Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[carbon dioxide]

It is not the case that in New Zealand "they let religion be an excuse for breaking the laws." That was a spectacularly ignorant remark; which fully explains why Rockpond voted it up. It is the case that in New Zealand, the laws are different. So much so, that buyers and sellers are equal before the law, in that both are equally free to choose with whom they will and will not do business, and are answerable to nobody for that choice.

That should be the case in the USA.  Why should a business accept a customer?  If the business does not want to make money off of providing a good or service to that customer, that is their loss.  The customer can go to someone else and probably get a better deal from a competitor.   Let the market work its magic. 

[Gray]

That should be the case in the USA.  Why should a business accept a customer?  If the business does not want to make money off of providing a good or service to that customer, that is their loss.  The customer can go to someone else and probably get a better deal from a competitor.   Let the market work its magic. 

 

I've been surprised at the number of LDS online who are philosophically opposed to the civil rights act and similar laws. I guess it's a question that never comes up in church. 

[Daniel2]

Nah, I'm not going to debate on this issue.  (It just gets threads locked anyway).

You're a smart fellow.  I'm going to assume that you have seen the same public support messages of same sex marriage on social media, television, news, etc that I have.

And people (as a general populace) love nothing better than to go with the majority view or believe what they are told is correct.

As time rolls on and generations grow up more and more are raised to believe SSM is a good, normal, positive thing.  They don't decide that, they are taught it.  Anyone that teaches the opposite is accused of hate speech and nobody likes that label.

 

So yes, society changes its view.

 

Hey, JLH,

 

I appreciate that the heart of your response was to stay on topic and prevent me from derailing my own thread--and I agree, probably not on topic and one that would get the thread closed.

 

While I can obviously see that there are numerous pro-gay portrayals through the media, I interpreted your response to mean that people were/are automatically believing whatever media messages were repeatedly being presented to them (a.k.a. the masses being spoon-fed without any critical thought as to whether the messages were valid), and so I was curious if that is what you actually meant. From my perspective, the media messages have mostly been earnest attempts to accurately reflect LGBT individuals and honestly tell their stories and reflect their realities.  As such, I believe the majority of the subsequent social changes in peoples hearts and minds were not the result of automatic acceptance of whatever the media says, but rather have been a thoughtful contemplation, recognition, and acceptance that those of us who are gays and lesbians are just as worthy of equal dignity and respect as our straight brothers and sisters..

 

However, in the spirit of your post to keep this thread on track, I will drop this tangent.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Well, i'm not JLH but I think one thing that we've been told that has impacted people's support of SSM is that if you don't agree with SSM then you are homophobic.  It's not true, but since people are being told that over and over again, they believe it.

 

I see multiple memes with variations of that idea (using the specific word homophobic) many times a week on my Facebook feed alone. The idea that disagreeing with the practice of homosexuality (to put it politely, though i know the phrase is lacking in some ways) or SSM means you are afraid of or hate homosexuals is rampant.  And since most people are good people who don't hate others, even when they disagree with them, they naturally shy away from such labels.  In our current society the only way to NOT be labeled homophobic is to support SSM.  Few people are willing to wear that name and so they change until it no longer applies to them.

 

I don't mean that they have adopted that ideology on the outside just to go with the flow but remain against SSM in secret, but rather that, when confronted over and over again with the connection that 'not supporting SSM = being a hate monger in line with people who would sic dogs on black school children' they change their ideology on the inside in order to be more at peace the way society views them.

 

Another obvious way that media has caused an increase of support for SSM is that what seems normal will eventually be accepted by society at large, regardless of what it is.  The more SSM and homosexuality in general is portrayed as normal (and even good) in the media the more people will accept it.  Not because anything else has changed but just because they become accustomed to it.  That's true for everything, from manners to childrearing to fashion.  Normal = o.k.   The media has spent the last few years telling people homosexuality is normal, so it makes sense that the number of people who believe it to be o.k. has increased accordingly.  

