Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Bikeemikey]

If you believe in what was quoted earlier in the thread, you will know that the Lord did and didn't want for us.

I am assuming you understand the doctrine of agency, as such the greatest human right is our ability to tell god and others to sod off and let us do what we want - even if it is something god doesn't want for us.

What god wants for us and rights have nothing to so with each other - rights are not derived from gods moral ideals - quite the opposite - rights, freedom and agency allow us to do what we want inspire of gods ideals.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Nathair/|\]

LOL!!! Thanks Calmoriah. I'm glad I do not stick out like a sore thumb here.

Hey, they let me play here...

[Nathair/|\]

While I don't endorse SSM and would have voted against it had it been on my ballot, I've always felt that the reason we put so many resources into the Prop 8 fight had more to do with the way SSM was imposed through the courts by lobbyists rather than by persuading the people to accept it and vote for it.

[california boy]

It doesn't take a genius to see that same sex marriage doesn't maximize that same sex couple's happiness. To think it does is to think the ability to create their own offspring isn't required to achieve the maximum state of happiness for that couple, since same sex couples can not create their own offspring. The best they can hope for in that regard is to take care of other people's children, and that's not the maximum state of happiness for those children, either.

Are you saying that a straight couple that needs to adopt is just not going to have the maximum state of happiness? That seems rather harsh and unfounded. My brother and his wife adopted 2 children. They seem perfectly happy and content as if they were their own offspring. I have never heard either one of them say they are not happy because they adopted their children. The same is true when gay couples choose to adopt their children. They love their children just the same way a straight couple loves theirs. Why can't you understand that??

Children are happiest when they're taken care of by their own parents who love each other, as they should.

My brothers children love my brother and his wife completely. They couldn't love them any more if they were their birth parents. It makes absolutely no difference to them. They have never said "yeah I am not that happy. Now if I was raised by my birth parents,t hen I would find complete happiness." The same seems to be true with the children of gay couples. I have never heard a child of a gay couple ever say "I am not happy because I am not being raised by my birth parents." They know in their hearts that their parents love them every bit as much as any parent can. They also know that their birth parent would probably not be the best people to raise them. What ever caused their birth parents to give them up for adoption would not make them ideal parents.

Imagine a time when that same sex couple won't die anymore, meaning their spirit won't separate again from their mortal body because they are then resurrected. Now imagine that same sex couple continuing to live together, if God allowed that.

This is the first time I have ever heard a Mormon describe eternity for a gay man that actually sounds like HEAVEN. I am hoping that God loves his gay children as much as He loves his straight ones, and will allow them to be together for eternity as well.

No matter what that same sex couple did, they wouldn't be able to produce their own offspring, ever, since same sex couples just can't do that. Now imagine anyone who can have their own children also being resurrected and loving their own children, as they should.

It seems like Christ is busy, happy and finding fulfillment in his role in the godhead though none of us are his children. Perhaps you have a very limited view of what it is to be a god. Their might be more to it that brings full happiness then just having spiritual children. In any event, we don't know how spirit children are produced. I am doubting that eternal mothers are perpetually pregnant.

Do you suppose those couples who can have their own children would ever want same sex couples to take care of them? If they did something would be wrong, because they should want to take care of their own children. That is what it takes to achieve the maximum state of happiness.

I don't know. I don't think you know as well. God certainly does not mind Christ taking care of this world does He.

Edited November 8, 2012 by california boy

[TAO]

I am assuming you understand the doctrine of agency, as such the greatest human right is our ability to tell god and others to sod off and let us do what we want - even if it is something god doesn't want for us.

Most definately. But the Spirit of God doesn't stay when we commit evil.

What god wants for us and rights have nothing to so with each other - rights are not derived from gods moral ideals - quite the opposite - rights, freedom and agency allow us to do what we want inspire of gods ideals.

Of course. But you must realize also; what should and shouldn't be rights is a subject of relative opinion. It is not simply '14th amendment and game'.

