Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal In Washington State

[Daniel2]

incest often involves a power differential which can result in abuse.

This is an excellent point, Blackstrap--one I thought about trying to articulate, but you said it first, and very well.

Daniel2

[california boy]

It looks like Washington is not the only state pushing for gay marriage. Maryland is also on the way to legalization.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-same-sex-alert-20120217,0,2535292.story

[Gillebre]

I'd be more interested in the question being put to a referendum. Why? Because of what Mosiah had to say about the voice of the people choosing iniquity, that they would be ripened for destruction.

[california boy]

I'd be more interested in the question being put to a referendum. Why? Because of what Mosiah had to say about the voice of the people choosing iniquity, that they would be ripened for destruction.

I always have to laugh whenI hear a statement like this. As if gay marriage is the most evil thing that would make this country ripe for distruction if it becomes legal. In the mean time, over 50% of the births in this country are born out of wedlock. But somehow straight sin just seems less of an issue.

[frankenstein]

CB, if 49 people cut at rope and the rope breaks with the 50 th cut, the unfortunate thing in our society is that number 50 gets the totality of the blame all 49 previous cutters are completely innocent

[Daniel2]

The unintentional pun of the headline makes me smile

Maryland lawmakers pass bill to allow gay marriage

By msnbc.com staff and news services

State senators approved a gay marriage bill 25-22 Thursday, moving Maryland closer to becoming the eighth state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriages.

Gay marriage opponents in the Senate unsuccessfully attempted to attach amendments to the House bill, which could have effectively killed it, WBALTV reported.

The House of Delegates approved the bill by a narrow 72-67 vote last week, WBAL reported.

Gov. Martin O’Malley worked closely with House Democratic leaders to secure the votes needed for passage, The Baltimore Sun reported.

O’Malley released a statement Thursday, thanking Senate President Mike Miller for his efforts in getting the bill passed. “All children deserve the opportunity to live in a loving, caring committed, and stable home, protected equally by the law,” the statement said.

Opponents have vowed to bring the measure to referendum in November. They will need to gather at least 55,726 valid signatures of Maryland voters to put it on the ballot and can begin collecting names now that the bill has passed both chambers, the Associated Press reports.

Recent polls have shown that Marylanders are evenly split on the issue, the Sun reported.

Last week, the Washington governor signed a gay marriage bill into law. That law could also be challenged in a November referendum if opponents gather enough signatures.

Also last week, the New Jersey legislature approved a same-sex marriage bill, but Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the measure.

[california boy]

Looks like Maine is putting gay marriage on the ballot as well. Wonder if the church is going to encourage the members there and from Utah to pour time and money into this ballot innitive as well or if they are over it.

Bloomberg

Maine Gay-Marriage Advocates Get Enough Signatures for Ballot

February 23, 2012, 6:23 PM EST

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Voters in Maine will decide in November whether to allow same-sex couples to marry after state officials confirmed enough valid signatures to place the question on the ballot.

Secretary of State Charles E. Summers Jr. verified more than 85,000 of the 105,000 signatures submitted last month, said Barbara Redmond, his deputy secretary. About 57,000 names were required, according to EqualityMaine, the Portland-based gay- rights group leading the coalition that collected them.

“Same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons other couples want to marry: because they love each other and want to spend their lives together,” Betsy Smith, EqualityMaine’s executive director, said in a statement. “There’s no question that momentum is growing for same-sex marriage in Maine.”

It will be the second time Mainers confront the issue at the ballot box. In 2009, voters rejected by 53 percent to 47 percent a law permitting gay marriage that was championed by Democratic lawmakers and signed by then-Governor John Baldacci, also a Democrat. In 2010, Republicans won control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s seat for the first time since 1966.

The law wouldn’t require religious institutions or clergy to perform the marriages in violation of their religious beliefs. Anti-gay marriage advocates have vowed to fight the measure.

Maine voters would be the first in the U.S. to give same- sex partners the right to wed. Court rulings or legislation led to the change in seven states and the District of Columbia. Voters have rejected legalization in all 31 referendums on the issue, according to Freedom to Marry, a New York-based national advocacy organization.

[Jeff K.]

I think the church will do what is right, regardless of how bigoted hateful anti Mormons become. Religious reasons aren't the only reason that some people hate. I am sure the intimidations will continue as well, and then those abetting such intimidation will say it is justified. Cycles aren't only for the Book of Mormon.

