Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[jwhitlock]

A minority within a minority is still a minority. But like I said, I know it works well for you to call them a special interest group.

It's a little early to conclude that only a small percentage really want to get married. Currently their marriages are not federally recognized nor do their marriages remain legally recognized as they cross state borders.

I don't see equality under the law and due process as a special privilege. And it's a freedom of religion issue either way. A number of churches perform marriages for homosexuals. But the marriages performed in those churches aren't granted the same legal status as other marriages performed in other churches.

Are those churches just narrow special interest groups as well?

Well, as long as you want to misrepresent SSM as a right instead of what it really is - a special privilege designed only for a narrow special interest group - then I guess I can see how you'd be confused about what's going on.

And it's not too early to look at the demographics of SSM, and to take into consideration the growing backlash among gays themselves against SSM. We do have a number of years of data to work with, don't we.

[jwhitlock]

Certainly, it makes all the difference for 'those ones' who choose to embark on the rich journey of marriage's challenges, sacrifices, sorrows, and joys. What a great day it will be for marriage when, rather than sourly criticize and condemn an entire class of people simply because a majority have not yet chosen to enact marital commitments, we as a society choose to encourage, commend, congratulate, support, and celebrate with those that do.

You are certainly well aware of the concern I have about SSM - that when it becomes the law of the land, there is a clear possibility that groups such as Affirmation will sue the church to perform gay sealings in the temple. If you look at their mission statement, you can't help but see that coming. So when you talk about criticizing and condemning an entire class of people, when it is only a small percentage of that class of people who want SSM, you misrepresent my concerns.

[Deborah]

I haven't read through this whole thing but I'm sure this has been addressed, but the thing disturbing about this thread is the use of the word "crusade." It shows how a single word can change the whole intent of something. The church has never had what I would call a crusade. It has encouraged its members to stand for moral principles. What a difference between taking a stand and a crusade.

[rockpond]

I haven't read through this whole thing but I'm sure this has been addressed, but the thing disturbing about this thread is the use of the word "crusade." It shows how a single word can change the whole intent of something. The church has never had what I would call a crusade. It has encouraged its members to stand for moral principles. What a difference between taking a stand and a crusade.

One definition of crusade is: any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.

In that sense, the title of this thread is correct. But, I agree with you in the sense that crusade is an emotionally loaded word especially when used in connection with a church. In that context it hearkens to the ancient Christian military expeditions which is obviously an incorrect characterization and an overstatement.

[rockpond]

Well, as long as you want to misrepresent SSM as a right instead of what it really is - a special privilege designed only for a narrow special interest group - then I guess I can see how you'd be confused about what's going on.

And it's not too early to look at the demographics of SSM, and to take into consideration the growing backlash among gays themselves against SSM. We do have a number of years of data to work with, don't we.

I still don't see the 14th amendment as a special privilege. And SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental civil right.

The "growing backlash among gays themselves against SSM"? Care to elaborate? Or, did I miss that by joining the thread late?

[rockpond]

#1 - How exactly are homosexuals taxed to encourage the homosexual lifetstyle? I am pretty much against encouraging rampant sexual activity of any kind.

#2 - How exactly are they unequal? You can be as gay as you want to be in this society and no one says ding. Its when you start saying, "Well, my sexual choices are just like heterosexuality ... even though we have loads more sexual partners on average than heterosexuals, for .. well, we don;t want to discuss that aspect of our lives, but we demand to be treated like equals ... which means forcing you to pay us because otherwise we will call you a bigot?"

What is not agree with there brother?

And while we are at it, since we are advocating taking all moral questions regarding sex and making the relative and subject to equality ... why are we discriminating against polygamists? Why do we treat them as such disenfranchised hobos? What about adulterers? Clearly they were just born that way, so why even allow that as a basis for divorce (which, BTW - its isn't grounds for divorce in the UK ... er, but only applicable in homosexual marriages ... which are of course equal?) While we are at it, why are we discriminating against good old fashioned pedophilia? Clearly groups like NAMBLA, who claim that that sex between men and boys is clearly natural are being discriminated against?

http://www.charisman...edophile-rights

Don;t let that get in the way though ...

