Mormon church enters Calif. gay marriage fight

I found this while looking for information on McCain: Baptist Press - ELECTION 08: McCain against gay adoption; Obama won't 'impose' faith on his kids - News with a Christian Perspective
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp...

Unbelieveable,

Joe Biden your take?(I think I know it but I ask anyway)

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
I will when y'all do, but until then the fight goes on to maintain the traditions of this country.

Some traditions must, inevitably, fall to social justice and social evolution.

TimeforChange23 wrote:

Unbelieveable,
Joe Biden your take?(I think I know it but I ask anyway)

Honestly don't know a lot about Biden. From what I've read, he sounds like a good choice, but honestly I'm just glad it wasn't Hillary. I never could stand her (or her husband, for that matter).

Nimrod wrote:

<quoted text>
That could NEVER happen in the bluest of the blue, liberal state of CT, which is pretty much TOTALLY controlled by liberal DEMS

Not nationally but it can happen state by state. Case in point, Arkansas is ready to vote on a ban for adoption and foster children for homosexual. They already voted to strip one right (marriage) and now they are getting ready to remove another. Basically it is one step foward (race), two steps back (sexual orientations)in civil rights.

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
Honestly don't know a lot about Biden. From what I've read, he sounds like a good choice, but honestly I'm just glad it wasn't Hillary. I never could stand her (or her husband, for that matter).

I think it helps cover the perceived hole in Obama's resume (foreign relations)

I do know that Biden is pretty outspoken.. As long as he can tone it down I don't think it is a bad choice.

VP choices never make or break anyone though in this election not picking Hilary may alienate her following.

I actually liked Bill better than Hilary. Bill led by polls and just wanted to be liked. Hilary seems to really believe what she is saying (which scared me LOL)

Not a fan of either.

TimeforChange23 wrote:

<quoted text>
I think it helps cover the perceived hole in Obama's resume (foreign relations)
I do know that Biden is pretty outspoken.. As long as he can tone it down I don't think it is a bad choice.
VP choices never make or break anyone though in this election not picking Hilary may alienate her following.
I actually liked Bill better than Hilary. Bill led by polls and just wanted to be liked. Hilary seems to really believe what she is saying (which scared me LOL)
Not a fan of either.

Not picking Hillary may alienate a few, but picking her would have alienated more in my opinion. Frankly, I don't see many Hillary supporters suddenly jumping on the McCain bandwagon, but I could see anti-Hillary people jumping off Obama's bandwagon. I could be wrong.

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
Not picking Hillary may alienate a few, but picking her would have alienated more in my opinion. Frankly, I don't see many Hillary supporters suddenly jumping on the McCain bandwagon, but I could see anti-Hillary people jumping off Obama's bandwagon. I could be wrong.

I saw on CNN a USAToday/Gallop poll that said 30% of those who stated they were Hillary supporters will now vote for John McCain. 23% said they were likely to vote for Obama but said they may change their mind. 47% said they would be firmly behind Obama. That to me is pretty incredible 30% of Hillary supporters (you know they were not anti-Bush republicans if they were Hillary supporters) are saying they will vote against their party. I think Hillary supporters are clearly ticked off. I am sure those numbers will change to be more supportive of Obama as the election continues but that is a hill (no pun intended) to overcome. I think he has his work cutout for him.

I actually thought differently. I thought if he had picked Hillary that ticket would have probably won handily. But who knows

TimeforChange23 wrote:

<quoted text>
I saw on CNN a USAToday/Gallop poll that said 30% of those who stated they were Hillary supporters will now vote for John McCain. 23% said they were likely to vote for Obama but said they may change their mind. 47% said they would be firmly behind Obama. That to me is pretty incredible 30% of Hillary supporters (you know they were not anti-Bush republicans if they were Hillary supporters) are saying they will vote against their party. I think Hillary supporters are clearly ticked off. I am sure those numbers will change to be more supportive of Obama as the election continues but that is a hill (no pun intended) to overcome. I think he has his work cutout for him.
I actually thought differently. I thought if he had picked Hillary that ticket would have probably won handily. But who knows

Did the poll say how many Obama supporters would not vote for him if he had picked Hillary for VP?

