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

[jwhitlock]

Like I said, the perspective of whether something constitutes "persecution" depends upon your perspective as to whether you are wielding a "sword of righteousness".  I'll leave it up to God to make that judgment as to who is right or who is wrong, and as to whether it was an inspired move to nudge the Saints to get involved politically with the Prop 8 movement from the pulpit at Conference.  Perhaps it was, perhaps the Lord wanted to bring down the wrath of many Americans down upon His people, maybe He wanted to alienate the moderates who had no particular sympathy for the LGBT cause at the time -- given the way it played out, somehow I don't think so.  But you could be right, perhaps He intended us to actually give the LG cause a popularity boost -- I don't know, but am highly skeptical.

 

Or maybe since the rationalizations of some church members continue to take the side of the world in opposition to the prophets, He wanted to make things very clear as to which side of the fence those who have covenanted with Him should be on. I find that the prophetic counsel in this case has been repeated and very, very clear. As I also stated, it is also clear that the Lord often is not concerned at all what the world is going to think. They're going to oppose us anyway for some reason, and He will provide the strength and support needed to weather this particular storm.

 

A look back at history and the scriptures provides some clear insight that the prophetic counsel now is consistent with what has happened in the past. The world is not going to agree with us, and the world is going to hate us - but that is what always ends up happening. Those who are embarrassed by that are free to go back to the world and trust in the arm of flesh. I personally think that's going to turn out to be a very bad choice in the not so distant future, but each is free to do what he wants.

[mormonnewb]

I just re-read OD1. It seems to be, in part, addressed to very faithful members who were ready to continue polygamy, despite the threats from the government. In contrast, Pres Woodruff takes the pragmatic approach and says that it's better to give up polygamy than lose the whole church.

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue--to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?"

Therefore, I'm not so sure that it's a simple matter of just sticking to our guns come what may. In that instance, the Lord instructed Pres Woodruff to give up the battle (polygamy) to win the war (the salvation of mankind). I have no idea if SSM will require this same tactic, but I'm going to keep my heart open to ALL of the possibilities.

[california boy]

Frankly, the fact that judges seem to keep agreeing with your interpretation simply means you agree with the concept of governing by judicial fiat, and not by the will of the people. I call that tyranny.

 

As to your second item, it is a fact that gays have the same right to enter into the same types of marriages that I do. The fact that, according to you, fewer and fewer people are buying into it simply means that they aren't thinking particularly deeply beyond the sound bites they're getting fed. That works in your favor, doesn't it.

 

Your third item is an outright lie. You accused those who supported Prop 8 of persecuting and oppressing the minority. That, my boy, is demonizing the opposition for your information. And that claim is indeed, pure rot.

 

Finally your fourth item simply reinforces your methodology of demonizing the opposition when you misrepresent opposition to SSM as "tyranny of the majority". It seems that whenever someone wants a special privilege, it doesn't matter to you whether it may be harmful to society or the rights of others; as long as they can characterize it as being persecuted or oppressed, some judge can properly grant whatever they want.  That's rot.

 

Basically, what I have from you is a shallow dismissal of the significant problems that can and probably will come with SSM. There is not attempt to address those concerns; there never has been by those who support SSM. That doesn't invalidate the concerns; it just makes it clear that those of you who support SSM don't really care about running roughshod over the rights of others.

 

Perhaps you'd like to address my concerns about why SSM is problematic directly, instead of presenting this kind of "gays have been persecuted by denying them SSM" fantasy. I've posted them previously on this thread, for your convenience.

You clearly want to see Prop 8 from your own viewpoint and refuse to understand how many Americans view the churches position. I have never said that the church did not have a right to get politically involved in Prop 8.  But what is clear is that the church also has to live with the consequences of it's actions.  People don't forget how the church treated gay marriage.  It will be a part of how the church is viewed for years to come, just like polygamy and denying blacks from holding the priesthood.  

 

The truth is, the gay community should be thanking the Mormon church for helping to pass Prop 8.  The defeat of this proposition has done more to bring awareness to the undefendable arguments against gay marriage to our living rooms for the past 6 years.  Regularly news segments have pitted those supporting SSM and those oppose to it.  Your argument that gays already have the right to marry has been widely tried, and failed.  Most reasonable people find that, and many of the other arguments, you and others have proposed illogical and even laughable.  

 

You can pinpoint the moment Prop 8 passed as the moment that public opinion started to shift in support of SSM until now the majority of Americans support treating gay couples equally.  If Prop 8 had simply failed, California would have been just another wacko state that allows gay marriage.  But because of the passing of Prop 8, the country and even the world is better informed on the reasons why even gay couples should be treated equally before the law.

 

If the churches involvement with Prop 8 was under the inspiration of God, then the only logical conclusion you can make is that God wanted to expose all the distorted arguments used to suppress the rights of gay couples to marry.  As the backlash continues towards the church, it will be the members that start to question the churches position on how it treats gay members.  The church can withstand outside forces fighting church policy.  What it can not stand is the members themselves fighting church policy.  To prevent gay couples from marrying in the temple based on a handful of scriptures in the Bible that talk of homosexual behavior outside the bonds of marriage is going to be questioned eventually by members.   No one wants to be a member of a church that discriminates against anyone.  It is so unChrist like.

[jwhitlock]

You clearly want to see Prop 8 from your own viewpoint and refuse to understand how many Americans view the churches position. I have never said that the church did not have a right to get politically involved in Prop 8.  But what is clear is that the church also has to live with the consequences of it's actions.  People don't forget how the church treated gay marriage.  It will be a part of how the church is viewed for years to come, just like polygamy and denying blacks from holding the priesthood.  

 

The truth is, the gay community should be thanking the Mormon church for helping to pass Prop 8.  The defeat of this proposition has done more to bring awareness to the undefendable arguments against gay marriage to our living rooms for the past 6 years.  Regularly news segments have pitted those supporting SSM and those oppose to it.  Your argument that gays already have the right to marry has been widely tried, and failed.  Most reasonable people find that, and many of the other arguments, you and others have proposed illogical and even laughable.  

