Deseret News Fanning Flames of Dissension Among ‘Members’

I’m having trouble understanding why this LDS Church-owned newspaper would print this letter (LTE).

Is this guy really a member? And it he saying other members do not support Prop 8? Frank? Help me here.

Support or shut up

I am ashamed of the members of the LDS Church who opposed Proposition 8. I am sick and tired of reading comments by members of the church saying they are ashamed that the church got involved. If you believe Thomas S. Monson is a prophet and this is the Lord’s true church, then shut up and let the inspired leaders lead us where the Lord inspires them to go. If you don’t support the church’s stance, keep your opinion to yourself.

Marvin Carlsen – Sandy

I thought I was the only one heathen enough to say shut up.

  1. #1 by uum on November 9, 2008 - 10:46 am

    I agree that the prop 8 vote was ok (and that gay activists are being hypocritical) – but LDS Church leaders ask people to make informed decisions – put up or shut up is not church doctrine.

    It is dissapointing when people dont agree with leaders – but it is more dissapointing when they dont understand why they do or dont.

    Faith is good but informed faith is better

  2. #2 by Anonymous on November 9, 2008 - 10:48 am

    Mr. Carlsen, I am LDS and I vigorously oppose Prop 8. My highest duty is to my own conscience, not my church leaders. And while I respect the church’s right to express an opinion, I hope they will respect my right to express mine. Anything less would be unchristian and uncivilized.

  3. #3 by kellygrrrl on November 9, 2008 - 10:53 am

    time for the IRS to strip away the Tax-Exempt status of these politicized churches.

    that ought to help with the deficit.

  4. #4 by LollieDotCom on November 9, 2008 - 10:54 am

    A GIANT AMEN. It’s like churches are trying to turn us all into atheists. They need to stop lying.

    How can they call themselves “Christian” when Jesus Christ never said a single word against same gender relationships? He could have. He certainly brought up a lot of other things.

    Maybe these jerks are “Paulians” but historically speaking, they’re certainly not Christian. And they defame Jesus name every time they call themselves Christian.

    Too bad we can’t sue them for the character defamation of Jesus Christ. They’ve sure earned that lawsuit. But in the meantime, yes, make them pay taxes like the rest of us.

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on November 9, 2008 - 11:38 am

    At Friday’s huge Temple Square protest, there were a lot of people who were LDS or ex-LDS (this is Utah, after all, you can say the same about any crowd of 5,000 people). They were not afraid to tell church leaders they were wrong about Prop 8 and wrong to oppose equal protection under the law for all Americans.

  6. #6 by Obama the Paul [Mero] on November 9, 2008 - 11:52 am

    Passage of Prop 8 has awakened a great sleeping giant among the electorate in Calif. Proponents of Prop 8, like the supporters of George Bush, should relish in their victory while they can, as their time for glee will be short lived. Prop 8 will, in time, go the way of Bush – into the trash pile.

  7. #7 by Ken on November 9, 2008 - 12:18 pm

    Obama the Paul

    I guess when Obama was elected it was a case of “The people have spoken” but when the electorate chooses something you don’t agree with then the results must not respected and the will of the people must be overturned? Maybe we should organize protests to call for the election of Barrack Obama to be overturned?

    Just think how many liberals voted for Proposition 8? It couldn’t have passed without them.

  8. #8 by Cliff Lyon on November 9, 2008 - 12:18 pm

    Prop 8 stands as reminder to the world, on the eve of a progressive American revolution, that the lesser 50% of this country are still clinging to their ‘Gods and guns’ and that we still have more road to travel.

  9. #9 by Ken on November 9, 2008 - 12:28 pm

    If Proposition 8 is overturned then it will be the 2nd time in California that activist judges will have stolen the people’s votes on this issue. This will further erode peoples confidence in the election system. When a few judges can nullify millions of votes then we are indeed disenfranchised and ruled by unelected and unaccountable judges. In our Republic we use ballots instead of bullets to settle our differences. The risk in losing confidence in ballots is that the people will ultimately resort to the latter.

  10. #10 by Becky Stauffer on November 9, 2008 - 12:30 pm

    Ken, the electorate also elected George W. Bush — proof that sometimes the electorate can get it wrong, especially in a campaign environment of misinformation and fear. But eventually the truth prevails and the electorate becomes informed. It happened in this presidential election and it will happen with gay marriage.

  11. #11 by Ken on November 9, 2008 - 12:36 pm

    Becky

    why don’t you wait two years till the next election and bring up your own proposition instead of running to the courts to nullify the will of the people? Maybe you can convince enough people to vote for your proposition and maybe you won’t but at least it will be the “We the People” deciding our own destiny instead of judges choosing it for us.

    Wow! Becky you just admitted that Goerge W Bush was elected. I thought he was “selected” by activist judges?

