I feel that, even though this is a pretty old article, that I must just put in
my two cents. :) I was raised LDS and I believed it with all my heart and soul,
and tried to change myself, to turn myself straight for many years. I had a very
painful childhood, always thinking that I was not good enough, doing everything
possible to change myself. I just want to highlight the fact that being gay is
NOT a choice. Some people in the comments here have said that it is
someone's choice to be gay, but this is absolutely not true. If I had my
choice, I would've been straight a long time ago! I'm still gay, and I
now accept myself, and I support gay marriage. I feel that even if I don't
get married to a man, and I'm not sure what I'm going to do, that it
is simply awful for children to grow up this way, I think that they should know
that their future is for them to choose. So there's my two bits. Have an
awesome day, and be kind to everyone you meet!
@Redshirt1701 --"Keep trying, but the fact it is in the Talmud
only proves it was a religious rite."Sex is not a
"rite", Red.For comparison -- the Bible records the levying
of taxes. That doesn't mean that taxes are religious rites.Your
argument doesn't hold any water.Keep trying, Red.
To "2plainbrownwrappers" keep trying, but the fact it is in the Talmud
only proves it was a religious rite.
@Redshirt1701 --For some reason I'm having trouble getting this
to post. I'm cutting my reply down to see if it'll go through this
time.All the following are from the book: The Biblical and
Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies --"There
was no rite or 'taking' in primitive marriage, only
cohabitation.""Changes in the perception of the institution
of marriage did not necessarily effect immediate innovations in the method of
establishing the marital status. For a long time cohabitation remained the only
proof of marriage.""The Talmud lists three methods of
betrothing a woman: financial consideration given to a bride, a written bill of
betrothal, and cohabitation (Kiddushin 2a)..." (these are ALTERNATE methods
-- only one is required, though it was common to do all three)"The method of cohabitation was outlawed in the third century (Kiddushin
12b).IOW: until 300 years AFTER Jesus died, a couple could legally
establish a marriage simply by moving in together.Keep trying, Red.
To "Contrariusest" So then you agree that indeed the Jewish people had a
marriage ceremony (ceremonies do not have to have a priest or rabbi), and that
their ceremonies pre-date the civil marriages that were performed in Rome,
Greece, or other similar nations.The Chuppah was part of the Law of
Moses, that was given to Moses. You would have found that out if you had
continued your research instead of going to one site alone. Had you done that,
you would have found that before they engage in the Chuppah, they have the
kiddushin, or religious cleansing, this is the part where the bride receives a
blessing from her rabbi based on the blessing given to Rebecca, Pre Moses. This
is all recorded in the Talmud, or Jewish Book of the Law.
I'm disappointed in the Church's statement that seems to question
government institutions if they don't follow church doctrines. CA state
officials were the defendants in the Prop 8 case. They accepted the reasoned
decision of the federal trial court after a fully expository trial. It is
exclusively their judgement whether to spend limited state resources to appeal
their losing position. In retrospect, weren't they right to avoid wasting
CA tax money?
@Redshirt1701 --"Jesus used the parable of the 10 virgins, and
the events that are part of the wedding ceremony of the ancient Jewish
people."Actually, the **only** even vaguely ceremonial element
mentioned in that parable is the presence of oil lamps. No priests, no vows, no
nothing.Keep trying, Red."Jewish scholars can tell
you all about the marriage rite according to the Law of Moses "From Bible.ca, one of their pages describing Jewish weddings in history:"Ancient Jewish weddings never involved a wedding ceremony like we
see today with the bride walking down the aisle to be married in the synagogue.
The "wedding ceremony" is something that did not develop for hundreds of
years after Jesus rose from the dead.""Stage 1: signing the
"ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond) i. The bride
would chose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him
called a "ketubbah".ii. Once this is signed the couple is 100%
married but do not have sex yet.Stage 2: The "chuppah":
sexual consummation.Stage 3: The wedding feast"Again
-- nowhere are any priests or religious ritual necessary. These were CIVIL
weddings.Keep trying, Red.
To "Contrariuserer" I don't know what bible you have been reading,
but you are wrong. First of all, Jesus used the parable of the 10 virgins, and
the events that are part of the wedding ceremony of the ancient Jewish
people.You should also look into Jewish history more. Jewish
scholars can tell you all about the marriage rite according to the Law of Moses
(this predates the greeks and romans). Marriage did in fact require a specific
ceremony and had specific guidlines.
@Redshirt --"Marriage has been a religious rite for thousands of
years. Religion was the guardian of marriage until about 150 years ago when
governments decided to start issuing marriage certificates or licenses."Sorry, but you're completely wrong here.Actually, the
very first recorded marriages in the Western world -- way back in ancient Rome
-- were CIVIL marriages. Even back then, marriages were very commonly celebrated
with no religious rites at all.Similarly, in ancient Greece, no
specific ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only a
mutual civil agreement that the couple would regard each other as husband and
wife.Furthermore, in Jesus' own time, marriage did not require
any specific ceremony at all -- either religious OR civil. Oddly enough, Jesus
apparently did not see any pressing need to change that arrangement.Priests didn't become an essential part of Christian wedding ceremonies
until the Middle Ages.As one sacramental scholar, Joseph Martos,
puts it: "Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian
To "kolob1" there is respect for the law, and there is rolling over and
letting government officials do whatever they want.I can respect the
law, while fighting to change it to something better and more appropriate.Marriage has been a religious rite for thousands of years. Religion was
the guardian of marriage until about 150 years ago when governments decided to
start issuing marriage certificates or licenses.
Marriage is not the exclusive domain of institutional religion(s). Marriages
were being performed 4000 years before the Bible and before the religions of the
day captured the "rite" as an official act of their respective religion.
If one wants to "marry" with a religious ceremony then one can, just
like one may choose baptism. BUT Marriage is not an official responsibility or
right of any religion. It is optional at best.It is the duty of our government
to regulate marriage and if the Supreme Court has ruled so, then so be it.The
Supreme Court did not rule that you HAD to marry anybody. Just keep you
sanctified noses out of the way and let the gays be. The more you push the more
you get pushed back. Gays don't want to be married in your church, far from
it so don't worry.To those who claim that the "sanctity of
marriage" is being destroyed, I would like to know what marriage is being
sanctified? Their first marriage their second or their third. There is no such
thing as sanctity of religion in the law of the land. Sanctity comes from
within, nor from laws or preachers.
I thought that the Mormons respected the law of the land. There is a
conservative (like a good Mormon) Supreme Court. So what gives? Respect the law
regardless of whether or not you favor it. It ios the Lord's will!!
@haggie --"God has said "no" to gay marriages"According to you. Many other religious people disagree with you. There
are already many church denominations which are happy to perform gay
weddings." I either need to follow the Prophet and defend
traditional marriage or not follow the prophet and not defend traditional
marriage"Again -- "defending traditional marriage" does
NOT require fighting against gay marriages. They are two separate issues."for those that think God and following prophets is not in
vogue"Many religious people SUPPORT gay rights. Gay rights are
neither anti-religious nor anti-God.
it's quite likely the court would have ruled differently had they been
given a logical reason to do so. saying that gay marriage is a threat to
traditional marriage doesn't resonate with people of higher intelligence
who spend any time thinking about the subject.had the court been
given arguments that children need a mother and a father and had the people
opposed to gay marriage promoted this instead it's quite likely they would
ContrariusererTwo points:1. My argument was against
Contrarius's assettion that the reason S/G were destroyed was becasue they
were arrogant not because they were gay. However, I explained that the Prophet
said "no" to being gay and they denied obedience to the principle.2. God has said "no" to gay marriages and regardless of my
personal belief and statistics to the contrary, I either need to follow the
Prophet and defend traditional marriage or not follow the prophet and not defend
traditional marriage (and in the case of some people who profess they believe
the Prophet is God's spokesman, they work against God's word). But in
the end I need to realize that I have not followed the prophet.Of
course for those that think God and following prophets is not in vogue and/or
works against what modern culture thinks is appropriate or acceptable, must also
realize I am not your judge, I simply have an opinion and our democratic process
must be defended even if you dont agree with my opinion. I feel the same for
your rights even though I may feel you are on the wrong side of the issue.
@haggie --"What is arrogance? "Well, assuming
that "defending traditional marriage" requires opposing gay marriage is
one good example of arrogance.In reality, gay marriage does NOTHING
to harm traditional marriage. So it is completely possible for a Mormon to
support both his Prophet and gay marriage at the same time.If you
really want to defend traditional marriage, then focus on issues that will
really HELP traditional marriage.Fight divorce.Fight
unmarried cohabitation.Encourage commitment.Fighting
against people who WANT to form committed, stable relationships will NOT help
traditional marriage. In fact, it's counterproductive."for
centruries man and woman have been getting married and procreating and gays
never have"This isn't actually true. In fact, gay people
have been forming stable relationships and even getting married all the way back
to Assyrian times (there are blessings for same-sex unions in Assyrian religious
texts).And as has been said many times before, gay couples can
procreate in the very same ways that any other infertile couples can.Go ahead and defend traditional marriage. But don't do it on the backs of
people who aren't actually harming traditional marriage one tiny bit.
Contrarius,What is arrogance? God says to His Prophet
(Prophet being the spokesperson of God, Noah, Moses, Samuel, Thomas S. Monson,
etc) tell the people to defend traditional marriage. Then folks like
"LDS4GayMarriage" and the like say, I know more than God (and His
Prophet) therefore I will not defend His commandments in fact I will work
against them. Arrogance?Would it be arrogance for a person who is
not LDS to assume using God's word that "arrogance" really is the
sin that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, when for centruries man and woman have
been getting married and procreating and gays never have and now gays want to be
married (but will still not be able to procreate)? I believe in His
Propeht so I will defend His word. "whether it is by Him or the mouth of His
Prophets it is the same"God's plan was to send us to earth
to two loving parents so that we would have the opportunity to be raised in a
way He thought was best. Any other way is a deviation from His plan.Those who don't beleive President Monson is a prophet I appeal to common
LDS4GayMarriage,For Pete sake, so what if my wife wieghs three
hundred pounds. I may like that. Who therefore has a right to ridicule her for
how she looks and why wouldn't I defend her. Ridiculous! That's my
wife. The State of California didn't defend the will of the people and is
therefore in deriliction of their duties. Had a conservative government not
defended gay marriage, there would be an uproar. Hypocrisy!Furthermore, the Prophet has asked that we follow God and defend traditional
marriage. So, if you are LDS and you are 4GayMarriage, why won't you follow
the Prophet. Maybe that is just a convenient label (LDS4GayMarriage). I believe
President Monson is the Prophet. Therefore if I have a personal position in
opposition to what God has asked, I should follow the wisdom of God and adjust
my position. However, your position which is in opposition to God's will, I
assume you must think God is a fool, or President Monson has gone rogue. The wisdom of man.....
