What part of Judge Walker's ruling did the LDS lobby not read?

- "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians"

- "...the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples"

- "Proposition 8 played on the fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual."

- "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

-

As a gay man living with a partner for 12 years I say with joy - What a great day it is today! In the end, tradition and the moral beliefs of one group are not enough a compelling enough reason to deny another group their civil rights.
Read this beautiful article written by TV host Rene Syler where she compares it with the struggles of her African American heritage. http://www.goodenoughmother.com/2010/08/proposition-8-good-enough-mothers-take/

When I was protesting the war in Vietnam I did not believe in the Domino Theory. Older and wiser now I pray for the dominoes to fall down.

Frederick Douglass wrote:

"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

Let's keep up the struggle until every man, woman, and genderqueer citizen in America is free to marry.

I have really had my Natural Law thinking cap on for the last day since Prop 8 was overturned. Unfortunately I put all my eggs in this basket, and the type of reasoning I get paid for is now being revealed as something else, namely not thinking. I of course always thought of myself as a defender of the Church, but it has been necessary to couch it in terms of Aristotelian logic. But even most Catholics wouldn't know a Thomistic Summa if it bit them like dear Maggie McGallagher devouring her afternoon Croque Monsieur. But at least such thinking used to sound tony. Now it just sounds pathetic. What am I to do? I need something new in my life, a new direction. I like the Mormons, they are on the right side of everything. But even they are a bit too liberal for me, and too forward -looking. Then it hit me. I Robert Georgeous will finally find peace of mind and belonging amongst Fundamentalist Mormons! Think what all my Natural law could do for Mormonism. The King Follet discourse would have new meaning once undergirded by St. Thomas Aquinas! What could formal and final causes do for Restoration Theology! And finally I could have more wives. I could finally marry Mags. I have been so hot for her for while. Oh, to be enveloped! Oh to be smothered by Natural Law!

Robert Georgeous

The civil rights currently attached to the institution of marriage can be extended to all without redefining the institution itself.

This is the basic point being missed by the entire gay "rights" movement.

No one - especially the Mormon Church - is trying to take away "rights" from anyone else. They are simply standing up for their core belief about the nature and definition of marriage. Marriage itself is not a "right." Marriage is an institution and, to Mormons, a sacred one that should not be altered by the whim of the world.

Even worse, where does a federal judge get the authority to completely redefine the bedrock institution of our society? The judicial and civil implications of this ruling should worry every freedom loving person on both sides of the marriage debate.

TJ, the Mormons as well as other religions are entitled to keep their sacred institutions. The law does not require that churches or temples perform marriage services. Only that these bullies can't keep me and BankStreet and Peter and RoggieP from getting married by a justice of the peace or a priest or minister whose church is open and affirming.

As far as being a bedrock institution all I can say is: We want our beds to rock too!

As a long-time resident of Montgomery County, I’m concerned about a rash of religious intolerance here. The vandalism at Olney B’nai Shalom Synagogue is the most well-publicized. People are also fighting over whether Grace Mission Church can put up a new building, the rabbi of the Chabad Israeli Center can’t invite his friends for services, and Christians are suing the county over free speech rights. What’s going on here?

The latest story is about the sermon of a local Buddhist (!!!) priest in Rockville. I have attached it as a pdf. The priest devoted much of his speech to insulting the doctrines of American monotheism (as he termed it).

The priest is Rev. Yuzui Murata, the chief priest at Nichiren Shoshu Myosenji Buddhist Temple in Rockville (his temple building in Silver Spring burned down last October). In his July sermon, he talked about Christians, Muslims, and Jews, stating, “these truly erroneous and misleading religions are responsible for so many of the sufferings and uncertainties which seem to be multiplying in this country and throughout the world…. these inferior religions continue to make extremely negative causes for the people who believe in them.”

He concluded by inviting non-Buddhist believers to his temple “so they, too, can fundamentally cleanse from their lives the erroneous belief systems which are continuing to keep them imprisoned within their own private hell.” I’m sure many Christians, Jews, and Muslims would be surprised to learn that they are now living in their own private hell!

It's one thing to promote your own religion; it's another to go around bashing others!

I searched Murata’s website (www.nstmyosenji.org) and I was surprised to also read how Buddhist children are taught to keep away from Christmas celebrations because of “the Christ in Christmas.” What’s next from this guy?

