Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[rockpond]

I can't speak to why others may have brought it up, but I brought it up, along with a list of other data points, as a way of demonstrating stark differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The context of my statement in which I brought it up made that quite clear.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Right... and the reason you are pointing out those perceived relationship differences is what? That gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

[LDS4]

rockpond, on 21 May 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

And SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental civil right.

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

They said that the definition that precluded a subjective, religion supported restriction and said that people should be able to marry whom they wish. maybe we should "liken this unto ourselves" in this case as well.

[awyatt]

rockpond, on 21 May 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

And SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental civil right.

They said that the definition that precluded a subjective, religion supported restriction and said that people should be able to marry whom they wish.

Where, exactly, did SCOTUS say any of this? I've done a search for the term "fundamental civil right" and "marriage," but could find nothing that came from or referenced SCOTUS.

-Allen

[rockpond]

Where, exactly, did SCOTUS say any of this? I've done a search for the term "fundamental civil right" and "marriage," but could find nothing that came from or referenced SCOTUS.

-Allen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

If you scroll down to the "Decision" section you'll see the quote from Chief Justice Earl Warren.

[LDS4]

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?

Maybe we could deny those same benefits to the senior citizens who marry and those who never produce kids. Since they are basically no different than gays since none are producing kids.

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.?

Anyone who can legally enter into a contract should be able to do so.

[rockpond]

Maybe we could deny those same benefits to the senior citizens who marry and those who never produce kids. Since they are basically no different than gays since none are producing kids.

+1

What is interesting in this debate is that so far there have only been several benefits identified that require taxpayer funds (or reduce tax revenue to the government). And of those benefits, none are attached to producing children. So I am not seeing a case made for U.S. Citizens "paying" for heterosexually married couples to conceive children.

[jwhitlock]

LDS4 - The same applies to christians in Saudi Arabia. they have the right to attend a mosque and study the Koran just like everyone else. They are treated equally.

JW - Invalid comparison. This is strained.

LDS4 - Hardly. Both the gays here and the Christians there can have the same societal benefits that the respective majorities have as long as they acquiesce. If they deny who they are and live like the majority, then they have the same benefits anyone else has. Where is the comparison wrong?

Besides the fact that freedom of religion is a matter of individual conscience and a fundamental human right, relationships where consent of another person is required are not technically rights in the same sense. Comparing recognition of marriage by the government to the fundamental right of freedom of religion is simply a bad analogy. The more fundamental right is to enter into a relationship of some sort with any person of your choosing. In that sense, gays have the same rights as anyone else, so not only is the Saudi analogy invalid, it's applied to the wrong question. What makes your position more difficult is that marriage recognition, as it is currently structured, is available to any adult including gays, and there are a significant number of gays who choose to live within that arrangement. Perhaps they recognize, at least deep down inside, that the complementary true male / female partnership in marriage provides something that same sex relationships can never duplicate.

************

LDS4 - In CA, the gays had the R-I-G-H-T to marry prior to Prop.8. The Church violated its own official doctrine (the scriptures) in supporting 8 and in so doing became guilty of steadied the ark.

JW - The Church denied gays equal treatment to the gays.

Gays had the right to marry prior to the court order giving them the special privilege to modify the definition of marriage to suit them - something Prop 8 was designed to rectify. Claims that the Church denied equal treatment to gays are bogus.

LDS4 - I never said that the Church denied the gays the rights. The Church doesn't have the civil authority to do so. The CA State Supreme Court, as stated, said that Prop. 22 violated the state Constitution. Prop. 8 was simply a way to overrule the Court. You are free to disagree with the court's decision, but you can't dismiss it as a court order giving someone special rights. it gave gays EQUAL rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course, you conveniently choose to ignore the fact that the court overruled the will of the people in defining marriage in the first place.

As I have noted, gays had equal rights to relationships. The modification demanded of them of recognition of SSM is a modification to the existing structure that only applies to them. It's much like someone from England demanding to drive on the left side of the road in the U.S. because that's what they prefer. Couching such a modification to the rules in terms of "rights" is to misrepresent what they really are.

*************

LDS4 - The same could be said of Christians in Saudi Arabia. They too are demanding special rights benefiting only them (the right to build Christian churches).