By all means, you tell me why you can delineate between criminalizing pedophilia - which is of course simply 'born' - but not homosexuality? Is denying a NAMBLA member the equality of the ability to pursue the love of his life really a denial of rights? Or is it acknowledgment that sexuality is secondary and that we have the ability to control our sexual desire?

And clearly, some sexual choices are better than others. Not all are criminal - but simply because you subjectively declare it equal ... doesn't mean it is. And that my friend brushes dangerously close to the part of this debate that really gets my gall ... that of the homosexuals community's tendency to demand that you accept their opinions, not because they are convincing ... but because failure to do so will result in you being branded a bigot.

Of course, since we have tarred this as a battle for equality ... we'll leave unadressed the questions of sexuality and morality that this issue raises, as well as the establishment of any criteria about when we get to tell someone that their sexual choices are not something that everyone else has to pay you to engage in. As in, you make your choices, and I will make mine - its just that mine has been accepted as optimal for millenia ... and yours? Well, they have been tolerated for periods in history and, with each instance, that tolerance has come to end ... but really, I am sure all our predecessors were idiots and bigots ... but NOW we'll get it right because we have declared it a battle for ... equality.

Tell me, how exactly would you react if the gist of my argument was that if you support homosexual 'rights' is because you hate God and are an anti-religious bigot? And at what point should I stop demanding the equality of my religious views and your bigoted attempt to remove them from the public sphere? I would wager that you would not be terribly impressed by such an argument?

SO the real question, is why anyone expects that argument to be compelling in reverse? As we are talking about equality ... lets start with equality in standards, and see if we can craft some standards that allow objective assessment of individual sexual choices and their benefit for society? And then figure out which ones we should through money at.

#1 -- You've stated that from a governmental standpoint, taxes are used to encourage heterosexual marriage choices. You seem to feel that is appropriate. Then you stated that heterosexuals shouldn't have to pay taxes that are used to encourage homosexual marriage. So, I'm asking why you feel it's appropriate for homosexuals to pay taxes to support heterosexual marriage.

#2 -- You wrote: "You can be as gay as you want to be in this society and no one says ding." Cute. But not entirely true. Just this year, the city of Pocatello rejected an ordinance that would have made it illegal to discriminate in housing and employment against homosexuals. Ding.

I wonder if you see the irony in your argument that homosexuals are promiscuous therefore we should prohibit them from entering into the loving, monogamous, legally binding commitment that we call marriage. I'd ask you to consider where you might be had you not only been prohibited from marrying since you were young but if you had also been told that you are not worthy of a relationship in the eyes of God.

In response to some of your other points: I don't think we should prohibit the practice of polygamy. I believe that doing so has created some unfavorable conditions in those communities. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to protect our children, and they cannot legally consent, so I am against pedophilia. Adultery is not a valid comparison to homosexuality as adultery is a specific action while homosexuality is an innate orientation.

To answer your questions: You should never stop asserting your 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion. And homosexuals should not stop demanding their 14th amendment rights to due process and equality under the law. These things are not mutually exclusive as you seem to be suggesting.

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to people throwing money at sexual choices. I'm happy to discuss it but you'll have to clarify.

[wenglund]

I don't know. When do you think the homosexual community should have stopped asking for equality? Just before marriage? Perhaps before civil unions? Maybe they shouldn't have asked to not be discriminated against in housing & employment matters?

When should heterosexual friends stop asking for equal treatment as civil unions and SSM? When should minority-age children stop asking for equal treatment as adults in terms of drivers licenses, voting, contractual agreements, purchase and consumption of alcohol and tobacco, and marriage? When should the rich stop asking for equal treatment as the poor when it comes to tax rates? When should the uneducated stop asking for equal treatment as the educated in term of professional licenses (doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.). Why should homosexuals get special treatment when it comes to alleged inequality? When should friends and children and rich people and uneducated and other minorities stop asking for equal treatment as homosexuals?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 21, 2013 by wenglund

[The Nehor]

Is the crusade to retake the Holy Land still on?

