Quantcast
Faith

Mormon Parenting: Don’t call gay unions ‘marriage’

Comments

Return To Article
  • Miss Piggie Pheonix, AZ
    May 28, 2013 10:36 p.m.

    @amazondoc:
    "Nope. Children can not legally give informed consent. Adults can."

    Well then, let's get the law changed so that children can give consent. Otherwise we have shameful discrimination against them.

    @UTAH Bill:
    "Gay marriage is coming as opposition continues to decline. It does not threaten me or my marriage to my wife."

    It doesn't threaten your marriage. What it threatens is the institution of marriage as has been explained by other posters on this thread.

    @2plainbrownwrappers:
    "The courts already know that they can, and they have already proven it (polygamy damages women/children)..."

    There is no evidence that polygamy affects child/women safety... unless you're studying marriages exclusively in a mid-east religion.

    @kosimov:
    "What gay couples want is equal treatment under the law..."

    They HAVE equal protection under the law... Everyone can marry provided they chose someone of the opposite sex. That seems equal and fair.

    And the law also identifies sensible marriage prohibitions which apply to everyone... marrying a close relative, children, several people at one time, and someone of the same sex.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    May 28, 2013 9:19 p.m.

    @dustman:
    "Fail. This article fails. I am a man. My wife is a woman. We got married knowing that we could not conceive children. According to this article my wife and I aren't married. And what we have should not be considered a marriage. Fail."

    Don't disparage, dusty. The idea is that your wife could potentially conceive because she is female. The difference is, with two men there is no way in heck that one or the other of them can conceive... for one thing the plumbing is all wrong.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    May 28, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    @JoeBlow:
    "If you want a marriage license, get is from your church, but it has no real legal meaning and is in no way required. Whats wrong with this?"

    The problem is... marriage is a contract and thus, falls under contract law. A church issuing a license would be problematical especially if was labeled as not having real legal meaning.

    @Contrarius:
    "Polygamy has known, concrete risks to women and children. Specifically, women and children in polygamous relationships are known to be at increased risk for abuse and/or mistreatment."

    If there is truly added risk in polygamy, it stems not from the marriage arrangement but to the mentality stemming from another source such as religious teachings.

    @Obama10:
    "I just want to prepare the commentators here that in the not too distant future, the LDS church will support civil-unions."

    The LDS Church has no reason to add its voice to the same-sex marriage issue, especially since it has already taken a position in its Proclamation. If the Church does as you suggest, it will begin to lose membership by the hundreds of thousands.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    May 28, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    No amount of claiming equality, no amount of "showing true love by accepting gay relationships as a marriage"; no amount of laws which may be passed will ever make a marriage a union between the same sexes. Simply because it is not. If the GLBT wants to say that the earth is flat, that will not make the earth flat. Same thing with marriage. They insist that marriage can be between two of the same sex. But just because they say it does not make it so. No matter how many states are deceived into passing laws in favor of it, no matter what they do for acceptance, and even if all the people of the earth say it's so, it still does not make it a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the meaning and nothing will ever change it.

  • kosimov Riverdale, UT
    May 28, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    What gay couples want is equal treatment under the law - at least, that seems to be the core of their argument. So, if that is given, would that be enough?

    If yes, there is one advantage gay couples would gain by adopting a different word to describe their union: it would become MUCH easier to persuade states to make their "UNION" legally equivalent to "MARRIAGE" as has been traditionally defined in "American English" (I call it "AMERICAN", since Americans have not spoken "English" for centuries....).

    If the word for a gay union became different from the name for heterosexual marriage, the only problem would be militant gays trying to do more than obtain identical benefits as heterosexual married couples. In essence, at least to me, insisting on using the word "MARRIAGE" is a veiled attack on heterosexual couples wanting to keep "marriage” as defining heterosexual unions and something else defining gay unions, which is, after all, just as reasonable as gays wanting to call their unions “marriage”. If gays would not accept this, it would show they were after much more than “equality” under the law.

  • ldsdaniel San Diego, CA
    May 28, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    I have a really quick and simple question that I hope it's easy to answer. Why is it that we don't care people calling us Mormon and yet we should gets so particular about calling gay unions "marriages".

    For many years I, personally, prefer to be called Latter-day Saints or LDS rather than Mormons. And then one day, the church comes out and say we should be called Mormons instead. So what does Mormon really mean and what does Latter-day Saints really mean?

    It all boils down to, does it all really matter? Will people get confused if we are called Mormons or Latter-day Saints? If we don't care about using the right term to define who we really are, why do we care about using the right term to define what a particular union is?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    May 28, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    @sharrona --

    The passages you're quoting don't have anything to do with Sodom.

    We've established that Paul didn't like homosexuals. Paul also supported slavery and thought women were inferior to men.

    We've established that the OT didn't like homosexuals. The OT also didn't like shellfish. Fortunately for shrimps lovers everywhere, the OT laws were replaced by the New Covenant.

    We've established that Jesus himself didn't say a single word against homosexuals. They are not mentioned anywhere in the Gospels. Except for that one passage in which Jesus says: ""For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:12)

    The moderators probably wouldn't let me post the OED definition of "sodomy", so I'll just summarize by saying that it refers to two acts which are enjoyed by both straight and gay couples. Legal definitions of sodomy -- in countries across the world -- usually refer to those same acts, and not to the gender involved.

  • TheGorn West Jordan, UT
    May 27, 2013 7:02 p.m.

    “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” So marriage by definition is merely a government sanction of love? Well in that case I think I will just pass on the idea all together. I am in no great need for the government to say; "yes, we approve of your love." Perhaps I will create my own term that best describes the loving and happy relationship that two people engage in, that does not require a nod from a state/federal governments. The word is: "Lappy" Its kind of a mix of love and happy. "Will you lappy me?"

  • sharrona layton, UT
    May 27, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    @plainbrownwrappers, “the guys who showed up at the door were being "immoral" because they wanted to mistreat guests, not because those guests happened to be male?

    See( 1Cor 6:9 NET) all unrightesness will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men=(Grk 733, *arsenokoitēs (1 Cor 6:9 NIV). * one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
    God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother=( G. mater) and be joined to his *(τὴν) *wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. (Mark 10:6-8). * Greek Definite singular article and *noun or( Wife not wives.)

  • J.D. Aurora, CO
    May 27, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    It will only be a matter of time before the Church gets a new revelation from Heavenly Father on this issue. He has already given me a testimony that the Church will see these unions as acceptible. I believe this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    KWL
    Bountiful, UT

    For those bringing up whether or not couples past childbearing age should count as married--oldest, medically verified case of a pregnant woman is 66. With modern technology, it is possible for women even older to give birth but doctors are advised not to help bring such pregnancies about because of health concerns for the mother.

    LDS4
    Fair enough...Let's only forbid marriage licenses to women who've had hysterectomies and are therefore unable to conceive. The same for people medically deemed sterile or women who've had their tubes tied or men who've had vasectomies. Let's revoke marriage licenses of couples failing to reproduce within 5 years of being married. They don't need marriage.

    Why is it that so many who bring up gays' inability to bear children genetically related to both seldom want to apply that same standard to straight couples? It's simply an excuse to justify giving gays second class status.

  • KWL Bountiful, UT
    May 27, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    For those bringing up whether or not couples past childbearing age should count as married--oldest, medically verified case of a pregnant woman is 66. With modern technology, it is possible for women even older to give birth but doctors are advised not to help bring such pregnancies about because of health concerns for the mother. However, there are cases in the modern era of women as old as in their 70's who are supposed to have given birth. Oldest verified natural conception was a mother of 59. Men have become fathers without medical assistance at even older ages.

  • 2plainbrownwrappers Nashville, TN
    May 27, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "You cannot expect to understand the scriptures by the learning of scholars"

    So, according to you, the ignorant understand the Bible better than the educated?

    LOL!

    How do you know that scholars aren't just as inspired as you are?

    @sharrona --

    You're ignoring all the OTHER references to Sodom in the Bible. In multiple places, Sodom's chief sins are listed as relating to inhospitality and arrogance. Remember, Lot himself -- the one guy who was supposed to be MORAL -- offered up his own daughters to be attacked. He was being "moral" because he was showing hospitality -- and the guys who showed up at the door were being "immoral" because they wanted to mistreat guests, not because those guests happened to be male.

