Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[wenglund]

How did Prop 8's constraining of other religions ability to perform marriages for the gay members of their congregation protect their freedom of religion?

Your question contains a false presupposition. In California, religions had the ability to perform marriage for their gay members, both before and after prop 8. Such occurred on not a few occasions. That those gay marriages were not legally sanctioned by the state as "marriages," though they could be sanctioned as domestic partnerships if so desired, is a separate matter. In other words, SSM, while not legally recognized in California, were also not illegal, and could be performed. No freedom of religion was denied.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

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.

That's a 20 year old study that acknowledged some gaps in the statistics gathered; got anything more current?

[jwhitlock]

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

Actually, in your post you inferred it was the primary defining aspect of marriage. The problem with that, of course, is that any person can be romantically attracted to anyone or anything, including multiple instances of those objects. If SSM advocates are demanding the "right" to marry with the rationalization that they should not be constrained by gender, then there's no particular reason that such a "right" should have any constraints at all. You can't just open that can of worms a little bit for gays without getting every other narrow special interest group under the sun demanding the same privilege for whatever their "romantic" interests are.

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?

Because the male / female gender interaction works better than anything else and provides more stability for society than anything else - as long as people are willing to adhere to the commitments and total fidelity that successful marriage demands. Unfortunately, too many people in our society have decided that they don't want such commitment anymore, and so the meaning and effectiveness of marriage has been diluted over the years. SSM does nothing to reverse that trend, since long term gay relationships that are totally monogamous in all respects are very rare. In effect, SSM not only dilutes marriage even more, but puts an implicit seal of acceptance into marriage that total sexual fidelity is not necessary anymore.

Frankly, government has done its own part over time to dumb down marriage, so if the past is any indication, it will embrace SSM with open arms. So in the name of redefining special privileges as "rights", families and marriages will continue to deteriorate. This is just fine with other factions within the gay community, who despise any type of commitment implicit in marriage, and who oppose SSM as something that may hinder their chosen lifestyles.

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.

SSM supporters have characterized opposition to SSM as being in the same category as persecutions of Christians in the middle east. That such a patently false claim is accepted by so many people is really rather pathetic. The damage done by the courts and SSM supporters telling the people that their will didn't matter, while using such over-hyped rationalizations, was immense. For me, and for many others I suspect, this was clear evidence that those courts and the gay rights groups that supported those decisions were only interested in foisting their agendas on the rest of us without regard to the serious concerns SSM raises. The continued invalid rationalizations for SSM and the belittling of the church and its members displayed by SSM supporters - including some on this thread - also make it clear that this is not something that we're going to come to an agreement on. Given the propensity for gay activists to call for revenge on those who disagree with them, once SSM becomes the law of the land, I find it probably that we're going to see ongoing challenges to the freedom of religion.

You just have to look at what's happening to know where things are headed. It's not pretty at all.

[jwhitlock]

How did Prop 8's constraining of other religions ability to perform marriages for the gay members of their congregation protect their freedom of religion?

It did nothing of the sort. Certain churches continued to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. They've been doing it for years.

[wenglund]

For the position to be incoherent or in conflict I would need to have two competing propositions, I do not. I have only a singular proposition. A singluar proposition can be practically satisfied by different means. I am neither for nor against marriage, nor am I either for nor against SSM, I am for a consistent and limited for of Govt. My objective govt can be realised by either the a broader marriage policy or the removal of govt from marriage all together. This is not a conflict. I feel the removal of govt from marriage all together is more practical... though I am not opposed to some kind of relationship contract to help in cases of dispute.

I am not on the fence about govt getting out of the marriage business. I am personally in favor of it. Please CFR my comments and I will review and correct them as necessary. Your suspicions are unfortunately incorrect. I have no specific objectives relative to SSM, my objectives are specifically to a more limited govt, which I feel produces greater religious and personal freedom.

I am not the arbitrator of libertarianism... you are welcome to call yourself libertarian. I don't personally find your arguments rooted in strong libertarian principles, I am however not a libertarian scholar. My political philosophy studies went to masters level post-graduate level and then got side tracked with family and kids. I still read a lot in the political philosophy realm but not near enough to be as informed on the state of current libertarian theory as I should. You may in fact be the poster-child for current libertarian thought.

