Dear Rawkus, You can have what you ask for - and it does not require the religions of the world to change a definition of marriage. You call it "hate" becuase you don't like it. I've said nothing hateful, only that I will stand by my moral grounds. I personally believe that homosexual intercourse is a perversion - just as there are perversions to hetrosexual intercourse. Maybe you should stop and think about what you say. The real basis, is that there are many in the G/L community, that are making such a issue about this out of hatred themselves, only they hide behind words of "fair" and "equal" and civil rights to justify their desires and speech. I don't need to hide behind anything. I stay in support of an ideal that has been around for over 7000 thousand years, and will continue to stand for what I believe in. Now ask me if you should also have those things you say you want - and I will also say yes - But again, you do not need to force the religions of the world to denounce a belief that is several millennia old - Why don't you use the law to change the laws that prevent what you ask for. As to your second point - there is more to the sanctity of marriage than procreation. You also do not have to give birth to me a mother, or donate sperm to be a father. However, you do need to be a woman to be an example of motherhood, or male to be an example of fatherhood - And both bring different strengths to a marriage. Marriage was created by God, long before government and civil rights. It has been recognized by the world for over 7000 thousand years. Definitions and morals can not be changed on a whim. Perhaps we should change the definition of the word Male and Female. Maybe we shouldn't allow those who want to wear pants to call themselves female - and say that only males can wear pants. Because you are talking about changing the very basic definition for a wanted social construct- and those are ever changing, and based on popularity -not tr

Snowball wrote: "Sacred can also mean "blessed" and "holy" like a marriag created by God or nature for the natural use of procreating his/its offspring. The more I get into this it seems to come down to the debate of Christian believers vs. secularists who wish to have there urges and make them legal." (1) I could care less about getting a religious marriage and I don't want to violate anyone's faith, what I want is the LEGAL protections of marriage, like filing joint taxes, visiting my spouse in the hospital, inheritance, etc. So stop using your religion to violate my civil rights. It is a distraction of the issue. (2) If it is only about procreation, then we should not allow women over the age of menopause to get married, nor any infertile people. Let's start testing for this ASAP.

Message to LDS leaders and the followers who poured their money into Prop 8: Keep spouting your hate. I welcome it, because we will win. I may have to wait a few years to obtain basic legal dignity, but at least I have human dignity and the pride of knowing that I treat others with respect. The political backlash against Mormons (and the Marriott chain) is completely justified. They jumped into the political fray and are now saying they should not get burned. Mark my words: this is the beginning of a long public relations disaster for them, even greater than the disgusting practice of posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims.

When you know a little history about the church's behavior spurning the law concerning marriage, and then turning aroung and using the law to force marriage laws on others, it's easy to understand why people are upset now by their hypocrisy. But when confronted with this information most members of the church will close their eyes to it...which in turn makes protestors more frustrated...which makes members cry "we're being persecuted"...which makes protestors more angry...now the church is complaining about negative publicity...

I am saying you need to get off your high horse about the church complying so unquestioningly to the law, because it didn't happen that way. The Merrill Anti-Bigamy law was passed in 1862, signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. In 1882 the Edmunds Act was passed by congress, this allowed polygamists to be imprisoned for violating the law. John Taylor, the prophet, was defiant and vowed the church would never give up plural marriage. He went into hiding along with many other prominent polygamists. In 1888 the George Q Cannon (the first councilor in the presidency) served a term in prison for "cohabitation" aka polygamy. Not until 1890 did the Wilford Woodruff produce the Manifesto that said the church would give up plural marriage. (After the government threatened to take away their property for violation of the law). The official interpretation of the manifesto required members to break up their polygamous marriages, but most polygamists did not. And new plural marriages continued to be established. In 1904 Reed Smoot was elected into the Senate, which lead to an investigation about the church complying to it's own manifesto to discontinue the illegal act of polygamy. It was at that time that two members of the quorum of the twelve, John Taylor and Mathias Cowley, were dismissed from the church because they had post-manifesto plural marriages. Then a second manifesto was released to reiterate that the church had given up polygamy. But between 1904 and 1907 there are no less than ten "Exceptions" to allow General Authorities to enter into plural marriages, which was then unquestionably banned. Is that enough chronology? So, maybe gays should be able to flaunt the new laws for a good 50 years before the church can say anything about it....that fair?

What year was this 50th year? Your argument is weak without propper support to fling out time periods such as 50 years without proper support of chronology and reasoning. Bottom line, they have been complying for a long time and the belief is to comply, whether they have been less than 100% in compliance can be debated forever. So what are you saying? Gay should get plural marriage because Mormons did not comply without outlawing plural marriage for a few years? Or are you saying that all gays who got married during the brief time of gay marriage being legal should be forced to be unmarried?

TheSnowball-"When the Federal government banned plural marriage in the 1800's the LDS complied because the faith dictates that LDS must obey the laws of the land." Do you know how long it took for them to comply? And how much pressure it took from the government? 50 years, 50 YEARS after the US government declared it illegal there were two APOSTLES of your church who were practicing polygamists. They were married AFTER the laws were passed. Then, after it was brought to light the church dis-fellowshipped one and excommunicated the other. But only AFTER it became an embarrassment and wrecked their PR. The church leaders ignored the law. Learn your church history.

Sacred can also mean "blessed" and "holy" like a marriag created by God or nature for the natural use of procreating his/its offspring. The more I get into this it seems to come down to the debate of Christian believers vs. secularists who wish to have there urges and make them legal. Go ahead and do it, but for me, I will take a stand for what I believe is right, natural, and from God. You want me to give you a marriage that in my eyes was created by God and I say to you, you have to go get that right from him, it's not mine to give away and let others trample his way of marriage under their feet.

I don't understand how if one group of people are legally able to 'marry', how does it diminish the sacredness of someone else's marriage? Sacredness is an internal experience. How does someone take away some one's sacred experience? All these people defending and protecting something they truly don't internally have for themselves. Apparently, they need some law to validate their marriage. Fairly contradictory really. I would like to thank the LDS church for all their hard work in bringing this civil rights injustice to a soaring head...front and center in the public consciousness...making it such a "Hot" issue. Almost a 50/50 split in how people feel about gay marriage. It cost over 22 million dollars to bring this to the front edge, but you did it.

Gay people owe a huge debt to the Mormon Church: you have united us like never before. I was only mildly dismissive of Mormons before Prop. 8 before; now I will do everything in my power to bash them to anyone who will listen. UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN is my favorite book to recommend from this point on.