LDS 'Yes on 8' Game PlanI've posted a letter sent from Boyd K. Packer on July 28th to the California LDS stake presidents:BKP July 28Apparently, there is a plan in place to put up one million 'Yes on 8' yard signs at 7:00 am on September 22nd.
Chino, As a returned LDS missionary, why do you feel that this is proposition is a form of discrimination vs. preserving one of Gods most sacred unions?
1 million signs - is that all. OK - thats a lot.
I'm not sure why you feel your version of God belongs in the state constitution.Would you be comfortable if the Catholic Church used the state constitution to declare Mormonism a cult?
Scott,It's not my version of God, it the Hindu version, its the Muslim version, it't the Jewish version, it's the Christian version (except for those who splintered off because they wanted to accept homosexuality as not immoral in the eyes of God) - so when you ask if I want my version of God in the Constitution, the answer is yes, because it doesn't differ from same religious ethics and morals that built this country. It doesn't differ from the morals and ethics or an overwhelming majority of thep people in this country.Also - we are not using the state constitution to call homosexuality something it isn't. It has always been an alternative lifestyle. It will always be an alternative lifestyle. Alternative to what? Alternative to heterosexual relationships and all that goes with it. So why confuse it with mainstream. I think that the homosexual agenda is trying to use the courts to label them as something they are not for the need of greater acceptance.If that is the case - lets do it differently. There is no need to trample over something so sacred for hundreds of millions of people. That is how we feel. There are alternative solutions such as a federal domestic partner registry. This would allow the same civil rights, legal partnership priviliges and protection that marriage provides.We are preserving what has always been, homosexuals are trying to change that.Regarding Moromonism being a cult. Where in the constitution is any religion defined. It isnt. And the Supreme courts in California intervened into religion for the first time allowing gay marriage, so we are retaliating on the same level.Also - there are so many Christian religions that call us a cult anyway it wouldn't change anything. You really need to come up with a more dramatic comparison to get any Mormon riled up. We just dont care when people call us a cult. We just laugh.
So the Supreme Court has told your religion that it must participate in same sex marriages?Your religious point of view should override the views of Unitarians or Reform Jews who do perform marriages for same sex couples?Is it the government's business to define which version of God belongs in CIVIL law?Your points aren't really making a lot of sense at this point. Is your marriage just as sacred as Britney Spears?
My arguments dont need to make sense to you, they never will. The government should have never gotten involved in the first place, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I am obviousely dissapointed that Unitarian, Reformed Jew, and many others have strayed from this tradition. I cant change that. However - once again, the government of this country is to support that will of the majority - not the constant whining of the small minority. In this case, if the minority feels like it is being repressed and burdened, form a national domestic partner registry. Nobody opposes that at all.I am amazed at how much respect so many people have for the diversity and religious beliefs of those outside of our country - even those who claim to have no religious affiliation - but will do all in their power and influence to rid this country of its religious roots and moral compass.
Do you understand the purpose of a state constitution?Tell me, do we live in a pure democracy or do we live in a Constitutional Republic?Do you know the difference?Would it be fair for your church to ban all caffeine in this state because according to your religious beliefs it should not be served?Was the U.S. right to dictate to the Mormon church how they should conduct marriages in the 1800's?
There is a big difference here than caffeine. Under state law, we cannot discriminate for any reason. What that means is that our Bishops by law would be required to marry all people or no people - regardless of our personal beliefs. We would be subject to that law, requiring that if a Bishop marries a heterosexual couple in our church (not temple - because there are legal ways around that because not even all Mormons are allowed in temples, so we can prove non-discriminatory actions) that Bishop would be required by law to marry homosexual couples in our church or face a discrimination lawsuit. That religious freedom will be stripped from us completely. Not saying it has happened, or will happen, but could happen. Which is similiar to the law requiring me to drink caffeinated beverages. That is the core issue here.Other issues - publicly funded schools being mandated to equally promote marriage for both hetero and homo sexual people. I dont want the schools teaching moral issues disquised as matter of fact public policy. This is a moral issue. When the courts got involved - it changed everything. We are fighting to take it back.Homosexual couples had no discriminatory teachings or forced legals issues on them before this, and won't, but the religous will if this does not pass now.Like I said earlier - there are other ways for homosexual couples to maintain equal civil rights without putting religous faiths into forced situations against their moral beliefs.We are not the ones forcing anything on anyone, we are the victims here. Not the homosexual population. My blog. this conversation is over.
I understand and respect your religious views about marriage; however this is a matter of the state. My religion says marriage is based on love and not gender or procreation.Why should the state value your religious views over mine?In keeping with the no discrimination, I can agree that if homosexuals can not get married under the law, then no one can. All “marriages” should become CIVIL UNIONS and leave MARRIAGE to the religion of your choice.
Jakedd<Isn't Civil Union just a fancy way of saying "Separate, but Equal"?Sounds discriminatory to me......Oh and by the way.....Civil Unions do not grant the same rights to "same-sex" couples........*Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions......This is not the case with Civil Unions.*Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category.*Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.*The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.***The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.
