Lds Church Files Friend Of The Court Brief W/ Scotus Re: Prop 8, Doma

[california boy]

Why is it reasonable to allow only consenting adults into marriages? There would appear to be no standard of reasonableness that would keep age restrictions in place while removing gender restrictions for gays.

Guess what? That makes it a special privilege in those states. They've expanded the definition of marriage to cater to the preferences of a small minority group, without allowing other minority groups the same privilege.

Here's one of the big myths that SSM supporters propagate. The reality is that there are a surprising number of gay people who are happily married to someone of the opposite sex. I am not aware of any situation where someone who identifies himself as straight is happily married to a person of the same sex. Interesting, isn't it, that there are actually gay people who use the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and do it quite successfully.

Those aren't the types of gays that gay rights groups are particularly fond of. I believe they have some rather derogatory terms for people who don't fit their way of how gays should act and what they should desire.

Anyone who supports gays marrying the opposite sex has to also be a big supporter of divorce since the vas majority of those marriages end badly. CFR that gay right groups have a problem with a gay man marrying somone of the opposite sex. There may be some individuals that think it is doomed for failure, but I have never seen gay rights groups oppose such marriages. And do you have any numbers on the "supprising number" of such marriages?

Edited February 17, 2013 by california boy

[jwhitlock]

Anyone who supports gays marrying the opposite sex has to also be a big supporter of divorce since the vas majority of those marriages end badly.

Bogus rationalization.

[Kevin Kirkham]

JW - Again, nothing is being denied to homosexuals that is available to anyone else. I have been very clear that the granting of elite privileges to gays would result in religious and associative freedoms being subordinated to those privileges.

KK - In Saudi Arabia, Christians can't build churches. I imagine that when Christians ask permission to build a church, Saudi officials suggest that Christians don't deserve "special rights" just for them and if they want the benefits of public worship, that they attend a mosque like everyone else. The Christians will say that since they are not Muslim, that that doesn't make sense. The official may tell the Christian that they CHOOSE to be Christians and that Saudi Arabia won't provide Christians with "special rights" based on their lifestyle choices. What Christians do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should Saudi society, which was based on Islam, have to change to accommodate Christians' chosen lifestyle? The Christians may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits and protections to Muslims while they are denied those same benefits and protections. This falls on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be Christians rather than being Muslims.

[Kevin Kirkham]

CD - We agree that marriage is a fundamental right, but the law places "reasonable" restrictions on that right. It does not address the issue on whether the marriage itself has to be a "meaningful" relationship. Marital satisfaction and adjustment is not a matter of Constitutional law.

KK - Your logic mirrors that of thosed who opposed the Lovings. The trial judge, whose ruling was overturned, said, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." This judge likewise felt that "(m)arital satisfaction and adjustment is not a matter of Constitutional law." The Supreme Court refuted this specious line of thought.

[california boy]

Bogus rationalization.

Are you stating that most gays that marry an opposite sex partner don't end in divorce?

I did notice that you ignored my CFR. Here it is again in case you missed it.

CFR that gay right groups have a problem with a gay man marrying somone of the opposite sex. There may be some individuals that think it is doomed for failure, but I have never seen gay rights groups oppose such marriages. And do you have any numbers on the "supprising number" of such marriages?

Probably a good idea to ignore it since your statement is indefensible.

[Kevin Kirkham]

Kevin Kirkham, on 16 February 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

It was forbidden to touch the ark of the covenant, yet someone thought that it'd be OK to prevent something bad from potentially happening (the ark being damaged in a fall), yet God believed that we should do what is right (not touching the ark) and letting the consequence follow (it possibly being harmed). Prop. 8 is the exact same thing. We, as a church, steadied the ark by disobeying what scripture saying about using our own moral opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others because we wanted to avoid something bad from happening. We steadied the ark in our open rebellion against the revealed and sustained word of God. We need to repent.

JW - Thanks for sharing the kind of rationalizations needed to justify SSM. It's always interesting to see how scripture can be twisted to justify the agenda of the world.

KK - Thank you for your substantive rebuttal. My exegesis is solid. I'm happy to spell it out line by line. Refute it if your can. Since you didn't even try to refute my last my last analogy you dismissed out of hand (I believe it was on the Saudi analogy regarding "special rights"), I doubt that you will try here either.

[jwhitlock]

JW - Again, nothing is being denied to homosexuals that is available to anyone else. I have been very clear that the granting of elite privileges to gays would result in religious and associative freedoms being subordinated to those privileges.

KK - In Saudi Arabia, Christians can't build churches. I imagine that when Christians ask permission to build a church, Saudi officials suggest that Christians don't deserve "special rights" just for them and if they want the benefits of public worship, that they attend a mosque like everyone else. The Christians will say that since they are not Muslim, that that doesn't make sense. The official may tell the Christian that they CHOOSE to be Christians and that Saudi Arabia won't provide Christians with "special rights" based on their lifestyle choices. What Christians do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should Saudi society, which was based on Islam, have to change to accommodate Christians' chosen lifestyle? The Christians may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits and protections to Muslims while they are denied those same benefits and protections. This falls on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be Christians rather than being Muslims.

Invalid analogy. The freedom to believe and to practice that belief is a basic right defined generally that way. Marriage is the right that has been defined a specific way, available to all, and a narrow special interest group is demanding special privileges within that right. Not only are they demanding special privileges, but they are demanding that their right - which is based on a behavioral trait, and not a belief - be embraced and that other rights, such as religious rights, be subordinated to that trait. That hardly fits your attempt to claim some similarity between religious persecution, and the privileged status being demanded by gay rights groups.