Your arguments that I have seen seem to be concerned with the notion of procreation incentive as ground for govt to engage in marriage policy. All of my study and research suggest procreative considerations fall outside the narrow window of consent and harm rights considerations that would need to be the basis govt action in libertarian political theory. The concern of procreation is a private matter of citizens decision making and aslong as there is no violation of consent would be beyond the scope of libertarian govt.

But, I am not concerned that you call yourself moderately libertarian. I certainly don't want to get distracted from the issues with you argument by dealing with whether it is sufficently libertarian for my taste.

You are not however going to win me over by articulating the position as "moderately libertarian", that just doesnt match with my study on libertarian principles.

If you doubt what I say, check out this article: The Best Libertarian Argument Against Gay Marriage.

Here is an interesting article published at LewRockwell.com: Is there a Libertarian Position on Same-Sex Marriage?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 24, 2013 by wenglund

[gree0232]

it apprars youre unaware that the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter. From wiki:

I suggest that you read what you posted ... because it refers to intimate CONSENSUAL sexual contact ... and no one id advocating criminalizing sodomy (the act of homosexuality) - we are stating that we should not redefine marriage to include sodomy because the CONSENSUAL choice to engage in sodomy is not a sexual choice that requires government supported advocacy.

[gree0232]

I think that it's fair to interpret his statement that marriage is a "basic civil right" because of the procreative aspect of the relationship of marriage. But I don't think his words necessarily need to be limited to that.

Marriage is also fundamental to our very existence and survival because it is how we raise the next generation. And gay couples also procreate (though through non-traditional means), they adopt, and they raise children who are productive citizens. I think this is a fair interpretation of Justice Warren's statement as well.

Either way, the Loving decision isn't key to why I believe in marriage equality. As someone (jwhitlock, I think) pointed out... marriage isn't a civil right in the same way we have other civil rights because it isn't something that you have inherent access to (like freedom of speech)... it requires another person joining you.

So, in order to have this societal level benefit, we should require gay couples to adopt and raise children? Because biologically, they cannot reproduce ... and even with external help ... only lesbians can biologically reproduce. Gay men have ZERO biological means for reproduction ... and that gets us into the prospect of child placement with gay couples ... and the issues raised by the Regnerus study and others.

And then why not polygamist families? Etc.

And therein lies the rub, we clearly retain the ability to tell some groups "No" and other groups "Yes". What I do not see is any particular reason to tell homosexuals "Yes", at least not with reasoning presented that also opens the door to "Yes" to other forms of sexuality that clearly need to remain criminalized.

Edited May 24, 2013 by gree0232

[Avatar4321]

It did nothing of the sort. Certain churches continued to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. They've been doing it for years.

It seems that those who favor regulating same sex relationships muddy up the waters on what this debate is actually about. They like to pretend that individuals are unable to enter into any sort of relationship they want. That's not what the issue is. The issue is whether the government A) Recognize it and B) Regulate it.

It's the exact opposite of the fight the Church had with plural marriage. The Church fought the government to leave it alone and allow the members to enter into any relationships they chose. The government insisted on trying to ban it.

I don't know whether this muddying of the water is intentional or stems from a misunderstanding of the debate. My guess is that would depend on the actor involved. I am sure the adversary is trying to muddy the debate and make it unclear what we are actually arguing because it suits his purposes. My guess is that individuals arguing for the regulation of same sex relationships are largely doing so without thinking too much about the specifics of the debate or it's rammifications. But I could be wrong.

[wenglund]

Legalizing gay marriage is not advocating or normalizing hyper sexuality. It's actually the opposite: it promotes monogamy.

There once was a time when the term "marriage" used to mean things like monogamy and fidelity and longterm commitment. However, due to a broad range of deleterious social influences, particularly since the 1960s, marriage has somewhat lost that meaning, to the point that open marriages and serial marriage and common-law marriage are becoming more and more common, and marriage, itself, is becoming less common.