 

You can pinpoint the moment Prop 8 passed as the moment that public opinion started to shift in support of SSM until now the majority of Americans support treating gay couples equally.  If Prop 8 had simply failed, California would have been just another wacko state that allows gay marriage.  But because of the passing of Prop 8, the country and even the world is better informed on the reasons why even gay couples should be treated equally before the law.

 

If the churches involvement with Prop 8 was under the inspiration of God, then the only logical conclusion you can make is that God wanted to expose all the distorted arguments used to suppress the rights of gay couples to marry.  As the backlash continues towards the church, it will be the members that start to question the churches position on how it treats gay members.  The church can withstand outside forces fighting church policy.  What it can not stand is the members themselves fighting church policy.  To prevent gay couples from marrying in the temple based on a handful of scriptures in the Bible that talk of homosexual behavior outside the bonds of marriage is going to be questioned eventually by members.   No one wants to be a member of a church that discriminates against anyone.  It is so unChrist like.

 

Frankly, I don't care what the world thinks about the church just as long as the church is reflecting what God's will is. The practice of polygamy was an expression of obedience in following God's instructions on the subject, and so it is the world - not the members - that will have to answer for their persecution of the church some day. As far as the priesthood ban, the only facts I am really interested in is that prophets questioned God about it and were told to let it stand for the time being (see President McKay's history on this, for instance), and that it would be removed some day. It was, revelation was involved, and the church followed God's instruction on letting it stay place until it was removed. So the only real question is whether the church and the prophets are following God's instruction in this matter. I don't expect the world to approve; indeed, if the world is actively opposing the church in a particular stand, that seems to be more of an indication of the world being wrong.

 

You and other SSM supporters that continue to parrot the falsehood that gays don't have the right to marry are simply ignoring reality. The fact is that gays have the right to marry within the current structure, just like anyone else. They are not being denied a right anyone else has. That is a fact and I don't particularly care that people choose to conflate that right with the special privilege being demanded to marry someone of the opposite sex. Reasonable people who actually think about the issue, rather than people who blindly accept the shallow sound bits of SSM supporters, will understand that it's not about rights, but about special privilege. So when a judge says a "right" is being denied, they understand that it's actually being misrepresented. Until you can prove that gays don't have a right that everyone else has, then simply dismissing it and other problems with SSM as "illogical" and "laughable" is simply a demonstration of the SOP your side uses to mislead people into supporting SSM. And you use that methodology because you understand that most people don't think particularly deeply about the subject and will blindly accept your premise that opponents are "illogical" and "laughable".

 

However, on this board, you have to provide evidence to the contrary in order to be credible. I've presented the issues. You've dismissed them with out any cogent response, as you always have done in the past. That, to me, speaks volumes about your willingness to have any real discussion on the subject, other than to toe the standard party method and line.

 

I doubt you understand the real effect an purpose of why the church was involved in Prop 8. However, it is clear to me that it was not a mistake on the church's part. If nothing else, it gave the world some rope to hang itself. I believe it was a clear expression to the world of what God has to say about SSM. It was expressed as directed through the church, the world made its decision to reject that counsel. I suspect that the Lord has told the prophet that since the world has rejected His counsel, and is going to continue down this path in opposition to Him, that it is no longer necessary for the church to do anything other than to reiterate the doctrine in conference.

 

Finally, your last paragraph is simply fantasy. There are and will be members who decide that the world's viewpoint is to be embrace before the Lord's counsel in this matter. However, it is very clear that the Lord does not approve of SSM, and that he views any homosexual activity as sinful. There are and will be members who decide to leave the church over this issue, but they will not change the Lord's position on this. It doesn't matter how you twist it as discrimination or denying gays a right or anything else. The nature of sin and the attempt by the world to introduce an invalid type of relationship as a "marriage" is not going to change the Lord's mind on this. Of course, the way you would mold a church would be to accept anything anyone does as being acceptable and valid. The real church, on the other hand, accepts what God wants done, and so I doubt you have any particular grasp of what is really Christlike or not.

 

Now that SSM supporters have succeeded in getting an activist judge to overturn Utah's law using shallow justifications just like yours, I think we're going to see some action against the church in the near future. I may be wrong, but I think the reason SSM supporters haven't started suing the church to change its doctrines in states where the church has a temple is that they were waiting for the moment to attack the church in its home territory, so to speak. I would not be at all surprised to see the lawsuits start if this inane decision by the judge is upheld by the courts. But it is clear that God is not going to be "forced" by the world to change His stated will about SSM and homosexual behavior. The church is not suddenly going to say that it's ok and that gay couples can be sealed in the temple. Homosexual activity has never been approved of by God in any circumstance throughout history, and it's not going to suddenly change just because a wicked world has decided that it's "right".

 

And since I know how you operate, I'm going to make it very clear here at the end. I've spoken only of SSM and homosexual ->activity<- in this post. Please do not misrepresent my comments as condemning those with same sex attraction who do not act on that weakness. My comments are limited to practiced behaviors, which is what the Lord condemns. I shouldn't have to explain this, but after interacting with SSM supports, I do understand their methodologies and how they are willing to misrepresent their opponents' positions in this manner.

[jwhitlock]

I just re-read OD1. It seems to be, in part, addressed to very faithful members who were ready to continue polygamy, despite the threats from the government. In contrast, Pres Woodruff takes the pragmatic approach and says that it's better to give up polygamy than lose the whole church.

"The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue--to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?"

Therefore, I'm not so sure that it's a simple matter of just sticking to our guns come what may. In that instance, the Lord instructed Pres Woodruff to give up the battle (polygamy) to win the war (the salvation of mankind). I have no idea if SSM will require this same tactic, but I'm going to keep my heart open to ALL of the possibilities.