JW - Again, invalid comparison. The basic right to religious freedom doesn't compare to special privilege involved in redefining existing rights already to suit a narrow special interest group, when those rights are already universally available..

LDS4 - The right to public worship is universally available in Saudi Arabia. Why should Christians be given "special privileges in redefining existing rights already to suit a narrow special interest group," especially in a Muslim country?

These analogies created by SSM supporters, along with the misrepresentation of SSM as a "right" are rationalizations that don't stand up to scrutiny. Hence, the only way you can make your point is to keep on beating the same old drum until everyone gets tired and gives in or goes away. However, the arguments you make are still invalid.

**************

LDS4 - Prop.8 is a classic example of the Church trying to impose subjective LDS standards on others. The Church has backed Blue Laws requiring businesses to close on Sundays.

JW - Hardly. If you were trying to make your case of something being subjective, you failed miserably using the Blue Laws example.

LDS4 - Saying it ain't so doesn't make it such.

You don't seem to get the fact that having Blue Laws in place are beneficial to society. Valid objective arguments can be made for closing things up once a week and how that would improve our way of life. The Europeans do it, and that happens to be one thing that I agree with them on.

Hence, you using Blue Laws as a subjective case of imposing morality falls flat on its face. In like manner, claiming that Prop 8 was nothing more than a subjective demand for imposing one's moral view on another ignores the significant concerns that come with SSM, and is a dishonest representation of what Prop 8 supporters were trying to do - just like what you claim Blue Laws try to do.

*********

LDS4 - Laws that punish OBJECTIVE harm like those items you mentioned are good. Punishing SUBJECTIVE harm (violation of subjective morality) such as doing business on Sundays and outlawing SSM are wrong.

JW - Sounds like you're being very subjective in trying to define what "objective" really means. Good luck with that.

LDS4 - Objective means provable. If someone kills you, steals from you, defrauds you, punches you, you are objectively harmed? How are you harmed by SSM? As Jefferson said, how does that break your leg or pick your pocket? You do NOT have a right to NOT be offended...despite what the liberals believe.

Leaving aside your sentence about being offended, which makes no sense at all, SSM supporters such as yourself resort to some pretty shallow rationalizations about SSM being somehow good. Frankly, marriage has been hammered for decades by various attacks on it, and SSM is simply another attack to dilute marriage. If the courts or politicians, decide that somehow SSM is some kind of right that overrules rights to freedom of religion, and just because if you love someone/thing(s) you can form marriage relationships with them, then marriage eventually ceases to mean anything at all. Indeed, one of the things about marriage that has been torn down over time is the meaning of commitment that a marriage contract brings. People now think that "cheating" in marriage is ok to some extent. SSM cements that concept firmly in place, because long term gay, monogamous relationships where both partners practice full sexual fidelity to each other are strikingly rare. By allowing SSM, we will redefine the parameters of marriage commitment and dumb them down, so to speak. That harms marriage in a very objective way, though I doubt that you want to accept those kinds of concerns.

************

JW - BTW, your profile name of "LDS"4 hardly seems to fit the viewpoint you're projecting. What kind of conflicting message are you trying to send here?

LDS4 - I'm just asking that the Church adhere to the Church's official doctrine - the scriptures. How can I be wrong in supporting and defending the revealed word of God?

Telling the church what it should be doing and interpreting scriptures to support your worldly agenda, and then telling us that has to be church doctrine is hardly the kind of "objectivity" you're claiming to have. Putting yourself up as an authority to tell us what doctrine is, and accusing the church of "steadying the ark" in your misinterpretations of scripture, amount basically to apostasy if you're a member of the church. If you're not a member, then your use of "LDS" in your profile name is dishonest.

[Avatar4321]

Anyone who can legally enter into a contract should be able to do so.

No one is preventing anyone from entering into any private contract or covenant. The issue is: redefining marriage & whether the government is obligated to recognize it.

The real question is why are people trying to so hard to empower the government to regulate homosexual relationships? What public good comes from empowering them to do so?

[jwhitlock]

Yes, the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is available to all. But the right to legally marry the person that one is romantically attracted to is not available in all U.S. states and is not federally recognized. I didn't marry my wife because she happened to be someone of the opposite gender who happened to say yes. I married her because I was deeply, romantically, intellectually attracted to her and wanted to spend the rest of my life and all eternity with her.

