@bandersonQuoting from your particular version of an iron and
bronze-age ancient book, you offer, among other things, Lev. 18:22 and Rom.
1:26-27. Why stop there? Why not also offer Lev. 20:13, if you're going to
be completely consistent and honest? You then close with a threat about
God's wrath, and you wonder why fewer and fewer people want any part of
this archaic, pinched, punitive world-view.The concept of
"sin" is baggage you choose to carry. Not all of us want to participate
in this type of mass delusion. And how is any of this relevant to a set of civil
laws in a nation where there is a wall of separation between church and state?
Values voter: I am quite content to be on the side of God on this issue despite
the rise of sin and immorality in our society. In gen. 1:27 The Lord states,
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him,
male and female created he them." Jesus declared to the Pharisees, with
some incredulity, " Have ye not read that He made THEM at the beginning
male and female." Even the Mormon faith's Proclaimation on the Family
declares, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premarital,
mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Nothing could be more clear, and
a clarity, I might add, that isn't going to equivocate because of a trend
in our society. homosexuality was not only a sin in Old Testament times, but
the New Testament as well. According to the written word of God, it is an
"abomination" (Lev. 18:22). It is, as Paul declared, "vile,"
"unnatural," and "unseemly." (Rom. 1:26-27). It is a
manifestation of a "reprobate mind" and those who "hate God."
(Rom. 1:29-30). Return to God and spare yourself His wrath .
I think the author makes an excellent argument against religion.
Tekakaromatagi wrote:"So if Banderson is an independant thinker what
is the harm?"There's NO harm. Contrary to what you might
think, I'm not for convicting people of thought crimes. Independent
thinking is a good thing -- I'm all for it. If banderson, for whatever
reason, opposes the right of same-sex couples to marry, he/she should absolutely
have the right to express that view, to protest, to construct arguments against
it, to speak out in public forums and so forth. The point I was
trying to make, though, was this -- there has been a process of persuasion going
on around this issue for a while. By all measures, LGBT people have been winning
the battle of persuasion, slowly, but surely -- in courts, in the court of
public opinion, in the arena of popular culture, and most recently, at the
voting booth. If banderson wants to focus his/her attention where the problem
really is, I suggested concentrating on the citizenry at large, (most of whom
are straight), rather than vilifying gays, as I feel he/she did.
@Valuevoter:"1.) Your problem is, increasingly, not with gays and
"gay culture" (whatever that is in 2014), but with your fellow
straights. "So if Banderson is an independant thinker what is
the harm? Decide right and wrong based on thought, rather than followng the
herd mentality.I saw a photographic series of ten mysterious people.
One of them was a blurry blownup image of someone in a giant rally in the
Germany in the 1930's. Everyone around him is making a Hitler salute and
this one person mysterious, free thinker was not.He ended up being
on the right side of history.
@Avenue 8:54 p.m. March 30, 2014A business has a right to refuse
service to anyone, no matter the reason, especially if it would violate the
religious beliefs of the owner to do so.----------------------That is not true. When a person wishes to do business, s/he has to
obtain a business license. When that person obtains a business license, s/he
agrees to follow all of the laws which are in place, or which may ben enacted in
the future, dealing with operations of businesses. Those laws, among other
things, include prohibitions against refusal of service for discriminatory
reasons (including, among other issues, discromination based on race, sex, age,
handicap, and in some jurisdictions sexual orientation). Because, by obtaining
a business license, the person AGREES to obey those laws, rights to refuse
service based on his/her religious beliefs are wawived. The government is not
"forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and ruin their
conscience" in any way, shape or form. The government is not "forcing
someone to celebrate evil and sin" but just do what they agreed to do.All businesses are required to do is serve everyone equally.
@StormwalkerA business has a right to refuse service to anyone, no matter
the reason, especially if it would violate the religious beliefs of the owner to
do so. Exercising this right is not mistreatment. What is mistreatment is a
government forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and ruin their
conscience. Forcing someone to celebrate evil and sin is immoral and wrong.
@banderson: To answer your question Jewish Law had very clear
teachings on the treatment of "Gentiles." "Love the stranger,"
(Deut. 10:19). "Don't wrong the stranger in buying or selling,"
(Ex. 22:20). "Don't wrong the stranger in speech," (Ex. 22:20).Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself." He didn't put
any limit on that in any Bible I have read. He just said "Treat others
well."@Avenue:The First Amendment does not allow people to
mistreat their neighbor for "religious reasons." That would be chaos,
not liberty or freedom.
bandersen wrote:"...but if the gay culture continues to assault
my rights,..."Those bad gays, huh?A couple of
things,1.) Your problem is, increasingly, not with gays and "gay
culture" (whatever that is in 2014), but with your fellow straights.
Somehow, they're abandoning, in ever greater numbers, the position you
hold. A growing number have been persuade to accept and even celebrate gay
unions as marriages. This is true of the population at large, of the religious,
Christians, even Latter-day Saints. This is especially true of the young in any
of these groups. Your task, it seems to me, is to figure out why.2.)
The writer of this opinion piece lives in Washington state. Once upon a time, we
gays were told this issue should be decided democratically. But conservative
religious folks didn't really meant, did they? Although I strongly disagree
with putting the rights of a minority to a popular vote, I note that same-sex
couples in Washington gained the right to marry because the electorate agreed
they should have it.
Storm walker: And wherein does the savior's admonition apply to those who
would compel me to act in a way that violates my rights, as well as my
conscience? Your reminder, however, is a difficult doctrine for sure, but if
the gay culture continues to assault my rights, as well as my conscience, while
turning the savior's definition of "love" into something it
isn't, I will gladly inform in my own way that my service is not untouched
by those who mock who I am!