    Jeremiah 23:14 -- listed as adultery, lying, and strengthening the hands of evildoers
    Amos 4:1-11 -- oppressing the poor and crushing the needy
    Ezekiel 16:49-50 -- pride, wealth, and refusal to help the needy
    Luk 17:28 -- careless living
    Matthew 11:23 -- impenitence

    Read Michaelson and other scholars. Also read Jewish analyses -- they have a lot more stories about Sodom, and most of those also relate to hospitality and cruelty.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 27, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    I've always felt the authors of this article were good people wanting to do good in the world. I was deeply moved at the part of the article most people will pass over. I applaud their willingness to come out in favor of Gay Rights, including the right to have a Gay union. I somehow doubt such a statement would have been made on the pages of this newspaper just a few years ago.

    As far as using the word "marriage" to describe those unions, I understand and respect their reluctance. Consider the following, however.

    I have two boys who are not my biological children. According to the ancient definition of the word I am not their father.

    Ask either one who their Dad is.

    I have friends who are Gay, who are loving and deeply committed to each other, and yes they are raising children. Does that constitute marriage? I argue that it does.

    I don't think it will be long before we will see newspapers including this one who will go beyond ancient tradition and recognize what marriage, fatherhood, and motherhood really mean.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 27, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    @2plainbrownwrappers

    "check out work by the Bible scholar Jay Michaelson. As he points out, the attack at Lot's house was the vehicle for the story, not the meaning of it -- in much the same way that a story about an ax murderer isn't really about the ax."

    11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
    12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
    13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
    14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
    (1 Cor 2:11-14)

    You cannot expect to understand the scriptures by the learning of scholars, that knowledge only comes by the inspiration of the Spirit.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    May 27, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    RE:c 2plainbrownwrappers, Bible scholar[liberal] Jay Michaelson. As he points out, the attack at Lot's house was the vehicle for the story, not the meaning of it?

    In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.(Jude 1:7 NIV).

    . . . God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.(Romans 1:27-28)

  • 2plainbrownwrappers Nashville, TN
    May 27, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    @zoar --

    Sorry, for some reason the moderators aren't allowing me to post more information about the real meaning of the Sodom story. But if you're truly interested, check out work by the Bible scholar Jay Michaelson. As he points out, the attack at Lot's house was the vehicle for the story, not the meaning of it -- in much the same way that a story about an ax murderer isn't really about the ax.

    So anyway -- check out Michaelson!

    Oh, and as for the word itself -- legally, that actually refers to an activity that straight couples can engage in just as easily as gay couples. ;-)

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 27, 2013 2:09 a.m.

    You ever notice in Muslim run countries there are no advocate movements for gay marriages.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 27, 2013 1:54 a.m.

    bandersen
    Saint George, UT

    A rose by any other name is still a rose! A Christ centered marriage will always be between a man and a women.
    8:36 a.m. May 24, 2013

    =========

    So then, what you just implied is that heterosexual
    Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindis can't be married either?

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    May 27, 2013 12:29 a.m.

    This whole thing isn't about equality under the law. That's just a smoke screen. What it is about is the political power to change institutions and meanings of words to grant unlimited power to homosexuals such that they not only are equal under the law, but actually superior. It's just like the environmentalists; it's their way or nothing. And it has been that way from the beginning, not just want equality. They demand respect (instead of earning it) and will stop at nothing to insure it.

    Many of us agree they ought to have equal rights but they want to define the word "marriage," as somehow that becomes the argument that shows how maligned they are. Who cares if it's called something else if you enjoy the same legal rights? Who is really trying to hijack society?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 11:12 p.m.

    @Meckofahless
    "What is wrong with the gay community accepting a "civil union" as the name of their relationship status?"

    Because second class citizenship is undesirable.

    @Linus --

    "Well, it is obvious that many are ready to legitimize Sodom."

    First off, attempted rape of angels is different than consentual homosexual sex. Secondly, the allegedly moral guy in that story offered his daughters to rapists. You sure you want to use this story?

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    May 26, 2013 10:05 p.m.

    I totally agree with this article. Even though my husband and I were not able to have children, I still believe that I will be granted this blessing sometime in the future. I look at marriage in an eternal sense. I do not seeing me ever calling two people of the same gender married. I would do my best to not be rude. (Just not talking about it.) But if I was cornered, I would tell them my beliefs and stand by them.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 6:17 p.m.

    worf
    Mcallen, TX

    Gay marriage is wrong, and the acts within it are evil. This is a no brainer.

    LDS4
    Sorry, but there are MANY straight couples that enjoy the exact same acts that same-sex couples enjoy. And there'd be many if one spouse would acquiesce to the requests of the other.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 26, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    Gay marriage is wrong, and the acts within it are evil. This is a no brainer.

  • donn layton, UT
    May 26, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    A comprehensive union of persons (aka marriage) must include both bodily union (heterosexual sex, as it organically connects the individually incomplete reproductive systems of a man and a woman into a larger whole. If vertical evolution were true, why haven’t males been able to produce a baby?

    RE; Contrarius same as, amazondocThe law of human nature law: Can you think of a country were people are admired from running away from battle(they would eventually be extinct), And selfishness has never been admired.

  • 2plainbrownwrappers Nashville, TN
    May 26, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    @zoar --

    "That is a Canadian decision which has nothing to do with the United States."

    Of course it does. It illustrates quite clearly that courts -- wherever those courts may be -- are perfectly capable of telling the difference between gay marriage and polygamy. The same principles would apply here as have already been applied there.

    "Should gay marriage ever become the law of the land in the U.S. the polygamy laws would soon be overturned..."

    You can cry Doom and Armageddon as much as you like -- but the courts will always recognize that public safety trumps personal freedoms. They can tell the difference, even if you can't.

    And incidentally, the Canadian constitution guarantees equal treatment, just like ours does.

    Now -- if you could come up with a public safety argument against gay marriage, THEN you might have a point. Otherwise, you don't.

    "Simply stated you cannot allow marriages for certain select groups...."

    Of course you can. The courts already know that they can, and they have already proven it based on public safety.

    And, oddly enough, I trust that they know more about both the law and the Constitution than you do.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 26, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    @plainbrownwrapper,

    And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
    And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
    Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
    (Gen 19:5-8)

    one of the definitions of know and known is to know a person carnally and this is what the men of Sodom are demanding that Lot allow them to do. Notice also Lot pleads with them to do not so wickedly and he even offers his virgin daughters to appease them abusing his guests. Where do you think the word Sodomy came from? Certainly not because the people refused to help the poor and needy.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    May 26, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    @amazondoc

    "Public safety has always trumped personal freedoms. And, as reflected in the recent court decision by the Supreme Court of BC when Canada's polygamy ban was reaffirmed as constitutional, courts understand that polygamy carries significant risks to women and children."

    That is a Canadian decision which has nothing to do with the United States. Should gay marriage ever become the law of the land in the U.S. the polygamy laws would soon be overturned and just like the gays, polygamists would be given their rights to marry under the 14th Amendment. Simply stated you cannot allow marriages for certain select groups like opposite sex marriage or same sex marriage and at the same time pass laws forbidding people to marry multiple legal age consenting partners. And what if in the not too distant future society supports lowering the age of consent for marriage to 15 or maybe even 13. Would never happen? Well fifty years ago society would have said gay marriage will never happen. Once you open Pandora’s box it can never be closed.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 26, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    The problem is that we conflate two different things as marriage: State-sponsored unions and religious unions. Churches are free to limit marriages as they wish for their members. One church won't recognize marriages between its members and non-members. Another won't recognize a marriage where one partner has been divorced. That's fine, but they don't get to set the rules for civil society. No one is proposing to force any church to perform or recognize marriages that their rules prohibit. But at the same time, churches don't have the right to decide which people the State will allow to marry. Would you argue that the State should ban marriages between Catholic and non-Catholic, or prohibit Jews from marrying gentiles just because those religions forbid it to their members?

    As an aside, it seems odd that a Mormon writer would argue that the definition of marriage has always been "one man and one woman".

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    Meckofahess
    What is wrong with the gay community accepting a "civil union" as the name of their relationship status? Let them have basic legal rights. But "marriage" should be reserved for the legal union of a man and a woman.

