Steve Young, a Mormon, Cancels Out Jeff Kent

Can you smell an excommunication?

Both guys can watch the 49ers game during sex.

"The church has bankrolled the campaign" huh?  You call $2,078.97 in airplane tickets bankrolling the campaign?  Check the facts here: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051

Well, according to the SacBee online newspaper, the Mormon Church has funded the Yes on Prop. 8 side by more than 8.8 million dollars since July. And one Mormon couple withdrew $50,000 of their own money for the cause. So, yes, the Mormon Church has indeed funded this campaign.
The issue at stake here, folks, is really simple. It’s not about gays and marriage. It’s about discrimination, plain and simple. It’s about one group of people (uptight religious folks) trying to tell the rest of the world what to do (ok, so far just California, but they tried to do this nationally a few years ago, remember?).
I don’t tell them how to worship, or where to shop, or what foods to eat, or who they can marry. I certainly don’t want these folks telling me or anyone else who I can and cannot marry.
Prop. 8 is Discrimination. It’s against our Constitution (which the Mormon Church wants to change!) And it’s wrong, morally and ethically.
Please, vote NO on Prop. 8.
Thank you.
And, thank you, Steve Young!

I’m not finding the same info you are, Mark.  Do you have a link?
Discrimination implies a right, but marriage isn’t one.  Are you saying I have the right to marry my sister?  My Grandpa?  Of course not.  Bcause it’s not a right.  Of course, there are certain rights granted by marriage (visitation, etc.) but they are also granted equally to domestic partnerships (see CA Family Code section 297.5).  Prop 8 does not change this.

Steve Young is also a guy who couldn’t even follow one of the ten commandments . . . keeping the Sabbath day . . . how would you expect him to act???

jcoffey, here’s the link I found, just one of many that confirms my statement. http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1308945.html
Marrying your sister is a time-honored ritual, at least in certain parts of Tennessee and Kentucky, and if you want to marry your grampa, well, just let me know where you two will be registering. I’d like to get you a darling set of candlestick holders.
I will NOT, however, attempt to change the state’s Constitution to whatever makes me happy, especially when it takes away rights of others.
Same-sex married couples have the same rights as my wife and myself, but ‘civil-unions’ don’t. Say a couple has been together for 17 years, and Jenny and Susie are quite happy. But Susie is seriously hurt in a car accident, or falls badly ill, and needs to be hospitalized. Intensive care. Serious stuff. Heartbreaking.
Only family can visit her. But Jenny isn’t family. And if Susie’s mother or father doesn’t approve of their daughter’s relationship and lifestyle, Susie passes away without Jenny ever seeing her again.
jcoffey2, I hope you and your family enjoy your life. I hope you’re healthy and happy. But don’t tell other folks how to live their life, or what they can and cannot do, when it has no impact on your life whatsoever.
I’m voting NO on Prop. 8. Don’t discriminate.
And, man, my Padres suck!

Remember Steve Young as a 30 something single Mormon?  Little whispers and rumors constantly questioning his sexuality.  I believe the he felt anti-gay prejudice, if just in a little way. 

If I had been around during the civil rights era I hope I would have spoken out against the LDS Church’s racial discrimination.  When the LDS church actively opposed the ERA later on I hope I could have spoken against those efforts.

This issue is a moral choice and I won’t remain silent against Prop 8 and it’s hatred and bigotry.  I respect other’s like the Young’s that can do the same.

Jake
Salt Lake City, UT

God gave Moses the Ten Commendments like three thousand years before NFL football was invented, so you have to assume that He would have put the Sabbath on a different day had He really thought things out.

Wow the viscious rumors are spreading like wildfire. Steve’s wife Barbara is a No on 8 supporter. She is sympathetic to Gay causes because her only sibling is Gay.
Barbara is very vocal on issues she believes in and Steve is silent on his political views. His silence should not have been construed to his support for No on 8. As often is the case, couples come from different backgrounds and may not see things exactly the same.

Why is this even an issue? Steve Young HAS to follow EVERY church doctrine? This is terrible and I don’t understand why anyone has a right to tell someone who they can marry? I thought that everyone in the country has the right to love whomever they want to? I am proud of the Young family for doing this and hope that BYU doesn’t take his trophies et al from him. I hope that the communism of the mormon church would just start spending that money on helping people in their areas that need food and shelter. This is not the kind of thing that I want to teach my kids that churches are so pathetic that they must tell people who they can love!!! What is next?

The PROCREATIVE ACT (or the potential therefore) is what makes marriage sacred. 

Procreation and the drive to pass on a genetic legacy is what makes the world turn, and if there’s a divine spark evident in the world, that one’s as good as any others I can immediately think of…(love? sacrifice?) 

