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

[Stargazer]

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).

 

Interesting.  But were Adam and Eve actually brother and sister?  I am sure that they were not.  At least not in the sense that a mortal male and a mortal female born from the same two mortal parents are brother and sister.

 

Neither Adam nor Eve arrived upon the earth as babies, but as full adults in full adult morphology.  It need not have been the case they there were genetically even as closely related as 2nd or 3rd cousins might be.  And also, and this is important, neither Adam nor Eve arrived upon the earth with any genetic defects whatsoever.  Their generation from Eternal parents provided without any equivocation whatsoever, that they were genetically perfect, and so perfect that they could not die.  And since there were no genetic conditions that they could possibly entail upon their offspring, there was no cause to institute any rules against incest, for either them, their children, or for many generations of children to come.  Later it would have become necessary as environmental factors gradually began introducing mutations; but early on there was no need for worrying about incest.

 

Incidentally, there is no commandment against incest.  There is only a commandment against adultery.  The crime of incest, so far as I know, was first instituted in the Law of Moses.  When you look at Abram and Sarai, for example, they happen to be first cousins, and most modern rules regarding incest do not permit the marriage of first cousins, without special permission.  But there appears to have been no contemporary hesitation about Abram and Sarai, due to the closeness of their genetic relationship.

[rockpond]

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.

Okay... So you're changing your position now? It isn't about producing children in this life, it's about being able to create children in the next life?

Since we have no scriptural or revelatory indication of how we would go about creating spirits or spiritual progeny any statement that it requires a man and a woman is conjecture.

Regarding your ironclad claim regarding who can be sealed... In the relatively short existence of the modern church, we've modified that definition twice, possibly three times. So, I don't see it as ironclad.

By the way, as an aside, does my grandma get a say in whether or not my grandpa produces these spiritual progeny with his second wife?

[Stargazer]

Okay... So you're changing your position now? It isn't about producing children in this life, it's about being able to create children in the next life?

No, I'm not changing it, I'm extending it to eternity.

 

Since we have no scriptural or revelatory indication of how we would go about creating spirits or spiritual progeny any statement that it requires a man and a woman is conjecture.

I don't think it is conjecture at all. If it involved anything other than a man and a woman, I think HF would have made this life reflect that. Why would He make it entirely different?

As a science-fiction author (OK, one who hopes to be a SF author), I once invented an intelligent alien life form with three sexes. If HF's kingdom involved three sexes, I don't think it would be hard at all to make mortal lifeforms with three as well.

 

Regarding your ironclad claim regarding who can be sealed... In the relatively short existence of the modern church, we've modified that definition twice, possibly three times. So, I don't see it as ironclad.

So, you're saying that there were men who were sealed as eternal spouses to other men? I don't recall that particular wrinkle, but if you can prove it, please accept that as a CFR.

 

By the way, as an aside, does my grandma get a say in whether or not my grandpa produces these spiritual progeny with his second wife?

I don't know, and that's a good question, but I would suspect that in the event she would be perfectly happy with it. It might surprise you, but I think we might even shed a few irrational human emotions (like jealousy) after we are exalted.

[Daniel2]

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.

I disagree that the worth of one's marriage and value spouse is only due to their fertility.

Society rejected that notion decades, if not centuries, ago.

[Daniel2]

I'm glad you're impressed with my wise words.Look, ultimately God ordained marriage between male and female, and in no other way

We're all free to believe whatever we want to about what God thinks about marriage. But ultimately, God's opinion is unrelated to the question of government civilly recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples.

However, many people believe God hasn't specifically addressed the question of whether same-sex couples' relationships could be divinely sanctioned, and others believe that God does sanction them. Our government mandates that we all have a right to believe as we wish, and none of us should have the right to force our beliefs on others.

It had to be related to reproduction, since 50% of the two commandments God gave Adam and Eve was to multiply.

And yet.... God intended for Adam and Eve to break the other 50% of the commandments he gave them in the garden... so, I'm not sure it makes sense to try to use logic to discern what the commandments "had to be related to."

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?

Because the benefits of civil marriage aren't only about reproduction, and reproduction isn't limited to married couples, and non-reproductivr couples contribute to society, including raising children...

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?