[jwhitlock]

Are you stating that most gays that marry an opposite sex partner don't end in divorce?

I did notice that you ignored my CFR. Here it is again in case you missed it.

Probably a good idea to ignore it since your statement is indefensible.

First you take your own shot at gays that marry a member of the opposite sex by characterizing the vast majority of such marriages as ending in divorce - something that I doubt you can prove. Then you demand a CFR for gay rights groups looking down on such relationships, when you yourself have demonstrated that you regard them with disdain.

Ironic, isn't it, when you provide the response to your own CFR.

Are you actually claiming that gay rights groups and gay activists generally look benignly - despite your demonstrated sneer - on those gays who have successful marriages to a member of the opposite sex? That's absolutely ridiculous, and I think you're fully aware of that fact.

[jwhitlock]

Kevin Kirkham, on 16 February 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

It was forbidden to touch the ark of the covenant, yet someone thought that it'd be OK to prevent something bad from potentially happening (the ark being damaged in a fall), yet God believed that we should do what is right (not touching the ark) and letting the consequence follow (it possibly being harmed). Prop. 8 is the exact same thing. We, as a church, steadied the ark by disobeying what scripture saying about using our own moral opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others because we wanted to avoid something bad from happening. We steadied the ark in our open rebellion against the revealed and sustained word of God. We need to repent.

JW - Thanks for sharing the kind of rationalizations needed to justify SSM. It's always interesting to see how scripture can be twisted to justify the agenda of the world.

KK - Thank you for your substantive rebuttal. My exegesis is solid. I'm happy to spell it out line by line. Refute it if your can. Since you didn't even try to refute my last my last analogy you dismissed out of hand (I believe it was on the Saudi analogy regarding "special rights"), I doubt that you will try here either.

Since the rights and liberties available to heterosexuals are all available to gays - despite your invalid attempts to redefine marriage as the right to just marry anyone you want - your claim that the church was trying to deny those rights is invalid. Anyone can twist scripture and make comparisons with ark steadying in the manner you do, but your connection doesn't hold up under examination. It has been clearly demonstrated that SSM is a special privilege that will have significant adverse affects in the future. The church and its members had every right to oppose this social experiment, and to demonstrate what was really at stake. I don't buy into the redefinition of terms that SSM supporters have to resort to in order to rationalize that SSM is some kind of fundamental right. Redefinition is just that, and this one will not be good for society.

The church did the right thing under the direction of the Lord in supporting Prop 8. Perhaps instead of drawing invalid analogies with Christian persecution, and making absurd claims that the prophet was steadying the ark by speaking out against gay marriage, you can respond instead to the demonstrated intent of gay rights groups to subordinate religious freedoms to the acceptance of gay behavior.

[Kevin Kirkham]

rockpond, on 16 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

To declare that the Lord would be contradicting himself, you would first need to establish where He has spoken against same gender marriages.

JW - Family Proclamation

KK - LOL. The Proc is NOT a revelation. Neither does it claim to be. It was drafted by a committee and after it was revised 3 times it was accepted by Pres. Hinckley who then presented it to the FP and the 12 for their approval. It was drafted in 1995 during the same-sex marriage campaigns in Alaska and Hawaii. It was basically a political position paper to rally the troops to fight same-sex marriage.

It wasn't a revelation nor does it claim to be. Since it was never sustained via Common Consent, it isn't even official Church doctrine. Even revelations need sustaining via Common Consent to be considered official doctrine. It's been 18 years and there are no inklings about it being considered to be brought before the body of the Church for a sustaining vote. It'll never be either.

[Kevin Kirkham]

KK - 1 Cor. 10:29 tells us that we should NOT have supported Prop. 8.

CB - This is a very interesting post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is something that I haven't heard before. And that is saying alot when it comes to gay marriage. Kinda throws the whole slippery slope argument out the window doesn't it.

KK - Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[Kevin Kirkham]

KK - In Saudi Arabia, Christians can't build churches....

JW - Invalid analogy. The freedom to believe and to practice that belief is a basic right defined generally that way. Marriage is the right that has been defined a specific way, available to all, and a narrow special interest group is demanding special privileges within that right.

KK - The analogy is solid. In both cases government uses popular subjective standards as law and gives those meeting those willing to meet those standards objective legal and financial benefits. It tells those not willing to meet those standards that they are out of luck and could have those benefits if they simply CHOOSE to meet them. Some standards are meant to prevent objective harm (no forced or under age marriages, mo child sacrifices, etc... ) and some are simply based on capricious beliefs that serve no obective good (bans on inter-racial marriage and denying Christians the right to build churches). Denying same-sex marriage falls into the latter catagory.

Same-sex couples are simply asking that they, like the Lovings, be given equal treatment based on subjective standards.

There is a legal term, "similarly situated" which means that if 2 groups are basically the same, there is no reason to discriminate against one over the other. The only difference between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples is the most of the latter can produce offspring biologically related to both. Since we still allow straight couples to marry who are unable to produce biologically related kids, there is no difference between them and same-sex couples and therefore no objective reason to withhold marriage from them.

JW - Not only are they demanding special privileges, but they are demanding that their right - which is based on a behavioral trait, and not a belief - be embraced and that other rights, such as religious rights, be subordinated to that trait.

KK - CFR. If have yet to hear of any gay rights organization calling for laws to force churches to perform same-sex marriages. Most gays would object to that. You are simply grasping at straws.

[Kevin Kirkham]

JW - Since the rights and liberties available to heterosexuals are all available to gays - ...

KK - Like they were to the Lovings and Saudi Christians.