@zoar63 --"This argument and many like it is the learning of men
rationalizing away the scriptures and replacing them with their logic.""Logic" is not a dirty word, zoar.Many of us both
think for ourselves AND have deeply held religious beliefs at the same time.
Intelligent thought and religious faith are NOT incompatible, believe it or
not.@solsticelight --"God does the judging, not
us."You are exactly right! Judging is GOD's job, not
ours."Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:1"If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge
that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world."
John 12:47"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is
able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?"
@Cougar in Texas --"There are indeed life-long bisexuals who
will desire ongoing relationships with both a man and a woman
(polyamorous)."Sure. But polyamory is not at all the same thing
as bisexuality. There are polyamorous heterosexuals, polyamorous homosexuals,
AND polyamorous bisexuals."You deny a form of religious
oppression by stating that the example used was from Europe where there are
officially recognized churches and therefore cannot apply in the US, then go on
to use a court case in Canada (actually, only British Columbia) to show that
polygamy will remain banned in the US. "Sure. Europe
has state churches. We don't.Canada has equal protection
written into their constitution. Just like we do.The situations are
entirely different."And the BC case was upheld only due to the
harmful nature of the specific polygamous unions then under review. "Nope, sorry, you're completely wrong here.From Judge
Bauman's decision: "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."
Will anyone who has any information about ill effects of a decade of marriage
equality in Mass, Canada, etc, please enlighten me.In 2008, I saw those TV
ads for Prop 8, which involved people judging very liberal schools in MA and CA,
and claiming that Gays wanted to take the rights of all parents to control their
kids' moral education. I figure if a school is in an lds neighborhood, in
can lean toward mormon values, and in a liberal town, a liberal school makes
sense.There is no LEGAL argument against marriage equality, only
moral/religious arguments, which mostly do not belong in civil law. This is why
Prop 8 keeps getting struck down, not because there was a Gay judge or a liberal
conspiracy.Marriage equality: marriage/procreation based churches
cannot, as of yet, fathom fitting it in, when their own children are Gay and
want it. Fear takes over, and turns to busybody actions trying to control
secular people and members of liberal churches.I personally think
Jesus could find no harm in loving same-sex marriages.The problem is
churches adapting to today's reality
@Contrarius"The term "sodomy" actually refers to acts
which are just as easily enjoyed by heterosexuals as by homosexuals.Are you ready to deny marriage to straight people who happen to enjoy those
very same acts?"This argument and many like it is the learning
of men rationalizing away the scriptures and replacing them with their logic.
Another way is to say the apostle, disciple or prophet hated homosexuals and
whatthey wrote were just their own opinions, thus causing doubt about the rest
of what they wrote about.Or they may say that Christ never said
anything about homosexuality while ignoring the fact that the people that
Christ was speaking to observed the law of Moses which forbid homosexual
activity. So there would have been no reason for Christ to mention
homosexuality They already knew it was sinful.O the vainness, and
the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they
are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside,
supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it
profiteth them not.. 2Ne 9:28
amazondocThere are indeed life-long bisexuals who will desire
ongoing relationships with both a man and a woman (polyamorous). If marriage is
reduced to love and dedication to another individual, the bisexual is forced to
choose one and have relationships outside of marriage with the other. How many
people do we hear about that married one sex, left that person, married or
shacked up with someone from the other sex, and then tried to decide where to go
next?You deny a form of religious oppression by stating that the
example used was from Europe where there are officially recognized churches and
therefore cannot apply in the US, then go on to use a court case in Canada
(actually, only British Columbia) to show that polygamy will remain banned in
the US. And the BC case was upheld only due to the harmful nature of the
specific polygamous unions then under review. Polygamy was not rejected because
it was polygamy, but because it involved child brides, forced marriages, and
expulsion of rival young men.The rationale used to support gay
marriage naturally opens the door to any relationship between individuals who
vow to love, honor, and cherish.
People can do much of what they want. I think most know deep down what is right
and what is wrong. What is natural and what is not. (Whether they want to admit
it or not). So the bottom line is this. Right is Right
and Wrong is Wrong. We have many things that are "legal"
that are wrong. God knows what is right and we all will know for sure in the
next life. Just don't act surprised when truth be told.
@Sneaky Jimmy'The LDS Church needs to distance itself from the
huge tactical error that was Prop 8...More and more church member's are
beginning to see that allowing more people to marry is actually a good thing for
this country.'Well, like California, the LDS Church isn't
a democracy. The faithful LDS community will not question what the leaders of
that church say. LDS who disagree with the official positions of the church will
either have to agree to disagree or leave. Trying to change the official
position is futile, and simply isn't how the LDS Church operates.
Passing laws doesn't make people moral, honest, virtuous. We cannot force
others to be good.
I have simple questions. I really don't how the will of the people keeps
being ignored in this country. It takes money for these types of cases to
advance to the Supreme Court. Who is paying for this? Are there really that
many Gay people in this country that have enourmous political power? It is not
easy to be Gay in any culture. I have many concerns and worries as well . Yet,
I will never have the resources to have any impact. We have such monumental
problems in this country and yet this is the direction and focus. Protected
status is what groups are demanding. What about those groups that want
traditional families, the freedom to practice a religion of choice, to want
smaller government interrence? Do we as a society really want a Governmental
entity constantly deciding moral questions? We are on a very slippery slope.
We have seen recent open mass governmental corruption with the IRS, Bengazi, NSA
spying. Where are the consequences for this type of corruption? Where is the
public outrage - why is no one accountable?
For those of us who are more concerned with minding their own moral compass than
everyone elses, this is not even an issue! God does the judging, not us. In my
community, the gays have lovely gardens and the cutest little dogs! They are
well-spoken, drive nice cars, listen to nice music, are very artistic and own a
lot of the local businesses. They smile, wave, and are courteous drivers. I
can't think of one problem I have with them. God doesn't make
This pronouncement was ill conceived and poorly timed. The LDS Church needs to
distance itself from the huge tactical error that was Prop 8. Continued rhetoric
about protecting traditional marriage no longer holds water. More and more
church member's are beginning to see that allowing more people to marry is
actually a good thing for this country.
@ImABeliever"Genesis Chapter 18: 3 Words: Sodom and Gomarrah =
Destruction."You may be a "believer", but you're
not enough of a READER.Sodom actually had a lot more to do with
arrogance and lack of hospitality than it did with homosexuality."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)And btw -- the term "sodomy" actually
refers to acts which can be enjoyed by straight couples just as easily as by gay
couples. Are you going to start trying to ban straight marriages?
Genesis Chapter 18: 3 Words: Sodom and Gomarrah = Destruction.
What is viewed as a great defeat for conservatives and for religion is nothing
of the sort. Traditional marriage is virtually unaffected by this ruling . If
anything traditional marriage is helped by the fact the gays have come fully out
of the closet. No longer will gay people marry straight people unawares they
will stick to the their own kind and this is good for traditional marriage.
Instead of being a republican democracy, as the Founding Fathers intended, we
are at risk of becoming a "juridocracy", created by an increasing number
of people who simply will not accept the law of common consent. This should
worry us all, regardless of our position on the issues at hand.
For those who continue to insist that the LDS church single handedly won the
election for Prop. 8, or that they are trying to force everyone to submit to
their doctrines, try to consider that religious organizations have a right to
protect their own doctrines from being overwhelmed by governments - it's
called 'separation of church and state'.Those who have
suggested that the next agenda will be to try to force religious organizations
to recognize and accept gay marriages or be disenfranchised. Already in the
world pastors have been threatened with legal action for continuing to preach
their established doctrines which do not mesh with this new social
experiment.Agency declares that everyone may choose for themselves
and that includes religious entities who do not agree with gay marriage.
dtlenoxBy applying such a one-size-fits-all, unjustified stereotype, they
are themselvesbecoming the very thing that they accuse others of being.LDS4Pot-Kettle-Black!! For decades, gays have been labeled as sexual
deviants, childmolesters, and worse. The religious right picked this
fight and lost and are nowcomplaining now that the shoe is on the other
foot. You are reaping what you sewed.haggie..to make matters
worse the state of California did not defend its own constituion.That is
kind of like going to a party and people make derogatory remarks about yourwife and you don't do anything about it (whether the name calling was
accurate ornot). LDS4If you wife is 300lbs and someone says
that she's fat, are you REALLY going to try toconvince 9 strangers
that she's fine and that there's nothing wrong? The Pro-8side's defense of the initiative was as laughable as saying that your
300lb wife is fine. That's why the state begged off defending Prop 8. Why
waste their time and tax payer's money? It was a loser right out of the
A consitutional ammendment in the state of California was legally passed making
it illegal for state officials to marry same sex couples. This ammendment was
appealed to a Federal Court which ruled against California's own
populations wishes. Then to make matters worse the state of California did not
defend its own constituion. That is kind of like going to a party
and people make derogatory remarks about your wife and you don't do
anything about it (whether the name calling was accurate or not). The fact of the matter is that there is a God. He is not pleased with deviant
sexual behavior. We can be as smug about it all we want. God is our judge! Overstock.com has just lost my business. We do plenty. Probably not
enough but I can make my money talk to.Ciao
Who cares what the LDS Church has to say about anything. If you're not a
member, the pronouncements of the LDS Leaders mean diddly squat.
These arguments about marriage could be eliminated if governments at all levels
got out of the marriage business and focused on civil unions. Protections and
tax breaks currently given via marriage could be given via civil unions. Social
groups could define marriage however they wanted, and social groups would have
no fear that government might force them to do marriage differently than they
want.Government = civil unionsSocial groups = marriage
@Dan MaloyI agree that the LDS church knows other churches do
baptisms differently, but it doesn't try to force LDS baptisms on others.
Yet, with marriage it tries to force a definition of marriage between a man and
a woman as the only form of marriage. As a church organization, they have the
right to enforce in their organization a particular kind of relationship as
marriage, but they should allow others the freedom to have different kinds of
relationships in marriage and still call those relationships "marriage".
