Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[rockpond]

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.

I don't use my personal feelings or religious beliefs as criteria for which relationships should be legally recognized. I try to base that in the constitution.

The fact is, I've never really looked into the concept of consanguineous marriages (is that the right word?). I haven't read about them so I don't really have a strong opinion either way. But if people were to make a constitutional argument in favor of it, I'd listen to both sides.

[rockpond]

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.

Which demonstrably false statement? And which direct questions have I avoided? I thought I had answered them all.

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.

Okay... so you've identified two benefits: "married filing jointly" and automatic inheritance benefits. Both of those are ways that married people can pay less taxes than non-married counterparts. Correct?

Why should committed homosexual couples not receive those benefits? Neither of those require that children had been conceived through the union. Both potentially benefit the raising of children be they adopted, born of surrogacy/AI, or through natural conception. So I don't see a logical reason that heterosexuals should have exclusive access to such benefits. Do you?

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.)

Wade -- I spent 15 pages in a thread with you trying to prove that point and ultimately you stopped responding to my questions. You never arrived a conclusion that supported your argument. Both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples raise children. Society has an interest in making sure those children are well cared for regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents. You still have not identified a benefit that heterosexual couples provide that is exclusive over homosexual couples.

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.

Minors and other species are not given equal treatment under the law. Marriage is restricted to consenting adults and I am comfortable with that restriction under the constitution.

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.

Because the laws in our country apply differently to consenting adults than they do to minors or those who do not have the capacity to consent.

[wenglund]

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?

I don't dispute the facts. What I dispute is whether those facts have any meaningful bearing on what I said to LDS4. They don't.

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

It is only correct in an extraordinary strained and unreasonable sense, which is why I responded.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I don't dispute the facts. What I dispute is whether those facts have any meaningful bearing on what I said to LDS4. They don't.

It is only correct in an extraordinary strained and unreasonable sense, which is why I responded.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let me ask it this way...

If the state you live in passed a ballot proposition (which was upheld on judicial review) that said marriages performed in LDS temples and meetinghouses will only be legally recognized as Domestic Partnerships would you feel that your "rights and liberties" had NOT been infringed upon?

We, as members of the church, would still have all the same rights, correct? Just a different name which seems to be okay with you.

[LDS4]

What I meant by that is that besides the Atonement, the central doctrines of the Church revolve around the Temple sealing and the concept of spiritual offspring of eternal couples. With that as a key doctrine and the unlikelihood that the Church is ever going to start sealing gay couples that leaves the gay member just kind of out there -- think how many talks we have in Church about eternal families and the Temple, etc. etc. Many singles feel isolated and out of the mainstream, can't imagine what it would be like to not only be single -- but know that is likely to be a permanent condition for this life and wonder what God is going to do to "fix" you so you can be exalted in the next.

My personal belief, for what it's worth, is that the Atonement will cover this. We know that the atonement addresses other physical, mental, emotional maladies and I believe that SSA will be relieved and that people will be sealed to others in the same way children who die while children will be sealed to others. SSA is something that those afflicted with it simply must accept and endure to the end. Others have different issues that likewise have life long effects that often affect whether or not they marry in this life.

[awyatt]

Both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples raise children. Society has an interest in making sure those children are well cared for regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents. You still have not identified a benefit that heterosexual couples provide that is exclusive over homosexual couples.

I'm not Wade, of course, but it seems to me that there is one rather glaring exclusive benefit that is only available with a heterosexual couple as parents: heterosexual role models. It is impossible for a homosexual male couple to provide a female role model and it is impossible for a homosexual female couple to provide a male role model. All other things being equal, it is much more likely that a boy will learn how to be a male parent from a male parent and a girl how to be a female parent from a female parent. If either is absent (which, by definition, they are in anything but a two-parent heterosexual marital model), then the child arguably suffers.