 

OD1 concerned itself with stopping the practice of polygamy. It did not repudiate polygamy as having come from God. The church has never done the latter.

 

I suspect the similarity is that God required the church to come out with Prop 8 as opposing SSM. The church did so in an appropriate manner, but was vilified by the world for doing so. As a result, I suspect the Lord has made his point to the world and does not require the church to encourage members to take the same action anymore as they did with Prop 8. The church will continue to state its position concerning SSM, but the world is going to do what it wants and hang itself with its own rope in opposition to the will of God on the matter.

 

I also suspect that because the church was obedient in the matter of Prop 8 (and it was the will of the Lord to be involved) that it will have God's protection when the world attempts to punish the church for its stance. It's going to be an interesting next few years as this particular issue comes to a head.

[jerryp48]

I know how to reverse the direction the country is going on same-sex marriage. Just make same-sex marriage a Mormon doctrine and commandment and eventually the country will be against it.

[thesometimesaint]

You need to be accurate here. No one removed their ability or their right to be legally married in California. They had the same right as anyone else, within the same existing structure, and many gays chose to exercise that right in participating in mixed gender marriages. No one was denied any right, so phrasing it in the way you do is inaccurate.

 

Further, to claim as you did that we were persecuting and oppressing people because they wanted an expanded privilege that we felt would be detrimental to society and marriage, and would also be used as a bludgeon against the church, is ludicrous. I've explained those viewpoints earlier on this thread, and you might want to respond directly to those before you continue with this misrepresentation of us as persecutors. 

 

That's right. Until Loving v Texas blacks and whites had the right to get married but only to each other.

 

No, I don't believe the Church has persecuted anyone.

[jwhitlock]

That's right. Until Loving v Texas blacks and whites had the right to get married but only to each other.

 

No, I don't believe the Church has persecuted anyone.

 

The difference, of course, between Texas and SSM is that when the Texas law was overturned, it was still a right that anyone - black or white - would have. It was reasonable to assume that anyone from any race could, by choice, make use of that right to marry. No special privilege was involved. One could assume that any given individual, black or white might or might not, by choice, now enter into an interracial marriage. There was no demonstrable negative effect on society and there was no demonstrable negative effect on marriage, though some tried to claim that interracial marriage would cause problems. They were proven wrong.

 

With SSM, everyone has the same right to marry within the existing structure. However, we are presented with a new definition of marriage that only a very few people (and, interestingly enough, only a very small percentage of gays themselves would choose to participate in. Given any individual, gay or straight, one cannot assume that the straight person by choice would enter into a SSM. Thus it is a privilege that applies only to gays. Gays will have expanded choices for marriage (they can choose same or mixed gender marriages, and many will continue to choose mixed gender marriages) while it cannot be reasonably assumed that any non-gay individuals will engage in SSM. This is because same sex relationships are inherently distasteful to non-gay individuals. (As a side note, it would be interesting to see if there have been any non-GL individuals who have entered into a SSM in states that allow it. My guess is that it is rare to non-existent.)

 

Despite efforts of SSM supporters to portray it otherwise, there is still much valid concern about the negative effects of SSM on society, and its effect on religious freedom. Those of us who look a little more closely about the trends in judicial activism, government regulations, and the use of the legal system to punish non-conformance with "progressive" thought find SSM problematic as it opens Pandora's box in a very real way. The judicial activism evident in the Utah decision is simply irresponsible and can't in any way be reasonably applied as a parallel to other situations such as Loving.

[Calm]

while it cannot be reasonably assumed that any non-gay individuals will engage in SSM. This is because same sex relationships are inherently distasteful to non-gay individuals.

 

But why have gay individuals entered into nongay marriages in the past...I can think of one big reason, gay marriages weren't an option.

 

And even if nongays wouldn't take advantage of gay marriage, I still don't see that as significant as they still could if they wanted to.

 

In the beginning while any could take advantage of interracial marriages, I suspect the percentage over all was quite low.  It has grown since then but if it had stayed the same or been much lower, would that have been a reason to have denied it?  Simply because a lot of people wouldn't take advantage of it?  If there is a particular ethnic group that rarely takes advantage of the interracial marriage option, should they be removed from the list of those who have the right to do so?

 

We have the right to vote in this country, yet not much over half of the population takes advantage of that...if it dropped into a minority of voters, there would still be no change in the law, I suspect.

======

While I believe that SSM should not be given the same benefits of heterosexual marriage until there is more demonstration of long term effects on children (and the best would be to see them as adults raising their own children and those children becoming adults...which if it turns out there is no difference could be called unjust...but what if there is a significant difference?), I don't find this specific argument above convincing.

[jwhitlock]

But why have gay individuals entered into nongay marriages in the past...I can think of one big reason, gay marriages weren't an option.

 

And even if nongays wouldn't take advantage of gay marriage, I still don't see that as significant as they still could if they wanted to.

 

In the beginning while any could take advantage of interracial marriages, I suspect the percentage over all was quite low.  It has grown since then but if it had stayed the same or been much lower, would that have been a reason to have denied it?  Simply because a lot of people wouldn't take advantage of it?  If there is a particular ethnic group that rarely takes advantage of the interracial marriage option, should they be removed from the list of those who have the right to do so?

 

We have the right to vote in this country, yet not much over half of the population takes advantage of that...if it dropped into a minority of voters, there would still be no change in the law, I suspect.

======

While I believe that SSM should not be given the same benefits of heterosexual marriage until there is more demonstration of long term effects on children (and the best would be to see them as adults raising their own children and those children becoming adults...which if it turns out there is no difference could be called unjust...but what if there is a significant difference?), I don't find this specific argument above convincing.

 

As to your first point, it's convenient to say it's because SSM wasn't allowed, but there are deeper reasons for engaging in mixed gender marriages - one of which is the ability to have biological posterity. Those with SSA don't all have the same level of attraction, and so there are many who would prefer to have a traditional family and deal with SSA within that framework. Don't discount the pull of mixed gender marriages and the opportunity for posterity that still exists within those who have SSA, though they may struggle with it.

