prevent prop 8... Smart very cunning and smart churches.

Churches and believers are all foolish bastards. Catholicism is best distinguished by acts like buggery, the Inquisition and funding right wing anti-democratic regimes in South America. Islam is notorious for it's policies of hate and campaigns of terror not unlike those of the Catholics during much of their history. Mormons are profligate manipulators, with a long dirty history of anti-female behaviors like polygamy and forced child marriages.

Ban proselytizing. Strip all churches of their tax exemptions, and nationalize any property they refuse to pay taxes on. Force ALL religious organizations to open their books to full audit by the public, and ban any who balk at this transparency. Churches have plenty to hide, and the secrecy surrounding them all is proof of the pudding.

Lastly, the Catholic church holds vast hoards of antiquities that are properly the inheritance of all humanity. Break open the Vatican libraries to the full public, and reclaim the art they have stolen by evicting the pope and his minions and turning the Vatian into one vast museum.

Considering its history and origins as a polygamous cult (persisting to this day in renegade offshoots of the organization!) the LDS Church has a lot of nerve lecturing us about proper standards of marriage and family life! How many wives did Joseph Smith have? Brigham Young? This Church stands exposed as a band of hypocrites and phonies.

The Catholic Church and its satellites like the Knights of Columbus, likewise. We should accept the moral authority an organization that harbored generations of pedophiles and child molesters within its ranks? I think not!

People wants to SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE?

Isn't it that Marriage is one of the Church ordinances and not a State Ordinance? That means State should not interfere with the Church ordinances. And leave the Church Sacred ordinance of Marriage alone and never to change it.

And I do hope and pray that the Gay protester will be humble enough to accept the voice of the people.

Just a thought? Both the ProtectMarriage Group and those protecting Gay Marriage are NON Profit groups. I think its not fair if you investigate the other and not the other group.

sorry,mrt, you lose. the history of marriage as an institution does not support your assertion. the church considered marriage a civil contract below it's consideration until the beginning of the 'modern' era.
robyn, don't forget that same church's complicity with the nazis in ww2. their sins are legion and will be accounted for in heaven, no doubt. as will the sins of those who have supported the whore of babylon. they don't even know if they believe their own drivel or not, just do as you're told, follow orders. why is there no st. lemming?

mrt, marriage is both a religious and secular institution. Many religious groups see it as part of their faith. (Though note the Massachusetts Puritans made marriage a purely secular institution.) And the government offers certain privileges and responsibilities to people who get married.

Because there is overlap, tempers run high over gay marriage. Some religious people see gay marriage as a violation of their religion. Some gay people see opposition to gay marriage as an attempt to penalize them for their sexual orientation by forbidding them a legal arrangement available to (presumably) heterosexual couples.

Your suggested solution, that marriage become a purely religious institution, would mean we should abolish the tax codes, inheritance laws, and legal family rights based on marriage in the current system. Since most people would see that as undermining families, I suspect that is not what you really want.

Hey "RICK"...humans sexual organs ARE made to multiply...good job! At least you got that right. How are humans misusing their sexual organs? Are you implying that as humans we should only have sex to multiply and not have sex for pleasure. Whatever happened to living life to the fullest and keeping your nose and opinion to yourself. If you want to use your organs only for multiplying...go for it...I really could care less and would appreciate you leaving my sexual organs out your mouth.

Um, if the Mormon Church's tax exempt status is at risk what about cults such as Scientology who are nothing more than a pyramid scheme marketed as a "church" complete with a crucifix as part of their symbol, even though according to Scientology dogma Jesus is just illusion brainwashed into humans by the galactic overlord Xenu. If we're going to remove tax exempt status from any group, let's start with the worst offenders first.

We are lucky that Proposition 8 won, and should now be willing to stand amid the fallout.

Personally I think gay people have bigger things to worry about than fake marriages, STD's and their eternal souls being two of the biggest.

Separation of Church and State exists to protect churches from the government. The fact that an investigation is even going on is disturbing enough.
Perhaps next we will be investigating the right of the IRS to collect personal income taxes from any citizen? That was originally unconstitutional. We made an exception to finance World War 2 and for some reason they are still doing it? Taxes should be for non-citizens, imports, etc.

When a religion holds BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in real estate and other investments, how can it dare ask its members for donations for political causes?

The Mormons are rebuilding two square blocks of Salt Lake City right now -- massive shopping centers. This will be retail and rental, not religious.

I say when a church has a PROFIT as well as a "prophet", it's time to start paying taxes because you are a profitable corporation.

Robyn,
The depth and purity of your hate and religious prejudice is breath taking. These boards get contentious at times but it is rare that they devolve to the level of anger and menace I saw in your posting today. It is very sad how much hate is directed at religion these days…

Anon, separation of church and state exists
a) to prevent government from interfering in people's religious beliefs, which are between them and whatever they do or do not worship (hence the prohibition of establishment clause in the Constitution's Bill of Rights);
b) to prevent religious groups from gaining control of the government and using it to forward their own agendas (hence the prohibition of any religious test for office holders in the main text of the Constitution); more broadly,
c) to keep government to its task, preserving order and promoting the welfare of the citizens; and
d) to keep religion to its task, offering instruction and companionship in a system of beliefs and morals.
The separation of church and state is not a one-way street. Nor is it absolute. People may act on their religious morals in political matters. Government may intervene in a church's secular operations when necessary to maintain public order.

I am not sure why KJR is so angry at isl777 (see below). I won't say that I agree with isl, but she has a right to an opinion and she is not saying anything that is against recent facts. Shouldn't churches be scrutinized like any other organization? What was ignorant? I missed it. And, why are you so angry?

It's LONG overdue that churches of all types are scrutinized when it comes to political activism. It's beyond me how the Catholic Church, especially, has the audacity to try and curtail the right of two consenting adults who are in love from getting married, while they've silently endorsed child rapists within their own organization. They should be bankrupt in light of this, most likely ongoing, tragedy.
Posted by isl1777

Hey isl777, you have set a new high water mark for stupidity with your massively ignorant comment about the Catholic Church and "endorsement" comment.
Posted by KJR

People fail to realize that it wasn't the church that donated millions of dollars, it was the members.

Homosexuality is a sin against God Almighty who created man. Marriage was created by God. It is a lifelong exclusive relationship between one man and one woman. God will judge sin. And one day all those who support "gay marriage" will hangs their heads in shame as the Lord Jesus is exalted and they are judged according to the truth of God's Word, not according to the carefully crafted lies of men. I for one do not want to live in any country which supports such things as "gay marriage" be it America or any other country. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."
Adrian Alan Bennett Nashville, Tennessee

James--Do you really wonder why there is so much anger directed at the religious? Come on, we just had 8 years of a president who really believed that God was telling him to destroy our economy, invade a sovereign nation, give control of our country over to big oil, get rid of our surplus, have thousands of our sons and daughters killed in a war for oil, trash the Constitution, make sure the rich are ever more comfortable while the rest of us lose our jobs, our homes, our savings, and, in a few sad instances, our lives? The Catholics, the Evangelicals, and now the Mormons are deeply involving themsevles in political decisions that are totally not in their they have absolutely no right to make.

1)the members donated under the direction of the elders.
2)religion reaps what it sows re: hatred directed at it. it just happens to obfuscate the fact of it's hatred with self-righteousness, empty words of piety, narcissistic references to it's own cosmology to condemn others who disagree, pretense at caring for others of different ilk. it has no moral grounds outside of it's references to a book which very few of them understand, nor would they should they happen upon a translation of the originals which did not bear the marks of centuries of misinterpretation. i have met few self-proclaimed christians who are. the word prejudice implies not having experienced the character of a person or, in this case institution, and pre-judging it based on one's own assumptions. this is not the case here. the myriad sins commited under the banner of religion are only too well known.
3)you worry about your 'eternal soul', i'll worry about mine. the aforementioned veiled and failed attempts at humility and compassion assure me that we'll end up in the same place.

I accidentally hit the submit button mid-rant. Bottom line, I strongly object to religious groups getting so involved in the government of the people, for the people, and by the people. And I doubly resent politcians who cater to them and call them their "base." Hello, aren't we all Americans? Have you EVER heard a president speak so demeaningly of the other party? We need to step back as a country and check our values. Let's start with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The bottom line really is that the people of California voted against recognizing homosexual marriage in 2000 (Prop 22) by 60% then in a 4:3 ruling it was found to be unconstitional. The people of California said, no and fought to have their voice reinstated with Prop 8. Again the people of California voted and again they said we want to "protect marriage." What should scare us all is that the democracy that we live in is not functioning. The voice of the people doesn't matter! It is not about the voice of the people it is about who has the biggest tantrum.

Perhaps as long as we're talking about government activism we should call for the government to investigate the people who slashed Mormons' tires and threw rocks through their windshields? Attacking the Mormon church for supporting a moral issue while remaining silent about violent responses to their non-violent activism is absurd.

A church would be an empty building without members. If you're in particular branches of Christianity, a church IS its congregants (wherever two or more are gathered, etc), whether you're meeting in a field or renting a hall at a school or whatever, or if you've got enough cash to actually buy a building and put a steeple on it somewheres.

"Churches" don't donate, sure, fine. But if all of it's members do, is that really so different?

If I work for a retailer and they have a food drive or something, and say, "We donated millions of pounds of food," would you get huffy and say, "No! Target didn't donate millions of pounds of food, their employees did?!!"

Would there be a great cause for alarm? Most "Churches" don't feed the homeless or clothe the naked or care for the poor - the members do.

Same difference.

Regardless of which organization donated to what cause, the majority of the people spoke and passed what the majority wanted to pass. protesting this, while it is your right, is the same, and hopefully as useless, as protesting the fact that Obama was elected over McCain. The majority spoke and those in the losing corner can stomp around and throw tantrums, but I hope it doesn't work, or I fear for the democratic process.
I (as a Mormon) didn't/don't care what homosexuals do in their relationships, just as I don't care what heterosexuals do in their relationships, and I am saddened that this has turned into such an ordeal. I disagreed with Prop 8 and I voted for McCain, I am 0 for 2 and I am not complaining because I was was not in the majority in either case (although I am optimistic that both results will be the best decision for the country).

Hey isl777 you faied to mention that most of those child molesting priests were gay!

It seems to me that everyone has missed the point to this. the story is in regards to the LDS church's misreporting of use of funds for political agendas. This has nothing to do with marriage. It just came to a head when the LDS church supported Prop 8.
Now for some history that it seems to be lost.
marriage initially happened in ancient Egypt LONG BEFORE christianity was even a thought. Marriage was a designated contractual bond between WOMEN. Men were prohibited to become married. This was done in part to address feminine issues such as puberty, menstruation and menopause. A woman would be "married" to another in a teacher-student relationship. The elder woman would teach and guide their understudy in regards to changes of their body and developing into full womanhood.
The Catholic Church then used this commonly known term Marriage to show a contractual bond between Men and Women. Men at that time were the labor force, protectors and law enforcement and Women were the wealth and property owners. The Church used this to leverage power away from women and put it in control first of men, then later turned over to the Church. This is ALL historically referencable. I would suggest you Zealots out there try reading another book.

Why don't we open the books on every Nonprofit/Not for profit and see if they have followed the letter of the law. Seems this sector has gotten out of control, campaigns overtly (and implicitly if you work for one) for Democrats, and is in need of massive merger and consolidation due to the overlapping and unaccountable missions and massive loss of tax revenue that their tax exempt status simply pushes off to everyone else.

HA HA HA... I cannot wait until the California Supreme Court shoves this down your throats like they already did once before. It will be a wonderful day in Calfiornia when Same-Sex marriage is legal AGAIN and it is coming WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA I LOVE iT

Let us all remember that there is Freedom of Speech and Religion in this country. Mormons chose to voice their support and money. So did gay activits(many of them non-profits) to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Obviously the case law shows that there was clearly no illegal activity in the Catholic and Mormon churches actions. Go ahead file your court cases with even more non-profit mony and support. All lies and the legal cases will not amount to anything. Amazing the level hipocrosy in saying that you can support what you believe in and others cannot just because you disagree with them.