[rockpond]

I'm not Wade, of course, but it seems to me that there is one rather glaring exclusive benefit that is only available with a heterosexual couple as parents: heterosexual role models. It is impossible for a homosexual male couple to provide a female role model and it is impossible for a homosexual female couple to provide a male role model. All other things being equal, it is much more likely that a boy will learn how to be a male parent from a male parent and a girl how to be a female parent from a female parent. If either is absent (which, by definition, they are in anything but a two-parent heterosexual marital model), then the child arguably suffers.

Agreed. And there are all kinds of different situations that are more favorable to others. Another example might be a stay-at-home parent. But, we don't legislate that. I'd prefer that all kids get to grow up in a two parent home without the difficulty of divorce and with parents who deeply love each other. But my preferences don't get incorporated into the tax code.

[Avatar4321]

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 that's not the definition of marriage.

[go_utes01]

Agreed. And there are all kinds of different situations that are more favorable to others. Another example might be a stay-at-home parent. But, we don't legislate that. I'd prefer that all kids get to grow up in a two parent home without the difficulty of divorce and with parents who deeply love each other. But my preferences don't get incorporated into the tax code.

I do not believe that the government should be in the business of incentivizing behavior through the tax code. However, if it is in that business, I see nothing wrong with incentivizing the best (or perceived best) behavior over sub-optimal. There could be a stay-at-home-parent tax credit and we already incentivize staying married (or at least try to through the tax code).

[LDS4]

Bikeemikey,

I consider myself a libertarian as well and have a couple of questions regarding your position on SSM. My understanding of the proper role of government (although I may be a bit more anarcho-capitalistic myself) comports quite closely with your understanding, i.e. the government (I would prefer no monopoly on force, but whatever) may impose itself into citizens' lives to stop harm. Based on this understanding, I do not get your pro-SSM stance. I am against the government taking any role in the condoning or legitimizing our interpersonal relationships. By that I mean I would prefer to see the government not involved in marriage law at all. There could be some sort of civil unions or other contractual enforcement to deal with relationship formation and dissolution, including assets and liability allocation. But, I do not see why, based on your understanding of the role of government, you would be in favor of the government increasing its scope to interfering in SS relationships. Are you saying the government is harming these relationships by not providing the same incentives as for OSM? If you believe that the government should not be making value judgments (other than consent) on relationships, do you believe that other relationships should be provided the same incentives/acknowledgement from the government, e.g. consanguinity (should two adult brothers or sisters or adult child have their "marriage" recognized and incentivized by the state? And if the state does not, wouldn't it be making an invalid value judgment?), polygamy? Just curious. Thanks.

The problem lies in the theoretical ideal meeting reality. As a fellow libertarian, I see this a lot. There are 2 issues here -

(1) Our Constitution requires that government treat all people equally (Due Process / Equal Protection) and so therefore, we must either allow SSM or dissolve all current and future heterosexual marriages. We can't have heterosexuals keep marriage and then give gay couples Civil Unions. That's no different than having "separate but equal" drinking fountains. Both convey one group being "more equal" than another.

(2) Given the above, if we choose to dissolve all current and future marriages, then all current and future couples will have to sign a private legal agreement outlining the terms and conditions of their "union" including terms and conditions for duties, causes for dissolution, etc...and who gets what, etc... If a man has a stay-at-home spouse and he dies without legal document, then she is treated simply as a roommate and all of their property goes to his parents/siblings if he has no kids. Also, can you imagine all of the litigation that will take place? it would be a mess.

The easiest and simplest course of action would be to allow SSM. Is it in keeping with pure libertarianism? No, but neither is heterosexual marriage. Does it make the most sense when it comes to practicality and protecting everyone's Due Process / Equal Protection rights? Yes. having a "no tolerance" policy regarding rejecting anything that isn't in keeping with pure libertarianism makes about as much sense as those "no tolerance" drug policies where kids are expelled for having an aspirin or "no tolerance" weapon policy where they're sent home for having a plastic knife in their lunch box to cut their food.

