Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

[thesometimesaint]

Aren't you advocating that if a couple have no plans for having children or are physically unable to have children, then marriage is not for them?  Do you think this concept fits in with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Doesn't the church want every couple to marry regardless of whether they intend or are able to have children?  

 

There are more reasons to encourage people to marry besides just for the sake of rearing children.  

 

When your position only applies to gay couples, then the position becomes more about disapproving of gay couples than it does about who can legally marry.  This concept certainly is not holding up in the courts of law.  It is fine for the church to be against gay marriage.  It is quite a different thing for the government to discriminate.  And that is why case after case, after case is ruling in favor of gay marriage.  Certainly you can see the legal foundation these rulings are based on.  I don't think anyone wants the government to stop issuing marriage licenses to all couples who are unable to have children.  And I don't think the government should stop issuing marriage licenses to couples who simply do not want or are not ready to have children. Do you?

 

I want the government out of the marrying business altogether. Let's make them all legally enforceable contracts. Let the churches, temples, mosques, kingdom halls, what have you, solemnized or not, any marriage ceremony they want.

[rockpond]

One specific interaction of genitalia, as you so disrespectfully put it, has at least the potential for generating new life.  "Marriage", as understood for millennia, has always been understood for that purpose at its base, even if love, friendship, and committment were always icing on the cake, as it were.  Same sex interactions have no potential for generating life, no more than interspecies interactions do.  There is a rose bush in my backyard that I really like a lot.  If we ever move from this house, I plan to dig it up and take it with me. I plan to live with this plant for the rest of my, or its life.  Shall I then insist that the state issue me a marriage license as a demonstration and evidence of my love, commitment and pleasure at the blooms it provides for me every year?

 

I object to this senseless insistence upon the illogical and absurd attempt to redefine marriage.  That's all.

 

And I object to the senseless analogy that equates a rose bush with a child of God.  But I don't want to derail this thread...  My point was in regards to the legal argument being made in support of Utah's Amendment 3.  Specifically the idea that love, commitment, and religious covenant are not reasons enough marry.  That the "complimentary genitalia" must also be present.  You seem to find that terminology disrespectful.  As do I.  I didn't create that argument.  I think that defining marriage in such a way is demeaning and could potentially come back to bite us in the future.  Especially with respect to our church.

[Daniel2]

In another interesting turn of events, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denies a motion to put their ruling on hold till SCOTUS considers the issue:

Federal Court Refuses To Delay Virginia Gay Marriage Ruling

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5675326?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

MICHAEL FELBERBAUM AP 08/13/14 12:23 PM ET

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court has denied a request to delay its ruling striking down Virginia's same-sex marriage ban.

A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond on Wednesday denied the request by a county court clerk in northern Virginia to stay the decision while it is appealed to the Supreme Court.

That means that without intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex couples could begin marrying and have their out-of-state marriages recognized by next Wednesday.

Late last month, the court ruled that Virginia's gay marriage ban approved by voters in 2006 is unconstitutional.

From the ACLU of VA:

RICHMOND, VA – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today denied a request to delay implementation of its ruling striking down Virginia laws denying marriage to same-sex couples. The court’s action means that, unless the Supreme Court intervenes, couples may begin marrying and having their out-of-state marriages recognized in Virginia on August 20.

Prince William County Circuit Court Clerk Michèle McQuigg had asked the court to stay the ruling while she asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The ACLU of Virginia, ACLU, and Lambda Legal opposed the stay on behalf of approximately 14,000 Virginia same-sex couples. McQuigg may still ask the Supreme Court to stay the Fourth Circuit ruling.

“We hope that the Supreme Court will leave this ruling in place, so that same-sex couples may begin marrying right away,” said Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia. “Our clients have already waited far too long to exercise their constitutional right to marry, or to have their marriages from other states recognized.”

http://acluva.org/15751/aclu-of-virginia-praises-fourth-circuits-decision-to-deny-stay-in-marriage-case/

Of course, SCOTUS will almost certainly put a stay on the marriages when the stay is appealed to them, given their previous rulings granting such stays till they review these rulings.