 

I appreciate your comments, Blue.  Like the term "racism," the term "homophobia" encompasses a broad spectrum of attitudes, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and actions, from some that are fairly benign to some that are very destructive.  According to the sources I have studied, the term itself originated not to mean "fear OF homosexuals," but "fear of being PERCIEVED as homosexual."  "Homophobia" has since been more broadly applied to a wide variety of attitudes and/or behaviors which demonstrate an aversion to recognize social equality for gays and lesbians (a.k.a. "prejudice against homosexuals," and likely even the fear of the exposure of children to homosexuals, same-sex couples, or any perceived negative effects that "the gay lifestyle" will have on kids, straight couples, heterosexual marriage, etc.), regardless of it's underlying motivation (which ranges from religious rationales used against it, to personal preference or aversion, to extreme disgust or hatred--each potentially independent of and not necessarily related to the other).  As such, it's use and applicability is akin to how many people use the term "racism." 

 

As I acknowledged in my previous post to JLH, my question almost inadvertently derailed my own thread (ha!), but would be happy to discuss your thoughts above in a separate thread so as to keep this one on topic and avoid it's closure.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

If only the churches had adopted your wisdom 20 years ago ....

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

 

Wow... what a fantastic link, Buckeye!!!  Thank you for sharing it.  Fascinating to read the historical context of the time...

[Daniel2]

I've been surprised at the number of LDS online who are philosophically opposed to the civil rights act and similar laws. I guess it's a question that never comes up in church. 

 

I second this, Gray.  In real life, I haven't heard any Latter-day Saints argue against the repeal of /public accommodations laws that were settled in the wake of the civil rights movement--only here on the board.  Additionally, I haven't heard anyone in real life argue in support of "religious liberty" for wedding-related service professionals to refuse to service to interracial couples' weddings who's personal beliefs prohibit interracial marriage.  Nor have I heard any support for the "religious liberty" for a business owner of any given religion to refuse to provide services to the weddings of members of other religions that the business owner may find reprehensible or abominable.   "Religious liberty" only seems to apply to those wanting to deny services to LGBT couples' weddings.  I wonder why that is....?

[Buckeye]

Daniel2,

This may merit its own post but Robert Gates just gave an address encouraging BSA to accept gay leaders (as a national policy) now rather than wait for courts to force the issue. See page 12-20 in this link.

http://scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/DR-GATES-REMARKS.pdf

[Russell C McGregor]

From my perspective, the media messages have mostly been earnest attempts to accurately reflect LGBT individuals and honestly tell their stories and reflect their realities.

I agree with you. The media has been largely functioning as a pro-homosexualist propaganda tool.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with you. The media has been largely functioning as a pro-homosexualist propaganda tool.

 

Then it not been very effective. The rate of homosexuality has been fairly constant at between 1&1/2% to 2&1/2% of the population for a very long time now.

[JLHPROF]

Then it not been very effective. The rate of homosexuality has been fairly constant at between 1&1/2% to 2&1/2% of the population for a very long time now.

:rofl:

[thesometimesaint]

That should be the case in the USA.  Why should a business accept a customer?  If the business does not want to make money off of providing a good or service to that customer, that is their loss.  The customer can go to someone else and probably get a better deal from a competitor.   Let the market work its magic. 

 

Markets aren't magic.

SEE https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=markets+aren%27t+magic++discrimination++you+tube+&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

[Daniel2]

I figured a counter-point to the an article posted earlier in this thread is worth sharing, also from a young adult who was raised by his two moms, this time pondering the upcoming SCOTUS case about whether or not his family deserves equal recognition:

The Kids Are Alright

I wish Dolce and Gabbana could meet my lesbian moms

By Zach Wahls

March 20, 2015

 

The kids are controversial these days. In the lead up to oral arguments on same-sex marriage scheduled to begin at the Supreme Court on Apr. 28, opponents of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry are eagerly fanning flames. The latest in this public relations play? Comments made by Italian mega-designers Stefanno Gabbana and Domenico Dolce.

 

In an interview in Italian magazine Panorama published on Mar. 12, the gay men opined, “[t]he only family is the traditional one,” and went on to make unflattering observations about the nature of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) like in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination.

 

Following an international backlash lead by gay father (and superstar) Elton John, Dolce and Gabbana walked their comments back  two days later: “We are gay. We love gay couple. [sic] We love gay adoption.” I doubt the designers are fully aware of the impending SCOTUS hearing, but the damage had already been done. Across the US anti-LGBT activists jumped on the comments as proof that even the gays think that gays having children is a bad idea.