Ironically, among the more significant deleterious social influences is the movement to legalize SSM, for which you are a passionate advocate. Throughout the annals of time there hasn't been a more overt attempt, than SSM movement, to change the essential meaning of the word "marriage." And, by altering the fundamental meaning of the term, and by using the term to make sacred certain behaviors which are inherently profane, the word now pretty much means anything, or it lacks any meaning all together. For some, it may simply mean, that two people can now have tax and insurance and visitation benefits that they didn't have before, and that certain lifestyles may now be acceptable and given equal due as heterosexuality. For them, monogamy and fidelity and commitment may have absolutely nothing to do with it.

In fact, given some of the studies that have been cited on this board, comparatively few homosexual couples view marriage as a monogamous relationship, or remain monogamous when they are legally married or legally united under civil unions and the like.

Even more revealing is that marriage, or legally committed relationships, have such little meaning and value to the homosexual community, except as a political ploy, that the vast majority of them wont or haven't entered therein when they legally can. So, even if legal marriage meant monogamy to homosexuals, as you suggest, by and large homosexuals obviously don't want monogamy nor marriage.

So, by you advocating for SSM, you may have fooled yourself into thinking you are promoting monogamy, but in reality (or in other words, the unintended consequences) you are promoting just the opposite. In an effort to turn things right-side up, you have unwitting helped to turn things upside-down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

There once was a time when the term "marriage" used to mean things like monogamy and fidelity and longterm commitment.

SSM wouldn't necessarily change that.

However, due to a broad range of deleterious social influences, particularly since the 1960s, marriage has somewhat lost that meaning, to the point that open marriages and serial marriage and common-law marriage are becoming more and more common, and marriage, itself, is becoming less common.

That's true.

Ironically, among the more significant deleterious social influences is the movement to legalize SSM, for which you are a passionate advocate. Throughout the annals of time there hasn't been a more overt attempt, than SSM movement, to change the essential meaning of the word "marriage."

Above you define marriage as "monogamy and fidelity and longterm commitment". SSM doesn't necessarily change that at all. Indeed polygamy would change that far more than SSM. It stands to reason you are abosultely wrong based on your own terms.

and, by altering the fundamental meaning of the term, and by using the term to make sacred certain behaviors which are inherently profane, the word now pretty much means anything, or it lacks any meaning all together. For some, it may simply mean, that two people can now have tax and insurance and visitation benefits that they didn't have before, and that certain lifestyles may now be acceptable and given equal due as heterosexuality. For them, monogamy and fidelity and commitment may have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Indeed, monogamy, fidelity and commitment may have absolutely nothing to do with marriage in some people's views. But, by your own admission, that isn't due to SSM, at all. That is because of polygamy, open marriages, and/or secreted infidelity (which has gone on since at least David).

In fact, given some of the studies that have been cited on this board, comparatively few homosexual couples view marriage as a monogamous relationship, or remain monogamous when they are legally married or legally united under civil unions and the like.

And why is that? They weren't allowed to marry before? That may play into it. Also, as you have pointed out, many heterosexual couples feel the same way. If the percentages differ, there has to be a reason and finding that reason is far harder than just guessing.

Even more revealing is that marriage, or legally committed relationships, have such little meaning and value to the homosexual community, except as a political ploy, that the vast majority of them wont or haven't entered therein when they legally can. So, even if legal marriage meant monogamy to homosexuals, as you suggest, by and large homosexuals obviously don't want monogamy nor marriage.

But they can choose, just like heterosexual people. Many heterosexual folks don't want marriage either. They simply aren't interested.

So, by you advocating for SSM, you may have fooled yourself into thinking you are promoting monogamy, but in reality (or in other words, the unintended consequences) you are promoting just the opposite. In an effort to turn things right-side up, you have unwitting helped to turn things upside-down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You don't know that at all. the main piont I gather from your post is he who has hurt marriage more than anything else are heterosexual people.