I can assure those (who promote the gay lifestyle) that I know the difference
between being gay and having a sex change operation. God gave us bodies that
have a specific function. He instructed us to be married to someone of the
opposite sex and to multiply and replenish the earth. The promised us joy and
happiness if we obeyed Him and misery and sorrow if we did not obey him. I choose to honor Him and to obey Him and to use my body in the way that
He intended it to be used. I also choose to only have sex with my wife and only
within the boundaries that He has set: Marriage. Further, I respect His right
to define marriage, after all, he created all that is. Who am I to defy Him or
to tell Him that his children have examined His doctrine and found that He
didn't know what He was talking about?I also honor Him by not
participating in any way in any ceremony that would give credence to other forms
of worship, because that is exactling what I would be doing: worshiping another
We have a long way to go. However, the younger generation will lead the way
toward more equality and respect. It is disappointing (again) to see (some)
churches and their adherents on the wrong side of equality.Rep. John
Lewis of Georgia, (who stood alongside MLK and was an integral figure in the
Civil Rights movement) wrote, "I've heard the reasons for opposing
civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they
stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in
bigotry." And:"“I fought too hard and too long against
discrimination based on race and color not to stand up and speak up against
discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. I see the
right to marriage as a civil rights issue. You cannot have rights for one
segment of the population, or one group of people, and not for everybody. Civil
rights and equal rights must be for all of God's children.”
Ranch hand,Markets decide which business succeed or fail.
Individuals decide how they will treat others. But don't force an
individual or business to do something it is not established to do.God has commanded us to forgive all people. He has commanded us to show
compassion, walk the extra mile, give our coat, love others.We
condemn ourselves, and we will be quite aware of our position on judgment day as
we stand before God.In my business I provide services to all people,
including gays. But I will oppose our government as it acts to weaken or
destroy families, freedom, and opportunity. I do not believe the government
should control and dictate to a photographer to provide a service that they are
opposed to providing because of their faith.There have been
arguments proposing that gay marriage is akin to civil rights. I reject that.
How we act is our own choice and we will be accountable to a merciful and just
God for our lives. Gay tendencies do not equate to gay behavior any more than
tendencies to anger must be acted out in violence towards others.
Ranch hand: What will get around, hopefully, is that I give excellent service
to those who inspire my passion, which doesn't include those who
don't. Now, let them figure out on their own, which shouldn't be
difficult, what that means. Let him with ears and a heart figure it out, but it
certainly won't be a judge. The confines of my own conscience and voice
can never be challenged, even though that is exactly what the gay culture wants
to control! When the voice of the people is respected, it makes for a civil
society where privacy is respected, not manipulated by those who want to control
@my_two_cents_worth:"I never implied such; never even hinted at
it."Just wanted to be sure."When Jesus said
"love they neighbor" he did not caveat it with "unless, of course,
they are gay or black or single moms or of a different church than
you…'"He also said, or at least implied through His
appointed servants, that physical love between same sexes is verboten.
@bandersen: "I would give lousy service and the problem is solved!"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Also some passages
about "Lord, when did we" mistreat you? @Arizona1: "What
these two posters have missed, however, is that very few people are making an
argument to refuse service to the sinner, but rather the celebration of the
sin."Sorry, you are selling a product, not being part of a
celebration unless you have an invitation to attend. @J Thompson:
You seem to have confused "Transgender" with "Gay" and
"Lesbian." Transgender people should have legal protections and
participation in society, but that is a different issue. For those
who say "Don't do business with those bakers, photographers and so
on..." We do that. When we ask friends and allies to join us we
are called bullies and worse. When a company mistreats a section of the general
public then that mistreatment should be publicized in any way possible. If your
now limited clientele can help you stay in business, good for you. Otherwise,
those who are more willing follow the commandment "Do unto others..."
will fill the vacuum.
@David;"I didn't know..." has never been a valid
excuse.Does it really matter if the baker or photographer knows the
person is an adulterer or murderer? If simply providing the service for the
"sinner" contaminates them (as, apparently providing the services for
gays does), then they're going to be contaminated by the others regardless
of their knowledge of it or not, right? After all, God is apparently going to
judge them for providing the service they disagree with; do you think he'll
care whether they were aware of their "sin" of providing a service or
not? Apparently the simple contact with the sinner contaminates, right?If these people truly care about not providing services to
"sinners" who are "violating their religious conscience", they
they should require an application form be filled out prior to the service being
let's review what has happened.The people of Utah voted on the
definition of marriage, which, according to the Constitution and to the Supreme
Court, they had the right to do. That vote became part of the Supreme Law of the
State.Some people were not satisfied. They claimed that their
feelings about their sexuality required that the law be changed. They could
produce no evidence from their parents or their doctors that they had a
different "sex" than that which was written on their birth certificates,
but that didn't matter to them. they demanded that the definition of
"marriage" be changed.A Federal Judge used the minority
decision of the Supreme Court to declare that Utah had violated the
"rights" of that group. The Supreme Court "stayed" that
ruling.That group is now suing anyone who does not believe as they
do. No medical or parental evidence supports their claim. The majority ruling
of the Supreme Court agrees with Utah's right to define
"marriage".So, who gave that group of people the right to
change the law?
Ranch hand,You said "Of course I can judge their hearts. They
continue to provide their services to murderers getting married, adulterers
getting re-married, fornicators getting married; just not gays getting married.
All of those things "violate their religious conscience". Do you see the
hypocrisy? That, sir, is the very definition of bigotry"In each
of those cases you presented, a photographer would not know the background or
circumstances of the individual seeking photography services. Nor would a bed
and breakfast, bakery, etc. But if a murderer wanted a wedding photo with the
murder weapon in the picture, or an adulterer wanted to hold a picture of his ex
in the new wedding photo, etc., I believe the photographer would equally refuse
to offer their services. Why? For the same reason they may refuse services to
a gay couple. But the murderer, the adulterer, the fornicator,
could still seek photography services elsewhere until they found someone willing
to provide the service.I am sure there are plenty of photographers,
bakers, etc. willing to provide services to gay couples. The court cases are
seemingly meant to hurt religious believers who oppose gay marriage.Could the court cases reveal bigotry?
I believe you should be able to refuse service to anyone regardless of the
reason, otherwise it is slavery. definition of slavery : "a person who is
forced to work for another against his will".If a person refuses
service, what is the worst that can happen to the Gay couple. They get a
offended and have to go somewhere else.What is the worst that can
happen to the person. Get sued 35,000$ and never agrees to weddings again.If the person provides the service against their will, what is the worst
that can happen. They are forced to go to a wedding and spend hours there when
they don't want to go to. People view them as supporting something they do
@Sal: "Those arguing for traditional marriage are willing to do some giving
and taking."Really? Amendment 3 specifically outlawed any type
of civil union, as did the amendments passed in most of the states that have
one. How, exactly, are you asking for "give and take" when
the law your side supported specifically says give and take is not allowed?Please, I want to understand.