[go_utes01]

Is the crusade to retake the Holy Land still on?

Jackson County?

[The Nehor]

Jackson County?

I am really not picky about which Holy Land it is.

[wenglund]

And SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental civil right.

Yes...but what definition of "marriage" did they have in mind?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[gree0232]

#1 -- You've stated that from a governmental standpoint, taxes are used to encourage heterosexual marriage choices. You seem to feel that is appropriate. Then you stated that heterosexuals shouldn't have to pay taxes that are used to encourage homosexual marriage. So, I'm asking why you feel it's appropriate for homosexuals to pay taxes to support heterosexual marriage.

Because before you start asking people to pay for a societal level benefit, which heterosexual marriage does ... in direct comparison to ... single promiscuity (which we do not support with taxes), you actually have to make a case about homosexual marriage having a societal level benefit.

The gist of your case is that it is not fair ... but only to homosexuals. Why then do we not have a special tax code single people? Who are either exercising their agency or were simply born with an aversion to nuptials?

In short, the entire premise of your argument is that homosexuality is both equal to heterosexual marriage in every aspect and should be treated that way ... because you say so. Well, that is hardly a convincing argument is it?

The benefits of heterosexual marriage are well documented. The Regernus study raised serious issues about homosexual relationships, and what was the response? To declare facts that were against the homosexual agenda irrelevant.

So, we are paying money to people essentially to stop them from screaming 'bigot'? And in the meantime, as I have proven, we still have the hyper sexuality issue in homosexuality ... which in and of itself leads to serious issues with self esteem and self worth - MUCH higher incidents of suicides (which lds4 attempted to use as a emotional lever yesterday BTW). We also have the sticky hasbian problem ... what happens when a legally married gay couple ... suddenly has one partner realize he or she is no longer gay? And the entire legal basis of homosexual marriage is that such swaps are ... impossible?

And how much else has been swept under the rug or into the shadows because no one wants to tell a gay person that their choices have consequences? Better by far to pretend that our choices have no consequences, better yet to rationalize that they are not choices at all, and just through some money at a vocal minority and hope that everything magically solves itself?

And tell me, as you have laid this subjective equality case based on opinion and devoid of facts, why should we do this for homosexuals ... but not polygamists (even though we know, and can indeed see in the Middle East right now, that polygamy leads inevitably to the exploitation and subjugation of women ... which polygamists will of course deny)? Why not pedophiles? Why not adulterers, because who in their right mind would choose to be an unworthy adulterer ... must be genetic?

Are we starting to see the problem?

If gays want people to pay them at a societal level, then THEY have the duty to document and produce a societal level benefit commensurate with the investment. Volume is content.

#2 -- You wrote: "You can be as gay as you want to be in this society and no one says ding." Cute. But not entirely true. Just this year, the city of Pocatello rejected an ordinance that would have made it illegal to discriminate in housing and employment against homosexuals. Ding.

I wonder if you see the irony in your argument that homosexuals are promiscuous therefore we should prohibit them from entering into the loving, monogamous, legally binding commitment that we call marriage. I'd ask you to consider where you might be had you not only been prohibited from marrying since you were young but if you had also been told that you are not worthy of a relationship in the eyes of God.

In response to some of your other points: I don't think we should prohibit the practice of polygamy. I believe that doing so has created some unfavorable conditions in those communities. I believe that we have a moral responsibility to protect our children, and they cannot legally consent, so I am against pedophilia. Adultery is not a valid comparison to homosexuality as adultery is a specific action while homosexuality is an innate orientation.

To answer your questions: You should never stop asserting your 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion. And homosexuals should not stop demanding their 14th amendment rights to due process and equality under the law. These things are not mutually exclusive as you seem to be suggesting.

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to people throwing money at sexual choices. I'm happy to discuss it but you'll have to clarify.