Edited May 24, 2013 by stemelbow

[rockpond]

The reason I pointed out those perceived relationship differences was to counter the claim that they are the same. This should have been obvious to you from the context of my original statement and my response to your follow-up question.

There is a reason you keep getting this wrong. You should work on fixing it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Have I claimed that heterosexual and homosexual relationships were the same or did I claim that they should be treated equally under the law?

You and others here have brought up statistics on promiscuity among some homosexuals multiple times. The claim has been made repeatedly, including by you, that they do not actually want monogamy or marriage. And I'm sure that some do not. But some do, and I respect those who want the lifestyle offered by a committed marital relationship.

[rockpond]

In response to my request for the definition of "marriage" the court was using when it referred to marriage as a fundamental civil right, LDS4 said:

Not only does this not directly answer my question, it isn't correct. The correct answer would have to fit the criteria the court gave for why marriage is a fundamental civil right--i.e. it is fundamental to the existence and survival of the country and because of its long tradition. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that so-called same-sex marriage doesn't fit criteria, and thus isn't the definition of "marriage" that the court had in mind as a fundamentla civil right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Where did the court say that it was a civil right because of its "long tradition"? Because, I thought the court actually said that the "long tradition" of anti-miscegenation laws would not save them from constitutional scrutiny.

I'm curious if they actually said something that could be used as precedent for "tradition".

[rockpond]

Perhaps I've missed it in the 24 pages of commentary on this thread, but what is the "bedrock" of your belief in why our society should permit SSM? (I'm assuming that they bedrock is not in constitutional law, because I'm also assuming that you believe SSM should be permissible within a broader, non-US context, as well, where our flavor of constitutional law does not apply.)

What's the bottom-line basis for your belief?

-Allen

I gave an outline which mostly summarizes my position in post #463 of this thread. I think this is how you link to a specific post but forgive me if it doesn't work: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60832-article-mormon-church-abandons-its-crusade-against-gay-marriage/page__st__460#entry1209261973

[rockpond]

Your question contains a false presupposition. In California, religions had the ability to perform marriage for their gay members, both before and after prop 8. Such occurred on not a few occasions. That those gay marriages were not legally sanctioned by the state as "marriages," though they could be sanctioned as domestic partnerships if so desired, is a separate matter. In other words, SSM, while not legally recognized in California, were also not illegal, and could be performed. No freedom of religion was denied.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I thought it was clear that I was referring to legal recognition of marriage. That is the topic here... anyone, anywhere can get married and claim it as such but it doesn't mean much in our society without the legal recognition.

[awyatt]

I gave an outline which mostly summarizes my position in post #463 of this thread. I think this is how you link to a specific post but forgive me if it doesn't work: http://www.mormondia...entry1209261973

Thanks, for that. I didn't realize that was your entire position.

It appears to me that your entire position is founded upon this statement:

If you believe that sexual orientation is a choice than I totally and completely get why you would be adamantly opposed to marriage equality.

I don't believe it's a choice.

However, I don't see anyone (at least on this thread) claiming that sexual orientation is a choice. This is a straw man on your part. If the assertion really was that sexual orientation was a choice, then I would be arguing your side, as well.

Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Sexual feelings for another (male or female) is NOT a choice.

What is a choice is what one does with that orientation and those feelings. Here is where choice comes into play: One can choose to act upon those feelings or one can choose not to act upon those feelings.

Our real difference, I'd wager, is whether you consider it proper to say to another "it is wrong to act upon those feelings." I feel it is proper and we do it in our societal laws all the time. You probably don't feel it is proper.

The normal pro-SSM argument when it comes to this point is "you can't legislate morality." That is a red herring because most of our laws are an attempt to legislate morality.

I have no reason to doubt all those thousands of people who have said that they have no choice in the matter. I especially have no reason to doubt those friends and loved ones in my life who have told me that it isn't a choice.

I have no reason to doubt them either. I understand that sexual feelings for those of the same sex can be very, very strong. Intensity of feeling is not, however, should not be a basis for legislation. Were it an valid indicator, then there are all sorts of things now considered illegal that we should, by the same measure, legalize.

So, I therefore believe that the 14th amendment applies.