[frankenstein]

You are of course referring to both religious and secular intimidation, intimidation from both sides of the debate.

[Jeff K.]

No, I am not. But feel free to interpret it that way.

[KevinG]

I'd be more interested in the question being put to a referendum. Why? Because of what Mosiah had to say about the voice of the people choosing iniquity, that they would be ripened for destruction.

I'd be very careful equating political movements or even the "likely to vote" with the voice of the people. If that were the case we'd have been destroyed 1000 times over by now.

[KevinG]

I just spent three days in Washington State and all the headlines were about avalanches. Go figure?

[Stargazer]

I just spent three days in Washington State and all the headlines were about avalanches. Go figure?

Something like 65% of the state is concentrated in Seattle, which is a liberal democrat hotspot. Both houses of the legislature are firmly in the hands of liberal democrats. The governor is a liberal democrat. The news media is, like everywhere else, liberal democrats. We already had a domestic partnership law that was marriage in all but name. What's the big deal, just call it "marriage" and be done with it.

[LeSellers]

What's the big deal, just call it "marriage" and be done with it.

Because words actually mean things.

Calling it "marriage" cheapens the real thing. Calling it "marriage" distorts people's perception of what families are. Calling it "marriage" mocks the commitment that real marriage is. Homosexuals in "committed relationships" (the usage is a distortion, since they're not a commitment) not only allow, but expect their partners to engage in "outside activities" wholly inconsistant with a "commitment", and even further beyond marriage. Homosexuals who have "married" are already divorcing even though they'd already been in one of those "committed relationships" for decades.

Some (rightly) point out that a large percentage of real marriages end in divorce. That's immaterial to the discussion: the fallacy is tu quoque. This charge is true, but it has nothing to do with whether we should further undermine our culture by weakening yet again the fundamental institution on which all successful societies have been based.

The fact that homosexuals want the word illustrates that they do not only want the "benefits" of "marriage", they want to destroy traditional families and collapse society. I read an article wherein one of their "leaders" admitted just that. I leave it as an exercise for the serious student to determine the source for that inspiration with the following hint: it was the enemy of all righteousness.

This alone ought to motivate anoyone who supports any righteousness at all to oppose such nefarious politcal actions.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

.

[frankenstein]

Lehi, would you vote for legislation to ban divorce? No divorce under any circumstance? If the concern is about protecting marriage then you must be opposed to divorce, as Christ from the beginning it was not so, Christ further states that divorce was created by man to appease man.

[Jeff K.]

No, because some marriages become abusive. Absolutist arguments do not work well, and are not convincing when it comes to destroying the basic underlying foundation of what a marriage is.

[frankenstein]

Banning divorce is about bringing marriage back to what God ordained.

[california boy]

Because words actually mean things.

Calling it "marriage" cheapens the real thing. Calling it "marriage" distorts people's perception of what families are. Calling it "marriage" mocks the commitment that real marriage is. Homosexuals in "committed relationships" (the usage is a distortion, since they're not a commitment) not only allow, but expect their partners to engage in "outside activities" wholly inconsistant with a "commitment", and even further beyond marriage. Homosexuals who have "married" are already divorcing even though they'd already been in one of those "committed relationships" for decades.

Some (rightly) point out that a large percentage of real marriages end in divorce. That's immaterial to the discussion: the fallacy is tu quoque. This charge is true, but it has nothing to do with whether we should further undermine our culture by weakening yet again the fundamental institution on which all successful societies have been based.

We have heard all this nonsense before. Nothing new here. Americans who some how feel it is ok to treat people differently under the laws of this country because they don't like gay relationships. People who have no problem "cheapening" the meaning of equality under the law. Where there own religious beliefs should be the law of the land at the expense of someone else's equality.

You seem to be willing to blow off the importance of divorce as something to be unconcerned about. You are willing to selectively follow the words of Christ to fit your own construct of what you think cheapens divorce. What about the whole "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. The truth is, it is easier to attack gay relationships because they fit in what your convenient interpretation of your personal religious beliefs. Physical abuse excuses should be dealt with by assault laws if you really believe that marriages should be an unbroken holy promise to God. The truth is, you just don't like gay relationships and you are trying to make some kind of argument to prevent those relationships from being legally recognized as valid.

The fact that homosexuals want the word illustrates that they do not only want the "benefits" of "marriage", they want to destroy traditional families and collapse society. I read an article wherein one of their "leaders" admitted just that. I leave it as an exercise for the serious student to determine the source for that inspiration with the following hint: it was the enemy of all righteousness.