I have a problem when only one organization, among many, many other faith organizations, is targeted for this type of action. How about all the mosques and churches that also supported the legislation? Where are the calls for investigations of them as well?

Besides, civil unions are still available to couples of any orientation in CA. Not so in the rest of the country. The voters spoke, and that's how this country works. I'm sure the Mormons were not the make-or-break factor in that election.

How can it be wrong for a church to take a moral stand and ask its members to do the same? The Mormon church did not contribute millions of dollars--its members did. The Mormon church did not donate thousands of hours--its members did. Is it wrong for a church to ask its members to support a moral cause?

To: Paul and "take a look up, the look around"

On Nov 1st, the Mormon Church itself donated almost $3,000 -- but the big issue here is the undisclosed "in kind" donations. Use of facilities, BYU Utah/Idaho phone banking, distribution channels and other assets ARE to be declared.

Why would they not do it legally?

Regarding the link provided by HiveRadical (posting #9) regarding "purely secular arguments against gay marriage that hold water" -- I read the article and found it to be very thoughtful, but to say that it holds water is, in my view, an overstatement. The article reduces to an assertion that there are important symbolic reasons for limiting marriage to couples with the potential for reproduction, with exceptions made for male/female couples who do not have that potential since they don't undermine the symbolism, but not for same gender couples since they do undermine the symbolism. I didn't find it compelling. Any one else have a view on it?

Well, I never thought I'd thank Jesus and the NYTimes in the same sentence, but, hey:

THANKS!

The Mormon church pays taxes on all properties they own except for the individual churches and temploes. If the Mormon chcurch is investigated, then all churches need to be investigated. Others make far more contribution to political arenas than the Mormon church. Do not condemn one church and exclude the others.
The Mormon church asks its members to make contributions to whatever political purpose they wish. If you do not like the United States and the principles upon which it was founded, then just leave and don't come back..

Google brought me to this site, and I still think that after 50 years, no one cares what the people of Boston or Massachusettes think or say in columns like this. Obviously the angry people here have no idea about what the truth about Prop 8 is. Until then, you will forever stay clueless as to how to proceed or to win next time. I could tell you how to win, eventually, but I think you all would not be up for it. As far as the LDS church is concerned, next time you will find me and my kind more with them. I find no reason to find any role models for my kids in the GLBT crowd. You are tolerated, and nothing more. You all act like children, which is probably because most of you don't have any children. One more reason for you all to stop your moaning and grow up..

Walter Wall - Not true that most of those child molesting priests are gay. Child molestation is about power and control, not sexual orientation/attraction. All studies have shown that the majority of molesters (priests and otherwise) are heterosexual regardless of the gender of their victims.

It amazes me how brainwashed the masses are by religious leaders. The higher ups in most organized religions live like kings. Look at the vatican look at the morman temples that are built, they look like palaces. I went to catholic school in the late 70's and witnessed the excesses of the clergy as they grazed on filet mignon dinners and drove expensive cars. It is really is disgusting. You should all take a long look in a mirror and wake up! ENOUGH!

People who don't like prop 8 should find something constructive to do rather than conduct witch hunts on organizations stuck up for what they believe in. These two churches believe in generally positive values such as honesty and good Christian love for your neighbor, although no organization is made up of perfect people. Neither Catholic nor Mormon church is planning on hijacking the government. They're sticking up for what they believe in. Americans should stand for something, not against something. Why not investigate the NPO's that were against prop 8?

The California Teachers Association donated one million dollars to fight Proposition 8. Should we investigate them also?

What is the point of voting anymore the liberals aren't going to stop cheating pthe system until Obama is dictator of a socialist America and if you vote against them they will just overturn it.

Laraine Harrison your post shows nothing but pure stupidity and just makes your side look even more ignorant than it already is.

It is truly sad that all of that money raised could have gone for such a worthy cause. We have so many hungry children in our country. We have so many homeless. We have people losing their jobs and homes. But the churches will put their money towards this and the government bails out the heartless corporations.

Jed ,you are an IDIOT!!!

Hmmm... All the guys I knew of who molested boys moved on to "committed" gay relationships (several were lovingly cared for by their partners until dying of AIDS). Obviously a test must be instituted to qualify people to vote - people deluded by religion definitely are not qualified to vote. Re-education camps come mind.

Some wonder why the backlash to the passing of Prop 8 is so intense. Here's one reason: Gays are third most likely to be victims of hate crimes (after Blacks and Jews), and Gays are first most likely of any group to be murdered in a hate crime. (see FBI stats: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm). Gay teens are 3 times more likely than straight kids to commit suicide, to be kicked out of their homes, and to become child street prostitutes to survive. Hate crimes and neglect thrive in an environment of bigotry and marginalization and Prop 8 shows that active, aggressive, invasive intolerance is OK; that hate against this minority is OK. This is the legacy of those who support(ed) Prop 8. This is your respect for American liberties. This is your Christian love.

Some wonder why individuals and companies who support(ed) Prop 8 are being "outed" and economically targeted. The tactics of public pressure and boycott are tried and true means of peaceful civil rights resistance (e.g. Montgomery Bus Boycott). When you take rights away from Americans (even gays) they tend to get angry and do something. Tea party in the harbor anyone?

funny how gays compare themselves to blacks; when blacks were getting their butts kicked, gays were too busy buggering each other & starting the AIDS pandemic!!!!!!!!!

A few points, for the religious folk:

1) Marriage has not been the same throughout history - it's been in constant change. There is no such thing as "traditional marriage." At one point, brides were sold to grooms as property. Marriages were arranged by the parents. If you want "the ancient institution of marriage" as practiced in Biblical times, that's what you'll be practicing.

2) For Mr. Rick: human beings are not just machines. A vacuum cleaner is used for vacuuming, a toaster is used for toasting, a car is used for transportation - but we don't "use" ourselves for procreation. We're capable of it, yes, but there's also something called love, dude. And sometimes part of its expression is physical. Got a problem with that?

3) Don't all the religions say that God gave man Free Will? Aren't you going against the will of your own deity by forcefully banning behavior?

Well, this article and all the comments have served to make me voice opinions I rarely voice. Some pertain to the actual topic and some are added, just cause I feel like voicing them. I have a huge problem with the Catholic church and two of it's doctrines. A.) The Catholic church is the only "true church" because it was started by Peter whom Christ told, "You are the rock upon which I will build my Church". Well, take Lutheranism. Simply and offshoot of the Catholic faith started by Martin Luther to in effect return to the original values of the Catholic church and not the "elightened values entertained at that time". B.) The Catholic church will deny me holy communion based solely on the fact I'm not of the Catholic faith, for to allow me communion would by their thinking say I was one with them.... I always thought, be you a baptist, a methodist, a catholic etc.... we all worhshipped the same God.

Now regarding the tax exempt status of churches. I don't believe it is right or proper that they are given this status. They want police protection, they want fire protection, they want the roads cleared so members can get to the church, but they don't want to pay anything towards the costs of these things. I am a Christian, and identify with the Lutheran faith, yet rarely attend because I can't stand the "Sunday Christians" that make up 90% of most congregations.

My reason for being against any tax exempt status for religions or any other tax exempt organizations is that I and every other tax payer has to pay significantly higher rates of taxes to counter the non payment of taxes by these organizations. As I said, I mostly identify as a Lutheran, yet I have to pay taxes that are used to maintain roads and procvide services I mentioned like police and fire to Catholics, Baptists, Buddists, and even the person whose gotten a mail order ordination in order to get out of paying taxes. Take away the exemptions, we'd all pay slightly lower taxes, and the members of each denomination would be paying a bit higher
tax rate in that their tithes to the church would be used to pay the taxes for "THEIR" church instead of non members paying them.

Of course, this would also solve the problem of their spending any amount on political causes, because they'd no longer be tax exempt.....

I'm not going to re-read all the posts to find the name of the author, suffice it that I touch on the reference to the Catholic church and WW2. I am a history nut, meaning I LOVE it. What the Catholic church did at the end of the war was no different then what the Nazi's did during the war in many senses. All a Nazi war criminal had to do was take off his uniform, and tell the Catholics, "I am a good Catholic and a believer" and they were issued a Vatican passport based on this statement. The biggest factor in so many war criminals successfully eluding capture after the war. Heck Hitler could have stated he was a Catholic and true believer and probably would have gotten a Vatican passport.

Finally, one other comment I've got to make since it was mentioned above also... Where and how does any sane individual find the words seperation of church and state in our constitution. ALL I've ever been able to find is that the government will not establish a "state religion" such as Denmark has done in making the Lutheran faith the state religion of that country. Our founding fathers surely didn't mean that the government and religion HAD to be seperate. Why do I say this? It's a fairly simple thing to comprehend... If they had meant for a true seperation, then why is it written in the Declaration of Independence: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" note that they said Creator, so they were obviously referring to God, and not some little ole Martian or Amoeba. Why did they place "In God We Trust" on paper currency? Why are the The Ten Commandments etched in stone in the building housing the Supreme Court etc. The seperation of church and state came to be to satisfy those that don't believe, or in some cases are of another faith.

Example, school prayer. We can't have it because it's a Christian prayer, or was, and it might offend litle Mohammed who is obviously of the Islam faith.....

My stand is quite simple. It's the same one I live by regarding what I do or don't say. I do not allow anyone to tell me what I can or can't say. I'm not speaking of shouting fire in a theater. I'm speaking of someone who doesn't like my view on this or that so they tell me I can't state my view. I respond I know I can say it, because I just said it. I also tell them they can't obtain their rights by abrogating my rights to do so. What they can do, if they don't like what I say is simply choose not to associate with me, Turn a deaf ear towards me when I speak, etc.

I say a silent grace before a meal. I've been approached in a restaurant and told I can't say that silent prayer because it makes them uncomfortable... Yet they feel it is their right to hold a conversation where every sentence starts or ends with a curse word.

The world has simply gone crazy. IMHO, the biggest reason is everyone is to busy worrying about what everyone else is doing that they don't like, and are adamant that they must impose their will on those that disagree with them.

Finally, I'm straight, always have been, always will be. I don't like to be around queers, but there are times that I have no choice in the matter, such as in the workplace. I don't want to be friends with them, yet at the same time, I'm not going to tell them they have to become straight either. As long as they leave me alone then we can co-exist. As for them getting married, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can't imagine wanting to go around saying Hi, I'm Bill and this is my wife Joe. At the same time. Provided they don't get any special treatment, meaning tax exemptions straights don't get etc.... Let them marry.... They'll just make it easier for those who abjectly hate them to single them out for more hate related crimes.... Who am I to tell them, part of their problem with not being accepted by so many of the "general population" is their seemingly constant belief they are special and should receive special treatment based solely on their choice of lifestyle. Heck, I'm discriminated against all the time, just as they are. My married friends get to pay less taxes then I do as a single person. They get exemptions because they "chose to ave kids". I don't get those exemptions cause I decided to stay single and not have kids.... See having those kids was a choice they made... why should they get exemptions for making that choice???

POOR HOMOSEXUALS do not know what to do now. They tried to show their aggression, they tried to silence a democratically made decision, they tried to pour more money into their propaganda, and so forth. Now, they pour more money into legal actions. "Lets shut up all who are against us, homosexuals. Lets brainwash children into our wickedness. Lets cover it all in human rights wrap. It will work. Lets rock the party"

The people have spoken. There is no such thing as "same sex" marriage.
It is a distortion of reality by sick people who are abnormal, and entirely their ridiculous idea. Totally insane to believe in such a preposterous sick thing!
If these queer unfortunates want to live together fine, but stop the stupid foisting of the insane idea people of the same sex can marry! God has already spoken on the issue of homosexuals. The Catholic Church is aware it has been infilrated with these nutcake queer priests finally, and is doing something about it.
We, the normal people can withstand this issue, but we do not have to cave in to the queer abnormal homosexuals quest to subvert and distort normal humanity.