    LDS4
    Civil Unions are like having separate drinking fountains for Blacks and Whites. The water for them both came from the same pipe, so the "societal benefits" that each group received was identical, just like civil unions and marriage. Both civil Unions and separate drinking fountains were created so that the popular majority didn't have to be treated equally with the unpopular minority. The majority didn't want the unpopular minority to be considered their equal socially, though legally they had to be treated equally.

    There is no objective reason for either separate drinking fountains or "separate, but equal" legal status.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    May 26, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    @truth --

    "You simply have demonstrated the apostasy of the christian churches."

    Because YOU say so, of course.

    ;-)

    Sorry, but you are not the ultimate religious authority. You're not even the ultimate authority on Earth, much less the ultimate authority in heaven.

    Christian denominations that support gay marriage have just as much right to their beliefs as you do.

    "Jesus personally called Paul."

    Did Jesus call Paul to support slavery? Did Jesus call Paul to claim that women were inferior to men?

    No, of course not. Paul was a mortal man, and fallible.

    ""strange flesh" = homosexual behavior"

    Not necessarily. Actually, Bible scholars have a wide range of views on this passage.

    Excerpted from the wikipedia page on Sodom, "strange flesh" may refer to:

    bestiality
    illicit sex with strangers
    sex with angels
    forced perverse sex
    inhospitality

    and

    "In the Gospel of Matthew (and corresponding verse) when Jesus warns of a worse judgment for some cities than Sodom, inhospitality is perceived by some as the sin, while others see it fundamentally being impenitence"

    Yes, I know lots of Christians have been taught that Sodom was all about homosexuality. That doesn't mean it's true.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    Tekakaromatagi
    Dammam, Saudi Arabia

    If a gay man and a gay woman want to get married, no problem. If two straight men want to get married for whatever reason, I object. So defining marriage as being between two people of the same gender is not discriminating against anyone. The rules apply to everyone the same.

    LDS4
    I guess the same thing can be said of Christians there in Saudi Arabia. They are free to attend a mosque or read the Koran just like everyone else. The rules apply to everyone the same. Christians simply CHOOSE to be Christians and complain when they aren't given special rights just for them. They should simply give up their divergent ways and become Muslims. This is the logic you are using regarding gays.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    May 26, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    @Contrarius

    You simply have demonstrated the apostasy of the christian churches.

    Doing what is popular is NOT the same doing what is right.

    @plainbrownwrapper

    Jesus Christ did not need to mention all forms of immorality nor did he dismiss any of them, the higher law included all of them and higher level of expectation of behavior:

    Matt.5:28

    "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart"

    Jesus also said to his servants (Matt, 28:20) "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."

    Jesus personally called Paul.

    Jesus also call Jude (Jude 1:1)

    Jude taught (Jude 1:7):

    "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

    "strange flesh" = homosexual behavior

    Sodom and Gomorrha sins were neither limited nor few, but their wickedness was complete.

    Reading the whole of Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel doesn't limit them, but just picking sins from surrounding nations and saying Israel was guilty of them.

  • caf Bountiful, UT
    May 26, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Thank you Linda and Richard for the clear discussion of why so many of us do not believe in calling unions between people of the same gender, a marriage. Great article!

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    May 26, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    @Linus --

    "Well, it is obvious that many are ready to legitimize Sodom."

    You might want to read up on Sodom a bit, before you go thinking it was really all about "the gay". Christians are often taught that it was, but the truth is actually quite different.

    For instance: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me." (Ezekiel 16:49-50 NASB)

    @banderson --

    "Jesus didn't mention incest either"

    There were quite a few incestuous relationships in the Bible, so you might want to tread lightly there.

    @Mike --

    "Did he change his mind?"

    God's laws have changed in the past -- refer to the New Covenant and continuous revelation for two obvious examples -- so there's no reason to assume that they wouldn't change again. And since there is more than one model for marriage within the Bible itself -- ranging from incest to polygamy to "regular" monogamy -- it should be no surprise that there could be other models for marriage outside of the Bible as well.

  • fowersjl Farmington, Utah
    May 26, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    What the gay community desires is not "marriage", but actually the end to marriage as we know it. Mark my words. The fight against traditional marriage/family will continue until no such thing exists under the law, until any kind of "union" is acceptable without regard to age, gender, numbers involved. The fight for "equality" is just a ruse and the tip of the iceberg of what is to come.

  • UTAH Bill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    Gay marriage is coming as opposition continues to decline. It does not threaten me or my marriage to my wife. I welcome it.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    What is wrong with the gay community accepting a "civil union" as the name of their relationship status? Let them have basic legal rights. But "marriage" should be reserved for the legal union of a man and a woman. The gay community is simply trying to force their views on society without due respect for the majority viewpoint. The gay community believes that if they keep up their attack long enough eventually society will cave to their point of view. Remember this, you can try to force me to be your friend - but is that really going to make me a true friend? Not likely!

  • maximum Phoenix, AZ
    May 26, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    @alt134
    "That's like arguing that there was equality under the law when there was an interracial marriage ban because white people could marry white people and black people could marry black people. "

    Thanks for proving my point. When they changed that law they didn't redefine the term "marriage". It was and continues to be the union between a man and a woman.

  • Rocketman Sausalito, CA
    May 25, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    Most of the arguments here are of the nature of: marriage is between a man and a woman because it has always been that way, or because we say so. These are not logical arguments. Were my great, great, great polygamous grandparents not really married because the vast majority of Americans in those days defined marriage as between one man and one woman? Did black people in the pre-Civil War days really have no innate God-given rights, because that's what white people decided? Are Mormons not Christians just because the majority of born-again Christians say so? Even though the Declaration of Independence declares that all should be allowed the pursuit of happiness, you are saying it should be illegal for two consenting adults to call themselves married? Give us a logical reason for this. And the reason cannot be because we say so, or because that is what our holy books say, or because that is how it has always been. That may work in a theocracy like Iran, but it does not work in a democratic country that protects individual, non-sectarian liberty.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 25, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    Who wants to redeine the word "marriage"? Is it God? Did he change his mind? Has he suddendly come to the realization that he got it wrong and that modern-day thinkers got it right? Has he decided that a sacred union between a man and a woman must be abandoned because it is no longer "politically correct" and he wants to march to the same beat as is being drummed by those who advocate same-sex "marriage"?

    Just who is it that wants to redefine the word, "marriage".

    Let me give you a little hint. It isn't God. He hasn't changed his mind. He hasn't changed his plan.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 25, 2013 7:18 p.m.

    Brownpaperwrapper: Since the bible for you is up to private interpretation, let me just say what dostevsky said, "If there is no God,everything is permitted." If there is no religion that can speak with clarity on such fundamental issues, for those who still believe in god, then we are in big trouble. However, Jesus didn't mention incest either, but I am quite certain he wouldn't endorse it. The Pharisees wanted everything spelled out in exactness, the very thing that brought them the greatest condemnation by jesus. I don't find any of the defenders of Homosexuality convincing when it comes to whether their behavior is endorsed by God or not. Wrong is wrong, no matter how it defended.

  • Globetrecker Arlington, va
    May 25, 2013 5:28 p.m.

    There are a lot of fake "facts" being thrown around by the homosexual lobby. We need to remember that they have a far greater agenda.

    Ever heard of the book "After The Ball"? It's a book that outlines the homosexual lobby and activists plans that they started 20 yrs ago (at least) a propaganda campaign. Google it. It's fascinating and disturbing.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    May 25, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    Well, it is obvious that many are ready to legitimize Sodom. I guess Sodom was a nice place. Lot's wife looked back upon it tolerantly, if not longingly. Too many people are too ready to embrace all nice people regardless of their sick and repulsive agenda that most of us don't even want to think about.

  • Ann Amberly Greenbelt, MD
    May 25, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    The LDS believe in an eternal post-mortal existence with gender also being eternal. Thus marriage between a man and a woman who are infertile or too old for procreation in this life is still a valid marriage--in our post-mortal existence that temporary infertility will no longer apply. The couple will be able to have children in the next life. However, if gender is eternal, even in the next life two males or two females will not be able to bring forth children.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    May 25, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    @banderson --

    "And now we know why those churches aren't growing!"

    Oh puhleez.