I'm an active LDS and have opportunities to discuss marriage with other
active LDS. I've been told by LDS friends that gays can do whatever they
want, just don't call it marriage.The statement from the LDS
church public relations department includes "Notably, the court decision
does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the
states." The LDS church seems determined to continue governmental regulation
of marriage.Government = Civil unionsSocial groups = marriage
Liberals on the Supreme Court voted as a block to deny the majority of the
voters of California their constitutional rights. Justice Kennedy a huge legal
friend of the gay community supported their position. Prop 8 supporters faced
itimidation, political punishment and a Catholic friend in the Bay Area had his
convertible scratched while he was at mass by homosexual advocates. Other things
like targeting busineses,demonstrating on supporters lawns, verbally attacking
at contributors business. The list could go on but the final straw was a multi
million documentary supported by Hollywood billionaires blasted the bigoted and
possibly criminal conduct of church leaders for forcing gays to be straight and
then committing suicide. Hollywood and silicon valley have enough money and
liberals willing to spend it to control public opinion.
@ Allen Salt Lake valley, UT @Spider Rico"The LDS church accepts
that other churches have forms of baptism other than immersion by someone
holding priesthood authority. Why is it acting differently in with
marriages?"Yes, the LDS church knows that other churches do
baptisms by other than immersion and not by the priesthood authority, however,
they do not accept those baptisms as being valid.The LDS church
leadership, and its members, understand that God has laws and that it is
man's responsibility to yield to those laws and not God's
responsibility to yield to the rules of man.
@RedShirt --"why would Jesus approve of people engaging in an
activity that God disapproves of?""If anyone hears my words
but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge
the world, but to save the world." John 12:471. The OT Mosaic
laws were replaced by the New Covenant. 2. There is no commandment saying
"thou shalt not be homosexual".3. Jesus never said a word against
homosexuality.4. Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Gospels, except
for one passage in which Jesus acknowledges -- WITHOUT condemnation -- that
some men are "born eunuchs" (see other threads for why "eunuch"
can include homosexuals in ancient texts) and that such men should not marry
women.5. Paul didn't like homosexuals. Paul also supported slavery,
believed that women were inferior to men, told everyone that nobody should ever
get divorced, and insisted that it was better to remain single than to marry. He
was a mortal, fallible man.6. Many Christians, Jews, and members of other
faiths support gay rights, including gay marriage. They have no trouble
reconciling the Bible with the full citizenship of gay people.
To "Scoundrel" why would Jesus approve of people engaging in an activity
that God disapproves of? Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible.If Jesus wept, it is because society is normalizing sinful behavior.
That "popular" vote garnered 52%Hardly a landslide.
Nevertheless, the California government is sufficiently corrupt to abandon the
wishes of its voters. It's a failed state, and hopefully will secede from
the union before it drags us down with it.
Gays are people, we are all created equal. God created gays to diversify the
population and we try real hard to prevent or steer them away for who they are.
Only God can do this, but he chooses not to.
@Spider RicoThe LDS church accepts that other churches have forms of
baptism other than immersion by someone holding priesthood authority. Why is it
acting differently in with marriages? Let each social group have the type of
marriage it wants and let government focus on civil rights through social
unions.Government = civil unionsSocial groups = marriage
"Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong
when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects
the views of a majority of their citizens."The purpose of the
Supreme Court is to protect the Constitution not the popular vote of people.
People can and do sometimes vote for things that are unconstitutional.Government = civil unionsSocial groups = marriage
@dtlenox --"their main argument rests on the demonization of
those with an opposing view"That's baloney.The
main argument for gay rights is that EVERYONE DESERVES EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE
US CONSTITUTION.That doesn't demonize anyone."The vindictiveness, and the nastiness of the main rabble-rousers of the
pro-gay-marriage crowd "I was living in Knoxville just a few
years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church gathering there and SHOT
NINE PEOPLE just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and
gays". Gay people in the US are still **EIGHT TIMES** more
likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.Another gay man was shot and killed in NY just a day or two ago -- WITH the
shooter shouting gay slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime.We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs
in the country of Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.In some
countries, homosexuality is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.Civil rights
for homosexuals is **literally** a matter of life or death. But you're
upset just because a few gay activists may have been RUDE?? Get
@ atl134, Salt Lake City, [email protected] Maloy: "And how was the LDS church
harmed by same-sex marriage? If there was evidence of that then they could have
standing."The LDS church is only an organization and was not
harmed directly, and, the LDS church never claimed that it was. What it did
claim, correctly, was that homosexual activity of any and all kinds, including
'marriage' was immoral, and because it is immoral, it had a moral
responsibility to speak out against it. Now, who IS harmed by
same-sex 'marriage'? Those who participate in it and the kids they
are foolishly allowed to raise. That's who.
@ Stephen Kent EhatAgreed...and anyone who knows history knows that
"judicial review" itself isn't even constitutional, but an accepted
practice nonetheless as a result of Marbury vs. Madison. I for one
do not respect the so-called authority of 9 presidentially-appointed judicial
activists who are held beholden to no one over the authority of our
constitutionally instituted and democratically elected representatives...nor do
I respect any government that refuses to do their duty simply because they find
it personally repugnant.I find their actions personally repugnant,
and in light of recent clandestine government programs (i.e. the IRS scandal,
the buying of over a billion hollow-point rounds of ammo used not for target
practice, but for maiming/killing, the Fast & Furious scandal, the NSA
scandal, & the list goes on and on...), I and many other Americans are
feeling more and more the same way. Our government is out of control.
The Supreme Court is one of three departments of government constitutionally in
place to mutually provide "checks and balances". Who checks
the Supreme Court in practice? It seems as though no one does, unless we just
wait for current justices to resign or retire, and pray for a Senate that
doesn't usually ultimately vote for the presidential nominee.
There are fewer 'men' in the world today. Being a 'man'
means taking care of your responsibilities, including children. Unfortunately,
we have another swath of 'boys' avoiding their responsibilities of
fatherhood and marriage.
I see this ruling as a sign of the beginning of the end of religious freedom in
America. The thing that strikes me most about the pro-gay-marriage people is
that their main argument rests on the demonization of those with an opposing
view, by labeling them as mean-spirited bigots. By applying such a
one-size-fits-all, unjustified stereotype, they are themselves becoming the very
thing that they accuse others of being. The vindictiveness, and the nastiness of
the main rabble-rousers of the pro-gay-marriage crowd leads me to believe that
they won't stop their vendetta against the religious right and won't
be satisified until they can force everyone to believe as they do, by penalizing
them and persecuting them until they do, using our now corrupt judicial system
and corrupt politicians to enforce newly created "laws" to force their
beliefs on others.
Supreme LossPoliticsDefeating, DisgustingUnfair rules,
Unfair judgesHurt many peopleGod weeps.
aislander: "Do you really feel the need to impose your religious beliefs
upon the civil laws of a free country? Because if you do, I suggest you move to
a theocracy. I hear Iran might be nice."Nice try, taking it all
to an extreme to attempt to validate a point...I don't believe
anyone in these comments is advocating a "theocracy." Neither is anyone
advocating a state religion. Asking that moral thought being
involved in the development of governmental or societal action is not the same
as wanting a "theocracy." I believe that moral thought is what creates
all societies (society creates all governments). It is merely the choice of
what type of moral thought the society chooses. Therefore, since much of moral
thought is preceded by religious doctrine or thought, then pretty much every
government is created through religious thought or doctrine. To believe that
the United States of America wasn't formed through moral and/or religious
thought would be to ignore the facts. Claiming that a desire to
have moral reasoning as a part of our governmental objectives is like wanting to
have all things Iranian is an argument that is non-sense.
@Mikhail --"Do you expect us to believe that there were no
husbands and wives "married" prior to Roman civilization?"Nope, and I never said any such thing. :-)OTOH, many anti-gay
folks insist that we should not "change the definition" of the term
"marriage". -- But the word "marriage" comes from LATIN --
maritatus. Surely the Romans who literally INVENTED the word knew what the word
meant -- and to the Romans, "marriage" was not an especially religious
event."I would dare say that marriage pre-dates
government"That kind of depends on your definitions for both
"marriage" and "government".@TRUTH --"get ready for mass exodus and the return of Sodom and Gomorrah!"As others have already pointed out -- Sodom was not really about
homosexuality."Sodomy does not mean one who fails to take care
of the poor!"The term "sodomy" actually refers to acts
which are just as easily enjoyed by heterosexuals as by homosexuals.Are you ready to deny marriage to straight people who happen to enjoy those
very same acts?@Spider --"The LDS Church believes
God has a Wife "Mrs. God??? REALLY??Thanks for the
education there. I gotta say, that really sounds hysterically funny.
This is just another example that you cannot legistlate morallity. While the
Constitution is based morallity, the people of the country must maintain their
oun set or morals. The churches used to be the guiding light to those morals,
now they are more worried about what is PC. It is sad that the people are more
inclined to go to the government for guidance than to God and the churches.
amazondoc: "In Western civilization, the first officially recorded marriages
were in the ancient Roman civilization. They were CIVIL marriages, not religious
ones."Do you expect us to believe that there were no husbands
and wives "married" prior to Roman civilization?I would dare
say that marriage pre-dates government, since it predates recorded history (or
depending on whether you accept the Old Testament as historical evidence, as
soon as a man and a woman showed up). Since government would require a
population base, it would be rational thought to believe that a formal
relationship between a man and a woman was recognized. Since the species has
propagated only through such unions or recognized relationships, such recognized
relationships did predate any organized communal society or government.
Gay marriage will never be accepted in the temple and if it is ....get ready for
mass exodus and the return of Sodom and Gomorrah! And by the way...Sodomy does
not mean one who fails to take care of the poor!
@Ralph - You couldn't be more wrong. The Church will never accept gay
marriage because it goes against the very fundamental premise of the Gospel -
the rearing of families. The LDS Church believes God has a Wife and We are His
and Her children. The Proclamation to the World reiterated this and is held as
scripture. This would not be akin to blacks and the priesthood in any sense. It
would cut to the very fabric of the Gospel. If the Church were ever to change
this doctrine it would be the end of the Church because it would mean that it is
not led by God because that doctrine is the foundation of the Church. Gender is
an eternal defining peice of who we are. Why some are attracted to their same
gender I do not know but I have some ideas. What I do know is the LDS Church
will not change this position because it is not merely a position.