Let's say your a photographer. And Some People believe in
getting married nakedOr people will have smoking at the marriageCan you refuse?If you are forced to take pictures at a wedding are
you also forced to put up advertising you don't agree with?
@David;Of course I can judge their hearts. They continue to provide
their services to murderers getting married, adulterers getting re-married,
fornicators getting married; just not gays getting married. All of those things
"violate their religious conscience". Do you see the hypocrisy? That,
sir, is the very definition of bigotry.
@Arizona1If the photographers take pornographic pictures as part of
their living for one group, then they need to be consistent and take
pornographic pictures for all groups. On the other hand, if they do NOT take
pornographic photos for any group, then they're perfectly fine saying:
"we don't do pornographic photos". Just as the WEDDING
photographer takes WEDDING photos, s/he needs to take them for ALL WEDDINGS and
not exclude any group.When you talk about "morals continuing to
erode"; I agree, it seems bigotry is now acceptable.Isn't
baking a wedding cake for the adulterer getting remarried, "celebrating the
sin"? You need to re-think your argument.@Mike Richards;The "people of Utah" do NOT have the right to vote on the rights
of their fellow citizens. @bandersen;You provide
"lousy service" and it'll get around to EVERYONE that you provide
"lousy service". You'll soon have no customers.
Ranch Hand,You threw out the term "bigotry", which means an
intolerance towards other people or their ideas, etc.I can't
judge the circumstances and heart of those who deny service to gay customers.
In some cases their refusal could be bigotry, as was the case when LDS
properties were vandalized in California and Utah during the Prop 8 vote. That
was bigotry and violent expression, damage of property, outright expression of
hatred.Other business owners may deny services because it does not
fit their business model: no shirt, no shoes, no service. Cash only. Children
under 8 not allowed. Businesses set up their models according to their target
audience. If we let the market dictate whether that model is acceptable, the
business will thrive or diminish. I'm just saying, let the free market
work.If gays want to be married by a priest, they'll have to
find one that agrees to perform the ceremony. But don't take a priest to
court to punish, humiliate, or embarrass him. If a business doesn't want
to take pictures at a gay wedding, find a different photographer. Its simple,
@mike again Mike the "people of Utah" and you using your
beliefs about a "creator." do not have the right to violate the
federally protected rights of individuals which take "supremacy" over
the "Utah Constitution."
Life is full of trade-offs. You cannot hold bigoted or erroneous views about a
group of people, unwilling to update in accordance with modern understanding,
and still receive respect for your views. This article is a plea to maintain the
poisonous view that homosexuals have chosen their same-gender attraction and
that the choice is a wrong one without being considered a form of bigotry. It is
not a simple disagreement where those who support same-sex marriage are
viciously attacking a perfectly reasoned and coherent viewpoint. One must accept
the world for the way it is, not the way they would prefer it to be.
There is a very simple way to "not" play the gay culture game! If it
were me, I would honestly not be able to give the highest service to these
situations because my "passion" for excellence is tied to who I am! I
would give lousy service and the problem is solved!
The people of Utah voted on marriage and decided to agree with God who defined
marriage as being the union between a man and a woman. That definition became
part of the Supreme Law of Utah, as allowed by the Constitution, Amendment 10.
The founding fathers knew that a God fearing people would make correct
decisions. The believed in God. They worshipped God. They told the world,
"In God We Trust". They (and we) would not allow the government to
dictate to religion any doctrine or to have any power over religion.Things have changed. Those who did not agree with the Utah State
Constitution, defined "marriage" to mean something that has never before
been defined as "marriage". Now they take those who will
not help them celebrate their form of marriage to court. They use the courts to
enforce a definition of "marriage" that was rejected by the people of
Utah and of other States.No one has the right to redefine something
that our Creator defined, something that the majority of people agree with,
something held sacred by the people of Utah.
@David;Since it is pretty darn easy to put on a shirt and shoes to
gain the service, the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" comment is
absurd.Additionally, the "no shirt, no shoes, no service"
rule applies equally to every customer.The "No Gays Served
Here" applies only to gays. The business still provides the exact same
service to every other "sinner"; so this discrimination is 100% based on
Lane Myer and "anotherview" suggest that people who decline to offer
service for a "same sex marriage" or something similar are hypocritical
in their views. As Lane points out, we are indeed all sinners.What
these two posters have missed, however, is that very few people are making an
argument to refuse service to the sinner, but rather the celebration of the
sin.Bakers generally don't object to making cakes for sinners,
regardless of the sin, but they may object to being forced to use their
creativity to celebrate what they view as a sinful behavior. The same goes for
photographers.There is a difference between offering service to
sinners (all of us) and to having to participate in the "celebration" of
whatever sins a potential client may commit.
@AT - You and businesses can discriminate in some cases. We regularly see signs
in stores - "No shirt, No shoes, No Service." That is because
shirtless, shoeless people are not part of a protected class as defined in the
non-discrimination laws.However, along with race, creed, national
origin, age, and so on, is the class called "sexual orientation." You
cannot refuse to serve a person based upon that person's sexual orientation
anymore than you can refuse service based upon their race. That's the
law.All the bakers, florists, caterers, and photographers who have
been cited in refusing to serve gay couples have been cited as they violated the
non-discrimination laws based upon sexual orientation. It has nothing at all to
do with a gay wedding.If a baker bakes a wedding cake the same or
similar to all his other wedding cakes and refuses to sell that cake to a gay
couple, when he would sell the same or similar cake to a straight couple,
that's a violation of the non-discrimination law.Don't
like it? Change the non-discrimination law. In the eyes of the law this has
nothing to do with gay weddings.
When you receive a license to do business and profit on society you cede certain
rights to maintain a stable and peaceful society. If you cannot do this may I
suggest you not serve the general public. To the author...please do not try to
twist these bad business practices into some form of religious persecution. It
is just pathetic.
Unfortunately, as a society we loosely toss terms around, causing a myopic view
of the subject we are really talking about. Is it a "right" to marry
people of the same sex? Are people who sincerely adhere to the tenets of the
Catholic, Mormon, Jewish, and Islam faiths "discriminatory bigots"? Do
they practice a "nasty intolerance . . . for anything they personally
object to"?For those arguing that objectors should get out of a
profession if they do not want to contribute to a ceremony or activity that they
find offensive, should photographers have to take pornographic shots as such
behavior becomes more acceptable in society? Should a cake maker have to make
obscene cakes just because someone wants it?Sadly, as our morals
continue to erode, so too will our laws. Like many great countries before us, if
our moral fabric becomes so intertwined with the celebration of decadent
lifestyles and the rewriting of social mores, our once great nation will lose
its international relevance as it pulls itself down from within.
