Nothing in our battle is trying to keep men and women apart. We do not wish to change your marriages, your relationships, or to prevent them from being legally protected under the law.

Can you say the same about us?

” and that that institution of marriage is worth protecting.”

If it were being attacked, you could make this claim. It is not being attacked. Words can have more than one definition. In fact, since 2004, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary has included same-sex marriage in it’s set of definitions for marriage.
Marriage as it has been, has been an exclusive club, “straights only!”. I doubt that the only reason that marriage is special is because tab A fits into slot B. There are far too many exceptions to the “rules” regarding marriage to tell gays “sorry no exception for you!”. There is no rational, and certainly no constitutional basis for denying marriage licenses and legal recognition to same sex couples. We do the same things other committed couples do. We live together, we fight about money, some raise kids, some do not, we take care of each other (in sickness and in health) some stay together a life time, some can’t seem to find the right person. Fundamentally we are no different than you, and there is no legally recognized reason why we should be.

” There is no hatred, discrimination, or bigotry–just wholehearted conviction that marriage is sacred and needs to be left alone!”

Then LEAVE IT ALONE. Let us continue getting married. Once again, this is not something that “might happen” or “could change” or something that can be “prevented”: it already happened. Thousands of gay couples have gotten married.

M. A. R. R. I. E. D.

YOU may not consider them “real” marriages, but I doubt those couples care what you think so long as they have their PERFECTLY LEGAL licenses. Think whatever you like, say whatever you like, but the government has an obligation to treat us equally.
This is not now, nor has it ever been about kids or religion. To borrow from Ben, it’s about old fashioned bigotry given a thin veneer or respectability by hiding behind faith.

Timothy,
Are you aware of what has happened in Massachusetts since same-sex marriage was legalized there? First of all, people have been sued over personal beliefs and religious beliefs. A church was sued for not allowing a lesbian marriage to take place on its property. They lost the suit, and also lost some of their tax-exempt status.

[This is factually incorrect. In New Jersey (not Massachusetts) a church owned a pavilion on a boardwalk. Because they designated this as a public place open to all, they received certain property tax exemptions. They chose to deny access to certain citizens based on sexual orientation and the State of New Jersey revoked their priveleges. The church did not lose its 401(c)(3) tax-exempt status and the pavilion is now treated like any other private church-owned venues in the state. This had nothing to do with legal gay marriage - obviously - as New Jersey does not recognize same-sex marriage.]

The Catholic Charities Adoption Agency was told they had to adopt children to homosexual couples, even against their religious beliefs against doing so, or lose their license. They chose to shut down.

[This is factually incorrect and had nothing to do with legal marriage whatsoever. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities of Boston had long placed adoptions with whomever was qualified, including gay couples. Pressure from the Vatican caused a change in policy to exclude gay persons and couples. However, state non-discrimination laws prevented them from discriminating based on sexual orientation in the civil placement of children for adoption. They considered seeking an exemption, but were also concerned about the loss of funding from foundations and charity contribution sources such as the United Way that have non-discrimination policies. So they chose to stop placing adoptions altogether.]

David Parker was arrested when he requested that he be notified when his kindergarten-aged son was to be exposed to homosexual training in class, so that he could take his child out of school. [This is false. Parker was insisting that his son Jacob not be exposed in any manner to the existance of same-sex couples, including from other children who may have same-sex parents. He was arrested when he refused to leave a school building at the end of the day when the administration would not meet his impossible demands. Parker later manufactured a story that his child has attacked for his religious belief, a story that was debunked and severly damaged his credibility.] Mr. Parker was held in jail overnight and fined…a fight he is still battling. [David Parker's battle is over. After a string of losses, the US Supreme Court declined to review his case.]

The school districts in Massachusetts have ruled that they are no longer responsible to tell parents when there will be sexual education in classes, nor is parental permission required. [This is a baseless claim. The courts noted that books are available to parents in advance and have ruled that "inclusion of books that included gay people or relationships did not violate the parents' First Amendment right to free exercise of religion".]

It is a very valid concern for most parents that we be allowed the right to teach our children. It is also a great concern for Christians that we be allowed to speak what we believe and act upon it. We see these rights being taken away from us, despite what the federal constitution says. Any homosexuals will not be fighting for us to get these rights back!

There are no rights to homosexual marriage. California’s Supreme Court judges were not in a position to do what they do…and they were the only ones who ever presumed to give that right to homosexuals. [Both houses of the California legislature voted for legal same-sex marriage. The Governor vetoed the legislation stating that due to a previous initiative that it was the place of the courts to decide. He has endorsed the decision of the courts. All three branches of California government have now approved of same-sex marriage.] You sound as if homosexuality marriage rights have been around since creation…but if you’re going back to creation, you will see that the creation of Adam and Eve did not leave a place for homosexuality. Just because someone wants something…even if they want it desperately…it does not make it right.

I’ll answer for Willie:

The Yes on 8 ad lies are well documented. Here, for example, is the analysis of the Sacramento Bee’s Adwatch:

The ad contends the court ruling opens the way for people to be sued over personal beliefs, but California law already prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

As for churches losing their tax status, the Supreme Court ruling stated “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples.”

California law also prohibits public schools from teaching students anything about health and family issues against the will of their parents.

In other words, the ad is based on lies. This may explain why conservative rural newspapers are joining urban liberal newspapers in rejecting these arguments.