While I whole heartedly belief that the Church has the right to decide who can
participate in marriages within it membership. I feel as strongly that they do
not have the right to dictate civil marriage rights. I am saddened that the
Church became so involved in our political process in California, to the extent
that it has. I am amazed that the Church has been allowed to keep a non profit
status after so strongly pushing a political agenda. I am very happy that this
decision was corrected. I hope that in all this, people remember that we are
all God's children and that he loves everyone, gay, straight, black, brown,
red and white and so many more!.
"has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial
system operates"Wow! Strong words from a Church that believes
governments are divinely inspired (hope I didn't misquote something).
Strong words, though.What will be left is for us to teach correct
principles and let the people govern themselves. Sometimes I wonder if we should
be governed by laws or by principles, anyhow. Here's a thought, if Jesus
taught that we should forgive one another, then what right do we have to punish
someone who "breaks the law"? As you can tell, I'm confused.
@neph3 --"This is a thoughtful article by a gay person who
anticipates the "next steps" in the US in the same way I do"You left out the part of the article in which he states:"The Defense of Marriage Act, a relic of the Clinton years, does seem to
me to be incompatible with the equal protection clause of the Constitution."
and"I don't agree with Prop 8 on its face, nor
the referendum system itself that California has."@trekker --"yes the sodomy laws are still on the books"Sodomy
laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States by
Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003.
@Nef3 "NOT YET! They are coming! Bisexual marriage will be next (we hear how
LG sisters and brothers need to help B and T brothers/sisters. It is on the
agenda but not implemented yet until the LG process is completed."There you go again. You hear from whom? And why shouldn't bisexuals or
transgender citizens be allowed to marry the person they love? There is only ONE gay "agenda". Equality. Nothing more. Nothing
less. Why do you want to deny we law-abiding tax-paying US Citizens
equal treatment under civil law?Do you really feel the need to
impose your religious beliefs upon the civil laws of a free country? Because if
you do, I suggest you move to a theocracy. I hear Iran might be nice.
This is a thoughtful article by a gay person who anticipates the "next
steps" in the US in the same way I do and many others here:"Why do gays need a Big Government hug? Column - USA Today""So what is next after this arduous fight over the word "marriage"
" ...." Morally, the next step for the gay political
movement should be to recognize the threat to unborn gays and lesbians from
abortion resulting from the advancement in genetic testing. Or maybe demand that
America stop giving aid to or loaning money to Islamic-led governments that hang
gays in public on street lamps as official punishment.But that
won't happen. The gay political movement is bound and gagged to the
progressive left. So instead, we will see demands for public accommodations for
gays and infringement upon the religious liberty of many faiths. I am confident
that this attorney general, or the next one, and the Obama IRS, will put
pressure on churches and synagogues to marry gay and lesbians. After all, there
is a track record of such behavior over the past four years."
Good grief! So many chicken littles out there shouting that the sky is falling.
Lots of bluster with no actual facts nor quoted reliable sources. Guess you
should find a cave to hide in lest the sky fall on you. The facts
show that gay marriage has harmed no one. If your heterosexual marriage is
somehow threatened by gay marriage, (and how I cannot imagine) then it surely is
not much of a marriage. Massachusetts, which has the most
experience with same sex marriage in the USA now has the lowest divorce rate in
the country. After all, haven't heterosexuals have done such a stellar job
in bringing marriage to its current condition? Could it be that some of them
are worried they'll be shown up by gays? No one has yet produced one shred
of actual credible harm caused by gay marriage. Why not wait with
all the hand-wringing and fear mongering until someone actually has applicable
results to prove your point? Or at least stop all the vague speculation with no
apparent basis. Gay marriages are simply equal treatment for tax-paying
law-abiding gay citizens under civil law, something guaranteed by the US
It's quite interesting to read most of these posts. Some are obviously well
thought-out and well written, while others are obviously written without much
pre-thought or logic at all. There is an extreme amount of bias in the world...
with apparently no less since this original article was written.One
thing seems rather obvious. Not one person seems to have changed their mind or
point of view of this subject from over 115 comments. Not a single person has
acquiesced their feelings on this subject. As such, it basically is just a
feel-good thing for anyone commenting, and not much else. Still, it's
somewhat interesting to see what others think, no matter how much a person may
agree or disagree.
@ Ralph -- "The Church will eventually accept some form of gay
marriage. It's inevitable."I agree, Ralph. The LDS church
has always seemed very politically savvy to me. Just as they eventually caved on
the racial issue, they will also eventually cave on gays. It may take awhile,
but they'll get there. I'd be happy to place a bet on that, if I
thought anyone from this group would still be in contact a few years down the
road.@Dan --"Lacked standing"?"Standing" means that the plaintiffs had to prove that they would
materially harmed if the law were overturned. They could not do that, and
therefore they lacked standing. It's a very simple legal principle -- it
basically translates as "keep your nose out of other peoples'
business".@Mikhail --"Marriage was not invented
by government."Actually, it sort of was.In Western
civilization, the first officially recorded marriages were in the ancient Roman
civilization. They were CIVIL marriages, not religious ones.
@Ranch hand...you're the smartest man on planet. Well said.
What most people in this dialogue don't seem to realize is the Gay marriage
has been the law of other countries for years it really has not destroyed
"traditional" marriage or brought on any of the irrational fears of the
doomsayers. In my opinion, Justice Kennedy has exemplified the most
Christ-like attitudes today when he spoke about dignity and how others should be
treated. Christ boiled down ALL the laws the Prophets to only two commandments
and then had to define "neighbor" and chose a Samaritan despised by Jews
as half breeds to illustrate his point. From the comment by various churches
and organizations I'll let you decide "by this shall men know ye are my
disciples' if ye have love one to another." My choice is Justice
Kennedy on this day, Gandhi said it best, he'd "become a Christian if
he ever met one." Perhaps some should dwell less on the law and more on
the love of God and their neighbor---who just might be gay. One who will now be
treated equally under the law, at least in some states.
amazondoc:"Now, aren't you happy that we have separation of
church and state here?"Love this! While you wrote it about the subject
of government requirements on churches, it certainly informs us as to why we do
not want to be basing our laws on our religious beliefs. If we had a state
church, whose would it be? No one in this country would be content. The LDS have
a history of what being an outsider is like.Now maybe your words can bring
some purposeful meditation to some who wish to legislate according to religious
doctrine of their own choosing. Doing so could easily have unintended
consequences, especially if one is in the minority. Rock on!
I recall a time when Latter-Day Saints where being thrown in jail, having
property seized, and being denied citizenship and constitutional rights because
of our hard stance on the definition of "marriage".As also I
recall, The Lord gave us the Manifesto and changed to comply with U.S.
law.Some believed it was a "revelation", while others
bitterly left the Church and started their own rather than follow the
"apostate" and fallen prophet.So, it all boils down to
this:Who will YOU follow?
Continued. Polygamy didnt have the issues of today with Jeffs group whne the LDS
Church allowed it, Thnaks to Uncle Sam telling the church it would take all its
properties temples etc put its leaders in prison as well as any husband and
father living plural marriage. It forced people into hiding and too split off
groups it created the problems. There was no law banning polygamy when the
Prophet Joseph received that revelation from God to obey that commandment. What
the US government did was unconstitutional. and should be overturned. Most
polygamists are only married to the 1st wife thus they are only cohabiting if
they are arrested they better arrest people who commit adultery or that are in
live in relationships this also includes Homosexuals, yes the sodomy laws are
still on the books, it is not right for the government to pick and choose what
laws it will enforce. Todays ruling is far from Equality.
@Cougar --"Shouldn't a legitimately bisexual woman be able
to marry both a man and a woman?"You obviously doesn't
understand what bisexuals are all about.Bisexuals do NOT want to
marry both a man and a woman. They are simply open to having relationships with
either gender. Bisexuals can be just as happily monogamous as anyone else -- the
only difference is they have twice as many people to pick from as
heterosexuals.As for polygamy in general -- courts have already
clearly demonstrated that they can tell the difference between polygamy and
homosexuality.For a clear example, go look up the 2011 case in which
Canada reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban. They've had
gay marriage for years now -- yet they've had no trouble separating it from
polygamy, nonetheless. The same thing will happen here."Churches
in some European countries are already required to do so, or find someone who
will."This is only because churches in Europe are often STATE
churches -- meaning that they are attached to the government. and thus they must
uphold all the laws of that government.Now, aren't you happy
that we have separation of church and state here?
>And Neph3...please do some research...you will find that none of your silly
allegations are true in the USA...NOT YET! They are coming! Bisexual
marriage will be next (we hear how LG sisters and brothers need to help B and T
brothers/sisters. It is on the agenda but not implemented yet until the LG
process is completed. Similarly to abortion: it was supposed to be rare and up
to 6 weeks (based on thin air but still 6 weeks). Today you can easily get it
over 4 months and Cuomo is talking up to the day of birth. This is how
"progress" looks like.
@patriot"Can you see a time when BIG brother government forces the LDS
church to perform gay marriage in their temples? Seem far fetched?"I'd be on your side if that fight should ever come though really...
considering we have religious protections yet the LDS church can still require
that both in a marriage be LDS to marry in the temple... I honestly don't
see this as a fight that's going to come up. People generally just want
churches to stay out of their own business. The people who would down the road
try and push the church to marry same-sex couples... that would come primarily
from people inside the church, not outside.@Dan MaloyAnd how
was the LDS church harmed by same-sex marriage? If there was evidence of that
then they could have standing. "With rulings like this, it
won't be long until God will fulfill the punishment America brings upon
herself."Upholding the "divinely inspired constitution"
sure seems to be bugging a lot of you today...
So amazing how much America has lost total control of her morals. Well, so sad that this sort of thing has to happen a week before my favorite
ParkCityAggieOf course things are changing. With the constant
barrage of news outlets, public education, and pop culture who merely parrot the
message of the gay lobby and marginalize anybody who thinks differently, it was
inevitable and was something many (like me) predicted over 10 years ago.The slippery slope is only a logical fallacy if the "logic" does
not hold. For example, how can we now withhold legalized polygamy when the B in
LGBT is still unrepresented? Shouldn't a legitimately bisexual woman be
able to marry both a man and a woman? And if the man in the marriage is also
bisexual, marry yet another man? Thus, 4-person marriages must eventually become
legal under the currently desired status quo. Where that leads, who can predict,
but it is unchartered territory?There are already plenty of angry
voices declaring any church that does not marry gays is discriminatory and
should lose tax exemption. Churches in some European countries are already
required to do so, or find someone who will. While we can hope that this does
not happen here, there seems to be a growing number of people who would like it
to be that way.