"In the eyes of social conservatives, though, same-sex marriage is not a
building block of society. It’s an affront to our consciences." May
I ask who has anointed you to pass judgment on others lives? Has GOD our savior
provided you with some special "hall monitor pass". The answer is no.
You are but a mere mortal who has certainly inalienable rights. Just like gays
and lesbians have too. Your definition of "conscientious objector" is
nothing but a lame attempt at redefining control over the population with your
definition of what is the right religious beliefs.
This is a well written letter on a highly charged issue. As Mrs. Updike wisely
points out, marriage is not a private activity that affects no one else. Using
the government to force private businesses to participate in the creation of an
important social institution that blatantly contradicts their core religious
beliefs is wrong, very wrong.
@wrz You said: "The love you speak of is not of a sexual nature.
To love your neighbor does not mean you go around the neighborhood and have sex
with each of them."I never implied such; never even hinted at
it. What motivated you to assume I did? When Jesus said “love they
neighbor” he did not caveat it with “unless, of course, they are gay
or black or single moms or of a different church than you…” He was
pretty straight forward: treat others as you would want to be treated. Remember,
too, that Jesus spent a lot of time with folks the rest of society found
“objectionable”; something modern day “Christians” would
likely condemn him for today.
"Rather, it was an attempt to create a conscientious objector status for
people who don’t want to participate in or lend their creative powers to
same-sex celebrations."There was no wording in the Arizona bill
that limited religious objections to same sex marriage or even sexual
orientation in general. It was in no way as narrow or constrained as supporters
made it out to be. Basically the law would have allowed business to throw out
religious trump card for any discrimination claim.
I agree with this article. In order to maintain freedom of religion,
individuals, and corporations owned by those individuals, should be free to
establish the services they will offer. If you don't like the service, or
if a service you are seeking is not offered by the business or individual, then
find a business that will offer the service (in this case, gay marriage).This type of discrimination already occurs all of the time. Gay
activists and sympathizers are blowing things way out of proportion. You
don't see people non-compliant with "No Shirt, No Shoes, No
Service" marching, litigating, and berating others. If you try to walk
through a drive-thru at McDonalds or any fast-food restaurant, you will be
refused service. I don't see pedestrians marching, litigating, and
blockading McDonalds. Some businesses refuse to accept personal checks. Other
businesses will not accept a Visa card, taking only American Express. We can live along side one another peacefully, without destroying beliefs.
But the liberals seem to want to force their views on everyone else.
@marxist:"But what if homosexuality is inborn?"There's alotta different human conditions that are inborn. I could
mention a few derogatory ones but the moderators would not allow the comment.
What homosexuals and others with peculiarities should do is work to overcome
them just like other most all humans must do.And the Jim Crow
reference is completely accurate in anticipating the treatment to gays and
lesbians anticipated by the writer."But what are gays and
lesbians supposed to do with their lives?"What is a person who
has a propensity to rob banks supposed to do with his/her life? Try to
overcome.@Stalwart Sentinel:"I wonder if this letter
writer has any idea that when she lists all the benefits of marriage as a social
institution and then transitions to stating her personal, subjective beliefs for
only a certain type of marriage that she unwittingly undermines her own position
and makes the legal argument for marriage equality."Same Sex
Marriage (SSM) supporters do the same thing. While pushing for SSM, they seem to
ignore/deny all other types of potential marriage arrangement such as polygamy,
incest, and myriads of other relationship combinations.
@my_two_cents_worth:"And the second is like, namely this, **Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than
these.**"The love you speak of is not of a sexual nature. To
love your neighbor does not mean you go around the neighborhood and have sex
with each of them.@Schnee:"Because there's nothing
inherently harmful about homosexuality. Kinda like how there's nothing
inherently wrong with being left-handed."Let's put it this
way... if everyone was homosexual, the human species would have disappeared
shortly after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. That's mainly
what's wrong.@Willem:"I have news for this writer
ever since the Supreme Court ruling all cases brougth before the courts
including Utah have gone for Marriage Equality..."The courts
have not ruled on marriage equality... The court have said nothing about
polygamy, incest, and a myriad of other partnership combinations that can be
conjured."Matter of fact did we get to vote on your happy
marriage?"How would you vote re incestuous marriages, for
This is really about property rights, personal rights, and the power of the
state. LBGT supporters are saying that the state has the right to force you to
associate with people with whom you don't want to associate. I believe this
is wrong. I have the right, responsibility, and freedom to discriminate. Say I
owned a bakery. Someone came into my bakery wearing a shirt that read, "I
hate ". I have the right to tell that person to get out of my shop. The
bakery down the street may well get this person's business. That loss of
income is my decision. Maybe I might go out of business because of my stance.Back in the day, the LBGT community promoted "tolerance." No
longer. Now, the coercive power of state is being employed to force their
perspective upon other people. I do not believe I have the right to force a
baker to service a gay couple. The state then, acting as my agent, has no
similar right. It's no longer about "tolerance" it's about
force and domination. You "will" accept and support gay marriage or you
will face the force of the state.
dear marxist,'But what if homosexuality is inborn? In other
words, what if gays and lesbians are "born that way?" That means they
are the way God made them. And the writer's logic falls completely
apart.'I must disagree. We are all born with temptations and
weaknesses, all of which God gave us. Does that mean he intends us to succumb
to temptation? If I acted on my sexual temptations, my life would be _very_
different to what it is now. Our choices matter, not our temptations.'But what are gays and lesbians supposed to do with their lives? To
deprive them of family is a cruel matter.'Life isn't about
society handing you privileges because you are born with a specific set of
temptations. It's about making choices and reaping consequences. If a
person chooses to live with another person with whom they knowingly cannot
reproduce, they are depriving themselves of a family. How can the ownership of
this problem be shifted to anyone else or society in general?
I also hope that some middle ground will be found from the courts that will
allow people to avoid being forced to participating in same sex celebrations.