JW - ...despite your invalid attempts to redefine marriage as the right to just marry anyone you want - ...

KK - Prior to 8, gays had the RIGHT/LIBERTY to marry in CA and thousands did. We allowed our religious opinion on homosexuality to prompt us to infringe on those rights and liberties in violation of scrpture. This is a prime example of steadying the ark.

JW - ...your claim that the church was trying to deny those rights is invalid. Anyone can twist scripture and make comparisons with ark steadying in the manner you do,...

KK - PLEASE OH PLEASE show me how I twisted this. As I stated, "It was forbidden to touch the ark of the covenant, yet someone thought that it'd be OK to prevent something bad from potentially happening (the ark being damaged in a fall), yet God believed that we should do what is right (not touching the ark) and letting the consequence follow (it possibly being harmed). Prop. 8 is the exact same thing. We, as a church, steadied the ark by disobeying what scripture is saying about using our own moral opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others because we wanted to avoid something bad from happening. We steadied the ark in our open rebellion against the revealed and sustained word of God."

PLEASE OH PLEASE show me how I twisted this

JW - ...but your connection doesn't hold up under examination. It has been clearly demonstrated that SSM is a special privilege that will have significant adverse affects in the future.

KK - Uzzah said the same thing about not steadying the ark. If the ark fell and was damaged or destroyed, the Israelites couldn't take it into battle and be assured of victory. Surely God would understand if we ignored the commandment against touching it. God wouldn't want something he commanded to be built and be a blessing to his people to be accidentally destroyed. Surely that is a good reason to disobey God's commandments. this is EXACTLY the line of reason that you are taking above. It's OK that we allowed our religious opinion on homosexuality to prompt us to infringe on those rights and liberties in violation of scrpture. Surely God doesn't want us to suffer "significant adverse affects in the future." Surely avoiding such effects is a good reason to disobey God's commandments. We need to do what is right and let the consequence follow. Quit steadying the ark.

JW - Redefinition is just that, and this one will not be good for society.

KK - The opponents of the Lovings and the Imams in Saudi couldn't agree with you more.

JW - The church did the right thing under the direction of the Lord in supporting Prop 8.

KK - I saw no claims that any revelation was received. Nothing was sustained allowing it to supersede 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4. The prophets have stated that if their own words conflict with scripture that we are to hold to scripture and reject the prophet's words. Supporting Prop. 8 did just that.

JW - Perhaps instead of drawing invalid analogies with Christian persecution, and making absurd claims that the prophet was steadying the ark by speaking out against gay marriage, you can respond instead to the demonstrated intent of gay rights groups to subordinate religious freedoms to the acceptance of gay behavior.

KK - Again, I see evidence of this by any gay rights group. CFR.

[Kevin Kirkham]

KK - Again, I see evidence of this by any gay rights group. CFR.

KK - I obviously meant that I see NO evidence of this by any gay rights group. My bad.

[rockpond]

Family Proclamation.

Not revelation. You might have noticed that President Packer called it a revelation in his Oct 2010 address and then struck that remark and referred to it as a guide in the published version of his talk.

So, has the Lord spoken to us regarding same gender marriages?

Allow SSM in the temple would validate homosexual behavior - which is something the Lord has indicated is a sin, without regard to marital status.

You still have not established the "marital status" part of that statement.

They don't keep me awake either. But I do represent their danger to society.

A danger you have also not established other than fear that they could trample on our rights in the way that you currently would like to trample their rights.

Is there a compelling reason to allow gay marriages? Does it serve any purpose other than to grant a random privilege to a narrow interest group? I don't know of any. That means it's a purely social experiment, one that probably will have significant negative consequences down the road, as I have explained. To rationalize it solely on the basis of allowing people to marry who they want, without serving any other purpose to society, you have to also (if you're going to be consistent) evaluate other restrictions - such as age restrictions - based on the same criteria. If marrying who you want without restrictions is defined as a right, then that opens up a whole can of worms that is detrimental over the long term to society.

I don't believe that our constitution requires a "compelling reason" in order for the 14th amendment to apply. When did marriage become a "random privilege" and our brothers & sisters a "narrow interest group"?

I guess we must be done here because it's getting repetitive:

I understand that you think it's a "social experiment". (And yet many of our social experiments have had brilliant results.)

I understand that you feel there will be negative consequences based on what might be. (There is no way to prove your potential negative consequences, so we're at a stalemate.)

And you believe that if we lift the current gender restriction than we must examine all other restrictions. I get the logic here and am okay with examining other restrictions as long as those cases have merit.

The government has already proven that it is unable to rationally determine whether young people are mature enough to make decisions for themselves; a young girl can have an abortion without her parents' consent, if she so decides. Why should she not be able to decide, under the government's rationalizations, whether she should be able to marry or not?

Maybe she should.

The danger is that if the government looks at SSM, and decides that people should have the right to determine who they want to marry without restrictions, it is also very possible that they will eliminate age restrictions on marriage (reminding you that they cannot rationally determine the maturity level of young people) in the name of "rights". Age restrictions are already only loosely enforced in certain areas, and the protections they provide could be done away with totally if the government decides that everyone should have the right to marry - or live with, or do whatever - with anyone they choose.

This does not automatically follow from the removal of the gender restriction. This is just more of your expression of your fears of what could possibly happen. I'd prefer not to take a position on others' rights out of fear.

These are realistic possibilities that the SSM social experiment opens the door more widely for in our society, along with the loss of individual religious and associative freedoms.

And there are realistic possibilities that marriage equality creates more stable, loving relationships in our society. It's been almost nine years in Massachusetts -- as far as I've seen, the sky has not fallen.