 

As the son of a same-sex couple and the product of artificial insemination, I’m genuinely glad that conservatives have such concern for my well-being and the well-being of my peers. And because this is ultimately an issue of reality not rhetoric, I’d like to take this opportunity to explain why I think it’s so important that we have these tough and occasionally awkward conversations about ART and the notion of LGBT parents, questions that people like me wrestle with as we grow up. We were a two-mom family. I understood that we were different, and I understood that was okay.

 

In the eyes of some conservatives, the billionaire designers’ comments are proof that one can be opposed to the idea of gay families or gay marriage and not be bigoted. On one hand, this is a sign of progress: the LGBT cause has grown so mainstream that even conservatives genuinely fear being labeled “anti-gay.” But while it might be easy to jump to conclusions, I do not think that claiming children need both a mother and a father, or that children need male and female role models, makes you inherently anti-gay. These attitudes often go hand-in-hand with being anti-gay, but the two are not mutually inclusive. What makes you anti-gay is disparaging others or working against their legal rights because they are gay.

 

Conservative arguments against gay parenting are numerous. Many of them are anchored by the belief that gender plays a defining, irreplaceable role in parenting—a role I’ve experienced to be less important than they think it is. But this belief is not, in itself, anti-gay. Conservatives, after all, have been critiquing single parenting since before the LGBT acronym existed. It’s when their arguments suggest that LGBT people are by definition more sinful than heterosexuals and are therefore more likely to negatively influence their children does that their rhetoric cross the line from different perspective to definitively anti-LGBT.

 

I know plenty of straight allies who have told me they think a mother and a father is probably the most suitable environment for raising children, but who also feel that it’s entirely possible for kids with same-sex parents to turn out just fine. I usually find this point of view uncomfortable, but understandable—this category of person tends to be thinking about their own parents, and what life would have been like without one of them.

 

I also get uncomfortable when I hear people talk about the necessity of fathers—we usually hear this rhetoric in conversations about responsibility and deadbeat dads. But I have come to realize that this is often shorthand used to advocate for invested and present parents.

 

A person’s sexual orientation does not in fact determine if that person will be a good parent. When I told the Iowa House Judiciary Committee that the sexual orientation of my parents had zero effect on the content of my character, this is what I was talking about. My parents are great parents not because they are gay, but because they are present and invested in my life. They taught me that our sense of family came from the commitment we made to each other—to work through the hard times so we could enjoy the good ones—and that our family is defined by the love that binds us. Not coincidentally, this is precisely the idea that conservatives are so quick to reject.

 

In the mid-1980s, my mother Terry decided—as lots of women do—that she wanted to have children. At the time, she was a single, lesbian woman living in a small midwestern town of about 20,00 people. (She has been with my other mom Jackie, now her wife, since 1996.)

 

Like any good parent should, she had a lot of doubts and asked a lot of questions before deciding to try to start her family. She conferred with her younger cousins about the potential stigma a kid growing up with a lesbian mother might face. They assured her it “wasn’t that big a deal these days.”

 

Not everyone agreed, including her own parents. Calls to various state and the regional fertility clinics ended in a lot of hang-ups and no thank you’s. “We don’t do illegitimate children,” she was told on more than one occasion. Finally, she found a clinic in San Francisco and a cryobank in Fairfax, Virginia that would help her.

 

I was a long shot—an improbable pregnancy that succeeded via artificial insemination despite one failed IVF cycle and my mother’s scarred fallopian tubes. My sister was a little more conventional, conceived with a successful IVF cycle, but she arrived so dangerously early that I nearly became an orphan at age 3.

 

My sister and I were told these stories, with more embellishment of course, over and over as we grew up. In fact I don’t remember a time when I didn’t understand essentially how it was I came to be. I understood, too, that though we had a biological father, my sister and I did not have a dad in our lives—we were a two-mom family. I understood that we were different, and I understood that that was okay.