We libertarians (of all stripes) need to remember this if we have any hope of advancing freedom.

[rockpond]

But that's not the definition of marriage.

Exactly... It's only MY definition of marriage.

[rockpond]

I do not believe that the government should be in the business of incentivizing behavior through the tax code. However, if it is in that business, I see nothing wrong with incentivizing the best (or perceived best) behavior over sub-optimal. There could be a stay-at-home-parent tax credit and we already incentivize staying married (or at least try to through the tax code).

Yes, but then we'd get into endless debates on what exactly is optimal. And honestly, it could and would be argued that "optimal" is situation dependent. Statistics are great but they don't apply to an individual's life.

[jwhitlock]

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

The demand for SSM as a special privilege has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. I don't particularly care of SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental civil right; if they have, then they've made a mistake. Neither you nor I has any right to be married without the consent of someone else. That means it's not in the same category as real fundamental rights such as religious freedom, which are pursued on an individual basis.

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

You need to become a bit better acquainted with the very conflicting agendas various factions of the gay community have. A very vocal faction is opposed to SSM, which they view as nothing more than a ploy to get gays to conform to a "straight" practice; they want gays to define their own relationships (as it were) on their own terms. Perhaps you're not aware of the antipathy some gays have towards those they term as straight. Do a little reading and get familiar with it, since it helps put SSM into a different perspective.

[LDS4]

As to the example of polygamy and close family I am obligated to provide them the same status... However, it is reasonably foreseeable that if close family members procreate they could produce offspring with dramatic physical disability. The state would then have legitimate grounds for prosecution of such a couple, increased tax burden to offset the health costs, penalties fines etc.

I agree, but then we must also allow the state to prosecute those who have known genetic and communicable disorders that likewise procreate. Tay-Sachs, Sickle-Cell Anemia, AIDS, etc...are examples that can be passed on to kids that MAY cost the government $. BTW, since we currently allow those with such maladies to marry, why is it illegal for near relatives (consenting adults) to marry? What if the near relatives are past child bearing age? What is the rationale for disallowing such marriages?

[jwhitlock]

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".

This isn't the first time I've heard this argument. It's a classic case of twisting scripture to justify redefining that which is evil as good, and that which is good as evil. It would appear that your main rationalization her is that if you can re-interpret scripture to your liking, you can ignore the leaders of the church.

I believe that constitutes priestcraft, as the Book of Mormon defines it.

[rockpond]

The demand for SSM as a special privilege has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. I don't particularly care of SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental civil right; if they have, then they've made a mistake. Neither you nor I has any right to be married without the consent of someone else. That means it's not in the same category as real fundamental rights such as religious freedom, which are pursued on an individual basis.

You need to become a bit better acquainted with the very conflicting agendas various factions of the gay community have. A very vocal faction is opposed to SSM, which they view as nothing more than a ploy to get gays to conform to a "straight" practice; they want gays to define their own relationships (as it were) on their own terms. Perhaps you're not aware of the antipathy some gays have towards those they term as straight. Do a little reading and get familiar with it, since it helps put SSM into a different perspective.

Yeah, I don't see marriage equality as being in the same category as religious freedom. But calling it a "special privilege" is also moving too far from the 14th Amendment for my taste.

There are heterosexual people who are against marriage as well. Doesn't mean we should trash the whole concept. That some gays don't want marriage doesn't diminish the right of gays who DO want it.

My lesbian aunt wasn't particularly interested in marriage -- didn't really see the need for it. And then she met the woman that she wanted to spend the rest of her life with and suddenly being able to legally marry her became important.

[LDS4]

As far as incentivizing, as long as the government is in the business of incentivizing relationships or any actions (something I wholeheartedly do not believe it should be in the business of), I believe it is legitimate to only incentivize the ideal - or what the people reasonably believe to be the ideal. As long as other relationships are not outlawed or banned, I do not believe that providing an increased incentive for one and not others is inherently illegitimate.