So again - is there a compelling reason for society to create a special privilege for SSM?

There doesn't need to be... just the 14th amendment and other constitutional guarantees. But a personally compelling reasons for me is the desire for our homosexual brothers and sisters to enjoy the spiritual and legal benefits of marry that we enjoy. Marriage has been a great decision and a force for good in my life. I see no reason not to extend it to my friends and loved ones who happen to be gay.

[california boy]

First you take your own shot at gays that marry a member of the opposite sex by characterizing the vast majority of such marriages as ending in divorce - something that I doubt you can prove. Then you demand a CFR for gay rights groups looking down on such relationships, when you yourself have demonstrated that you regard them with disdain.

Ironic, isn't it, when you provide the response to your own CFR.

Are you actually claiming that gay rights groups and gay activists generally look benignly - despite your demonstrated sneer - on those gays who have successful marriages to a member of the opposite sex? That's absolutely ridiculous, and I think you're fully aware of that fact.

Boy you don't like being called out for your absured comments do you. Now you are claiming that I have ever stated that I disapprove of a gay man marrying a person of the opposite sex. The only statement that I have made is that such marriages generally end in divorce. This statement is confirmed by a study that shows 85% of mixed orientation marriages fail after only 3 years

(Barbara Couden Hernandez, Naomi J. Schwenke and Colwick M. Wilson of Loma Linda University use their paper, “Spouses in Mixed-Orientation Marriage: A 20-Year Review of Empirical Studies,” )

With that high of percentage ending in divorce, I as well as the church, certainly would not recommend someone entering a opposite sex marriege, But, I certainy do not deride someone who has made that choice.

I am requesting a CFR on "when you yourself have demonstrated that you regard them with disdain."

So now you have two CFR's

1. Show where I regarde mixed orientation marriages with distain.

2.CFR that gay right groups have a problem with a gay man marrying somone of the opposite sex. There may be some individuals that think it is doomed for failure, but I have never seen gay rights groups oppose such marriages. And do you have any numbers on the "supprising number" of such marriages?

Whitlock, slippery slope arguments have no credibility but they are allowed on this board. Making false statements to try and validate such arguments is not allowed on this board. So answer the CFR or admit you are making these accusation ups and have no validity. Seems fair enough to me.

[wenglund]

Essentially, what is at issue here is whether a given legal definition can be considered unconstitutional. If it can be, then on the same basis it draws into question all legal definitions.

All legal definitions, by their very nature, are discriminatory and limit the scope of the associated conferred rights. For example, the legal definition of the term "President of the United States," is highly discriminatory, and is legally defined in such a way that it only applies to one individual at a time, and the legal right to that title is quite restrictive--particularly in a practical sense. Does it make sense then to, in the name of "equality," consider the legal definition of POTUS to be unconstitutional since it doesn't, to some people's way of thinking, provide equal protection and the same due process to one and all?

This same question applies to such discriminatory definitions as, doctors, lawyers, teachers, adult, children, men, women, retired, disabled, natural-born, citizen, corporation, public, and even government, etc.

The problem as I see it is that the inanity of pop culture is influencing legal decisions in a way that denigrates the meaningfulness and common-sense of the law. Emotions have sway over reason. Consequently, it becomes a lose-lose proposition and turns our culture and government on its head.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

At the very heart of this issue are divergent ways in which we respectively define the notion of "equality." Here is one example of the differences I have mentioned in my "Wadester's Political Dictionary":

I point out other divergent meanings HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 17, 2013 by wenglund

[california boy]

Essentially, what is at issue here is whether a given legal definition can be considered unconstitutional. If it can be, then on the same basis it draws into question all legal definitions.

All legal definitions, by their very nature, are discriminatory and limit the scope of the associated conferred rights. For example, the legal definition of the term "President of the United States," is highly discriminatory, and is legally defined in such a way that it only applies to one individual at a time, and the legal right to that title is quite restrictive--particularly in a practical sense. Does it make sense then to, in the name of "equality," consider the legal definition of POTUS to be unconstitutional since it doesn't, to some people's way of thinking, provide equal protection and the same due process to one and all?

This same question applies to such discriminatory definitions as, doctors, lawyers, teachers, adult, children, men, women, retired, disabled, natural-born, citizen, corporation, public, and even government, etc.

The problem as I see it is that the inanity of pop culture is influencing legal decisions in a way that denigrates the meaningfulness and common-sense of the law. Emotions have sway over reason. Consequently, it becomes a lose-lose proposition and turns our culture and government on its head.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What is before the Supreme Court is not whether the current definition of marriage is constitutional but deciding if the definition of marriage should be expanded to include gay couples. Each time when the definition of marriage has come before the Supreme Court, the definition has been expanded. Loving expanded the definition to include mixed race couples for example. It is similar to other cases before the Surpeme Court. The definition of women's rights has been dramatically expanded to include much more than just the narrow meaning the words once held. Just recently the Supreme Court expanded the definition of what a corporation is. When blacks were given the full vote, the definition of a citizen was expanded to include them equally. If you claimed to be a doctor and started practicing medicine using 17 century definition, you would be locked up in jail. Same if you tried to practice law as it was defined during the time of Lincoln.

