Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

If I choose to use opium in my basement where there is no danger of others being affected by it and where I will not drive while under its influence, I see no reason for government to ban it.

We call this rationalization. The simple fact of the matter is that your excuse does not pan out, because opium is addictive and has been specifically to undermine entire nation states ... on the basis of that kind petty excuse. Well, you are convinced, having fully rationalizaed your excuse, and every government in the world disagrees with you enough to criminalize opium.

So basically you are arguing for a nanny state that bans trans fat and 32oz Big Gulps and anything that isn't good for us. Oh yeah, let's ban "assault weapons" too. So much for individual liberty. Wasn't it Satan who wanted to use force to make sure everyone behaved righteously?

*************

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Everyone pays taxes for things with which the disagree. Hippies don't want to pay for national defense, people with grown kids often don't feel that they should pay taxes for public schools, etc...Gays are being forced to subsidize heterosexuality because their tax dollars are going to pay for tax benefits which are denied them. Taxes are a non-issue in this. It boils down to Equal Protection and basic fairness.

And each one of those things, like the need for a military, has a cogent explainable rationale. Homosexual marriage does not. Except it is apparently as harmless as opium?

Again, societal benefit is not a requirement for equal civil rights. SSM encourages monogamy, decreases the spread of STD's promotes a good environment for raising kids (even you will admit that a married gay couple are better suited to raise kids than a SS couple who isn't married or a single gay).

**********

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Your assertion implies that ALL gays are promiscuous and that promiscuity should disqualify one from marriage. We allow current/former hookers to marry don't we? We allow others to marry whose activities or demographics are statistically likely to lead to divorce. People marrying young are much more likely to divorce. Should we dissallow a 20 y/o RM and his 18 y/o sweetheart marriage?

Or perhaps we can see WHY they are divorcing and see if there might be a solution to solving that issue? Like say ... our church is doing, with more success than failure?

I'm glad that you conceded my point that promiscuity and the liklihood of getting divorced shouldn't disqualify an individual or a group from marriage.

********

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

I choose my religion and my political party. Could laws be passed diminishing the rights of some religious or political group simply because they can still retain those rights by simply choosing to be another religion or political party? If they can choose to switch to retain the rights, why is that law wrong?

Sex has effects on society, and you are telling us we should pay to advocate certain sexual choices because ...

Who said anything about advocating sexual choices? BTW, there is nothing that gays do that straights don't...or would if the wife would allow it ;-) .

You are clearly emotional about this subject, as are many, but I will remind you, the point is to reduce the emotion and look at it objectively.

if there was ever a Pot-Kettle-Black moment, this is it!!

If homosexuality is such a boon, why is it so terribly difficult to lay out a cogent list of benefits and expected results? As we can for heterosexual marriage? They are equal right, 14th amendment and all, should produce the same result? Clearly they do not.

I laid out a few above. Other than being able to produce kids, biologically related to each, SSM provides the same societal benefts that straight marriage does...especially when you keep in mind the alternative of having gays be single and not living in stable relationships.

[wenglund]

I thought it was clear that I was referring to legal recognition of marriage. That is the topic here... anyone, anywhere can get married and claim it as such but it doesn't mean much in our society without the legal recognition.

You aren't paying good enough attention. The specific claim being challenged was that certain religions couldn't perform marriages, and thus it was an infringement on freedom of religion. That specific claim was demonstrated to be incorrect, and didn't not hinge on whether those marriages were sanctioned by the state or not. Please do a better job of following the line of discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 24, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I have not intentionally made any false assumptions. Where I have, I kindly ask that you correct me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stop deflecting and fix the problem".

I clearly pointed out the false assumptions in the previous posts. I also explicitly identified those false assumption as a problem that you needed to fix. However, instead of acknowledging and fixing the clearly identified problem, you deflected to issues that didn't address or work to fix your identified problem. This latest post from you is more of the same. Given my lengthy and counter-productive interactions with you in the past, much of which went round and round in circles like what appears to be happening now, and far more seriously and ineffectually than I have ever experienced with anyone else online, I am beginning to think that I am up against some metal problems here, which can't be dealt with online or by me, and so it is probably best if I not try and engage you directly here, and, if needs be, simply respond to your posts generically as though I am addressing potential readers and not you. Sorry it had to come to this, but I really can see no other way out of the counterproductive morass.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 24, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

I clearly pointed out the false assumptions in the previous posts. I also explicitly identified those false assumption as a problem that you needed to fix. However, instead of acknowledging and fixing the clearly identified problem, you deflected to issues that didn't address or work to fix your identified. This latest post from you is more of the same. Given my lengthy and counter-productive interactions with you in the past, much of which went round and round in circles like what appears to be happening now, and far more seriously and ineffectually than I have ever experienced online, I am beginning to think that I am up against some metal problems here, which can't be dealt with online or by me, and so it is probably best if I not try and engage you directly here, and, if needs be, simply respond to your posts generically as though I am addressing potential readers and not you. Sorry it had to come to this, but I really can see no other way out of the counterproductive morass.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's alright. The feeling is mutual. Good day.