LA Guy I think you meant to say that most of those child molesting priests are NOT gay. What exactly did people supporting yes on 8 gain? Marriage in itself was not a religious thing and was not only between only man and woman.

"In 2004 the President of the United States, George W. Bush, called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization. The American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, has weighed in on this controversial issue by releasing the following statement:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
(posted on the AAA website: www. aaanet. org) "

since the issue was a California State initiative-- it should be treated with the limitations of funding/ support within the state n not besieiged by those outside the state. If presidential candidates are forced to return donations from alien sources, nonUS sources, then the same should be fair play on a state basis. If the funding or phone banks were located outside of California and beseiging Californians--that should restricted. Californians should have rights within their own state and not be unfairly biased by external pressures... but what the morally right-winged: Catholics, Mormons, born-again fundamentalists have to impose on others-- is really overreaching. There should be a law against crazy fundamental religious-- their form of hypocrisy is that the Bill of Rights only applies to their beliefs and conditions, but excludes all others. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life, but if you're gay, you're going straight to perdition. Doesn't make any sense. Catholic church did about everything it could to dodge civilian courts of law..

Like i said before, What is the main purpose of sex? In the Homosexual viewpoint its solely for pleasure. If it wasnt for men and women all of you who are homosexual wouldnt be here complaining ,Because you just wouldnt exsist except for a 10 minute pleasurable experiance in someone else"s mind! Thats the reality of it!

Scientifically these things occur in a Homosexual :
A. Levels of promiscuity
B. Physical health
C. Mental health
D. Life span
E. Definition of "monogamy"

I compare this to drugs.Why? Becaue someone is looking for a little bit of pleasure! The same excuse comes up-Dont worry about what i do and im not hurting nobody and its in the privecy of my own home.Screw off is the attitude as always!

What they fail to understand is other circumstances around it. The murders and other problems that resulted from there use, even the ones in mexico ,before it even gets here. The divorces and relationship problems it causes, Physical abuse and in the end severe psychiatric and physical problems that society must have to pay there medical bills.

In my opinion if you want to legalise same sex relationships then we might as well legalise Beastiality ! After all-its mostly about the Pleasure right!

My opinion is that ALL institutions and businesses that receive income, whether from donations or producing goods and services, should pay taxes. The current prohibition on Churches and politics is the result of President Johnson's actions to muzzle churches that were criticizing him and has led to religious groups hiding behind their tax exempt status rather than speaking truth to their members. It clearly violates the First Amendment and is representative of typical leftist 'tolerence' but at this point is beyond arguing. Removing the 501(c) 3 tax exempt status from churches and ALL other 'charitable' institutions (including groups like ACLU, RTL, and NAARAL) would eliminate silly arguments as discussed in this article.

Two-thirds of African-American voters in California supported Prop 8. Most of them are neither Catholic nor Mormon. Yet no one has gone after predominately black churches in the way that the Catholics and Mormons have been attacked. I voted for Prop 8 because I don't like the idea of changing the English language for purposes of "political correctness." The dictionary definition of marriage is: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." I have no problem with equal rights for all, but the English language is what it is.

This is a proof that Churchs need to be more involved, when christians and other religious organizations, are being investigated and yet the government fails to investigate thier own misconduct, in that they are the ones who wish to deny the peoples, and christians and churches, a representation of it's member are being denied their constitutional rights and the press under the false impression of being fair and unbiased refuses to cover stories of gay violance against churches and christians, and other religious groups. It's only tollerant if you agree with them.

Fred, as I said in a previous contribution, the separation of church and state in the Constitution depends on the "no religious tests" clause as well as the "no establishment" clause.

No, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. And the founding fathers were not entirely consistent in the matter. However, it is clear from the debates of the period that they intended to create a secular government modeled on a Lockean social contract. The basis for the Constitution is said to be "the people," not God (a point some contemporary religious figures objected to). By barring religious tests, the founding fathers specifically anticipated that the people might elect Muslims, Jews, or even atheists to high office.

The founding fathers took these positions because the religious wars of the previous two centuries had convinced them that religion becomes corrupt when it tries to get involved in the details of government, and government simply has not the ability to force someone's belief.

Many of the founding fathers respected religion. (Then again, many like Jefferson were deists, sort of the religious liberals of the time.) But they thought its role was to save souls and raise the moral tone of the country, not get involved directly in government.

Most of the other things you cite were not the work of the founding fathers. They did not put "In God We Trust" on our money; that didn't even start until a century later. And while Moses is on the Supreme Court building (which was built in the 1930s, not by the founding fathers), so are many other lawmakers, which is why he is there.

You agree there should be no state church. But that is why there is no government-sponsored school prayer. That would be the government trying to establish religion. You can pray in school if you like, but shouldn't expect everyone to have to join you; you'd hardly like being made to do what everyone else wanted, if I can judge from your words.

Back in the mid-19th century, Massachusetts made Bible reading a school requirement. Some people today would say that was a good thing, just as they did then. But it was a violation of the establishment clause (although techincally not so at the time because theBill of Rights did not then apply to the states). Worse yet, it was specifically done to hurt Catholics, because the Bible version REQUIRED was the King James Version. And that sums up the problem with having the state offer religion in any form -- it becomes an instrument of coercion by one group over others. You say you live your life so that people can't do that to you, Fred. So I hope you will support the separation of church and state by not trying to do it to others.

I read the article (skimmed most of it) suggested by HiveRadical in post #9 http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf
The author simply calls the "marriage is for procreation" argument a secular one and then asserts that even though we give heterosexual couples who can't or wont have children a pass, it is not discriminatory. Actually all of this assertion is false. Legally marriage is a civil contract between two people to share their wealth and to care for each other until they legally dissolve the contract or die. As this contract gives them specific legal benefits, denying two adults its benefits based on sex is blattently discriminatory.

Demophile, finally someone w/ some sense. The word marriage is ALREADY used. We don't like the definition of a word? Just change it!
In all elections there has to be a winner and a loser. Prop 8 lost. I was a McCain supporter. He lost. Could one imagine the backlash if McCain supporters held rallies and demonstrations in every city because he lost and we took it to the Supreme Court because we didn't like the outcome? GET OVER IT. YOU LOST.
You are under the false impression that because it didn't pass, it was bigoted. Maybe 51% don't agree w/ same-sex marriages on PRINCIPLE, not hatred.

I have $100 for the group who will protest a California mosque for its support of Prop 8. Attacking Christians is too easy. Why the focus on the Mormons?

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE GAYS ARE PROTESTING WHEN THEY ARE IN FRONT OF MORMON CHURCHES?

1) Is it the democratic process?
2) Is it Mormon's freedom to vote?
3) Is it people's free right to vote with their conscience and contribute money to a cause they deem worthy?
4) Is it their opinion on the definition of "marriage?"

Hey LA guy. I never said that all of the priests that were molesting children were gay, just the ones that were having sex with little boys, which was most of them.

Just for all of your information, Not everyone who believes in God is part of the "christian right" I my self believe in God, I believe in Jesus and because of that, I can honestly say that I support gay marriage and equal rights for all people. So when you talk about people with an "invisible friend in the sky" you not only insult the people who oppose equality, you insult believers who fight for it. And to my brothers and sisters in the Christian right, or moral majority, or whatever you call yourselves these days, remember that Jesus was a reformer.

Peace

1. Any religous group that involves itself in the political affairs of the country should have the tax exempt status removed.
2. The constitution set up the courts as a check against the majority. It provides for the rights of the minority against the majority.
3. Marriage is a legal, not religous, institution as defined in the United States of America. If we do not apply the laws to all citizens then the excluded citizens should also be exempt from paying taxes.
4. When religon is used as a tool we all lose.

Hopefully we can impose a divorce ban on any straight who wants to impose their opinions on others. Divorce is the great evil in straight marriage. Since these people are so worried about their precious marriages, lets help them out, no divorce allowed, ever. BAN DIVORCE. "Straight people aren't normal, they're just common"

I have noticed that the comments made by supporters of the "Gay" community are disqusting and absurd. None of which will ever change the way things were intended to be. God made man & woman to be together..you are not born gay you make a choice....to live in sin....we as christians don't have the right to judge you but we do have the right to vote for what we believe....WE don't want our children raised to believe your "gay" lifestyle is normal because it is not. YOU will not push this down the throats of Christian families that was proven with PROP 8 and now all that you can do is whine...like a child who did not get their way....If it had gone the other way we would not whine & file lawsuits we would give it to GOD. That shows who is the bigger person in this....."GAYS" as a group are LOUD, OBNOXIOUS, DISQUSTING, people. You may be the loudest group but PROP 8 proves you are not the largest.

Jesse Ventura was right: Organized religion is a crutch to the masses.

Can homosexuals please just come up with a word of their own to describe their relationship with each other? Marriage is already taken, and it means between a man and a woman. In our country, when we want to come up with a new definition of an event/thing/whatever you want to call it, we make up a new word to describe it. I can't call soccer basketball just because I want it to be called basketball. The civil unions already provide benefits, but the people have spoken and decided to leave marriage as marriage. We will not protest if you want to come up with your own word.
Websters defines marriage as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.. I guess you could call the editors of Websters all bigots, but they're not. This is what marriage is--so please leave it alone and come up with your own word.

Can someone please explain how gay marriage hurts straight marriage?

I'd like an intelligent answer - something that doesn't merely rely on repeating the words "God" and "Word" over and over again.

What you fail to realize is that it was the members who donated, not the church itself. Individuals can donate to whatever they want, just because they are advised to support a certain cause is no reason to black list them. If such were the case, then everyone is at fault as one side is advised to vote one way, while the other is advised to vote the other. Marriage has been used as a religious term for hundreds of years between a man and a woman, so why is it so wrong for a person to believe to keep it that way? The gay community should be pushing for the same rights under a different term, rather then wasting efforts on revenge because they didn't get their way. The country is built on compromises, find a way that works for everyone instead of just one side.

Reynolds v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (98 U.S. 145 (1878) established marriage between one man and one woman.

The issue of marriage between a man and woman has a precedent. Where were the gays then to support the redefinition of marriage?

After reading some of the comments the only bigotry and intolerance is coming form the left. There is a magazine cover that says “Gay is the new Black” this is of course nonsense but one could truthfully say extreme leftists are the new Nazi Party and Klan. They are whining and spewing hatred nonstop, toward people who have a biblical view of morality for the “offence” of voting/promoting their personal views. This is part of the process of free speech, we all benefit from this process regardless of our opinions. Obviously any group, religious or otherwise, should be held accountable to the laws concerning the raising of funds for a political end. But, this article points to “witch hunt” tactics by people who simply lost this vote. Instead of attacking people for their beliefs, why not just regroup and try harder to win the next battle? Next time something like this comes up you may have the majority of voters on your side.

Hey walter wall, pedophiles and homosexuals are two different things... if these priests had equal access to girls (alter boys, are boys after all) you'd see just as many girl victims as boys. Get a clue... Everyone's annoyed with my comments because they're true, and the truth stings. The church has lost all moral high ground in light of their own self-perpetuating scandals.

The meanings of English words change and expand all the time. Getting hung up on what the official definition of marriage misses the point. The point is that the Mormons want to discourage people from practicising homosexuality - and they certainly do NOT want gay people adopting children. However - that is a hard message to sell because it sounds cruel.

So the "defense of marriage" movement instead focuses being pro-marriage not anti-gay. Which is even more cruel becuase it denies much more than just sex and child rearing. It also denies gays the ability to (in some cases) to visit their loved ones in the hospital as well as denying them many other rights, which have nothing to do with gay sex or exposing kids to gay people.

This is simply mean. Even if their goal is to help save people's souls from hell. (Which is a well-intentioned goal).

I don't know if homosexuality is unnatural. But I suspect that cruelty is. People are not naturally cruel. In order to become cruel you need to trade in reason for faith.

Thank God for the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The church will have its tax-exempt status revoked when the GLBT crowd decides to move on with their lives. Neither will happen but the battle of Good VS Evil will continue.

The NYT is no longer a "News" outlet and should be labeled for what it is, a propagandist organization.

