Well, it looks like the protests have been peaceful thus-far... I am very much relieved.
Some of the Church's statements regarding them, though... well... have been bothering me -- big surprise, eh?
I think the sentiment that bothers me the most is that protesting on/near their sacred places of worship is wrong and that they have done nothing wrong, themselves, in exercising their right to vote in protest of the definition of marriage. (I'm paraphrasing.)
Again, what hypocrisy! Their protest came right into the most sacred parts of the lives of so many people -- their families -- and took away rights, liberties, and privileges thereof.
And they're the poor victims? Give me a break.
Now, I don't like how a temple had to close; I don't think we should hinder anyone's security in their sacred places... and that's exactly my point.
Frankly put and again, the LDS Church has hindered the security of the most sacred part of many people's lives: their families.
As for the LDS Church's woes of being singled out... I can't speak for everyone, but the reason why I, personally, am singling out the LDS Church right now is because they were the root of the massively erroneous information concerning the freedoms of religions being threatened -- and that no rights are being taken away from any gay couples and families raised by such (all complete B.S.).
Of course, the LDS Church is very much singled out naturally on this issue as it has the most to lose... their doctrine is dependent on the happiest, healthiest, and most secure family being the man, woman, and their bio children.
The LDS Church has already lost the happiest and healthiest family part. All they have is the security part to hold onto and defend.
If they can make the law detriment [sic] married gay couples, then they can still claim superiority of their definition of family based on legal protection and security.
This is where the threat gay marriage posses to these religious institutions: it weakens their claims and beliefs concerning the family. But it's not a threat to their rights, freedoms, and liberties. They can still believe what they will and how they will, however weak (I think that's rather apparent with a lot of beliefs), but they have no right to make sure their beliefs have a legal leg-up and extra protection.
THAT is wrong.
I must honestly wonder if they truly think they are protecting "traditional families" ... that is, legislation like Proposition 8 isn't going to prevent or discourage gay people from marrying and raising families - I know I am going to marry (pending I can find someone) a guy and raise children with him, no matter what arbitrary definition of marriage is forced into the constitution by the majority.
And it's not like gay marriage and families therefrom don't already exists and haven't existed for who knows how long.
Legislation such as Proposition 8 does not make the "traditional family" more secure, happy, or healthy.
All such legislation does is discriminate against marriages and families [so that religions such as the LDS Church can continue to falsely project their believed moral supremacy] which marriages and families are already formed and will continue to form ... that's all it does, plain and simple.
Frankly, bluntly, (those are my two favorite words, if you haven't noticed... I love frankness and bluntness) and in sum, gays have been marrying and raising families for who knows how long. They are at least as happy and at least as healthy as the heterosexual counterpart. And it's time that they are at least as secure.