    I'm not looking them all up, but for example: the Anglican Church is the third largest Canadian church. The United Church is the second. So two of Canada's three largest churches support gay marriage.

    Anglican membership is falling -- steadily, since the 1960s. Obviously, that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

    The same with the United Church -- membership was declining before gay marriage was even on the horizon.

    "what bible are you reading fom that doesn't inform you of the evils of Homosexuality?"

    Please try to pay attention.

    I said that **Jesus** never said a word against homosexuality. That's a simple fact.

    And you can pretty much discount the old laws from the Old Testament, since they were supplanted by the new covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13 and others).

    The Gospels don't mention homosexuality at all.

    **Paul** spoke against homosexuality -- but Paul was neither Jesus, nor God. And since Paul also supported slavery (Col 3:22) and believed that women were inferior to men (1 Cor 14:34 and others), you should be very cautious about claiming that everything Paul said was true.

  • JonathanPDX Portland, Oregon
    May 25, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    "Marriage" is simply a word. It used to refer to a union of a man and a woman. But the meaning of words often change as a society grows and evolves.

    There are lots of marriages: "common law", "temporal", "celestial", "convenience", "secular", religious", etc. Heck, marriage even refers to the combining of two objects into one.

    But the issue at hand is not how society defines that word, but how the individuals involved define their union according to their beliefs.

    No matter how hard they try or what laws they pass, using the word "marriage" will not make temple marriages any less special or blessed, not marriages between a man and a woman anything less that what in the the hearts of the participants.

    So why spend so much time worrying about a word? It will not change the need for the gospel, nor for the priesthood, nor for faith, love, charity, humility, etc.

    What it does, however, is give those for whom it is a sacred union more reason to be stronger, more faithful, and more loving to show that it is not the word, but the actions that make a "marriage" sacred.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 25, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    Amazondoc: And now we know why those churches aren't growing! By the way, what bible are you reading fom that doesn't inform you of the evils of Homosexuality? Certainly not the King James Bible, which is the most accepted bible in the world. Aside from that the Lord has stated, through living prophets (since you have already said there are multiple christian churches that have multiple views about any number of things, I assume) in my church, that "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." That's what I believe and I think the Bible corroborates that view.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 25, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    @maixmum
    "Homosexuals DO have equality under the law."

    That's like arguing that there was equality under the law when there was an interracial marriage ban because white people could marry white people and black people could marry black people.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    "Did you know that after they legalized gay marriage that first born children being born to married parents dropped from 40% to 25%?"

    First off, it's not down to 25%. Secondly, gay marriage has nothing to do with that. Gay marriage strengthens the institution of marriage, what cheapens it is the idea that gay couples don't need it.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 25, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    @falasha
    "Clearly he had only 1 wife, Emma"

    I went to the church's website (the lds one), looked under gospel topics for polygamy, (you can google "lds smith gospel topics polygamy" to get there. It includes this...

    "After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church."

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    May 25, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "after they legalized gay marriage that first born children being born to married parents dropped from 40% to 25%?"

    "They" who? I don't believe your claim for a second. Please provide your sources -- either that, or stop throwing around made-up numbers.

    @maximum --

    "They have the same rights as anyone else."

    This is the very same argument that people used to make before Loving v. Virginia.

    "Black people have the same rights as anyone else. They are free to marry someone of their own race, just like white people are."

    The Supreme Court didn't buy that argument then, and they aren't going to buy it now.

    "Men's restrooms were created to accommodate men"

    Nope.

    Separating restrooms by gender involves safety and privacy issues. There are no similar issues that would restrict same-sex marriage.

    "just like civil unions were created to accommodate same-sex couples."

    Separate is not equal. That was legally settled decades ago.

    "To argue that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is discrimination against homosexuals is like arguing that not allowing under-aged heterosexual couples to marry is ageism."

    Nope. Children can not legally give informed consent. Adults can.

  • maximum Phoenix, AZ
    May 25, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    @uwishtoo
    So what your saying is, rather than change adoption and tax laws to provide equal rights to same-sex couples we should change the definition of "marriage" so the existing laws automatically grant those rights. The problem is, these laws were written with the understanding that a married couple is a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

    It's kind of like changing the definition of "college degree" to include high school diplomas so people who didn't graduate from college have an equal chance of getting a better job as those who did.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 25, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    @uwishtoo:

    Did you know that after they legalized gay marriage that first born children being born to married parents dropped from 40% to 25%? Did you know (care) that out of wedlock births is the strongest correlation for childhood poverty? Did you know that if we as a society redefine marriage instead of strengthening it, we are going to have increased poverty? If we give up on marriage we have lost the war on poverty.

  • maximum Phoenix, AZ
    May 25, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    @LiveLongAndProsper

    "Homosexuals are seeking equality under the law which includes the right to marry."

    Homosexuals DO have equality under the law. Nobody is stopping them form getting married. They have the same rights as anyone else. The difference is they want to change the definition of marriage to include unions of same-sex couples. That's kind of like saying restricting men from using a public Women's restroom violates their rights. Men's restrooms were created to accommodate men just like civil unions were created to accommodate same-sex couples.

    The law recognizes marriage as the union between a man and a woman. If a homosexual individual wants to get "married" he or she can -- to someone of the opposite sex. But, like all laws, there are restrictions. For example, you cannot get married to your sibling.

    To argue that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is discrimination against homosexuals is like arguing that not allowing under-aged heterosexual couples to marry is ageism.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    May 25, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    @banderson --

    "I don't know any church or Christian, but in name only, who considers a Christ centered marriage as anything but between a man and a women."

    You've got an awfully exclusionary definition for "Christian", then. Christ himself never said a single word against homosexuals.

    Here's an incomplete list of churches that currently support gay marriage, or that allows each diocese to decide individually:

    Anglican Church of Canada

    Lutheran and Reformed Churches
    --Church of Sweden
    --Church of Denmark
    --Church of Iceland
    --Danish Church of Argentina
    --Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada
    --United Church of Canada
    --Protestant Church of Germany
    --Protestant Church of the Netherlands
    --Church of Norway
    --Evangelical Lutheran Church of America

    Presbyterian
    --Presbyterian Church USA (blesses same-sex unions, but does not perform marriages)

    Congregational polities
    --Quakers -- in several countries
    --United Church of Christ
    --Canadian Unitarian Council
    --Unitarian Universalist Association
    --Metropolitan Community Church
    --Mennonite Church of the Netherlands
    --Affirming Pentecostal Church International

    Mixed-polity and other polities
    --Swedenborgian Church of North America
    --Uniting Church of Australia
    --United Church of Canada (individual ministers)
    --New Apostolic Church

    And in Judaism:
    --Reform Judaism
    --Reconstructionist Judaism (individual rabbis)
    --Conservative Judaism (USA)

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    May 25, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    SO it's not ok for two people who love each other and are dedicated to one another willing to enter into a civil contract with one another to be given the titled of "married" because they are of the same sex, yet two hormonaly individuals who are of a different sex can run down to Vegas and get married, only to have it annulled at some point in the future when both realize who stupid they were. Is that what I'm hearing? Yea that seems fair. People get married on a whim all the time, they do it outside of a church, they don't care if you approve of it or not, yet no one is jumping up and down to redefine marriage outside of a so-called "church" just a civil union. I have a better idea; mind your own business. Let people call their union what they want. If the government wants to provide a license to two consenting adults of legal age that says they are married, then why would you want to stop that? Work on your own marriage, that will make this world a better place!

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 25, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    In other words... "Marriage is an essential, holy bond between two people committed to each other, who love each other, and who deserve equal civil and constitutional protection as a family unit. Everyone deserves the blessings of marriage, except you; because we don't understand how you two could possibly love each other as much as we do in our wonderful, prime example of what a marriage should be."

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    May 25, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    @Avg-Guy --

    "how long until the polygamists speak up on this topic."

    They already have.

    Canada has had legal gay marriages for around ten years now. Two or three years ago, a case was brought to the Supreme Court of BC relating to the polygamists in Bountiful (the Canadian Bountiful).

    The court easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban.

    From various newspaper articles:

    Chief Justice Bauman said "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial," ...He also found that Section 293 "minimally impairs religious freedom".