I learned from their website that, on August 8, Mr. Murata will be sponsoring his annual meeting at the Margaret Schweinhaut Senior Center in Silver Spring, just a few miles from my house. In my opinion, there is no reason why the taxpayer-supported facilities of Montgomery County should be made available to such a group, unless it can promise to abide by the sensitivities of the rest of the community!

Religious tolerance means that we have to tolerate all religions, but intolerant speech is wrong no matter what the source. It is just this kind of hateful speech that encourages an atmosphere where vandalism, prejudice, and hate crimes can flourish. With the many different cultures and religions now present in Montgomery County, we cannot afford to tolerate such anti-religious rhetoric.

I’m not leaping to any conclusions, but it is also interesting that we have been lately visited with an earthquake, violent storms, and power outages. What’s next for Montgomery County?

They call me the Bub from Kolob, and I am here to bring some peace to this discussion. People like TJ don't get that gays just want to have lives like other people. You can still have your bedrock institution. If you don't want to marry a guy, don't marry a guy! If you think institutions don't change think of how central the apprenticeship system once was for most societies. It ran afoul of child labor laws and changing societal norms and needs. But talk about "bedrock", apprenticeship was it. Things change, that is the one constant in life. What would not be cool would be deny Catholics or Mormons the right to believe what they want and conduct their lives the way they want. That would not be cool. But on the other hand it would not be right for them to continue trying to control other people's lives. They do it by talking about "society" , unless it doesn't suit their case. We all have to live together, and we all benefit from that freedom, so let's not diminish it like Robert above. Let's all get along, like they do in the exalted spheres!

Bub from Kolob

I don't regret the ruling. I regret that Prop 8 was ever put up for a vote. I regret that politics and religion were ever combined. I regret that so many people can't understand the simple concept of Equal Protection under the law. I'm not gay. I don't care anything about the gay community other than the simple fact that they're my countrymen; they're citizens with rights. I am totally opposed to the candy-coated lynch mob approach where people say they're just trying to "define" marriage, and they think they're so good at it that they'll cross several states to define it for people in California. I suspect the regrets have just begun and won't stop until some folks learn that minding your own business is, perhaps, the best way to avoid a whole lot of regrets down the road.

Well said bub!

"No one - especially the Mormon Church - is trying to take away "rights" from anyone else. They are simply standing up for their core belief about the nature and definition of marriage."

The traditional Mormon definition of marriage is one man and as many women or teenage girls as he can lay his hands on. The Mormons have a lot of nerve trying to preach about "traditional marriage", and to tell others who they should and shouldn't be able to marry.

Furthermore, we live in a secular society governed by the Constitution, not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran or any other "holy book". People can live whatever religious lifestyle they want. They can't, however, force everyone else to kowtow to their chosen religious beliefs.

TJ,

So long as my Courthouse has a Marriage Bureau (call it what you will), marriage is a civil right.

Imagine, if you will, a queue of applicants lined up at the Marriage Bureau, couples all, seeking marriage, sanctioned by the County/State. If some of those applicants are denied access to that Bureau, to that sanction (and all the attendant benefits) only because of the teachings of some religions -- I'd say that was a violation of their civil rights. And so did yesterday's decision.

As for your concern for the seismic effect of that decision -- yeah, you're right. But judges don't rule whimsically. If you can convince a judge that your rights, as defined by the Constitution, have been violated, the Court may (indeed, should) find in your favor. If you cannot, you're out of luck. Judge Walker apparently was convinced by the plaintiffs' arguments. That's how justice works in this country.

As I have said here before, the Constitution is not here to provide for your comfort.

Any gay person can get married in any state of the union. I'll let you smart people figure out how.

How about we leave words alone and stop redefining what they mean.

I'm wondering how 1 judge can trump 7 million voters by making up a right that isn't in the constitution. California voters have twice voted that marriage should be as only between a man and a woman. "The judge has dealt a terrible blow to natural marriage, the voters' rights, the Constitution and this republic we call the United States of America," Randy Tomasson.

Given this ruling, then I believe that polygamy should be legalized. How is it any different? If we are to leave GLBT alone, then let's leave those living peaceful polygamous lives alone. Afterall, if we are going to legislate who will be able to be married...

The Mormon Church did nothing wrong. It and the thousands of other churches in the U.S. did what was right.

The American Constitution has been raped, plundered, and pillaged by liberal activists for years to conform to its selfish agendas (ie abortion, gay marriage, pornography). This will continue to the Second Coming of Christ.

