Terrorizing $100 donors at their workplace. Re-branding an entire state as a hate state. Boycotting donor businesses, from dentist's offices to car dealerships to mexican restaurants. This is the GLBT community's response to those who supported a California proposition that passed with a clear voting majority? Pro-8 citizens were disparaged as "haters" before the vote; now GLBT community activists can think of nothing but hate as their "appropriate response" to losing a free and fair election. What's the message? Apparently it is what can't be had legally will be forced by other means. How is this message of any benefit to a homosexual community fighting for a heterosexual label?

Thank you. So much bigotry coming from the left. Practice what you preach liberals. You are the most intolerant religion on the planet and the most blind.

In the a local Latin news paper La Voz Edition 11 November 12 to December 2 they did a pro Proposition 8 article. On page 19 they state 61% of Latinos favor marriage between a man and a woman.

This makes sense since the predominant religion in Latin America is Catholicism.

If 12 to 20 million people in the country illegally are granted citizenship, do you think that will put gay rights advocates at a disadvantage?

I find a double standard exists for Gay and Lesbian community. I support their right to protest. However, it is how they protest that I wish to comment on. I am not talking about violence or vandalism. I am refering to offensive remarks degrading and mocking my faith and beliefs, or to labeling them as acts of "hate." In an attempt to gain respect, acceptance and tolerance, the Gay and Lesbian community has been so direspectful, unaccepting and intolerant. If the tables were turned, and the LDS faithful were to use these same tactics, there would probably be a severe backlash of criticism and pressure from society. Yet, why is society (the media) quiet about how disrepectful the Gay and Lesbian Community is?

Right, but there is also a double standard from the church. I am a member, and I don't think it is right for the church to use its influence to legislate morals. That is unconstitutional.

The purpose of the churches is to influence moral conscience. With that being the case, You cannot prevent any church from influencing society's moral belief. And when legislation is voted on by the people, its going to come down to the church's influence. So whether its unconstitutional (and I don't know if it is), or not, it makes no difference.

Let's not forget how this all got started. "Marriage" already had a meaning before same sex couples decided they wanted the benefits and obligations associated with the word and the condition. Perhaps if they stopped trying to hijack the meaning of the word and focused on defining what rights same sex couples should have, there could be some progress on this issue - without changing the meaning of marriage for everyone else.

I have a question about a response already taken by the GLBTQ community and its supporters. There is currently a petition gathering signatures that seeks to revoke the LDS Church's tax-exempt status (http://www...he-mormons). The church devoted a lot of money, time, and effort in supporting Proposition 8. In doing so, it theoretically violates the following clause: "In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)." The LDS Church's influence on the Prop 8 legislation seems abundantly clear, but it is also difficult to imagine the Church losing its privilege and being reprimanded. Is the thrust of the petition legally viable? If so, what is the likelihood that the Church will actually lose its tax-exempt status?

Thank you!

the term "substantial part of its activities" leads to another question: What is substantial? I know the money raised for prop8 primarily came from individual donations. And if you want to talk about churches influencing society's opinion on sociological issues. Well I suppose the only way to avoid that is to eliminate the church altogether.

It is incorrect to say "The church devoted a lot of money ... ". Many MEMBERS of the church in California donated THEIR OWN MONEY for Proposition 8, others donated against it. The paying for a trip and hotel accomodations for a general authority whose day-to-day resposibilities require occasional trips to California does not constitute "a lot of money" and I believe, if you check, that would be the extent of "The church's" donations. I hope your statement is merely ignorant because inaccuracies do nothing but mislead and enflame emotional issues. Even if all $22 millions and all the time of "volunteer workers" were to be quantified, the total amount would fall pitifully short of passing the "substantial part of its activities" test and would therefore be perfectly legal. Just a small part of the church's donations for hurricane relief (of one hurricane!) would dwarf it. To try to prove that passing Prop. 8 was a "substantial part" of the LDS Church's activities is ridiculous and merely demonstrates one's level of frustration. Better to try to work together than being vindictive.

Please note the use of the word "substantial" in the IRS code. In no way does a substantial part of the LDS church's activity attempt to influence legislation. The IRS would look at the church's total income and the amount spent on lobbying to make a determination. In this case, the amount was miniscule. Voluntary contributions by individual members to extra-organizational causes do not count towards church participation. The probability of actually loosing tax exempt status over this is near zero, unless the IRS Code is changed. The effort to change the IRS code is a thinly veiled effort to muzzle the LDS church in its constitutional rights to freedom of expression.

The GLBT community must feel like they are up against a wall right now. In response to the post of the protests being dis-respectful. It only takes a few negative acts to taint a peaceful protest. These peaceful protests can't be judged on the actions of a handfull of people.

IT would be great if we could all agree to have civil unions and let people of whatever religion go on to have their marriage validated by their faith of choice. But I think court battles are the next place to take this agenda. Things like vandalism will only inflame the already volatile situation.

Hit the LDS church where it hurts and get your name taken off the records like I did.

So in other words, your cause is helped when you hurt a church. Hmmmm, who's on board THAT train?

It isn't like the gay community is overturning buses or anything. They are responding to a religious community spending 20 million to take away a right given to that community through the legal process. The LDS church should be denied tax exempt status. They are the bullies on the playground. They are the big power. Trying to paint a group of people fighting this monolith to have their marriage rights returned to them as the one who has overstepped their bounds is silly.

That is not the picture I want to paint. I believe that the Gay and Lesbain community has been discriminated against, bullied, oppressed and have sufferred more that I ever will. I believe they have a right to protest and fight for what they believe. It is how they fight that I have an issue with. Imagine if the tables were turned around and you had thousands of mormons protest in front of the GLBT headquarters, with signs mocking a homosexual lifestyle with very distateful words and insulting remarks. Can you think that for one minute society would put up with that? Not a chance. And yet it is ok, for the GBLT to do that against the LDS faith. It is a double standard.

Yes, and the same legal process reversed the state constitution's position on the matter. In California, the constitution says the simple majority wins. In this case 53% of those who voted said that marriage means between a man and a woman. Whether or not the LDS swung the vote is relevant, but the LDS vote was also a small portion of the total vote.

It seems that the beef should be with government that has established itself as a licenser of marriage that is defined based on certain religious beliefs and traditions rather than a facilitator of equal rights and opportunities under the law. Government should be in the business of insuring that there are multiple avenues for couples and domestic/family/household makeups to receive equal access to benefits such as health insurance, hospital visitation and many others rather than defining an essentially religious vow of marriage. Get government out of marriage and let people define and hold separate religious ceremonies for marriage of there own choosing.