    He also said "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    Further excerpts rom Bauman's decision: "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm," -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

    There's much more, but I'm out of space!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 25, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    If a gay man and a gay woman want to get married, no problem. If two straight men want to get married for whatever reason, I object. So defining marriage as being between two people of the same gender is not discriminating against anyone. The rules apply to everyone the same.

    But, it can be argued, homosexuals don't want to marry the opposite gender. They can marry opposite genders, but, they will rightfully point out, "But we don't want to."

    Look at it this way.

    I would like to be able to get veteran benefits. I wasn't in the military though. Well, a veteran and a non-veteran have the same rights don't they? People who have served in the military don't get special rights, we are all free together. So if only veterans can get benefits that is discrimination. But you can say, "But you weren't in the military." I reply, "Of course, I didn't want to be in the military so I am being discriminated because because of what I want -- just like homosexuals are being discriminated for what they want or don't want."

  • uwishtoo MESA, AZ
    May 25, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    So if a hetero couple marry where one or both partners are infertile and unable to have children that's not a marriage either by your logic right? Did you know (or care?) that if one partner dies in a gay marriage (union whatever) the other partner has to pay estate taxes on all of the estate? Did you know that if a child is adopted only one parent can be on the birth certificate? What if that parent dies? Did you know (or again, CARE?) that same sex couples cannot file income taxes together even if they are living in a state that recognizes same sex couples? Hospitals and doctors don't have to honor living wills or directives either. Why not?

    Suzie Orman pointed the estate tax issues out and she is a wealthy woman, why will her partner for example, be singled out to pay estate taxes on all of Ms Orman's wealth if she passes first?

    Call it whatever you want, a union, marriage whatever but the fact remains that EVERY couple in this country deserves the right to love who they want to and enjoy the same rights of monetary issues as anyone else.

  • Gemini Australia, 00
    May 25, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    AMEN! To everything in this article that the Eyers have written!

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    May 25, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    Marriage must held as something unique and special, marriage has always had a divine nature and was religious ceremony.

    An LGBT activist spoke to a cheering audience saying the dirty secret is Gays do NOT want gay marriage,

    but what they really they marriage done away with as some antiquated notion.

    Significant Gay activists want the destruction, the end of marriage.

    Gay marriage makes marriage less meaningful, a means to their end.

    All which will end up destroying the foundation of this country.

    Social destruction of the family unit has caused very serious and growing social problems for decades,

    If all the above are not a logical reasons to oppose gay marriage nothing is.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    May 25, 2013 12:58 a.m.

    The authors equate the constitutionally protected right to marry, a right afforded all citizens under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court cases that interpret the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, with a person's desires to participate in various sports contests labeled as they choose. The latter is not a constitutionally-protected activity or status. I will assume good intentions on the part of the authors, but it appears they do not realize how deeply flawed their argument is, nor how it diminishes those who do not share their views.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 25, 2013 12:10 a.m.

    Contrarius: I don't know any church or Christian, but in name only, who considers a Christ centered marriage as anything but between a man and a women. I can't help it if some religions don't understand scripture, or the realities of nature. One of the great things about the future is that the division between those who are for Christ will find themselves in His camp and those who are against Him will find himself/herself in another camp. The gay marriage issue is just one issue that separates the wheat from the tares.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 24, 2013 8:55 p.m.

    "Why do different types of people want to be labled the same? If you're different in some aspect, why not just be different? Why would a left handed pitcher need to be called a righty? Isn't he a lefty? Is it derogatory to call him a lefty? He's a lefty - he's not the same as a righty - and he was born that way!"

    That left handed pitcher would be called a pitcher just like the right handed pitcher would also be called a pitcher.

  • Avg-Guy Orem, UT
    May 24, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    Great article. It does make you wonder how long until the polygamists speak up on this topic. If society is going to endorse same sex unions then non-traditional plural marriages will be right behind them. I think the Eyre's brought up some interesting points. It will be curious to see how this matter evolves.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 24, 2013 8:40 p.m.

    I couldn't help but go to the Webster dictionary and see what it had to say about marriage. Here's what the second definition was (yes, words often have more than one meaning): "(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage "

    Not to just settle there, I decided to see what the thesaurus listed as synonyms for marriage. The results: civil union, domestic partnership; attachment, commitment, relationship; betrothal, engagement, espousal, hand, pledge, promise, proposal, troth.

    Language evolves in the same manner as our laws evolve when we gain a better understanding of one another. It's high time we stop marginalizing a segment of our society and welcome them as full citizens and recognize they value they add to our communities.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    May 24, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    GeeMoney, I'm left-handed, and there isn't much difference between me and my right-handed parents and sibs other than hand usage. What I do with pen/pencil and paper is called writing. It matters nothing whether I do it or my brother does it, it's writing. No one in my family suggested I should call it something else because I did it with my left hand. If they had, I was also fortunate in not having had my teachers try to change my handedness, as folks have tried to do with people who are GLBT. My mom said she would have fought it had that happened. Would you stand up for your gay child if you had one? I would. I do think the commenter who quoted the dictionary had it right. And we are, after all, talking about real human beings, not theoretical ones.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    May 24, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    To:Getting it Right - you hit it right on the nose...we all have weaknesses and the difference is - what we do with them, use them, improve on them, overcome them? God would absolutely never make someone homosexual..that choice was made by the homosexual him or herself. We are taught to control our urges no matter what or who may bring them on. It is an unnatural act and certainly not an act from God - it's an act against God.

  • utah1966 broomfield, CO
    May 24, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    Polygamy is not same as same sex marriage. Polygamy is one male husband having more than one female wife. Polyandry is one female wife having more than one male husband. No same sex marriages. One or two millenium ago, polygamy was common. In later times, the United States required Mormons to end the practice. In their early history in the Utah region it was accepted as necessary to grow the church population and its faith. Many officials in our Federal Government are Mormon, or had Mormon ancestors. Check them out. No one asked about their beliefs.

  • falasha Mount Laurel, NJ
    May 24, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    @atl134
    "It's pretty proven historically that he did indeed have many wives at the time that quote was made, so yeah, he's a liar and lawbreaker since Illinois had a ban on it at the time."

    I don't know where you received your information, but I would be careful of the internet these days. I don't think it is proven historically, as I went to seminary for 4 years, never heard my mission president talk about this or the full-time missionaries or institute teachers. Also, I have never seen this in a church manual, or on the lds.org website. Mormon.org is the official site for the church and it says the following:
    "The heavy burden of leading the Church did not distract Joseph from his responsibility to his wife and children; it increased his love for them."
    Clearly he had only 1 wife, Emma and was a devoted husband and father. I highly recommend the following church videos, which clearly show his love for his 1 beautiful wife. Legacy, Mountain of the Lord, Joseph Smith - Prophet of the Restoration.

  • utah1966 broomfield, CO
    May 24, 2013 5:38 p.m.

    Billy Nye TSG - "The idea that government should be removed entirely from the institution of marriage is an appealing one...." Some of the reasons for government's involvement with marriage, is: History has shown that humans who marry close relatives produced too many idiots, persons who inherited a recessed gene from both parents. Therefore, government or doctors, or whoever, said marriage should not happen between anyone related any closer than a second cousin. Also, application for a marriage license, helped keep track of those who want to live together intimately, who might produce offspring. Blood tests were, and still may be required, for highly contagious diseases, HIV, today and gonorreha, syphilis and other Veneral Diseases in the past, as well. They all can, and do, affect the well being of newborns. Government records surely are needed. With so many divorces, remarriages and offspring from all of them, how will anyone know if she or he is marrying a close relative? Does anyone want to bring mentally retarded, or dangerously diseased infected newborns into the world. There already are so many from parents on drugs, it is pathethic

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    May 24, 2013 5:05 p.m.

    The discussion of so-called "gay marriage" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) reminds me of what Abraham Lincoln said--"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four--calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    May 24, 2013 5:03 p.m.

    @Fender Bender
    I understand your point. My point is as an LDS and knowing that it is immoral, how could you possibly support this.

  • Clifton Palmer McLendon Gilmer, Texas
    May 24, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    Using the adjective "gay" to mean "homosexual" is itself a violation of the rules of English.

    "Gay" means "happy and carefree."

    The proper word for "homosexual" is just that -- "homosexual."