The right to legally marry anyone they want is not available to anyone. I can't marry another woman, since I'm already married. I can't marry a child. Attraction of any sort isn't what defines marriage. It works within boundaries, and there are reasons for those boundaries. I wonder that you don't grasp that.

Regarding your second point... I just don't agree with the rational of curtailing the constitutional rights of one group as a means of preventing them from *potentially* trying to someday curtail your rights. Further, for over 150 years now we have kept people out of our temples based on their personal beliefs, skin color, and whether they drink coffee. I have a tough time imagining the government forcing us to allow gay marriages in our temples. And really, all we'd have to do is what is done in other countries: couples get their civil marriage done outside of the temple, and the sealing done inside the temple. Keeps the government out which is really a good idea for a number of reasons, IMO.

All I can do is simply keep noting that we're not talking about curtailing rights of any group. That whole argument is bogus.

[jwhitlock]

So what? Los Angeles elected a new mayor yesterday and less than 10% of the people voted. Should we take away the rights of those non voters to vote in future mayoral elections simply because they choose not to? Should LA get rid of mayoral elections all together and have the governor appoint the mayor since so few voted? how many have invoked their 5th Amendment rights in court? I bet less than 1 in a 1000. Should the 5th Amendment be abandoned then?

What does this have to do with special privileges being demanded by a small percentage of gays?

Giving unpopular minorities equal rights and Equal Protection is hardly giving them a "special privilege".

Now we're hearing that "Equal Protection" is a part of this. Just like your misplaced analogy that Christians in Saudi being denied jobs, being actively persecuted, being jailed, and being fined is just like gays not being able to officially marry someone of the same sex, you want us to believe that not allowing SSM is a denial of such a basic, fundamental right (more fundamental than any other right) that it absolutely destroys people, their lives, their relationships, and everything they have.

Methinks SSM supporters have generally lost all perspective about this.

That's what the Saudis say about Christians wanting to build churches. How is YOUR right to worship infringed by gays being married? this i gotta hear!

Yep, there's those Saudis who behead women for sexual offenses being likened to us for opposing SSM. You want to try a more realistic analogy? And frankly, I do think that you're only going to hear what you want to hear.

[jwhitlock]

This is laughable. There would be a greater chance of success for women to sue for the priesthood. The courts would laugh at this. even if you found some whacky judge, the Church, as well as other churches, would tie this up in court for years. in the mean time, there would be a constitutional amendment written up specifically allowing churches to marry whom they wish written up. it would pass so fast and no politician would dare oppose it. Even a lot of gays would back it. Even if that failed, the Church would simply disallow sealers to perform legally binding ceremonies. this would deny those suing a reason to involve the court. Sealings would then be 100% religious in nature and outside the bounds of governmental interference.

Sorry, but the sky is not falling.

I seem to remember a time when the government confiscated church property and jailed church members after passing laws directly aimed at forcing the church to comply with what it demanded. As has also been noted, the government has shown itself very willing in the recent past to use taxation as a method of forcing compliance with court or regulatory mandates. Churches are not exempt from this kind of pressure. In addition, courts have shown a willingness to very broadly define "public accommodation" when it comes to licensing or what can broadly be defined as "services" provided to people. Are you naive enough to think that the church doesn't already have to jump through ridiculous hoops every time it wants to build a chapel or a temple, when we're supposed to have some kind of freedom of religion guaranteed by the government in this country? Think again.

We have a gay rights group, Affirmation, whose stated mission is to ensure that ALL "blessings" of the gospel are made available to gays. Check out their web site. Since gay groups have shown a willingness to use any and all means at the disposal to force others to accede to their agendas, including courts and corrupt politicians, and demands that tax exempt status be removed, it is clear that should SSM marriage become the law of the land, someone is going to try to force the church to perform sealings for gays. And all it will take is one anti-Mormon judge who fast tracks that gay group's agenda in the system to make things very difficult for the church.

So tell me, since you ridicule this very possible scenario, how does the church becoming increasingly constrained in its ability to perform marriages for its own members and work in its own temples protect my freedom of religion? In reality, it does exactly the opposite.