 

On the other hand, those with no SSA simply aren't going to enter into a SSM relationship. There is no pull or reason to do so. It just doesn't happen.  Giving them the "choice" by saying "anyone can now have a SSM" is simply to ignore the fact that straights just aren't going to do it. That wasn't the case with interracial marriage, and so it is indeed a valid distinction between the two.

 

Perhaps its too fine a distinction to you, but it's fairly clear that SSM is something designed only to appeal to a very small demographic group, which makes it a privilege. The availability of it to people who would never engage in it because it is biologically abhorrent to them is irrelevant, and is only designed as a smokescreen to say "see - everyone now has the same right".

 

At this point, we're not going to get any good studies about the effects on children because there are going to be too many garbage studies that are ideologically driven.

 

I find the difference between the nature of interracial marriage and SSM to be different enough - as I've outlined here - to basically invalidate the use of interracial marriage as a justification for SSM.

[Tacenda]

I cut/pasted the article below in it's entirety.  

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/gay-marriage-mormonism/

 

My good friend and author Devery Anderson posted a note on his Facebook status about gay marriage. I thought what he wrote was insightful and needed to be published on our blog. I have edited it for formatting and anything marked with a * are my additions.

Here is a short bio of Devery:

 

Devery Anderson is the editor of The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History, and co-author of Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845: A Documentary History, and The Nauvoo Endowment Companies, 1845-1846: A Documentary History. He has nearly completed an in-depth study of the 1955 racial lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till, called The Boy Who Never Died: The Saga of the Emmett Till Murder, and also expects to complete a biography of early Mormon Apostle Willard Richards next year. He is an editor at Signature Books.

 

I’m Amazed by how accepting most of my friends have been regarding gay marriage in Utah. Yes, the opponents are keeping silent, for the most part, probably because it is difficult to form a response to this issue that doesn’t sound–for want of a better word–stupid. The responses that people would like to tell me probably will go something like this: 

 

1. “Marriage is under attack.” 

Response: Well, if it was under attack, people would be wanting to abolish it, not expand it so that others can enjoy it too. Gay people, like most, think marriage is great. That’s why they want it too!

 

2. “We need to stand up and defend TRADITIONAL marriage!” 

Response: How will any heterosexual marriage be threatened by gay people getting married? Tell me! And what is traditional marriage anyway? You have to focus on a certain time period and say, “This is traditional.” You can’t look over all of American history (let alone, world history) and say marriage has consistently meant one thing.

 

3. “But the Bible says homosexuality is a sin!

Response: Yes, a few books within a collection of 66 written and compiled by humans through debate and other give-and-take over several centuries say homosexuality is a sin. Never a recorded word by Jesus, however. He preached more against divorce. Why aren’t Christians out there fuming over divorce, and making it illegal? Keep in mind, however, that the Bible is a faith document, accepted by many Americans, but in varying degrees. Some see this compilation as the inerrant word of God–even though God never made that claim for this collection, which people put together long after the individual books were written. Others just sort of believe in it because they have been taught to believe in it since birth, and likely know little beyond a few stories. But the bigger question is: Should a particular religion’s faith document become law for everyone? Is the Bible the Constitution? Churches can still believe and practice what they want and not impose those beliefs on secular law. And do you really want to make legal or illegal everything the Bible endorses or opposes? Do you really want to go there?

 

4. “But the thought of gays being married is just weird! It isn’t right!” 

Response: So, if we keep gay marriage illegal, gays will just go away, is that right? If we keep their relationships illegal, then guess what? We will be griping that they are promiscuous.

 

5. “But they can change!!” 

Response: No, they can’t. Look at how many teen suicides there are over this issue. Talk to any gay person about how they have tried, how they never felt they chose their sexual orientation, and how liberating it felt to finally accept who they are and love who they are. Proponents of change are basically telling people to change, or else go through life not being happy with the person they are. They are saying that gay people should always, always wish they were straight; that if they have any self-confidence and move beyond the “guilt” of not being straight, that they are in rebellion. Science is showing more and more that sexual orientation is not a choice.  *The Church’s stance: “…Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions…” (Mormonsandgays.org) So if they don’t choose to have such attractions are they then not born that way?

 

6. “OK, maybe gays are born that way, but they should just be celibate.”

Response: So, you are saying, with a straight face (no pun intended), that you want to tell a gay teen, “Hey, just hold out alone for the next 70 years, and the next thing you know, you will be a straight spirit in heaven”? Ask any straight person to do that, and see what happens.

 

7. “But there are straight people who never get married. If they can do it, gays should be able to also!”

Response: Yes, but they are not told from a young age that they HAVE to be celibate. They are encouraged to meet people, date, go out, etc. Heterosexuals who don’t marry are either not interested in getting married, or no one is interested in them. The parallel would be telling a heterosexual couple who are in love that they can’t marry. See how well that one goes over.

 

8. “But the prophet said! [this, from my fellow Mormons]“.
Response: An LDS prophet, John Taylor, also said in the 1880s that blacks were preserved through the flood so that Satan could have a representative on earth just like God would. How many of you still believe that one? Mormon leaders said stuff just as bad or worse hundreds of times, right down until the very recent past. Just a few weeks ago, the church came out and disavowed all of the racist things it had said and taught.

 

9. “OK, all of those racist things they said were just their opinions because they lived in a culture that thought that way.”

Response: Bingo! And we are likely hearing lots of “opinions” today.

 

10. “But doctrines never change!”

Response: As a Mormon historian, I am here to tell you that they do. Most have. Some more than once.

 

11. “But gay people can’t procreate! Doesn’t that tell you right away that gay relationships aren’t natural?”

Response: I guess that means that people who are infertile should never marry, or that older widows and widowers should not remarry. The fact that so many people remarry before their spouses bodies are even cold tells us that it is no fun, not natural, to be alone. Relationships are about love, not just procreation.