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 24, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    @Tators
    "But not so long after they accepted those changes in their society, they became a fallen empire that no longer existed"

    That's false and their fall had nothing to do with it.

    @falasha
    "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one."

    It's pretty proven historically that he did indeed have many wives at the time that quote was made, so yeah, he's a liar and lawbreaker since Illinois had a ban on it at the time.

  • utah1966 broomfield, CO
    May 24, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    "Marriage means a committed union between a man and a woman, with the likelihood or at least the possibility of procreation." You are both ignoring the meanings of "likelihood" and "possibility" of procreation. Neither are "absolute". One is "probability", likely to occur but not absolutely, the other is "n. worth consideration". But for eons many widows and widowers married for the liklihood, or expectancy, of another parent for the existing children. Do you believe they married for the liklihood of more children? Did the male want a "mother" for his motherless children? Did the female want a "father" for her fatherless children? Make a big leap. Are Christians the only religious believers who think that sex relations with the same sex is an abomination. Take a good look at Islam! They object, vehemently! I don't read about homosexuals objections to their beliefs.

  • Fender Bender Saint George, UT
    May 24, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    @Getting it Right

    Latter Day Saints also understand that addiction to alcohol and cigarettes are weaknesses that can prevent us from returning to Heavenly Father's presence, and that paying tithing can strengthen our faith. Yet we don't use the government to ensure tithing payments, and we don't legally prohibit alcohol and tobacco consumption.

    The issue here is not whether homosexuality is immoral - that's completely beside the point when considering whether or not it should be outlawed. Our laws are based on well-defined individual rights, not ambiguous ideas of morality, which differ from person to person.

    Some people consider it immoral to consume pork. Other people consider it immoral for women to expose their hair in public. We don't legislate these "morals" because they are far from universal, and the default position is that people are allowed to do what they want as long as their actions don't infringe on anyone else's legal rights, or otherwise jeopardize anyone else's well-being.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    May 24, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    I am in a committed relationship with a fine LDS Lady who is also divorced , Our respective former spouses chose to divorce us because they wanted to, not because we were unfaithful. Reading the NT, we will be condemned by Jesus as Adulterers because we chose to remarry. Since this thread is discussing the proper use of the word Marriage. Do we LDS remarrieds fall into the "Adulterously Re-Married" category?

    BTW the nature of the Marriage act is fluid from what I have researched. Depending on what time and culture you live in. For some, Historically just saying: I will marry you, means your betrothed And Declaring: I marry you. meant you were married, even without a Priest blessing the Union. Also Biblically knowing your partner meant you were married.

  • LiveLongAndProsper Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 24, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    Relgions have their own words to distinguish a religious marriage from a civil marriage, like Holy Matrimony or Celestial Marriage. Why do they feel the need to control the civil term for people not of their faith?

    I find the LDS church particularly hypocritical on this issue given that marriage was not just between one man and one woman in the history of the church, it also included plural marriage. Also, what kind of marriage will a man have after the Resurrection if he marries a woman in the temple, she dies before he does and then he remarries another woman in the temple? Won't he be married to multiple women in the after life?

    Homosexuals are seeking equality under the law which includes the right to marry. The courts have already determined that equality cannot be obtained through separation (Brown v Board of Education). The same legal term should be used for both heterosexual and homosexual civil unions and that term is marriage.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    May 24, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    @Bill --

    " I don't see that we can logically restrict it from consenting polygamous adults."

    It's very simple to do so, as I have already pointed out.

    Public safety has always trumped personal freedoms. And, as reflected in the recent court decision by the Supreme Court of BC when Canada's polygamy ban was reaffirmed as constitutional, courts understand that polygamy carries significant risks to women and children.

    In that decision, the Chief Justice noted that "women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    In contrast, gay marriage carries NO concrete, proven risk to anyone.

    The anti-gay crowd may not want to acknowledge this important difference between gay marriage and polygamy -- but the courts are well aware of it, nonetheless.

    @JimE --

    "Rome fell because of hedonism. "

    Sorry, but that simply isn't true.

    You can repeat a falsehood as many times as you like -- but that will never magically make it become the truth.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    May 24, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    Non-members might not understand this but most LDS do. Homosexuality and all of its behavior is similar to Gambling and Pornography. They are weaknesses that prevents us from returning to our Father's presence. Gays says that they are born this way and I agree with them. They are born with this weakness just like everyone is born with other weaknesses.

  • theOtter Lafayette, IN
    May 24, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    Contrarius,

    You’re mistaken. Polyandry and polygamy are not marriage; they are multiple marriages, hence “poly-”. Slave alliances are also not marriage; they’re slave alliances. If a slave alliance becomes a marriage, then it’s a marriage, but that doesn’t make “slave alliance” a proper definition of marriage any more than hiring my wife as my receptionist makes “wife” a definition of “receptionist.”

    Same-sex unions are just that: same-sex unions. Stop the Orwellian Newspeak and perhaps we won’t go down the same road as *1984*.

  • JimE Kaysville, UT
    May 24, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    Rome fell because of hedonism. Which is the worship of "pleasure".
    Apparently these people didn't study history at all. All they care about are their lustful desires, no matter how contrary to nature or the good of society that they may be.

  • maximum Phoenix, AZ
    May 24, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    It's not just a matter of redefining the term "marriage." By calling same-sex couples "married" you're also confusing terms like Mother, Mom, Father, Dad, Spouse, etc when used in context of a married couple.

    Another analogy: Why not let non-physicians call themselves "Doctors" so they can get the same respect and recognition? It's not fair that people who don't have the same academic interests to not be called "Doctors", right? So let the rest of us pay all the same fees and attend all the same classes, etc so we've been subject to all the same conditions as medical school graduates. But call us "Doctors" even though we were not born with the same ability or interest required to pass tests and graduate from medical school. Anything less is a violation of our rights and equality.

  • BillNyeTSG South Jordan, UT
    May 24, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    I can appreciate the comments from some of our more Libertarian-minded commentators here. The idea that government should be removed entirely from the institution of marriage is an appealing one (to each their own), but state-sponsored marriage has a long historical and legal precedent even in informal societies.

    As a practical matter, I don't know that we can remove government from marriage entirely, but it would be interesting to consider how this might be accomplished. Perhaps a more flexible codified method of inheritance and next-of-kin rights?

    This would seem to diminish the family unit rather than emphasize it however, so I don't know that it would produce a favorable outcome as family relationships become dissolute in the legal realm.

    A compelling argument can be made for the live-and-let-live crowd, but there would undoubtedly be unintended consequences to this approach. Family stability and commitment are key in my mind to favorable outcomes for children, regardless of who enters into the commitment.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    May 24, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    A gay or lesbian couple married under the law regard their relationship as a real marriage. That's good enough for me.

    Mormons regard themselves as Christians. That too is good enough for me.

  • BillNyeTSG South Jordan, UT
    May 24, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    @kvnsmnsn - I don't think your request for validation is unreasonable: many of the arguments in favor of marriage equality can be applied to polygamy and other non-traditional marriage relationships. I believe the government to have overstepped itself in the Edmunds-Tucker act, but like you do NOT personally endorse polygamy. :)

    @Contrarius - We can't have our cake and eat it too. If marriage equality is extended to homosexuals, I don't see that we can logically restrict it from consenting polygamous adults. Legitimate cultural concerns about underage marriage and abuse can be dealt with more readily if we halt the marginalization of these relationships. And codifying inheritance, community property, and common law attributes of polygamous relationships can only help with rampant welfare and other fraud.

    @Tators - While it is popular to attribute the fall of Rome to moral decay, I don't think the facts bear that notion out - Rome was never a particularly Puritanical place.

    @Brave Sir Robin - no current data supports disadvantages for children with committed same-sex parents. We should all concede that long-term data is still lacking, but current data indicates positive outcomes for children with *committed* same-gender parents.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 24, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    Sorry Tators but here is the Exact quote of the proposed definition of marriage.

    Marriage means a committed union between a man and a woman, with the likelihood or at least the possibility of procreation.

    With a 60 year old couple, what would you consider the "likelihood" or the "probability" of procreation.

    "Obviously it was referring to the main demographic of marriages... those in their twenties and thirties."

    Sorry, but it was not "obvious".