The 14th Amendment doesn't necessarily apply based upon the information you cited. You said (1) people have no choice in their orientation and (2) I have no reason to doubt thousands who have told me that. Those two items are, again, not a valid basis for applying the 14th Amendment. (At least not from a legal perspective.)

Even so, I don't think you can apply the 14th Amendment here because that amendment cannot, inherently, be part of your reason for being pro-SSM. Bottom line (as I said in an earlier post) is that if SSM should be allowed, it should be allowed worldwide, and the 14th Amendment isn't a valid basis worldwide.

I don't have much of an interest in debating whether or not homosexuality is a choice. I believe that matter has been settled... fewer and fewer people think like you.

I'm sure it has been settled in your mind and the minds of many. Of course, that doesn't mean it has been settled. ;-)

However, I'll go back to my earlier point: Homosexuality may NOT be a choice; it probably isn't. What is a choice, however, is acts based upon that reality.

To bring up an analogue (again) that you probably don't want to hear, alcoholism is not a choice, but drinking is. Being left-handed is not a choice, but which hand you write with is. Being a kleptomaniac is not a choice, but we still legislate against it. Being a pyromaniac is not a choice, but we still legislate against setting fires.

The list could go on and on and on. I'm not saying that homosexuality is a "condition" that needs to be "treated"; that is up to the individual. I am arguing that like any other situation in which we find ourselves, we have control over what we do with the reality we face--we always have choice.

So, aside from the 14th amendment case for marriage equality (which multiple courts have now upheld), there is the argument that marriage has a beneficial effect on couples and families (and gay people do have families). Excluding people unnecessarily from mainstream society is not going to have positive results, in my opinion.

I believe that families are beneficial, as well. Even families with gay parents. The one place where I disagree with your statement is in the implication of using the word "necessarily." I don't think that gays should be excluded from "mainstream society" either. I do, however, think they should be excluded from legal marriages. There is a huge difference there.

I also believe in D&C 134 and that we shouldn't allow our government to infringe upon the free exercise of conscience.

Unless you are saying that SSM is necessary to the proper exercise of religion, I believe you are misapplying the declaration in D&C 134. "Free exercise of conscience", as used in verse 2, is amplified in verse 4; it has to do with the free exercise of religion, not the free and unfettered exercise of whatever acts one feels are correct. That would be anarchy and to that the scripture does not apply.

And finally, as I've gotten to know several gay people and couples, I simply see no rational reason to deny them access to legally recognized marriage and the privileges that accompany it.

I've gotten to know many of them as well, including some members of my family. Even so, there are many rational reasons to deny them the ability to marry. All sorts of limits are placed on marriage, and just because I know people who fall outside those limits doesn't mean that arguments in favor of maintaining those limits are irrational.

-Allen

[Daniel2]

I thought it was clear that I was referring to legal recognition of marriage. That is the topic here... anyone, anywhere can get married and claim it as such but it doesn't mean much in our society without the legal recognition.

Great reaponse, Rockpond!

By the absurd logic of Wade's comment (to which you were responding), kids can already "get married," people can already "marry" their dogs, toasters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, cars, Christmas trees, or anything else. I'm amazed that the inanity of that particular line of reasoning isn't self-evident. It would be like saying, "Everyone already has the right to be a US citizen, because anyone can call themselves a 'US citizen'."

Edited May 24, 2013 by Daniel2

[LDS4]

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, but things are rarely equal. Straight couples often have poor morals, do drugs, subject kids to second hand smoke, drink, belittle education, will put the kids in day care every day, live in a poor/dangerous neighborhood, don't provide a well balanced diet, etc.... Perhaps straight couples subjecting kids to less than ideal circumstances will be treated just like same-sex couples and denied marriage licenses. If not providing an ideal environment for child rearing is sufficient reason to deny gays the right to marry, the same should apply to straights as well. This will make sure that only those couples providing an ideal environment for child rearing are allowed to marry. I doubt that many of us would support this idea since it would apply to heterosexuals as well. Do our own individual marriages provide an "ideal" situation for raising kids? Where do we draw the line...a line that applies to both gays and straights?