But it really does seem that through actions like this, the lower courts are trying to increase pressure SCOTUS to take up the issue and resolve it as soon as possible.

[Daniel2]

This AP story has a bit more:

GAY MARRIAGES COULD BEGIN BY NEXT WEEK IN VA.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/delay-denied-ruling-va-gay-marriage-ban

By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM

— Aug. 13, 2014 1:36 PM EDT

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court refused Wednesday to delay its ruling striking down Virginia's gay marriage ban, which means that same-sex couples could begin marrying in the state as early as next week.

The state would also need to start recognizing marriages from out of state by next Wednesday, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court does not intervene.

A county clerk in northern Virginia had asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond to stay its decision, issued in late July, while it is appealed to the high court. The appeals court's order did not explain why it denied that request.

While clerks in other states within the 4th Circuit — West Virginia and the Carolinas — wouldn't technically have to begin issuing licenses as well, federal courts in the state would likely make them if they don't, said Nancy Leong, a law professor at the University of Denver. Maryland, another state in the circuit, already allows same-sex marriages.

The 4th Circuit decision "shows that there's no longer a justification to keep same-sex couples from marrying," Leong said. "Given how many different judges in so many different parts of the country ... have reached the same result, it seems highly likely that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the merits, and I think that, in turn, explains why the 4th Circuit was not willing to grant a stay."

Ken Connelly, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Prince William County Clerk of Court Michele B. McQuigg in the case, said the group will seek an emergency stay from the nation's highest court "as soon as possible." That request will go to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for the 4th Circuit.

Connelly said he expects the stay to be granted, "given that there isn't any substantive difference" between the Virginia case and a federal case in Utah, in which the Supreme Court has twice granted delays in the state's fight to keep its same-sex marriage ban.

But Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which argued against Virginia's gay marriage ban, said "Virginia's loving, committed gay and lesbian couples and their children should not be asked to wait one more day for their fundamental right to marry."

Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2006 that banned gay marriage and prohibited the recognition of such marriages performed in other states. The appeals court ruling overturning that ban was the third such ruling by a federal appeals court and the first in the South.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring — who has said he will not defend the state's ban and believes the courts ruled correctly in striking it down — asked the Supreme Court last week to review a lower court's decision striking down the state's ban.

Herring said he believes the case will prove compelling to the high court because of the "stringent, discriminatory nature of Virginia's marriage ban" and other factors.

A panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati last week considered arguments regarding six cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Some observers have said the 6th Circuit may be the first to uphold statewide gay marriage bans after more than 20 consecutive rulings in the past eight months striking them down.

[Daniel2]

From SCOTUS's blog--two updates, today:

UPDATE Thursday 12:50 p.m. The clerk of the Fourth Circuit Court has notified counsel that the decision against the Virginia same-sex marriage ban is scheduled — as of now — to go into effect at 9 a.m. next Thursday — a day later than state officials had expected. However, that could be delayed if the Supreme Court were to impose a delay.

———-

UPDATE 4:01 p.m. Attorneys for the Prince William County clerk, who has been defending the Virginia same-sex marriage ban, said on Wednesday afternoon that they will ask the Supreme Court to postpone the Fourth Circuit’s ruling against that ban. They said they would do so before the appeals court decision takes effect, next Wednesday.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/08/no-delay-on-virginia-same-sex-marriage-ruling/

[Stargazer]

So when a man and a woman are beyond the child bearing years we should not let them marry, in fact if they are married, once the woman goes through menopause we should dissolve the marriage? Reproduction is only a part of the reason for marriage and in some cases it isn't even a part.

No. And I cite Abraham and Sarah.

Au contraire. Reproduction is almost the only reason for marriage. It has ancillary purposes, but reproduction is the core. And then, after childbreaing most parents become grandparents and frequently help to rear their descendants, and are sometimes extremely important in the survival of their descendants.

