For all those who think this letter represents animosity towards anyone they obviosly have not read it. The letter only speaks of the need to define marriage as between a man and a woman it never mentions what types of marriage are not allowed.

The first presidency makes no statement against any group on individual. If words of uplift and positive defense of the long established definition of marriage are considered hate speech, as some have accused the first presidency of doing, than we have major issues. No individual or group was attacked in this letter.

Ok...so we have the official letter, whic is pretty much identical to what we already know.

Look, I understand speaking out to your congregations about the OPINION of what's going on in the community. Once a church (any, not just the LDS) step out and say, "We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman," you step across the boundaries of what a church should do. That is not ENCOURAGING someone to vote in general, that's asking that they support what you want. That goes against what the Mormon church says it does.

It's also a secular discussion and vote, not a religious one. You are married by the STATE, in the USA, not under God. It is an earthly union.

This is not ONLY a secular discussion. It is a moral issue and I don't believe that there is anything wrong with this statement from the LDS church. I personally don't believe that they are crossing any bounds by standing up for an issue such as this!! And I stand there right along with them!

You don't find it wrong for an organized religion who says they do not get involved in politics, or only to the extent of excouraging people to vote (and supposedly not WHAT to vote for) to tell people to vote against this?

Why is it not ok for them to push an agenda before but NOW they can?

Urging is not commanding... better go with your conscience.

Most believe that when the church says it, especially the first presidency, you do what they want. Happened with ear piercings too...(altho a much more minute subject).

It's a moral issue!! The church has every right to stand up against an issue that is trying to redefine what the Lord has already defined! Why shouldn't they take a stand on this issue and urge its members to do the same?!

Leaders of the LDS Church are spiritual leaders. Their domain is spiritual (and moral, to the degree that spiritual includes moral).

Homosexual behavior is considered by LDS to be a moral issue. Therefore, they will speak out on it.

But the issue of gay marriage is not a moral issue; it is a legal issue. We do not deprive people of their legal rights simply because they do not conform to our unique moral standards.

The California State Constitution guarantees citizens the right to marry. Up until only 60 years ago(1948), California statutes forbad interracial marriages. (LDS Church leaders at that time also "discouraged" interracial marriages).

Time have changed. Today, no thoughtful LDS would agree with statutes forbidding interracial marriages. We all would concur that such statutes would not only be unconstitutional, but unethical, immoral and unChristian.

Indeed, we would strongly conclude that statutes are immoral and wrong if they classify, discriminate, or impose differential treatment on the basis of a characteristic such as gender, race, or religion.

Similarly, then, those of us with moral, ethical, and Christian sentiments find repugnant California statutes that classify, discriminate, or impose differential legal treatment based on sexual-orientation. The California SC decision is right.

All this criticism of the LDS church, and the LDS church is pointing out that the majority of California voters chose to define marriage as between one man and one woman, while a tiny number of legislating judges overturned that vote. The amendment is to protect the will of the people from being overturned by an activist few.

BECAUSE...

They enjoy the rights of a tax-exempt organization.

If they paid taxes on all of their income and earnings, I would honestly be fine. I wouldn't LIKE what they're saying, and how they're presuring, but it'd be within their rights.

They don't. They are not supposed to cross the line of telling their members what to vote for.

Know what would've helped? Saying "If you believe in these issues the same way we do, please vote your conscience." No, they said they want their people to do everything they can to stop a law they don't like. BIG difference.

Do you truly believe that, veedub? What if originally gay marriaged was voted in by the people, and the court system wanted to see that changed? You think the church would support the people?

This letter has been available all over the internet for several weeks. This is not breaking news.

Doesn't this action go against D&C 134:9??? I'm sure tehre are those out there who say no, but I would have to disagree.

ANYTIME ANY church becomes political, it's NOT good.

The current California statutes distinguish between the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples(marriage) and that for same-sex couples(domestic partnership).

One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families.

Although the current domestic partnership legislation affords same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, they potentially impinge upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.

Moreover, providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by moral people — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Jesus

Maybe the LDS Church should follow this advise and stay out of politics.

To Tia,

The Church always says it has the right to get directly involved in moral issues. This is a moral issue. The church took similar actions in California, Hawaii, Nevada and other states. This is nothing new.

To began with I am not the John Lambert who posted the comment at 1:27. It is slightly disconcerting to have enougher John Lambert post. However I guess that is what I get for having a common name.