No matter how small the minority, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Recognizing same-sex marriage doesn't harm your marriage or family in any way. Concurrently, while prohibiting gays from marrying offers no immediately problems for you, it currently, directly, measurably, and continuously harms me and my family in the here and now.

[rockpond]

No, I'm not changing it, I'm extending it to eternity.

I don't think it is conjecture at all. If it involved anything other than a man and a woman, I think HF would have made this life reflect that. Why would He make it entirely different?

As a science-fiction author (OK, one who hopes to be a SF author), I once invented an intelligent alien life form with three sexes. If HF's kingdom involved three sexes, I don't think it would be hard at all to make mortal lifeforms with three as well.

So, you're saying that there were men who were sealed as eternal spouses to other men? I don't recall that particular wrinkle, but if you can prove it, please accept that as a CFR.

I don't know, and that's a good question, but I would suspect that in the event she would be perfectly happy with it. It might surprise you, but I think we might even shed a few irrational human emotions (like jealousy) after we are exalted.

I think that our only insight into the producing of spirit children is in the creation narrative. No mention of a man-woman scenario there (until Adam & Eve, but that's physical bodies, not creating spirits). So yes, anything we have to say about the creation of spirit children is conjecture. His ways are not our ways. Creation of spirits does not need to reflect creation of bodies (which, by the way, can apparently be created by two male gods).

And no, I didn't say that men were ever sealed to men as spouses. You can double check my post. I said that in the modern church, we have made significant changes as to who can be sealed in the temple. Twice. So I don't see that as fitting your declaration of it being ironclad. I'm sure you'll respond that it always included a man and a woman. True. But a changing definition of sealing doesn't support the "ironclad" status you've given it. It took us some time to understand the sealing ordinance. It was not just given to Joseph in its perfectly restored form.

Similarly, it has taken us some time to arrive at our current spiritual understanding of homosexuality. The restoration is not over. There is more to be revealed. I think that deciding we have everything we're going to be given regarding the eternal aspects of homosexuality and homosexual relationships is short-sighted.

[Stargazer]

We're all free to believe whatever we want to about what God thinks about marriage. But ultimately, God's opinion is unrelated to the question of government civilly recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples.

We are all free to believe whatever we want, yes.

And you're correct when it comes to civil government. Government can do what it wants. No argument there.

However, many people believe God hasn't specifically addressed the question of whether same-sex couples' relationships could be divinely sanctioned, and others believe that God does sanction them. Our government mandates that we all have a right to believe as we wish, and none of us should have the right to force our beliefs on others.

Coming from a Abrahamic religious context, it is impossible to claim that God has never come right out and said that homosexuality is forbidden because He made it very clear that it was forbidden. How then can someone claim that God would be OK with SSM? Yet some do, as you have said.

As to the idea that none of us have the right to force our beliefs upon others, this happens all the time and nobody seems to have a problem with it. In history, the federal legislature passed a law forbidding polygamy, and the Supreme Court was completely OK with it. Thus it should be clear that beliefs are being forced upon people all the time and why should SSM be exempt? There was a group in India called the Thugee (where we get our word "thug" from) which existed for hundreds of years. They believed they had the right to infiltrate groups of people going from place to place, and for their property's sake murdering them all in their sleep at the opportune moment. After the British took India over, and then realized this was going on, they put an end to this group's activities. And why? Because the Brits believed it was wrong to do as the Thugs were doing.

In California and Utah and other places, the people have voted that there shall be no SSM, but small numbers of judges have overturned these enactments. In other words, the people believed that SSM was wrong, but the judges believed it wasn't. So the judges force their beliefs upon the people.

And yet.... God intended for Adam and Eve to break the other 50% of the commandments he gave them in the garden... so, I'm not sure it makes sense to try to use logic to discern what the commandments "had to be related to."

God could only create perfect immortal beings who were provided with the means to become mortal through disobedience. God might even have wanted them to disobey the commandment to not eat of that tree. But once that commandment was broken, the other commandment remained in force, and remains in force to this day. I have no idea why you think that if Man breaks one commandment that this automatically abrogates all other commandments. It is illogical to suppose that breaking one law causes any other law to become void.

Because the benefits of civil marriage aren't only about reproduction, ...