[jwhitlock]

Well, it's been interesting to see the twisting and rationalizations that are necessary in order to justify the direction SSM and special gay privilege is taking in this country. After shaking my head at the latest set of diatribes by people who post in fulfillment of Isaiah 5:20, I have the following observations:

• Anyone who would attempt to equate the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia with the demands of gay rights groups in the United States for special marriage privileges has hyped themselves so far out of the realm of credibility that they can't really be taken seriously. Gays in the United States enjoy every right that anyone else does, while Christians in Saudi Arabia and in other areas of the middle east are actively persecuted, fired from jobs, not allowed to worship, and treated fully as second class citizens. It's actually pretty insulting to make that comparison, if you think at all deeply about it.
  
• The whining of gay rights groups that because they don't have SSM, they're second class citizens, is mostly a product of the need to hype up the victimization aspect of the whole thing. Gay rights groups are pretty good at blowing this kind of thing all out of proportion, and those posting here in support of SSM have evidently bought hook, line, and sinker into that methodology. Gays have the same rights of marriage as everyone else, and there are gays who take advantage of that right and are successful at it. That's hardly second class citizenship.
  
• Anyone who thinks that gay rights groups regard mixed gender marriages that include a gay partner with anything other than distaste is simply denying the reality of gay rights groups' attitudes on the subject. Successful mixed gender marriages (that include a gay partner) undermine all the hype that those groups have set up to claim victim status. To demand a CFR for something like that is just a knee jerk denial of reality. In reading the blog of one rather well known LDS man with SSA who is very, very successfully married to a woman, there were hundreds of responses about how inspiring his account was. And yet, in virtually every instance that someone posted who self-identified themselves as gay, the comments were negative. This attitude is so consistently prevalent among gay rights groups, that I wonder how anyone could demand a knee jerk CFR on it.
  
• So called "studies" quoted to claim that the vast majority of mixed gender marriages fail are tempered by other studies and statistics more broad in what they look at. One estimate indicates that there are as many as 2 million couples currently in the U.S. where one of the partners is gay or lesbian. The issues with such marriages are far more complex than shallow attempts to dismiss gays who marry women as bound to fail.
  
• The Family Proclamation was rejected as any kind of authoritative declaration of LDS doctrine or procedure, despite its clear purpose as guidance in those areas. Evidently embracing the trends of the world demands that we reject what comes from the prophet. Who would have thought that possible?
  
• In connection with that, there appears to be an ongoing campaign by various SSM supporters, some who claim to be LDS, and some who aren't, who are telling us what the church really believes, and that there is no doctrinal reason to treat homosexual relations as a sin, and no reason to not allow gays to be sealed. This is in direct contradiction to historically clear declarations by God and His prophets that any homosexual behavior under any circumstances is a sin. And yes, SSM supporters demand a CFR for where God and the church has actually said that, as if a knee jerk denial of something that clear validates the demand for such a CFR.
  
• The "steady the ark" speculation by Kirkham to justify his calling the prophet and church to repentance required a liberal interpretation of scripture that any fundamentalist would envy. Evidently when God directs his prophet concerning moral directions, we are to listen to gay rights activists first before deciding whether the prophet is right or not. This particular interpretation was at least partially generated by the need to hype the victimization of gays with Prop 8, something that evidently is on par in this country as active Christian persecution in the middle east. (Not.)
  
• Consistent with the short attention span of most in our society, the mantra of SSM marriage supporters is "Do the right thing" or "Everyone should be able to marry who they want". That's their reality, and they don't want to hear about the potential consequences of making special exceptions for special interest groups. Indeed, when one looks at the actual number of gays that get married where it is legal, one is left wondering if there's actually that much interest at all in marriage by the general gay population. There are far more gays that enter into mixed gender marriages in this country than there are that enter into SSM where it's legal. And places where it's legal draw a large percentage of those marriages from states where it is not legal. There doesn't seem to be any willingness by SSM supporters to give any credibility at all to anything that might undermine their sound bites, and so it becomes very frustrating to wade through the knee jerk dismissals of things like the BSA situation which shed a great deal of light onto where all this is headed.
  

This whole exchange has been instructive to me, in that I realize more and more that the perspectives of SSM supporters and gay rights groups are so out of sync with reality that there probably will not be any way to work constructively with them. They are going to continue to drive their agenda down the throat of our society, and they will redefine reality in order to justify it. It is clearly evident that they will attempt to make religious and associative rights subject to being inclusive of gay behavior and lifestyles. The church is not going to compromise the direction it has received from God when it comes to moral issues, and so the battle lines are being clearly drawn.

[wenglund]

What is before the Supreme Court is not whether the current definition of marriage is constitutional but deciding if the definition of marriage should be expanded to include gay couples.

Wrong. You have it exactly backwards. The laws and constitutional amendments that are being challenged are those that define marriage as between a man and a woman. Laws that bastardize the definition of marriage to idiosyncratically include same sex couples, are not being challenged.

Each time when the definition of marriage has come before the Supreme Court, the definition has been expanded. Loving expanded the definition to include mixed race couples for example.

You again have it 180 degrees wrong. The law in that case was deemed unconstitutional precisely because it violated the longstanding traditional definition and right of marriage as between a man and a women. It violated the civil right of men and women, irrespective of race, to marry each other.

It is similar to other cases before the Surpeme Court. The definition of women's rights has been dramatically expanded to include much more than just the narrow meaning the words once held.

You are confusing essential/general legal definitions (which is what I spoke to) with specific detail application or qualifications of the law, and are thus missing the point by 180 degrees. In other words, you are obfuscating.

Just recently the Supreme Court expanded the definition of what a corporation is.

Creation of legal definitions are the purview of the legislature, not the judiciary. The court is there to interpret the legal definitions and determine their constitutionality when challenged. For them to do otherwise is a violation of separation of powers.

When blacks were given the full vote, the definition of a citizen was expanded to include them equally.