And will the Pocatello law stand? Or will it be immediately challenged and revolked by a court? The idea that the homosexual community in San Fransisco has been shaken to its core and forced into the shadow is silly. Every minor challenge is not discrimination ... there are laws and ordinances against fat people, bal;d people, etc. etc. etc. And even if gay marriage laws are passed, people will still attempt to pass laws restricting restricting homosexuality. Ding.

The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuals are denied no rights in this country. They can vote. They are highly educated and often in the upper reaches of the economy. Hold position in Congress, in the administration, and even the military now ... all quite openly. There is literally more anti-Mormon sentiment out there then there is anti-homosexual sentiment.

Perhaps, even as a convert, I should adopt the lesson of the homosexual community? Begin pleading about what a victim I am? And who would choose this oppression? Clearly, despite being a convert, I was BORN to be Mormon? There must be a Mormon gene out there? Rather than respond to difficult questions in the spirit of exploration and understanding, I should just call everyone who disagrees with our faith a bigot? For example, rather than explain our church's position on sexuality, and how that encapsulates a view of homosexual activity, I should respond with volume and demand government payments to relive the emotional toil of having been denied the basic access of constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom?

Convincing isn't it?

Tax incentives are not 'due process or equality'. Once again, why do I get 'extra' benefits as a combat veteran? Because the government KNOWS that it needs Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to carry out operations in support of its National Objectives. We have decided to do this on a voluntary basis rather than through compulsory conscription. Thus the government pays additional benefit to encourage those choices. Yet the premise of your argument is that the government is violating the 14th amendment because ... the choice to avoid service in Iraq is just as valid an individual choice to serve. There is truth in that statement, but the government set a policy that required Soldiers and set policy to encourage one choice over another ... quite legal.

the same goes for cars. The government set policy to give tax credits for hybrid cars - encouraging choices in more fuel efficient vehicles, that is pretty patently unfair to truck buyers who now have to pay more for that truck? Clearly a violation of the 14th amendment?

Once again, the basis of your case is that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are intrinsically and immutably equal, and thus denying it violates the 14th amendment. Yet you provide exactly zero evidence that this is the case, indeed you avoid entirely the conclusions of the Regnerus study or any of the other testimonies provided that cast doubt on that assumption. In short, you are asking us to take a sexual act on faith, as a fundamental right ... while continuing to caste moral judgement on all other long reviled sexual practices ... for no particular reason other than apparently that denying them tax benefits is unequal.

It is unequal. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal. I highly suggest you visit a local gay bar and see what I have seen. See the anonymous sex in the bathrooms, the overtly displayed sexuality, listen to the tails of sexual exploits, and then tell me that this lifestyle, with is intense focus of sexuality - a focus that dwarfs even our highly sexuality heterosexual society - is 'equal'. That it is devoid of problems, perfect in every way, and ready for government to advocate the choice for all our young to engage in freely ... to find love and the far end of a promiscuous tunnel of sexualized lust?

[rockpond]

Because before you start asking people to pay for a societal level benefit, which heterosexual marriage does ... in direct comparison to ... single promiscuity (which we do not support with taxes), you actually have to make a case about homosexual marriage having a societal level benefit.

The gist of your case is that it is not fair ... but only to homosexuals. Why then do we not have a special tax code single people? Who are either exercising their agency or were simply born with an aversion to nuptials?

In short, the entire premise of your argument is that homosexuality is both equal to heterosexual marriage in every aspect and should be treated that way ... because you say so. Well, that is hardly a convincing argument is it?

The benefits of heterosexual marriage are well documented. The Regernus study raised serious issues about homosexual relationships, and what was the response? To declare facts that were against the homosexual agenda irrelevant.

So, we are paying money to people essentially to stop them from screaming 'bigot'? And in the meantime, as I have proven, we still have the hyper sexuality issue in homosexuality ... which in and of itself leads to serious issues with self esteem and self worth - MUCH higher incidents of suicides (which lds4 attempted to use as a emotional lever yesterday BTW). We also have the sticky hasbian problem ... what happens when a legally married gay couple ... suddenly has one partner realize he or she is no longer gay? And the entire legal basis of homosexual marriage is that such swaps are ... impossible?