 

There were, after all, lots of men in and around my life: uncles and cousins, male teachers, the dads of my best friends, leaders at church and in the Boy Scouts. But of course I still felt the absence of a father figure. I remember listening to “Cat’s Cradle,” the ballad about an absent father by Harry Chapin, and feeling a connection to the song’s lyrics. (Both of my mom were understandably uncomfortable with this fact, but being mature parents bought me the CD anyway.) Just a few years ago, I found a card I drew for Father’s Day in elementary school, telling my donor that I wanted him to come live with us.

 

It is impossible, now, to remember exactly where those feelings came from. I’m sure that part of my desire for a father figure came from the fact that my friends had dads who were awesome. And I’m sure that other parts came from some innate desire to connect with a parent who shared my gender.

 

But as I grew older, the desire to conform lessened, and I built strong, close relationships with other young men. Whatever absence there may have been in my life was seamlessly filled by the love, camaraderie, and support of my friends and family. My experiences have convinced me that while not all arguments against same-sex parenting are themselves homophobic, they are all simply incorrect.

 

And although I did not have a dad in my life growing up, I would like to be one. Like so many others, I hope to one day have children of my own, to raise them with someone I love in a home that is happy and healthy.

 

Is my desire for children or to be a father a selfish one? Is that desire separate from my biology? Does its validity or morality—or its legality—hinge on the gender of the person I love and with whom I want to build this family? Does the sincere desire to raise children become insincere if some aspect of my situation is suboptimal for raising children?

 

If only all parents were asked such questions.

 

Earlier this year, Pope Francis publicly declared, “The choice to not have children is selfish. Life rejuvenates and acquires energy when it multiplies: It is enriched, not impoverished.” Though I can’t quite bring myself to share the Pope’s conclusions about selfishness, my own parents have repeatedly echoed his observations about the myriad ways parenthood has enriched their lives. And though I appreciate the concerns of Dolce and Gabanna and the conservatives with whom they have unwittingly aligned, their worry is thankfully misplaced.

 

Children are a gift to parents who deserve and love and who, in some cases, fight like hell to bring them into the world. And there shouldn’t be anything controversial about that.

 

Follow Zach on Twitter at @ZachWahls. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

 

And this, more recent one, is also well worth a read and even more relevant to the impending SCOTUS ruling:

 

It Slowly Gets Better

A response to Tim Carney’s “pursuit of happiness” claim

http://zachwahls.com/thoughts/

 

by Zach Wahls

 

In the days and weeks surrounding arguments in front of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding same-sex marriage–consolidated under Obergefell v. Hodges, plenty of pixels will be dedicated to the consequences of the impending decision. I wanted to take a quick a moment to respond to a piece by Tim Carney on the nature of supporting traditional marriage.

 

There are few people on the right whose writing I enjoy more than Tim Carney’s. Enjoy, and often find challenging because of how correct he often is. On Thursday, he published a piece arguing that opposition to gay marriage is not by definition rooted in anti-gay bigotry. It can, instead, be rooted in traditional teaching of marriage that is separate from feelings of animus towards LGBT people.

 

I was disappointed not by Carney’s thesis—which I generally agree with—but instead by his final claim that supporters of LGBT rights are trying to “banish [views of traditional marriage] from our society.” This final, last-shot argument undermines the rest of an otherwise thoughtful piece, and it also provides a useful insight into the mindset of the backlash that is now underway to the ascension of LGBT rights.

 

Tim opens his piece by making a number of comparisons between anti-gay bigotry and racist bigotry and concludes that refusing service to gay people for their weddings is substantially different than refusing service to black people or interracial couples because of their skin color. So I took Tim’s first six paragraphs, and extended his comparison one step backwards. Here’s how his column might have read fifty years ago:

 

Traditional, same-race marriage in the U.S. makes its last stand this week at oral arguments before the Supreme Court. If interracial marriage wins out, the next question is what to do with the vanished? Should we tolerate opposition to interracial marriage?

 

What should be done, legally and socially, with photographers who don’t want to take part in an interracial wedding, or churches that don’t want to consecrate an interracial union? How should we all treat the old-fashioned view that marriage is between people of the same races?