 

12. “But still–marriage between a man and woman is sacred. It can’t be changed.”

Response: Sacred according to one’s religion, but again, should that be forced upon everyone? If gay marriage being legal means that it is still business as usual for heterosexuals, what’s the big deal? Also, if marriage is a SACRED union in the sense that most Christians refer to it, it would follow that they would be infuriated when a justice of the peace marries a couple, when an atheist with authority from the state marries a couple, when someone marries a spouse so they can stay in the country, etc. Heck, it is perfectly legal for an 18-year-old boy to marry a 90-year-old woman for her money, or some other reason. Doesn’t that violate marriage being sacred also? *Keep in mind that we practiced polygamy before the government forced us to stop. During that time period monogamy (one man and one woman) was the enemy.

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire… Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, August 6, 1862

 

13. “Yes, and we don’t like that either!”

Response: But you aren’t freaking out about it. And yet marriage has survived these “threats” to its sacred nature.

 

*14. “But what about The Family: A Proclamation to the World that defines marriage between a man and a woman?”

Response: The proclamation states: “Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.” It doesn’t say this is the ONLY way. This doesn’t say anything about gay marriage. It only says that this type of marriage is essential. In our belief system, this is how we complete the commandment to “replenish the earth.”

It also states: “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.” This goes directly to rearing children.  See #11.  There are many in our Church that are single mothers and single fathers, how does this apply to them? This is a big issue because Utah has the highest divorce rate. (Channel 4 News)

 

Also when reading the Proclamation one must also consider these two things:

1. Boyd K. Packer’s redacted talk about the Proclamation:
Original: It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it.
Redacted: It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

2. This year the Church released a new edition of the scriptures. The Proclamation was not added.

 

*Conclusion

 

All in all one must consider the LGBT community we are shunning with this marriage rhetoric. By hyper-focusing on this issue of gay marriage, we are missing a good opportunity to extend our love and compassion to our gay brothers and sisters. We have a growing number of homeless teens that identify as LGBT. These kids are being kicked out by their families because they are LBGT. Suicide is especially high amongst them. People are killing themselves and all we can talk about is gay marriage.  People are killing themselves because they can’t fit in. Can we change this?

We can change the conversation to love. We need to change the conversation to love. We need to make room in our hearts and in our chapels for them. Nothing else matters. I find it very disturbing the amount of time and money the Church has spent on lobbying politicians for this singular losing cause. It is shocking and very disturbing. For a report of the Church’s lobbying activities click here. I just can’t get past the time, energy  and money we spend on this while kids are killing themselves. Why not focus on strengthening marriages? Why not focus on feeding the poor? Why not focus on lobbying efforts to stop human trafficking? Why not focus on child/spouse abuse?  Why not focus on welcoming our gay brothers and sisters? Why not send a clear message that it is not ok to kick your child out of the house because they are gay? Why not focus on stopping suicide? There are a ton of worthy causes to throw in our efforts where humans are suffering. We as a community can shift the conversation to a conversation of love and understanding. This shift needs to happen today. Is there anything more important than caring for each other?

 

[california boy]

And this is why even Mormons are shifting their beliefs towards gay marriage.  Those that oppose the right for gay couples to marry only offer the laughable argument that "they already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."  

 

You are right.  What is needed is more love, less excuses.

[Stone holm]

And this is why even Mormons are shifting their beliefs towards gay marriage.  Those that oppose the right for gay couples to marry only offer the laughable argument that "they already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."  

 

You are right.  What is needed is more love, less excuses.

 

I believe you need to be careful about what has shifted.  There is a distinction that Whitlock fails to fathom, and sometimes you fail to fathom.  It is simply this.  There is a difference between not condoning gay marriage as a religious matter, and prohibiting gays from marrying as a matter of law.  I don't condone gay marriage as a matter of religious belief.  However, having been raised and taught from an early age that what made America great was our commitment to freedom and liberty.  Essential to that freedom and liberty was not interfering with people's religious beliefs or compelling people to conform to certain religious beliefs.  That was considered simply part of being an American.  We can characterize homosexual behaviour in many different ways, but the compelling reason for saying that gays and lesbians cannot marry their lovers is because the majority of Americans believe that behaviour to be sinful.  The reason we believe it is sinful is because the Lord said so, and in our case because He not only said it was sinful, but it is clear it is counter to the doctrine of the continuation of the seed.  These are religious beliefs, not logical beliefs, or reasons based on reason, but beliefs based on the declarations of God.  As such they should be binding upon us believers, but we have no right to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.  Doing so would be considered unAmerican by many,  it was that fact, and the fact that Mormon members after the nudge from the Conference pulpit poured millions of dollars into the Prop 8 campaign -- that caused many moderates, to stop and say -- wait a minute this doesn't smell right, this looks like we are letting a religious group use their money to force their religion on non-believers.  That was was the critical effect of Prop 8.  There are many Christian denominations which do not accept SSM, and there are other religions that do not as well.  But by flexing our muscle and getting overtly involved politically from the pulpit, we wound up with a somewhat deserved reputation for mixing our religious beliefs with overt political campaigns -- that is something that Americans will not tolerate for long periods of time.

[Danzo]

 

*Conclusion

 

All in all one must consider the LGBT community we are shunning with this marriage rhetoric. By hyper-focusing on this issue of gay marriage, we are missing a good opportunity to extend our love and compassion to our gay brothers and sisters. We have a growing number of homeless teens that identify as LGBT. These kids are being kicked out by their families because they are LBGT. Suicide is especially high amongst them. People are killing themselves and all we can talk about is gay marriage.  People are killing themselves because they can’t fit in. Can we change this?

 

 

 

Your post is way to long to address in its entirety, but I would like to say this.