@ Ralph - Salt Lake City, UT - "The Church will eventually accept some form
of gay marriage. It's inevitable."Ralph, if you knew who
REALLY runs the LDS church, you wouldn't say that. I'll give you a
hint anyway: not gonna happen.Ever.(But, hey, you can
say it anyway if it makes you feel better.)
Dan Malloy, eschatological judgement is pretty much guaranteed regardless, is it
not? That's a solid, central pillar of Christianity (including
There would be a lot less arguing about this (and a few other subjects) were we
to remember that this country, founded by spiritually-directed, if not churched,
men, did not put into the founding documents a religous base but a
citizen-directed, government base. We are not a theocracy. All of us, at times,
however, may find ourselves a minority, and we could find our group legislated
against. That said, in humility and with the spirit of brotherhood, it is wise
to be empathetic to our fellows when deciding who to leave out of the codes of
freedoms we all wish to enjoy. Can we do that, or is the ego, the wish to be
better, have more, be on the top of the heap, too great to resist for some of
Article quote: "By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing
to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling
questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates," LDS Church
spokesman Michael Otterson said. "Many Californians will wonder if there is
something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a
popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.""Lacked standing"?News flash to the Supreme Court
and to those on the left: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was
not the only organization or group of people fighting to sustain Prop 8.
Perhaps you guys have forgotten the MILLIONS of California citizens who voted in
favor of Prop 8?With rulings like this, it won't be long until
God will fulfill the punishment America brings upon herself. How utterly
In God I Trust... I have never trusted in the Supreme Court, and I never will.
The Church will eventually accept some form of gay marriage. It's
inevitable.It's not a bad thing. In fact, it shows that the Church
is flexible and needs to get new converts.They had to allow blacks into
the priesthood and they had to give up polygamy. They will eventually, at least
tacitly, recognize gay marriage/unions.
Anything that does not have a negative secular effect is not a moral issue at
all.Same-sex marriage is not even a moral issue.It may
be a religious issue but one shouldn't confuse religion, or the
pronouncements of religious leaders, with morality.The ONLY things
needed for a system of morality is socio-biology and the evolutionary traits of
empathy, altruism, cooperative social living, sense of fairness & sharing,
and the nurture, protection and education of the live-born young.Same-sex marriage may be a religious issue for some people but it's
simply not a moral issue.
Can you see a time when BIG brother government forces the LDS church to perform
gay marriage in their temples? Seem far fetched? Better think again. I would
expect such a ruling within the next decade. Liberty is dead in America.
I have a lot of gay and lesbian friends in California, and many of them are
openly crying with happiness today.
To "BYU Track Star" there may be some individuals that have a hard time
with it, but that is not what the LDS church as a whole is working on. 20 years
ago I was reading in the Handbook of Instructions for church leaders that gays
are to be accepted and fully fellowshiped into the church, just like any other
person. To fully appreciate the church, you often have to separate doctrine
from member practices and prejudices. My own grandmother had prejudices that
were fine 40 years ago, but today are considered wrong. If your HP quorum has
problems with a gay person, the problem isn't the church or its doctrine,
but the people that are at a different point in their learning.If
your HP group has problems with a gay LDS member who lives up to the LDS
standards, the problem lies in your HP group. If they give that gay member a
hard time, are you willing and prepared to stand up to your HP group and rebuke
them?The problems arise when it comes to homosexual relationships,
which are wrong according to LDS doctrine.
QuercusQate"Because their money wasn't just an expression
of free speech, it was also a fundamentally anti-American attempt to strip
rights and marriages from CA citizens. As an American, you should be disturbed
about it, too."Perhaps you are equally disturbed by the pro-gay
lobby and organized 501(c) groups who organized, raised money, and canvassed
California prior to the vote on Prop. 8?
If there’s anything meaningful in all this, it forces individuals to
declare their standing -- and just makes the impending sifting of the wheat and
the tares so distinct. Choose ye this day… Not sure why the
LDS church would so narrowly limit their position statement to the phrase
“the best environment for nurturing children”. At a minimum, they
should be declaring it’s the environment which best "assures the
ongoing sustainability of the entire society”, not just children.
“There is no democracy of facts.” Neal A. Maxwell. When words are
redefined the argument cannot be won - there can be no meaning when definitions
are changed for some type of perceived expediency. Without meaning there is no
understanding. Without understanding we are left to chaos and its attendant
violence. Hope you enjoy the chaos. It is here.State power was
upheld by the Supremes today. However, when the leaders of a state, like Cali,
choose their own judgment over the judgment of the majority of voters, what are
you left with? Democracy, or a republican-democracy it is not. Marriage was not
invented by government. I wonder why government believes it should even be
involved with it. Who is to say how many cents in a dollar, ounces in a pound,
or inches in a yard? Standards are the ideas of someone. Laws, natural or
statutory, are declarations by someone. "Our Constitution was
made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other." John Adams
Why do people who aren't LDS care what LDS Church leader's response
is? Why freak out that they didn't change their mind?Do you
really expect them to change church doctrine because of a Supreme Court ruling?
There are MANY things that are technically "legal" that Church Leaders
warn are not good for us.I doubt church doctrine is going to change
any time soon. But laws change all the time. It's nothing new. Just
because something becomes "Legal" doesn't mean the doctrine is no
longer true. We still shouldn't drink Alcohol (even though it's
legal). We still shouldn't be getting Abortions (even though it's
legal). This is no different.My concern is that the world is
getting closer and closer to a point where God is not going to stand for it (if
he really cares). And that affects us all.I wonder how long we
have left before we are ripe.
Moonton, at the time of Jesus, it was common for 12 year-olds to get married.
@Kate ... Jesus didn't say anything about pedophilia, either. And tyranny
of the minority harms far more people than does tyranny of the majority.
Let's clear up a little confusion here. It's forgotten that the
proponents of Prop 8 didn't want the State defending Prop 8. They
didn't trust the state and the state let them step in. They lost. At that
point, there is nothing, no law nor precedent that requires a defendant (The
State of California) to appeal a decision against them. There just isn't.
The State chose not to appeal. That is well within their right. It happens all
the time. In fact, if the State believes they will lose the appeal, the
conservative thing to do is not file for appeal.
American society is crumbling by the day. SSM isn't the cause; its a
symptom. With a 60% divorce rate, heterosexuals need no help destroying the
institution of marriage. Know the Scriptures, live them, and ride
out the storm.
@Blue AZ CougarBy the way (I should clear up any confusion I cause),
I'm not a church leader by any means, heck I'm not even a member, but
I figured I'd note Elder Clayton's statement since it seemed relevant
to what you were looking for.
@Blue AZ Cougar"At what point does someone's support of LGBT
groups (e.g. vocally, monetarily, etc.) result in a temple recommend not being
issued to that person?"Elder Whitney Clayton of the Seventy said
that members should feel free to disagree on the issue without fear of sanction.
So I don't think just providing vocal or monetary support to gay marriage
efforts, as far as civil law is concerned, is enough to deny a recommend.
Some of us seem to forget that the most sacred business of judges is not to
ratify the will of the majority but to protect the minority from its tyranny.
And Jesus did not say one word about homosexuality. Taxpaying, law-abiding
citizens all deserve equal rights under the eyes of the law.
Blue AZ CougarWhy do we have to default to the viewpoint of non-religious
folks? You don't, You just can't use your religion to dictate
what non-religious folks do, simple.We are not a theocracy or a pure
democracy, why do so many of you want the christian version of sharia law in
America?Cowboy Joe said it well: "Why is everyone getting so
worked up about this decision? It only deals with 4% of the population who have
same gender attractions."Other than using religious control
through legislation, to deprive a minority of equal treatment under the law.
Seriously, Why are so many LDS people so wound up about this anyway
issue?I mean -- If you truly know and understand LDS Doctrine,
You should be the very first to realize ALL marriages end at death - even the monogamous heterosexual ones.So, as LDS members, shouldn't we all know that Temple Sealings are the one only one's
the Lord counts anyway.And America is a NOT a Theocracy.Let
American's and our Government pass our laws, we obey them, and
let God have the final say so...Seriously -- Keep Government
and anyone else OUT of our bedrooms, houses, and the internet...
I find the fact that SCOTUS agreed to consider the merits of the DOMA case much
more troubling than the remanding of the prop 8 case. They have gutted the
"adverseness" requirement from Article III and have veered radically
from precedent in manufacturing a federal precedent that was already moot at a
lower level. Watch out for this maneuver in the future. SCOTUS may have a long
laundry list of issues for which it would join with a friendly administration to
contrive precedential effect, and for which it will assign weak dogs to argue
for the opposition of such issues.
If you read Roberts' opinion, he explained that the proponents of
Proposition 8 didn't have standing to intervene where the State was
choosing not to appeal the Federal District Court's decision. The reason
they didn't have standing is because they could not establish that they
(non-gays) would suffer any apparent or noticeable harm if the district
court's ruling to overturn Prop 8 took effect. That was the whole point of
the Federal District Court trial: straight folks won't suffer any harm if
gays start to get married. If the proponents could have shown how they would be
harmed by the decision, it is likely J. Roberts would have sided with the
dissenters and agreed that they had a right to appeal the decision and the Court
would have jurisdiction over the "controversy." They were given every
chance and opportunity to convince the rest of us that gay marriage would hurt
THEM. They couldn't come up with any argument at all. By dismissing the
case for lack of standing by the appellants, the Court basically found the same
thing that the Federal District Court judge found: if these folks get married,
what's it to you?
@tators: "Why should it be so disturbing to you or anyone else how Mormons
choose to spend their money?"Because their money wasn't
just an expression of free speech, it was also a fundamentally anti-American
attempt to strip rights and marriages from CA citizens. As an American, you
should be disturbed about it, too.
If I was the Church I would tell the feds then their requirement for statehood
banning plural marriage was unconstitutional and should be ignored. Just because
the rest of America didn't like that belief of the LDS religion. Yet
Muslims etc come to this country are turned a blind eye the fact that the too
practice plural marriage. Yes plural marriage is still practice in belief
marriage doesn't end at death so if a man remarries in the temple and is
sealed to more than one woman he is living plural marriage. If the gospel is to
be spread to all corners of the Earth as doctrine teaches the LDS church will
have to allow plural marriage otherwise how can that be fulfilled, you
can't say leave all your wives but one to join the church.