This alone ought to motivate anyone who supports any righteousness at all to oppose such nefarious politcal actions.

Lehi

How laughable can your comments be? It is like saying all Mormons are racists because some Mormon leaders have made racist remarks in the past. Are you sure you are willing to broad brush an entire group of people by one comment someone in no official capacity might have said??

Your whole premise is ridiculous. It is the very reason why these silly arguments when argued in a court of law become embarrassing.

[blackstrap]

The whole marriage issue is now to the point of "straightening deck chairs on the Titanic".North American society is rapidly approaching a tipping point when it comes to committed relationships.The GLBT lobby is just one of the icebergs in a vast sea of them.We are now seeing the results in the schools of the broken and disfunctional families.This will continue as the fabric that once held civilizations together is worn thin and rent asunder.History does repeat itself and we in North America are just the latest "frogs in a heated pot" China has messed with the family unit and is beginning to see the consequences of that experiment. Canada accepted the SSM idea with little objection."So far so good" as the man said when he stepped off the 10 story building.There is always a price to pay when one disturbs the foundation of a structure.Some say that they are willing to pay that price for some presumed benefit. Look how long the Tower of Piza has remained standing with just a slight lean to the left(or right).

[Jeff K.]

Anti Mormons, and those who would refute God and the proclamation to the world will always be proponents of what our church teaches against. They cannot see the importance of marriage as a key component to a healthy society. They will argue that everyone should be able to do anything because it is somehow their right to do anything. The fact is that morality must be jettisoned by those proponents, they cannot argue about what is good or what is is right. Their belief is to undermine the ideal of a righteous society with the ideal of doing whatever one wishes to do, because it can be done.

Some of these proponents will rail against the church, its leaders, the prophets and justify any and all excesses against those who would teach and uphold a moral view, especially against members of the church. Such Judases ( for that is what they are, they hold a membership they cannot support especially when the times and persecution is difficult) are unfortunate, but they have risen in the church time and again, scripturally we see this quite often. Accepting immorality is something that can fall upon anyone in any era, or decade, or timeframe, and when they are tempted by the immorality, and call it acceptable, well then it becomes obvious there is a need to justify immoral acts. The only way to do so is to take the moral out of the equation. One can steal without breaking the law. One can kill marriage, by changing its significance and meaning. It is such a simple act by some, it's justification will be that since it can be done, there is nothing wrong with doing it (note "nothing wrong").

So those people will do their best to make life uncomfortable for the membership that adheres to the prophets words. they will of course deny they are speaking against the Lord, or the prophets. They will say they are doing "what's best" for "all involved". I have yet to see how supporting the dissolution of marriage to mean absolutely nothing to being the equivalent of what is best for the Lord or society. I have yet to see the justification of adultry between two people to be what is best for the Lord or society.

And when society deteriorates. They will claim that theirs was not the act that adds to it. Nay, to them "freedom" to do anything is the God of their world, and society has no right to harness in the societal outliers and say "these things should not be". To them the perfect world does not exist and should not be striven for. Give the people what they want, and do not tell them what is wrong, since all things not illegal are "rights".

The ultimate question, it will be telling to see how it stands within their own justification. Would the Lord support them in the object (or objection) of their desires? Will the Lord tell the church that its action is wrong and theirs is right? Do they believe and justify that? Or is their profession merely lipservice.

I recall the member who began identifying saints and placing their names on the internet. Perfectly legal to do. But I think we all know why that person did it. There will always be attempts to justify such actions, as well as supporting what is wrong. But they sound hollow and empty.

And the justifications and attacks will never stop. It is not the lot of the Lords church to be left alone.

[LeSellers]

Lehi, would you vote for legislation to ban divorce? No divorce under any circumstance? If the concern is about protecting marriage then you must be opposed to divorce, as Christ from the beginning it was not so, Christ further states that divorce was created by man to appease man.

No, I would not. Not because I believe that any divorce is not a good thing (some, very, very few are). However, I would repeal "no fault" divorce—if no one's at fault, there is no valid reason to divorce.

Too easy divorce is a cause of more unhappiness than troubled marriages. We have seen several studies that confirm the fact that those who work on their troubled marriages are, a decade later, much happier than those who hit the courts and legally call it quits.