 

Wickedness never was happiness

 

I have never observed sexual sin bring happiness; the unhappiness does not come from our disapproval of it.  It is the very nature of sin to cause unhappiness.   I have observed it in candid conversation with those who were brought up with no moral values.  They tell of emptiness and sorrow and they couldn't figure out why until taught the gospel or repentance.

I served my mission in a society where sexual transgression was openly encouraged.  It still made people sad.  People would (who had absolutely no what we believed) ask us why they were so miserable when they were doing everything the world says should make them happy.  It was only sincere repentance that brought happiness.  Nothing else.

 

The church with its proclamations, its admonitions to its members (by apostles that you seem to disparage), its efforts and beliefs are desperately trying to help those people to find the happiness that they seek, through the only sure way possible. Telling people that whatever they do is fine, that  there is no sin, is the surest way to people miserable.

[Stone holm]

Your post is way to long to address in its entirety, but I would like to say this.

 

Wickedness never was happiness

 

I have never observed sexual sin bring happiness; the unhappiness does not come from our disapproval of it.  It is the very nature of sin to cause unhappiness.   I have observed it in candid conversation with those who were brought up with no moral values.  They tell of emptiness and sorrow and they couldn't figure out why until taught the gospel or repentance.

I served my mission in a society where sexual transgression was openly encouraged.  It still made people sad.  People would (who had absolutely no what we believed) ask us why they were so miserable when they were doing everything the world says should make them happy.  It was only sincere repentance that brought happiness.  Nothing else.

 

The church with its proclamations, its admonitions to its members (by apostles that you seem to disparage), its efforts and beliefs are desperately trying to help those people to find the happiness that they seek, through the only sure way possible. Telling people that whatever they do is fine, that  there is no sin, is the surest way to people miserable.

 

That is undoubtedly true, but in a free country -- we try not to dictate to people what they must accept as the correct path to happiness -- we can preach, conjole, plead and educate but not compel.

[jwhitlock]

 

I cut/pasted the article below in it's entirety.  

 

This is a particularly blatant instance of setting up strawmen and shooting them down. Not really worth responding to other than that.

[jwhitlock]

And this is why even Mormons are shifting their beliefs towards gay marriage.  Those that oppose the right for gay couples to marry only offer the laughable argument that "they already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."  

 

You are right.  What is needed is more love, less excuses.

 

You really should try to not misrepresent what I say. I know it's hard, but you really should try.

 

Gays already having the right to marry is in direct response to the false claim that gays are denied a right everyone else has. Please try and keep it in the correct context, rather than falsely claiming that it's the only argument against SSM.

 

In fact, perhaps you'd like to actually respond to what I've posted as problems with SSM, rather than making up tripe like this.

[Danzo]

That is undoubtedly true, but in a free country -- we try not to dictate to people what they must accept as the correct path to happiness -- we can preach, conjole, plead and educate but not compel.

You are right, we cannot compel.   Therefore we must continue to preach, conjole plead and educate, as much as we can.

[jwhitlock]

I believe you need to be careful about what has shifted.  There is a distinction that Whitlock fails to fathom, and sometimes you fail to fathom.  It is simply this.  There is a difference between not condoning gay marriage as a religious matter, and prohibiting gays from marrying as a matter of law.  I don't condone gay marriage as a matter of religious belief.  However, having been raised and taught from an early age that what made America great was our commitment to freedom and liberty.  Essential to that freedom and liberty was not interfering with people's religious beliefs or compelling people to conform to certain religious beliefs.  That was considered simply part of being an American.  We can characterize homosexual behaviour in many different ways, but the compelling reason for saying that gays and lesbians cannot marry their lovers is because the majority of Americans believe that behaviour to be sinful.  The reason we believe it is sinful is because the Lord said so, and in our case because He not only said it was sinful, but it is clear it is counter to the doctrine of the continuation of the seed.  These are religious beliefs, not logical beliefs, or reasons based on reason, but beliefs based on the declarations of God.  As such they should be binding upon us believers, but we have no right to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.  Doing so would be considered unAmerican by many,  it was that fact, and the fact that Mormon members after the nudge from the Conference pulpit poured millions of dollars into the Prop 8 campaign -- that caused many moderates, to stop and say -- wait a minute this doesn't smell right, this looks like we are letting a religious group use their money to force their religion on non-believers.  That was was the critical effect of Prop 8.  There are many Christian denominations which do not accept SSM, and there are other religions that do not as well.  But by flexing our muscle and getting overtly involved politically from the pulpit, we wound up with a somewhat deserved reputation for mixing our religious beliefs with overt political campaigns -- that is something that Americans will not tolerate for long periods of time.

 

You've not demonstrated any particular perceptive ability with regards to what I post, so I can understand why you'd think I fail to fathom your particular point.

 

However, you disregard the fact that I understand that if SSM did not have the potential to adversely affect both society and the church, I probably would care that much about it.

 

I oppose SSM because, as I have posted in this thread, it has the distinct possibility of adversely affecting the church and society. If it didn't, it really wouldn't be that big of a deal. However, SSM will most likely be used as a tool by some to try to force the church to change its doctrines concerning SSM. It also opens up a legal can of worms concerning certain protected traits of marriage, as I have posted earlier.

 

You appear from your post to think that as long as someone wants something, there should be no opposition to it, no matter how it may harm society. I'm sure you're celebrating the recent Canadian court decision overturning anti-prostitution laws. Perhaps you think that prostitution harms no one, and that areas where there is heavy prostitution traffic are in actuality family friendly, and that we should quit forcing our morals on others and become more enlightened. Or perhaps you think that child pornography is actually benign, and that we shouldn't be forcing our morals upon those who traffic in such things.