And how much else has been swept under the rug or into the shadows because no one wants to tell a gay person that their choices have consequences? Better by far to pretend that our choices have no consequences, better yet to rationalize that they are not choices at all, and just through some money at a vocal minority and hope that everything magically solves itself?

And tell me, as you have laid this subjective equality case based on opinion and devoid of facts, why should we do this for homosexuals ... but not polygamists (even though we know, and can indeed see in the Middle East right now, that polygamy leads inevitably to the exploitation and subjugation of women ... which polygamists will of course deny)? Why not pedophiles? Why not adulterers, because who in their right mind would choose to be an unworthy adulterer ... must be genetic?

Are we starting to see the problem?

If gays want people to pay them at a societal level, then THEY have the duty to document and produce a societal level benefit commensurate with the investment. Volume is content.

And will the Pocatello law stand? Or will it be immediately challenged and revolked by a court? The idea that the homosexual community in San Fransisco has been shaken to its core and forced into the shadow is silly. Every minor challenge is not discrimination ... there are laws and ordinances against fat people, bal;d people, etc. etc. etc. And even if gay marriage laws are passed, people will still attempt to pass laws restricting restricting homosexuality. Ding.

The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuals are denied no rights in this country. They can vote. They are highly educated and often in the upper reaches of the economy. Hold position in Congress, in the administration, and even the military now ... all quite openly. There is literally more anti-Mormon sentiment out there then there is anti-homosexual sentiment.

Perhaps, even as a convert, I should adopt the lesson of the homosexual community? Begin pleading about what a victim I am? And who would choose this oppression? Clearly, despite being a convert, I was BORN to be Mormon? There must be a Mormon gene out there? Rather than respond to difficult questions in the spirit of exploration and understanding, I should just call everyone who disagrees with our faith a bigot? For example, rather than explain our church's position on sexuality, and how that encapsulates a view of homosexual activity, I should respond with volume and demand government payments to relive the emotional toil of having been denied the basic access of constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom?

Convincing isn't it?

Tax incentives are not 'due process or equality'. Once again, why do I get 'extra' benefits as a combat veteran? Because the government KNOWS that it needs Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to carry out operations in support of its National Objectives. We have decided to do this on a voluntary basis rather than through compulsory conscription. Thus the government pays additional benefit to encourage those choices. Yet the premise of your argument is that the government is violating the 14th amendment because ... the choice to avoid service in Iraq is just as valid an individual choice to serve. There is truth in that statement, but the government set a policy that required Soldiers and set policy to encourage one choice over another ... quite legal.

the same goes for cars. The government set policy to give tax credits for hybrid cars - encouraging choices in more fuel efficient vehicles, that is pretty patently unfair to truck buyers who now have to pay more for that truck? Clearly a violation of the 14th amendment?

Once again, the basis of your case is that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are intrinsically and immutably equal, and thus denying it violates the 14th amendment. Yet you provide exactly zero evidence that this is the case, indeed you avoid entirely the conclusions of the Regnerus study or any of the other testimonies provided that cast doubt on that assumption. In short, you are asking us to take a sexual act on faith, as a fundamental right ... while continuing to caste moral judgement on all other long reviled sexual practices ... for no particular reason other than apparently that denying them tax benefits is unequal.

It is unequal. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal. I highly suggest you visit a local gay bar and see what I have seen. See the anonymous sex in the bathrooms, the overtly displayed sexuality, listen to the tails of sexual exploits, and then tell me that this lifestyle, with is intense focus of sexuality - a focus that dwarfs even our highly sexuality heterosexual society - is 'equal'. That it is devoid of problems, perfect in every way, and ready for government to advocate the choice for all our young to engage in freely ... to find love and the far end of a promiscuous tunnel of sexualized lust?

What are the societal level benefits that our tax dollars currently provide through heterosexual marriage?

And, what are homosexuals asking tax payers to pay for?