The court judge simply wanted to 'work some thing out" with other
judges on staff. Gays really dont want someone who doesnt support gay marriage
from being part of it. However, they especially dont want anyone to have a legal
right not to participate in it. Until the legeal right might be
granted businesses will have to "outsource" the services to this group
whereever they can.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS ARTICLE! Very well said!We need a
balance where people who wish to do so are allowed to not celebrate sinful
behavior and where people who choose to violate God's commandments of
chastity can do so without being persecuted or shunned.
Just amazing,im old enough to remember that racist used the same language in the
South of our country,proclaiming that whites and blacks will never be equal.I have news for this writer ever since the Supreme Court ruling all cases
brougth before the courts including Utah have gone for Marriage Equality so you
better get used to us.Matter of fact did we get to vote on your happy marriage?
@MarxistYou beat me to it. The Arizona case is just the latest example of
how nobody is buying this argument.I grew up in a world where people
felt it was immoral for a white person to marry a black person. They used
Biblical justifications for those beliefs. That was the origin of having
separate lunch counters and drinking fountains and public accommodations. Unless you believe Religious Liberty justifies denying public services
to Blacks, Catholics, Jews, or Mormons for that matter, you shouldn't be
asking to do the same thing to Gays.
@Mike Richards"In return some tell Him that he made a mistake when He
created us."Only people who think homosexuality is a mistake
would tell Him that. Gay rights advocates certainly aren't going to be the
ones saying it's a mistake. "why do we celebrate
homosexuality and shun those with bipolar. People with bipolar disorders are
treated with medications and are cared for by doctors."Because
there's nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality. Kinda like how
there's nothing inherently wrong with being left-handed.@J
Thompson"Why should anyone be required to leave their religious views
outside before discussing marriage while others"Use religion all
you want in discussion, but when it comes to the laws of the land, you're
going to need secular reasoning (that's why banning Sharia law has been
@redshirt As you have been told before, we don't treat it like an
illness for the same reason we do not treat someone with blue eyes as sick
because its not an illness. I know you disagree with the scientific experts of
the field and like to misrepresent their research but the facts are the facts.
The "conscientious objector" status already exists for every business
operation and is the same as for anti-killers, ordinary employs and all
citizens. If you don't like the requirements of your current status,
QUIT.No one is forced to serve in the military. No one is forced to
work for a specific employer. No one is forced to operate a business. And no one
if forces to be a citizen of the United States of America. If you
serve in the Military, you must follow the rules or suffer the consequences.If you choose to work for a given employer, you must do what he asks.
If you choose to operate a business, you must follow the rules for
business operations.If you choose to be an American, you should
abide and support the laws of the USA.If you object to the rules,
your first option is to QUIT the status or thing that requires your to the
rules. OR you can try to change the rules by getting enough people on your
side. But in the time when you are trying to change the rules, you have to obey
Who has the right to define "marriage"? Do you? Do I? Can a group of
people who think that millenia of "traditional" marriage is
"outdated" change the definition to include their attitudes and their
desires? Who gave them that right? The people of Utah defined
"marriage", as permitted by the Consitution, but that wasn't good
enough for those who disagreed. They were not satisfied until they had
redefined marriage to mean something completely different than marriage.One poster asked about adultry. He/she seems to find nothing wrong with
adultry, even equating it to "marriage". That's foolishness.
Adultry is not marrige. It is the antithesis of marriage, but it is the ruler
against which he/she gauges marriage.Why should anyone be required
to leave their religious views outside before discussing marriage while others,
who do not believe in God think that they have the right to define an
institution that has already been defined by our Creator. Why is their view
"more right" than the view of those who honor our Creator? Look in your
wallet. Every bill says, "In God We Trust".
Ah Sal that's the very point. Jesus was a social commentator and reformer
not a business owner yet he didn't just invite the sinners to repent he
walked amongst them inviting them into his presence. Yet people of faith today
as business owners have decided that by providing their normal and public
services to those who's lives they disapprove of is in fact condoning the
sin thus the nasty intolerance. In fact providing a service is in no way
condoning the lives of those you serve, that is reserved for your conscience not
your public offerings. Also I don't why anyone engages Mr.
Richards in his religious sophistry. This issue has nothing to do with
religion. It's purely legal Human Rights.
@MikeRichardsIs adultery a sin? Why don't religious people
screen their customers to make sure they aren't serving someone who has
committed adultery and is marrying his mistress, or is involved in the
pornography business, etc etc.?
@Sal - Giving and taking? Civil Unions are not the same as legal
civil marriage - that's what we are talking about. CIVIL marriage has
-zero- to do with religious ceremonies that carry no legal weight whatsoever
unless accompanied by a state-issued civil marriage license. Personally, I
could not care less what your church says about my civil marriage.Civil Unions are just claptrap to keep the bible-thumpers at bay. Civil
Unions are not recognized by all States, not recognized by the Federal
government, and not recognized by all other countries. Legal marriage is blind
to the genders of the participants. People are not "straight married"
or "inter-racially married" or "inter-faith married." They are
simply married, period.Let's grow up and move on. You keep
your religious marriage. Let me have the civil one and we're done.
A 'conscientious objector' believes killing someone under any
circumstances is wrong.Your comparing serving a gay couple, to
murder or killing another person?Not only is this a horrible (radio)
analogy, it's not even in your 10 commandments.
Marxist wrote "Your views are mostly theology based, a theology which may
have shaky foundations - you know what they are: 6,000 year old earth, survival
of all species on a wooden boat, the Tower of Babel, Dinosaurs in the Garden of
Eden. etc." Let's deal with these from an LDS perspective.6,000 year old earth - Not a doctrine of the church. in 1844 W.W. Phelps
published in Times and Seasons suggesting that the age of the earth was over two
billion years. Elder Orson Pratt is rumored to have calculated the age of the
earth at over 2.5 billion years.survival of all species on a wooden boat -
Depends on how you interpret the word 'sort' in Genesis chapter six:
"two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark." If you interpret it
to mean species, then you indeed have a logistics problem. If it means one of
every genus, maybe notThe Tower of Babel - Linguistics suggests that
languages all eventually role back to a common root. Why not at Babel?Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden - Brigham Young may have speculated about
that. But again, not a doctrine of the LDS Church.
"That is why ... progressives need to be satisfied with only a partial
victory."20 or so years ago, "progressives" were willing
to settle for a partial victory - 10 years ago when Amendment 3 was passed, a
partial victory would have been celebrated and welcomed.But up until
Windsor was decided, "conservatives" were not willing to give an inch.