 

Many institutions, commentators and politicians already have their answer: opposition to interracial marriage deserves no more respect than misogyny. The government ought to force a photographer, a musician or a caterer to participate in an interracial wedding, they argue, just as we forced a misogynistic society to accept women in the workplace.

 

But the premise here – that opposition to interracial marriage is necessarily grounded in bigotry – is wrong.

 

Certainly, racist bigotry still exists, and if a businessman refuses to sell someone a slice of pizza because he’s black, that sure looks like bigotry. Hating or discriminating against a person purely because of his race is not in keeping with Christ’s commandments that we love everyone.

 

But refusing to participate in a marriage ceremony is a different sort of thing. It’s not a statement about the people involved. It’s a decision about the ceremony itself—that one doesn’t want to endorse a definition of marriage that one doesn’t share.

 

Essentially, the argument is, Nothing personal. You do you, and I’ll do me.

 

Tim, of course, argues that the Catholic teaching of marriage is a significantly different motivation than anti-racial animus—and I couldn’t agree more with him on this point. He argues further, “if you can grant that some of these teachings are grounded, not in animus, but in an understanding of love, then at least you can agree to this: We shouldn’t use the force of law to banish these views from our society.”

 

In assailing this straw man, Tim fails to acknowledge that the United States of America has already seen a concerted, nationwide effort to banish a certain set of views from our society using, in part, the threat of state-enforced violence. I’m talking about state-sponsored and culturally reinforced efforts to marginalize LGBT Americans. Though Tim argues that his beliefs are rooted in love, not animus—and he asserted on Twitter that he in fact does not disapprove of same-sex marriage, which he didn’t explicitly state in his piece—it’s difficult to ascribe any of the following to “an understanding of love.”

 

What it was like, before it got better

 

Anti-sodomy laws were being enforced in fourteen states as late as 2003. In a majority of US states, it is still 100% legal to fire an employee because of that person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. The original Stonewall riots were a backlash to “force of law” efforts to put down the LGBT community in New York City. Harvey Milk, one of the most prominent early advocates for the gay community, was gunned down in broad daylight and the man who shot him was not convicted of murder, but instead manslaughter. Dan White, the assassin, served only five years in prison before being released.

 

As HIV/AIDS decimated the gay community during the 1980s and early 1990s, the federal government stood by silently. I’m not sure whether or not Tim knows a gay man over the age of 55 who was out during the 1980s. If he does, I can guarantee that that man watched several of his friends die slow and painful deaths precipitated by that plague. And, in all likelihood, that man was barred from attending some of the funerals.

 

For decades, gay, bisexual, and lesbian servicemen and women who had honorably served our country’s armed forces were dishonorably discharged if their sexual orientation was discovered. The transgender members of our military still face this threat of odious discrimination.

 

Further, the severe rejection of LGBT youth continues to have deadly consequences today, to say nothing of the past. Compared to LGBT youth who are accepted by their family, caregivers, and community, LGBT youth who are severely rejected are eight times more likely to attempt suicide, six times more likely to suffer from severe depression, three times more likely to use hard drugs, and three times more likely to be at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. In addition, 40% of our nation’s youth homeless population is LGBT, because they have been thrown out of their homes by parents who have a peculiar way of demonstrating their “understanding of love” to their LGBT children.

 

It is getting better–slowly

 

This is what a concerted, state-enforced, nationwide effort to banish a certain set of views—a certain identity—from our society looks like. I genuinely hope Tim understands how difficult it is for LGBT people to look at and experience all of the above and then to try to conclude, “Well yes, but that’s all separate from the fact that it has taken decades of patient, disciplined work by our community to obtain recognition of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Yes, we’re the real oppressors here.”

 

Tim’s central failing is to focus exclusively on marriage, the one central piece of his identity he now shares with so many same-sex couples nationwide, while ignoring the pattern and history of discrimination and bigotry experienced by LGBT people in so many other aspects of the human experience. I hope, at least, he sees the parallel between what the LGBT community has actually experienced and what he fears his future may hold: stigmatization, dehumanization, and humiliation are not a hypothetical for people who are LGBT.