But it's all part of the same pattern: Satan hates God and everything good. He fights against the Family because it is the entity on which all creation is based: Father has a family, and He pronounced it "very good". Because He loves the Family, Satan hates it, and he fights hardest against it.

Divorce is one way to fight God. Same-sex "marriage" is another way to weaken and destroy the Family. Government programs that encourage and reward sex and child-bearing out-of-wedlock are other ways. Interference in how parents raise their children with absurd Child "Protection" laws is another. Forcing families to "render" their children to government-run schools are part of the plan to undermine the Family. Passing so many laws that everyone is a criminal, even (or especially) those who are upright citizens, is one more because, by removing one of a child's (or both) parents and putting him in prison for something illegal, but not immoral, the child gets the tender ministrations of the state for the duration of the sentence. Today I read the story of a father who, when he went to the school to pick up his child, was arrested because that child had drawn a picture of a gun, meaning, in the eyes of the school administration, the father must own a gun, and that, for no other reason, his daughter was in danger. They worked it out (there was no gun in the house, and the man owned no guns), but the father now has an arrest on his record and a strip search to reflect on for the rest of his life.

Satan is tireless in undermining the Family because of his undying hatred of God and of us. He seeks to make all men miserable like unto himself. No tool is unused, no lie untold, no fabrication unmade.

He turns our freedoms against us, claiming to want "equality", but equality is not what he desires. He wants dominion over us, at least over as many as he can grasp. And today's political battle over a moral question is just the latest tactic he's applying.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Banning divorce is about bringing marriage back to what God ordained.

CFR.

God never expected either spouse to suffer at the hands or the other. Divorce, for all its inherent ugliness, is sometimes (albeit rarely) the only answer. A "social surgery" to rid small infestations of a cancer in God's view, it has become the option of choice when the equivalent of diet and exercise is all that is needed. It was distressing to read of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore's divorce because they had decided, for no reason whatsoever, to separateno fights, no abuse, no disagreements—just, "Hey, darlin' how about a divorce?"

it was Rick Santorum, I believe, who correctly called Hollywood stars and their immoralities (sexual/marital and others) "peacocks on display", and who worried that, more and more, the rest of us would emulate them. Too late. That bus left the station in the 60s, and left the reservation in the 70s.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

Banning divorce is about bringing marriage back to what God ordained.

CFR.

God never expected either spouse to suffer at the hands or the other. Divorce, for all its inherent ugliness, is sometimes (albeit rarely) the only answer. A "social surgery" to rid small infestations of a cancer in God's view, ...

Lehi

Matthew 19 respective; Moses, and as it appears he was acting as a man and not by prophetic revelation permitted divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. And as Christ further clarifies from the beginning it was not so that divorce was permissible, as two shall twain and be one flesh and what God hath joined let no man put asunder.

[Daniel2]

Anti Mormons, and those who would refute God and the proclamation to the world will always be proponents of what our church teaches against. They cannot see the importance of marriage as a key component to a healthy society. They will argue that everyone should be able to do anything because it is somehow their right to do anything. The fact is that morality must be jettisoned by those proponents, they cannot argue about what is good or what is is right. Their belief is to undermine the ideal of a righteous society with the ideal of doing whatever one wishes to do, because it can be done.

Some of these proponents will rail against the church, its leaders, the prophets and justify any and all excesses against those who would teach and uphold a moral view, especially against members of the church. Such Judases ( for that is what they are, they hold a membership they cannot support especially when the times and persecution is difficult) are unfortunate, but they have risen in the church time and again, scripturally we see this quite often. Accepting immorality is something that can fall upon anyone in any era, or decade, or timeframe, and when they are tempted by the immorality, and call it acceptable, well then it becomes obvious there is a need to justify immoral acts. The only way to do so is to take the moral out of the equation. One can steal without breaking the law. One can kill marriage, by changing its significance and meaning. It is such a simple act by some, it's justification will be that since it can be done, there is nothing wrong with doing it (note "nothing wrong").

So those people will do their best to make life uncomfortable for the membership that adheres to the prophets words. they will of course deny they are speaking against the Lord, or the prophets. They will say they are doing "what's best" for "all involved". I have yet to see how supporting the dissolution of marriage to mean absolutely nothing to being the equivalent of what is best for the Lord or society. I have yet to see the justification of adultry between two people to be what is best for the Lord or society.