 

You have to buy into the concept that SSM is benign and cannot have any adverse affects on either our religious belief or our society in order to categorize it as "only supporting individual freedom" as you do. In doing so, you have to dismiss (as you have by ignoring them) the reasons I have put forth as to why I think SSM is problematic. A careful reading of what some SSM advocates are writing, and what the agendas of some gay groups such as Affirmation are should confirm to any clear thinking individual that there are indeed people out there who are going to use SSM as a bludgeon against the church, something they would have done without regard to the church's involvement with Prop 8. A review of legal precedent would also give a clear indication that it is also a possibility that an activist judge will redefine certain current protections as optional, because (as you so casually put it) the expectation of total sexual fidelity in marriage as protection to an innocent spouse is unconstitutional, because it's really only foisting someone's morality on others. And an innocent spouse in a divorce situation that happens because of cheating will no longer have any legal leverage in that divorce.

 

I am finding that SSM supporters are too often willing to ignore valid evidence that calls SSM into question. CB's only response is to treat any such evidence as "laughable", thus trying to divest himself of any responsibility of addressing it directly. You try to just ignore it, as you have done here.

 

I am concerned enough about this subject to be willing to research it extensively, which means going to quite a few gay web sites to gauge how the gay community generally views SSM. It involves wading through quite a bit of garbage, but the results are interesting leading to some insight on the full spectrum (which is very divided) about how gays themselves view SSM, and how those who get married view their marriages. Calling it a wholesale redefinition of what marriage means that will eventually entrench itself in our legal system is not an overstatement.

 

In any case, SSM is simply a symptom of the general deterioration of our society. Since it clearly contributes to that deterioration, it's not "just" a religious or moral issue to oppose it. It's not the only factor, but it is part of the negative tide that's sweeping over us.

[Stone holm]

You've not demonstrated any particular perceptive ability with regards to what I post, so I can understand why you'd think I fail to fathom your particular point.

 

However, you disregard the fact that I understand that if SSM did not have the potential to adversely affect both society and the church, I probably would care that much about it.

 

I oppose SSM because, as I have posted in this thread, it has the distinct possibility of adversely affecting the church and society. If it didn't, it really wouldn't be that big of a deal. However, SSM will most likely be used as a tool by some to try to force the church to change its doctrines concerning SSM. It also opens up a legal can of worms concerning certain protected traits of marriage, as I have posted earlier.

 

You appear from your post to think that as long as someone wants something, there should be no opposition to it, no matter how it may harm society. I'm sure you're celebrating the recent Canadian court decision overturning anti-prostitution laws. Perhaps you think that prostitution harms no one, and that areas where there is heavy prostitution traffic are in actuality family friendly, and that we should quit forcing our morals on others and become more enlightened. Or perhaps you think that child pornography is actually benign, and that we shouldn't be forcing our morals upon those who traffic in such things.

 

You have to buy into the concept that SSM is benign and cannot have any adverse affects on either our religious belief or our society in order to categorize it as "only supporting individual freedom" as you do. In doing so, you have to dismiss (as you have by ignoring them) the reasons I have put forth as to why I think SSM is problematic. A careful reading of what some SSM advocates are writing, and what the agendas of some gay groups such as Affirmation are should confirm to any clear thinking individual that there are indeed people out there who are going to use SSM as a bludgeon against the church, something they would have done without regard to the church's involvement with Prop 8. A review of legal precedent would also give a clear indication that it is also a possibility that an activist judge will redefine certain current protections as optional, because (as you so casually put it) the expectation of total sexual fidelity in marriage as protection to an innocent spouse is unconstitutional, because it's really only foisting someone's morality on others. And an innocent spouse in a divorce situation that happens because of cheating will no longer have any legal leverage in that divorce.

 

I am finding that SSM supporters are too often willing to ignore valid evidence that calls SSM into question. CB's only response is to treat any such evidence as "laughable", thus trying to divest himself of any responsibility of addressing it directly. You try to just ignore it, as you have done here.

 

I am concerned enough about this subject to be willing to research it extensively, which means going to quite a few gay web sites to gauge how the gay community generally views SSM. It involves wading through quite a bit of garbage, but the results are interesting leading to some insight on the full spectrum (which is very divided) about how gays themselves view SSM, and how those who get married view their marriages. Calling it a wholesale redefinition of what marriage means that will eventually entrench itself in our legal system is not an overstatement.

 

In any case, SSM is simply a symptom of the general deterioration of our society. Since it clearly contributes to that deterioration, it's not "just" a religious or moral issue to oppose it. It's not the only factor, but it is part of the negative tide that's sweeping over us.

 

This potential that you indicate and the dire consequences you warn of, it seems to me that there has been precious little evidence of that.  I believe that marriage and the family are under attack.  When people sense that they are under attack then they counterstrike or lash out at what they believe to be the cause.  When much of organized religion has been for the last thirty years claiming that the attacking force is a decline in sexual morality, the congregations will lash out at the only identified target.  Its kind of like the saying if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  If you think that sexual morality is the major cause of the problem, well then you retreat to the so-called "tried and true" solutions -- namely, to the extent possible eradicating it with legislation.  But do you really think that two homosexuals wanting to enter into a longterm committed relationship and perhaps wanting to raise some adopted children is much of a threat?  It seems to me that homosexuals who are not in a committed relationship and are out sampling various partners are a much bigger threat.  Finally, I do not think that the decline in sexual morality is the cause of anything -- but as you indicated, I believe, merely a symptom of some other problem.  That problem, to me, is a decline in the hope of the American dream -- raising a family in relative comfort in your own home and owning your own business or farm.  That dream for the vast majority of Americans is in the process of being smashed and it is causing all kinds of anti-social issues from an increased divorce rate to drug abuse to violence -- and it will continue to do so until our cultural leaders start focusing on the curing the problem instead of driving nails into our society with constant harping on wedge issues.

 

In closing I should note, that in my comment I was primarily cautioning California Boy to not misapprehend what really shifted.