I can't say this strongly enough. There is no bloody point to getting married unless children are the intent. You can be as shacked up as you want, with no interest in having children at all, and stay shacked up for a hundred years, and marriage isn't at all needed for that to work out just fine. Marriage is intended to protect the woman in the bearing and raising of children, otherwise there is no point to it. If the couple are not fertile, then that is sad, but they can adopt and achieve what they might have achieved if they were fertile. And they SHOULD adopt, if only to help fulfill their purpose.

[Stargazer]

Aren't you advocating that if a couple have no plans for having children or are physically unable to have children, then marriage is not for them?  Do you think this concept fits in with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Doesn't the church want every couple to marry regardless of whether they intend or are able to have children?  

 

There are more reasons to encourage people to marry besides just for the sake of rearing children.  

 

When your position only applies to gay couples, then the position becomes more about disapproving of gay couples than it does about who can legally marry.  This concept certainly is not holding up in the courts of law.  It is fine for the church to be against gay marriage.  It is quite a different thing for the government to discriminate.  And that is why case after case, after case is ruling in favor of gay marriage.  Certainly you can see the legal foundation these rulings are based on.  I don't think anyone wants the government to stop issuing marriage licenses to all couples who are unable to have children.  And I don't think the government should stop issuing marriage licenses to couples who simply do not want or are not ready to have children. Do you?

See my response to Stone Holm.

Hetero couples who do not want children, should stay away from the altar. If either of them are concerned that they might entail negative genetic factors to their offspring, and that's the only reason for not having children, then they should marry and adopt.

Gay couples need not marry because they cannot have children. I suppose you can argue that since some partners in a gay relationship might actually have children from previous relationships, then the two partners should get married for the sake of the kids. That's an interesting concept, and I think it might be a legitimate argument in favor of SSM. Much in the same way that we get step-parents.

Maybe I'm more liberal on this than I thought. Hmmmm.

[rockpond]

See my response to Stone Holm.

Hetero couples who do not want children, should stay away from the altar. If either of them are concerned that they might entail negative genetic factors to their offspring, and that's the only reason for not having children, then they should marry and adopt.

Gay couples need not marry because they cannot have children. I suppose you can argue that since some partners in a gay relationship might actually have children from previous relationships, then the two partners should get married for the sake of the kids. That's an interesting concept, and I think it might be a legitimate argument in favor of SSM. Much in the same way that we get step-parents.

Maybe I'm more liberal on this than I thought. Hmmmm.

 

And yet the fact remains that having children is neither a legal requirement for entering into marriage nor a requirement in our church.

[Stargazer]

And yet the fact remains that having children is neither a legal requirement for entering into marriage nor a requirement in our church.

And despite 6,000+ years of marriage, where nearly every marriage has produced children, where the vast majority of all civilized and most uncivilized cultures considered that children were not to be produced outside of marriage, where unmarried people generally did not produce children, now suddenly we have decided that marriage is just a committed snuggle.

Yeah, right.

[Stone holm]

No. And I cite Abraham and Sarah.Au contraire. Reproduction is almost the only reason for marriage. It has ancillary purposes, but reproduction is the core. And then, after childbreaing most parents become grandparents and frequently help to rear their descendants, and are sometimes extremely important in the survival of their descendants.I can't say this strongly enough. There is no bloody point to getting married unless children are the intent. You can be as shacked up as you want, with no interest in having children at all, and stay shacked up for a hundred years, and marriage isn't at all needed for that to work out just fine. Marriage is intended to protect the woman in the bearing and raising of children, otherwise there is no point to it. If the couple are not fertile, then that is sad, but they can adopt and achieve what they might have achieved if they were fertile. And they SHOULD adopt, if only to help fulfill their purpose.

Wow, just wow.

[rockpond]

...now suddenly we have decided that marriage is just a committed snuggle.