This is the first official release of the letter I have seen. I think that makes it breaking news.

The church has every right to step up when moral issues are put before the people.

In fact the church has more than a right in this matter. It has an absolute and complete duty. We can not sit idlely by and let immoral behaviors be redefined into having the positive endorsement of public policy. We must stand against the attempts to redefine marriage.

The statement asks us to support this constitutional amendment to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman.

Whether or not I choose to vote for or against this amendment, no-one but myself or anyone I choose to tell, will know. My Bishop, Stake President or other leaders will not ask me if I donated money to either side, they will not ask me if I voted for or against, or if I voted at all. They have never asked me what political party I belong to, or if I am even registered to vote. My decision will be my personal decision and will not affect my membership in good standing in the Church in any way.

Whether or not you agree, according to LDS doctrine, this is a moral issue, and simply reiterates scriptural teachings, in all the versions of the Bible and other books. The Catholic Church is also urging its members to support this amendment, as are other religious groups, and several secular groups. It is not exclusive to the LDS Church.

Marriage is ordained of God, so the LDS church has every right to say something, because this is an issue that has no business in politics. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and so many churches have not had to make a stand, but when politics decided that they could take something that we can trace back to the Bible and put their spin on it, then religions do have a right to speak out about it. I would agree that politics can decide about letting same sex couples have benefits, and I believe churches would stay neutral about that. So yes render unto Caesar that which are Caesar's (civil unions) and unto God the things that are God's(marriage between a man and a woman). So maybe the government should follow this advise and stay out of religion. :)

The church is not encouraging members to vote for a particular party of person, they are merely encouraging their members and anyone else who will listen to vote for what is moral in the church's eyes.

This is not a stinking popularity contest. This is not about voting to see if the majority can force their will upon a bunch of people they believe are immoral sinners because they don't follow the commandments of the god of the Bible.

This is about a nation built upon the principles of individual liberty and the protection of those rights for every individual regardless of their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

You religious bigots who are trying to amass popular support to override the individual liberty and equal protections of fellow citizens, simply because YOU believe the god of the Bible says it is wrong, well, you are fascists and are enemies of liberty and democracy and the principles that are the foundation of our great country! You are not only anti-gay (homophobic), but you are also anti-American and anti-Humanity!

Shame on you all! I wish you could all have spent some time in Dachau or Auschwitz (like my father did) so you can get a feel for what it is like to have your individual liberty taken away!

This is not just an LDS issue. The LDS church is joining with a coalition of California churches to express their moral objection and they are encouraging their parishioners to do likewise. If you wish to take issue, make it an issue with the position of most California religions and those who attend their services and not just the LDS church. Even anti's who supposedly are trying to save Mormons?? get this.

To to Christian Scholar | 2:51 p.m.,

If marriage is ordained of God and the civil authority has no business in it, then what do you care if the government grants marital rights to gays? According to your religiously-inspired rhetoric, that effectively renders the idea of marriage meaningless anyway! So it is effectively just like the government stepping back and getting out of the marriage issue altogether! It leaves it up to religious groups to define marriage in their own special ways.

The truth is you are not so upset that the government is getting involved in religion (because they are NOT); instead, you are so upset that you cannot shoe your imperialistic religion down everybody else's throats! You want to FORCE gays and lesbians to live according to what YOU believe is moral or immoral. To heck with their freedoms and liberty and equal protections under the law! You just want to gang up on gays and lesbians and force your morality down their throats whether they like it or not!

Let's make a deal. You keep your bigoted god out of my life, and I will keep my hatred of Mormon bigots out of your Churches. Fair enough!

As Legal Beagle correctly points out above, although homosexuality is a moral issue to Christians and Mormons, gay marriage is NOT a moral issue--it is a LEGAL issue!

The LDS Church has NO BUSINESS involving itself in LEGAL issues! It can preach all the morality it wants to, but it has no business trying to influence the CIVIL LAW nor the Constitution of a State of the Union!

To paraphrase a great man: Eleven score and two years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil debate on gay marriage, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. Many have died to protect the equality and liberty of all. It is for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that we here highly resolve that the dead shall not have died in vain; that all men may be created equal as we remove the shackles which have kept many from enjoying the full blessings of liberty and equality in marriage.