[LDS4]

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

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.

Huh? I'd be happy to hear where you feel that my interpretation went wrong. I'd love to hear any interpretation, that doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is, that allows believers to let their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others....I can't wait!!!

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

Priestcraft involves requiring payment for exercising one's priesthood.

[USU78]

"It's alI about..." Right. It's not possible that any of those judges could have a valid interpretation that is different from yours. They are all activists and power-mad.

Every intrusion by the judiciary into yet another portion of the polity is yet another grab for power. Every piece of legislation, the result of which is control of persons and things, is a grab for power.

You didn't know this?

Why do you think governments exist?

From the robber barons setting up castles along the Rhine from which to plunder or impose levies on river traffic to the outlawry of freon, power shifts from people to the government upon every exercise of governmental control. Every statute that includes ill-defined language like "within reasonable limits" assures an unelected and ill-trained jurist making decisions that rob people of their power over their own lives: it guarantees that a court will have to decide what "reasonable limits" are.

Of course, If you can reasonably expect the courts to give you what you want every time "reasonable limits" comes up, you're all in favor of such things.

[gree0232]

Have I claimed that heterosexual and homosexual relationships were the same or did I claim that they should be treated equally under the law?

That point is a quibble.

If they are not equal in reality, then they have no equality before the law either. We can treat murder and stealing bread as 'equal' under the law too, but that would be pretty pointedly stupid. If you are demanding equal treatment, then you have a burden to either demonstrate actual equality, or comparative ... as in it has the same societal level benefit as heterosexual marriage.

It would be far better, both for you and the homosexual community, to simply make a case. Again, the failure to do that is what puts me on the other side of this issue.

[LDS4]

LDS4 stated - 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.

This is a false analogy on a number of levels. First, by implication, it mistakenly compares an involuntary trait (skin color or race) with a voluntary choice (sexual relationship).

So, since gays can choose to hold their noses and marry someone of the opposite gender, then their rights aren't being infringed? If so, then the same applies to Christians in Saudi Arabia. They too can hold their noses and attend a mosque. Both groups may do so to portray themselves as "normal". Both groups have to abide by their respective societies' rules in order to exercise those rights. Why are the Saudi's wrong but we're OK?

Second, it mistakenly compares separate locations (drinking fountains) with separate names (marriage/civil unions).

Huh? The comparison is clear. Separate drinking fountains and marriage/civil unions provide the identical benefits to The state of CA treated gays equally with straights in every legal way. Separate drinking fountains gave Blacks and Whites the exact same water...equally cold, equally clear. if civil unions for gays are OK because they provide the exact same legal rights as married couples get, then why are separate drinking fountains wrong? The purpose of having Blacks only drinking fountains and civil unions is because the majorities don't want the unpopular minorities to have equal status. Would straights be OK with gays getting marriage and straights only be given civil unions? if they are equal, then why should they complain?

And, third, it falsely assumes that "separate but equal" is necessarily problematic, legally or otherwise. It isn't, particularly in terms of different legal names. As indicated above, we have different legal names for males and females, corporations and partnerships, doctors and nurses, cars and boats, civilian and military, public and private, non-profit and profit, New Yorkers and Washingtonians, Southerners and Northerners, city folk and urbanities, Hispanic and Caucasian, etc, In each of these cases, the separate legal names are constitutionally valid. In fact, I can't think of a single case, with the exception of certain insipid SSM arguments, where giving different legal names to different groups of people or entities were considered unconstitutional.

So let's have San Francisco and West Hollywood issue straight couples "Civil Unions" and gay couples "marriage licenses". Why would you object?

[gree0232]

Agreed, but things are rarely equal. Straight couples often have poor morals, do drugs, subject kids to second hand smoke, drink, belittle education, will put the kids in day care every day, live in a poor/dangerous neighborhood, don't provide a well balanced diet, etc.... Perhaps straight couples subjecting kids to less than ideal circumstances will be treated just like same-sex couples and denied marriage licenses. If not providing an ideal environment for child rearing is sufficient reason to deny gays the right to marry, the same should apply to straights as well. This will make sure that only those couples providing an ideal environment for child rearing are allowed to marry. I doubt that many of us would support this idea since it would apply to heterosexuals as well. Do our own individual marriages provide an "ideal" situation for raising kids? Where do we draw the line...a line that applies to both gays and straights?