 

And now, suddenly, we have decided to stop diminishing the beauty in the love, commitment, and covenant of two children of God who happen to be homosexual.  (Many of whom also plan to raise children.)

[thesometimesaint]

And now, suddenly, we have decided to stop diminishing the beauty in the love, commitment, and covenant of two children of God who happen to be homosexual.  (Many of whom also plan to raise children.)

 

If you love me keep my commandments,.

signed God.

[rockpond]

If you love me keep my commandments,.

signed God.

 

Which brings us back around to the discussion of what God has/hasn't actually commanded of his homosexual children.  But I'd prefer not to derail this thread with that discussion.

[Daniel2]

See my response to Stone Holm.Hetero couples who do not want children, should stay away from the altar. If either of them are concerned that they might entail negative genetic factors to their offspring, and that's the only reason for not having children, then they should marry and adopt.Gay couples need not marry because they cannot have children. I suppose you can argue that since some partners in a gay relationship might actually have children from previous relationships, then the two partners should get married for the sake of the kids. That's an interesting concept, and I think it might be a legitimate argument in favor of SSM. Much in the same way that we get step-parents.Maybe I'm more liberal on this than I thought. Hmmmm.

I have been working on a response that actually get a to exactly where you're going--just haven't had time to finish and post it.

But the main gist of it was: if civil marriage provides tangible benefits and increases financial stability and social commitment for children being raised by straight parents (whether biological or adopted), the same would be true of civil marriage for children being raised by gay parents.... so, yes, you did just make the case for marriage equality for couples raising children together.

You are not alone, and are in good company. The same phenomenon happened on the stand to the marriage expert witness testifying against same-sex marriage in the Prop 8 case, who ended up admitting that children would be better served if their gay parents could civilly marry:

Star witnesses for both sides in the recent Proposition 8 trial agreed on one thing: Children of same-sex parents benefit from having two parents who are happily married to each other.

The conclusion was most stunning from David Blankenhorn, an expert witness for the defenders of Proposition 8.

“I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children,” he said, during his testimony as the last person to take the stand during the trial.

Dr. Michael Lamb, head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at the University of Cambridge and an expert for the legal team challenging the California same-sex marriage ban, said that, “for a significant number” of children being raised by same-sex parents, “their adjustment would be promoted were their parents able to get married.”

- See more at: http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/01/30/prop-8-witnesses-debate-scholarship-on-families/#sthash.tp47iBXE.dpuf

Incidentally, Dr. Blackenhorn subsequently changed his views, and publicly supports marriage equality, today:

When anti-gay conservatives were defending California’s Proposition 8 in court two years ago, they were counting on David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values to be their star witness opposing same-sex marriage. This greatly backfired, and not just because Blankenhorn admitted that the children of same-sex couples would be better off if their parents could marry. In his ruling, Judge Vaughan Walker dismissed Blankenhorn’s “expertise” as “inadmissible opinion testimony” that is “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.”

While it’s true that Blankenhorn lacked the proper academic credentials to qualify as an expert, his ineffective testimony may also have reflected his own lack of commitment to opposing same-sex marriage. In April, he spoke out against Amendment One, North Carolina’s constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and now, in a New York Times op-ed, he has come out wholly in favor of marriage equality:

For me, the most important is the equal dignity of homosexual love. I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness. [...]

So my intention is to try something new. Instead of fighting gay marriage, I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same. For example, once we accept gay marriage, might we also agree that getting married before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace? Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation? Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents?

Will this strategy work? I don’t know. But I hope to find out.

It’s unfortunate that Blankenhorn still clings to some of his unfounded beliefs about parenting and that he does not yet fully appreciate how marriage equality supports the children of same-sex couples. Nevertheless, his courageous admission of a changed heart and mind should be commended. Like so many before him, Blankenhorn met same-sex couples, learned about their experiences, and realized that his point of view was visibly hurting people. He allowed new information to change his mind. Hopefully his new strategy will convince other social conservatives to do the same.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/22/504672/pro-prop-8-witness-david-blankenhorn-comes-out-for-basic-fairness-of-marriage-equality/

[thesometimesaint]

Which brings us back around to the discussion of what God has/hasn't actually commanded of his homosexual children.  But I'd prefer not to derail this thread with that discussion.