I don't know how you would go about quantifying and comparing which minority (Mormon or gay) has more "anti" sentiment levied against it. But I will say this, I am aware of far more hate crimes committed against homosexuals than Mormons.

I appreciate your service to our country and believe that you deserve those well-earned benefits.

The equality I see between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage is that everyone should be able to marry the gender that they are attracted to. Marriage is a wonderful institution and religious ordinance that has greatly blessed my life. I'd like all who desire to be able to participate.

[wenglund]

And, what are homosexuals asking tax payers to pay for?

Where do you think the money will come from to cover the cost of the 1,100+ federal marriage benefits homosexuals are asking for, not to mention the state-mandated marital benefits and privileges? Where do you think the money will come from to cover the cost of adjudicating the dissolution of same-sex marriages once they are legalized?

In accordance with board rules regarding volatile issues, I am waiting for the number of active SSM threads to drop down so that I can open a new thread in which I plan to expound upon all the financial and social cost of SSM. It won't be pretty.

The equality I see between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage is that everyone should be able to marry the gender that they are attracted to. Marriage is a wonderful institution and religious ordinance that has greatly blessed my life. I'd like all who desire to be able to participate.

Why limit your overly-simplistic focus of marital equality to just gender? If equality is all this is about for you, then why don't you also look at age (everyone of every age should be able to marry who they are attracted to), and familial relationships (everyone, no matter how closely they are related, should be able to marry who they are attracted to), or varied human relationships (everyone, including purely platonic friends, should be able to marry), or species (every living thing should be able to marry who they are attracted to), etc. etc.?

You are being unfair and unequal to these other kinds of relationships by selectively discriminating in favor of homosexuals when it comes to marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 21, 2013 by wenglund

[LDS4]

Just curious; do you support the inspired leadership of the church? It seems odd that you would call them inspired and then ignore them so blithely.

The Brethren has disavowed the idea of infallibility. They have stated that if their words conflict with the scriptures, that their words are to be rejected and scripture upheld. Prop 8 violated scripture because it encouraged us to use our religious beliefs to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. This violates 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4. our support of Prop. 8 is therefore a clear example of us "steadying the ark".

[rockpond]

Where do you think the money will come from to cover the cost of the 1,100+ federal marriage benefits homosexuals are asking for, not to mention the state-mandated marital benefits and privileges? Where do you think the money will come from to cover the cost of adjudicating the dissolution of same-sex marriages once they are legalized?

In accordance with board rules regarding volatile issues, I am waiting for the number of active SSM threads to drop down so that I can open a new thread in which I plan to expound upon all the financial and social cost of SSM. It won't be pretty.

Why limit your overly-simplistic focus of marital equality to just gender? If equality is all this is about for you, then why don't you also look at age (everyone of every age should be able to marry who they are attracted to), and familial relationships (everyone, no matter how closely they are related, should be able to marry who they are attracted to), or varied human relationships (everyone, including purely platonic friends, should be able to marry), or species (every living thing should be able to marry who they are attracted to), etc. etc.?

You are being unfair and unequal to these other kinds of relationships by selectively discriminating in favor of homosexuals when it comes to marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I've asked you, a number of times, to explain which benefits taxpayers are paying for. You have declined... probably because the details don't support your position.

Here you've mentioned one cost to taxpayers: adjudicating the dissolution of marriages. So, I'll respond -- I don't like that my tax dollars go to pay for the adjudication of heterosexual divorces. But, as long as we are required to pay for those divorce proceedings, equality under the law and due process would require that homosexual divorces be given the same benefit. However, if it were up to me, I'd say the divorcing parties be required by law to reimburse all court costs.

I've responded to your other red herrings before...

Age: We don't allow minors to enter into legally binding contracts. In my profession, even if a minor of sound mind knowingly signs a contract, it is void the moment the minor decides that it isn't what they want.

Familial Relationships: If someone wants to make a case for this, let them. I don't see anyone standing up to ask for it. I think it's disturbing, but I'll listen to the argument.