Again, you are confusing the essential/general definition with specific legal application pr qualifications of the law, and are thus missing the point by 180 degrees. Civil rights legislation and adjudication didn't change the definition of citizen/civilian, but used the longstanding definition as a means of overturning racist legislation.

The opposite is the case with challenges to traditional marriage laws and constitutional amendments. Violence is being done to the essential/general definition of marriage.

If you claimed to be a doctor and started practicing medicine using 17 century definition, you would be locked up in jail. Same if you tried to practice law as it was defined during the time of Lincoln.

The essential/general definition of doctor and lawyer haven't changed. They are still distinguishable from nurses and court stenographers. Those legal definitions are still as discriminatory, if not more so (via the changing qualifications) than they have been for centuries. People who do not meet the legal definition or qualification of doctor and lawyer ,ay not legally consider themselves as doctors or lawyers. In this case, at least to the conservative mind, and still in the mind of the law, equality means doctors = doctors and nurses = nurses, and doctors dont = nurses. Differences are defined and treated differently.

However, in our increasingly upside-down world, even though in terms of procreation (the basic issue of marital law) heterosexual relationships are not equal to homosexual relationships, nevertheless society seems insipidly intent on treating them the same. What can you do?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

Well, it's been interesting to see the twisting and rationalizations that are necessary in order to justify the direction SSM and special gay privilege is taking in this country. After shaking my head at the latest set of diatribes by people who post in fulfillment of Isaiah 5:20, I have the following observations:

• Anyone who would attempt to equate the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia with the demands of gay rights groups in the United States for special marriage privileges has hyped themselves so far out of the realm of credibility that they can't really be taken seriously. Gays in the United States enjoy every right that anyone else does, while Christians in Saudi Arabia and in other areas of the middle east are actively persecuted, fired from jobs, not allowed to worship, and treated fully as second class citizens. It's actually pretty insulting to make that comparison, if you think at all deeply about it.
  
• The whining of gay rights groups that because they don't have SSM, they're second class citizens, is mostly a product of the need to hype up the victimization aspect of the whole thing. Gay rights groups are pretty good at blowing this kind of thing all out of proportion, and those posting here in support of SSM have evidently bought hook, line, and sinker into that methodology. Gays have the same rights of marriage as everyone else, and there are gays who take advantage of that right and are successful at it. That's hardly second class citizenship.
  
• Anyone who thinks that gay rights groups regard mixed gender marriages that include a gay partner with anything other than distaste is simply denying the reality of gay rights groups' attitudes on the subject. Successful mixed gender marriages (that include a gay partner) undermine all the hype that those groups have set up to claim victim status. To demand a CFR for something like that is just a knee jerk denial of reality. In reading the blog of one rather well known LDS man with SSA who is very, very successfully married to a woman, there were hundreds of responses about how inspiring his account was. And yet, in virtually every instance that someone posted who self-identified themselves as gay, the comments were negative. This attitude is so consistently prevalent among gay rights groups, that I wonder how anyone could demand a knee jerk CFR on it.
  
• So called "studies" quoted to claim that the vast majority of mixed gender marriages fail are tempered by other studies and statistics more broad in what they look at. One estimate indicates that there are as many as 2 million couples currently in the U.S. where one of the partners is gay or lesbian. The issues with such marriages are far more complex than shallow attempts to dismiss gays who marry women as bound to fail.
  
• The Family Proclamation was rejected as any kind of authoritative declaration of LDS doctrine or procedure, despite its clear purpose as guidance in those areas. Evidently embracing the trends of the world demands that we reject what comes from the prophet. Who would have thought that possible?
  
• In connection with that, there appears to be an ongoing campaign by various SSM supporters, some who claim to be LDS, and some who aren't, who are telling us what the church really believes, and that there is no doctrinal reason to treat homosexual relations as a sin, and no reason to not allow gays to be sealed. This is in direct contradiction to historically clear declarations by God and His prophets that any homosexual behavior under any circumstances is a sin. And yes, SSM supporters demand a CFR for where God and the church has actually said that, as if a knee jerk denial of something that clear validates the demand for such a CFR.
  
• The "steady the ark" speculation by Kirkham to justify his calling the prophet and church to repentance required a liberal interpretation of scripture that any fundamentalist would envy. Evidently when God directs his prophet concerning moral directions, we are to listen to gay rights activists first before deciding whether the prophet is right or not. This particular interpretation was at least partially generated by the need to hype the victimization of gays with Prop 8, something that evidently is on par in this country as active Christian persecution in the middle east. (Not.)
  
• Consistent with the short attention span of most in our society, the mantra of SSM marriage supporters is "Do the right thing" or "Everyone should be able to marry who they want". That's their reality, and they don't want to hear about the potential consequences of making special exceptions for special interest groups. Indeed, when one looks at the actual number of gays that get married where it is legal, one is left wondering if there's actually that much interest at all in marriage by the general gay population. There are far more gays that enter into mixed gender marriages in this country than there are that enter into SSM where it's legal. And places where it's legal draw a large percentage of those marriages from states where it is not legal. There doesn't seem to be any willingness by SSM supporters to give any credibility at all to anything that might undermine their sound bites, and so it becomes very frustrating to wade through the knee jerk dismissals of things like the BSA situation which shed a great deal of light onto where all this is headed.
  

This whole exchange has been instructive to me, in that I realize more and more that the perspectives of SSM supporters and gay rights groups are so out of sync with reality that there probably will not be any way to work constructively with them. They are going to continue to drive their agenda down the throat of our society, and they will redefine reality in order to justify it. It is clearly evident that they will attempt to make religious and associative rights subject to being inclusive of gay behavior and lifestyles. The church is not going to compromise the direction it has received from God when it comes to moral issues, and so the battle lines are being clearly drawn.