Edited November 8, 2012 by TAO

[wenglund]

The dam at this point is the federal Supreme Court. We will just have to wait to see if it breaks or holds. Given some of the puzzling rulings from the last session, I am not all that hopeful. If the dam breaks in favor of mangling the legal definition of marriage and diluting the meaning and significance of marriage, it doesn't prevent the dam from being rebuilt, though it would require an amendment to the constitution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rongo]

I am assuming you understand the doctrine of agency, as such the greatest human right is our ability to tell god and others to sod off and let us do what we want - even if it is something god doesn't want for us.

Interesting in this regard is the effect on those who "tell God and others to 'sod off' ." I have a wealthy brother in my ward who was asked directly by the stake president to donate $5,000 to the no on 8 campaign (we are not in California). This brother, although very wealthy, had significant concerns with this, and sought my counsel as his bishop. Spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally he was very supportive of the Church's stance on 8, but he had significan't concerns about donating that much money at that time (not greed or avarice, but I understood why that at least needed to be carefully thought out). I told him that I thought he should follow his heart, and if that led to choosing not to donate, that would be okay ---- but, counsel from our stake president needed to be strongly considered and not easily dismissed. He chose not to donate, but it has eaten at him and haunted him ever since then. So much so, that it would have been better for him to have donated (donating would not have harmed his family finances).

Some will say that his anguish is because of the guilt-tripping by Church leaders, but I really believe that the Spirit/conscience is behind it ---- not conditioning. He had an opportunity to pass a huge test, and did not ---- not to the long-term detriment of his salvation, but haunting nevertheless.

When President Hinckley challenged the Church to read the Book of Mormon by the end of the year, I had just finished reading the Book of Mormon myself and wanted to read the New Testament again. I have read the Book of Mormon zillions of times, so I didn't during "the Challenge." I really wish I had, now, and think that I forfeited blessings by not taking part in the *timing* of hearkening. Many people I know who had also read the Book of Mormon many times before had powerful experiences. This is a small thing and pales in comparison to other things, but illustrates the same thing. While you absolutely correct that we have the agency to "tell God and others to sod off" (and this brother and I, in our way, did), it is a mistake to hide behind agency in flouting counsel and direction from those who hold keys.

[Buckeye]

Are you saying that a straight couple that needs to adopt is just not going to have the maximum state of happiness? That seems rather harsh and unfounded. My brother and his wife adopted 2 children. They seem perfectly happy and content as if they were their own offspring. I have never heard either one of them say they are not happy because they adopted their children. The same is true when gay couples choose to adopt their children. They love their children just the same way a straight couple loves theirs. Why can't you understand that??

May I share my experience as a heterosexual father? I love my children immensely. I am their biological father, but each year that simple fact becomes less and less important and it becomes less and less a part of why I am their "father". For me, fatherhood, motherhood, and parenthood are really about sacrifice, setting examples, providing teaching, providing physical and spiritual nourishment, protecting, suffering together, succeeding together, and on and on. It has next to nothing to do with providing a sperm or an egg.

In the same manner, I don't regard my Father in Heaven as a father simply because eons ago he might have played a part in some spiritual birth. Rather, even if such an act occurred (and we really have no doctrine saying it did), that act would be infinitely miniscule compared to the real reasons he is my father - again, sacrifice, setting examples, providing teaching, providing physical and spiritual nourishment, protecting, suffering together, succeeding together, and on and on. That is why, for me, both Elohim and Jehovah can rightly be called "Father", even though at least one of them did not contribute to my spiritual birth. Carrying this point to its extension, it seems right to me that I (we) do not have simply one heavenly father and mother, but hundreds and thousands of them.

In the same manner, I see the Relief Society moving towards a full embrace of all women as mothers, even if they never physically give birth to a child. Somehow, church leadership thinks women can completely fulfill motherhood in ways other than passing on DNA. Maybe, just maybe, there is a similar way we can include gay and lesbian couples in the plan of salvation.