[rongo]

So tell me, since you ridicule this very possible scenario, how does the church becoming increasingly constrained in its ability to perform marriages for its own members and work in its own temples protect my freedom of religion? In reality, it does exactly the opposite.

The pooh-poohing and condescending eye-rolling of gay marriage activists over our concerns about persecution of the Church (a la 1860-1890 polygamy legislation) reminds me of the Pharisees (who were seeking to kill Jesus) saying "Who seeketh to kill thee?"

[gree0232]

Right... and the reason you are pointing out those perceived relationship differences is what? That gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

The reason it is mentioned is because you have constantly sought to portray homosexual and heterosexual relationships as identical - such as that whole 14th amendment thing. Promiscuity is simply ONE demonstration of that inequality, one in which you ripped out of context and have totally ignored the implications on. We are not talking about individual cases, we are talking about advocating a policy to increase or decrease the incidence of a choice in the aggregate. And the simple fact of the matter is that homosexual community is MUCH more, like an order of magnitude MORE, promiscuous than the heterosexual community on average. That means we going allow marriage and apparently adoption of children into an environment where they will routinely be exposed to highly promiscuous behavior, which we are saying is 'normal' ... admirable enough to advocate because mommy and mommy went through that and turned out just fine?

Except that such high promiscuity has definitive effects on self esteem, including MUCH higher instances of suicide.

Indeed, that much maligned Regnerus study found, among other issues:

• Have impulsive behavior
  
• Be in counseling or mental health therapy (2xs)
  
• Suffer from depression (by large margins)
  
• Have recently thought of suicide (significantly)
  
• Identify as bisexual, lesbian or gay
  
• Have male on male or female on female sex partners (dramatically higher)
  
• Currently be in a same-sex romantic relationship (2x to 3x more likely)
  
• Be asexual (females with lesbian parents)
  
• As adults, be unmarried; much more likely to cohabit
  
• As adults, more likely to be unfaithful in married or cohabiting relationships
  
• Have a sexually tramsmitted infection (STI)
  

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/focus-findings/family-formation-trends/regnerus-family-structures-study.aspx

How off that those finding are almost identical to the effects of overt promiscuity in any social class or gender where it is observed. But for some reason we scoff, or say that there is a disingenuous mention of something in WHICH WE KNOW THE MORAL, PHYSICAL, AND SOCIETAL CONSEQUENCES of a particular form of sexual morality.

Well, you found a line to pursue on emotion without thinking it through or applying objective standards - and that is, once again, why I stand in opposition to this 'movement'. Its nothing propaganda and volume.

[gree0232]

+1

What is interesting in this debate is that so far there have only been several benefits identified that require taxpayer funds (or reduce tax revenue to the government). And of those benefits, none are attached to producing children. So I am not seeing a case made for U.S. Citizens "paying" for heterosexually married couples to conceive children.

Then you are clearly, and I believe deliberately misinformed. Each additional child conceived results in a greater tax break. In fact, it is up to a $1000 per child.

Are we once again to be persuaded by the ill informed?

I will state this once again, when examining the debate with an objective eye, the stronger side is NOT the homosexual side. Indeed, there is not case being made at all, just a series of false statements and the unproven statement that homosexuality is just 'born' - with no evidence.

Now please, explain to us, why is this a good basis for a policy? In the slightest?

In order to justify homosexual marriage, you just misrepresented the US tax policy regarding children, and ostensibly heterosexual marriage.

[Daniel2]

Then you are clearly, and I believe deliberately misinformed. Each additional child conceived results in a greater tax break. In fact, it is up to a $1000 per child.

Are we once again to be persuaded by the ill informed?

CFR that the tax break for parents is based in CONCEPTION (your word, not mine).

Your "facts" are distortions of reality, which is this: ANY parents--straight OR gay--get those parental tax breaks when RAISING (NOT "conceiving") a child. The tax break is to benefit the raising of the child, not to those who "procreate" and "conceive" the child.. The birth parent/s don't get the tax break--the parent/s raising the child as their own do/es.

Further, child tax credits aren't even dependent on MARITAL status (they are available to parents raising children, whether single, divorced, widowed, or married), so even bringing child tax credits up in a discussion of marriage equality is totally irrelevant to civil marriage rights and a total Red Herring.