    What is Obvious is that the definition meant exactly what it said. Now, you may disagree, but you dont get to change the authors definition.

    The definition clearly meant that Marriage is reserved for those who could procreate.

  • ToddCohen Salt Lake City, UT
    May 24, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    This article makes me think.
    Imagine if this was written in 1966 in Virginia before the Supreme Court decision that removed laws against interracial marriage?
    It would read like this:

    Marriage means a committed union between people of the same race, with the likelihood or at least the possibility of procreation. Marriage has always meant that, and it has always been the glue that holds families and communities and society together. Webster, as far back as it goes, defines marriage as “the state of being united to a person of the same race in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” And of course, that definition goes back 100 times farther than Webster.

  • falasha Mount Laurel, NJ
    May 24, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    Evidence the traditional definition of marriage has never changed.
    Section 109, 1844 edition of DCov, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."
    1842, Times and Seasons vol. 4, p.143
    "We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives...now this is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which are brought against us. No sect has a great reverence for the laws of matrimony...we practice what we preach."
    1844, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp 410 - 411. "I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. . . . What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    May 24, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    @Tators --

    "The article said the probability or likelihood of having children... not the necessity of having them."

    There is NO probability of having children when two 60 year old people marry. Nonetheless, their marriage is still valid.

    Justice Ginsberg herself brought up this point when DOMA was argued before the Supreme Court in March. Believe me, they are taking it quite seriously -- whether you do or not.

    "What a pathetic argument. "

    Good thing I never actually made that argument, then. ;-)

    Please TRY not to put words in my mouth. I'm sure everyone here would appreciate it if you stuck to the truth instead.

    "But not so long after they accepted those changes in their society, they became a fallen empire that no longer existed."

    Actually, the Roman historian Polybius noted that homosexuality was widely accepted in ancient Roman culture by 600 BCE. That's roughly **900 years** or so before the empire fell.

    I'll be very impressed -- and surprised -- if our own culture lasts that long, with or without gay marriage.

    "Moral edict shouldn't be based on a popularity contest."

    And moral arguments aren't won just because you say that's how they should be.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    May 24, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    To Joe Blow and dustman:
    Read more carefully. The article said the probability or likelihood of having children... not the necessity of having them. Obviously it was referring to the main demographic of marriages... those in their twenties and thirties. No one even insinuating that marriages between people later in life aren't legitimate. You obviously are just trying to be argumentative instead of justifiable.

    The worst yet...
    Contrarius trying to use the argument that because the Romans changed their culture to redefine marriage to include and accept homosexuality, that we should too. What a pathetic argument.
    Yes, the Roman empire was at one time great and did last for over a thousand years. But not so long after they accepted those changes in their society, they became a fallen empire that no longer existed. Hardly a justifiable reason for wanting to pattern ourselves and our behavior after them.

    Also, there have always been churches who will change their doctrines and practices to do whatever it takes to increase the numbers in their pews and thus their contributions. But that in itself doesn't justify or make those changes correct. Moral edict shouldn't be based on a popularity contest.

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    May 24, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    As an LDS member, I just want to prepare the commentators here that in the not too distant future, the LDS church will support civil-unions. Just as we have seen them approve of the non-discrimination law for SLC, the support of the BSA, they will support this somewhere down the road. I find the emotional arguments for and against gay marriage exhausting. The church changed its stance on "traditional marriage" with the Manifesto and Polygamy. The church has changed its "stance" on a number of positions over the years and this will be just the latest. Civil unions will not change the Proclamation to the World nor will it perform civil unions in the Temple, but they will approve of civil unions for the civil and legal protections it provides. None of this should shake a testimony. Review Elder Holland's talk from last conference.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    May 24, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    @kvnsmnsn --

    In re polygamy --

    Polygamy has known, concrete risks to women and children. Specifically, women and children in polygamous relationships are known to be at increased risk for abuse and/or mistreatment.

    Courts are well aware of this risk.

    Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal freedoms. So the safety of women and children justifies maintaining the bans on polygamy. This is the argument that has recently been successfully used to reaffirm the constitutionality of the polygamy ban in Canada.

    @Brave Sir Robin

    "We're already seeing data suggesting that children of gay parents have more emotional problems and higher rates of juvenile delinquency."

    No, actually, we're not.

    In fact, every reputable group of professional child-development experts in the US SUPPORTS gay marriage.

    From the American Academy of Pediatrics' position statement: "“There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development"."

    If you think kids are important, you should SUPPORT gay marriage.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    May 24, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    That last paragraph about "the walk" describes the first errant steps down this path.

  • kvnsmnsn Springville, UT
    May 24, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    BillNyeTSG, interesting that you should mention polygamy ("as a clear departure from this current narrowly-defined set of beliefs"). If society is going to seriously consider redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, why in the world shouldn't it also consider redefining it to include triples, unions of three adults of any gender combination? I'm not arguing for the LDS Church's return to polygamy; I doubt that will ever happen, and I don't want it to happen. I'm just looking for vindication. I want the US government to admit that it overstepped its bounds when it attempted to legislate the LDS Church out of existence for its involvement in its own alternate sexual lifestyle.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    May 24, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    " . . . with the likelihood or at least the possibility of procreation . . . " Very poor and fallacious criteria indeed. Where in the world did the "procreation" thing make anything any more or less valid? I agree marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman, but I don't see where fertility has anything whatsoever to do with it.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    May 24, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    Who cares whether legally-recognized gay relationships are called marriage, unions, or barbecue sauce? The word used to describe it doesn't matter. What matters is the effect it will have on society and the adopted children of those relationships.

    Humans have evolved for thousands of years to need the influence of both a mother and a father. Who knows how we will respond to not having this? We're already seeing data suggesting that children of gay parents have more emotional problems and higher rates of juvenile delinquency...not surprisingly, just like kids who have a parent who has abandoned the family.

    We need to fight to keep children in families with two parents of two genders. Yes, that means fighting against gay marriage...it also means fighting against heterosexual divorce and children born out of wedlock to heterosexual couples.

  • Bruck17 Davis, UT
    May 24, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    As an active LDS Member I find the argument against using the word "Marriage" for same-sex couples a bit ridiculous. How many times have we been up in arms when the world says we aren't "Christian"? We freak out. "Yes we are...we have all the qualifications of a Christian religion....it's in our name!" Imagine if we were told that we can believe in Christ but had to call ourselves "Jesusites" or something like that. It's close enough right? No. I believe the same applies here, whether or not you agree with same-sex marriage you can't just say "we will give them their own special word for marriage so as not to sully my version of marriage"

  • BillNyeTSG South Jordan, UT
    May 24, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    The word and concept of "marriage" is certainly not the creation nor the exclusive realm of Christianity, America, nor heterosexuality. The definition and practices surrounding marriage have even changed throughout the comparatively short history of the LDS Church. The opinion expressed in the article is sincere, but is based on a few false premises:

    1) The definition of "marriage" has always been the same (False)
    2) Potential ability to conceive children is required (False - consider two older/infertile individuals. Further, consider that children are born to gay couples all the time - fertility is not an issue, and with blended/non-traditional families even within the Church, it is silly to limit "marriage" to two people who can conceive with one another).
    3) "Marriage" is the exclusive property of one narrowly-defined set of beliefs (False - marriage practices vary widely - to insist otherwise is ignorant. Polygamy is a clear departure from this current narrowly-defined set of beliefs, and cannot be disavowed by the LDS Church).
    4) Words must have narrow definitions (False - we use Car to describe a number of very different things - train cars, automobiles, trucks, etc. - broader definitions do not damage perception - we know the difference).

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 24, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    I really think there is an easy fix for this issue.

    Change the name of a Marriage License to a Union License. This is required to prove a union, whether Male/Female, Male Male or Female Female.

    If you want a marriage license, get is from your church, but it has no real legal meaning and is in no way required.

    Whats wrong with this?

  • BillNyeTSG South Jordan, UT
    May 24, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    I am pro-traditional marriage. I think we all agree that Family is important, particularly where benefits to children are concerned. However, I see merit to the idea that gay-marriage might be considered a stabilizing force in an otherwise destabilizing world. The contention is rather simple: children are going to come into the world regardless of marital relationships. Homosexual couples can already conceive (though it is through non-traditional means such as surrogacy, in-vitro, etc.).