What is marriage anyway? It is a commitment to remain sexually faithful to one another, and to live in a community with one another that approaches being one with another. But its purpose is reproduction, because children are best raised in a household with their biological parents. You keep wanting to bring up exceptions, as if exceptions invalidate the principle itself. But it doesn't.

What other benefits are you talking about, anyway? Tax benefits perhaps? Privileges of hospital visitation? The right to inherit? The responsibility of declaring the discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment? All of these can be achieved by means other than marriage.

...and reproduction isn't limited to married couples, ...

But it should be! Just because something can be done in a particular way doesn't mean that it is desirable to do it that way.

and non-reproductivr couples contribute to society, including raising children...

I have not argued otherwise. But non-reproductive couples do not need marriage to raise children, because even for that there are other legal means available. As you may have noticed, I have softened my stance to the degree that perhaps same-sex partnerships might be regarded as being married, for the sake of raising the children of either partner. Even if they are not actually married.

I still say that reproductive couples should marry for the sake of the children.

No matter how small the minority, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Prohibiting guys from marrying may not immediately mean problems for you---but it directly and immediately harms me and my family.

I was not advocating the oppression of minorities just because they are small.

But I still stand by the principle that marriage is for heterosexual couples, and no other kind. I am truly sorry if you see that viewpoint as harming you and your family, but I cannot do anything but stand for what I see is truth.

Have we been repeating ourselves long enough now? Maybe we could just put a sock in it and declare that we agree to disagree. I have grown to greatly appreciate you, and I would like to let the matter drop. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me, after all.

[rockpond]

In California and Utah and other places, the people have voted that there shall be no SSM, but small numbers of judges have overturned these enactments. In other words, the people believed that SSM was wrong, but the judges believed it wasn't. So the judges force their beliefs upon the people.

 

The judges did not force their beliefs about SSM on the people.  They did their job in interpreting the constitution and applying it to the law.  You can disagree with their interpretation but to claim that they were just forcing their beliefs on the people is misleading.

[Daniel2]

Stargazer, thanks for your response. I will respond more, when I am able. I appreciate respectful dialogue on this issue, and welcome ongoing conversations from all points of view.

As for today's news, the Virginia Plaintiffs have until 5:00 pm to file their objection to the stay--a stay which I think everyone knows that SCOTUS will grant (really, they have to grant, to remain consistent). Here's what they've said so far today:

VIRGINIA: Plaintiffs To Tell SCOTUS Not To Continue Same-Sex Marriage Stay

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/08/virginia-plaintiffs-to-tell-scotus-not.html?m=1#disqus_thread

On Friday, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts announced a 5 PM today deadline for Virginia's marriage plaintiffs to respond to the stay continuance demand made last week by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Via press release:

Today, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and ACLU of Virginia will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the motion filed Thursday by Prince William County Clerk Michèle McQuigg seeking to stay the recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Schaefer v. Bostic striking down Virginia’s discriminatory marriage ban. The organizations also will request that, if the Court decides to grant the stay, it should accept the case for full review as quickly as possible in order to minimize the harm that would be caused by the delay of the Fourth Circuit decision.

"We will fight these last-ditch desperate attempts to delay the inevitable arrival of the day when same-sex couples can marry in Virginia,” Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal, said. “But if the Court grants a stay, we want this issue to be decided as quickly as possible.”

“The Fourth Circuit finally ruled to let us get married and we are anxious to finally plan our wedding,” said Joanne Harris, who with Jessica Duff is one of the named plaintiff couples in the lawsuit. “Jessi and I are prepared to continue to fight, but we shouldn’t have to wait any longer.”

[Stargazer]

The judges did not force their beliefs about SSM on the people.  They did their job in interpreting the constitution and applying it to the law.  You can disagree with their interpretation but to claim that they were just forcing their beliefs on the people is misleading.

That's your opinion.

The Constitution says zip about marriage, and suddenly because activists want to change things without being contradicted by the will of the people, suddenly they discover (Eureka!) that the Constitution has SSM written all over it.

rockpond, they are forcing their beliefs on people, big time. If you choose to believe otherwise, well, that's up to you.

[thesometimesaint]

That's your opinion.

The Constitution says zip about marriage, and suddenly because activists want to change things without being contradicted by the will of the people, suddenly they discover (Eureka!) that the Constitution has SSM written all over it.

rockpond, they are forcing their beliefs on people, big time. If you choose to believe otherwise, well, that's up to you.