 

Tim argues, “the premise here – that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily grounded in bigotry – is wrong.” I agree, and I know many of my fellow advocates do as well. Opposition to gay marriage can be grounded in things other than bigotry. What Tim’s arguments-by-parallel-example fails to mention is that we didn’t outlaw racism. We didn’t banish race-based-bigotry. We didn’t outlaw thought. We outlawed a certain kind of action, regardless of the belief in which that action was “grounded.” His parallel doesn’t even hold up.

 

Tim’s final claim—that people who believe what he believes are having their beliefs and identities banished from our society—will be much more persuasive when people of his belief are actually in the throes of a rejection similar to that experienced by the LGBT community. And to be clear, that rejection is not an experience I would wish on anyone.

 

All the same, it’s critical to understand that what Tim feels—anxiety, fear, and discomfort—is real. And it’s crucial to acknowledge that he isn’t alone in how he feels, and that those of us who support the advancement of LGBT rights dismiss the feelings of Tim and his cohort at our own risk. The backlash is coming, and it will likely get worse before it gets better.

 

But it will get better. We will one day live in a world where LGBT youth are not more likely to be homeless or attempt suicide or suffer from severe depression. We will one day live in world where LGBT adults can go to work in all fifty states without fear of losing their jobs because of who they love or how they identify. We will one day live in a world where the conflicts between LGBT people and people of faith will be squarely in our past, when the mystic chords of memory have again swelled, touched by the better angels of our nature. Our pluralistic republic will carry on, and we will all be the stronger and more resilient for it.

 

That day is not today, but it is coming. It will get better for us all—including Tim Carney.

 

Edited May 22, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Today the NYT published an Op Ed piece on Ireland's nationwide referendum which passed same-sex marriage by a margin of approximately 2-to-1. They reference the upcoming SCOTUS case, and the United States standing:

The Victory for Same-Sex Marriage in Ireland

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/opinion/the-victory-for-same-sex-marriage-in-ireland.html?_r=1

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

MAY 23, 2015

Months ago, it seemed to some like a long shot that love, common sense and justice would prevail as voters in Ireland began contemplating whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry under their Constitution. On Friday, love didn’t just prevail across Irish cities and villages. It triumphed.

By becoming the first nation to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote, Ireland gave a powerful boost to the quest for gay equality, a movement that has achieved a string of victories around the world over the past decade but remains a distant goal in many countries where intolerant attitudes remain entrenched.

In a deeply Catholic nation that decriminalized homosexuality in 1993 and still bans abortion under most circumstances, proponents of same-sex marriage appeared to face an uphill battle when they set out to convince voters that the Constitution should give people the right to marry “without distinction as to their sex.”

Leaders of the victorious Yes campaign appealed to voters of all ages, generations and backgrounds by keeping their message simple. They billed marriage as a fundamental right that should be available to all people in love. They produced compelling short videos that asked straight Irish citizens in a nation of close-knit families to do right by their gay relatives.

The Yes victory was resounding. With more than 60 percent of eligible voters casting ballots, a phenomenal turnout, the referendum was approved by roughly two to one.

The opposition, aided by some Catholic bishops who campaigned for No votes, peddled the hollow arguments that have same-sex marriage opponents around the world on a losing streak. They warned that legalizing same-sex marriage would undermine unions between a man and a woman and argued that marriage has an inherently reproductive purpose.

In a statement conceding defeat, the Iona Institute, the main opposition group, said it would continue to affirm “the importance of biological ties and of motherhood and fatherhood.” The absurdity of that statement speaks for itself.

As soon as the referendum is ratified by Parliament, Ireland will join 19 nations that have legalized same-sex marriage — an honor roll that does not include the United States.

The Irish path to legalizing same-sex marriage was remarkable because advocates have long seen courts and legislative initiatives as easier paths to prevail on an issue that continues to trouble many people on moral and religious grounds. Lawmakers in the United Kingdom approved same-sex marriage in 2013. In the United States, the expanding recognition of marriage rights in 36 states and the District of Columbia has been achieved through lawsuits and legislatures. The Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on a case that could establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The outcome in Ireland sends an unmistakable signal to politicians and religious leaders around the world who continue to harbor intolerant views against gays and lesbians. It also should offer hope to sexual minorities in Russia, the Arab world and many African nations where intolerance and discriminatory laws remain widespread.