[rockpond]

Thanks, for that. I didn't realize that was your entire position.

It was an outline/summary. I wouldn't call it my position in its entirety.

This is a straw man on your part. If the assertion really was that sexual orientation was a choice, then I would be arguing your side, as well.

Not a straw man... the claim that homosexuality is a choice has been cited often by people arguing against marriage equality.

Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Sexual feelings for another (male or female) is NOT a choice.

I agree but I don't think everyone participating on this thread feels likewise.

What is a choice is what one does with that orientation and those feelings. Here is where choice comes into play: One can choose to act upon those feelings or one can choose not to act upon those feelings.

Yes, there is orientation and there is the choice of what we do with that orientation. It's nice for us as heterosexuals that we were born into the privileged class who gets to act upon our orientation (within bounds, of course).

Our real difference, I'd wager, is whether you consider it proper to say to another "it is wrong to act upon those feelings." I feel it is proper and we do it in our societal laws all the time. You probably don't feel it is proper.

Current church doctrine is that it is wrong to act upon homosexual feelings. I support that. But it is not proper for us to impose our religious beliefs on others in society who believe differently.

The normal pro-SSM argument when it comes to this point is "you can't legislate morality." That is a red herring because most of our laws are an attempt to legislate morality.

I think we legislate morality when it has an impact on others. If I steal your car and roll it off a cliff, I've clearly impacted your "life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness". Allowing marriage equality doesn't negatively impact others.

I have no reason to doubt them either. I understand that sexual feelings for those of the same sex can be very, very strong. Intensity of feeling is not, however, should not be a basis for legislation. Were it an valid indicator, then there are all sorts of things now considered illegal that we should, by the same measure, legalize.

Our beliefs about homosexual acts being sinful should not be a basis for legislation. Our own scripture (D&C 134, A of F 11) states as much.

The 14th Amendment doesn't necessarily apply based upon the information you cited. You said (1) people have no choice in their orientation and (2) I have no reason to doubt thousands who have told me that. Those two items are, again, not a valid basis for applying the 14th Amendment. (At least not from a legal perspective.)

If homosexuality is as immutable ("not a choice") as, say, skin color -- then, I think that the 14th amendment applies. You are welcome to disagree with my constitutional interpretations. I don't have a law degree. But I do have some judges on my side.

Even so, I don't think you can apply the 14th Amendment here because that amendment cannot, inherently, be part of your reason for being pro-SSM. Bottom line (as I said in an earlier post) is that if SSM should be allowed, it should be allowed worldwide, and the 14th Amendment isn't a valid basis worldwide.

We're talking about legal recognition of marriages. Any couple can get married. I can only discuss legal recognition within the framework of our (U.S.) system of law.

I'm sure it has been settled in your mind and the minds of many. Of course, that doesn't mean it has been settled. ;-)

I have no delusions of settling the minds of people on this board.

To bring up an analogue (again) that you probably don't want to hear, alcoholism is not a choice, but drinking is. Being left-handed is not a choice, but which hand you write with is. Being a kleptomaniac is not a choice, but we still legislate against it. Being a pyromaniac is not a choice, but we still legislate against setting fires.

The list could go on and on and on. I'm not saying that homosexuality is a "condition" that needs to be "treated"; that is up to the individual. I am arguing that like any other situation in which we find ourselves, we have control over what we do with the reality we face--we always have choice.

Alcoholism, pyromania, and kleptomania have victims. Loving gay couples who wish to commit to one another do not have victims.

Oh, and being left-handed... no victim. Also, not surprisingly, no legislation against writing with your left hand.

I believe that families are beneficial, as well. Even families with gay parents. The one place where I disagree with your statement is in the implication of using the word "necessarily." I don't think that gays should be excluded from "mainstream society" either. I do, however, think they should be excluded from legal marriages. There is a huge difference there.

I think that by excluding them from legally recognized marriages, we are telling them that their love and commitment is not on par with that of heterosexuals. And, by so doing, we are excluding them from mainstream society.

Unless you are saying that SSM is necessary to the proper exercise of religion, I believe you are misapplying the declaration in D&C 134. "Free exercise of conscience", as used in verse 2, is amplified in verse 4; it has to do with the free exercise of religion, not the free and unfettered exercise of whatever acts one feels are correct. That would be anarchy and to that the scripture does not apply.

Is heterosexual marriage necessary to our exercise of religion? There are religions which believe in a God who affirms homosexual marriages. Should we retain the right to perform legal marriages (the kind we believe in) while other churches do not possess the legal right to perform the marriages that they believe in?