The fundamental definition of "marriage" has been stolen by gay rights activists from the very religious principles for which this nation was founded and based from the forefathers. Marriage was never a civil issue and gay rights activists masked it as lessons in "equality" and "diversity" in order to gain sympathy for its selfish agenda.

Homosexuality is a sin. It is wrong. There is nothing in scriptures that says otherwise, and there's nothing in America or anything from LGBT advocates that portrays homosexuality as being anymore more than a gay porn-driven orgy lacking love and real substance.

It is a dark day in American history. Christians will be persecuted like never before because of this issue.

Dana said:

"As far as being a bedrock institution all I can say is: We want our beds to rock too!"

You only prove that the pro-homosexual agenda fought for this issue based on sex and lust. No love. No substance. Just sex.

Children are the symbol of the greatest form of love which is the basis and reason for marriage. Gay couples can't have children. All they can do is have sex. Same-sex marriage yields temporary pleasures but there is no eternal gain. In ends at death because it was always about sex and nothing more. Thank you for proving that, Dana. You aren't telling me anything I don't already know.

Bub from Kolob,

Liberal gay activist politicians in Masschusetts already made it perfectly clear that the Boston Catholic Charities would not be exempt from it's discrimination clause on same-sex couples.

Essentially, the Vatican told the archdices in both Masschusetts and California not to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. This makes sense. The Catholics teach that homosexuality is wrong. Why should they be forced to adopt kids to same-sex couples understanding this basic commandment not to be joined with a member of the same sex (see Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28)?

Massachusetts politicians told Catholic Charities that they could fight for exemption in the state but it would take a great deal of legal action.

Should it really take legal action to ensure religious freedom in a country that was founded on the belief to worship God in a way that was different that the Church of England? No.

Now, Boston Catholic Charities has ceased it's operations in Massachusetts because of the threat of lawsuits coming from same-sex "married" couples who sought to adopt through their agency.

Tell me, Bub, if religious freedom isn't being undermined in order to fulfill so-called "rights" for pro-homosexual advocates? And this is just the tip of a larger, more damning iceberg that will make being even remotely moral taboo and frowned upon in this nation.

America's government is weak. It's pathetic. It's everything the founding fathers feared. And it's because one judge can make decisions for a whole lot of people--kinda' like a dictator.

"anymore more than a gay porn-driven orgy lacking love and real substance."

Wow. Remember that gay people walk next to you, worship in the same pew (between orgies, of course), sign your checks, bag your groceries...maybe they call you 'Dad'.

But so glad you've singled out the Christians for more torment, not me!

Mind your own marriage, Mr. Pressley.

Scotty and Pretty Boy,

I suggest you do some reading, starting with the Constitution.

5th Amendment:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....

Fourteent Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Oh ... and all those Leviticus and other bible verses ... you can believe (and live your lives around) whatever myths you choose. They are totally irrelvant to me and to this issue.

The "one judge" ogre you fear so much? That's what's called an "independent judiciary." Perhaps if you had paid attention in ninth-grade Civics, you'd know that was one of the great gifts of The Founding Fathers. Another is that the Constitution exists to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority (such as the Prop8 initiative).

Congrats to those that won, it is sad that this had to be a "battle." Maybe Mormons will someday win their rights too and be able to have multiple wives. It is sad both that a group that has been oppressed on the issue of marriage tried to oppress another and that only one side could come out a victor. A true victory would be the government not only realizing that they are still oppressing the Mormons. Maybe at some point the government will realize it has no right to define marriage, as it is a religious thing. I do not know of any other animals that wear rings or hold ceremonies when they chose a mate.

Larry,

That works. Just so long as I get to choose your spouse, too.

Cynical jokes aside, Larry ... your comment actually speaks to the issue. Countless Gay men and women have found themselves in marriages to opposite-sex people (I was one). It does not work; it only causes pain. If children result from these unions, further pain results.

What do you fear from a marriage between two men or two women? How does such a marriage have ANY effect on you or your marriage?

Scott,

I am not up on what the Catholics are having to do in Boston, but this is what I think. If they are getting public money then they have to play by the public rules. If they don't take ANY public money then it would be wrong for the government to require them to do anything. (A lot of these charity organization actually get a lot of their money from the state and act like they are getting it from their adherents) But assuming otherwise, in that sense I would agree with you. Look, the tendency to overreach exists on all sides of human equations. We will not know the fullness of truth on anything until we get to the Third Heaven and Celestial Sphere.