Also, “what homosexuals are now trying to do now is” keep the right of equal treatment under the law as granted to them by their constitution. I should know, I’m part of the process.

It really is foolish and amazingly arrogant to try and tell people what they are “trying to do”. And as for hatred, discrimination, and bigotry, I find it astonishing how little self-awareness you possess.

Tara: The Mormon Church ONLY supports traditional marriage and absolutely nothing else!

Willies Hewes: I challenge you to tell us what the lies are that you are referring to.

Eddie: Homosexuals already have all the rights through Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions AND all people have the right to enter into heterosexual marriages; what homosexuals are trying to do now is change the definition of marriage from what it has been since the beginning of time to a social experiment.

Kevin:
God’s love extends to same-sex couples but NOT His blessing. He loves everyone, but same-sex sexual relationships are opposed to His plan of salvation for all of his children, which depends on families: man + woman + children. The proof? The biological make-up of all humankind!

Rusty: There was no recent “Mormon” Scandal. The polygamous cult in Texas is not Mormon and was never Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that is supporting Proposition 8 is doing so on grounds of protecting traditional marriage, families, and children…and God’s plan of salvation–not to cover up anything.

Lastly, there is more money pouring into Yes on 8…not because you aren’t trying hard enough, but because the majority of Californians believe that men and women were born to be together and that that institution of marriage is worth protecting. There is no hatred, discrimination, or bigotry–just wholehearted conviction that marriage is sacred and needs to be left alone!

Also I wasn’t meaning to show off my poverty or something. I mean I’m very poor but my parents are quite comfortable and also very generous in helping me – but I’m predicting a great turn-around by December. So I’m not without hope.

It’s just, I could’ve spent $10 either buying a new DVD, or some fancy food, or any other number of indulgences, or i could’ve spent it on donating to this worthy cause. So instead of buying something for myself, I donated to the cause. And now I feel not only good for donating but even better for just the act in and of itself. I DEFINITELY got my $10-worth, and more. :¬)

“… What would put a burr under their saddle is: 1) saying they are mere puppets to the pronouncements of their First Presidency…ergo: they’re a cult. 2) they cannot explain the racial bigotry in their history nor has any Mormon authority apologized for it. 3) success is not measured with the amount of tithing they collect.”

It’s funny (not), cowboy, but I do hammer them incessantly on Point #1 (without actually calling them a cult).

I also hound them endlessly about point #2, and of course, they can never defend the indefensible. They just sidestep the “Curse of Ham” issue, deflect, and try a different approach.

Point #3, that’s excellent — I’ll remember it. Thanks!

Here’s the thing: I can say almost anything to the individual Mormons who take me on at my blog — I can get hostile, I can play armchair psychologist, I can even mock them with cracks about “magic underwear” — but they’ll hang in there and fight (not well, but they do fight).

Yet, there seems to be only surefire way to make them run for the hills and never communicate with me again: Debunking every last one of the “Six Consequences” lies they all repeat as if they were Paula Prentiss malfunctioning in “The Stepford Wives.” They cannot absorb hard facts, with hard backup links/sources. Their circuits completely overload, and they run as if their butts were on fire.

That gives me a tiny (very tiny) glimmer of hope: If these new ads from No On 8 (which I’m just about to go watch) do what they say they’re going to do — dissect each lie — then we’ve still got a chance. Nobody likes to be lied to, and it’s human nature to shoot the bird at the liar(s).

The individual Mormon patsys can’t handle the truth — but everybody else who has no vested interest in the reputation of the LDS church (and your garden-variety, A&P Protestant who doesn’t think of the Mormons as “real Christians” anyway) are going to feel stung… if, of course, they actually see the new No On 8 ads.

For my part (and I swear, I’m not bragging about this, but feeling bad that I’m really, truly tapped out for the moment and can’t do more), I followed through on my commitment the other day to give past hurting: As Shivaya is my witness, I donated my entire month’s income (by credit card, as I don’t get paid until next week) to No On 8, Equality for All.

Stage whisper to Emily K: I hope you don’t mind that I alluded to your donation when I blogged about mine; that you could spare so much was the thing that pushed me over the edge to donate a month’s income. And I thank you for that.

In my mind, your $10 is worth far more than the four figures I kicked in. Far more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglemosian

Hey folks, we’re not haters. We have the same moral compass as have successful civiliations during the past 8,000 years. What’s wrong with that?

You need to read up on your history, then.

Throughout history, most cultures have tolerated or even encouraged same-sex relations to some degree or another. China, a civilization that has lasted for 4,000 years (measuring from the Shang Dynasty) tolerated sex between men and, at some points, even same-sex marriages throughout most of its history. There are plenty of examples throughout the Mediterranean world and India as well.

The idea that it is “immoral” for two men or two women to have sex with each other originated among the Abrahamic religions and spread throughout the world by way of missionary activity and/or colonialism.

When Christians persecuted Jews during the inquisition they had the same moral compass as the past 1500 years. When men denied women the right to make decisions about their own lives – much less to vote – they had the same moral compass as all civilization. When white people bought and sold black people as property they had the same moral compass as sucessful civilizations for all recorded time.

Oppressors will find a way to justify their cruelty and the most convenient is always an appeal to history.

The facts are simple, Matilda. You want to deny other humans the rights that you wish to enjoy for yourself.

You can dress it up as “a moral compass” but it comes down to inequal treatment. And that, Matilda, suggests to me that your moral compass is pointing in a most immoral direction.