From vs 4: Are our religious opinions prompting us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others?

I've gotten to know many of them as well, including some members of my family. Even so, there are many rational reasons to deny them the ability to marry. All sorts of limits are placed on marriage, and just because I know people who fall outside those limits doesn't mean that arguments in favor of maintaining those limits are irrational.

Other than consanguinity and pedophilia, I'm not sure that there are that many limits to marriage. Even convicted criminals serving life sentences are guaranteed the right to marry.

[rockpond]

Every intrusion by the judiciary into yet another portion of the polity is yet another grab for power. Every piece of legislation, the result of which is control of persons and things, is a grab for power.

Awesome, let's repeal DOMA and repeal Prop 8 since they were power grabs.

[wenglund]

Great reaponse, Rockpond!

By the absurd logic of Wade's comment (to which you were responding), kids can already "get married," people can already "marry" their dogs, toasters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, cars, Christmas trees, or anything else. I'm amazed that the inanity of that particular line of reasoning isn't self-evident. It would be like saying, "Everyone already has the right to be a US citizen, because anyone can call themselves a 'US citizen'."

Yet another narrow mind that apparently can't comprehend the important difference between religious liberty (free exercise of religion) and state sanction. But, to the banal mind, sound and valid reasoning will often appear inane.

There are numerous religious beliefs and practices that aren't sanctioned by the state--such as baptisms, the sacrament/Eucharist, wearing and displaying religious symbols, reading and studying scriptures, pastoral counseling, etc. According to Daniel's brilliant thinking, the lack of state sanctions for these things is somehow an infringement on religious liberty. I would love to see him try and bring such a case before the federal courts. They could probably use a hearty laugh about now.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

It wasn't via jusdicial fiat. the CA State Supreme Court stated that Prop. 22 violated the CA state constitution. You may disagree with the ruling, but the CSSC has a legal right to interpret the state constitution.

The CSSC has the right, though it would be imprudent, to rule based on judicial fiat. That is what happened when it struck down Prop 8, whether you agree with me or not.

The CSSC struck down 8's predecessor, Prop. 22. The feds struck down 8...first with Judge Walker and then by a 3 judge panel. No fiat involved.

********

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

About 18,000 couples got married during that time. They had the exact same rights as straights to marry.

They had the same legal right (which, in principle, is no different that the right to kill deer during hunting season), but not the same fundamental civil right. The fundamental civil right of marriage applies only to traditional marriages.

The same could have been said about Black-White marriages prior to Loving and the USSC disagreed. in any event D&C 134:4 condemns allowing ones religious opinions to infringe upon the rights and LIBERTIES of others. Evn if you think SSM was a liberty and not a right, we LDS violated 134:4 in supporting 8.

*************

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

1 Cor. 10:29 - "...for why is my liberty judged* of another man's conscience?"

(* Note - the Greek word for "to judge" used here is also rendered "to determine" elsewhere in the KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc...). In other words, our liberties / freedoms are not to be determined, restricted or limited by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others....

What a bazaar isogesis. You have taken Paul's advise against speaking evil of people who are doing things unto the glory of God, and you have twisted it into a general edict against using one's conscience to restrict people's freedoms and liberties. And, ironically, you have ripped this passage from a book filled with "thou shalt nots." It doesn't get much more asinine than that.

Let's see how well your rebuttals hold up, shall we?

***********

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

The basic underlying principle is that we, as LDS, have our own laws and others (non-LDS) have their own various sets of rules. We may avoid ordering pork when dining with Jews or vegetarians, so as to not cause them offense, but the laws which the Jews observe have no claim on us and our liberty is not to be judged by another law's (man's) conscience. Just as their laws have no power over us, neither do our laws, in a non-theocratic society, hold sway over them. They are free to do as they wish until they decide to join us and adopt our laws. We have no right to impose our laws, beliefs or opinions on them, for why is their liberty judged of another man's (our) conscience?

The problem here, is you are mistakenly conflating "LDS law" with the law of the land. They are two different things. By voting our LDS conscience in secular elections, just like everyone else, we aren't imposing LDS laws onto people. Rather, we are civically shaping the law of the land, and the law of the land is what is being imposed on the people. Such is the nature of democracies.

Sorry, but D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 SPECIFICALLY forbid us using our morals as justification to infringe upon the civil rights of others. if an election was held in a 90% LDS community and an initiative was on the ballot to require kids to study the Book of Mormon in school, would that simply be them "voting [their] LDS conscience in secular elections, just like everyone else, we aren't imposing LDS laws onto people. Rather, we are civically shaping the law of the land, and the law of the land is what is being imposed on the people. Such is the nature of democracies." or would it be a violation of D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29? Saying they aren't imposing LDS laws on others but simply being a part of "civically shaping the law of the land, and the law of the land is what is being imposed on the people." is disingenuous.