 

The Constitution says zip about a lot of things.

 

The principle of Court Review comes from Section 2; The separation of powers in the Constitution; Marbury v Marshal in 1803. I think a good case can be made the laws outlawing SSM are Bills of Attainder. It is even enshrined on the USSC building with "Equal justice under law"

 

All you have to do is get enough citizens together and change or eliminate the US Constitution. We've changed it 27 times over the years. Moreover the Constitution eliminated the former law of the land, the Articles of Confederation.

[rockpond]

That's your opinion.

The Constitution says zip about marriage, and suddenly because activists want to change things without being contradicted by the will of the people, suddenly they discover (Eureka!) that the Constitution has SSM written all over it.

rockpond, they are forcing their beliefs on people, big time. If you choose to believe otherwise, well, that's up to you.

 

It doesn't need to mention marriage.  Most of the decisions are being based on the 14th amendment.  And Daniel has been logging those for you here on this thread.

[Daniel2]

Stargazer, I think this is where you and I are apparently defining “forcing marriage on others” in different ways:

It appears that you are saying that if government recognizes civil marriage between same-sex couples, then that is “forcing” a belief in same-sex marriage on you and others who disapprove of the morality of same-sex marriage, simply because same-sex marriage becomes a legal reality--even though you aren't required to get married to someone of the same-sex, or agree with the morality of such.

A variation of this stance that one commonly hears in these types of discussions is that same-sex marriage supports are "forcing it down [the] throats" of those who disagree with same-sex marriage.

For me, when you say, “force [x] onto someone,” it would mean forcing others to undergo that practice, themselves. Said differently, “forcing same-sex marriage” onto you would be forcing you to marry someone of the same-sex. However, allowing others to choose to marry someone of the same sex doesn’t “force” their marriage on you------you are still entirely free to choose NOT to marry someone of the same sex.

You are also still free to hold to your deeply-held religious belief that same-sex marriages are immoral, and you’re still free to be able to actively promote that belief through preaching, proselyting, etc.

Conversely, the existence of LDS temple sealings, and the civil recognition thereof, does not "force LDS temple marriage" or "Mormonism" on the rest of us, who subscribe to a different belief system and don't believe in or support LDS theology, nor does it alter or affect our marriages.

Here’s some other examples of what I mean: Even today, decades after Loving v. Virginia mandated equality of inter-racial marriages, organizations still exist that are entirely free to promote that interracial marriages are immoral, sinful, etc. Allowing interracial marriage did not “force interracial marriage” on everyone else… Most couples that marry are still of the same race, and allowing interracial couples did not undermine or threaten the marriages of same-race couples.

Allowing and respecting others’ choices does not “force” a change of belief or practice on everyone else that doesn’t support those choices. For example:

Regulating the sale of alcohol in Utah doesn’t “force consuming alcoholic beverages” on Utah’s population of non-drinkers.

Allowing businesses to open on Sunday does not “force Sabbath-breaking” on Utah’s population that doesn’t believe in shopping on Sundays.

Decriminalizing adultery didn’t “force non-marital sex” on Utah’s population that subscribes to the concept of the LDS Law of Chastity…

In short, allowing and respecting others’ choices and especially recognizing their constitutional right to something different than what you may believe doesn’t “force” such behaviors or restrict the beliefs of those who choose not to engage in such behaviors, and doesn’t curtail their ability to teach, preach, and promote their ideas, otherwise.

Does that make sense?

[Daniel2]

And the next step....

VIRGINIA: AFER Tells SCOTUS Not To Continue Stay On Same-Sex Marriages

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2014/08/virginia-afer-tells-scotus-not-to.html?m=1#disqus_thread

Via press release: 

Today, lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the Bostic case responded to a petition by defendants seeking a stay of the United States Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit’s decision that found Virginia’s marriage ban unconstitutional by urging the Supreme Court not to delay the issuance of marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Virginia. The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the primary sponsor of the Bostic case.

“Virginia’s exclusion of gays and lesbians from the fundamental right to marriage causes painful, irreparable, and immeasurable injury to large numbers of its citizens every day and every moment it remains in existence, and humiliates and stigmatizes these individuals and their children in ways too numerous to enumerate,” said Ted Olson, lead co-counsel for the Bostic plaintiffs. “Courts all over the country are overwhelmingly and with an unprecedented degree of unanimity recognizing that there is no legal basis for continuing to impose this kind of harm on our fellow citizens. There is no justification for staying the effect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision upholding the rights of Virginians to marry the person they love.”