Varied Human Relationships (platonic, friends): This is already permitted. There is no litmus test requiring romantic love nor is there a requirement for physical intimacy.

Species: We only recognize the ability of humans to legally consent.

[wenglund]

Prop 8 violated scripture because it encouraged us to use our religious beliefs to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others....

This statement betrays a profound misunderstanding of Prop 8. All Prop 8 did was constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman. It didn't restrict any personal rights or liberties. It merely limited which relationships the government would sanction as "married." Years before Prop 8, homosexual sexual relationships were legally sanctioned by the state of California under the name of "domestic partnerships"--which, at the state level, entitled them to equal rights as marriages.

This violates 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4.

Please explain the alleged violation of these scriptures--presumably without wresting them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDS4]

Civil rights don't depend on choice vs. immutability. For example, religious affiliation is neither biological nor innate--it is entirely a matter of choice. And yet, our government recognizes the importance of each individual's civil right to join and practice the religion of their own choice.

I agree 1000%. We know that political affiliation is a choice. Perhaps SSM opponents would be OK with a law saying that Democrats couldn't vote and if they wanted to vote, they'd have to declare themselves as being Republican. No one's right to vote would be harmed since the person CHOOSES to be denied the ability to vote because they insist on remaining a Democrat. Gays likewise CHOOSE to be denied the benefits of marriage because they CHOOSE/INSIST on marrying someone to whom they are sexually attracted. It's their own dang fault.

[rockpond]

This statement betrays a profound misunderstanding of Prop 8. All Prop 8 did was constitutionally define marriage as between a man and a woman. It didn't restrict any personal rights or liberties. It merely limited which relationships the government would sanction as "married." Years before Prop 8, homosexual sexual relationships were legally sanctioned by the state of California under the name of "domestic partnerships"--which, at the state level, entitled them to equal rights as marriages.

Immediately prior to Prop 8, citizens of California had the ability to legally marry someone of the same gender.

Immediately after Prop 8 was signed into law, citizens of California no longer had the ability to legally marry someone of the same gender.

Those are the facts. Do you dispute them?

It sure seems that Prop 8 infringed on the "rights and liberties of others" as LDS4 correctly stated.

[USU78]

Immediately prior to Prop 8, citizens of California had the ability to legally marry someone of the same gender.

You did know that, immediately prior to a court ruling on a prior referendum outlawing same-sex marriage, no citizen had that right . . . right?

So, the sovereign people voted once . . . and an activist court overturned their will . . . so they voted again, this time for a constitutional amendment . . . and an activist court again overturned their will.

Yet you failed to point this out.

Why?

[rockpond]

You did know that, immediately prior to a court ruling on a prior referendum outlawing same-sex marriage, no citizen had that right . . . right?

So, the sovereign people voted once . . . and an activist court overturned their will . . . so they voted again, this time for a constitutional amendment . . . and an activist court again overturned their will.

Yet you failed to point this out.

Why?

I didn't point it out because it didn't seem relevant to the point Wade was making (and because I know Wade is well aware of it having had many discussions with him).

And yes, the people of California voted for Prop 22 in 2000. I was one of them.

And a court ruled that Prop 22 was unconstitutional... That's why Prop 8 modified the CA constitution. And now Prop 8 faces an appeal to the federal constitution.

But, that's why we have a U.S. Constitution it protects certain rights from being infringed upon either by the government or by a majority vote (as in the case of CA).

And none of that changes that point that LDS4 made to which Wade was responding.

[go_utes01]

Familial Relationships: If someone wants to make a case for this, let them. I don't see anyone standing up to ask for it. I think it's disturbing, but I'll listen to the argument.

Didn't he just make the argument? What is your response? Based on your criteria, how would you justify denying the right to marry based on consanguinity? Thanks.

[rockpond]

Didn't he just make the argument? What is your response? Based on your criteria, how would you justify denying the right to marry based on consanguinity? Thanks.

I don't justify denying it. That is my response. I find it disturbing. But I'm also not aware of any significant number of people saying that they would like to marry someone who is already closely related. If people are asking for it, I'm open to hearing the constitutional case for it.