Hopefully the convention will help bring everyone together behind Obama, but who knows. The fact is, Hillary and Obama agreed on almost every issue, so for her supporters to say they won't support Obama just doesn't make sense. But since when has politics made sense?

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
Did the poll say how many Obama supporters would not vote for him if he had picked Hillary for VP?
Hopefully the convention will help bring everyone together behind Obama, but who knows. The fact is, Hillary and Obama agreed on almost every issue, so for her supporters to say they won't support Obama just doesn't make sense. But since when has politics made sense?

It did not give statistics going the other way.

But you have to admit 30% is a big number for people saying they will vote for the opposite party. They do agree on most things. I know that there is clearly some concern about experience. My guess is that this may very well be the biggest case of sour grapes ever!!!!

Funny tho that everyone complains when they say we want a Washington outsider and someone who isn't status quo then doesn't vote for someone because they do not have "experience". Seems like an oxymoron if I have ever heard one.

Will be interesting to see who McCain picks. I honestly think the only person he could pick that would potentially make any impact is Colin Powell, and I don't see that happening. My guess is that it will be someone not descript but younger and flashier. Of course pretty much anyone fits that bill.

TimeforChange23 wrote:

<quoted text>
It did not give statistics going the other way..

I'm willing to bet that Obama's campaign tested those numbers, and found that the net effect would not have been all that positive. Hillary is a person that you either love or hate. There is no in between for most people. I think a lot of people supported Obama because they hated Hillary, and thus picking her as VP would have alienated those people. I can't find any polls that asked that question though, so it's all just speculation.

TimeforChange23 wrote:

<quoted text>But you have to admit 30% is a big number for people saying they will vote for the opposite party. They do agree on most things. I know that there is clearly some concern about experience. My guess is that this may very well be the biggest case of sour grapes ever!!!!.

I absolutely believe it's sour grapes. I'm hoping that they can get over it in the next two months, because we cannot afford another four years of the status quo. They have to realize that eventually, don't they?

TimeforChange23 wrote:

<quoted text>Funny tho that everyone complains when they say we want a Washington outsider and someone who isn't status quo then doesn't vote for someone because they do not have "experience". Seems like an oxymoron if I have ever heard one..

Absolutely. And some of our greatest presidents ever were outsiders with fresh ideas.

TimeforChange23 wrote:

<quoted text>Will be interesting to see who McCain picks. I honestly think the only person he could pick that would potentially make any impact is Colin Powell, and I don't see that happening. My guess is that it will be someone not descript but younger and flashier. Of course pretty much anyone fits that bill.

LOL...very true!

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
I will when y'all do, but until then the fight goes on to maintain the traditions of this country.

I hope you never have to vote on this rot in Texas. This is so rediculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman. So tired of the shrill heterophobes and their anti-normal agenda.They aren't a minority, they are choosing a perverted lifestyle and they are trying to force the rest of America to accept it by saying it is more biological. I have read more of the studies on that and find them inconclusive and broad based. They are clinging to straws to justify their disgusting ways. Next it will be "plural" marriage for FLDS and "child" marriage for muslims. This is a pandoras box

And it's just plain icky

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm willing to bet that Obama's campaign tested those numbers, and found that the net effect would not have been all that positive. Hillary is a person that you either love or hate. There is no in between for most people. I think a lot of people supported Obama because they hated Hillary, and thus picking her as VP would have alienated those people. I can't find any polls that asked that question though, so it's all just speculation.