Prince William County Clerk Michèle McQuigg filed her petition to stay the Fourth Circuit Court’s mandate on Thursday, August 14, 2014. Should Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice responsible for emergency petitions made within the Fourth Circuit, deny the stay request, marriages for gay and lesbian couples would be set to begin at 8 a.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2014.

And now we wait.

[Daniel2]

Holy WOW.... I just read the Plaintiff's 12 page Response to the Motion for a Stay.

It is POWERFUL.

As one engaged and awaiting the ability to marry the man I love and unite our family, it literally brought me to tears.

I HIGHLY recommend everyone read it:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/237142859/14A196-Bostic-Plaintiffs-Response-to-Stay

With the strengths of these arguments, I am confident that no hand, hallowed or otherwise, shall stop this work from rolling forth.

[Stone holm]

That's your opinion.The Constitution says zip about marriage, and suddenly because activists want to change things without being contradicted by the will of the people, suddenly they discover (Eureka!) that the Constitution has SSM written all over it.rockpond, they are forcing their beliefs on people, big time. If you choose to believe otherwise, well, that's up to you.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage of any kind, it also doesn't say anything about automobiles, the internet, or airplanes, but it does establish rights. At the foundation, it would not have addressed marriage because that was governed by the States, and the Bill of Rights at that time only applied to the Federal Government. But the Civil War Amendments changed the legal game. So now State laws including their Constitutions must pass muster under the 14th Amendment. That Amendment protects our rights to religious freedom from the State and local governments, it also protects citizens of the States from having the majority in a State impose its religious beliefs on a minority. Nobody is saying we have to enter into a SSM, nobody is imposing anything on us.

[Stargazer]

The Constitution says zip about a lot of things.

 

The principle of Court Review comes from Section 2; The separation of powers in the Constitution; Marbury v Marshal in 1803. I think a good case can be made the laws outlawing SSM are Bills of Attainder. It is even enshrined on the USSC building with "Equal justice under law"

 

All you have to do is get enough citizens together and change or eliminate the US Constitution. We've changed it 27 times over the years. Moreover the Constitution eliminated the former law of the land, the Articles of Confederation.

Do you even know what Attainder is? Clearly not. See Attainder. 

 

Better watch out, lest someone give you a letter of Marque or Reprisal.  Look that up, too.

In short, Attainder has absolutely nothing to do with licenses to marry.

 

SSM advocates are asking for a form of marriage which has never existed before.  It is not some recent legislative wrinkle that suddenly forbids SSM -- it has simply never existed as a right, nor as a privilege.  This is no more an abrogation of rights than not permitting a brother and sister (a man and a woman who share a biological parent), or disallowing a father and daughter from marrying, or any other close relation.  And let me repeat myself, this was always because of concern for genetic diseases being transmitted to their children!  Which also enhances the contention that the purpose of marriage is progeny.  Male/Female first cousins were likewise forbidden to marry, and for the same reason!  Although in the case of first cousins, permission was possible.  Every hear the term "kissing cousin"?  It meant a relative which was distant enough to allow marriage, without extra permission.

[Stargazer]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage of any kind, it also doesn't say anything about automobiles, the internet, or airplanes, but it does establish rights. At the foundation, it would not have addressed marriage because that was governed by the States, and the Bill of Rights at that time only applied to the Federal Government. But the Civil War Amendments changed the legal game. So now State laws including their Constitutions must pass muster under the 14th Amendment. That Amendment protects our rights to religious freedom from the State and local governments, it also protects citizens of the States from having the majority in a State impose its religious beliefs on a minority. Nobody is saying we have to enter into a SSM, nobody is imposing anything on us.

 

You are correct, as far as it goes.  I actually believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on its face, since the Constitution gives the Feds no authority to pass laws of that nature (though that little quibble does not seem to stop them from passing other unconstitutional laws).