OK, how about the ideal being couples that produce healthy kids within 5 years of marriage? SSM opponents often claim that gay couples do not provide societal utility because they don't help society to carry on. This would prohibit the marriage of any woman over 50 and would revoke the marriage licenses of those who are unable or unwilling to reproduce. Such a law would definately send a message to society as to what an ideal family is. Are you in?

[jwhitlock]

Let me ask it this way...

If the state you live in passed a ballot proposition (which was upheld on judicial review) that said marriages performed in LDS temples and meetinghouses will only be legally recognized as Domestic Partnerships would you feel that your "rights and liberties" had NOT been infringed upon?

Fascinating. You give us a situation in which a current clearly defined right (mixed gender marriages) would be denied to LDS, and then you try to infer a comparison implying that the right to mixed gender marriages, while not allowing same sex marriages is the same kind of denial of rights.

It's not the same thing. I find it astounding that SSM supporters twist things like this.

[LDS4]

I'm teaching the 14-15 year olds in my ward about the Proclamation on the Family this Sunday.

The proc was written in 1995 when Hawaii and Alaska had SSM initiatives on the ballot. It was written as a public policy statement and a rallying cry to oppose SSM (see the Proc's last paragraph). It's use in the prop. 8 battle was wrong since doing so violated 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4's prohibitions against using religious opinions as justification to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Gays had the right to marry in CA prior to 8 and 8 infringed upon that right.

[wenglund]

Okay... so you've identified two benefits: "married filing jointly" and automatic inheritance benefits.

I will take this as a tacit admission that your claim in your previous post was false about me declining to explain which benefits taxpayers are paying for. The two I identified here, were also touched on in the other thread.

Both of those are ways that married people can pay less taxes than non-married counterparts. Correct?

That is correct. Said another way, both are ways that cost the government in terms of lower revenues.

Why should committed homosexual couples not receive those benefits?

Why restrict your question to homosexual couples? Why not ask the same question about any couple, or anyone?

The answer is simple for both questions. The reason homosexual couples and other non-married couples or people shouldn't receive those benefits is because they don't satisfy the interest for which the benefits were given to begin with. The tax benefits were given to encourage traditional marriage.

The exceptions to this general rule are those states where there are domestic partnerships or civil unions. In those states, and in terms of state and local taxes, homosexual couple do receive those benefits, and have no need to be "married" to receive them. They were extended those benefits under domestic partnerships and civil unions, not because it makes sense in terms of why the tax benefits were put in place to begin with, but because of people's inane sense of equality. Domestic partnerships and civil unions are almost as asinine as SSM, the difference being that they don't mangle the definition of marriage.

Neither of those require that children had been conceived through the union.Both potentially benefit the raising of children be they adopted, born of surrogacy/AI, or through natural conception. So I don't see a logical reason that heterosexuals should have exclusive access to such benefits. Do you?

First of all, you are conflating marital tax benefits with depend tax benefits.

Second, why are you focusing just on homosexual couples? There are people raising children other than married heterosexual couples, including single mothers, siblings, etc.

And, third, the potential for having children and raising those children is radically different for heterosexual couples than it is for homosexual couples, with the latter being the rare exception, and the former being the overwhelming general rule. Tax benefits are enacted with the general rule in mind, and not the rare exceptions.

Wade -- I spent 15 pages in a thread with you trying to prove that point and ultimately you stopped responding to my questions. You never arrived a conclusion that supported your argument.

False. Over those 15 or so pages, I set forth my argument, time and again, in painstaking detail and with ample substantiation and I arrived multiple times at the obvious conclusion. I stopped answering your questions because you kept asking me for things I had already answered over and over again without you being able to see it.

Both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples raise children.

Yes, and so do single mothers and single fathers and siblings, and grandmothers and aunts and a host of other alternative parental situations. Are you suggesting that we should bring all these alternative parental situations under the legal definition of marriage because they are raising children? Are you suggesting that they all should receive spousal tax benefits even though they don't have a spouse? In order for your inane equality argument to be consistent, that is what you would have to argue.