***********

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

Homosexual couples in CA were treated equally with straights in the same way that Blacks and Whites in the South were treated by government when the government set up "separate but equal" drinking fountains. The government gave both groups the exact same water. The drinking fountains were usually side by side and got the water from the same pipe. Both Blacks and homosexuals were denied access to the same things that Whites/straights were because of bigotry. plain and simple. Civil unions, like separate drinking fountains - both give equal tangible benefits, but both convey a 2nd class status on a disfavored group.

Again, this is a false analogy on several levels. First, by implication, it mistakenly compares an involuntary trait (skin color or race) with a voluntary choice (sexual relationship).

The analogy is good. In both cases, though the unpopular minority received equal government benefits, the majority gave them a different status implying that they were 2nd class citizens not deserving of the same status that the majority enjoyed.

Second, it mistakenly compares separate locations (drinking fountains) with separate names (marriage/civil unions).

See above.

And, third, it falsely assumes that "separate but equal" is necessarily problematic, legally or otherwise. It isn't, particularly in terms of different legal names. As indicated above, we have different legal names for males and females, corporations and partnerships, doctors and nurses, cars and boats, civilian and military, public and private, non-profit and profit, New Yorkers and Washingtonians, Southerners and Northerners, city folk and urbanities, Hispanic and Caucasian, etc, In each of these cases, the separate legal names are constitutionally valid. In fact, I can't think of a single case, with the exception of certain insipid SSM arguments, where giving different legal names to different groups of people or entities were considered unconstitutional.

There are objecitve reasons for differentiating between a nurse and a doctor. There are none for SSM.

***********

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:Denying gays marriage OBJECTIVELY harms them, so the Prop. 8 advocates were indeed imposing harm on them. Allowing SSM in no way imposes OBJECTIVE harm on anyone.

While this doesn't address what I said, no, retaining the traditional legal definition of marriage does not OBJEVTIVELY harm anyone, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

The same is true for separate drinking fountains. I never heard of a Black who died of thirst looking for a drinking fountain when plenty of White ones were available. Also, it DOES harm gays since gay couples can't get the same tax benefits as married straight couples. I guess that they, like the Saudi Christians, ought to just plug their noses and go with the flow if they want equal treatment.

************

Allowing SSM does have negative consequences, and I will demonstrate what those consequences are when it is time to open the intended thread.

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

Did getting rid of Whites/Blacks only drinking fountains OBJECTIVELY harm Whites? The sides were not equal - One sought to impose harm and the other sought to prevent it.

Again, comparing the sparate drinking fountains and neighborhoods and schools and theater and bus seatings with separate names, is not only an asinine comparison, it is also repugnant, and trivializes significant racial strife.

I guess that the strife witnessed in the prop. 8 campaign was of no importance. they were just protesting the majority trying to reimpose 2nd class status on them.

*********

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

We have a number of situations where we have "degrees". We have age limits to marry, get a drivers license, buy beer, buy a rifle/shotgun, buy a handgun, become president, etc...We have speed limits. Some states allow kids to get drivers licenses at a different age than others. Some states allow kids to marry at different ages. There are no objective right/wrong. In these "degree" types of laws, a consensus has to be made by the voters or legislatures. There is nothing wrong with this nor do they violate libertian ideals.

To your way of thinking, is there an objective right/wrong way to legally define "marriage," or is defining that term a matter of "degrees,' and should be left to the consensus of the legislature?

Nope, those laws require numbers...18, 21, 55, .08, etc...I think that consenting adults should be able to determine for themselves what their marriage should be...gay, straight, polygamous, etc...

[wenglund]

It takes and especially keen mind to conclude that preserving hundreds if not thousands of years of legal tradition somehow amounts to a "power grab." Up is down and down is up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Heterosexual and homosexuals relationships are NOT like apples and oranges. As a matter of fact, the iowa supreme court, in unanaously upholding same-sex marriage, said that heterosexual and homosexual couples are "similarly situated" which means that they are basically the same. the only difference is that they are not able to produce kids genetically related to both.

The only difference between at straight couple and a same-sex couple is that the latter is unable to produce kids genetically related to both partners. Many straight couples (aged and infertile) can't either. So the bottom line, is that there is VERY LITTLE difference between them...hardly comparable to billions of tons of dirt.

To see just how wrong you are, and how apt my mountain/molehill analogy was, answer this simple question: of the billions and billions of people who have populated the earth, what portion of them were conceived by homosexual couples?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 24, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It should be noted that regardless whether certain uninformed voters believe there is no rational basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, there have been numerous citizens, state legislatures, the federal legislature, and numerous state and federal courts, which have granted that there is.

The 14th and 5th amendment challenges to laws preventing legalized SSM over the years, haven't held that there is no rational basis (the opposite has pretty much been a given), but rather that such laws should be judge using a stricter standard than rational basis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This thread has run its course.