You are probably right about checking the stats, but I guess I would think that an Obama supporter is less likely to jump to McCain for any reason. The whole "change" theme. I think Obama supporters would have been upset if he picked Hillary but I just don't think that 30% would have said they will now vote for McCain. I would think that how your candidate is treated would affect your judgment more than the your candidates pick for VP. Meaning if you are a Hillary supporter and she is "snubbed" as a choice for VP, you are more likely to be upset/emotional by that than if you are an Obama supporter and he picked someone you didn't like as his VP. Just my speculation. Actually you are an Obama guy who hates Hillary. Would you have voted for McCain if he had picked Hillary as his VP?

UnbelievableFL wrote:

I absolutely believe it's sour grapes. I'm hoping that they can get over it in the next two months, because we cannot afford another four years of the status quo. They have to realize that eventually, don't they?

Well, I would think that once emotions settle those numbers I quoted will trend downward. I think there are many people that are concerned about experience but I do believe the greater number of people are just mad that their candidate lost.

He better hope he can trend that downward or he will lose.

God wrote:

<quoted text>I hope you never have to vote on this rot in Texas. This is so rediculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman. So tired of the shrill heterophobes and their anti-normal agenda.They aren't a minority, they are choosing a perverted lifestyle and they are trying to force the rest of America to accept it by saying it is more biological. I have read more of the studies on that and find them inconclusive and broad based. They are clinging to straws to justify their disgusting ways. Next it will be "plural" marriage for FLDS and "child" marriage for muslims. This is a pandoras box

If you weren't so nervous about the inevitable at your doorstep (gay equality), you wouldn't be here all the time ranting your juvenile nonsense.

May you live a long, long life so that we will enjoy knowing you are a daily witness to this world becoming gay-friendlier with each passing moment.

God wrote:

<quoted text>I hope you never have to vote on this rot in Texas. This is so rediculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman. So tired of the shrill heterophobes and their anti-normal agenda.They aren't a minority, they are choosing a perverted lifestyle and they are trying to force the rest of America to accept it by saying it is more biological. I have read more of the studies on that and find them inconclusive and broad based. They are clinging to straws to justify their disgusting ways. Next it will be "plural" marriage for FLDS and "child" marriage for muslims. This is a pandoras box

Whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant when deciding whether it is constitutional to discriminate against them as a group, as the court in California found. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me, starting with the last paragraph on page 97.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/document...

That makes sense. After all, religion is clearly a choice, and you can't discriminate against people based on their choice of religion. Homosexuality is legal in this country, so why should a person be discriminated against based on the fact they are homosexual, choice or not?

TimeforChange23 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are probably right about checking the stats, but I guess I would think that an Obama supporter is less likely to jump to McCain for any reason. The whole "change" theme. I think Obama supporters would have been upset if he picked Hillary but I just don't think that 30% would have said they will now vote for McCain. I would think that how your candidate is treated would affect your judgment more than the your candidates pick for VP. Meaning if you are a Hillary supporter and she is "snubbed" as a choice for VP, you are more likely to be upset/emotional by that than if you are an Obama supporter and he picked someone you didn't like as his VP. Just my speculation. Actually you are an Obama guy who hates Hillary. Would you have voted for McCain if he had picked Hillary as his VP?
<quoted text>
Well, I would think that once emotions settle those numbers I quoted will trend downward. I think there are many people that are concerned about experience but I do believe the greater number of people are just mad that their candidate lost.
He better hope he can trend that downward or he will lose.

I most likely would have reluctantly voted for Hillary had she won the nomination. Like I said, we can't afford another 4 years of McBush.