Wow, Scott. Miserable, much? If being a Christian makes you that unhappy and hateful, I'm sure glad I'm not one. Maybe if you'd learn to live and let live instead of spending your time trying to make others as miserable as you are, you'd lose the rage-monster. I think Jesus told you to "do unto others as you'd have done to yourself," didn't he?

As others have pointed out. Marriage is not a religious institution. Our own laws clearly make it a civil matter. There is no requirement to be affiliated with any religion or be married in a church, to get married in this country. Ask the thousands of married Atheists and those who went to the Justice of the Peace or to Vegas. I can go get married standing naked on the deck of a ship, by its captain, so long as he's legally sanctioned to perform wedding ceremonies and I've obtained the proper license.

I haven't read the sermon in question but I do know that if you go into a Catholic church they'll tell you that "Catholics have it 'right' about "God" and "religion" and everyone else? well... " (you fill in the blanks).

That (by the way) is not "religious tolerance" as the author describes it. The Jewish people will announce that they are "God's chosen people", and it goes on and on. The greatest majority of these people (including Nichiren Shoshu) subscribe to) "Freedom OF religion" which is NOT the same as Religious "tolerance" , a concept which implies that "by golly they all have it 'right'!" in which case they should just all merge together into one homogenized, pasteurized religion

Nichiren Shoshu says that if you have a fundamentally erroneous view of the nature of the universe and how it ticks? Specifically that there is an "end" and a "Beginning" to the universe? you will constantly make wrong 'guesses' in your life from the most mundane? to the most universal ... Much like building a house on a non-supporting foundation.

Unfortunately? We all don't live in hermit caves and so if you are just sure that a "Creator" started it all, and is going to "end it all" then you impose those conclusions on people around you and the world.

James Gaius Watt served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior under President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1983 pronounced that we should use up the natural resources because 'Armageddon was coming soon" and "God" had put them there for us to use up.

For those of us who don't subscribe to the "Holy Bible" (or it's supposed author) much less the "biblical" concept of "Armageddon" as an accurate description of how the world works? We have a 'small' problem with the enactment of that as a national 'policy'., so did Thomas Jefferson:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter "

Was Jefferson "intolerant" Yeah I'd say so, he took the "bible" and field stripped every reference to the Mystical stuff out of it. Buy yourself a Jeffersonian bible and enjoy. He also said:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

I guess he wouldn't have been very welcome in her perceived version of Montgomery County, would he?

You also won't be finding any Nichiren Shoshu practitioners lobbying for "In Nichiren Daishonin we trust" to be put on the National Currency. we don't think that would bring about "Religious freedom" any more than the insertion of "One Nation under God" on the currency.

That was put there to differentiate "us" from "them," the "Godless communists" of the former Soviet Union, after a campaign by (breaking news here) ... the "Knights of Columbus" ...a Catholic lay-organization.

the current pledge and the practice of reciting it with hand over heart, is nothing like the original author intended. Until 1942, for example, a straight arm salute, resembling the Nazi salute was used. Mr. Baer, an Annapolis historical author, credits the Rev. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, with the authorship of the original pledge, in 1892. The Rev. Bellamy's pledge omitted any country's name or religious reference. His original pledge read:

"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Mr. Baer wrote that the words "my flag" were changed to "the flag of the United States of America" In 1924, the National Flag Conference, under the leadership of the American Legion and the Daughter's of American Revolution. The Rev. Bellamy, who died in 1931 disliked the change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress (sucking up for easy votes from what would become the 'Red states" / "Bible-belt") added the words "under God" to the pledge after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, (which after all, is a Catholic lay organization).

You do not accomplish "religious freedom" by politically correct banalities, and pretending that all religions have the same value to humanity, but neither do you do this by forcing someone to abandon their religion by "rule of law" or sociopolitical maneuvering on the part of a religious body.

To me? It is very telling when a religion decides that it must attempt to legislate its teachings by rule of civic law, (like imprinting "In God We Trust" on the money) instead of by presenting the teachings in the light of 'enlightened' reason to the outsiders it wishes to convert to its beliefs.

It doesn't make the statement or the religion more convincing or creditable or believable to see the phrase plastered all over public icons. Nichiren Shôshû is actively always focused upon it's OWN believers, each one of them -individually- propagating the religion, in their daily lives but it is done by virtue of demonstration (by example) and reason (explanation and refutation) , not political or social force.