"Persuaded by the misinformed"?! "Misrepresentation of the US Tax System"....?! Please. Pot, meet kettle.

Daniel2

Edited May 23, 2013 by Daniel2

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

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.

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

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

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

1 Cor. 10:29 - "...for why is my liberty judged* of another man's conscience?"

(* Note - the Greek word for "to judge" used here is also rendered "to determine" elsewhere in the KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc...). In other words, our liberties / freedoms are not to be determined, limited, restricted, etc... by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others. In context, verses 27 through 33 have Paul saying that we should limit our otherwise allowed behaviors if they offend others, which offense may cause them to reject the Gospel. Consider this essay regarding our obligation to not cause others to be offended. In verse 29, though, Paul says that we do this only for the sake of the others' conscience and rejects the idea that the opinions of others can limit our freedom. If the opinions of others can't limit our freedom, how can we hypocritically state that OUR opinions can limit the freedom of others? Verse 30 says that since Paul is saved through grace (and not by living the Law of Moses), why should he be judged for doing something that the Law of Moses forbids? He is saying that he is not subject to that law and therefore can't be judged by it. Why should his liberty be judged of another law's (man's) conscience? He is saying that he doesn't play by those rules but his own rules (the law of Grace). He doesn't want the old laws limiting what he can do under the new law. He will voluntarily refrain from doing things forbidden under the old law so as to not offend those still under that law, but the old law does not restrict him otherwise, for why should his liberty judged of another law's (man's) conscience?

The basic underlying principle is that we, as LDS, have our own laws and others (non-LDS) have their own various sets of rules. We may avoid ordering pork when dining with Jews or vegetarians, so as to not cause them offense, but the laws which the Jews observe have no claim on us and our liberty is not to be judged by another law's (man's) conscience. Just as their laws have no power over us, neither do our laws, in a non-theocratic society, hold sway over them. They are free to do as they wish until they decide to join us and adopt our laws. We have no right to impose our laws, beliefs or opinions on them, for why is their liberty judged of another man's (our) conscience?

D&C 134:4 - "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others..." (emphasis added). It is contrary to God to try to take away the civil rights of others based on our own religious beliefs. We are not to force our subjective moral standards on others in violation of their legal rights and privileges to benignly do as they please.

Regarding D&C 134:4, consider this quote from a Doctrine & Covenants commentary -

"Religious freedom does not imply nor provide license to infringe or impose upon the rights and liberties of others."

(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982-1983], 2: 375.)

[cdowis]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

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....

Again, I ask the question ==>> what rights are being denied?

This is scriptural., my fine feathered friend.

[LDS4]

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?

The CA Supreme Court said that Prop. 22 violated CA's anti discrimination clause. The anti-SSM crowd sought to get around this by amending the state Constitution via Prop. 8. Prop. 8 was found unconstitutional by a federal court because it violates the US Supreme Court's Romer decision which said that you can't take away rights of homosexuals after a law was passed specifically granting them those rights. See http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10179.html#title for specifics. Prop. 8 is now before the US Supreme Court to address this and other issues (standing, etc...). Their ruling is due in June.

This isn't about Judicial Activism. It's about laws being passed by the popular majority against unpopular minorities which violate federal or state constitutions. The purpose of the courts is to make sure the rights of unpopular minorities are protected. This is why America is a REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy.

[rongo]

What will/would you say, though, if the SCOTUS were to strike down the California Supreme Court and appellate court decisions striking down Prop 8? Would you still say that, well, that's how things go in our republic with separation of powers, and just accept it?

I don't think that's what the outcome will be (because of the societal sea change "in the space of not many years"), but I can dream . . .

[rockpond]

What makes your position more difficult is that marriage recognition, as it is currently structured, is available to any adult including gays, and there are a significant number of gays who choose to live within that arrangement. Perhaps they recognize, at least deep down inside, that the complementary true male / female partnership in marriage provides something that same sex relationships can never duplicate.

You've brought this up a number of times... that some homosexuals choose to enter into male/female marriages. Have you taken a look at the statistics on those mixed-orientation marriages? From what I've read, around 85% of those marriages fail in the first three years.

This article reviews those studies: http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=427 and has the citations.