God wrote:

<quoted text>I hope you never have to vote on this rot in Texas. This is so rediculous. Marriage is between a man and a woman. So tired of the shrill heterophobes and their anti-normal agenda.They aren't a minority, they are choosing a perverted lifestyle and they are trying to force the rest of America to accept it by saying it is more biological. I have read more of the studies on that and find them inconclusive and broad based. They are clinging to straws to justify their disgusting ways. Next it will be "plural" marriage for FLDS and "child" marriage for muslims. This is a pandoras box

First the whole plural marriage, etc. has been discussed to death already in this forum, and it is a red herring for homophobic people who have nothing of value to add to the discussion but think if they throw that in enough it will scare people into thinking if gay marriage is legal then plural marriage and child marriage will happen. This is insulting to people saying basically that they don’t have enough common sense and smarts to know the difference. Second – I’ve said/asked a thousand times how does gay marriage hurt YOU personally? Who you marry has no affect on my life so why should who someone else marries have any affect on you – this is a relationship between TWO consenting adults. How would you feel if the government and groups of people got involved in your personal life? I can respect that you don’t understand and agree with it, but I can’t respect hypocritical people who want personal freedoms for themselves but want to deny others the same based on their own personal fears, what are you afraid of if gays are allowed to marry, no one is asking you to change your views just let others have the same right to love whom they want as you have. Who you love may not be normal to someone else but it isn’t their business. Fear breeds contempt, hatred and intolerance and this world has enough of that without adding love to the mix. Look at what is happening already, this is a California issue at this point yet we are hearing the fear, hatred, intolerance from all over, people who have no dog in this fight INCLUDING THE MORMON CHURCH are getting involved. BTW – Does anyone but me find it a little ironical that the Mormon Church involved itself and I belief at one time plural marriages were accepted by the church yet that seems to be the biggest fear that people want to throw at this issue. Here’s an idea for the Mormon Church or any other unloving church don’t perform gay marriages if you’re against them. Solved that problem for you.

Pam wrote:

<quoted text>....and it is a red herring for homophobic people who have nothing of value to add to the discussion but think if they throw that in enough it will scare people into thinking if gay marriage is legal then plural marriage and child marriage will happen. This is insulting to people saying basically that they don’t have enough common sense and smarts to know the difference.

I do not consider myself homophobic in the least and while it can be your opinion that those who offer plural marriage as having potentially more legal precedent after we expand the definition of marriage to included SSM lacks all common sense and "smarts", it doesn't make it any less of a discussion. Frankly, I do believe (despite Unbelievable's best efforts) it will give addtional ammo to groups such as polygamists and adult consentiual incestual couples. Whether it will ultimately help their cause who knows. I am not trying to use it to scare anyone just offering it as discussion, disagree if you like but making generalizations about those who think it is possible is painting with a fairly broad brush.

Pam wrote:

Fear breeds contempt, hatred and intolerance and this world has enough of that without adding love to the mix. Look at what is happening already, this is a California issue at this point yet we are hearing the fear, hatred, intolerance from all over, people who have no dog in this fight. INCLUDING THE MORMON CHURCH are getting involved.

If there are Mormon members and churches in California I would argue that they do have a dog in that fight. I also believe they have every right to fight for their beliefs as does any pro-SSM non-profit group such as GLAAD, regardless if they are right or wrong.

Pam wrote:

BTW – Does anyone but me find it a little ironical that the Mormon Church involved itself and I belief at one time plural marriages were accepted by the church yet that seems to be the biggest fear that people want to throw at this issue. Here’s an idea for the Mormon Church or any other unloving church don’t perform gay marriages if you’re against them. Solved that problem for you.

They did indeed at one time endorse plural marriage. They believed that it was a calling from God. Some would argue that the government's ban on plural marriage infringes on their rights to practice their religion as they wish. I don't know if that is a valid argument or not but it does at least make you think.

I would say the biggest fear is not polygamy it is what effect will allowing benefits to same sex couples have on our societal fabric in total. I, at this point, do not believe there will be any negative effects (except it will most likely put more money in the pockets of divorce lawyers) but I do respect others views that it may. We will find out.

It seems to me that anyone, regardless of relifious beliefs, who supports Proposition 8, needs to be aware of the fact that the early Christians evidently practiced same-sex marriages.

Just click on the following link to read a most intriguing article on the subject:

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html