But lets assume the hypothetical situation where spiritual offspring are "birthed" to exalted beings after the same manner as takes place in mortality, I can still find ample room for gays and lesbians to be in my exaltation in such a scenario. I, for one, would be happy to entrust my gay brothers and sisters with many of the spiritual children that my wife and I bring into being. Let's call it "adoption". Over time, my contribution to their existence would be drwarfed by that of their adopted parents. Thus, in the same way that adoptive parents in this life can fully be parents, so can adoptive parents in the next life fully be parents.

[Walden]

We would have to drift f-a-r away from where we're at now as a Church (and Church leadership) for this to even qualify as a stretch. Proclamation on the Family? Etc.

I can imagine the same sentiment being uttered by early Saints who practiced polygamy, or by Saints in the last century who defended the ban on blacks in the priesthood. Polygamy and the ban on blacks was part of their religious truth structure, and to imagine that it could change might call into question the truthfulness of their religion. However, after disavowing these former beliefs and practices, the church survived, and actually flourished.

Regarding Ahabs sentiment that "It doesn't take a genius to see that same sex marriage doesn't maximize that same sex couple's happiness. To think it does is to think the ability to create their own offspring isn't required to achieve the maximum state of happiness for that couple, since same sex couples can not create their own offspring. The best they can hope for in that regard is to take care of other people's children, and that's not the maximum state of happiness for those children, either."

......that kind of seems like a complete slap in the face to heterosexual couples who cannot procreate due to a biological/medical conditions, or to hetero couples who have adopted children. I guess those adopting couples are just "tak[ing] care of other people's children" and are thus destined to never achieve ultimate happiness as a couple?

[Buckeye]

The dam at this point is the federal Supreme Court. We will just have to wait to see if it breaks or holds. Given some of the puzzling rulings from the last session, I am not all that hopeful. If the dam breaks in favor of mangling the legal definition of marriage and diluting the meaning and significance of marriage, it doesn't prevent the dam from being rebuilt, though it would require an amendment to the constitution.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Its possible the Supreme Court holds that there is a fundamental right to marry, which would be a major step towards other states adopting marriage equality, but there is zero possibiliy the Court in nullifies those states that have adopted gay marriage. So gay marriage is with us to stay. At this point, there is no realistic way to get 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?" No I will never accpet it. Will it be come the law of the land one day? yeah.

The real issue is relgious liberty. That is what will be the next fight. I am sure we will win that one the way this country is going.

[Ahab]

Are you saying that a straight couple that needs to adopt is just not going to have the maximum state of happiness?

No, I'm saying the maximum state of happiness is attained when a couple can create theiir own offspring, rather than only being able to take care of children which came from another couple. Adopting children is a matter of making a bad situation better, while it's not as good as it could have been. The best situation possible, where the maximum state of happiness is enjoyed, come from loving couples creating their own children while that couple loves their children as they should.

That seems rather harsh and unfounded. My brother and his wife adopted 2 children. They seem perfectly happy and content as if they were their own offspring. I have never heard either one of them say they are not happy because they adopted their children. The same is true when gay couples choose to adopt their children. They love their children just the same way a straight couple loves theirs. Why can't you understand that??

Because it's not the exact same thing. It may come close enough for some people, but there's nothing like being able to create your own offspring with your own spouse so that your children have both you and your spouse within them. They are actually both of you combined into one person. Other people's children aren't quite the same thing, because they are the product of that other couple.

My brothers children love my brother and his wife completely. They couldn't love them any more if they were their birth parents. It makes absolutely no difference to them. They have never said "yeah I am not that happy. Now if I was raised by my birth parents,t hen I would find complete happiness." The same seems to be true with the children of gay couples. I have never heard a child of a gay couple ever say "I am not happy because I am not being raised by my birth parents." They know in their hearts that their parents love them every bit as much as any parent can. They also know that their birth parent would probably not be the best people to raise them. What ever caused their birth parents to give them up for adoption would not make them ideal parents.

I was talking about the "maximum" state of happiness. You're talking about just being happy, and there are many states of happiness, in general.