The tide is shifting quickly. Even in unlikely places, love and justice will continue to prevail.

[Russell C McGregor]

Then it not been very effective. The rate of homosexuality has been fairly constant at between 1&1/2% to 2&1/2% of the population for a very long time now.

And yet the notion that the definition of marriage should be radically changed just to suit that little group has somehow become the default position, and opposition to it is held by many to be wrong.

The propaganda machine is working just fine.

[Daniel2]

A new CNN poll reveals that 63% of Americans agree that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry:

The [supreme] court's most recent rulings on same-sex marriage have tilted in favor of those who support legal marriages, a growing group among the American public. In this poll, 63% say they believe gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry. Only 49% said that was a constitutional right as recently as 2010.

The nearly two-thirds who currently say there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry includes about three-quarters of Americans under age 50 (73%) and roughly half of those over age 50 (52%). Majorities of Democrats (74%) and independents (69%) see a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples, while only 35% of Republicans agree. There is a significant age gap among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, however, with 59% of those under age 50 saying same-sex couples do have a constitutional right to marry, compared with 36% of Republican-leaners age 50 or older.

...

A majority, 52%, say they approve of the way the court is handling its job, while 41% disapprove. That's an improvement from an even 48% to 48% split two years ago. Still, when Americans are asked how much they trust the court on a range of issues it will be considering this term or the next, the worst ratings come on health care and same-sex marriage. Only about half say they have at least a moderate amount of trust in the court on health care (50%) or same-sex marriage (49%).

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/cnn-poll-supreme-court-health-care-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Edited June 8, 2015 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

A new CNN poll reveals that 63% of Americans agree that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry:

 

 

Doesn't make it right.

47% of Americans are pro-choice.  Doesn't make abortion right.

 

Just means more Americans are wrong than ever before.

[Gray]

I second this, Gray.  In real life, I haven't heard any Latter-day Saints argue against the repeal of /public accommodations laws that were settled in the wake of the civil rights movement--only here on the board.  Additionally, I haven't heard anyone in real life argue in support of "religious liberty" for wedding-related service professionals to refuse to service to interracial couples' weddings who's personal beliefs prohibit interracial marriage.  Nor have I heard any support for the "religious liberty" for a business owner of any given religion to refuse to provide services to the weddings of members of other religions that the business owner may find reprehensible or abominable.   "Religious liberty" only seems to apply to those wanting to deny services to LGBT couples' weddings.  I wonder why that is....?

 

"Religious liberty" is code now, I think. You can't hear the phrase without the anti-gay association. Which is unfortunate. 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

"Religious liberty" is code now, I think. You can't hear the phrase without the anti-gay association. Which is unfortunate. 

Religious liberty is what it is. Perhaps it has never been threatened to the degree it is today with the gay-agenda steamroller.*

 

I for one don't recall within my lifetime when it has been in such jeopardy.

 

*Edited to add:

 

Of course that can't be right. The rights and liberties of the early Mormons were heinously violated for many decades as they were subjected to religious persecution and government oppression.

 

Other religious minorities also were oppressed with the acquiescence, if not the complicity, of government.

 

I should and will qualify this to say that religious liberty within my lifetime has not been threatened to the degree that it is today.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

"Religious liberty" is code now, I think. You can't hear the phrase without the anti-gay association. Which is unfortunate. 

 

If so, who were the ones who had the motive to marginalize it?  

 

I've been surprised at the number of LDS online who are philosophically opposed to the civil rights act and similar laws. I guess it's a question that never comes up in church.  

 

I remember when “religious liberty” was a civil right.  Indeed, I even remember when it was considered -- along with free speech and freedom of the press -- as the most fundamental civil right. 

 

BTW, if “religious liberty” still has any meaning, it means liberty for people to be faithful to religious beliefs we don’t like.  

Edited June 9, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[Gray]

 

If so, who were the ones who had the motive to marginalize it?  

 

In what way has religious liberty been marginalized?

 

I remember when “religious liberty” was a civil right.  Indeed, I even remember when it was considered -- along with free speech and freedom of the press -- as the most fundamental civil right. 

 

BTW, if “religious liberty” still has any meaning, it means liberty for people to be faithful to religious beliefs we don’t like.  