Now that the tide has turned, they are pulling out the victim card and claiming
that even though they are losing, they need to be declared the winners - they
will graciously "give" same-sex couples marriage, but only if they
don't have to actually acknowledge said marriages.Here is the
interesting thing about that - the majority of Americans, including many who are
highly religious, do not support the right of businesses to discriminate in who
they serve. The majority of Americans think such behavior is wrong - more
people think discrimination against homosexuals is wrong than think
homosexuality is a sin. Most people who think homosexuality is a sin, think
discrimination is a bigger sin.There is no religious tenet requiring
you to own a business. If you cannot serve all equally, than choose a different
@ Mike Richards, you still make a religious argument. That is your right. But
this is really a civil law matter. There is a difference, at least in our
@J in AZ;I'd much rather be "tempted" with
homosexuality than bigotry.@RedShirt;We are not ill and
do not need treatment.
To "marxist" ok, lets go that route. What if homosexuality is inborn.
Scientists already know that withing the brains of homosexuals they have a
different brain chemistry compared to others.This makes me
questions, why do we celebrate homosexuality and shun those with bipolar.
People with bipolar disorders are treated with medications and are cared for by
doctors. The same can be said for many other mental disorders that alter a
person's brain chemistry.So, this makes me as, why should we
celebrate this chemical imbalance instead of finding a treatment for it?
Marxist - There is no verified scientific evidence for biological origins of
homosexuality. However, consider 1 Cor. 10:13 "There hath no temptation
taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer
you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make
a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."This suggest to
us that homosexual desires are a temptation that is inherent for some people
just like other temptations are inherent for others. However, they are promised
that they have the strength to resist the temptation and live their lives in
accordance with God's laws. No promise whatsoever that resisting the
temptation is easy. Just a promise that it is possible to resist. The fact that
so many fail in resisting grave temptations is an eternal tragedy.
Here in Mesa, AZ, where we have a substantial LDS presence, there are
restaurants owned by active church members, which serve liquor. My understanding
is that consumption of alcohol is a sin in the LDS faith. Is facilitating that
sin okay? This seems analogous to the discussion on refusing service based on
"beliefs". We are either bound by our beliefs or we are not. To claim
that we cannot bake a wedding cake because it will be eaten by people whose
lives we disapprovc of is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Is there a
"vetting" process of every customer? A baker would bake a cake for a
couple that are drug dealers or a couple that includes a woman who has had an
abortion because you cannot SEE those things. Is "belief" discrimination
based on what we can see (i.e. a same sex couple)?"Who am I to
judge" - Pope Francis
Here is a novel idea for you, Ms. Updike:And Jesus answered him, The
first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one
Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the
first commandment.And the second is like, namely this, **Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than
Mike Richards said: God has not changed his mind. How can you tell?
Since those who profess to speak for God are either changing things all the time
or God changes his mind. To claim that God doesn't change, means that his
spokesmen are liars as anyone who reads the scriptures can see the rules
changing with each new apostle, pope or prophet. And if they are lying why
should we or anyone believe that they speak for God?
@Lane MeyerBeautifully said. Unfortunatley, you can only pray for the
sinners as their beliefs and prejudices have blinded them to the teachings of
Jesus. Did Jesus ever say that homosexuality is a sin?
@Mike Richards "I look to God for direction, not to a political group. I
accept what He says and I don't try to change His rules to agree with
"my" way of thinking, but to follow His rules without excuse. "
Your views are mostly theology based, a theology which may have shaky
foundations - you know what they are: 6,000 year old earth, survival of all
species on a wooden boat, the Tower of Babel, Dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.
etc.That there is great power in Catholic and Mormon theology I will
readily admit. But you have a hard time convincing a non-believer of your
position for the above reasons. You had chance to make a deal with civil unions
- admitted BTW by Senator Hatch, but you insisted on "all or nothing,"
and you're going to end up with nothing.There's a great
deal I don't know, but I am sure it is a mistake to create our own brand of
I agree with the letter writer. Anyone who provides goods and services should be
able to deny those items to someone if they believe their religious beliefs are
offensive, immoral or an affront. For this is what you seek.
From the article: "How are people of traditional faiths supposed to act in
this environment? Should we abandon a core tenet of our religion?"If you're a Christian, how about ADHERING to a core tenet of your
religion? Jesus himself said, "In everything, treat others as you would want
them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets."What does "for this fulfills the law and the prophets" mean? As the
Pulpit Bible commentary explains it, "This principle of action and mode of
life is, in fact, the sum of all Bible teaching," and the
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says, "'This is the substance
of all relative duty; all Scripture in a nutshell.' Incomparable
summary!" If there's one core tenet of your religion that
is "the sum of all Bible teaching" and "all Scripture in a
nutshell," isn't that one core tenet you should stick to?
He expects us to change. It is required.----------You
haven't changed, Mike. You still believe that we should have laws that
make gays live by what you believe your God has said. That always amazes me. I
wonder what you think the 11th Article of Faith means when it says that we
"allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they
may."What gives us the right to pass laws that will not allow a
gay person to worship their own legal marriage? Why do we have the right to
legally (not religiously) prevent them from being recognized by their own
government? YOU do not have to recognize them as a couple, Mike.
You do not have to marry them in the temples or even in the wardhouses. The
government is for ALL the people, not just those who you feel are righteous and
obey the rules you believe are right.
A business is not a church. It doesn't matter whether you're talking
about a bakery or a restaurant, a photo studio or a factory. They aren't in
the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They
are there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing
civil rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based
on race, religion, or sexual orientation.Should a restaurant owner
be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has "moral objections" to
race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he
wants to run "a nice Christian workplace"? And if a Christian florist
agrees to provide flower arrangements at a Muslim couple's wedding, does it
mean he is necessarily endorsing Islam?If the answer to these questions is
NO, what justification is there refusing service to a Gay couple who wish to get
a wedding cake or celebrate their anniversary in a restaurant?
What an excellently articulated and well reasoned argument! Well done Lara!In a battle over definitions it is astonishing to see the kind of
intolerance shown by those who demand tolerance of others.Which
demonstrates that, among other things, the definition of both marriage AND
tolerance are up for grabs in this debate.
Okay people, you can call me a sinner. I am a sinner; but, I repent. I change.