 

But the 14th Amendment equal protection clause has nothing to do with the creation of rights that never existed.  Equal protection under the laws, if applied as it was intended, would apply to marriage in the same way that Loving v. Virginia was applied --- between males and females.  Loving does not give a suddenly-discovered carte-blanche precedent for every sex-based relationship that does or could exist.  Despite Loving, brothers may still not marry sisters, mothers still not marry sons, and fathers still not marry daughters.  Warren's opinion was very clear that it was the race-basis of Virginia's law that was inimical to the Constitution:

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination.

 

Marriage is not being denied to gay men and women.  A gay man may marry any woman he wishes to marry, and a gay woman may marry any man she wishes to marry.  If they choose not to do so, that is also their free choice.  This is because the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause has nothing to do with the definition of marriage, and marriage is a matter for the states to decide.  This is principally why I object to Federal courts ruling on whether a given state may define marriage as marriage has always been defined.  It's not the Federal government's bailiwick.

 

Now, I am going to be lambasted about the previous paragraph, where I say a gay man may marry any woman of his choice who will consent to do so.  "But I don't want to marry a woman!" is the cry, but how many brothers and sisters have cried out that they wanted to marry their sibling, only to have the law forbid it?  And with a snowball's chance in hell of getting a Federal court to intervene to let them?  Shall we also permit men to marry their cars?  Some of them are surely in love with their cars; no doubt they can find a federal judge somewhere who will require it.

 

Marriage is a matter between opposite sexes, not same sexes.  That's how it is. 

[Stargazer]

Stargazer, I think this is where you and I are apparently defining “forcing marriage on others” in different ways:

It appears that you are saying that if government recognizes civil marriage between same-sex couples, then that is “forcing” a belief in same-sex marriage on you and others who disapprove of the morality of same-sex marriage, simply because same-sex marriage becomes a legal reality--even though you aren't required to get married to someone of the same-sex, or agree with the morality of such.

No, that isn't where we are talking past each other.

I am in perfect agreement that decriminalizing adultery does not mean adultery is peachy-keep and everyone should do it. All you examples are entirely valid.

I've said it often enough that marriage has always been, and always will be, a matter between a man and a woman. I am glumly cognizant that eventually we will have de jure gay marriage forced upon us regardless of the public will in the matter. And I do know that it does not mean that I will be forced to marry a man -- that's a silly notion, and I am surprised you think I could hold it in my head. The forcing is the matter of the courts abrogating the democratically-decided definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, which has been the case for thousands of years. Now, my own state of Washington, actually voted to permit same-sex couples to marry. So all I can do is grumble. But in this case it was a matter of the majority of voters choosing the wrong choice. There is no question in my mind that this is so.

I have never, ever, disregarded any gay person's choice to live a gay lifestyle, whatever form it might take. I have always opposed the idea of arresting people for engaging in any form of consensual sexual behavior they chose to engage in. But no other relationship except man and woman can possibly count for marriage.

You argue well, Daniel, and I appreciate your passion for this matter. But I cannot agree with you.

I wish you all the happiness you can attain in the matter of changing the definition of marriage, and when/if the effort succeeds, I hope you are happy in wherever that success takes you. I cannot wish for the effort to succeed, however, and I hope you can understand this.

[Buckeye]

Daniel, et al,

 

You should find interesting some recent polling conducted on Utah residents regarding SSM and Issue 3.  Bottom line take away: most Utahns oppose SSM and support the state's decision to defend Issue, but most Utahns are also resigned to the likelihood that they will lose. 

 

The polling results can be found here:

 

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/3245-poll-clear-majority-of-utahns-support-amendment-3-fight

 

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/3258-poll-shows-same-sex-marriage-is-a-difficult-issue-in-utah

 

 

Personally, I found the following breakdowns by religion to be most interesting:

 

-- While 88 percent of “very active” Mormons oppose same sex marriage, the support drops drastically down the religion scale.

-- “Somewhat active” Mormons: 40 percent favor gay marriage, 34 percent oppose.

-- “Non-active” Mormons: 48 percent favor; 34 percent oppose.

-- Catholics (whose church formally opposes gay marriage): 56 percent favor; 34 percent oppose.

-- Protestants: 39 percent oppose, 39 percent favor.

-- “No” religion: 88 percent favor; 6 percent oppose.

-- Those of “other” religious or spiritual beliefs: 47 percent favor; 32 percent oppose.