Let's all move on folks. Same sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and Connecticut and will soon be back in California - have no doubt about it. New York will follow as will New Jersey, Oregon and even New Hampshire. Take a look at South Africa, Spain and soon Sweden.

The Youth of America are overwhelmingly for gay rights including same-sex marriage. When the old die off, the next generation will have taken over and all this will just be a sorry chapter in the evolutional history of this country.

If you don't want to marry the same sex - don't. If you do, invite me to the wedding. I'll be there with bells on - and it will be called "marriage." Not some lame excuse for the exact same thing.

Hey Michael - feature writers (like yourself) for the Globe and other papers who write on topics which affect them personally [e.g. investment advisors who own a particular stock or fund which they're covering in the column] are guided by ethical policies which require conflict-of-interest disclosure.

Do you think, since you write constantly about religion and homosexuality, that you should be held to the same disclosure policies? I mean, aren't your own proclivities in-play, so to speak, when you choose so regularly to use your bully pulpit for advocacy purposes? Or do you think people can't tell which side of the issue you're on from your pieces?

Just wondering...

I just love how this is being so blown up. When you are born and grow up in this world you make choices. If you make the CHOICE to be gay that is your choice. When I make the CHOICE NOT to be gay that is my choice. It blows my mind to have people blaming the "mormon heiarchy" as the perputrators of all of this. We had an election and people made their own CHOICE as they saw fit and voted on an issue. The fact is, people are dissatisfied with the outcome if you were on the side that lost. We all have choices and the people of California, Arizona, and Florida made the choice and people now have to be criticized and property is being defaced because of your inability to accecept the will of the people.

Christian mom:

I did not CHOOSE to be gay...okay! There have been gay people in EVERY nation throughout history. Accepting your gay neighbors as a human equal will be a strength for our country and yes, even our churches in time. If your child told you he/she is gay, wouldn't you want to let him/her know that he/she has the same right to happiness as every other American? Try being a real Christian and get to know some gay people - we are not "DISGUSTING".

Remember when gay marriage was legalized here and so many people said, "look, the sky hasn't fallen." Well, guess what? The sky hasn't fallen
since the CA decision either. The people have spoken.

Moral issues should not be put to a vote of "the people".

Gay marriage is coming...maybe not today, or tomorrrow, but its coming. Remember the days when women could not vote, remember the days of blacks were segregated, remember when gays could not marry.

So when are they going to start investigating the Unitarian Universalist Church and the new Episcapaleon Church for their pro-gay, liberal, leftist, anti-war political activities??? I'm subjected to their HUGE signs everytime I drive by their buildings here in L.A. Seperation of church/state goes BOTH WAYS folks....

Moral issues should not be put to a vote of the people...unless the people overwhelmingly support your cause. FRAUD.

Hey ils1777. So what you're saying is that there are no homosexual pedophiles? I'm glad to hear that out of all of these comments you are the only one speaking the truth. How wonderful it is for the rest of us that you have blessed us with the truth. And yes, you are annoying

Wow, isn't it amazing how those who claim to be Christian and "love thy neighbor as you love yourself" can be so hateful to a group of people. It amazes me how stupid and idiotic religion can make some people.

I would hazard to guess that all these people commenting how "being gay is a sin", and "those people are sick and twisted", and "being gay is a heinous, unnatural choice" probably have a relative who is gay. Would you think the same way if your uncle or cousin were gay?

Being gay is NOT a choice anymore than being straight is a choice. Did you or I wake up someday and say, damn, I think I will be straight. No, you did not choose it, it is how you just are.

I read a comment to another blog that I think makes sense. How about we strip all clergy of the ability to perform the civil portion of marriage. That way every couple (gay and straight) has to go down to city hall to be married in the eyes of the state. If they want to have some religious ceremony to be married in the eyes of the church, they can if they desire. If you are just married in a church and do not have a Justice of the Peace present to perform the civil portion, YOU WOULD NOT BE MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE STATE and would not be eligible for any of the benefits that come with it. I think that would be fair to everybody, gay and straight. Heck, we can even call the civil portion of marriage something else (just because religious groups think they "own" the word marriage). I think this should be done because I think there is something very wrong when a priest (or other clergy) says "by the power vested in me by the state of xxx..." That should be left for a JP and only a JP (or city clerk).

Would that shut all you bible thumper, Jesus freaks up or do you still want to discriminate in which case you are all going to hell anyway?

Has anyone else noticed that gay marriage supporters love to throw out the "you are taking our constitutional rights away" argument without being specific? Look at the facts people. In California gay couples have ALL of the rights of a married couple through a Domestic Partnership. What the gay agenda wants is social and moral acceptance which is not a constitutional right. We have the right to disagree with your lifestyle.

Don't believe me. Look at the law for yourself it is very clear. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Here is a quote from the code:(a Domestic Partner is ) subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
Domestic Partners are required to complete the same California tax forms as a married couple. http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/RegDomPrtnr/RegDomPrtnr.shtml

CalSTRS, California teachers’ retirement and pension funds provide the same rights to Domestic Partners. http://www.calstrs.com/HELP/faqs/DomesticPartnerfaqs.aspx

Domestic Partners do not receive the benefit filing a Federal Joint Tax Return but Prop 8 would have done nothing to change that. For purposes of federal tax law and benefits, Defense of Marriage Act of 1966 (DOMA) established federal definitions of (a) “marriage” as a legal union only between one man and one woman as husband and wife: and (b) “spouse” as a person only of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. Because of DOMA’s provisions, if a state extends marriage to same-sex couples, same-sex partners would not be treated as spouses for federal tax and employee benefit purposes. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.enr:

"Bunch of hypocrites - you LOST, get over it."

ME? No, we haven't lost.
When we give up, that's when we've lost. This won't stop until fairness and equality has returned to the USA. I don't want special treatment, I just want to know that I can visit my husband in the hospital if something happens to him, and every other "special benefit" heterosexual couples have in that little, unimportant, thing you call marriage.

what? - churches in California should be free to express their moral and social views - unless 48% of the voters object? until the press calls for investigation of all churches who support social causes, can we wonder if the mormons are being scape-goated by liberal political forces?

The Mormon church did not donate the money, it was members of the mormon church! What difference is there between gay organizations tellings its members to donate their time and money and the church telling its members to do the same? Mormons are the scapegoat, there always has to be someone to blame. What a shame, that the mormons are being persecuted for practicing their rights to campaign in this country.

The Mormon Church did not donate the money it was the Mormon member under the direct direction of the Mormon Churh that did. Gee, seems that it was the Mormon Church who did donate the funds then.

Yet another reason all organized religion should not be tax exempt.

ll this talk about "unnatural acts". I am gay, same sex married, and you have no idea what does or does not happen in my bedroom. You presume an awful lot, especially when I dont see anyone scrutinizing YOUR maritial bed.

The Religious Right picked this fight. Gay marriage is as good for gays as straight marriage is for straights, and neither hurts the other. Quit claiming to be "pro marriage" then work on referendums that prevent people from getting married. Talk about confused!

To everyone who has posted criticizing the Mormon Church for "wasting money fighting Prop 8 instead of feeding the hungry or helping the poor":

1) The Mormon Church did not spend any of its own money against Prop 8
2) You obviously have no idea, not even a clue as to how much money and resources the Mormon Church donates around the world, do you? No.

Maybe you should read a book and be informed, so you don't look more ignorant in the future.

Jacques69 : Hey Crack-Pot,

The majority of the people voted AGAINST homosexual "marriage!"

Would any gay-marriage supporter like to answer some questions?

First question – Why should our gov. give legal status to marriage?
One supporter responded, "Because marriages involve children, property and defines the legal bounds of an adult relationship." Valid answer, I agree with that.

Second question – What is the definition of marriage? The same person answered, "People clearly don't agree on all definitions....Language evolves." I can agree with that.

So do you agree that, up until this point, the definition of marriage has been a relationship between a man and a woman, and that the judges basically changed the definition of the word. I guess they felt it was their duty to change the definition of "marriage”, to march forward in the pursuit of progression, and assumed Webster’s dictionary would just catch up. Or would you agree, that at the very least, they created a new word – “gay marriage” which by definition is an oxymoron. Our gov. has always defined marriage as a relationship between a man and woman up until now, and I don't see why we couldn't keep on changing the definition to include any kind of relationship. In my view, the majority simply voted that the judges don't have the right to change the definition, or create a new word that would apply to all marriage laws, just because it seems more progressive or “equal.”

So, third question - How would you have gov. define marriage? One gay marriage supporter said, “Marriage (is) the joining of two committed, caring adults.” Why just two adults?
ramsrn

Forth question - If marriage is a civil right, which it is, to men and women, what do you have the right to do?
I would say you have the right to enter into the gov. recognized marriage contract, and this right is given to every adult regardless of any characteristics they are born with.

Would you agree that, when it comes to making a statement about anything and everything, our gov. has three choices; they can punish it, ignore it, or encourage it, by how they choose to extend rights, benefits, restrictions, or punishments?

Guess what comes under the category of ignored; race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, most kinds of speech, and also, consensual sexual activity. Age doesn’t even fall under this category. This is a pretty good category to be in, wouldn’t you say.

I’m sure you can think of plenty of things our gov. has chosen to punish or restrict. You could argue that they “punish” or treat unequally people of different ages. Or that the unborn are punished. We are all treated unequally through our tax code. People who make more money are punished by having to pay a higher percentage of their taxes. “Equality” is obviously not a moral absolute.

When it comes to things the gov. encourages, like owning a hybrid car, or buying a home, or whatever, somehow the gov. has taken in interest in that behavior for the benefit of society as a whole. Our gov. has decided to encourage, or reward the behavior of getting married, and so they have taken it upon themselves to grant gov. endorsed marriage contracts to whoever wants one, under the definition of a relationship between a man and woman.
Jenn

Not all relationships are created equal, and gov. takes an interest in many kinds of relationships. Your relationship with your child or your sister is not the same as a relationship with someone not genetically related to you. Everyone keeps criticizing the Mormons of condoning polygamy long ago and now, not being tolerant of homosexual relationships. But the Mormons never asked that polygamy be given legal status. They were happy to have their polygamous relationships in the ignored category, but instead they were punished! No wonder they stopped the practice. They were put in jail, and were denied statehood. They, back then, as they still believe now, didn’t feel gov. should necessarily give polygamous marriages legal status, because it’s not what’s in the best interest for society as a whole. They were happy for it to be solely a religious marriage, in their view sanctioned by God for some purpose, they perhaps did not understand.
Homosexuals on the other hand feel their relationships are not good enough to just be in the ignored category, but that they should have the same status given monogamous heterosexual relationships and be put in the encouraged category, I guess because they feel society has an interest in doing so. They are asking for rights, benefits etc. when a majority hasn’t come to the point where they feel this relationship should be encouraged.

So, fifth question - please justify why homosexual relationships need to be encouraged and polygamous relationships do not?

Would you agree that your whole argument for granting the same rewards and benefits to same-sex couples rests on your answer to my first question – What is the purpose of recognizing marriage?

If your argument is that children will thrive equally with a gay couple, is that not just your opinion or belief, and is that not a moral (an idea of what’s right and wrong) you are forcing on everyone else. The moral that the majority happens to be “forcing” upon you is their belief that society benefits from marriage, recognizing the fact that most marriages result in children. And, that children specifically, are best served by growing up in a household with a married man and woman. That’s the moral idea being voted on, not that the type of sex or relationship you have is “wrong.”

Perhaps the world will progress to where everyone agrees that it doesn’t really matter what kind of home children grow up in. For their sakes I hope not. I’ve worked with children for a long time, and if they had as loud of voices as disgruntled adults, they would be demanding the “right” to a married mom and dad.
Jenn

Rick (72 posted @ 08:01), what do you mean "Scientifically these things occur?" I think you mean "statistically". Promiscuity occurs on both ends of the sexual spectrum. If you don't believe me, simply look at the divorce rate (a bigger threat to marriage, BTW, than gay marriage). I'd wager that behind many divorces there is a promiscuity story lurking. Besides, if allowing gays to get married reduces promiscuity, isn't this a good thing? It seems the Religious Right want to have their cake and eat it too. They vilify gays for not living a "traditional" lifestyle yet in the same breath deny us the most traditional thing in the world marriage. And they seem to do it without seeing the hypocrisy in their argument. They're basically chasing their tail with their circular logic.