Nichiren Shôshû while not in the business of arranging by force for other people to adopt this religion, minces no words to be 'politically correct' in it's appraisal of what religion should be practiced, and why. "Political Correctness" has nothing to do with an actual religion, based upon what one must realize to perceive the Actual workings of the universe and therefore what goes on in each of our daily mundane lives.

Nichiren Shoshu is (like many others) certianly are a propagating religion, Twice a day in the prayers we close with the statement of the desire of the True Buddha which is is found at the end of the verse section of the Juryo chapter of the Lotus Sutra;
-----------------------------
".at all times I think to myself: How can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?"Lotus Sutra, p.232
-------------------------------
or another scholar's translation of the same passage:; ".
-------------------------
"For the confused and bewildered ordinary people; in spite of the reality, I tell them I am going to enter nirvana because if they were to see me all the time, they would go their own way and do whatever they like. They would become indifferent, lazy attaching themselves to the five desires that arise from the objects of the five senses of things seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched. Eventually they would fall into the midst of evil paths. I always know whether sentient beings are practicing on the path or not. So, in accordance with how I might ferry them over to enlightenment, I expound all kinds of dharmas to them. I always have this thought actively present in my mind as to what must be done to make sentient beings enter onto the highest path and quickly become the complete person of a Buddha "
-------------------------

If you observe the published writings of most of the ersatz 'interfaith councils' that have and currently do exist, they make polite statements in public and while they are in each others presence, about the "nobility" of other religious faiths and how kind and good they all are together doing 'God's work' in the Christian / Jewish / Moslem coalitions.

(Buddhism is of course defined as "Paganism" or "Pre-Christian" like it was some of primitive religion and is lumped in with Witchcraft, Druid beliefs, etc. That in itself is somewhere between insanely arrogant and utterly ridiculous considering the "virgin birth" etc. ad nauseum.

Then after making such apologetic statement amongst their ecclesiastical "brethren" of other faiths, you know full well, that the Christian ministers go back to their pulpits and preach to their flocks that only if you accept "Jesus Christ" as your savior, and declare him to be the "son of God" can you (after death), enter the kingdom of heaven" Ask a Jehovah's Witness about the persecution of their faith by the Catholic Church over the last century.

And the Jewish Rabbi goes back to pronounce in his temple, that only his people (the children of Israel) are 'Gods chosen people'. If they did not then as I said? They would have long since merged their separate 'religions' into one "common" faith. This is a very hypocritical disingenuous and dishonest manner of contriving to propagate one's own religion.

A Nichiren Shôshû Priest in the same circumstances would likely say "I'm not quite sure why you have asked me to come here, we (Nichiren Shôshû, as compared to "God" based religions) are striving for different goals, (a clear view of the Causal nature of the Universe as it's sole eternal "Law") and would consider your recommended course of religious practice for the population to be at precise odds with our scriptures, in fact being the fundamental cause of society's' ills, not 'fixing them' ... good day." Why then do you think that Buddhist children would have any interest is Celebrating / lending credence to, the central premise of Christianity, the "mystical Birth of Jesus?" Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense would it?

One of the fundamental truths of Buddhism in current parlance is that 'every religion is not groovy' and therefore not a "boon" to mankind.

In the 19th Century, one in every 96 deaths was at the hands of a fellow human being. In the 20th Century it was one in every 22. The "majority religions have had 20 + centuries to work their magic.

Nichiren Shôshû I'm sure, is of the conviction that this is more than enough time for the "God-based religions" bad experiment in Sociology and Mythology to hold sway and just maybe that should be pointed out. Just because someone called what they were doing a 'religion', doesn't exonerate that body from needing to accept the consequences of their actions.

As Graham Nash said in his song: "So many people have died 'in the name of Christ'"....

Even Yeshua Bar Yosef / Yeshua Ben Joseph (you might know him as "Christ") did not suggest he was coming to promote peace ..

"Nolite abitrai quia venerim mittere pacem in terram non veni pacem mittere sed gladium. Veni enim separare hominem adversus patrem suum et filiam adversus matrem suam et nurum adversus socrum suam. Et inimici hominis domestici eius"

And for those of you who didn't have to take Latin in school? In English it roughly translates:

"Think not that I come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.''
-- Matthew 10:34 - 39 quoting Jesus, to his Disciples

" It wouldn't be so bad if you could get the practitioners of "Supreme being" religious schools to realize, and acknowledge that they are constantly putting the rest of us in the position of having their doctrines and beliefs shoved down our throats. Doctrines, which we regard as flatly erroneous religions by the very nature of their focus around a central "Deity" .... and in fact that by our view of the nature of reality, that we conclude are the base cause for all suffering in the world.