 

Start a new thread if you'd like.

Be fruitful and multiply. Whatever abilities of homosexuals they can not by definition do that.

[rockpond]

Start a new thread if you'd like.

Be fruitful and multiply. Whatever abilities of homosexuals they can not by definition do that.

 

I don't really care to start a new thread.  It's been discussed plenty here and neither of us will convince the other.

 

My grandpa and step-grandma had no ability to be fruitful and multiply when they were sealed in the temple.  Their relationship was still worth solemnizing.

[Daniel2]

Which brings us back around to the discussion of what God has/hasn't actually commanded of his homosexual children. But I'd prefer not to derail this thread with that discussion.

Start a new thread if you'd like.

Be fruitful and multiply. Whatever abilities of homosexuals they can not by definition do that.

But... the commandment to be fruitful and multiply wasn't given to God's homosexual children. It was given to Adam and Eve--two of God's heterosexual children that were also apparently siblings commanded to commit incest (as did their own children they begat).

[Daniel2]

More news from SCOTUS regarding Virginia:

Breaking: Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Will Decide Virginia Stay Request

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/breaking_supreme_court_chief_justice_roberts_says_scotus_will_decide_virginia_stay_request

by DAVID BADASH

August 15, 2014 12:20 PM

Chief Justice John Roberts has agreed to allow the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a stay is justified in the Virginia same-sex marriage case.  

After the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request of county clerk Michèle McQuigg to place a stay on its ruling that found Virginia's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, her attorneys asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Moments ago, the nation's high court responded -- as expected. 

Acknowledging the request, Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered information to be filed by Monday at 5:00 PM. The Court could have granted the stay as requested, refused to grant the stay, or ignored the request and not responded. The Supreme Court has granted every stay request in a same-sex marriage case since its DOMA ruling last year.

This week, the Fourth Circuit confirmed that marriages in Virginia could begin next Thursday. That still holds, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise -- which is likely.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-gay Christian legal firm that represents McQuigg, stated Wednesday they indeed would seek a stay at the Supreme Court.

[thesometimesaint]

But... the commandment to be fruitful and multiply wasn't given to God's homosexual children. It was given to Adam and Eve--two of God's heterosexual children that were also apparently siblings commanded to commit incest (as did their own children they begat).

 

Law of Chasity

SEE https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=eng

[Stargazer]

No. And I cite Abraham and Sarah.

Au contraire. Reproduction is almost the only reason for marriage. It has ancillary purposes, but reproduction is the core. And then, after childbreaing most parents become grandparents and frequently help to rear their descendants, and are sometimes extremely important in the survival of their descendants.

I can't say this strongly enough. There is no bloody point to getting married unless children are the intent. You can be as shacked up as you want, with no interest in having children at all, and stay shacked up for a hundred years, and marriage isn't at all needed for that to work out just fine. Marriage is intended to protect the woman in the bearing and raising of children, otherwise there is no point to it. If the couple are not fertile, then that is sad, but they can adopt and achieve what they might have achieved if they were fertile. And they SHOULD adopt, if only to help fulfill their purpose.

Wow, just wow.

I'm glad you're impressed with my wise words.

Look, ultimately God ordained marriage between male and female, and in no other way. It had to be related to reproduction, since 50% of the two commandments God gave Adam and Eve was to multiply.

And even if God is left out of the equation, even an atheist has to realize that the only way for the human race to survive is for heterosexual couples to have babies, something homosexual couples cannot do. So you want to tell me again how important it is for homosexual couples to get "married" to each other? And if the small fraction of the small fraction of humanity which is homosexual is not allowed to "marry" another of the same sex, please explain to me how this is somehow going to destroy civilization or something equally dire? Because that is the mountain this molehill is being made into.