But Wade's bringing it up is a red herring. He doesn't believe people who are blood relatives should get married because Wade only believes that people who theoretically have the ability to conceive healthy children who will benefit the state should be legally married.

I think that marriage is two unrelated people, who are romantically in love, committing to spend their lives (and eternities) together. Often, those people make that commitment before God (as I have done).

But you see, my personal opinion of marriage isn't relevant to the constitutional argument. Neither is Wade's.

[go_utes01]

I don't justify denying it. That is my response. I find it disturbing. But I'm also not aware of any significant number of people saying that they would like to marry someone who is already closely related. If people are asking for it, I'm open to hearing the constitutional case for it.

But Wade's bringing it up is a red herring. He doesn't believe people who are blood relatives should get married because Wade only believes that people who theoretically have the ability to conceive healthy children who will benefit the state should be legally married.

I think that marriage is two unrelated people, who are romantically in love, committing to spend their lives (and eternities) together. Often, those people make that commitment before God (as I have done).

But you see, my personal opinion of marriage isn't relevant to the constitutional argument. Neither is Wade's.

Is there some differentiating factor for you - besides you finding it "disturbing" - or is that the criteria you use to determine who should be allowed to be married or have their relationships officially recognized/sanctioned/promoted by the government? Just curious.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I've asked you, a number of times, to explain which benefits taxpayers are paying for. You have declined... probably because the details don't support your position.

You tend to trot out this same demonstrably false statement each time you wish to avoid answering my direct questions, likely because you know the obvious answer blows your argument out of the water, and you just want to save face.

Be that as it may, anyone with any awareness of taxation and the IRS would be know of the different filings (single and married), and the tax implication associated therewith, as well as tax benefits to a spouse in relation to the death of the other spouse. They wouldn't need me to spell it out for them.

Now, If you aren't willing to take my word for it, and aren't intent on burying your head in the sand, just head over to the IRS web site and search under the parameter of "married." It should keep you busy for some time.

Here you've mentioned one cost to taxpayers: adjudicating the dissolution of marriages. So, I'll respond -- I don't like that my tax dollars go to pay for the adjudication of heterosexual divorces. But, as long as we are required to pay for those divorce proceedings, equality under the law and due process would require that homosexual divorces be given the same benefit. However, if it were up to me, I'd say the divorcing parties be required by law to reimburse all court costs.

That is an interesting proposition, though I question its feasibility.

Even still, you are missing the point because you apparently forgot or ignored the context under which the question was raised. Please go back and re-read the line of discussion preceding the question so as to see why the question was asked to begin with, (Hint: the taxpayer costs for heterosexual marriages as compared with SSM were not being viewed in isolation, but in relation to interests served that warranted the cost. In the case of heterosexual marriages, there were interest served that warranted the cost to taxpayers. The opposite is true for SSM.)

I've responded to your other red herrings before...

Age: We don't allow minors to enter into legally binding contracts. In my profession, even if a minor of sound mind knowingly signs a contract, it is void the moment the minor decides that it isn't what they want.

Familial Relationships: If someone wants to make a case for this, let them. I don't see anyone standing up to ask for it. I think it's disturbing, but I'll listen to the argument.

Varied Human Relationships (platonic, friends): This is already permitted. There is no litmus test requiring romantic love nor is there a requirement for physical intimacy.

Species: We only recognize the ability of humans to legally consent.

Again, you aren't getting the obvious point of these very relevant analogies. In each of the cases above, there is unequal treatment. There is clear inequality. Given your obsession with equality, these examples of inequality should cause you great consternation.

And, for you to be consistent in your "equal treatment" argument, you are obliged to advocate removing age or relationship or species restrictions from legal marriage.

Furthermore, if you are going to make exceptions on the grounds of "consent," then you need to justify that exception in a way that doesn't undermine your objection to traditional marriage as an exception. In other words, you would have to justify why your reasons to discriminate in marital law based on "consent" should be given unequal preference to the traditional discrimination.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-