Think what I'm saying! If we believed this stuff you (the adherents to "God" based religions) try to shove down our throats ... you wouldn't have to shove it would you? We'd be practicing "God-based religions" ourselves!

We're not saying it's inconvenient, not fun, not our cup of tea ... we are saying it's incorrect, based upon our religious perspective of the universe, starting the whole premise of the nature of existence off "on the wrong foot" as it were, flawing all other judgments and decisions made ... on top of these premises as the "foundation".

Even 'non' religious people in this country, look at the mythology of the "Virgin birth" etc. as the foundation of the society whether or not they grasp the fact or not. It's virtually subliminal.

It'd be even a step in the right direction if those who try to force their (by our count) faulty religion down our throats, could pull their heads out of the sanctimonious rear ends long enough to notice that there are actual "religions" that do not postulate a "central" deity or a "creation"

But in fact that incorrect religions are not 'groovy' at all, they cause suffering by their ignorance, and since religions are the basic foundation material that societies and peoples lives are based upon, if the religion is not a "true religion", but a transient philosophy based upon time-subjective premises, ... and the proponents of the 'philosophy' declare it to be a 'religion '... then they are creating suffering for the practitioners of the "religion".

An easy example of this would be the dietary laws that are part and parcel to the Orthodox Jewish faith. At the time that they were formalized, the eating of pork was a dangerous and risky practice at best, as was the eating of shell fish that typically lived in beds near the shores where sewage was frequently discharged into the water for the shell fish (oysters, clams, etc.) to filter through their systems making them carriers of potentially deadly bacteria. That was true more that 2,000 years ago, but it is no longer true, but to observe the rules of "kosher" (Kasher) one must avoid those foods (treyf is the Yiddish for them) even today.

The Catholic church, during the reign of one of the early popes, passed a rule that it was a sin for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays. The rule was devised not through some flash of vision communicated to the Pope by a deity, but as a political method to bolster the fishing industry of the region, a socioeconomic bit of maneuvering "In God's name". Of which It was only in the latter half of the last century that the ban was lifted for Catholics world wide on 'Meatless Fridays". The same applies to 'charitable works' as defined by various sects as a part of their religious practice not individual determinations of the members in specific circumstances. Does anyone think Buddhism should follow the same path? We think not.

Thank you Mormons! Thanks for not building schools, or feeding the hungry, or doing any good at all, but instead trying to force your farce of a belief on all the rest of us. Thanks again Mormons!

I don't approve of Mormanism. And I feel that it is a detriment to society in general. But even though I don't approve of it, I accept it as a legitimate religion and wouldn't try to take their rights to exist and assemble as a religion. I have to wonder why they can't feel the same about gays and gay marriage.

Sorry, Doug, but religion is not all about helping to provide the physical things of this world. The foremost focus of any church is to help the individual improve their relationship with God. How many schools have the GLBT community built?

Every argument that applies to gay marriage also applies to polygamy and polyandry. Why not just marry all your roommates, regardless of gender, and get them on your employer's insurance and tuition reimbursement plan? That way you all qualify for any tax advantages of marriage too. How dare the government define marriage as one person with only one person? How dare the government require you to actually have sex with someone in order to be considered married to that person? The logical conclusion is the ending of all employer benefits to anyone but the employee and young dependents of the employee--let the spouse/s go out and get their own job. Tax advantages to marriage will end. The logical conclusion is the weakening of marriage to the point that it means nothing in the eyes of society and the government and finances. It won't happen this year or next but it will happen in the next 10-30 years.

Erik,

Your argument is specious.

You could ask the same question of the Black community, the Asian community, the Latino community, the disabled community, etc. Each of these groups -- including the GLBT community -- comprises individuals who contribute mightily to the larger community.

Douglas's point was, I believe, that the LDS would be better advised to work to improve the physical well-being of their neighbors than intruding into the private lives of folk who do not subscribe to their peculiar brand of religiosity. The efforts of the LDS lobby to deny marriage equality has no effect on my "relationship with God." Gay Mormons have to deal with their relationship with the church. Non-Mormons are of no legitimate concern of the Mormon church -- especially when it comes to access to civil marriage.

whats next,

If you want to make a case for the scenarios you describe before the Federal Courts, be my guest. The Courts don't have a history of looking kindly on fraudulent marriages, though

If you want to belittle the numerous profoundly loving, decades-long, same-sex relationships I have known over the years, reducing them to tax frauds and insurance scams, then shame on you!