[jwhitlock]

This potential that you indicate and the dire consequences you warn of, it seems to me that there has been precious little evidence of that.  I believe that marriage and the family are under attack.  When people sense that they are under attack then they counterstrike or lash out at what they believe to be the cause.  When much of organized religion has been for the last thirty years claiming that the attacking force is a decline in sexual morality, the congregations will lash out at the only identified target.  Its kind of like the saying if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  If you think that sexual morality is the major cause of the problem, well then you retreat to the so-called "tried and true" solutions -- namely, to the extent possible eradicating it with legislation.  But do you really think that two homosexuals wanting to enter into a longterm committed relationship and perhaps wanting to raise some adopted children is much of a threat?  It seems to me that homosexuals who are not in a committed relationship and are out sampling various partners are a much bigger threat.  Finally, I do not think that the decline in sexual morality is the cause of anything -- but as you indicated, I believe, merely a symptom of some other problem.  That problem, to me, is a decline in the hope of the American dream -- raising a family in relative comfort in your own home and owning your own business or farm.  That dream for the vast majority of Americans is in the process of being smashed and it is causing all kinds of anti-social issues from an increased divorce rate to drug abuse to violence -- and it will continue to do so until our cultural leaders start focusing on the curing the problem instead of driving nails into our society with constant harping on wedge issues.

 

In closing I should note, that in my comment I was primarily cautioning California Boy to not misapprehend what really shifted.

 

Well, as I suspected, you're not willing to address my points specifically other than to dismiss them, and just reaffirm your own spin.

[mormonnewb]

Your post is way to long to address in its entirety, but I would like to say this.

Wickedness never was happiness

I have never observed sexual sin bring happiness; the unhappiness does not come from our disapproval of it. It is the very nature of sin to cause unhappiness. I have observed it in candid conversation with those who were brought up with no moral values. They tell of emptiness and sorrow and they couldn't figure out why until taught the gospel or repentance.

I served my mission in a society where sexual transgression was openly encouraged. It still made people sad. People would (who had absolutely no what we believed) ask us why they were so miserable when they were doing everything the world says should make them happy. It was only sincere repentance that brought happiness. Nothing else.

The church with its proclamations, its admonitions to its members (by apostles that you seem to disparage), its efforts and beliefs are desperately trying to help those people to find the happiness that they seek, through the only sure way possible. Telling people that whatever they do is fine, that there is no sin, is the surest way to people miserable.

Should we also push for laws enforcing the WOW? How about the law of chastity? If we are allowing people to engage in the sin of fornication, then why are we trying to enforce the Church's view of marriage? Why the inconsistency?

[mormonnewb]

DUPLICATE POST

[Stone holm]

Should we also push for laws enforcing the WOW? How about the law of chastity? If we are allowing people to engage in the sin of fornication, then why are we trying to enforce the Church's view of marriage? Why the inconsistency?

 

Well I suppose if you are of the view that we should enforce the Church's view of marriage, then the next step would be to start enforce the other things, so that eventually you would live in a theocratic state similar to Iran.  But the problem that the Church has to consider when contemplating travelling down this road is that at some point there would come a point where Mormons would be on the wrongside of an issue that the more mainstream fundamentalist would believe is an issue of morality.  Then things start going south in something of a hurry.  The cultural argument that was presented by the SCOTUS brief that was signed by the Church sounded an awful lot like the cultural argument that was used against the Church in US v. Reynolds.  We see a lot of verbal chest beating about that Prophets shouldn't worry about the opinion of the world when denouncing sin, etc.  And I suppose, there is some truth to that if we have Prophets who have no administrative responsibility for the overall safety of the Church and its growth -- like the OT model of Prophets, or Samuel dodging arrows on the wall, or Abinadi addressing King Noah.  I am not sure how comfortable those members would be if the modern Prophets started implementing that model and also not sure exactly how you square that model with the First Amendment regarding the ban on establishment of religion and the non-interference with the free exercise of religion -- since we now have religions, including Christian denominations embracing SSM.  It seems like a very risky road to be taking which is not likely to persuade very many people to your cause -- the poltical activity isn't a call ot repentance, its establishing laws.

[california boy]

I believe you need to be careful about what has shifted.  There is a distinction that Whitlock fails to fathom, and sometimes you fail to fathom.  It is simply this.  There is a difference between not condoning gay marriage as a religious matter, and prohibiting gays from marrying as a matter of law.  I don't condone gay marriage as a matter of religious belief.  However, having been raised and taught from an early age that what made America great was our commitment to freedom and liberty.  Essential to that freedom and liberty was not interfering with people's religious beliefs or compelling people to conform to certain religious beliefs.  That was considered simply part of being an American.  We can characterize homosexual behaviour in many different ways, but the compelling reason for saying that gays and lesbians cannot marry their lovers is because the majority of Americans believe that behaviour to be sinful.  The reason we believe it is sinful is because the Lord said so, and in our case because He not only said it was sinful, but it is clear it is counter to the doctrine of the continuation of the seed.  These are religious beliefs, not logical beliefs, or reasons based on reason, but beliefs based on the declarations of God.  As such they should be binding upon us believers, but we have no right to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.  Doing so would be considered unAmerican by many,  it was that fact, and the fact that Mormon members after the nudge from the Conference pulpit poured millions of dollars into the Prop 8 campaign -- that caused many moderates, to stop and say -- wait a minute this doesn't smell right, this looks like we are letting a religious group use their money to force their religion on non-believers.  That was was the critical effect of Prop 8.  There are many Christian denominations which do not accept SSM, and there are other religions that do not as well.  But by flexing our muscle and getting overtly involved politically from the pulpit, we wound up with a somewhat deserved reputation for mixing our religious beliefs with overt political campaigns -- that is something that Americans will not tolerate for long periods of time.

You misread the meaning of my post.  I am not saying that Mormons think gays should marry in the church, I am only stating that many Mormons are no longer falling for the ridiculous arguments against the political right for gays to marry.  They may not be embracing gay marriage, but they don't think the church has the right to dictate who can and who can't marry.  The belief that gays already have the right to marry is not one that most Mormons buy into any longer.  There are a lot of Mormons that do not think gays currently have the legal right to marry, but should be given that right.