Okay, wow, honestly it definitely disappoints me to see that anyone who follows the word of God would believe it to mean that He considers homosexuals inferior to heterosexuals. You say you have no concern for separation of church and state (another thing I find truly concerning), but does that mean that we all should be subjected to one religion? Yours? The supreme court's decision had a provision that GUARANTEED EVERY CHURCH THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO MARRY GAY COUPLES; how dare you try to force other (more open) churches not to do so? AGAIN: NO RELIGION WILL BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY.Homosexuality is not an "alternative lifestyle". One hundred thousand gay couples reside in California alone, 1/4 of whom have children and families. I would say that is pretty mainstream. You also bring up tradition. Should we have kept our slaves? After all, slavery was tradition in the 1800s but that DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. And you somehow jump to family values. For those 100,000 homosexual families in this state, how is it promoting family values to disallow them the right to holy matrimony, a fundamental right? And for the children of these couples: what messages will that send to them? Messages of inadequacy and inequality. Don't even go there.And speaking of children, no child would be required to learn about Gay Marriages at school. Any time schools teach about family relationships they are required to obtain parental approval prior to the education itself. Any parent could dismiss the child from this segment. DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT THE SAME. Only marriages have the same federal benefits. Domestic partnerships are not recognized outside the state and are not equal.
i totally agree>.. CAME ACROSS YOUR BLOG ON GOOGLE!!!! LOVE IT
Brain Waves -No other person who has posted on this topic has gotten me upset. You have put words in my mouth, made inaccurate assumptions about my beliefs and posted them as if they are real and that makes you a liar.Here are facts:- I dont believe homosexuals are inferior.- I do believe homosexuality is a sin. Just like I believe cheating on my wife would be a sin. I may be tempted to play around. I see attractive women all the time who are not my wife. If I were to act on impulse and cheat on my wife...it would be no different than acting out homosexual behavior.- I do believe in separation of Church and State.- Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. It is alternative to Heterosexual. Dont blame me for the term. I didnt come up with it. Your statistic is very skewed toward small geographic areas and does not represent California nor the United states at all.- Regardless of what the courts said about churches being able to decline to do gay marriages - precendent law in many other states will soon override that provision. Every court in the law uses preceding court decisions in any state as basis for making judgment. That provision in the law wouldnt last long. - Marriage has to be taught in schools. Its in the state commisioners website. I dont want homosexuality taught in school. I dont even want sex taught in school. I dont mind sex from a biological standpoint being taught, such as how reproduction works. But I want to define moral behavior in my home. I want the schools to stay out of it.In conclusion - your erradic assumptions of what I think and believe, you putting words in my mouth show that you are desperate, full of anger and bitterness, and reflect nothing of the many composed educated, and well respected gay people in my community and whom I work with and love. We just happen to disagree on this subject. They are respectful of my thoughts and beliefs as I am of theirs. Just like my other friends who support abortion and I dont. So grow up.
WHERE CAN I GET THE 2ND SHIRT FROM???I LOVE IT
Sure, respecting gays is consistent with considering gays to be unacceptably sinful. Why should anti-gay personal opinion be respected, even if it were 99% of the world, when such people don't respect the legal benefits/status of gays.Would learning about gay marriage in a school really negatively influence children anyhow?Religious and traditional beliefs being what they are, have no place to create discriminatory treatment under the law.Sorry, one can't love and respect gays and vote their marital rights away from them.Obama's historical win is undermined by the intolerance of gay marriage.Congratulations, the American way lives, just ask the Native Americans.
One more thing:If homosexuality IS a sin, let God take care of it, and stay away from the law. On another issue, the sin argument is a joke, as US tax dollars are used to kill people all over the world, where they shouldn't even be.Isn't murder a sin?Death penalty - isn't murder a sin? What about taking advantage of the poor and working men - that's a huge sin, and yet that's what America is founded on and still carries on everyday. So, why does homosexuality deserve all the attention?