This is the first time I have ever heard a Mormon describe eternity for a gay man that actually sounds like HEAVEN. I am hoping that God loves his gay children as much as He loves his straight ones, and will allow them to be together for eternity as well.

The issue isn't about how much God loves other people. It's about what it takes for others to be as happy as God is.

God can create his own children, with his spouse. A same sex couple will never be able to do that. They may be able to adopt other people's children in heaven, although I seriously doubt it, but even if they could they would still not be like having their own children. They would still be other people's children, even if they were adopted, and the same sex couple would still not be able to create their own children. They're just taking care of other people's children while calling those children their own.

It seems like Christ is busy, happy and finding fulfillment in his role in the godhead though none of us are his children.

Yes, and I'm sure same sex couples will find their own form of fulfillment which is exclusive to them while opposite sex couples enjoy what they can enjoy from their type of relationship. I'm simply saying that as same sex couples won't ever be able to create thier own children.

Perhaps you have a very limited view of what it is to be a god. Their might be more to it that brings full happiness then just having spiritual children. In any event, we don't know how spirit children are produced. I am doubting that eternal mothers are perpetually pregnant.

The ability to create our own offspring is something only those who can do it can enjoy. You'd have to do it to know what it's like, and a woman in heaven won't need to be perpetually pregnant to be able to create a child, or even many children. She'll have all of eternity to do it with her spouse.

I don't know. I don't think you know as well. God certainly does not mind Christ taking care of this world does He.

God our Father is still taking care of us, even with Jesus to help him, and Jesus is our brother who enjoys helping us as well as our Father. You can know what it's like to be a brother even if you never create your own children with a spouse.

[rameumptom]

I think the reason the Church was involved in Prop 8 was to cause the members in California to have to make a choice. Were they going to sustain the Brethren, or follow their view of social justice? It is one more step in separating the wheat from the tares, as we approach the end times.

God is not interested in social justice. He is interested in charity. Jesus condemned the social justice of his day in Matthew 23. While they tithed for the poor and said prayers, these were out of line with the weightier matters of spirituality. It is like Michael Jackson donating millions for children's programs - it looks great on the surface, but underneath it is nothing but cankers and puss.

I have no problem with someone dealing with SSA. I have a problem with people seeking to change traditional family, marriage, and the Proclamation of the Family, in the name of social justice. It will canker society until it collapses or is destroyed.

[Buckeye]

...

Because it's not the exact same thing. It may come close enough for some people, but there's nothing like being able to create your own offspring with your own spouse so that your children have both you and your spouse within them. They are actually both of you combined into one person. Other people's children aren't quite the same thing, because they are the product of that other couple.

I was talking about the "maximum" state of happiness. You're talking about just being happy, and there are many states of happiness, in general.

....

Ahab, for all the reasons I stated in my earlier post (see page 3 of this thread), I have to disagree. I do not consider my biological children to be "mine". They existed long before they were entrusted to me. I am in the same shoes as any other parent in this life - we are all adoptive parents.

Perhaps the best opinions on this subject can be found in couples who have both biological and adopted children. I know a number of such couples and they all claim to have an equal love and bond with their adopted children as their biological. There is no "maximum" happiness they have in relation to the biological, but cannot have for the adopted. Please let me know if you are aware of other couples who think differently, but I've never met one.

[wenglund]

Its possible the Supreme Court holds that there is a fundamental right to marry, which would be a major step towards other states adopting marriage equality, but there is zero possibiliy the Court in nullifies those states that have adopted gay marriage. So gay marriage is with us to stay. At this point, there is no realistic way to get 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

According to the courts, marriage is already and has long been a fundamental right nationwide. And, since Loving v. Virginia, marriage equality has also existed nationwide. Any adult, regardless of race or religion or sexual orientation, has had the fundamental and equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex--the exception being incestuous relations.

What is being promoted by gay advocates is a newly invented "right" that is unavoidably unequal to the fundamental right. They are asking for the new right to marry someone of the same sex. In other words, they are advocating for marriage inequality under the guise of marriage equality.