"How dare the government require you to actually have sex with someone in order to be considered married to that person? '

Wow, "what's next" if that were the criterion you are seriously defending 90% of heterososexual marriages would go caput!

I personally hate the idea that one man who has been placed in a situation that causes him to think himself superior and more rational and wise that 52% of the population to negate their beliefs. That being said, I think this issue should go straight to the highest court in the land,be decided then whatever side falls on the losing side drop the issue. The religious right cantake comfort in that they tried and the GLBT community can get provisions past that get them the same privileges under the law as married couples. Then maybe we can move on.

Erik, some things should not be left to majority rule. The founders understood that when they created our republic with its fine tuned checks and balances. So it isn't an issue of the judge thinking “himself superior and more rational and wise that 52% of the population.” It has nothing to do with one man's ego. It has to do with his legitimate role. And that role was to restore the constitutional rights of a minority whose rights had been usurped by mob rule.

The Supreme Court of California already made its ruling in 2008, and they made their decision in favor of equality. There is no court of competent jurisdiction. The aberration that occurred afterward was the result of a band of vigilantes from Utah terrorizing the fine people of California with their right wing ways and saddlebags full of cash.

Our grandchildren will tell the heroic tales of how the brave judge stood down the outlaws in much the same way the old people in south of the border tell of how Pancho Villa unceremoniously tossed General Pershing out of Chihuahua.

The victors get to tell the story. It has always been that way.

The vigilantes of Utah did not cast a single vote. The majority of Californians said their peace. Like I said, if the supreme court,ie. the majority of the 9 say it is unconstitutional than fine. The churches should move on. Judgement will be left to someone smarter than all of us. Those who struggled for what they believe in can take comfort in the fact that God will reward his faithful.

Correction I meant to write "There is no higher court of competent jurisdiction," instead of "There is no court of competent jurisdiction."

Given the public comments from the LDS Church, I can only conclude that Mormons are now advocates of direct democracy rather than our system of republican representative democracy with an independent judiciary and checks and balances and all that...

Dear all,

What hope is left when you keep cutting into a mans soul. I am gay and I have no intension of getting married at this point to another man or worse, a woman, having to lie to her for years. Oh, I'm also a Mormon (inactive).

Lets leave the judgements to God and try, just try to love our neighbours as our-selves, this includes gay, straight oh, leave the labels alone, everyone.

As for this gay marriage debate, marriage is no longer just the domain of religion, you don't need a priest to get married so in this circumstance why would the church jump in? whose judgement was this? God's? If that still hasn't made you think then remember the scripture that said "God made the sun to rise on the good and the bad." My only hope is that we truly learn to love with all our being all of our brothers and sisters. Oh, and leave the Law of our lands to the Law makers.

Charity to all,

Benjamin Worters.

Mormons suck.

I happen to think, (and many alike) that moral dissaproval IS basis for law. Many of our law ARE formed on the basis of moral disaproval. That is way we do not allow insestual marriage. It is mainly because most moraly disaprove of it.

Sometimes as an exponent of Natural Law I am so brilliant that it takes me a while to understand what I myself have said. I appeared on the Raymond Arroyo show The World Over, on August 13th, which is helpfully available on Youtube now, and I called Judge Walker a despot for pretending to decide a matter in way different than Robert Georgeous considers acceptable. There must be standards!

But one thing took me a while to really discern. You see, I have come to understand that by logic, my own logic, all people engaged in heterosexual polyamorous relationships are in fact engaged in homosexual affairs. All those Fundamentalist Mormons are by my special Natural Law logic, poofsters! What! you say? How can this be? You see, as I explained, the only relationship that meets the definition of "complementarity" is two people, not three, or five or seven, as I intoned repeatedly. But apparently if you are not "two" you are logically restricted by my Robert Georgeous Natural Law logic from being "complementary." I thought about it and by logic that means that all men and women who are not involved with only two people are in fact non-complementary homosexuals. That is the beauty of logic. It makes everything clear.

In reviewing the comments on this article, it is clear that the the Mormon (LDS) Church's support of Proposition 8 has had a definite impact on the way in which members of the public perceive the church.