I'm really not sure what you mean by "physical health happens" (or "mental health" or "life span" or "definition of 'monogamy'". Perhaps you can elucidate what you mean by these points.)

You do go on to say that you compare it to drugs which is completely off in left field. None of your assertions are supported by any "scientific" proof. In fact, science is on the "side" of homosexuality. It's been observed in every culture around the world for centuries, not to mention various animal species. This is something always ignored by the RR. Once they acknowledge that homosexuality is NOT a choice, then they have no leg to stand on. For the record, do you remember the moment you decided to be straight? I don't ever remember deciding to be gay. I just am.

As for the pleasure to be found in beastiality, well my friend, I'm going to have to differ to you on this. Sounds like you have some knowledge of it that I lack.

Jenn (112), you said "So do you agree that, up until this point, the definition of marriage has been a relationship between a man and a woman, and that the judges basically changed the definition of the word. I guess they felt it was their duty to change the definition of 'marriage',"

No. You can try to twist the logic around to make your point of view seem sound, but in drawing the reader along you omitted several important points (I will touch on one). It's the judge's "duty" to intrepret the constitution. The minute you acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice you have to allow for equal protection in the eyes of the law. As for the dictionary playing "catch up", THAT's what it has always done. It reflects common usage.

Your third question ("why just two adults?") seems to go off into left field, implying, of course, that we have a slippery slope and where do we draw the line. For the record, I've yet to see the argument made that someone was "born a polygamist." Again you assume one chooses to be gay. Let's assume, I'm right and that it is not a choice. Would you agree that it makes little sense to give a person an "equal" right to marry the opposite sex when it goes against the very fibre of their being? Suppose for a second, you had the "equal" right to marry the same sex for which you felt no attraction. Wouldn't you feel compelled to want (and fight for the right) to marry someone of the opposite sex, for whom you felt an attraction?

As for your fourth point (113). Yes the government can and does encourage, ignore or punish through it's various policies. But wouldn't you agree that encouraging loving relationships (m&w, w&w, or m&m) that support each other (and, yes, often raise families together) is a good thing? Everyone needs a safety net. Statistically speaking, children raised in gay households often fair equally well, if not better than those raised in straight households. Especially, those are straight households where the relationships are abusive.

Jenn- so if children are entitled tot he right of a married mom and dad, should married couples with children be prevented from divorcing? What if their married parents beat them? What if one of their parents molests them? That's all okay as long as they have heterosexual parents? Should single parents have their kids taken away unless they marry someone of the opposite sex immediately?
If you're suggesting we pre-qualify couples before they're permitted to have children, I'm all for it! But, you're not. You're using your twisted mis-informed logic to say that children need married heterosexual parents to be well-adjusted adults. No parents are perfect. Parents do the best they can.
I have a question fo you:
Can you PROVE that homosexual love is any less real or everlasting than heterosexual love?
You may disagree with it, it may offend you, you may have pre-conceived notions about homosexuals, but you cannot prove that their love isn't real. ALL LOVE IS CREATED EQUALLY!!!

GJA wrote:
"There have been gay people in EVERY nation throughout history. "
Wrong - there are no gays in Iran. Ahmadinejad said so when he was at Columbia University last fall.

Jenn, your argument is flawed. There are two major problems with it.

First, government does not only punish, ignore, or encourage; it also regulates. The government permits gambling by regulation; it neither ignores, punishes, or encourages it. (State lotteries are an exception.) The government does not care who can see you in a hospital, but it sets regulations, regulations that include marital status.

Second, you start by accepting that marriage involves children, property, and legally bounding an adult relationship. Note that the latter point is the only feature common to all heterosexual marriages. However, your conclusion is based solely on the point of children, which aren't even a feature of all heterosexual marriages. As near as I can make out, you assume that government laws about marriage are only meant to encourage child-bearing relationships. You need to prove this.

As a final point, if child-raising really is the central issue, you're left with two problems. You have no rationale for encouraging marriages in which children are not possible, even if one man and one woman are involved. And one might argue that polygamy provides better security for raising children, since the death of one parent would not end the marriage.

It is possible for you to provide additional arguments to address these points, of course. My point is not to change your mind, but to explain why people might find the logic of your arguments as stated above insufficient.

No real story here. Hell continues to rage against the Mormons. The New York Times has raged against the Mormons, along side all Hell, from the beginning.

You know, I've learned that it's really a good omen to have the Devil hate you and desire to throw you in a pit. I'm a Mormon and I'll be worried when Heaven rages against us- that would be a problem indeed... so far, so good.

To Eric Pennington :

What 'MORAL' cause????????????????????

As an active member of the Mormon Church, I was never commanded to give money or vote for Prop 8. I was never told I would be committing a sin if I didn't do those things. It is truly amazing to see how ignorant people are about MY religion. Sweeping generalities, lies, accusations, it is ridiculous. Every election cycle we are always encouraged to study the issues and candidates and get out and vote. We are NEVER COMMANDED FOR WHAT OR WHOM TO VOTE. How silly it is to suggest that because I am a religious person I should not have been able to donate to the Obama campaign and Prop 2.as well.

Suzanne, nobody ever made the suggestion that you or any other religious person should not be able to give to give to whatever causes you desire. When people use the term "Mormons", they use it as shorthand for the Mormon church.

For all who are Pro Prop 8, I have never seen anyone EVER prove to me that they had a moment where they chose the heterosexual "lifestyle" (whatever that is). So by extension, you must accept the fact that I (nor any of my fellow brothers and sisters) CHOSE to be gay. We always have been. The only "choice" is not to live a life of shame and guilt that many on the Religious Right would have us live. We accept that God made us who we are embrace it.

Finally, I HOPE Demophile is merely being facetious. Of course, I thought about Ahmadinejad before I made that statement. For those that don't realize it, he (Ahmadinejad) was full of crap. The only gays in Iran are closeted or dead.

The same sex marriage side sounds so angry. It never fails that they seem to resort to the ever familiar attacks on anyone who doesn't share their view. I think they are so shocked that their position lost in "liberal" California. They attack churches, business owners, individuals, and even God. I even saw a group of same-sex marriage advocates attack a woman holding a cross! The same sex marriage side had much more money and advertising than the side supporting traditional marriage. They had famous movie stars and senators promoting their cause. Their commericals were constantly on the TV. They think they lost because they did not "run a good campaign." I just think they don't "get it." The people who voted for traditional marriage INCLUDED: Catholics, Mormans, Evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Black and Hispanic churchgoers, Democrats and Republicans, those who follow the cause of nature, etc. It was the 6.7 million Californians who voted for restoring traditional marriage. It was ALL different types of people who live in California.
The support of traditional marriage, i.e., one man and one woman, isn't about stripping gays of any of their rights. This issue is about RESTORING what has been traditionally known as "marriage," namely one man and one woman. According to many studies, the BEST situation for a child is to be in a loving and stable home with their father and mother. Children learn different things from a mother and different things from a father. To be truely complete, children need to learn from BOTH. Two mother's and/or two father's CAN'T give the child what they truely need. Again, I am most concerned with the children. Some families have problems and are broken. Why should we give up? Why isn't the goal to help these broken families? I also have to comment on the idea that there are "gay" animals found in nature. You all realize the craziness in that comment. Even nature will cause two "gay" animals to go extinct.
The May 2008, CA judges decision for gay marriage was 4 to 3. Ultimately, it was ONE person's opinion and/or interpretation of the Constitution that led to the change in the law. I would neither call that resounding support for the change, nor would I call it reasonable for the rest of society to be unquestioning of it's validity. I disageed with the four judges and agreed the THREE dissenting judges. Marriage is an historical institution and has value in society. Whether or not a person is religious, it has always been recognized that marriage is between a man and a woman. No one is taking away ANY rights from the gay community by supporting traditional marriage, the gay community ALREADY has equality through the CA law. As a matter of fact, last year, CA allowed Registered Domestic Partners to file a Joint tax return. Just like a married couple! This WILL NOT CHANGE. For your further information, heterosexual couples have to be 62 or older to qualify. Gay RDP actually have MORE rights than heterosexual couples.

Shaun - you'd best start worrying, because if you think that heaven doesn't rage against hate and bigotry, you may be in for a bit of an awakening.
Debbie - marriage has absolutely not always been recognized as being between a man and a woman. Your Old Testament will show you differently. And rights have been taken away. That's not debatable, and for you to state otherwise is Sarah Palin-level ignorant of the facts, and damned stupid given the reality. So Debbie and Shaun and the rest of you pro-Prop H-8 people - can we put your marriages up to a vote? Should we take your rings and your kids from you? Teaching hate to kids is a pretty evil thing, wouldn't you say? Let's put your rights and liberties up to a vote, OK? Seems eminently fair to me.

Peacemkr - if you are going to talk about historical marriage, than get the information right, marriage orriginated in Mesopotamia (this pre-dates Egypt) when wives were traded, in much the same way as property would be. Mesopotamians also had what we would call divorce as well.
In Egypt marriage was between a man and a woman, not WOMEN as you seem to think. marriage in Egypt was actually very similar to mesopotamia, however marriages in Egypt were arranged (usually between the girls father and the future husband).. and for future knowledge wiki's do not count as reliable sources

When your body is formed one way in the womb and is birthed as either male or female, that is your gender. If your mind is telling you your sexual orientation does not match the gender you have been given (if I'm to buy into this false premis that homosexuality or lesbianism is not a choice), then that would make homosexuals and lesbians either cognitively impaired or insane, would it not? Since prayer does not appear to be an option (utter hatred displayed for any religious institution in prior postings by many), then may I recommend heavy medication to help overcome the mental deficiency being experienced on the left side of the isle in this argument.

What most of you that are against those of us that believe in Jesus Christ don't understand is that we are Americans and have a right to vote. The right to vote is a fundamental right afforded to all Americans, except maybe for some felons. Just because we don’t support gay marriage does not mean that we lose our citizenship or right to vote.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and have a calling as finance clerk. There has not been $.01 from church donations that has been diverted to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Any money or time that Mormons have donated has been a personal choice. You call us bigots for doing with our money and time what we choose. Who are you to tell me or anybody else what do with our resources? You are more than bigots you are Anarchists and despots!

For your information you will not go to hell for not paying tithing, but will go there for knowingly being immoral. Jesus Christ came in the flesh so mankind could be saved.

Churches engaged in profit and politics should lose all tax exempt status. Abuse of the status to the degree that it has achieved, has been going on for the last 100+ years and has got to stop. To those who say "you lost get over it"; this is not a football game, these are peoples lives, they are not going to get over it, nor should they be expected to. The mainstream church has become nothing more than a socially accepted hate group, no better, no worse, no different, than the KKK or the Aryan Nations; and it has not place in civilized or polite society. I refuse to "get over it" and I'm not even gay. Equal rights for everyone, or no one at all.

There is no rational reason under the laws that govern the United States of America that would deny marriage to any person of age to marry. None, zero, zip, this is all illogical crap and we as a country need to grow up. This is a country of laws, not a country of theocrartic dictators who will only rule by religious codes.

If there is no marriage for all the only the terrorists win. I damn all who do not support marriage for all.

Many hear comment about the hate from the people how are pro marriage for all and I have to say that if someone were against your rights to marry who you want then you would be filled with hate also

Debbie (post 125) said "The same sex marriage side sounds so angry." Debbie, if you had your civil rights taken from you, you would be too. Make no mistake. This IS about civil rights. The California Constitution guarantees equal rights for all citizens. Same sex marriage in CA was legal until this passed. It's a simple case of the tyranny of the majority taking away rights from the minority.

As for the "unanimous" vote you seem to imply, it was a difference of 4.4%. And the "yes on h8" people told a lot of lies to get that bare majority. They claimed Obama was for Prop 8. In addition to this lie, they told many others (http://www.kreativekorp.com/edu/lies.html). Hardly honorable.