Moral relativism. Once again, instead of saying because some bad things happen in the heterosexual community ... therefore what? We cannot stop bad things anywhere? Adultery happens in the heterosexual community ... so ALL polygamy is fine? Some heterosexual couples are pretty kinky ... so necrophilia and S&M must as distinct sexual genetic conditions (beyond choice) and we should, as a society, pay them to engage in these kinds of sexual practices ... some heterosexual couples also abuse children ... therefore pedophilia is acceptable.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

Its a fallacious argument, wherein two wrong somehow make a right ... and as we see, when applied to all other sexual questions, it simply holds no water. It is another emotional stab in the dark.

There is also the legal aspect of the question, we can leave those other sexual choices criminalized or, at least, discouraged through non-payment support and education, by defining them as consensual sexual acts ... acts that reflect poor character, poor choice, and in some cases ... criminal intent. Of course, just born that way and the fallacious comparisons above completely undermine that legal and moral weight.

Now why should we completely change our legal and moral principles, based on a fallacy no less, to accommodate a vocal sexual minority?

As I said, repeatedly, the failure to produce a logical case is ground in and of itself to reject the homosexual agenda. The grandstanding that we are relieving great suffering or restoring some civil right is absolutely without merit ... and is in fact an insult to those whose liberty has been seriously threatened.

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

[The Proclamation on the Family] was written as a public policy statement and a rallying cry to oppose SSM (see the Proc's last paragraph).

That is demonstrably false.

That is a prophetic warning to states and nations about the dire consequences of all enactments, pressures and policies that would tend to weaken or destroy the family as an institution. It also states in the strongest possible terms that children have rights, the most important of which is to grow up in a home with a father and a mother, lawfully married and committed to one another and the marriage.

Sorry, but the Proc was issued during the SSM initiative fights in Alaska and Hawaii. The Church donated $600,000 and $500,000 to those campaigns respectively. These campaigns prompted the writing of the proc. The proc was used as a rallying cry to fight SSM then and in every SSM campaign since.

That last paragraph calling on people to promote traditional families via law promoted violating the scriptures in the Prop. 8 campaign since it is contrary to scripture to use our religious beliefs as justification to infringe upon the right and liberties of others (1 Cor. 10:29 / D&C 134:4). gays had the right to marry in CA prior to 8 and therefore the Prop. 8 campaign was in direct violation of scripture.

[USU78]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

[The Proclamation on the Family] was written as a public policy statement and a rallying cry to oppose SSM (see the Proc's last paragraph).

Sorry, but the Proc was issued during the SSM initiative fights in Alaska and Hawaii. The Church donated $600,000 and $500,000 to those campaigns respectively. These campaigns prompted the writing of the proc. The proc was used as a rallying cry to fight SSM then and in every SSM campaign since.

That last paragraph calling on people to promote traditional families via law promoted violating the scriptures in the Prop. 8 campaign since it is contrary to scripture to use our religious beliefs as justification to infringe upon the right and liberties of others (1 Cor. 10:29 / D&C 134:4). gays had the right to marry in CA prior to 8 and therefore the Prop. 8 campaign was in direct violation of scripture.

C

F

R

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

It wasn't via jusdicial fiat. the CA State Supreme Court stated that Prop. 22 violated the CA state constitution. You may disagree with the ruling, but the CSSC has a legal right to interpret the state constitution. About 18,000 couples got married during that time. They had the exact same rights as straights to marry.

They had the exact same right as straight individuals before the court ruling. After the court ruling, they had a special privilege. Once Prop 8 passed, they were back to having the same rights as anyone else.

They had the exact same right just as the Christians in Saudi Arabia have the exact same rights....they simply don't choose to exercise those rights and seek "special rights" just for them. right?