I take it you are not going to answer the two CFR's that I asked for. It is easier to rattle on rather than come up with supporting facts. I get it.

[Kevin Kirkham]

JW - Anyone who would attempt to equate the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia with the demands of gay rights groups in the United States for special marriage privileges has hyped themselves so far out of the realm of credibility that they can't really be taken seriously. Gays in the United States enjoy every right that anyone else does, while Christians in Saudi Arabia and in other areas of the middle east are actively persecuted, fired from jobs, not allowed to worship, and treated fully as second class citizens. It's actually pretty insulting to make that comparison, if you think at all deeply about it.

KK - You clearly mischaracterize my point. i didn't equate their levels of persecution. I equated the logic both sets of persecutors use. The LOGIC is identical. Sures gays are free to marry in the US...just marry somone of the opposte sex. Christains in Saudi Arabia are free to to attend worship services...just at a mosque. Your assertion of equality for gays here is identical to the assertion that Christians in Saudi Arabia have equal rights of religious worship.

JW - Gays have the same rights of marriage as everyone else, and there are gays who take advantage of that right and are successful at it. That's hardly second class citizenship.

KK - See above.

JW - Anyone who thinks that gay rights groups regard mixed gender marriages that include a gay partner with anything other than distaste is simply denying the reality of gay rights groups' attitudes on the subject. Successful mixed gender marriages (that include a gay partner) undermine all the hype that those groups have set up to claim victim status.

KK - No, it simply shows that some people care more about what their religion teaches than about their heart wants. Just because LDS can get through the day without coffee does not mean we should outlaw coffee.

JW - To demand a CFR for something like that is just a knee jerk denial of reality. In reading the blog of one rather well known LDS man with SSA who is very, very successfully married to a woman, there were hundreds of responses about how inspiring his account was. And yet, in virtually every instance that someone posted who self-identified themselves as gay, the comments were negative. This attitude is so consistently prevalent among gay rights groups, that I wonder how anyone could demand a knee jerk CFR on it.

KK - Critics are often sensitive to such men because their cases offer those oppossed to equality an excuse for their position. The French that supported Hitler are not evidence of all French being able to thrive under the Nazis either.

JW - The Family Proclamation was rejected as any kind of authoritative declaration of LDS doctrine or procedure, despite its clear purpose as guidance in those areas. Evidently embracing the trends of the world demands that we reject what comes from the prophet. Who would have thought that possible?

KK - I can provide SEVERAL quotes from the Brethren that only the scriptures are officially binding. It is, at best, current LDS policy. It calls for members to support laws that mandate the rejection of SSM and was extensively used in passing Prop. 8. Because Prop. 8 violated 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4, and I've yet to hear how I've misinterpreted those verses, The Proc. is FALSE DOCTRINE, at least as far as Prop. 8 goes.

JW - In connection with that, there appears to be an ongoing campaign by various SSM supporters, some who claim to be LDS, and some who aren't, who are telling us what the church really believes, and that there is no doctrinal reason to treat homosexual relations as a sin, and no reason to not allow gays to be sealed. This is in direct contradiction to historically clear declarations by God and His prophets that any homosexual behavior under any circumstances is a sin.

KK - Believe it or not, I'm on your side here.

JW - The "steady the ark" speculation by Kirkham to justify his calling the prophet and church to repentance required a liberal interpretation of scripture that any fundamentalist would envy. Evidently when God directs his prophet concerning moral directions, we are to listen to gay rights activists first before deciding whether the prophet is right or not.

KK - No, we're supposed to measure the prophets' words by the scriptures. That's what President Lee said. I've explained my "steady the ark" position and showed how I came to it in painstaking detail and I have yet, despite asking several times, to hear how I twisted the relevant verses. If I'm wrong, explain HOW I butchered the verses and if you can't, admit it and quit trying to use smoke and mirrors to avoid facing the cold hard facts.

JW - This particular interpretation was at least partially generated by the need to hype the victimization of gays with Prop 8, something that evidently is on par in this country as active Christian persecution in the middle east. (Not.)

KK - WTF!?!?!?! My interpetation is solid. The ONLY motivation is truth. One of my favorite talk show hosts says that the truth has no agenda.

JW - Indeed, when one looks at the actual number of gays that get married where it is legal, one is left wondering if there's actually that much interest at all in marriage by the general gay population.

KK - Maybe someone said that to the Lovings about "the actual number of (different raced couples) that get married where it is legal".

JW - It is clearly evident that they will attempt to make religious and associative rights subject to being inclusive of gay behavior and lifestyles.

KK - I have yet to see any evidence of that.

[rockpond]

Essentially, what is at issue here is whether a given legal definition can be considered unconstitutional. If it can be, then on the same basis it draws into question all legal definitions.

All legal definitions, by their very nature, are discriminatory and limit the scope of the associated conferred rights. For example, the legal definition of the term "President of the United States," is highly discriminatory, and is legally defined in such a way that it only applies to one individual at a time, and the legal right to that title is quite restrictive--particularly in a practical sense. Does it make sense then to, in the name of "equality," consider the legal definition of POTUS to be unconstitutional since it doesn't, to some people's way of thinking, provide equal protection and the same due process to one and all?

This same question applies to such discriminatory definitions as, doctors, lawyers, teachers, adult, children, men, women, retired, disabled, natural-born, citizen, corporation, public, and even government, etc.