I won't defend the bad behavior on my side, but I find it hard to believe a woman was attacked for carrying a cross. If this had been the case, I'm sure it would have been reported on the news. I suspect you're just fanning the flames of hate.

To argue to keep doing something simply because it's ALWAYS BEEN that way is no argument at all. With that logic in mind, we would still be in the Dark Ages because the Renaissance would have never happened.

As for "gay animals" in nature, I suggest you Google the term. You'll be surprise at what you find.

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

"Is homosexuality natural? On this issue, Nature has spoken: Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species, scientists say."
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html

Ever hear of recessive genes? Let's leave the genetics to someone much more knowledgeable than yourself. Shall we?

As for Civil Unions being equal to Marriage. Not so. This short video may help enlighten you.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbQ4b8RpCXc).

Finally, I offer a quote to those who feel the will of the people is being thwarted "In 1948, the court was accused of thwarting the will of the people when it struck down the ban on interracial marriage; it would face similar condemnation if it ruled that "equal protection of the laws" requires the same treatment for heterosexual and same-sex couples. But, as in 1948, the result would be the just one." (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-ed-marriage8mar08,1,1228324.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)

To Ontheleft:

Hatred and Bigotry? Are you kidding? All Mormons did was peacefully exercise their right to vote according to their values and their desire to preserve the definition of marriage. That makes us bigots full of hatred? I would say that your accusation in and of itself says a lot about who is full of hatred here... You're totally illogical and out of line.

Posted by No One (129) "What most of you that are against those of us that believe in Jesus Christ don't understand is that we are Americans and have a right to vote. The right to vote is a fundamental right afforded to all Americans, except maybe for some felons. Just because we don’t support gay marriage does not mean that we lose our citizenship or right to vote" --Huh?!?!

No One, what YOU don't seem to understand is that the Civil Rights of other U.S. citizens is NOT up for a vote. Your rights as an American citizen END when they trample upon MY rights. This is the position of the courts.

And we don't call you bigots for "doing with [your] money and time what [you] choose". We call you bigots because you are convinced of the superiority your own opinions. We are hardly anarchists (now you're just being melodramatic). We simply want equal rights.

Life is tough at times and we don't always get our way. The lifestyle that has been prominent since the inception of this country has been one of marriage between a man and woman. To say that same sex couples have a constructional right to marriage is contrary to the founders’ intentions.

If we take a look at basic fundamental Biology we will find the truth. It has to be a man and a woman who are to be a pair. How else was this earth populated? I have a big doubt that it was a same sex couple that started the population of the planet earth.

Sexual preference is not a constitutionally protected right. It is a personal choice; like what color shirt I choose to buy.

Sexual preference is not a civil right; it is a choice.

Back when gays and lesbians were trying to get civil unions, they assured the voters that they did not want to encroach on heterosexual marriage and that they were fine with being allowed a civil union with many of the same rights as marriage. They have changed their minds and are now assuring us that their right to marry will not effect anybody else and that they will not try to force anything else on the public. Now they are filing law suits in Massachusetts to force schools to teach homosexual marriage, to force churches to marry them, to force businesses to cater to them. Its true -- look it up. And by the way, the stuff taught in schools will not only be in sex ed where a parent will be given notice and an opportunity to withdraw their kids -- it will be taught in English class, social studies etc . . . where there is no notice or opportunity to withdraw. It is a slippery slope that we have started down. Apparently, 52% of Californians recognized that.
And by the way, we do have equal rights -- I can marry exactly the same people that any other male in the U.S. can marry. Absolutely no difference. Unequal rights are when a group are prevented from doing something that others can do based on arbitrary standards. That does not exist here. This is a case where a group wants additional rights that have never existed. I would compare it to those who advocate legalizing marijuana. There are a group of people who love marijuana (you might even say that there are people who were born with a genetic disposition to love marijuana) and want it to be legal. There is nothing wrong with wanting that, but does it mean that their wish should be granted? If we did grant their wish, then the meth and cocaine lovers would say; "hey, what about us!?". You get my point. And does that mean that marijuana lovers are discriminated against because they can't enjoy what they love? No, because they can enjoy the exact same drugs as every other person in the U.S. However, I would argue that they have it even worse because there is nothing illegal about being gay or lesbian or entering into a civil union (or marriage in Mass) in the U.S.

Homosexuality may be a choice, at least for some people. Chances are, because scientists have had such a difficult time finding a "gay gene," that homosexuality results from a combination of biological and environmental factors. However, even if a biological link is found, such evidence would not rule out the possibility that some homosexuality is a result of strictly environmental factors, or even a combination of environmental factors and one's own choices. Is it a valid concern that society's acceptance of homosexual behavior may increase the incidence of people who exhibit it? Is there evidence to suggest that such concerns are unfounded?

According to the APA:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

The only ones who are being aggressive are the individuals who are constantly pushing the envelope on societal norms. Marriage, by far and large, throughout history for many millennia has been defined as the joining together of the opposite sex in contract (a promise or oath). In many cases it was not a government that recognized the union, but local tribal leaders, members of the community and family. I'm well versed in world history. There has always been and always will be deviant behavior by fringe elements in society - modern times being no different. A societal norm in this country is being challenged. The founding fathers never dreamed homosexuality and lesbianism would be a problem in relation to marriage rights or it is highly probable they would have made sure to clarify for the sake of today’s degenerating society that marriage was to be between a man and a woman only. Why would this be said? Show me one legitimate marriage certificate generated in this country from 1781 to 1970. Also, the phrase, “Coming out of the closet” wasn’t coined until the 1970’s. This means this type of behavior was not acceptable in this nation prior to that and, in fact, has not been acceptable to the majority in this nation since. Throughout history rampant homosexuality has typically been an indication that a society is nearing its end. Need an example, look at Rome. But even there, the same sex cult was not pushing for marriage rights. That would have been laughable. What does that say for the current condition of our world?
The concern that should be on the minds of our society is the level of social propaganda that is being pumped into the heads of our youth in the public school system pertaining to this issue. It is not the school’s right or place to indoctrinate our children on what is right and wrong, or acceptable in society. That is the right of the parents in the home. Take a look at what has happened in the state of MA since 2005. Parent’s rights with respect to what they want their children to learn or be exposed to have been trampled beyond recognition. This is not a communist or socialist country where the state is the guardian of all peoples. That is where this is headed.
Once marriage rights are granted to this fringe element, then freedom of speech and religion both become curtailed. Churches are penalized for not marrying same sex couples, ministers are sued for discrimination, and the church is told it can’t preach the Word of God because it infringes upon Title 7, which provides greater rights to deviants than heterosexuals based on a choice of sexual orientation. Preaching the Word becomes “hate speech.” This is all conjecture at this point, but is not too far off from becoming reality if we continue down this road. Need an example, look at Sweden.
We all have Gavin Newsom to thank for opening Pandora’s Box. Homosexuals and lesbians have a right to their lifestyle (a civil right) but the majority is saying they do not appreciate how “in your face” the behavior has become. Live your life and mind your business. We’ll live our life and mind ours. You cannot force people to accept your behavior (I never will). That’s not to say I don’t like you. That is to say I don’t like your behavior. Gavin has created enormous division by his actions and lack of respect for democracy. All of this hatred and division for, at most, 4% of our population who have chosen to lead an “alternative” lifestyle, unbelievable. The fact that 48% of voters in the state of CA did not support Prop 8 is an indication that marriage has all but lost its meaning in this state. Our divorce rate is out of control and climbing. We are a nation that no longer understands the meaning of commitment and do not feel we have to honor our word or promises. There is so much more here…we are in such trouble. We simply are in need of God.

No One (137), so when did you decide to be straight? Tell me about that defining moment in your life when you weighed "Hmmmmm. Should I be gay? Or should I be straight?" It must be a very clear moment in your life for you to be so certain of your convictions.

DisgustedInCA (140), Wow! You aren't even playing in the same ballpark as the rest of reality. You're awfully fast and loose with all of your facts. I guess you must feel that if you declare yourself "well versed in world hIstory" and get your assertions "published", that will make them real. My friend, you've been borrowing from the Bush/Rove playbook. Now, THEY ARE BIGOTS (for those quick to offend, look up the word. It means "one convinced of the superiority of their own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions"). Well after eight years of them in office, look at the mess the country is in now. I think W has finally been humbled based on his recent remarks. To bad he never invited opposing opinions into his cabinet. He quashed dissenters.

You are simply repeating all of the lies put forth by the Yes on 8 people. They were lies during the campaign. Asserting them now does not make them true.

May I offer a suggestion? Why don't you focus on that climbing divorce rate. That's one thing you can't "blame on the gays".

Finally, I must laugh at the irony you don't even see in your closing statement. You abhor that "we are a nation that no longer understands the meaning of commitment". My friend, that's all that gays and lesbians would like. The chance to make that commitment to each other. On the one hand, you abhor homosexuality because it's not traditional. With the other hand you deny us the chance to be traditional and make that commitment. Your circular logic astounds me.

This current attitude of the gay movement is name calling and accusations. No different than the KKK or other extremists or gay bashers that have polluted our society here in the USA. Gays complain that they are being discriminated against yet they continue to practice their right to choose who they have sex with.

I am not gay and don’t plan to be gay in the future. That is my choice, but what of the millions that don’t get a choice? There are millions of people in the world that have been forced to participate in homosexual acts. A good example of this is American prisons and jails where men are raped and forced to be gay and women who are arrested and enter the jail system are coerced though intimidation to submit to some lesbian stud. This is accomplished through fear, physical violence or the threat of physical violence and emotional abuse. I have never heard of anybody being forced to be a heterosexual by the sexual deviates and dirt bags that infest the lockups of the world. The abused are eventually released and become gay persons, but their conversion is tainted—they became gay due to rape and pressure by sexual predators. After this they become gay activist spreading their forced belief on all those they encounter.

What of the children that have been raped or are being forced to submit to sexual abuse? There are many and I know that there are many of you gays that can confirm this fact. There are many gays that have been sexually abused from childhood giving them no choice but to be gay, they know no better.

I am not talking of all gays. There are many out there that just plain enjoy sex with the same sex, this even if they are in a heterosexual marriage.

The LDS Church did not donate any money to the proposition 8 campaign. The Church did come out with statements urging its members to support prop. 8, i.e., it spoke out on a moral issue. Members themselves stepped up to the plate and donated time and money to the cause. The contention that the church should lose its tax-exempt status for speaking out on a mroal issue is truly ludicrous.

"No One," your contribution #142 is a splendid argument for prison reform and child abuse prevention. Sadly, it is based on a flawed theory of human sexuality. Participating in a homosexual act does not turn someone from having a heterosexual orientation into a homosexual orientation, or vice versa. If you, No One, go to prison as a straight person, you'll almost certainly come out as one, though you may have been forced to suffer homosexual attentions in the meantime. If going to prison did "make gays," then the prevalence of homosexuality in any group would be proportionate to the percentage of that population that had been incarcerated. And if a homosexual experience gave one a homosexual orientation, then studies of adolescent sexual experimentation indicate that the homosexually oriented population would be much higher than it is.

You do not hear of much forced heterosexual activity among prisoners, because in this country we segregate prisoners by sex. However, there are many women outside of prison who were raped by men, so forced heterosexual activity does occur. Presumably by your theory, these women all became heterosexually oriented as a result of the experience, whatever their orientation was before. That would imply that female heterosexuality increases proportionately to the prevalence of rape. I rather doubt it.

There is homosexual child abuse and heterosexual child abuse. Both harm the children psychologically and developmentally. By your logic, children who are abused will tend to become oriented like their abuser. Is there a study to demonstrate this?

As some previous posts have indicated, marriage is indeed an institution. Can somebody please explain to me when membership in an institution became a civil/human right. Our state legislature is also an institution, do I have a "right" to join that institution and vote on pending legislation....No. The point is that words have meaning, do not confuse the current militant gay rights movement with the civil rights movement of the fifties they are NOT the same. I dont understand how you can make an argument that marriage is a civil right, then in the same breath exclude others such as polygamists or even a brother and sister who want to marry. Dont they also have a "civil right" to marry whomever they choose. It is the height of hypocrisy.