The pile of ridiculousness is growing ever higher and shows no sign of abating.

[Stargazer]

And now, suddenly, we have decided to stop diminishing the beauty in the love, commitment, and covenant of two children of God who happen to be homosexual.  (Many of whom also plan to raise children.)

And now, suddenly after thousands of years, two children of God who are engaged in a sexual relationship that God condemned from the beginning, are demanding to be recognized as if they were "married" to each other, and the equivalent to the relationship that God ordained between opposite sexes? It would have been considered a great improvement for society to stop condemning them and stop putting them in prison -- hell, I consider this a great improvement. But now we must go past that, and for what reason again?

Single parents can raise children, and that's a noble enterprise, too. Doesn't mean they are married to themselves.

Get this, rockpond, the SUDDENNESS is not the decision to stop diminishing any beauty. The SUDDENNESS is to start calling it beautiful. Don't step into the presentism, there are piles of it all over the ground.

[Stargazer]

I have been working on a response that actually get a to exactly where you're going--just haven't had time to finish and post it.

But the main gist of it was: if civil marriage provides tangible benefits and increases financial stability and social commitment for children being raised by straight parents (whether biological or adopted), the same would be true of civil marriage for children being raised by gay parents.... so, yes, you did just make the case for marriage equality for couples raising children together.

You are not alone, and are in good company. The same phenomenon happened on the stand to the marriage expert witness testifying against same-sex marriage in the Prop 8 case, who ended up admitting that children would be better served if their gay parents could civilly marry:

Incidentally, Dr. Blackenhorn subsequently changed his views, and publicly supports marriage equality, today:

Well, I haven't actually changed my mind like Dr. Blackenhorn has done. If it is the case that children being raised by a gay couple might be better served by the partners being civilly married, something which I am not yet convinced of, but am willing to allow for the sake of argument, then perhaps there is a exceptional case to be made in favor of gay marriage. I don't see a point to it, otherwise. I note that the number of families where children are being raised by a gay couple is quite small in an absolute sense.

[Daniel2]

Law of Chasity

SEE https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=eng

Which specific aspects of the Gospel Principles manual is applicable to the discussion?

[rockpond]

And now, suddenly after thousands of years, two children of God who are engaged in a sexual relationship that God condemned from the beginning, are demanding to be recognized as if they were "married" to each other, and the equivalent to the relationship that God ordained between opposite sexes? It would have been considered a great improvement for society to stop condemning them and stop putting them in prison -- hell, I consider this a great improvement. But now we must go past that, and for what reason again?

Single parents can raise children, and that's a noble enterprise, too. Doesn't mean they are married to themselves.

Get this, rockpond, the SUDDENNESS is not the decision to stop diminishing any beauty. The SUDDENNESS is to start calling it beautiful. Don't step into the presentism, there are piles of it all over the ground.

You attribute statements to God (and an exclusivity/clarity in those statements) that I cannot find in scripture/revelation. I presume this is why we differ in opinion.

[Stargazer]

I don't really care to start a new thread.  It's been discussed plenty here and neither of us will convince the other.

 

My grandpa and step-grandma had no ability to be fruitful and multiply when they were sealed in the temple.  Their relationship was still worth solemnizing.

Your grandpa and step-grandma's relationship isn't worth solemnizing despite something they cannot do here in mortality (unless they have an Abraham and Sarah moment), their relationship is worth solemnizing because of something they can do in their immortal and eternal lives, which is to have eternal progeny.

God has not at any time given us even the slightest inkling that this matter of eternal sealing of husbands and wives can or will be extended to same-sex couples. He has given us abundant reason to believe that it is one of the most ironclad principles that exist, that only males and females can be sealed to each other in eternity.  To extend this to this mortal existence is entirely reasonable and logical -- and the Church seems to agree with this.