Society has an interest in making sure those children are well cared for regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents.

Again, why are you focused just on sexual orientation? Why doesn't your argument treat single parents equal to homosexual couples with children? Why aren't you advocating changing the legal definition of marriage to include single mothers with children? And, why doesn't your argument focus also on people without children? Why aren't you speaking up for single people without children being treated equal to those with children? Why are you discriminating?

Again, in order for your inane equality argument to be consistent, you can't discriminate like you have.

You still have not identified a benefit that heterosexual couples provide that is exclusive over homosexual couples.

Yes I have (hint: biological parents--emphasis on the plural of the word). Even still, my argument isn't for exclusivity (I don't know where you got that from), but in terms of general rules as opposed to rare exceptions. Perhaps if I repeat this enough it just might sink in.

Minors and other species are not given equal treatment under the law. Marriage is restricted to consenting adults and I am comfortable with that restriction under the constitution.

Because the laws in our country apply differently to consenting adults than they do to minors or those who do not have the capacity to consent.

I understand what the laws are and how they apply. What I asked you for is your justification for the legal inequality--the inequality you now say you are comfortable with? Why is consent a justification for legal discrimination in marital laws? And, since adult incestuous relationships may be consensual, then why aren't you comfortable legalizing that?

I am hoping you are beginning to see just how utterly irrelevant the notion of equality is to the SSM debate, though I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Fascinating. You give us a situation in which a current clearly defined right (mixed gender marriages) would be denied to LDS, and then you try to infer a comparison implying that the right to mixed gender marriages, while not allowing same sex marriages is the same kind of denial of rights.

It's not the same thing. I find it astounding that SSM supporters twist things like this.

The question was asked in the context of Wade's assertion that the rights and liberties of at couples (who could legally marry in CA) were not infringed when Prop 8 was passed.

[jwhitlock]

Yeah, I don't see marriage equality as being in the same category as religious freedom. But calling it a "special privilege" is also moving too far from the 14th Amendment for my taste.

Yet "special privilege" describes exactly what SSM is. It's taking an existing right available to all, as the number of gays in mixed gender marriages demonstrates, and redefining it in a way that is only applicable to a narrow special interest group.

There are heterosexual people who are against marriage as well. Doesn't mean we should trash the whole concept. That some gays don't want marriage doesn't diminish the right of gays who DO want it.

Except for the distinct possibility that some gays will try to force the church to perform gay sealings in the temples should SSM become law.

.

[jwhitlock]

The question was asked in the context of Wade's assertion that the rights and liberties of at couples (who could legally marry in CA) were not infringed when Prop 8 was passed.

So? What you were inferring was pretty clear.

[wenglund]

Let me ask it this way...

If the state you live in passed a ballot proposition (which was upheld on judicial review) that said marriages performed in LDS temples and meetinghouses will only be legally recognized as Domestic Partnerships would you feel that your "rights and liberties" had NOT been infringed upon?

I certainly would not feel that my rights or my liberties had been infringed.

We, as members of the church, would still have all the same rights, correct?

Correct.

Just a different name which seems to be okay with you.

Just a different legal name, which I wouldn't object to on the basis of "rights and liberties." I might, however, object to the want of rational basis for the selective idiosyncratic naming.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDS4]

By my calculations, in the nine years since SSM was legalized in Mass., only about 5.5% of the gay population is now married--rendering the whole gay marriage push a farce.

The big benefits come from the feds, not the state. When SSM is legalized nationwide, the rates will markedly increase. Also, since most religions vehemently oppose homosexuality, there will be fewer religious gays, as a % than in the straight population. One of the biggest reasons people marry is to fulfill a religious mandate and since gays are less religious, they won't have that incentive to marry in the same degree and so it isn't fair to expect them to match the rates of straights.