No One said, "This current attitude of the gay movement is name calling and accusations. No different than the KKK or other extremists or gay bashers that have polluted our society here in the USA. "

Wow. The term "bigot" must have hit a nerve for you to curl up and cry. You know, that term pales in comparison to a lot of the names hurled by Fred Phelps' Family of Hate. People in glass houses . . .

No One, said "Gays complain that they are being discriminated against yet they continue to practice their right to choose who they have sex with."

Huh? More of your circular logic.

No One. You dodged my question entirely. When did you decide to be straight? You seem so convinced that homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay. What was that defining moment in your life where you declared to yourself "I'm going to be straight"? This is your chance to share. You might just teach me something.

I don't think I can add anything to Yog-Sothoth's eloquent rebuttal of your tangent.

You know, if you were to actually read up on human sexuality, you might be surprised to find that all the things you believed to be true are myths. But then, you don't strike me as a person of strong enough character to withstand having his/her beliefs challenged.

The scoreboard shows 52% Yes, 48% No. If the Mormons were really "the problem" the vote would have been 2% Yes, 98% No as they represent a very small percentage of Californians. By focusing our hatred on the Mormons we are no better than the Nazis blaming WWI on the Jews. I am ashamed.

@Clark #146
"When did you decide to be straight? You seem so convinced that homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay. What was that defining moment in your life where you declared to yourself "I'm going to be straight"? This is your chance to share. You might just teach me something."

This is a faulty premise. You can CHOOSE any lifestyle you want regardless of your sexual orientation. A defining moment is irrelevant, you choose everyday who you want to be and what your going to do. Stating otherwise is as pathetic as the old christian line "the devil made me do it". Even if you are born with hetero or homosexual attraction, ultimately you are the one who decides whether or how you act on those impulses. No one forces you to choose to live a gay or straight lifestyle, at least in this society. Not even your own genes can do that, even if it is proven scientifically that there is some sort of "gay" gene, that doesn't release you from the responsibility of making your own choices.

You can be "gay" and choose to lead a straight life. You can't choose your race or your gender (at least without significant surgery) but you CAN choose whether you want to live a gay or a straight life. So therefore it is not a civil rights issue. This an elective lifestyle, society and morality issue. Not saying its easy to choose, but we all have difficult things to overcome in life. Some have physical disabilities, ailments, some struggle with alcoholism, smoking or gambling, some have migraines, some are abused, etc. These are all difficult things, but they can be overcome. In whatever circumstance you find yourself, you choose who you are. For those who believe there is a purpose to this life, overcoming these obstacles plays a major part in their personal progression and character.

Is being gay or straight who you are? No, its only how you, through your actions, choose to live.

We're all free to disagree with each other, promote our ideas, and vote our conscience, even Mormons.

Disagreement doesn't mean hatred.Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. Tolerance is allowing for others to have and state their point of view despite your disagreement with it. Tolerance is learning to peacefully coexist with each other while not necessarily having to condone how each other exists. Mormons have no hatred toward anyone, any Mormons that do hate are not living the teachings of Jesus are in need repenting.

Some have remarked snidely, referring to the church's shocked response to the negative backlash it has received, that we should have saw it coming. We did. We knew full well a backlash would happen, that wasn't what we we're shocked about. We were shocked at the blatant display of true colors by those supposedly campaigning against hate and intolerance. We knew we'd be attacked, that was a given, but we didn't realize how spectacularly the gay community and its supporters would throw away everything they ever worked for by viciously singling out and vilifying a smaller minority with whom they didn't agree with because they were an easy target, prone to turn the other cheek and not retaliate. It was like they up and gave up their cause all at once for a moment of revenge. Have they no principles? Is it all just selfish self entitlement rage? Mormons had a hard time with the council from our presidency at first. We almost believed the gay communities front that they weren't out to get anyone, that they were just about peace and love, live and let live, but now we see.

Singling out Mormons and attempting to strip them of their tax exempt status in order to shut them up or make them pay for their beliefs demonstrates the same hate and intolerance they supposedly abhor. I read through Fred Karger's spurious error filled allegations about the Mormons on his petition to the IRS. I laughed all the way through it and told him what a sloppy unethical farce it was, he responded in kind by saying he knows the church probably isn't guilty of anything but that there may be a chance he can get a movement going to make more restrictive campaign laws against non-profit churches and organizations.

And there's the rub. What were religious organizations afraid the gays would try to do despite there insistance that they wouldn't harm anyone? That's right, attempt to strip away tax exemption and restrict freedom of speech and religion through taking away churches rights to speak out on moral issues and initiative legislation. The defense of "oh no, we won't teach your kids about gay marriage" from the no on 8 people didn't give much confidence to the pro 8 people who saw teacher's taking their school kids to see their gay wedding. Nor did the all the school boards endorsing the no on 8 campaign. Nor did all the bigoted marches, signs, protests, vandalism, violence, mobs assaulting and running people out of town, blacklisting, intimidating, boycotting, extorting, slanders, tantrum throwing, hatred and general venom spewing intolerance (yes I can back up every one of those claims, try me). You'd think I was talking about some white supremacist hate group, but no, I'm talking about a very ugly side of the gay community and its supporters. And now its there for everyone to see. Congratulations, you've gone and shot yourselves in the foot.

Honestly, in recent years I really thought the gay community was doing a great job of fitting into society and mainstream culture, not getting in peoples faces, demonstrating their many talents and benefits to society and living normal everyday private lives like the rest of us. Then this election came about and they regressed into such bitter hate filled individuals and blew away any chance they had at winning people over. Especially now that we see their true colors and agenda. All it does is confirm everyone one of our suspicions and sets their cause back many years.

Seriously, most religious people could care less what gays do in their personal lives. We all want them to have equal rights, hence civil unions and all the rights and benefits that married couples enjoy. But its the overreaching, the demanded special treatment and the forcing of people to accept their lifestyle through the courts, thats what rubs people the wrong way. The Mormon leaders knew and warned about what the gay agenda was and saw what the potential consequences were should prop 8 fail. Chalk it up to divine inspiration or just dumb luck if you want to, but we can all clearly see it was true. This wasn't just about loving couples wanting to have their relationships recognized by the state. It was much much more. Stop overreaching, stop demanding special treatment, stop going through activist judges. If you want to win start reaching out to those who oppose you, propose legislation of your own, explain your point of view, respect differing views and compromise, do this and agreements can be reached that will satisfy everyone. Force the issue and you'll see a backlash of your own just like there's been the last 2 propositions.

poq, since as you suggest, one can choose a sexual lifestyle regardless of orientation, that implies that a heterosexually-oriented man could choose to engage in homosexual sex on a regular basis. There's an obvious physiological reason involving male arousal that makes me think this is not so, that most men could not choose to have sexual relations with people they are not attracted to at some level. And I don't know how often I've heard heterosexually-oriented men say they they could never imagine being attracted to other men, let alone actually having sex with them. You can tell them they are mistaken or liars; I will not.

Sigmund Freud believed we all did start with the inherent ability to enjoy any form of sexual practice, but that this capacity was lost as the sexual urges were canalized over time. Your position involves accepting the first bit and rejecting the second part. (Otherwise, for the reason I gave in the previous paragraph, men might not be able to choose how to act out their sexuality.) And that means that the full range of possible human sexual behavior is a natural part of being a human adult. (Note I say NATURAL; acceptable is another question.) Do you really want to make this claim? Gay activists would love it if you did.

Not to take anything away from Yog-Sothoth's eloquent post, but . . .

Poq, you state that "You can be 'gay' and choose to lead a straight life." This is a very destructive path. It begins with the assumption that if you have homosexual feelings that there is something wrong with you. You're broken or somehow "less than". Already this places a burden on the individual and creates low self-esteem. For the individual that embarks down this path it can be extremely self-destructive. I love how many Yes on H8 people think sexuality is something you can switch off and on, like a light.

Let's set the record "straight" (pardon the pun), shall we? There is nothing wrong with me. God, in his loving magnificence, made me just like he made you. In fact, you can see God created homosexuality for thousands of species. Google the term "gay animals" if you don't believe me. It sounds to me that you have a lot of misconceptions, myths and lies that you believe about homosexuality. Perhaps broadening your worldview is in order. Science and medicine have long said that homosexuality is not abnormal. The only resistance comes from SOME of the churches. Notice, I said "some", as many churches have come to the same realization as science and medicine.

You said "Is being gay or straight who you are? No, its only how you, through your actions, choose to live." For the most part, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I would only like to amend it slightly. Being gay is not ALL that I am. But it IS a part of me. I don't lie about it. And now that I have embraced it, I am much happier and my life is much more productive for it. It seems to me, THAT is a more positive and productive benefit for society than someone who is an emotional cripple.

I notice in your previous post that you repeat the same lies told by the Yes on H8 campaign. I want to correct a few. It wasn't the teachers taking their school kids to see their gay wedding. It was the parents who organized the trip to surprise the teacher (and no one was forced to attend. Some parents opted to keep their kids behind.) The parents fought the use of their childrens' pictures by the Yes on H8 campaign. Supporters of Yes on H8 also said that Barack Obama was for Prop 8 (another lie). Yes on H8 said Churches would be forced to perform gay marriage (another lie--this would be a violation of church and state.) Perhaps a little light reading is in order to to discover what other lies were told. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,7071124.story)

Was there a lot of bad behavior on the No on H8 side? Sure. Just as there was bad behavior on the Yes on H8. I don't condone any personal attacks, violence or vandalism for either side. But "bigoted"? Sorry, that word just doesn't fit. The No on H8 responses were following the money trail. Most of the donations were given or exhorted by Mormons (see next paragraph). And you know what, it's completely fair game for us to use that information to boycott. Are you actually advocating that we should continue to give our hard earned dollars to those who would take away our rights? I didn't think so.

But speaking of bad behavior, what do you have to say about the Yes on H8's tactic of calling businesses who donated to No on H8 and threatening to "out" them if they didn't give an equal contribution to the Yes on H8 campaign?
(http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=13060) (http://crooksandliars.com/julia-rosen/mormons-and-prop-8-lies-and-blackmail). The letter was sent by Mark Jansson, a self-described member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I don't have a problem with him publishing a list of No on H8 donors. But exhorting more money from businesses to keep their names off the list? That's blackmail. Guess the Latter-day "saints" aren't exactly that, huh? That's real Christ-like behavior.

Somebody please explain to me what "special treatment" gays are asking for. I just want the right to marry my significant other (and acquire all the rights associated with it). What is wrong with that? And what's so special about it?

Finally, the term "activist" judge. Last time I looked, it was a judge's duty to interpret laws in light of the Constitution. If Loving v. Virginia (allowing interracial marriage) were decided today, there would be many on Right calling them activist judges. Today it seems like common sense. In the future, people will look back on all the gay marriage hoopla and think "what was the big deal?"

You said, "We're all free to disagree with each other, promote our ideas, and vote our conscience, even Mormons". Yes. I have no problem with any of those things except the last. I have no problem with "voting your conscience" unless it involves the rights of others. I don't think my civil rights should be up for your consent. And, yes, I legally had the right to marry before this, a right that Prop 8 has momentarily taken from me. Ask yourself one question: "if someone had taken away my right to marry, how would I feel?" And you wonder why people are outraged.

Some wonderful information about the naturalness of homosexuality. It's a video on YouTube quoting from material in the Library of Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNgvbgc-eFU&watch_response

I have met individuals who have claimed to have been turned into homosexuals by their parents and I have seen many others who have been made homosexual due to there environment. I have never seen anybody raped and then that person claim that they were turned into heterosexuals. That in itself is an absurd notion. But what is not absurd is the fact that many who claim to be homosexual have been forced. It is only logical to presume that these individuals will be advocates for the homosexual lifestyle that they live and will pass it on to others and maybe even force others just out shame so that they do not feel isolated.