  12. #12 by Becky Stauffer on November 9, 2008 - 12:40 pm

    Ken, you need to understand something about the constitution: you cannot legislate away people’s rights. Unconstitutional laws can be passed by voter consent and by legislative body. But fortunately we have a separation of powers that allows for that error to be rectified by taking the case to the courts. It a very basic part of the American form of government.

    All means of redress should remain available to all citizens, regardless of your inclination Ken, to couch the judiciary as activist when their opinions do not match your own.

  13. #13 by Ken on November 9, 2008 - 12:49 pm

    Becky

    The Constitution says nothing about marriage, heterosexual or homosexual; however it does say this:

    Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Since the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage then all laws governing it must reside in those passed by either our elected representatives or by the people themselves.

    If marriage is a Constitutional right then government has no standing in prohibiting any kind of marriage including polygamy, group marriages, or even age of consent.

  14. #14 by Richard Warnick on November 9, 2008 - 1:05 pm

    Ken– How many times do I have to quote the 14th Amendment to the Constitution here? (emphasis added to aid in reading comprehension)

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  15. #15 by Ken on November 9, 2008 - 1:31 pm

    Richard

    There is not a single gay person that is barred from getting married. Marriage is defined as a “union between a man and a woman”. The man or the women can be gay or straight. Therefore since everyone can marry as it has been defined since time in memorial then the equal protection clause in the Constitution is satisfied.

  16. #16 by jdberger on November 9, 2008 - 2:26 pm

    Richard – you can quote the 14th amendment as much as you like. Not all States have the same laws. A right has to be INCORPORATED under the 14th (see Cruikshank).

    Please take the time to read up on the 14th Amendment. You cite it often enough. You should know what its limitations are.

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on November 9, 2008 - 2:32 pm

    Ken and jd– I recognize that 14th Amendment case law is sometimes at variance with the plain meaning of the amendment. I was a plaintiff on the Utah Proposition 5 lawsuit, and heard some high-powered lawyers explain this stuff.

    My point is, the Constitution says what it says. No state is ever supposed to deny anyone the equal protection of the laws. Your argument is that it’s OK to take away someone’s civil rights as long as the legislation is cleverly worded. Can’t you see how corrupt that is?

  18. #18 by jdberger on November 9, 2008 - 2:35 pm

    Passage of Prop 8 has awakened a great sleeping giant among the electorate in Calif.

    Obama the Paul,

    3 times the electorate in California has rejected gay marriage.

    From the Volokh Conspiracy:

    Relying on Exit Polls are dicey, of course. But according to the Exit Polls, the decisive difference in Proposition 8’s passage was two reasons. First, 70% of black voters supported it. There were 10,357,002 votes case on Prop 8. The winning margin was 492,830 votes. And they were 10% of the electorate. So that means there were 1,035,700 votes cast by black voters. That right there provided a difference of 414,280 votes. If I’m doing my math right, that is 84% of the winning margin. There was an article in the Washington Post on this today. A majority of Hispanic voters also supported Proposition 8.

    The second group that strongly supported Prop 8 appear to be Married people with children under the age of 18. Married people were 62% of the vote and voted 60-40 in favor; people with children under the age of 18 were 40% of the electorate and voted 64-36 in favor. 31 percent identified themselves as “Married with Children” (it doesn’t say whether that is minor children) and they voted 68-32 in support.

    Your prediction of the “sleeping giant” may not be applicable to newfound votes for gay marriage – but a sleeping racism.

  19. #19 by jdberger on November 9, 2008 - 2:36 pm

    Do you feel the same way regarding the Second Amendment, Richard?

    Or do you pick and choose your rights?

  20. #20 by Richard Warnick on November 9, 2008 - 2:43 pm

    jd– As you may remember, I also believe that the plain meaning of the 2d Amendment– like the 14th Amendment –has been deliberately distorted by lawyers. I wrote about this almost a year ago, before the Supreme Court reversed its previous opinion that the 2d Amendment pertains only to state militias.

  21. #21 by jdberger on November 9, 2008 - 3:04 pm

    Again, the Supreme Court didn’t reverse it’s original position. You just can’t comprehend what you read. Miller NEVER said anything about the 2nd Amendment pertaining only to State Militias. Further, you’re too daft to take the consequences of your assumption to their logical conclusion – whereupon the FED would be UNABLE to regulate or control National Guard troops at all. In fact, if what you suggested was true, States could invalidate federal gun laws, allowing private citizens to traffic in weapons without Federal supervision.

    Clearly, like most of your arguments, this wasn’t very well thought out.

  22. #22 by Richard Warnick on November 9, 2008 - 3:26 pm

    jd– I know how much you like to be reminded of what I wrote earlier, so (emphasis added):

    In United States v. Miller (1939) the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. Citing the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.