 

Religious liberties are not under attack. You are just as free to practice your religion as you would have been 100 years ago.

 

[Gray]

Religious liberty is what it is. Perhaps it has never been threatened to the degree it is today with the gay-agenda steamroller.*

 

I for one don't recall within my lifetime when it has been in such jeopardy.

 

*Edited to add:

 

Of course that can't be right. The rights and liberties of the early Mormons were heinously violated for many decades as they were subjected to religious persecution and government oppression.

 

Other religious minorities also were oppressed with the acquiescence, if not the complicity, of government.

 

I should and will qualify this to say that religious liberty within my lifetime has not been threatened to the degree that it is today.

 

I don't see where religious liberty is under attack. You're right of course that religious persecutions were greater in the 19th century. But I have not noticed any decrease in religious liberty recently.

[Meadowchik]

Regardless of whether homosexual relationships are sinful or not, I oppose any argument for ssm that relies on sexual gender being irrelevant.

It is relevant, and not arbitrarily or subjectively...in short, not comparable to race.

Why different? Because equating ss relationships to hetero will result in 1) assigning responsibility which does not exist, or 2) denying responsibility.

Essentially the legalisation of ssm in this manner will deepen and continue the separating of procreation from marriage. Cali, as a result of ssm, was the first to legalise the possibility of 3 (or more) legal parents. This increases by magnitude the complexity and potential of instability for children.

Iowa made it legal for a wife of a mother to presumed paternity of her spouse's baby. This, imo, is an intermediate step to eliminating presumption of paternity altogether. Paternity is challenged all the time...ss couples is the case where any presumption is without its own merit, because there is no reason to expect a spouse to be responsible to an event that they could never cause.

So presumption of paternity must dissappear with court- mandated ssm. A child's right to mother and father will continue to weaken bc of that and the legality of 3+ legal parents.

Look at the trends and such laws, and this is a rralistic scenario: gay man and woman, each married to a ss spouse, have children together, sharing custody between them. Gay couples are already forming similar arrangements, ssm as its being used today facilitates this: there will be no reason to connect procreation or parentage to marriage.

From a different angle, following the claim that consenting adult relationships merit the dignity of marriage, including the bundle of associated legal benefits, the sisters I know who've lived together for 30+ years have every moral right to it. However, they're completely platonic and Catholic, why should they only have access to this bundle of rights by taking upon themselves the cultural notions of marriage?

...just one more example of why the current arguments FOR ssm will completely and necessarily--if consistently and fairly applied--sever parentage/procreation/(even!)sex from marriage.

It's worth noting of the many countries who've legalised ssm, only one--Brazil-- has done so through the courts. For several, the right to ssm was rejected by the courts but the acceptance of ssm was legalised through the elected/ legislative process.

Again, I can support same-sex marriage law which does not rely on eliminating the relevance of male/female/mother/father. It's because these attributes and roles are not arbitrary and are among the basic foundations for the biological variety and social cohesion of humanity.

[tonie]

Religious liberty is what it is. Perhaps it has never been threatened to the degree it is today with the gay-agenda steamroller.*

 

I for one don't recall within my lifetime when it has been in such jeopardy.

 

*Edited to add:

 

Of course that can't be right. The rights and liberties of the early Mormons were heinously violated for many decades as they were subjected to religious persecution and government oppression.

 

Other religious minorities also were oppressed with the acquiescence, if not the complicity, of government.

 

I should and will qualify this to say that religious liberty within my lifetime has not been threatened to the degree that it is today.

 

CFR.

 

What religous liberty are being threatened? 

 

If you say "The religious right a business owner to discriminate against gays." Then the same would be said of the Civil Rights Amendment which nullified religious liberty of a business owner to discriminate against Mormons. 

[rockpond]

Religious liberty is what it is. Perhaps it has never been threatened to the degree it is today with the gay-agenda steamroller.*

 

How do you see the so-called "gay-agenda" threatening religious liberty today?

[Brian 2.0]

I for one don't recall within my lifetime when it has been in such jeopardy.

Are you referring to an individual's religious liberty in their personal life... or a business owner's religious actions in the course of their business?