While there’s plenty of good that CAN come from other domestic partnerships, they’ll just never possess the TRULY special aspect that a legitimate marriage has, with its roots in the primordial driving force of the (known) universe.   

By the way, BYU needs to put Jim McMahon in their Hall of Fame. It’s about what he did on the field, not the judgements against him for what he does/did OFF of it.
And spare me the "he didn’t graduate" argument—insiders know that rule came into place SPECIFICALLY to prevent McMahon from entering, and in inner circles it’s even called the "Jim McMahon Rule".

My scam to get Mormon holidays off when I was teaching was finally foiled when I attempted to ditch on Steve Young Day (June 7th).

Amishbear, your procreation garbage answer is typical of the response of other homophobic people.  If procreation is your only reasoning for who to allow to marry, then what about a) Couples that choose not to have kids or b) Couples that can’t conceive having them?  Do you ban them from getting married also?  Of course not.  However, you choose to say it’s ok to ban gay people from getting married due to procreation simply because of your homophobic fears.

I would love to see you, as a taxpaying citizen (like every gay person in America is), denied a major right simply because you were in the minority.  I don’t think you would be spewing your bigoted b.s. to others then.

And your homophobia "garabage answer" is typical of activist-minded, agenda-driven, whining, entitled crybabies like you, who whip that card out of their a$$ at the first hint that someone DARES oppose their  bratty and selfish demands. 
Sorry, but your little name-calling is impotent and meaningless, like your argument.
I parantheitcally stated (explicitly, I thought, so even simpletons would see I had anticipated their argument): "Or the potential therefore"

The procreative act is a divine one, rooted in the infinte. Marriage is the social manifestation of that value. A marriage not founded in that is like an empty pinata, or a replicant from Bladerunner—there’s just no "soul".  
"Major right", my eye.
Marriage isn’t an inherent RIGHT in the same way other rights are "self-evident truths" which are guaranteed under the constitution. Society encourages marriage because of its inherent good in procreation, building families and bonds, and increasing societal stability and productivity. 
While I acknowledged that "domestic partnerships" can share in providing some of these same beneifts, it’s lacking that one crucial and DOMINANT one. 
For once, I would love to see you mouthpieces of "tolerance" try to tolerate someone who simply disagrees with you on moral and philosphical grounds. 
A demanding push for privilege, entitlement, and special exceptions under the law as it exists can only masquerade as a quest for equality for so long. 
For whatever principles YOU think are right, you need to accept the fact that there are OTHER people with equally powerful convictions who are going to push back (in this case, the MAJORITY, too…a la Califronia, your supposedly liberal sanctuary and bastion of tolerance).   
You have equal opportunity under the law, and freedom/protection from discrimination. I imagine next you’ll say society OWES you the right to PROCREATE, too? You’ll probably demand that congress legislate that science makes it happen!
Enough is enough already.  Lvie and let live, but quit demanding that the world OWES you something.
I don’t owe you SH1T, not my acceptance, but CERTAINLY not a compromise of MY values in favor of yours.

Amishbear,
The pointis that people do not have equal opportunity under the law.  Domestic partnerships do not give automatic rights of survivorship regarding property, insurance, housing, etc.  Equal treatment under the law is what is owed.  Period. 

I’m certain gay people don’t care about your acceptance, nor do they want you to compromise any of your values.  BUt other people should not be asked (or in this case forced) to compromise theirs simply because it makes oters (the majority, as you reference) uncomfortable. 

I favor domestic partnerships for all Americans where the same rights are grated for everyone under the law.  If rehligious institutions want to then perform marriage rites, let them.  The governent should have no say in whether someone is considered married or not. 

And yes, your comments are homophobic.  Admit it, and move on.

The whole "homophobic" charge is so worn-out, predictable, and meaningless.
It’s like saying anyone who’s against affirmative action or reparations is a card-carrying Klan member.
You and your ilk cry about being painted with particular labels, judged, called names, and discriminated against unfairly, yet you do the EXACT same thing at the slightest hint of opposition, principled or otherwise. 

If homophobia means I don’t think faggotry is right, that it is not a morally-sound way of life, then so be it. Go ahead and call me your little names. The "homophobia" charge only carries weight with the gullible, simple-minded sheep who spinelessly buy into the pervasive pressures of the PC tolerance crap.
Sorry, but I don’t get my morals from the mainstream media and Hollywood. 

Surprisingly, despite that influence (and the efforts of a few activist judges who might as well be wiping their a$$es with the Constitution), THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. Loud and clear, in fact.  

Admit it, and move on.