And when society deteriorates. They will claim that theirs was not the act that adds to it. Nay, to them "freedom" to do anything is the God of their world, and society has no right to harness in the societal outliers and say "these things should not be". To them the perfect world does not exist and should not be striven for. Give the people what they want, and do not tell them what is wrong, since all things not illegal are "rights".

The ultimate question, it will be telling to see how it stands within their own justification. Would the Lord support them in the object (or objection) of their desires? Will the Lord tell the church that its action is wrong and theirs is right? Do they believe and justify that? Or is their profession merely lipservice.

I recall the member who began identifying saints and placing their names on the internet. Perfectly legal to do. But I think we all know why that person did it. There will always be attempts to justify such actions, as well as supporting what is wrong. But they sound hollow and empty.

And the justifications and attacks will never stop. It is not the lot of the Lords church to be left alone.

Though I do not consider myself anti-Mormon, I do not subscribe to the LDS belief system about God.

I support civil marriage equality for same-sex couples on exactly the same grounds that I support civil marriage for opposite-sex couples.

I emphatically support and promote the importance of marriage as a key component to a healthy society.

I argue against the idea that “everyone should be able to do anything,” especially when trying to advocate that idea on the very misguided notion that “it is somehow their right to do anything.” I have never met a marriage equality supporter who would advocate for civil marriage rights based on the idea that “everyone should be able to do anything,” or that “it is somehow their right to do anything.” Anyone who says otherwise either misunderstands or misrepresents the position of those of us who support marriage equality.

I believe that morality is important, and should not be jettisoned. I understand that different individuals define morality in different ways, and accept that such will be the case in a pluralistic society that attempts to promote peace, equality, and freedom of religion among its citizens

I believe that there are things which are good and which are right. I believe it is important to promote the ideals of commitment, responsibility for one’s spouse, family, and children, and the stability of parents and couples, both for their own physical, emotional, and financial health, but also as a means of strengthening our neighborhoods and the broader society in which we live.

I believe that anyone advocating that individuals should merely “do whatever one wishes to do, because it can be done” is advocating for reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible behavior. I have never known anyone to advocate such a position.

Sometimes I get frustrated with the LDS church’s stance towards civil marriage equality for same-sex couples. However, I strive to make it a point not to “rail against” the church, its leaders, or those that are considered to be prophets. All of us have a right to advocate and persuade others towards our own systems of belief. Though I may disagree with what Mormon leadership says, I will defend their right to say it.

I readily condemn any violent, illegal, and bullying/threatening tactics towards individuals, churches, or other organizations on any side of this issue. I encourage thoughtful, respectful, yet also challenging dialogue on tough issues such as these.

There are many things that “can be done,” but which are wrong to do, and shouldn’t be done.

In similitude of comments by Jeff that I consider to be over-the-top: Here they are, in reverse, to try to illustrate how outlandish, irrational, and inappropriate they are (from my perspective):

[begin irony]:

I understand that Latter-day Saints will do their best to make life uncomfortable for members of other Faiths who believe that same-sex couples should have the right and blessing to marry (both civilly, and in the houses of worship of non-LDS Faiths), or other values that are at odds with LDS tenants (i.e. alcoholic consumption). Latter-day Saints will say they “are doing what’s best for all involved.” I have yet to see how supporting the prohibition of marriage for LGBT couples and their children to mean absolutely nothing to be the equivalent of what is best for LGBT couples, their children, and society. I have yet to see the justification of an imposed theocracy to be what is best for individuals or society.

And when society deteriorates, they will claim that theirs was not the act that adds to it. Nay, to them the secular imposition of “morality” is the God of their world, and society has no right to acknowledge and liberate the religious freedoms of citizens of other, both straight-and-LGBT-affirming Faiths and say “these things should be.” To them, anything outside their perfect world “does not exist and should not be allowed. Mandate what God wants, and do not let them govern themselves, since all things they consider to be “immoral” should be illegal.

The ultimate question, it will be telling to see how it stands within their own justification. Would their Lord support them in the object (or objection) of their desires? Will their Lord tell their church that its action is wrong and theirs is right? Do they believe their doctrines when they say, “Teach the people correct principles, and let them govern themselves?” Do they truly believe it when they claim that they

“do not believe it just to

mingle

religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied

”? Do they believe and justify that? Or is their profession merely lip-service?

It appears that the justifications and attacks will never stop. It is not the lot of the Lords church to leave others alone to worship “how, where, and what they may.”

[/end irony]

Daniel2