VERY TIMELY for our Local Church Leaders this past Sunday to Re-Affirmation
THEIR Commitment to Upholding the Document written in 1995: The Family-A
Proclamation to the World & felt it necessary for ALL members under their
leadership to hear their Testimony of it....“We, the First
Presidency & Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that Marriage Between A Man & A Woman
Is Ordained Of God......Children are Entitled to birth Within The Bonds Of
Matrimony, and to be Reared by A Father & A Mother......Gender is an
Essential Characteristic of INDIVIDUAL Premortal, Mortal, and Eternal Identity
& Purpose......We declare that God’s commandment for His
children to multiply and replenish the earth Remains In Force. We further
declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be
employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife...Further, we warn that the Disintegration of the Family will bring upon
Individuals, Communities, & Nations the Calamities FORETOLD by Ancient and
@RedShirtPresuppose these are already Gay/Lesbian LDS people. There
are already chaste Gay/Lesbian people in the Church. Would they be welcome to
the fellowship of the ward to worship God alongside other LDS people? I get the
feeling from these Older Gentleman in my HP group that there would be an issue.
@OutsideUT said: "Nef3 is right ... Granted, in these two cases the peopled
involved were not sued for refusal to provide services, but were sued over
"Violations Of Non-Discrimination Laws." This is not a
"disinformation campaign", but real life for the poor people
involved."You concede that these are discrimination suits. They
are based on sexual orientation discrimination which is illegal in many
jurisdictions. These suits would be the same with or without same-sex marriage.
Therefore both you and Nef3 are WRONG. Please stop trying to mislead
people. Be aware also, cases often cited in these dis-information campaigns are
outside the USA where laws are different. These distortions and warnings of
"consequences" are nothing more than an unfounded fear campaign.
Honest question for any LDS church leaders out there -- in the temple recommend
interview, people are asked the following question:"Do you
support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings
or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints?"At what point does someone's
support of LGBT groups (e.g. vocally, monetarily, etc.) result in a temple
recommend not being issued to that person?This is an honest
question, I'd appreciate only logical and sincere responses because
I'm genuinely curious about this.
@ ceciWhy do you get to dictate what is right and wrong based on
your absence of god and religion?What I don't understand in
this whole argument is that because my personal views happen to be impacted by
my commitment to religion, they're suddenly worth less than your opinion or
automatically discounted. Why do we have to default to the viewpoint of
non-religious folks? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Let's see, the foundation of this nation and the US Constitution is based
on personal and religious freedom. Clearly, a number of commenters have
forgotten their history while being so anti church or anti religion.
To "BYU Track Star" they will be welcomed, just as gay people have
always been welcomed. The issue will be what happens if they want to join the
@ceciYour incredible ignorance of the Mormon church and this issue is
laughable. Members of the LDS church number in the millions in California and
have entered into this debate according to the democratic process we espouse as
americans. They did not "bus people in". To disallow citizens of
California a voice would be the worst kind of discrimination. This
case is judicial activism at its worst. Read justice Scalia's dissent.
@ ceci:Why should it be so disturbing to you or anyone else how
Mormons choose to spend their money? The Church didn't use any general
funds in supporting Prop 8, nor did the buy an election as you asserted. They
asked members who were in agreement consider donating some time and money to
make sure others were better informed of the issues involved, since there was so
much misinformation being bantered about by pro-homosexual marriage groups.People are and should be free to spend their personal money anyway they
see fit. It's our right to further causes that are important to us. And as
long as it doesn't feel like a waste of money to us, why is then such a big
concern of yours? Those opposed to your ideologies don't go around trying
to tell you how to spend your money and what is and isn't a waste of your
money. Show the same consideration in return. I find it refreshing
that people will stand up and contribute their time and money for what they
believe is important... whether or not you agree with those beliefs. Please
don't be so judgmental.
Chief Justice Roberts said something very interesting on the judicial process of
this case. He said if they gave a non-state entity legal standing in enforcing
the California, law, that would be the first time in the history of the country.
If you think about it, there are literally thousands of unenforced laws on
state books. If the ruling went the other way, it would open the flood gates
and the courts would be overwhelmed with groups on both sides of the political
spectrum seeking the courts to enforce the laws. The role of enforcement
belongs to the executive branch and is part of the checks and balances system.
Gay marriage may be unpopular, but giving the judicial branch the power to
enforce laws would be terrible and would also make the Judicial Branch the most
powerful of the three. I think Justice Roberts understood that in writing the
Why is everyone getting so worked up about this decision? It only deals with 4%
of the population who have same gender attractions.
For those of you who feel like this is a violation of our Democracy, remember,
we aren't one.We are a Constitutional Republic.Majority rules does not apply here.
NoodlekaboodleYes, @Neph3's allegations are pure hogwash. Don't
know where he got that stuff, but it is typical of the dis-information campaigns
that have surrounded this issue. And Neph3...please do some
research...you will find that none of your silly allegations are true in the
Well things change, sorry. Polls in California show that 60% support
SS-marriage, 55% nationwide. Times are changing, attitudes are changing. The
LDS Church doesn't have to marry Homosexual couples, neither in their
churches nor in their Temples. There is no slippery slope that leads there, and
we all know it less we want to fall victim to typical logical fallacies. People
wont be legally marrying animals, a marriage is a contact and an animal cannot
enter into a contract. Polygamy? If they are consenting adults, not 14 child
brides, then who cares? Most rational people understand that Polygamy cannot
sustain itself anyway (unless your in a clan that systematically kicks the young
men out when they reach a certain age). My point is that there is way too much
unsubstantiated fear about marriage equality. I suggest we all work on our
marriages instead of worrying about the marriages of others.
Somewhere I read about "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents,
rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." We
live in a Republic - not a Democracy and the "will" of the voters is not
necessarily the end result and while the LDS Church may be troubled -
"troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system
operates" what happened today is the correct outcome of a Republican form of
Government - as Benjamin Franklin is quoted - “Well, Doctor, what have we
got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep
it.” Yes - we live in a Republic where the rights of the minorities are
protected even if the majority does not agree. Thank God for very wise founding
fathers - we could probabaly not write as good a Constitution today.
It will be interesting how LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY married gay and Lesbian Couples
will be welcomed in California's LDS block Ward meetings later this Summer.
Sitting in my High Priests quorum meeting recently there was talk of physically
ejecting couples who had the temerity of holding hands or putting there arms
around each other during worship services. I wonder if our ward's
inter-racial couples will have a sense of deja vu? Circa 1978
By saying that the Prop 8 defendants didn't have standing to bring their
case, SCOTUS is implicitly saying that straight people/religious people are NOT
HARMED by marriage equality. It doesn't mean that no citizens' group
can ever again challenge a law. Of course they can, as long as they can prove
they are harmed by it.As an elderly lesbian, returned LDS
missionary, former Gospel Doctrine teacher, etc. I take exception with those in
this forum who are attempting to denigrate my relationship with my
legal-in-some-states wife. She means as much to me as your spouses mean to you.
We are no more degenerate or immoral than are you. Our marriage was a solemn
demonstration of our love, loyalty and fidelity to one another, and we'd
appreciate it if you would please pause before demeaning it and us.
aside from the 'separation of church and state' (aka keeping civil
actions/rules separate from religious beliefs and rules), the inclusion of yet
another "rule" for application among the throngs of variants we have
within the peoples of this nation seems just another attempt from some to
control what other's do and think. most civil law is based upon the
concept of reducing damage to another, in effect to preserve life, liberty and
'happiness'. this law seems to provide nothing of the sort, other than
to preserve the change that is obstructed by the existing religious legacy. (of
which much of our current laws have reflected for many years). its a piddling
issue, until someone has their own strict and personal life 'harmed'
by the concept of these unions, which, in large part simply does not happen or
occur. (unless it serves some other purpose??) live long, prosper
and let the grass grow high, life is short enough as it is! ;-))
@Neph3Is this in america? I'm pretty sure the conservative media
empire would have made us aware if that was at all true. But if it is PLEASE let
us know where to find this. It sounds a bit, um, bogus.
Inis Magrath"I'll believe the Church's statement is true
only when they spend millions and millions trying to make divorce
illegal."The Church does spend millions and millions trying to
strengthen traditional families, but making divorce illegal would have no impact
on family adhesion.
@BikeBoy"I'm not aware of ANY organization that focuses more on
"helping traditional married couples" than the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints."Only if you're a mormon. If your not a mormon
they don't really care that much.
To those who say that SSM does not affect others' marriages, I say that it
will:A 2012 survey sponsored by the pro-gay Williams Institute of
UCLA: LGBT people make up 6.4% of the US population aged 18-29, but only 1.9% of
those over the age of 65. SSA youth are assumed to adopt the identify and
lifestyle, but those who do not wish to do so will have fewer recourses and
options. If they are in my family then, yes, it affects my marriage.My children will be indoctrinated by public educators, news media, and pop
culture to believe the church is discriminatory for not recognizing gay
marriage. This will create conflict in my home and family.As has
been shown in Europe (France being the latest), wherever gay marriage is
approved, traditional marriage is on the decline. If we can expect the same in
the US, then yes, this will affect my family, my children and grandchildren.
While correlation is not necessarily the same as causation, the two are at least
Why don't you pray about it?....don't like that idea? Why
>Gay people already live as couples. The fact that this may now be called
marriage does not affect any hetro sexual >marriage one way or the other.Of course it does!!!! Already some pastors were jailed for being against
calling gay unions "marriages". Gay activist already want to revoke
non-profit status of religions which wouldn't extend marriage to gays. As
soon as the civil marriage is settled there will be room for open confrontations
with religion, compulsory teaching in public schools about two mothers or two
fathers (against scientific facts). In the same way unborn child is defined as
"non-human" and whether it can live or not is a "matter of
choice." Once you introduce new rules, this leads to inevitable
confrontation in the name of "progress".
"Ranch Hand" is wrong and "Bill in Nebraska" has it right.The only thing that really matters, is the Word of God; what He has said will
happen, will happen.
To JanSan of Idaho.You have no rights to interfere with
California's Sovereign Rights and elections. You do not pay California
State Taxes, Property Taxes, nor do you reside in California. Just as California
has no right to interfere in Idaho's (or Utah's for that fact)
Sovereign State's Laws. PERIOD. Tend to your own house without interfering
in another's house.
