Let's be clear. Being gay is not a choice. It is inborn. People do not choose their sexuality. If you doubt this please ask yourself, Why would anyone choose to be gay when it invites persecution? Then ask yourself, Did you choose your sexuality? I believe you'll have to admit that you did not. The bottom line on Prop 8 in California is that two churches have attempted to take away the civil rights of a group of people on the basis of their sexuality; a characteristic that is inborn. I'm confident that the California Supreme Court will rule that stripping away people's civil rights cannot be accomplished by a simple majority vote. The genius of our system is that the minority is protected by/from the majority.

To poster JenniferAlbert: Being Mormon is a choice. You can change if you try hard enough.

Jennifer - You're an ignoramus.

To Poster "Logic" - Yes, we need to protect the rights of minorities. The issue here is that less than half of California believe homosexuals are a cultural minority without a choice, and that more than half believe homosexuals are sexual deviants with a choice. Yes, of course, we must protect the civil rights of our variety of racial groups, and other groups that frequently get pushed around like the disabled, the elderly and the very young. But, homosexuals are usually seen as a group of relatively young people who are experimenting with their sexuality and not a racial or cultural group with their own native home land, native language, etc. So, when addressing people with this perspective, you need a different arguement. Perhaps you should be arguing that homosexuals are a cultural minority, because that is really where the debate lies.

I am grateful to the LDS church for planning carefully and in advance to combat the efforts of homosexual activits to redefine our most basic and sacred building block of society. This just goes to show that the LDS church doesn't just jump into things without careful preparation and thought. Thank you.

Logic- I would like to thank you for your thoughts on all of the boards. Yes i know which way you stand on the subject of Prop 8 but your non-offensive tone of logic is refreshing showing that disagreements can occur but you don't have to be uncivilized with them and can still view ones perspectives and beliefs without condemning the individual. All the hate occurring over the whole things makes me sick.

IrishKate - I appreciate your comments as it opens up an important dialogue. There has been significant press in some of the areas that you mention and I think it's important to openly discuss them. I read the article you referenced. The US, while quite litigious, does have some very specific and fundamental laws that allow churchs to "discriminate" within it's own organization and within it's own practices. A great example is within the mormon church - it was allowed to deny it's priesthood to african american males long after the courts granted equal status to all races. It continues to this day to deny those rights and privileges to women based solely on gender. The US has many laws that protect churches ability to worship as they please and offer internal ceremonies, rights, etc to whom they deem and not others. Granting CIVIL equality (and that word "civil" is the important distinction) cannot impede on religious ceremonies. No one that I have heard in this debate is asking for private churchs to marry gay couples. Though you may have a few fringe people that try it simply can't happen in the US. Could it happen in other countries? Maybe, I'm not as well informed on their laws but in the US - No it can't. If people say otherwise, they are either trying to scare you into believing them or just misinformed. A lot of what was stated in that article sounds very similar to a document that has received a lot of circulation called the “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails”. You have a member in good standing who is an expert in constituinal law and has not come out supporting gay marriage that has written and excellent and well references response to claims made by this document. I don't think it will change your opinion of gay marriage, but will give you a better perspective on the real issues. I hope you read it. http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf

Well, Duh. Of course there is a strategy in place. The men that lead the LDS church are deeply spiritual AND very intelligent. They believe completely in loving one's fellow man, AND maintaining the LDS church (and every other church's) right to worship as it pleases. Do you NOT see where this is all going if the opponents of traditional marriage succeed in redefining it? Do you really not see how this infringes on everyone's constitutional rights in SO MANY areas! Right of free speech and freedom of worship are the first that will come under fire. Please read this 2004 article that details just exactly what we will face if and when traditional marriage is redefined to include any other union than one man and one woman. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38195

It amazes me how little people know about the country in which they live. The US is not a pure democracy. Having a democratic process is a different animal all together. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. A constitutional republic outlines the rights of people in a written constitution. The majority has to respect the rights of the minority even if the minority does things with their rights that the majority don’t like. Ever heard of protecting the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority? Benjamin Franklin said of a pure democracy is like two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It’s great for the wolves, but devastating for the sheep. Have your religious beliefs, no one is stealing your rights to those. So stop stealing the minorities civil rights (which you have done in the case of Prop 8). It is wrong both civilly and religiously to legislate your moral values when that infringes on the inherit rights of any group. And yes, in this the Supreme Court of CA who’s job it is to uphold the constitution, deemed marriage equality to all, regardless of sexual orientation and inherit right. And for those of you who cry “activist judges” do you even know who they are? 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by republican governors. Ronald George, the chief justice and author of the majority opinion in the marriage cases is a moderate who’s track record can hardly be called and “activist”. To bad the mormon church who apparently has been working on impinging on the rights of minorities for the past 11 years told you otherwise. Stop being blinded by your faith. Use your brains, and stop letting a few misguided leaders in your church brain wash you into thinking otherwise.

wamba- There is a very distinct difference between the term "Creator" and "God". Enlightenment philosophy, which was heavily inspired by Deist ideals, played a major role in creating the principle of separation between Church & State. The Fathers, many of whom were Deists, used the term "Creator" on purpose, and you will notice the term "God" is not ever used in the Const. The concept of "Creator" in Enlight. phil., or in the Masons as many Fathers also were, is not identical to the Christian God concept.