You might try to find your way around this but the fact is that there are many thousands or million that have been made gay through force and coercion and some even due to such things as drug addictions who sell themselves for lucre.

I am not saying that there are not some individuals that seem to be homosexual naturally but can anybody claim that there has not been some outside influence?

Then there are some that are just plain sexual deviants that seek sexual satisfaction by whatever means possible.

Whether it be Creationism or Evolutionism human sexual organs are for reproduction of the species to use them for any other reason not between man and woman is not natural. The human eliminatory canal is for disposal of waste not for the insertion of reproductive sexual organs.

Homosexuality is not a race it is a lifestyle. If constitutional rights are give to all those who claim that their lifestyle is constitutionally protected, them there would be drug addicts, child rapists, mass murders and criminal enterprises asking to be recognized as a protected class of people. Who would then claim the right to practice their choice of lifestyle with impunity.

Sorry, No One. I don't buy your argument, which strikes me as a bunch of hearsay. You can't make a straight person gay anymore than you can make a gay person straight. Some have tried. But those experiments ended in failure. Being forced or coerced to commit gay acts (or for that matter selling yourself for drug money) does not make you gay. Just because you have gay sex one time does not inherently make you gay anymore than I could sleep with a woman and be straight.

For the record, I am a gay man who realized early on my attraction for other men. There was no outside influence. Nearly all of my gay friends say the same thing. Again for the record, you can be gay without having anal sex. (Uh, that would be me). And for what it's worth, there are many straight couples that engage in anal sex. (I can't help but paraphrase Anita Bryant here) It's not just for gay couples. Your bringing it up is simply irrelevant.

No one ever claimed that homosexuals were their own race. One doesn't distinguish people with different eye color as different races. Why would you try to with sexuality? Your equation of homosexuality with people that abuse themselves or inflict harm/prey on others is patently ridiculous. Most people I know (and I'm thinking of the straight people here) would laugh in your face and roll there eyes at THAT comparison.

Now to your point that many people may have been forced into gay acts, those are not acts of conversion. Those are acts of abuse. And they are wrong. I hope that anyone that had to endure this is able to receive all of the love, support and counseling they need to recover from these acts of dominance. My heart and prayers go out to them.

Honestly, you really sound like someone who is uninformed on the topic and subscribing to all sorts of myths and lies. I highly recommend checking out the video link above. The doctor quotes from material at the Library of Congress. It's 10 minutes long and full of facts.

What some people don't want to accept is that there are homosexuals that were forced to be homosexuals. For those who were forced to be homosexuals it is an ugly part of their lives, one of filth and depravity whether you BUY IT OR NOT it is true. It is not hearsay it is fact. You can close your eyes to it. You can deny it but the truth is that it is true fact.

Homosexuality has a dark side. If you ever get around Los Angeles take a walk around skid row. There is an entire area that is infested with homosexual transvestites, drug addicts that will do just about anything for drugs. Yes there are others there but many of the homosexual converted because there are sexual perverts that pay for unnatural sex and are fascinated seeing a man dressed as a women. The hospitals are full of those who have HIV or AIDS. Los Angeles is not the only area. It is spread out throughout the whole USA in most big cities.

It is not something that I heard it is something that I have seen.

I am not misinformed about homosexuals. I have seen them and have been around them. One thing I can assure anybody is that not all homosexuals became the way they are because it came naturally to them.

I can agree that some gay persons are more prone to be gay but there are many more that have had to be prodded in to being gay.

I will never be convinced that being gay is completely natural. There are to many variables involved. I do not need to see any video links. I have seen all I need to see frist hand.

No One, to lay all of societies' ills at the feet of homosexuality ignores the problems. The people you speak of are in need of assistance (financial, psychological or even from abusive relationships). The fact that they have resorted to homosexual acts in order to survive ignores the bigger plight of why they are in the situation they are in. They are not where they are because they were "forced to be gay". You said it yourself "they will do just about anything for drugs." They're not distinguishing between gay or straight clientele. Their behavioral change is merely a symptom of a much larger problem. If you could magically eliminate homosexuality tomorrow there would still be a Skid Row (yes, I've been there and seen it on my commute home.)

HIV and AIDS hit the gay population first. But it's growing fastest among heterosexual Seniors and Baby Boomers. I agree that we should do all we can to stem the spread of the disease. But you make it seem like gay people are going around and forcing straight people to be gay in order to spread the disease. Surely, you're not suggesting that? People need to be responsible for their own behavior. That will happen with education.

Finally, the fact that you confuse transvestitism with homosexuality demonstrates your ignorance on the topic. There are many cross-dressing men who are straight. (And yes, there are others who are gay.) You've "seen them" and "been around them", huh? But do you really know anybody that's gay? I mean, really get to know them as a person? It's easy to demonize someone from a distance. Your "assurances" ring pretty hollow when you hold gays at arm's length. I can assure you that MOST gays were not made gay by others (I think my voice, speaking as a gay man, counts for a little more than yours in this matter. Call it expert testimony if you will.)

The LA Times polls showed that people who didn't have a college education were more likely to vote Yes On H8. People who are convinced of the superiority of their own opinions and do not open their minds to other possibilities are doomed to a world of hurt. We had one such demagogue in the White House for the last 8 years. He populated his staff with "yes" men and didn't tolerate dissenting opinions (which he viewed as 'disloyalty'.) Now look at the world of hurt we're in. Thankfully, we have an enlightened man taking over the office who is intellectually curious and wants to hear all sides of the issues. I really suspect that this man will go far and pray that he governs wisely.

The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.
Sir William Osler (1849 - 1919)

Nothing is worse than active ignorance.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (460 BC - 377 BC), Law

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968), Strength to Love, 1963

Ignorance and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind.
John Tillotson (1630 - 1694)

It is worse still to be ignorant of your ignorance.
Saint Jerome (374 AD - 419 AD)

It is impossible to make people understand their ignorance; for it requires knowledge to perceive it and therefore he that can perceive it hath it not.
Jeremy Taylor (1613 - 1667)

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963), speech at Vanderbilt University, May 18, 1963

All great quotes. And, no, I don't claim to know everything. But what I lack in knowledge I passionately make up for in active research.

BTW, congratulations. The universe has a way of delivering to our doorstep that which we fear the most (because we give it energy.) I just hope when that close friend or relative announces to you that he/she is gay that you let wisdom and compassion guide your actions and not ignorance.

The Uniterian Universalists in California did it right - they set up a Political Action Committee for NO on 8

Let's protest the UU for their spending on Prop 8

Also - please scrutinize the United Church of Christ again for their meddling in political activities.

Clark (141) It is a fact of historical record that moral decay is the beginning of the end of every great society in history (regardless of what you say). A sign that our nation is in moral decay is that the institution of marriage has lost its meaning to a large segment of the average individual. You can call it circular logic to benefit yourself all you want by attacking my comments on marriage. When you believe a lie, as you do, objectivity is hard to come by.

Attacking my comments is a complete waste of time. This is a forum for open discussion. Why not be objective and alleviate the concerns I and many others have regarding the examples I provided? What are we going to do in the state of California to prevent what has occurred in the state of MA and Sweden from occurring if marriage rights are granted to homosexuals and lesbians (if you do not recognize freedoms have been curtailed, then we have no common ground-because you choose to ignore the facts based on reality)? The concern about our schools becoming the “church house” for liberalism is not some farfetched day dream. Maybe you don’t have kids in school. I do. The social agenda pushed in public schools is deplorable – that’s a reality, regardless of how you might like to disagree or ignore it. Do you feel teaching kids in the public school that homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgenderism is okay? Do you not feel that should be left up to individual parents in the home?

If you can’t address the questions above in an objective manner, then we have no basis for discussion. Give me some good answers or don’t bother wasting your time. Have a nice day.

Disgusted in CA, I would be curious to hear your explanation about how Rome fell due to moral decay. Roman culture under the Republic was very reticent about homosexuality, indeed almost any form of sexuality, while the Empire converted to Christianity in its last century and a half. (Gibbon went so far as to attribute part of the cause of the fall of Rome to Christianity.) You could argue that the period in between was one of moral decay, but then the lesson seems to be that returning to morality does not rescue a civilization.

You argue that values should be taught to the children at home, not in the schools (in #140). Do you really want to advance that position? You think there are no values that should be taught in schools? I would have thought that those values that support and enrich a civil society of free and equal citizens would be something schools should teach; certainly the advocates of public education in Massachusetts in the mid-19th century thought so. Let schools teach the virtues required: honesty, the bearing of responsibilities as well as duties, equality, liberty, the role of law and democracy in government, the need to keep people from hurting each other. All these can and should be taught. And you should note that every one of them can be taught without advocating any specific religion, thus conforming to the Constitution.

Yog-Sothoth (161) Love your comments. Due to my schedule I may not be able to respond today, but am happy to have this discussion. I will respond, hopefully, by tomorrow, or Friday the latest. Have a great day.

Clark,
"THEY ARE BIGOTS (for those quick to offend, look up the word. It means "one convinced of the superiority of their own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions")These are your words.
It seems to me the ones who are slinging the most hatred and the most mud are the ones who are the bigots. As far as I can tell, you need to look into the mirror.
It sounds like you are the one convinced of the superiority of your own opinion.
From my brief meandering of this site, your name and hateful comments against those who don't think like you are very prevalent.

In all this discussion about gays/churches/tax exempt status has anyone remembered there is a First Amendment right of religious freedom. I personally sympathize with gays who have been demonized by some religionists. I am for human rights of all, however I voted for Prop. 8 because II see gay marriage not as a civil rights issue as the activists have tried to frame the debate. I say, give all the rights of couples who register as domestic partners whether gay or straight.
I believe Prop. 8 was more about SYMBOLISM than about marriage.
The agenda being pushed here is by the activists who are using the issue of gay marriage as a hammer force to intimidate people and churches to either fall in line with it or face consequences of losing their tax exempt status. The ACLU is waiting in the wings to use anti-discrimination laws already on the books with regard to sexual orientation to step up suits against churches and organizations who are perceived as discriminating against gays. It is already happening!!!!
While the California Supreme Court did not expand their ruling beyond same sex marriage, it sure did when it ruled against a doctor who refused to artificially inseminate one of a lesbian couple because he said it would violate his religious beliefs. Bear in mind he didn't refuse to doctor a person because they were gay. He refused to perform a medical procedure based on religious freedom. So there you have it folks. Gay rights trumps religious liberty in California!!!!!
Passage of Prop. 8 was not an act of bigotry, but an attempt to push back against the driving force of this agenda.
There seems to be a lot of hostility against the Mormon Church for its work in promoting itsd passage. How come noone is citing the fact that the California Teachers Union was the single biggest contributor tothe No. on 8. So just who the agenda here?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!!!

Biblically speaking only: According to the Bible, God's Word... It states that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for the remission of all our sins... But, He also states, that if we don't accept Him as our only Lord and Savior, whomever you are, will be put in the fiery pits of hell..! We all have this Choice to make before we die, or before Jesus Returns... and I can assure you, the He will be back soon... No one knows the date He will return... But the Word states that Israel will sign a peace treaty for 7 years... Then upon that time, they will erect their Temple that has been sitting in Storage for many years... In John 16:24-27, He states; how to die daily, pick up our cross and only follow Him.. And if you don't, then we will be going through the pits of hell here on earth, we or whom will fall into the pits of fire... You can read concerning Hell in Luke 16:19-31... I don't think after reading this part of the Bible that you will like what you read... But, if you don’t accept Jesus as your ONLY Lord and Savior, you will end up there… I don’t think I should say anymore, maybe it disturbing to read, and hear, yet, look what happened to Jesus when He was here on earth… How the people nailed Him to the Cross and upon dying, the word tells us, after 3 days, he came alive and went to Heaven, then returned for 40 days.. Then He went back; upon His return, He will gather His elect as you read in 1 Thes 4:13-17.. And upon this even happening to you, I pray that your will hold your faith until the end.. Amen!
Jimmy