The problem as I see it is that the inanity of pop culture is influencing legal decisions in a way that denigrates the meaningfulness and common-sense of the law. Emotions have sway over reason. Consequently, it becomes a lose-lose proposition and turns our culture and government on its head.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, it's true. Granting marriage rights to gay people would require a redefinition of "President of the United States". In fact, in the 9 states where same gender marriage is now law, they have had to change the term "governor" to mean "anyone who steps foot in the state capitol building". Mass chaos has ensued.

[rockpond]

Well, it's been interesting to see the twisting and rationalizations that are necessary in order to justify the direction SSM and special gay privilege is taking in this country. After shaking my head at the latest set of diatribes by people who post in fulfillment of Isaiah 5:20, I have the following observations:

• Anyone who would attempt to equate the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia with the demands of gay rights groups in the United States for special marriage privileges has hyped themselves so far out of the realm of credibility that they can't really be taken seriously. Gays in the United States enjoy every right that anyone else does, while Christians in Saudi Arabia and in other areas of the middle east are actively persecuted, fired from jobs, not allowed to worship, and treated fully as second class citizens. It's actually pretty insulting to make that comparison, if you think at all deeply about it.
  
• The whining of gay rights groups that because they don't have SSM, they're second class citizens, is mostly a product of the need to hype up the victimization aspect of the whole thing. Gay rights groups are pretty good at blowing this kind of thing all out of proportion, and those posting here in support of SSM have evidently bought hook, line, and sinker into that methodology. Gays have the same rights of marriage as everyone else, and there are gays who take advantage of that right and are successful at it. That's hardly second class citizenship.
  
• Anyone who thinks that gay rights groups regard mixed gender marriages that include a gay partner with anything other than distaste is simply denying the reality of gay rights groups' attitudes on the subject. Successful mixed gender marriages (that include a gay partner) undermine all the hype that those groups have set up to claim victim status. To demand a CFR for something like that is just a knee jerk denial of reality. In reading the blog of one rather well known LDS man with SSA who is very, very successfully married to a woman, there were hundreds of responses about how inspiring his account was. And yet, in virtually every instance that someone posted who self-identified themselves as gay, the comments were negative. This attitude is so consistently prevalent among gay rights groups, that I wonder how anyone could demand a knee jerk CFR on it.
  
• So called "studies" quoted to claim that the vast majority of mixed gender marriages fail are tempered by other studies and statistics more broad in what they look at. One estimate indicates that there are as many as 2 million couples currently in the U.S. where one of the partners is gay or lesbian. The issues with such marriages are far more complex than shallow attempts to dismiss gays who marry women as bound to fail.
  
• The Family Proclamation was rejected as any kind of authoritative declaration of LDS doctrine or procedure, despite its clear purpose as guidance in those areas. Evidently embracing the trends of the world demands that we reject what comes from the prophet. Who would have thought that possible?
  
• In connection with that, there appears to be an ongoing campaign by various SSM supporters, some who claim to be LDS, and some who aren't, who are telling us what the church really believes, and that there is no doctrinal reason to treat homosexual relations as a sin, and no reason to not allow gays to be sealed. This is in direct contradiction to historically clear declarations by God and His prophets that any homosexual behavior under any circumstances is a sin. And yes, SSM supporters demand a CFR for where God and the church has actually said that, as if a knee jerk denial of something that clear validates the demand for such a CFR.
  
• The "steady the ark" speculation by Kirkham to justify his calling the prophet and church to repentance required a liberal interpretation of scripture that any fundamentalist would envy. Evidently when God directs his prophet concerning moral directions, we are to listen to gay rights activists first before deciding whether the prophet is right or not. This particular interpretation was at least partially generated by the need to hype the victimization of gays with Prop 8, something that evidently is on par in this country as active Christian persecution in the middle east. (Not.)
  
• Consistent with the short attention span of most in our society, the mantra of SSM marriage supporters is "Do the right thing" or "Everyone should be able to marry who they want". That's their reality, and they don't want to hear about the potential consequences of making special exceptions for special interest groups. Indeed, when one looks at the actual number of gays that get married where it is legal, one is left wondering if there's actually that much interest at all in marriage by the general gay population. There are far more gays that enter into mixed gender marriages in this country than there are that enter into SSM where it's legal. And places where it's legal draw a large percentage of those marriages from states where it is not legal. There doesn't seem to be any willingness by SSM supporters to give any credibility at all to anything that might undermine their sound bites, and so it becomes very frustrating to wade through the knee jerk dismissals of things like the BSA situation which shed a great deal of light onto where all this is headed.
  

This whole exchange has been instructive to me, in that I realize more and more that the perspectives of SSM supporters and gay rights groups are so out of sync with reality that there probably will not be any way to work constructively with them. They are going to continue to drive their agenda down the throat of our society, and they will redefine reality in order to justify it. It is clearly evident that they will attempt to make religious and associative rights subject to being inclusive of gay behavior and lifestyles. The church is not going to compromise the direction it has received from God when it comes to moral issues, and so the battle lines are being clearly drawn.

First, I did not reject the Family Proclamation as having authoritative doctrinal value. I just said that it wasn't revealed from the Lord. You had claimed that He had spoken on the matter. I'm not aware that He has. I would use caution when invoking Isaiah 5:20 lest there be something in your own eye.

Second, based on your writing above, am I to sit back and pretend that the homosexual community has never been persecuted or treated as second class citizens? They are fighting for their rights because it's what they've had to do their entire lives.

Plus, its good that the gay rights groups are out there since they are the basis for your argument against gay marriage. Without their "demands" I'm not sure what your case would boil down to.