I applaud the churches stance, five members of the supreme court saw an
opportunity to revel in a moment of praise from the "Me" generation and
@SpindlethumbYes I have heard of cases like that and as a professional in
the justice system I have handled plenty of the same types of cases you refer to
with homosexual couples. Homosexual couples are not all you paint them to be.
Yes there are plenty of bad homosexual parents but the majority of those are not
in a committed relationship but rather go from partner to partner. The breakdown
of traditional marriage and familial relationships has been a long-time process
and only continues with this decision. Biblical calamities have been evident
with the breakdown of the family and will continue to build as society puts God
in the rear-view mirror.
I drink the delicious tears of the immortal conservatives!Victory is
even sweeter, with their bitter moaning!But a condemnation and a
question: Shame on the California supreme court for giving away a State's
Right to tort or right to legal liability since the State decided not to support
an appeal? Giving sway of Sovereign State's Rights to out-of-state or
private entities with no real skin in the game is pretty low. Now that there is
an established federal supreme court ruling upholding precedence that non-state
or private citizen entities have no legality to represent any other sovereign
state for a sovereign state issue, how is it that these non-state entities are
going to attempt another run about through the courts? I always thought a
precedence superseded all subsequent rulings..
Why is there a thing wrong with declaring marriage to mean between a man and a
woman. I do not wish to deny gay or lesbian couples any civil rights. They can
have insurance privileges,inheritance privileges, whatever it is that makes them
feel like they need to not be a second class citizen. But the word marriage has
a specific meaning to me. Let them use a different term to describe a union
betwen two people of the same gender. Make it whatever they want to call it, but
God said that marriage is between a man and a woman and that definition should
stand. It's not about discrimination. It is about basic definition. I know
gay couples and respect their rights and allow them their point of view. So why
can they not also bend a little and accept full rights without the word marriage
Michael Otterson said:"Many Californians will wonder if there is
something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a
popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."Didn't Mike get the memo? Civil rights were NEVER up for popular
vote, and so long as our Democratic form of government exists, civil rights will
never be up for popular vote!Where did this guy get his education?
The Perez decision analogy is hogwash.1-It was a California Supreme
Court decision. That is very different than a Federal District Court.2-the main reason it is hogwash, is that the issues involved in defending a
voter passed initiative that the government officials not only opposed, but
opposed even at the trial court, and defending a law passed by the legislature
are totally different.Also, the comparisons of laws not based on
biological facts to those based on the structural reality of marriage is made
solely with the attempt to delegitimatize ones opponents and ignore the fact
that their arguments come from a deep structural definition of what marriage is.
The LDS Church, as an organization, did not "fund" or "buy"
results of Prop 8. In fact, during its campaign, I lived in California and
attended church there. There was a rather stern letter that was read over the
pulpit from the leadership of the church that they would IN NO WAY sway ANY
member to vote in according to the church. We were urged to decide for ourselves
and vote how we thought, **individually,** would be appropriate. There were, in
fact, a huge outpouring of non-members to any and all rallies and protests that
were led OR attended by *local* LDS members.And honestly, I'm
glad the Fed Gov't is pulling out of marriage entirely. My irritation with
the developments of Prop 8 is a State's willingness to overturn a popular
vote to further an agenda. I'd be angry at an overturn of ANY prop that
passed by popular vote. States should be able to decide for themselves how their
state should be run, not by ANY government bureaucrat, local or federal. If popular vote doesn't matter, really what voice do We The People
Can anyone of you who believe that gays should not be married argue it without
religion?The United States is NOT a theocracy and unless all of you
religious folks can decide on which religion is the One religion that all of you
agree on, then you really have no argument. Will the LDS Church join with the
wesboro baptist or will the Catholics accept sharia law? Good luck
in the future, cause your kids don't care who loves who.My father was
a believer in not marrying outside your race, none of his children carry on this
Considering that under the conditions it had the trial court found religious
animus, the involvement of the LDS Church in the trial proceedings would have
made the ruling if possible even more antagonistic to religious freedom.This of course also presupposes there was a way the Church could have
been involved. Such is not likely based on the actual nature of the laws.As it was, there were very reasoned briefs for the man/woman marriage
side that the judge ignored, so it is unclear that there was much that could
have been done to change the outcome.
--- "the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional
marriage between a man and a woman."Prop 8 had nothing to do
with "strengthening traditional marriage." I'll believe the
Church's statement is true only when they spend millions and millions
trying to make divorce illegal. Otherwise, it is obvious "strengthening
traditional marriage" was not their motivation in the Prop 8 case, but
merely animus towards and against LGBT Americans.
The definition of marriage is about the meaning of the term. To claim it is
about rights is to presuppose a certain understanding of marriage, an
understanding not compatible with how it actually functions.The
government endorsement of a ceremony that people object to on moral groups will
create a conflict between individual conscience and the government as we have
seen in Washington. Government recognition of a system means more
government involvement, which runs against certain forms of liberty.Under Proposition 8 people in California are free to have whatever same-sex
commitment ceremonies they chose. The government does not stop these. The only
difference is the government does not seek to proactively force others to
participate in them, as it does in Washington.
Trust in The Lord, follow the Prophet, and keep the commandments and your
covenants...you'll be just fine at the last day.
To ceciIt is not only Mormons(LDS) who believe that this is wrong. And we
can and have every right to say and vote for what we believe is true! At least
at this time. Until you and people like you take that right away from us also.
It was NOT only the LDS church that stood by its beliefs in California but
people from BOTH sides sent money and help in many ways. Look at all the help
the TV stars gave with their opinions in commercials on TV and in shows! put all
that money together and it would most likely outway what the church gave plus
all the monies sent in from people for their side. Even some LDS people helped
out. The problem as I see it, is the people took a vote and the government
overrode the vote of the people. This is not longer a country "Of the
people" The supreme court proved that point and that is what really worries
@CloudsAreGood;Wow, you certainly have an Orwellian way of putting
things, don't you.Tyranny is when the majority denies the same
basic privileges they enjoy to the minority. Accepting that others want to
marry (and can do so without your approval) is NOT tyranny.It was
"intolerant" to vote for Prop-8 and deny GLBT couples the rights you
enjoy.It was "intolerant" to vote for Amendment-3 and deny GLBT
couple the rights you enjoy.And YOU accuse US of intolerance.
Please read your New Testament to see the exact words that Jesus Himself used
about the hypocrite.
I'm thankful that my church leadership is "irrevocably" clear on
the matter. Fairly hard to find an anchor these days.
For those who say this will not destroy this country: Here is proof that it
will: "And hesaid: THus saith the Lord God - Cursed sahll be the land, yea,
this land (USA), unto every nation, kindred,m tounge and people, unto
destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe; and as I have said so
shall it be; for this is the cursing and the blessing of God upon the land, for
the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." The
Supreme Court of this land failed to uphold the divinely inspired Constitution
of the United States and thus has set the stone rolling that will ultimately
destroy this nation as a whole.However, thank you for speeding up
the day of which the Lord Jesus Christ shall come and rule over his entire
creation, when righteousness in all its glory shall reign upon the earth and the
wicked shall be utterly destroyed. I look forward now to that day when the Lord
shall be king of the whole earth. Thank you for speeding that up but shame on
for destroying this great nation. It is a sad day to be an American.
Shame, Shame on the corrupt courts for their decision! So many of you
here are missing the whole point--The courts have just said, "We don't
care what YOU the people vote for! We're going to rule the way WE (the
corrupt judges) want!"This is a REPUBLIC, or at least it started out
that way, and we are quickly losing ground to those who wish to destroy this
great nation. And in all great societies past, the break-down of the
traditional family was the beginning of their fall. Freedom of choice is
marvelous, but what are you chosing? What consequences are coming because of
Utah Democrat: "... perhaps focusing on helping traditional married couples
instead of expending resources attacking the legal protections of families
outside the flock would be a better way to demonstrate such commitment."I'm not aware of ANY organization that focuses more on "helping
traditional married couples" than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed
to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for
thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing
children."--says the Heterosexual Guy. @bandersen: People should
be allowed to choose. In the end, we get judged for it. Remember that there is a
judgement. As an LDS person, its hard for me to be threatened by a
gay couple. How could two people that love each other and want to solemnize
that in marriage hurt me? I'm glad we have laws that protect people.
Anti-same sex marriage laws don't seem to protect anyone. Unless you assume
all homosexuals are deviants out to hurt people. Otherwise, let people make
decisions, or choices, and let us live out he consequences, both good and bad.
Gay people already live as couples. The fact that this may now be called
marriage does not affect any hetro sexual marriage one way or the other. The
fact that it might hurt heterosexual marriage is an illogical argument the only
people who let others do their thinking could believe.A better
argument against allowing gay marriage would be that it makes it more difficult
to deny homosexuals adopting children. Children should have a mother and a
father.Yetfor the most part does fighting homosexual marriage seem
oblivious to this.
It is terrible to build stable society on exceptions. Marriage was created on
the ability to procreate children. Healthy societies put children in focus. Then
the argument came: not all heterosexual couples can procreate. This opened a
road to homosexual marriages and bisexual marriages. The culture of
contraception made children marginal to who can marry for hospital visitations,
inheritance, tax breaks etc. The results are devastating. Schools
must teach that child can have 2 fathers, two mothers etc. The biological
principle how children are conceived, and why would they care about biological
parents is swept under the carpet. This "revolution" continues while
Europe becomes depopulated and importing people who have no intent to
assimilate. America hangs by a hair by importing South Americans who are behind
on the "progressive ideas" such as abortion, contraception and divorce.
Their children still matter.
Justice Roberts: "'States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to
private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal
courthouse,' Roberts said from the bench."Shame on the
California Supreme Court for gerrymandering the limits of their authority so as
to hand over the legal reigns to out-of-state or private entities in order to
reign over the State's Sovereign Right to pursue/not pursue tort or the
infringement of a right to legal liability.The California Supreme
Court shamefully opened the door to any state trying to influence the elections
of another Sovereign State's Rights and Privileges in conflict with
State's Sovereign Rights.