I look to God for direction, not to a political group. I accept what He says
and I don't try to change His rules to agree with "my" way of
thinking, but to follow His rules without excuse. God has not
changed his mind. We are free to accept Him and His gospel or to reject Him and
His gospel, but we cannot claim that His message has changed, just because we
don't like to live His rules. That shows contempt towards our Creator. He
gave us life. In return some tell Him that he made a mistake when He created
us.That sounds like something that a two-year-old would say when we
won't give him all the candy that he wants.Rules were put in
place to help us, not to inhibit us. God knows that we will destroy ourselves
if left to our own rules.He expects us to change. It is required.
Mike R: "It is impossible to accept something that many of us consider to
be sin without abandoning our religion."-----------------But Mike, even YOU are a sinner. Whether it is the sin of pride or
selfishness or placing yourself above others, we are ALL sinners. A company
would not be able to sell anything to anyone if they were concerned about the
sins of others. Why not just love and serve everyone and leave the judging to
God?Sal: "Baking a cake for a gay marriage has to do with
lending legitimacy to a sinful lifestyle."----------------Who can a baker bake a cake for? Aren't we all sinners? Why are
gay people singled out? Is it because you might be offended by them? Why
aren't you offended by a liar? A cheater? Why is it fine to sell a cake
to someone who swears and takes the Lord's name in vain? How about a
person who loves money more than God? After all, that is the greatest
commandment to love God first, isn' it?Be consistant. If it is
just gays, it probably is because of prejudice, I am sure you can see.
Mike said: "Other homosexuals tell us that we need to "forgive"
everyone. That is true, but they leave off the fact that before any of us can be
forgiven by Christ, we have to change. Absent that change, Christ is bound by
the eternal laws that His Father has set."By your own
description.Christ is doing the forgiving... NOT you mike.Christ is
bound ... Not you mikeThis "sin" is between Christ and the
sinner...not you mike.You are not responsible for the sinners mike, Christ
is, right?Mike said: "It is impossible to accept something that
many of us consider to be sin without abandoning our religion. Accepting the act
is not the same as showing kindness to the "actor". We are commanded to
love all "actors" no matter what their "sin", but helping them
celebrate a ceremony that gives credence to a sexual "act" prohibited by
God is not required."You start off good with "love all"
but then you say "not required," that's true too, but how is that
"abandoning our religion" that you start with?
SalProvo, UTThose arguing for traditional marriage are
willing to do some giving and taking-----------NOW! Not when
Amendment 3 was passed. Traditional marriage people were begged not to put in
section two that forbid all forms of recognition of any type of relationship
between gays by those who were pro-gay. Don't you remember? Now that Amendment 3 has been declared unconstitutional and states'
anti-gay-marriage laws are falling like dominos, suddenly traditionalists are
willing to trade.It is too late. It has gone in front of the courts
and gay marriage will be the law of the land. We did not listen to gay marriage
advocates in 2004. We could have bargained with them then, but we thought we
knew what was best. We sealed our own fate. We did not see the future as it is
I am somewhat sympathetic towards people who genuinely (and without bigotry)
hold this view… let’s assume for the sake of argument they exist.However, the author seems a bit confused as to what it means to be a
conscientious objector. In the context of war (where this is typically applied)
a conscientious objector can be excused from duties that will involve direct
killing (infantry), but he is not excused from supporting the war effort of his
nation. Usually they are assigned duties like medic or a behind the lines
function.If this is correct and the analogy holds, then a
conscientious objector towards gay marriage seems to be on solid ground when he
asks not to be forced to have a gay marriage (i.e., if you don’t believe
in gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex). But he
cannot use that status as a means to discriminate in the operations of a
business both serving and deriving it’s livelihood from the public.
Those arguing for traditional marriage are willing to do some giving and taking.
You won't find the same from the gay/lesbian side. Traditional marriage
advocates favor civil unions for gays and lesbians. Let's hear from gay
and lesbian advocates as to how they can show tolerance for traditional marriage
advocates whose beliefs are just as strong as the other side.
@ Mike Richards, since when did we live in a theocracy? Who gets to decide?
The majority? Then I guess you were OK with Missouri back in the 1830s.
@pragmatist:Baking a cake for a gay marriage has to do with lending
legitimacy to a sinful lifestyle. Jesus invited sinners to a higher ground
asking them to repent and change. He didn't walk among them in a statement
of condoning how they lived.
@marxist:"What if God made them that way?" God gives weaknesses
to us so we will come to him and learn that he can carry our burdens. We are
not victims of our genes. We can obey Him in spite of what we are born with.
Those born with genes for addictions need not succumb to alcohol and drugs. God
has the power to strengthen them and help them be obedient.
"How are people of traditional faiths supposed to act in this
environment?"I don't know. Maybe you should just try
minding your own business and allow consenting adults to live their lives.
The more I listen to the arguments from SSM opponents the more they appear to
come accross as mean, spiteful and unchristan. I'm torn between having
sympathy or anger towards their prejudice. I truly feel sorry that giving
somebody equal protection and consideration who believes and is different than
them, bothers them so. In the past, my prayers and hopes were for the LGBT but
now I think they must be for those whose fears, prejudices and beliefs seem to
consume their souls.
The question in debate here is very simple but very important. Does individual
religious freedom extend to the market place (society as a whole) through the
conscience of a business owner? Or does individual religious freedom end at the
boundary of the individual person? The whole question only arises
because of a nasty intolerance that is endemic to modern religions. It's
an absolute intolerance for anything they personally object to. By absolute I
mean modern persons of faith have come to believe that any contact with
"evil" regardless of how remote or benign taints their relationship with
God. Odd that Jesus walked amongst the sinners but if I bake a cake
for a gay wedding I have offended my conscience and God. No one would claim
Jesus condoned the sins but it's clear he wasn't offended by the
Re: Mike Richards "It is impossible to accept something that many of us
consider to be sin without abandoning our religion." So the irresistible
force meets the immovable object. What are we going to do? Rip our society
apart? It's possible, this conflict happening on top of a collapsing
middle class. Was Putin right when he said we would fragment within 10 years?
"We may be pushed out of certain industries, ostracized from certain
circles, and confined to a legal ghetto."Oh, you mean like
religious social conservatives did you gay people?