[rockpond]

What will/would you say, though, if the SCOTUS were to strike down the California Supreme Court and appellate court decisions striking down Prop 8? Would you still say that, well, that's how things go in our republic with separation of powers, and just accept it?

I don't think that's what the outcome will be (because of the societal sea change "in the space of not many years"), but I can dream . . .

I think that is an interesting question to consider. I also think that it should be considered from the other perspective as well: For those who think it was "activist judges" overturning the will of the people... What will/would you say when the will of the people favors marriage equality for homosexuals?

[rockpond]

No one is preventing anyone from entering into any private contract or covenant. The issue is: redefining marriage & whether the government is obligated to recognize it.

The real question is why are people trying to so hard to empower the government to regulate homosexual relationships? What public good comes from empowering them to do so?

Providing protections for the children being raised by homosexual parents. As well as upholding the 14th amendment with respect to our homosexual citizens.

[rongo]

I think that is an interesting question to consider. I also think that it should be considered from the other perspective as well: For those who think it was "activist judges" overturning the will of the people... What will/would you say when the will of the people favors marriage equality for homosexuals?

As I said, I think that is what will ultimately happen (so does Elder Perry ---- I've quoted him to that effect multiple times). *When* that happens, I will be in a "as for me and my house" situation, and I think the Church will be, too. I also believe that, despite the pooh-poohing by gay marriage advocates, attempts will be made to force the Church to allow SSM sealings in temples, with sanctions (a la Edmunds-Tucker Act - esque sanctions).

I guess my question for you would be where you would stand if/when this were to happen? Would you be incensed and outraged, or would you say that the Church was on the wrong side of this and had to be ground under foot by the juggernaut of government, society, and the will of the republic? But, that it was a good thing, because it forced the Church to be where it should have been.

Edited May 23, 2013 by rongo

[rockpond]

Attraction of any sort isn't what defines marriage.

I wasn't suggesting that it was the only defining aspect of marriage. But it is part of what defines marriage.

It works within boundaries, and there are reasons for those boundaries. I wonder that you don't grasp that.

I agree that it works within boundaries. And I've explained what I consider those boundaries to be. How about you? For you, are the boundaries just "one man, one woman"? If so, why do you feel that the government should only recognize that type of marriage?

All I can do is simply keep noting that we're not talking about curtailing rights of any group. That whole argument is bogus.

When I referred to having curtailed rights, I was speaking specifically of CA where homosexuals could have their marriages legally recognized prior to Prop 8.

[rockpond]

As I said, I think that is what will ultimately happen (so does Elder Perry ---- I've quoted him to that effect multiple times). *When* that happens, I will be in a "as for me and my house" situation, and I think the Church will be, too. I also believe that, despite the pooh-poohing by gay marriage advocates, attempts will be made to force the Church to allow SSM sealings in temples, with sanctions (a la Edmunds-Tucker Act - esque sanctions).

I guess my question for you would be where you would stand if/when this were to happen? Would you be incensed and outraged, or would you say that the Church was on the wrong side of this and had to be ground under foot by the juggernaut of government, society, and the will of the republic? But, that it was a good thing, because it forced the Church to be where it should have been.

If it were to happen I would be outraged as it is a clear violation of freedom of religion. It's the same reason I was outraged when the people of CA voted to prohibit marriage equality. There are plenty of people whose religious beliefs allow for homosexual marriages and whose churches wed gay couples. For me, it is a violation of their freedom of religion to NOT legally recognize the marriages performed in their churches while the marriages performed in our churches/temples do receive legal recognition.

I'm not as convinced as others that it could happen without a complete collapse of our constitution (which is, of course, possible). I am convinced that we might someday need to give up on having temple sealings be legally recognized but that would just put us where many other countries already are. Where I served my mission, couples would get married first (often by the public registrar) and then proceed to the temple to be sealed. It was never even questioned.

The reason I don't see the government ever forcing us to perform gay sealings is because we've prohibited people, even our own church members, from entering the temple and participating in temple ordinances for over a century and a half. We can prevent someone from entering the temple based on sacrament meeting attendance, drinking alcohol, belief in the restoration, etc. We used to keep people out based on skin color. None of those restrictions have ever been challenged (to my knowledge) and certainly never successfully challenged.