Same-sex relationships are the ultimate in discrimination. To those participating adults, the gender of their partner is everything. However, when those adults bring children into the relationship (e.g. through adoption or insemination), they teach that gender is not important: they teach that having both a father and a mother is not important, and they fail to teach how to interact with both genders.

When marriage for same-sex couples is institutionalized, then those couples are on the same footing for adopting children.

Since religions, like others in the public thought arena, are stakeholders in society, they should have access to the maketplace of ideas. This is what democracies do.

I find it interesting that this article is on the LDS newsline section of the paper, yet so many people who either are not LDS, anti-LDS, anti any religion, etc. etc., choose to take the time to click on the link and then post comments. Do you really love to see your names and comments in print so much?

I find it interesting that every time the LDS Church offers an opinion on a moral issue the tax-exempt people come out assuming the most important thing to the LDS Church is protecting its money. I also find it interesting that you never hear about this when democrats are campaigning in churches or churches are campaigning for democrats.

Every benefit that gays can want from marriage can be accomplished through mutual powers-of-attorney. That includes medical visitation and decision making and financial responsibility. And sharing of surnames can be obtained by legally changing one's name. Getting married will not make your relationship any more or any less accepted by society.

I post in the LDS section to make sure you aren't patting your backs too much.
You need to have a opposing view.
I find it interesting that even though I want nothing to do with the church, they still want me back and keep pestering me, whether it be the Chruch itself or family.

I'm mostly concerned about what the judges in California did without consent of the vote of the people. If the vote of the people were any different, I might agree with SOME of the opposing views above. If judges have the authority to override a winning vote to define marriage, then there is something definitely wrong with the judicial system here in California. At any rate, I participated in the rallies in Hawaii in 1997, and will do it again in California this year. I would have even if I wasn't asked by the church to do so.

RE: Another LDS Californian

The judges struck down a law that was unconstitutional by the STATE of California's own constitution. the message they sent was AMEND the constitution.

1. The LDS statement mentioned that the California court "reversed the will of the people". Does that mean the church recognizes the "will of the people" in states like Massachusetts or countries like Canada in regard to same sex marriage?

2. Has the LDS church encouraged legistlation that would strengthen marriage with tighter divorce laws (especially if children are part of the marriage)? Does the LDS church provide severe church penalties for members who weaken the sanctity of marriage with their own divorce or divorces?

3. Even though the LDS church has every right to have and promote their own policies and doctrines they seem shy about admitting their policies can be and in the past have been racist and homophobic and anti-women, etc. Are they not proud of their doctrines?

If you want nothing more to do with the Church (I presume you mean LDS Church) and don't want to be contacted, there is a simple method to have your name removed. Call or write to the Bishop in your area, or contact the Church Offices in Salt Lake to find out how to take care of it. It would be taken care of, and you would no longer be listed in your "ward" and be assigned Home Teachers, etc. If you were ever baptized, your name is on the records until you opt to have it removed.

Good luck.

You not much of a scholar.

Jesus was asked about paying the roman taxes.

And that was his answer.

IT is compltely irrelevent to this situation.

IT has absolutely nothing to do with current topic.

Thanks for trying, but you need to study a little harder.

To Chris Plummer,

The judges misread the constitution of the state. They found rights that did not exist. Beyond that they admited the laws were not discriminatory.

Their analogy to laws against inter-racial marriage was wrong. Inter racial marriage laws were written to ensure the subjegation of one group to another. They were written to make sure that people's experiences were limited growing up. Laws against same sex marriage have the exact opposite effect. They aim to expose children to both a mother and a father.

One more thing, to wondering. When did the people of Massachusetts express their support for same sex marriage?

DC 134:9 - "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one RELIGIOUS SOCIETY IS FOSTERED and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

The leaders and membership of the church are entitled to their opinions and to speaking out about these opinions. I do believe a line was crossed here - we as a people believe in teaching moral principles and then allowing individual members to make their own decisions as questions arise. In my opinion, this statement over the pulpit is akin to encouraging members to give all their time and money to support a presidential candidate because he will appoint a certain type of Supreme Court justice or to fight a gun control law.

At the end of the day, I believe it is OK to read a statement from the pulpit teaching the members the church's stance on a moral issue but not a political one. I for one am very clear on the church's stance on gay marriage, but I feel a line was crossed here moving the organization away from a church and toward a PAC.