@Laura Updike;" I am waiting to learn whether people who adhere
to a traditional morality will be able to live according to their
conscience."--- Please provde the scriptural reference where
your god commands you to deny services to "sinners" in order to
"live according to your conscience"."...it was an
attempt to create a conscientious objector status for people who don’t
want to participate in or lend their creative powers to same-sex
celebrations."--- Should we allow bigotry in the public square
then?"...same-sex marriage is not a building block of society.
It’s an affront to our consciences."--- You feel
"affronted"? What about the LGBT couples you denigrate?"Should we employ our creative skills toward something we find
fundamentally immoral? "--- Isn't bigotry
"fundamentally immoral"? Jesus said "Do unto others..."."This is why individuals must have a right to deny offering
services."If you won't serve every customer, do not go into
business. Your choice.
It's not the books that guide us; it's God. When God speaks, nothing
else needs to be said. God has clearly and definitely spoken about same-sex
sex. He has clearly and definitely spoken about marriage, about the fact that
it is between a man and a woman.The only argument that some
homosexuals have is that they don't believe in "my" God, as if
unbelief in an eternal law changes that law. Other homosexuals tell us that we
need to "forgive" everyone. That is true, but they leave off the fact
that before any of us can be forgiven by Christ, we have to change. Absent that
change, Christ is bound by the eternal laws that His Father has set.It is impossible to accept something that many of us consider to be sin
without abandoning our religion. Accepting the act is not the same as showing
kindness to the "actor". We are commanded to love all "actors"
no matter what their "sin", but helping them celebrate a ceremony that
gives credence to a sexual "act" prohibited by God is not required.
Considerate, has to be a shared idea by everyone. We have a state, we vote for
our laws. [ Truth in taxation, we don't], that's besides the fact. If
that is the law. A federal judge shouldn't come in and change the laws.
That's rude, inconsiderate, that's abuse of power. Bad manners.
Denying services that are offered to the general public will lead to a total
breakdown of society. Would I be able to deny service because someone is
wearing a religious garment that is contrary to my beliefs? Would I be able to
deny service because a customer with 8 kids comes into the shop and I don't
like big families? Would I be able to deny service if I don't like
anything at all about anyone who comes through the doors? Take these
hypotheticals and magnify them a million fold. This is the exact wrong approach
and is totally contrary to the teachings of Christ as I read them. Has
Christianity now gone non-Christian?
I grow increasingly weary of these types of articles. Dnews, don't you have
anything better to publish? These articles offer absolutely nothing
new to the debate. And it only makes us Mormons look worse. It's simple, you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs. We
Mormons, of all people, should be sensitive to this. Just over 100 years ago we
were abused, discriminated against, and kicked out of the east because of the
"religious beliefs" of others.I have some good advice to
some of these business owners who don't want to use their creativity for
gays: get out of the service industry. If you can't take
serving all, then get out. Find something better to do with your life. Or move
away to a country where religious law and discrimination reign.
I wonder if this letter writer has any idea that when she lists all the benefits
of marriage as a social institution and then transitions to stating her
personal, subjective beliefs for only a certain type of marriage that she
unwittingly undermines her own position and makes the legal argument for
marriage equality. The reason conservatives have and will continue
to lose legal battles regarding SSM is because they are essentially saying,
"marriage is so great and provides so many benefits but we want to restrict
those benefits to only the specific types of marriage that we subjectively deem
worthy." I'm sorry but there is no religious test to obtain a marriage
license and your personal moral convictions do not matter. The Constitution
governs America, not your religion.
This article touches on two issues. SS Marriage and the treatment of gay
people.The second one is certainly a much tougher issue.The first one? If you don't believe in SS Marriage I think that you
should not be forced to marry someone of the same sex. But, I still cannot see
how it affects you or me otherwise.
Ms. Updike's article makes the false assumption marriage is primarily a
religious concept and her comment, "people who adhere to a traditional
morality will be able to live according to their conscience," sums up her
antagonistic view toward same-sex marriage (SSM) by equating SSM with
immorality. We are speaking of changing civil laws that are not the purview of
any church. Her article could have been written in 1967 during the inter-racial
marriage debate. Her comment, "This is why individuals must have a right to
deny offering services" smacks of an earlier time.The courts
decide how far the First Amendment religious protection umbrella extends. I
doubt it extends to baking an identical cake sold to only straight couples. "We may be pushed out of certain industries, ostracized from certain
circles, and confined to a legal ghetto." Sorry, no tears, no
cheek-turning. Ms. Updike will be able to practice her religion, not be evicted
from her home, not be fired from her job, be able to be on her husband's
insurance policy, and to visit her family member in the hospital. The least her
baker friend could do is sell a cake to a gay couple.
Many Christian and Jewish denominations support same-sex marriages - to infer
that their doing so is false scriptural doctrine is insulting and weakens your
point - you are asking for tolerance and respect for your belief system while
refusing that same tolerance and respect to other belief systems. Additionally, it is fraudulent to suggest that those who follow the Sikh
belief system oppose same-sex marriage and would object to participating in
celebrations of same-sex unions. While it is true that a Sikh leader issued an
edict banning same-sex marriages, he does not have the authority of the Pope or
Mormon Prophet so it is not binding. Monogamous same-sex relationship are
strongly encouraged. Which brings me to the final problem with this
editorial - it is not just same-sex marriages that are the issues for people
such as the author - they object to participating in anything celebrating
same-sex monogamy - to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. This
entire editorial is deceptive. If you are going to claim religious
high ground, you should at least try to not violate one of the 10 Commandments
while making your point.
"We believe homosexuality defies the purpose of our creation and offends our
Creator." The assumption of the writer is that homosexuality is a voluntary
condition that is contrary to the laws of the Creator, so it can and should be
discouraged in a variety of ways.But what if homosexuality is
inborn? In other words, what if gays and lesbians are "born that way?"
That means they are the way God made them. And the writer's logic falls
completely apart.And the Jim Crow reference is completely accurate
in anticipating the treatment to gays and lesbians anticipated by the writer.I believe the traditional family is best - heterosexuals married with
children. It's what we know best. But what are gays and lesbians supposed
to do with their lives? To deprive them of family is a cruel matter.Many once believed Jim Crow was ordained of God. It took a long time to get
past that travesty. Let's not repeat it.The writer should set
forth in detail the discriminatory measures anticipated to be directed against
partners in same sex marriage.We need empathy on all sides.