 

It seems that 12% of active members favor SSM, along with 40% of "somewhat actives" and 48% of non-actives.  That suggests to me that somewhere between 1/3 and 40% of all LDS support SSM - much higher than I had thought.  Even 12% for active members is higher than I supposed.  That would mean that, on average, 1-2 members of each stake high council, 1 member of each ward council, and a few of the temple staff in each temple, currently support SSM.  A few caveats, though - the poll does not specify a definition for active vs. somewhat active vs. non-active, and the poll responders alone decide their activity rate.

[california boy]

You are correct, as far as it goes. I actually believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on its face, since the Constitution gives the Feds no authority to pass laws of that nature (though that little quibble does not seem to stop them from passing other unconstitutional laws).

But the 14th Amendment equal protection clause has nothing to do with the creation of rights that never existed. Equal protection under the laws, if applied as it was intended, would apply to marriage in the same way that Loving v. Virginia was applied --- between males and females. Loving does not give a suddenly-discovered carte-blanche precedent for every sex-based relationship that does or could exist. Despite Loving, brothers may still not marry sisters, mothers still not marry sons, and fathers still not marry daughters. Warren's opinion was very clear that it was the race-basis of Virginia's law that was inimical to the Constitution:

Marriage is not being denied to gay men and women. A gay man may marry any woman he wishes to marry, and a gay woman may marry any man she wishes to marry. If they choose not to do so, that is also their free choice. This is because the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause has nothing to do with the definition of marriage, and marriage is a matter for the states to decide. This is principally why I object to Federal courts ruling on whether a given state may define marriage as marriage has always been defined. It's not the Federal government's bailiwick.

Now, I am going to be lambasted about the previous paragraph, where I say a gay man may marry any woman of his choice who will consent to do so. "But I don't want to marry a woman!" is the cry, but how many brothers and sisters have cried out that they wanted to marry their sibling, only to have the law forbid it? And with a snowball's chance in hell of getting a Federal court to intervene to let them? Shall we also permit men to marry their cars? Some of them are surely in love with their cars; no doubt they can find a federal judge somewhere who will require it.

Marriage is a matter between opposite sexes, not same sexes. That's how it is.

Wow. I didn't see you as a guy that believes in this kind of ideas about marriage. Quite frankly I am a but stunned. I thought you were more thoughtful on this subject. I know that you don't support gay marriage , but the gay man can marry a woman or it is like marrying a car??? Really???

You seem to be so passionAte about this subject, I would have thought you would have at least read some of the rulings and had a better grasp on what the actual legal issues are being argued. These points are like right wing radio talk show arguments, not alegal defends that would hold up in a court of law.

I think it is important to remember ed that BOTH liberal AND conservative judges have ruled meatin favor of gay marriage. You can't ignore their legal reasonings. There must be solid reasons why gay marriage is inot like marrying a car.

[Daniel2]

Recognizing same-sex marriage doesn't harm your marriage or family in any way. Concurrently, while prohibiting gays from marrying offers no immediately problems for you, it currently, directly, measurably, and continuously harms me and my family in the here and now.

 

But I still stand by the principle that marriage is for heterosexual couples, and no other kind. I am truly sorry if you see that viewpoint as harming you and your family, but I cannot do anything but stand for what I see is truth.

 

 

I’d like to clarify one other thing here, Stargazer.  It is not your “viewpoint that marriage is only for heterosexual couples” or your “standing for the truth of the exclusivity of theological approval of marriage being reserved only for heterosexuals" or your “belief that same-sex relationships are wrong” that directly, measurably, and immediately harms me and my family.  When it comes to “your beliefs” vs. any “harm they afflict” on me, we could paraphrase the old adage: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your viewpoint about marriage doesn’t really hurt me.”

 

It is a victim mentality to walk around and point fingers at others, claiming, “Hey!!!! Your beliefs are hurting me!!!  I demand you change your beliefs I’m not being hurt!”

 

No…. Your beliefs don’t hurt me or my family.

 

What does directly, measurably, and immediately hurt my family is the denial of the same civil benefits that accompany the marriage contract (health insurance and medical benefits, inheritance rights, tax exemptions and other financial incentives, etc), and the equal dignity afforded by the protections of civil marriage that are only protected by government recognition (i.e. regulations protecting against discrimination in the public sector; business practices, educational institutions, medical facilities, etc).