As for whether an amendment is feasible at this time, is hard to say since it isn't yet necessary. However, you should be interested to learn that as of this last election, only 18% of the states (9 out of 50) have legalized SSM. This leaves 82% of the states that uphold traditional marriage, providing a 7 point buffer for an amendment.

You are right, though, that the federal Supreme Court ruling won't strike down existing SSM laws, nor did I suggest that it would. Rather, I was speaking as to whether the dam will break, and not to the trickle we have thus far had.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Buckeye]

I think the reason the Church was involved in Prop 8 was to cause the members in California to have to make a choice. Were they going to sustain the Brethren, or follow their view of social justice? It is one more step in separating the wheat from the tares, as we approach the end times.

...

So why did the Brethren limit this test only to members living in California or with connections to the state? Why no similar test for members in Washington, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Zealand, France, Mexico, Brazil or any number of other places that faced the same issue? Don't we all need to be tested?

[Buckeye]

According to the courts, marriage is already and has long been a fundamental right nationwide. And, since Loving v. Virginia, marriage equality has also existed nationwide. Any adult, regardless of race or religion or sexual orientation, has had the fundamental and equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex--the exception being incestuous relations.

What is being promoted by gay advocates is a newly invented "right" that is unavoidably unequal to the fundamental right. They are asking for the new right to marry someone of the same sex. In other words, they are advocating for marriage inequality under the guise of marriage equality.

As for whether an amendment is feasible at this time, is hard to say since it isn't yet necessary. However, you should be interested to learn that as of this last election, only 18% of the states (9 out of 50) have legalized SSM. This leaves 82% of the states that uphold traditional marriage, providing a 7 point buffer for an amendment.

You are right, though, that the federal Supreme Court ruling won't strike down existing SSM laws, nor did I suggest that it would. Rather, I was speaking as to whether the dam will break, and not to the trickle we have thus far had.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand. We can disagree on what is right, but I think we agree on what is before the Supreme Court. As for the dam breaking, judging from Tuesday's results, I fully expect to see CO, RI, DE, NJ, OR, MN and IL take up the issue again in the next 1-2 years. By 2016, I believe we'll see CA, NV, NM, PA, OH, MI, WI and maybe some suprises (MT ?) do likewise. Just prognosticating, but I expect the majority of these to grant SSM. I expect by 2016 we'll have SSM in at least 18-20 states. The dam has broken. A federal amendment will never happen. The GOP has no desire to touch social issues after this election.

[rongo]

So why did the Brethren limit this test only to members living in California or with connections to the state? Why no similar test for members in Washington, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Zealand, France, Mexico, Brazil or any number of other places that faced the same issue? Don't we all need to be tested?

In all sincerity and seriousness (and hopefully without coming across as self-righteous), I would ask Nephi's question to Laman and Lemuel: "Have ye inquired of the Lord?" Have you asked Him why in California, Florida, and Arizona (people forget that the Church's push extended to these three states at the same time, and succeeded in all three ballot initiatives), but why not (insert state or country of choice)? I fear that people who answer "No" to this do so for the same reason Laman and Lemuel answered no: "For the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."

For me, it became crystal clear to me when I heard and saw Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom testify that God had commanded us to move in this instance, but not in others. I don't know "why," exactly, but I know for myself that it was God's will at that time in those places. I don't need a why, but people who do can take it to the Source. If their need is great (and some people's is, while others' isn't nearly as much), He will answer.

Edited November 8, 2012 by rongo

[Buckeye]

In all sincerity and seriousness (and hopefully without coming across as self-righteous), I would ask Nephi's question to Laman and Lemuel: "Have ye inquired of the Lord?" Have you asked Him why in California, Florida, and Arizona (people forget that the Church's push extended to these three states at the same time, and succeeded in all three ballot initiatives), but why not (insert state or country of choice)? I fear that people who answer "No" to this do so for the same reason Laman and Lemuel answered no: "For the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."