Why not just say " I have friends that are black" " But i'm still going to have slaves"
You ready? I got a lot to say to you, JAKEDD. And it may be your blog, but by posting it in the first place, you openly invite commentary. Do not bash an argument down like a door when it begins to challenge your points.I can't see the point of that shirt... I have a sister who's a Mormon, and I still think you people have no right to infringe on the lives of two consenting adults. Maybe I should make a shirt that says that.Marriage isn't your possession - it's a right under the pursuit of happiness. Marriage isn't about your God (and even if it is, what is your God doing in our political spectrum?) This is a nation of ALL people - not just Mormon people. You have to learn to accept that I have as much right to marry as you do because the founding fathers of this land say I do. Your beliefs infringe on my right to equality to you, and that therefore makes me lesser than you. You can keep your beliefs, but don't push them on me by saying who I can and cannot love. You may forever think that our lives are "wrong", but hey, guess what? I think your life is wrong, but you don't see me up pushing laws onto the ballot banning Mormons from living. And heck, you certainly don't see me trying to enforce my beliefs by dismissing the arguments of others as "an agenda". Please don't try to sidestep the point.Brother, you speak of preservation. You say we are trampling marriage. How? How are two loving adults destroying that? How can you lash out at gay couples and turn a blind eye to domestic violence in heterosexual marriages in the same argument? Marriage is not the "sacred" thing you set it out to be - if it's so sacred in the name of God, why are atheists getting married every damn day?"I am obviously disappointed that Unitarian, Reformed Jew, and many others have strayed from this tradition. I cant change that." You just admitted you can't change people; what makes you so suddenly certain that you can change gay people's lives? How is that any different? You going to pass a ballot next time that prevents Unitarians from shopping at Wal-Mart?"I am amazed at how much respect so many people have for the diversity and religious beliefs of those outside of our country - even those who claim to have no religious affiliation - but will do all in their power and influence to rid this country of its religious roots and moral compass." - Wait! Let me compare that to an earlier statement you made: "It doesn't differ from the morals and ethics or an overwhelming majority of the people in this country." The majority is - in the form of common sense - evidence that the moral fabrics of this nation are based on what the larger percentage of the population believes (or vice-versa). What the majority loves, the nation becomes. And suddenly, that doesn't seem to exist anymore. Suddenly you are "a minority", with the whole world against you. Suddenly a mysterious and new majority pops out of nowhere, and you think you're being oppressed? No, no. You - along with a cluster of other religious affinities - are the majority. You have no ground for complaint that your "roots" are "disappearing". And let's not even talk about the tyranny of the majority..."I dont believe homosexuals are inferior. I do believe homosexuality is a sin. Just like I believe cheating on my wife would be a sin. I may be tempted to play around. I see attractive women all the time who are not my wife. If I were to act on impulse and cheat on my wife...it would be no different than acting out homosexual behavior." - Friend. Let me explain how this sounds to me and others like me. It sounds like you imply an undercurrent of discrimination. You believe homosexuality is a sin. Fine. I believe your way of life is ridiculous. Also fine. By way of good human conduct, we are meant to respect one another's beliefs. Fine. But suddenly, out of left field, you decide you have to use you implication of that belief to infringe upon my right of pursuit of happiness. There is no reason for that, only your religious beliefs. And where do your religious beliefs belong? With you. With your family and friends. Not mine."My arguments don't need to make sense to you, they never will." You said that to someone who challenged you. I could say the same thing, but honestly, I consider it cowardly the way you do not address arguments in a direct manner, instead choosing to play the "God moves in mysterious ways" card. Answer all my questions with reason (NOT religion). Can you do that?And as a final note... just because the majority (as in 52-48; not so "major" after all) votes for something does not mean that something is right. I bet you that if the white people in the South in the 1960s were given a huge chance to vote down black people to the point of genocide, they'd have done so without batting an eyelid.
Radar,If you have read a lot of my comments you will find that despite my beliefs about homosexuality etc...I am very respectful of peoples choice.What I am against is when peoples choices take away other peoples rights to act based on their beliefs.I am not stopping you from a civil union and dedicating your life to your partner. That is not an issue with me. But for some reason this country and Government has made it their business to be involved in the definition business and that transcends into the schools, public workplace, and private sector. When a photographer is sued because she refused to photograph a wedding of homosexual couple, and loses, her right to live as she believes is taken away.When a preacher of religion is sued for hte same reason, and loses, his rights to live as he believes are taken away.All because of the definition of the word marriage.All these lawsuits, all this hate on that one definition.When I cannot intervene on what values the schools teach my children, even if it means I pull them out for 2-hours - because of this word - my role as a parent is stripped from me. My rights are taken.All over this definition.These are far greater rights than tax breaks and benefits. Everything else is solved under state civil union laws.So in essence - I agree that two people who love each other should have the same access as others...unless it takes away from other peoples beliefts and rights.Our beliefs about the Marriage do not stop you from living together. Our beliefs on marriage have not stopped your lifestyle.If this government today said ALL marriages are null and void starting today - it would not change my life or life style one bit. Because I did not make a promise to the government. I made it to the person I love.But when the governemt says you have to provide services contrary to what you believe - the foundations of the country - free to believe as you wish, free from government oppression, all htat are all taken away and we are no longer what our founding fathers had in mind.All your other points about slavery, tradition, mainstream - mean nothing after this. We could argue those points all day long and go in circles. But not the point of others ability to act according to their beliefs, without harming others, and without penalty from the government - is the center line for this.If you want a real win-win - lets forget about how the word is defined, and kill marriage completely from the government. Let it be unrecognizable by the governments. Let only civil unions be recognized and marriages be optional chosen only by a persons belief.That way what is taught in schools, what services private institutions and churches provide is legally discretionary.
ok i have friends who are gay to and im votng no because god odvisly gave them the chance to be different so why should we be the ones who take it ask yourself if you have a kid what if he came home and said mom dad im gay would you turn away from him/her to? like you are doing to others they just want to be accepted can't we just give them the chance to be happy like us no matter on the choice they make??
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Hi I love the shirts where can i get one?
Hate ran dry today.Bye bye, Prop 8.:)
Post a Comment