 

In sum, I am fine with others believing my marriage is immortal or divinely rejected, and I am fine with others’ offering their moral, personal, and theological support only to heterosexual marriages.

 

What I am not fine with is my government treating my marriage and religion (which recognizes and promotes marriage for both straight and gay couples) differently, because the denial of civil marital benefits and social dignity and freedom from discrimination in the public sector is what harms my family.

 

I hope that helps clarify.

[rockpond]

A gay man may marry any woman he wishes to marry, and a gay woman may marry any man she wishes to marry.  If they choose not to do so, that is also their free choice.

 

I won't "lambaste" you for saying that but I will point out that recommending mixed-orientation marriage seems counter to protecting the sanctity of marriage.  The success rate of such marriages is not too impressive.

[thesometimesaint]

I’d like to clarify one other thing here, Stargazer.  It is not your “viewpoint in traditional marriage” or your “standing for the truth of traditional marriage” or your “belief that same-sex relationships are wrong” that directly, measurably, and immediately harms me and my family.  When it comes to “your beliefs” vs. any “harm they afflict” on me, we could paraphrase the old adage: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your beliefs don’t really hurt me.”

 

It is a victim mentality to walk around and point fingers at others, claiming, “Hey!!!! Your beliefs are hurting me!!!  I demand you change your beliefs I’m not being hurt!”

 

No…. Your beliefs don’t hurt me or my family.

 

What does directly, measurably, and immediately hurt my family is the denial of the same civil benefits that accompany the marriage contract (health insurance and medical benefits, inheritance rights, tax exemptions and other financial incentives, etc), and the equal dignity afforded by the protections of civil marriage that are only protected by government recognition (i.e. regulations protecting against discrimination in the public sector; business practices, educational institutions, medical facilities, etc).

 

In sum, I am fine with others believing my marriage is immortal or divinely rejected, and I am fine with others’ offering their moral, personal, and theological support only to heterosexual marriages.

 

What I am not fine with is my government treating my marriage and religion (which recognizes and promotes marriage for both straight and gay couples) differently, because the denial of civil marital benefits and social dignity and freedom from discrimination in the public sector is what harms my family.

 

I hope that helps clarify.

 

Agreed.

[rockpond]

Daniel, et al,

 

You should find interesting some recent polling conducted on Utah residents regarding SSM and Issue 3.  Bottom line take away: most Utahns oppose SSM and support the state's decision to defend Issue, but most Utahns are also resigned to the likelihood that they will lose. 

 

The polling results can be found here:

 

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/3245-poll-clear-majority-of-utahns-support-amendment-3-fight

 

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/3258-poll-shows-same-sex-marriage-is-a-difficult-issue-in-utah

 

 

Personally, I found the following breakdowns by religion to be most interesting:

 

-- While 88 percent of “very active” Mormons oppose same sex marriage, the support drops drastically down the religion scale.

-- “Somewhat active” Mormons: 40 percent favor gay marriage, 34 percent oppose.

-- “Non-active” Mormons: 48 percent favor; 34 percent oppose.

-- Catholics (whose church formally opposes gay marriage): 56 percent favor; 34 percent oppose.

-- Protestants: 39 percent oppose, 39 percent favor.

-- “No” religion: 88 percent favor; 6 percent oppose.

-- Those of “other” religious or spiritual beliefs: 47 percent favor; 32 percent oppose.

 

It seems that 12% of active members favor SSM, along with 40% of "somewhat actives" and 48% of non-actives.  That suggests to me that somewhere between 1/3 and 40% of all LDS support SSM - much higher than I had thought.  Even 12% for active members is higher than I supposed.  That would mean that, on average, 1-2 members of each stake high council, 1 member of each ward council, and a few of the temple staff in each temple, currently support SSM.  A few caveats, though - the poll does not specify a definition for active vs. somewhat active vs. non-active, and the poll responders alone decide their activity rate.

 

Thanks for sharing the poll data.  I'm actually not surprised as the number of active LDS who support gay marriage.  I believe that there are more and more of us every year and we generally keep those views to ourselves because of the LDS culture.  For example, even though I'm in my 40's, married with kids, my parents still get upset when they see me post/like/comment on anything on Facebook that is in support of gay marriage.