For me, it became crystal clear to me when I heard and saw Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom testify that God had commanded us to move in this instance, but not in others. I don't know "why," exactly, but I know for myself that it was God's will at that time in those places. I don't need a why, but people who do can take it to the Source. If their need is great (and some people's is, while others' isn't nearly as much), He will answer.

No worries; I have a pretty thick skin. But I wasn't claiming to know why the church leadership instructed the members to support Prop 8. You did. So while I have not "inquired of the Lord" as to why he would instruct in one place and not another, since you made the claim I thought I would ask you. Hopefully I don't sound condescending, but have you asked the Lord why he would give this test in one place and not all places? It would be fairly disingenous for you to insist that I ask if you had not. Yet I have to wonder, if you have asked, why keep playing games and not simply tell us the answer?

Edited November 8, 2012 by Buckeye

[Ahab]

Ahab, for all the reasons I stated in my earlier post (see page 3 of this thread), I have to disagree. I do not consider my biological children to be "mine". They existed long before they were entrusted to me. I am in the same shoes as any other parent in this life - we are all adoptive parents.

Great point, which I had already considered, but even though we don't create our children's spirit now we will be able to do that when we are exalted and have a spouse of the opposite sex. As it is now it still takes an opposite sex couple to create the mortal body of a spirit, though, and same sex couples can't even do that.

Perhaps the best opinions on this subject can be found in couples who have both biological and adopted children. I know a number of such couples and they all claim to have an equal love and bond with their adopted children as their biological. There is no "maximum" happiness they have in relation to the biological, but cannot have for the adopted. Please let me know if you are aware of other couples who think differently, but I've never met one.

I'm also talking about the maximum state of happiness that comes from creating your own children, which in itself requires someone of the opposite sex. Same sex couples can't create their own children, so their happiness is limited in that way, and even though an opposite sex couple can choose to adopt children too, either with or without creating their own children in addition to those they adopt from other parents, the children they adopt are coming from their own parents and it would have been better had their own parents loved them and taken care of them as they should.

In other words, adoped children come from a broken home, and it would have been better had that home never been broken.

You need to consider the desires of the children, too, as well as the desires of the people who want to adopt.

Ask any child if they would like to have their real (or biological) parents love and take care of them as they should be taken care of, or if they would rather be given up to some other people for adoption. Wait, hold on a minute, you might want to avoid asking some teenagers who weren't raised very well by their real parents. Go back to the Celestial kingdom and ask all of those children there if they would like to be given up for adoption to other people, or if they would rather stay with their real parents who love them and take care of them as they should.

I'll guarantee you 2 things:

1) You won't find any children created by same sex couples in the Celestial kingdom.

2) You won't find any good children in the Celestial kingdom who want their real parents to give them up for adoption to a same sex couple, or even to another heterosexual couple. If some children do, those children are evil, as shown by them not loving their Father (and Mother) even in heaven, as they should.

[RobertAC]

I understand. We can disagree on what is right, but I think we agree on what is before the Supreme Court. As for the dam breaking, judging from Tuesday's results, I fully expect to see CO, RI, DE, NJ, OR, MN and IL take up the issue again in the next 1-2 years. By 2016, I believe we'll see CA, NV, NM, PA, OH, MI, WI and maybe some suprises (MT ?) do likewise. Just prognosticating, but I expect the majority of these to grant SSM. I expect by 2016 we'll have SSM in at least 18-20 states. The dam has broken. A federal amendment will never happen. The GOP has no desire to touch social issues after this election.

What Buckeye said.

I would add with regards to the Loving case, there is no specific provision in the Constitution that protects marriage.

Wikipedia says this about Loving which I find interesting because the logic of Pace, a subsequently overturned case, is the same that is used by many against SSM (and polygamy for that matter), specifically that the marriage prohibition applies to everyone:

" Prior to Loving v. Virginia, there were several cases on the subject of race-mixing. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex."