Wilf 55:The respect for the voice of the people or "vox
populi" is a tradition that extends far beyond the rise of modern
democracies. History (and the Book of Mormon) teaches that we avoid it at our
own peril. "Equality for all" isn't a coherent
principle at all, especially when taken as absolute. Should men and women be
treated absolutely equal in all things? Equality when taken as an absolute
means identical or the same. Will we have affirmative action for men, who are
now a minority in many graduate programs? With the lines blurring between
genders and same-sex marriage becoming the norm, there will be serious
repercussions to this decision, especially in the area of family law.
It's tiring reading that it is the fault of religion that people don't
accept homosexual acts. Most humans through all of recorded history have viewed
homosexual acts negatively, not just religious groups. People need to be able
to view things as moral or immoral as long as they are also tolerant of these
others, don't harm anyone, etc. This has always been the best way for a
society to run. From what I can tell, the LGBT community is the one not being
tolerant of others and is forcing their views on people no matter what (with the
name calling and not acknowledging the basic human thoughts and history on the
subject that one can find on the internet every day). This is called tyranny.
The war in the pre-existence goes on! Choice is God's ultimate gift, but
to say he doesn't care about the choices you make would be a farce. God
has Standards, although from the responses here, many of them LDS, you'd
think he was up there saying, "Yea, go ahead, do anything you
want--all's good! Your agency matters, far more than choices. All's
"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed
to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for
thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing
children."This is the most amusing part, considering the amount
of unwanted children born to heterosexual couples every single day. They either
get put in foster care, or the parents keep them only to abuse them physically,
emotionally, and possibly sexually. The amount of effort homosexual
couples have to put in to conceive through a surrogate, or the trouble we have
to go through to be allowed to adopt proves that homosexuals actually care about
their children, or we wouldn't bother.Sure, there are plenty of
heterosexual parents out there who love their children unconditionally and would
never do any of the things I've mentioned, but have you -ever- read an
article about a homosexual couple putting their kid up for adoption, throwing
their kid in a dumpster, or murdering their kid because it won't stop
crying? No. You haven't.
From an international point of view for the Church, the principle that the
popular vote reflects the views of a majority of the citizens and should
therefore be upheld is a risky and often untenable standpoint.
"Democracy" does not always lead to just decisions, like putting the
Mormon church on the list of dangerous cults, or denying Latter-day Saints equal
treatment with other religions, or refusing missionaries the right to preach.
"Equality for all" is a principle one cannot elect to follow in some
cases, and not in others.
Church doctrine does not run the US Constitution. If it did, there would be
disputes between all the religions as to whose religious beliefs should run
secular government.The LDS Church can stand by their principles but
they do not guide California's secular government. The LDS Church does not
need to solemnize civil secular marriage of same sex couples. Until Jesus
himself comes to runs things, we will have to rely on this secular Constitution
which protects tyranny of the majority. It has protected both sides of the
political spectrum as it was designed to do. You win some you lose some.
We need to remove all references to marriage and children from the federal tax
code. It's only fair.
It is indeed disturbing that the Constitution keeps being used as a springboard
to overturn votes, over and over again, to go with whatever is popular or
socially acceptable at a given time. At this point, after seeing more and more
decisions like this over the decades, I no longer have any confidence in our
voting system. The presidential race has been a joke for some time and the
electoral college decides anyway, so there's not really anything left
anymore. Personally, I could care less what people do in their own bedrooms, but
to say it's a good decision because of individual rights is not totally
correct. Children who are adopted into LGBT homes have no say in this social
experiment. All of us are born into families without our say, sure, but what is
going on is indeed a social experiment.
What if my god says it's ok to allow gays and lesbians to marry? The US is
NOT a Theocracy and we are certainly not a Mormon Theocracy. Mormon's
cannot dictate what is right and wrong based on their god and religion.
if you try to make the world like the church you end up making the church like
the world - Tim Keller
The people of the United States, through their elected members in federal
Congress assembled, decided that marriage is between one man and one woman for
federal purposes.The people of the State of California, directly
through their own state's initiative process, decided that marriage is
between one man and one woman for California state purposes.In
California the people side-stepped their Legislature because it was unresponsive
to them.In both cases government continued unresponsive. President
Obama refused to defend DOMA and in California the governor and attorney general
refused to defend Art. I, §7.5 of the California Constitution (enacted by
Prop 8).So. Who decides?We should not have been put
through this last period of time, waiting for, of all things, nine persons in
black robes in Washington, D.C. to decide so fundamental a question as whether
to change the very definition of the most fundamental institution in society.Justice Scalia said it well: "[T]he Court has cheated both sides,
robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes
from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better."The debate is
far from over.
You might want to do some research on how being gay is not a choice. Even the
LDS church doesn't say that anymore. (See the gays and Mormons website the
church created.) And according to church doctrine, Satan's plan had nothing
to do with marriage. It was about taking away choices. Isn't that what you
are doing if you take away people's ability to choose who they want to
marry? And if one man and one woman is the best way to raise
children, does that mean all the polygamous ancestors some Mormons have were all
awful parents and all their children were deprived? I think the church is
forgetting it's own history of different marriage practices in their zeal
to defend their own status quo. I believe Hugh Nibley called that kind of
attitude "zeal without knowledge" and suggested that zeal should be
tempered with wisdom.That wisdom and understanding of one's own history is
sorely lacking in this statement.
As a Californian, I found it disturbing that the Mormon Church spent so much
money trying to defeat a measure and influence in my State. This is
fundamentally unfair since it involved tens of millions of dollars ($11,000,000)
raised by the Mornom church and, I believe, busing in people. After Prop 8
passed and opponents of it held a candlelight vigil, the new here even
interviewed a 10 year old child who stood in protest of the vigil - she spewed
the Mormon line of gay marriage being wrong. Mormon's are free to believe
what they want, but why hurt others and buy elections? It's despicable.
Californians should be the ones to decide, not outside interest groups. And,
Religious groups should quit meddling in issues that so drastically take away
the basic rights and human needs of individuals.
"Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong
when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects
the views of a majority of their citizens."Well, it is nice to
see that the LDS church doesnt understand how the supreme court functions. If
something is unconstitutional, you cant defend it.
Ok, this tone-deaf reaction was to be expected, but LDS Church will eventually
change their minds. Once again, they will be well behind the curve, but
hopefully they will be swinging sometime before 2078.
Marriage of same-sex couples isn't going to destroy this country. It is
people who want to claim that their "god says so" who are going to
destory this country.
In the end, America is just a piece of land, and laws are just ideas that have
been written down.
Hate to say it, but the legalization of Gay marriage is something that'll
most likely destroy this country. Now look, I have no problem with
people being gay. Because to me, it's their choice. But the fact that
society is telling us that we basically have to accept them is what's
wrong. I'm against racism, however, while I really think it's wrong
that there's some people who don't accept afircan americans and I
think it's messed up, I don't believe that they should be forced to
agree or accept my view. This is just an attack on marriage, which
is Satans plan in the first place.
@Larry ChandlerThe difference is, the Constitution protects freedom
of religion, but it does not mention marriage.From a legal
standpoint, just like all business entities, marriage is regulated by the
states. For example, you can't marry your sibling, for instance, or have
two legal spouses. Marriage therefore is not a 'civil right' as many
claim, open to whomever wishes to enter into the contract. It is a legal,
contracted relationship approved and regulated by individually separate
states.Further, as a state-regulated entity, the people of the state
have every right to decide on how marriage is in fact regulated in their
jurisdiction.Where the *real* conflict is if the people of a state
attempt to change the definition of marriage into a 'new' type of
relationship (man-man, or woman-woman, or something else), and then tries to
force religious institutions to recognize and perform marriage types which are
in contradiction with their teachings.Many will say don't worry
about such a thing. But watch out. It is coming. It's already happening
among military chaplains.
Interesting that the church position, justified as a moral imperative, has
devolved into concerns about "complex jurisdictional issues."As for the church remaining "irrevocably committed to strengthening
traditional marriage..." perhaps focusing on helping traditional married
couples instead of expending resources attacking the legal protections of
families outside the flock would be a better way to demonstrate such commitment.
"...their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects
the views of a majority of their citizens."The majority should
never be allowed to vote on minority civil rights issues, for obvious reasons.
If the majority can vote to take away rights from a minority of United States
Citizens our constitution means nothing.
The state of California also declined to appeal the Perez vs. Sharp decision,
which outlawed anti-miscegenation laws in the state in 1948. By declining to
appeal this California State Supreme Court ruling, the US Supreme Court never
considered it, thus overturning California's law barring interracial
marriage.Would Mr Otterson also deem that legal process as "flawed"??f
Though I imagine that from the 1940s until well into the 1980s, the LDS Church
would have filed a friend of the court brief in favor of retaining legal
barriers to interracial marriage. The 1978 issue of Ensign which announced the
end of the priesthood ban for blacks also contained an article advising against
Re: Larry ChandlerI think you used an apples to oranges comparison.
Changing traditional marriage is different from outlawing a certain religion.
One thing I am sure of. If the people of California, or Utah for that matter,
voted to disallow Muslims, or Catholics, or athiests, ect. the LDS Church would
be against it.
The state of California had an obligation to defend Prop 8 and refused to do so.
That's further evidence that government is corrupt. When government fails
to follow its own laws, what do you expect?I praise the LDS Church for
having the integrity to make a bold statement today. It's refreshing.
I think this statement highlights why this is such a disturbing decision. It is
actually more disturbing, because the fact that in one county in California
there were government officials willing to defend the law is ignored.This was a horrible decision. What the Supreme Court should have done, if they
really thought as some claimed that it should not weigh in on such issues, is to
hold that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents man/woman marriage
being defined as the standard of marriage. That is a straightforward and
defendable decision, which in no way prevents those who wish to change it from
doing so through normal democratic means.Letting the ruling by a
district judge stand, especially this ruling, which exhibits a large amount of
animus toward religion, was the worst possible decision. Especially in light of
the California Supreme Court ruling that those who appealed did have standing
under California laws. This will allow elected officials to ignore
the will of the people in referendum cases even more.
What was fundamentally wrong is that at the trial court level, the Mormon Church
left the defense of Prop 8 to others who failed to put on a case. The garbage in
garbage out rule applies to judicial proceedings.
"Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong
when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects
the views of a majority of their citizens."And would the church
be ok if people voted to disallow Mormonism? Or are there rights that cannot and
should not be voted on?
"which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for
nurturing children." President Monson speaks for God, so Mormons
believe.Catholics like myself believe Pope Francis speaks for GodEither way, I know which side I'm on.