    As such, shouldn't we provide additional stability for their children? Are we comfortable denying their children the apparent benefits of nuclear families in good conscience simply because of who their parents are?

    I don't think this idea necessarily impinges on marriage in its current (admittedly sub-optimal) state. An argument can definitely be made for idealized marriage, but as long as our society fails at the ideal (and may indefinitely) perhaps we should seek to improve rather than prohibit stability.

    An argument can be made for more research prior to codifying any "new" marriage, but it doesn't change the status quo. Homosexual people can have children. Should their children be afforded marriage stability?

  • dustman Gallup, NM
    May 24, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    Fail. This article fails. I am a man. My wife is a woman. We got married knowing that we could not conceive children. According to this article my wife and I aren't married. And what we have should not be considered a marriage. Fail.

  • Fender Bender Saint George, UT
    May 24, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    WHO should we allow to define marriage?

    Most Utahns consider themselves conservatives who believe in smaller, less intrusive government. So why should we want the government to be in charge of defining "marriage"? Who here wants the nanny state telling us what we can and can't do?

    Sure, the government has a legitimate interest in inter-personal relationships for some reasons (to ensure children are cared for by capable and responsible adults, to ensure that assets of the deceased are passed on to friends and family in an orderly manner and in accordance with the wishes of the deceased, etc.). The government has traditionally piggy-backed on the definition of marriage for legal terminology because it was convenient. But marriage covers a lot of ground, including areas of sexuality and spirituality - areas the government should keep its nose out of.

    Clearly, it should be the role of individuals and religious organizations to define "marriage" according to the dictates of their own conscience. Let's stop using "marriage" as a legal definition. Terminology such as "legal guardian" and "next of kin" can be utilized for legal purposes.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 24, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    It's perfectly acceptable for a mormon parent not to call a gay marriage a 'marriage'. But I'm going to.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    May 24, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    @banderson --

    "A rose by any other name is still a rose! A Christ centered marriage will always be between a man and a women."

    Many gay people are Christian. And quite a few Christian denominations are happy to perform gay wedding ceremonies in their churches.

    Gay marriage may not fit YOUR definition of "Christ centered" -- but many other good Christians disagree with you. And, fortunately, your view doesn't get to win just because you say that it should.

  • GeeMoney SLC, UT
    May 24, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    I agree with the Eyres too. 100% And this...

    **Why do different types of people want to be labled the same? If you're different in some aspect, why not just be different? Why would a left handed pitcher need to be called a righty? Isn't he a lefty? Is it derogatory to call him a lefty? He's a lefty - he's not the same as a righty - and he was born that way! Gays want to be recognized as different, but then in the same sentance, they want to be the same. WOW, it's starting to get confusing in here, people. In high school, it was funny to me to watch people who didn't like the popular crowd try to arrange a group of non popular kids to hang together...just so they could feel popular in that group.

  • fbisti MESA, AZ
    May 24, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    To be pointed: Baloney! Just because a WORD has long meant certain things, doesn't limit its future use and evolution. Zane Grey used the word "ejaculated" to mean the same as the word "exclaimed," we use today.

    Marriage, at the core of its meaning, means simply a union, a combining. It used widely to mean much more than your narrow: "Marriage means a committed union between a man and a woman, with the likelihood or at least the possibility of procreation." And, Webster also says,
    "b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
    c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
    2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
    3: an intimate or close union

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    May 24, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    The Eyre’s are correct that the word “marriage” is whatever society decides. But as our daily speech expands to include phrases such as “Sarah and her wife”, “Tom’s Dads say he come to the ballgame”, and “hey, did you hear that Jim and Harry are engaged” – it is inevitable that “marriage” will include same-sex marriages.

    Look at a similar example - are Mormons included in the word “Christians”? Increasingly the answer is “yes”. This change came because society’s views of Mormons have improved and society is happy to let Mormons decide which titles they are known by. Freedom is a default impulse for Americans.
    The same process is happening with gay marriage. Though some outliers remain, society’s views of gay couples has improved such that we are happy to allow gays to decide which titles they are known by.

    As a Mormon, I am appreciative that society allows me to call myself “Christian”. As a Mormon, I am happy to allow my wonderful gay friends and family to call themselves “married”.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 24, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    "Marriage means a committed union between a man and a woman, with the likelihood or at least the possibility of procreation. "

    So, you would not call it a marriage if a 60 year old couple wants to tie the knot.

    You would not call it a marriage if a 25 year old woman has medical problems which make it impossible for her to conceive.

    Hey, I'm just using the definition that you provided.

  • tomof12 Provo, UT
    May 24, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    That sounds about right to me, especially with all the provisos at the beginning. One thing is certain: the full symbolic character of marriage cannot be maintained while eliminating the form of procreative complementarity. And if it were all about adults, then maybe it would not matter so much. But I cannot re-imagine my own life--as a child or an adult--in terms in which "father" and "mother" were unimportant distinctions. This point really gets me. Of course children will find themselves in all sorts of familial arrangements, and all of them should be recognized and supported. That includes legal and neighborly support. But does it really help children to erase the one means by which society recognizes, as I believe every child can recognize, that a father and a mother together is a unique good?

    My only hang-up here is that the issue has become so politicized that children caught in the cross-fire may not be able to come out unscathed. This bothers me a lot. It would have been much less cruel if this matter had been decided once and for all nationally, whatever the outcome.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 24, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    A rose by any other name is still a rose! A Christ centered marriage will always be between a man and a women.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    May 24, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    To: CATS - I could not have said it better..you are exactly correct and that will never change no matter how hard they try or no matter how much they want it. It is what it is...marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    May 24, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    "Because that is not what “marriage” means."

    You don't get to define the parameters to suit yourself.

    Marriage has actually meant many different things through the ages -- including polyandry, polygamy, same-sex unions (yes, in several different cultures), forced and slave alliances, and so on.

    "with the likelihood or at least the possibility of procreation."

    Infertile couples have always been allowed to marry. As the justices of the Supreme Court themselves pointed out, a marriage between two 60-year-old people has NO possibility for procreation -- yet it is still a marriage.

    "Marriage has always meant that"

    Only in your imagination. The reality is very different.

    "Why should we redefine or change the meaning of an ancient, important word?"

    If you're seriously interested in the origins of the word "marriage", then look it up. "Marriage" is from the Latin word "maritatus" -- which had several meanings even back in Roman days, including "given to a man" (reflecting the property status of women), "to couple", and "to mate". None of those definitions require participants of the opposite gender.

    Heck, Romans themselves had same-sex marriage ceremonies. You think *they* didn't know the meaning of the word?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    May 24, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    A homosexual relationship will NEVER be a marriage no matter how many laws are passed or how much some people try to redefine it. Marriage is between a man and a woman and that's all there is.

  • mulrich Columbia, SC
    May 24, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    So if we just need a new name for same-sex marriage how about we use the term "sealing" :)

    While I oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons I'm finding it harder to oppose the practice from a strictly legal standpoint. In a society where we allow people to redefine their genders through medical procedures it's strange to draw the line when it comes to defining a marriage between a man and a women (the concepts of being a "man" or a "women" proceeds the concept of "marriage" by a couple minutes).

    At this point the propagation and legal acceptance of same-sex marriage across the country is inevitable (it may take a few years and some states may hold out indefinitely but broad legal acceptance has strong momentum). I'm more concerned about 1) protecting the religious rights of those faiths and persons that fundamentally oppose same-sex marriage (the Church would close the temples before allowing a same-sex marriage to be performed should the law require such a practice); 2) protecting homosexual people from being bullied or discriminated against in society; and 3) helping homosexual people feel loved and supported within the Church.

  • dr.bridell mclean, VA
    May 24, 2013 12:00 a.m.

    Amen!
    I mean, we have made the issue so complicated and convoluted! Can't we simply preserve a word and a definition that has been in place for centuries? A word that is the name and the symbol for the single most important relationship on earth and the creator and facilitator of the basic unit of our society and our civilization? Of course we can, and we must!
    And preserving the word and what it has always meant has nothing to do with prejudice or tolerance or homophobia or equality!

  • AZLDSGal Gilbert, AZ
    May 23, 2013 7:46 p.m.

    I agree 100%