In overturning bans upon interracial marriage the Court took a results-based approach in the Loving decision where it observed that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy: “

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

What I take from Loving is that the Supreme Court could find that SSM is protected not because of a particular provision in the Constitution that protects it, but because disallowing it is heterosexist/homophobic. If it so decides this way, it may be affected by a statement made by Midred Loving in 2007:

“

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

[wenglund]

I understand. We can disagree on what is right, but I think we agree on what is before the Supreme Court. As for the dam breaking, judging from Tuesday's results, I fully expect to see CO, RI, DE, NJ, OR, MN and IL take up the issue again in the next 1-2 years. By 2016, I believe we'll see CA, NV, NM, PA, OH, MI, WI and maybe some suprises (MT ?) do likewise. Just prognosticating, but I expect the majority of these to grant SSM. I expect by 2016 we'll have SSM in at least 18-20 states. The dam has broken. A federal amendment will never happen. The GOP has no desire to touch social issues after this election.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the Prop 8 and the federal DOMA, that opens the door wide to striking down all the state laws and constitutional amendments restricting marriage to between a man and a woman. To me, this is the more likely dam that may break.

If it does happen, we will just have to live with the consequences of diluting the meaning and significance of the word "marriage". We may already be seeing some of the negative affects of the SSM movement in the declining number of people getting married. This mirrors what has happened in other nations that have gone for SSM. I suspect, too, that divorce and infidelity and spousal violence rates will climb since we will be adding a demographic to the marital rolls that has a disproportionate propensity in those areas.

This is bound to happen when people are bent on mindlessly mangling legal definitions and don't get the point of why the governments got into the marriage business to begin with. What was once intended as a means of lowering the burden on the courts and to also bring stability to the fundamental institution of society, may ironically now become an instrument that results in the opposite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 8, 2012 by wenglund

[Buckeye]

Ahab,

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't claim to know how things will be in the CK. But I don't have any reason to believe you know either. For me, the best judgments come by looking at how things are here. If gay couples can form loving, strong and stable families (and I know a number of them), then why not also in the CK?

In the meantime, my offer still stands for you to provide any couples you know who have both biological and adopted children and who view their relationship to the biological in any way superior to the adopted.

[Buckeye]

If the Supreme Court strikes down the Prop 8 and the federal DOMA, that opens the door wide to striking down all the state laws and constitutional amendments restricting marriage to between a man and a woman. To me, this is the more likely dam that may break.

...

I agree that, should this happen, it would be seen as more of a "dam breaking" or "watershed" moment as opposed to the steady state-by-state battles we are now seeing.

FWIW, I think one outgrowth of Tuesday's results is that the Supreme Court is less likely to strike down Prop 8 or DOMA on the ground that there is a constitutional right to marry. It may still stike them on other grounds, but since it is clear which way the wind is blowing, the Court will be less inclined to jump too quickly as that could cause a backlask ala Roe-v-Wade.

[rongo]

No worries; I have a pretty thick skin. But I wasn't claiming to know why the church leadership instructed the members to support Prop 8. You did. So while I have not "inquired of the Lord" as to why he would instruct in one place and not another, since you made the claim I thought I would ask you.

I didn't claim to know the answer to "why," either ---- I gave the Brethrens' response when asked why. I think most found it to be helpful, and some did not.

Hopefully I don't sound condescending, but have you asked the Lord why he would give this test in one place and not all places? It would be fairly disingenous for you to insist that I ask if you had not. Yet I have to wonder, if you have asked, why keep playing games and not simply tell us the answer?

Short answer: I haven't asked, but I haven't seen a need to. Getting an answer for message board comrades who disagree with me isn't (for me) a good enough reason . . .

None of us ask God "why" unless we need a "why." As I said: " I don't need a why, but people who do can take it to the Source." We simply don't ask God for answers on issues we don't need answers for. Which issues these are differ from person to person. It sounds like you and some others need concrete answers as to "why" on this issue when others (like me) don't.

There are issues I need a "why" answer on that you or others don't. That's how it works, and it's good that this is the way it is. But, we simply don't spend our time asking for "whys" on every single doctrine, policy, practice, or commandment ---- only those we feel we need to know "whys" for.

Edited November 8, 2012 by rongo