    That’s as far off-topic as I’m going to go. Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and it’s going DOWN.

  23. #23 by glenn on November 9, 2008 - 4:03 pm

    Wow jd, racist gay progressives, who would have thunk it?

    We may hope so Richard, but it will be for the SC to decide.

    Richard, the personal right to bear arms was decided correctly, I believe you make your concept of what the 2nd means in a historical vacuum. The court did not.

    The personal right to bear arms was so common in the formation of this country as to be simply implied.

  24. #24 by Cliff Lyon on November 9, 2008 - 5:43 pm

    Ken, Courts can and do, acting as designed, restrict majorities to prevent ‘tyranny of the majority’. We’ve discussed this before and I grow weary of explaining it to you over and over.

    I want a five page paper about Tyranny of the Majority in early America, on my desk by Tuesday.

  25. #25 by Ken on November 9, 2008 - 8:11 pm

    Cliff

    Yes I fear we are all going to experience the “Tyranny of the Majority” where the Democrats in Congress are conserned. Heck Obama doesn’t need no stinking Congress because even as we speak they are preparing reams of executive orders to impose his will via the stroke of a pen. I think we are all in trouble, and one day you will know it.

  26. #26 by Becky Stauffer on November 9, 2008 - 8:25 pm

    Ken, don’t forget Bush’s signing statements and illegal spying on American citizens. Some of those Bush executive orders need undoing. Calm your fears.

  27. #27 by JFarmer on November 9, 2008 - 10:09 pm

    Ken:

    Maybe you were too young to remember, but Bush did the same thing when he took office. Chill out!

  28. #28 by jdberger on November 9, 2008 - 10:15 pm

    And you were wrong then, Richard. I did a pretty thorough debunking of your “analysis” (err – I mean the one you truncated and cut and pasted from another source). It was quite a severe spanking. I’m betting that you still hurt from it.

    Actually, as I think back, that was the first time I realized how completely dishonest you were and how willing you were to lie just to win an argument.

    You don’t know what you are talking about, Richard.

  29. #29 by jdberger on November 9, 2008 - 10:47 pm

    for those who’d like to relive the spankin’ – here ya go.

    Richard the LIAR

  30. #30 by Larry Bergan on November 10, 2008 - 12:14 am

    When you ask people why the church can’t say anything about ending the unjust war in Iraq, members tell you the church can’t get involved because of separation of church and state. It will really be something if they lose their tax exempt status for trying to make life harder for the gays. What an unnecessary travesty for the well meaning members who stand up against the prop 8 fiasco.

  31. #31 by Ken on November 10, 2008 - 5:51 am

    A story from the Washington Post and reprinted in the Salt Lake Tribune shows that a whopping 70% of African Americans voted for Proposition 8. 53% of Latinos voted for it. The story sites that many minorities do not consider gay marriage to be a civil rights issue.

    It looks like the LDS Church is being unfairly targeted by Proposition 8 opponents, but since the Church is an easy and safe target I don’t expect to see any outcry against the African-American community by pro gay marriage activists.

  32. #32 by Larry Bergan on November 10, 2008 - 10:37 am

    If it’s true that Latino and Black populations live in fear of SSM, that is equally dismissive of the real dangers we face; overpopulation among the worst. There are too many people in the life boat, and that goes for blacky, whitey, and browny.

  33. #33 by JFarmer on November 10, 2008 - 12:25 pm

    Speaking of the Deseret News, did the newspaper ever endorse McCain or Obama for president? I know the Trib endorsed Obama, but I never did find out whether the DMN endorsed one or the other.

  34. #35 by JFarmer on November 10, 2008 - 5:08 pm

    Interesting, Becky. Thanks for the info.

    And … how convenient!

  35. #36 by Frank Staheli on November 28, 2008 - 8:41 pm

    Cliff,

    I’m not sure if this Marvin Carlsen even exists, but if he does, he’s a buffoon.

  36. #37 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2008 - 10:19 am

    Frank,

    I have had many letters published in both newspapers. The trib ALWAYS checks by phone, even after they knew me well.

    The Desnews is not so careful, but does check sometimes to confirm authorship.

  37. #38 by Cliff Lyon on November 29, 2008 - 5:29 pm

    Frank,

    You seem to be very busy playing referee to the LDS Prop 8 assault on people’s rights. You went so far as to remind everyone that I said you hate gays, as if I am wrong.

    What IS very clear, is that you have not taken a position against Prop 8.

    How very open minded of you. May I get in line to congratulate you now, or AFTER you grow a spine. You may be impressing the hell out of you star-struck moderate LDS fans, but you are just another apologist to the rest of us.

    Just thought you should know, about…you know…reality.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: