Here are my thoughts on this matter.

The LDS church has every right to make its opinion known. So does any American group.

Only the states can regulate marriage, which is true conservative federalism. Those in California who are opposed have every legal and ethical right to overturn the Supreme Court's decision through referendum this fall.

I personally believe that our culture is best served with one-man, one-woman marriage laws. However, I think in the future the gay and plygny agendas are going to triumph.

Remember that HUGE EARTHQUAKE that they have been predicting for years in California?

RUUUUUUUNNNNNN!

(remember....a couple of weeks ago the ChiComm's slapped around Tibet? GOD slapped around China this week. And don't forget the other tourist attractions such as Cyclones, Volcanoes, Typhoons and Al Gore)

RUUUUUUUNNNNNN!

Everybody Loves Raymond wrote:
Time to get rid of these Dem activist judges. If you want more of this, just vote for Obama and his immoral Dem Congress. They will apppoint just these types of judges. Keep it up and you can soon marry your Yellow Labador.

Oh my the sky is falling the sky is falling........

Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
[b]I used to agree with what you were saying but when put to the task of backing up why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman I couldn't come up with a single real reason for limitation.


You LDS?

Here we go another one of Kent's online bishops interview.

JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
I used to agree with what you were saying but when put to the task of backing up why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman I couldn't come up with a single real reason for limitation.


You LDS?

Also, regardless of what a religion's stance is on the issue, that is neither here nor there. No one should force their religious views over others. I was appalled when the LDS spoke out on the issue...so much for separation of religion and politics.

EDIT: I'm referring to the LDS releasing a statement that they approved of legally defining marriage or something to that effect. I'll have to go looking for it now, I don't remember the wording.

I'm LDS. I pretty much agree with him. The Church has every right to make the statement they have concerning marriage and the law. Personally I don't agree with it. If it is legalized that doesn't mean that they have to accept it. And I would be against any law that would say that they have to.

ThomasK wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
I used to agree with what you were saying but when put to the task of backing up why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman I couldn't come up with a single real reason for limitation.


You LDS?

Also, regardless of what a religion's stance is on the issue, that is neither here nor there. No one should force their religious views over others. I was appalled when the LDS spoke out on the issue...so much for separation of religion and politics.

EDIT: I'm referring to the LDS releasing a statement that they approved of legally defining marriage or something to that effect. I'll have to go looking for it now, I don't remember the wording.

I'm LDS. I pretty much agree with him. The Church has every right to make the statement they have concerning marriage and the law. Personally I don't agree with it. If it is legalized that doesn't mean that they have to accept it. And I would be against any law that would say that they have to.

I don't care if the LDS church is against gay marriage and I don't care if they go on the record stating such - as a religious point. What I care about is when they move to urge the members of the church to pass legislation that will infringe upon the rights of others. I find that wrong.