Roe V Wade of Marriage

[Just_A_Guy]

If a said is taught that no matter what they are never going to be anything but a group that's expected to do something, then why should they do different, it's what they are expected to do and no one will have any faith they might be different.

Indeed. Unfortunately, social liberalism's track record is against it. Liberals, quite frankly, have a track record of exceeding their stated objectives. I'd be foolish to believe their protestations of "thus far, and no farther" in a case that so proximately implicates my own religious rights.

I do wish Mormons had earlier gotten behind some sort of "marriage-for-explicit-constitutional-amendment-safeguarding-religion" swap--I think it might have worked, at one point, and I think it would have solved much of the issue. Relatively recently I floated a variant of the idea to a libertarian-leaning forum I frequent, and the near-universal response was "what makes you think your backward practices deserve constitutional protection"? And this was libertarians, for heaven's sake!

As for taking it as "submit or else" It's nothing of the sort, it's more stop throwing stones and when you need help we might not throw stones back. A lot of the fear tactics used in the campaign were just that. if it had been a battle of fact with no fear used on either side then i think moderates on both sides would have not gotten as involved and there might not be the ripple effect that will come on both sides in the future.

I agree mostly; though I think it incorrect to blame the Prop 8 supporters for initiating the acrimony.

But, Soulsearcher, you've said something that worries me. You mention Mormonism "throwing stones", and earlier you appear to have given 1978 as an example where Mormonism's bringing blacks into full fellowship helped to remedy the damage of our earlier stone-throwing. But the thing is, Mormonism's history with civil rights is nothing like its history with gay rights. There were no political campaigns; no requests for votes or civic cooperation; no warnings of the parade of horrors to follow if Martin Luther King got his way (there were, I think, some over-the-pulpit allegations of linkage between some civil rights activists and communism--which, to a very limited extent turned out to be right--but those were done in the context of warning against communism, not civil rights). Really, the pre-1978 "stone-throwing" boils down to theological statements made by Mormons, to Mormons, within the confines of Mormon churches.

So when you say everything will be OK if Mormons only stop "throwing stones", I have to ask 1) what do you really mean by "throwing stones", and 2) will gay-rights activists a generation or two from now, stand by that definition without seeking to broaden it?

We both have to realize we don't trust the other side. You said my opinion doesn't resonate with you. I feel the same. Neither side trusts the other because neither side have ever been straightforward and completely upfront. We've both used arguments that do nothing but damage the credibility of the other side. This has been going on since long before prop 8, but that was the most public showing. A large part of what made prop 8 worse i think is who we made the choice to stand beside. The moderate quite side of the gay element stood beside the stereo types, the loudest most arrogant people who lost site of what this was all about a long time ago. The LDS stood beside people who didn't have moral objections, but truly hate gays, who were there just out of hate and fear. It didn't help either side but we are associated with the worst elements and from that point we can't shake the stigma.

Amen, amen, and amen. Quite bluntly, what both sides need to start doing is to offer compromises that will force the other side to put their money where their mouth is. Utah's Common Ground initiatives were, I thought, a great step in this direction. I thought there were some hidden traps in the way some of them were worded, but the Church really shot itself in the foot by not encouraging the passage of an amended version of those bills. At least it wound up coming out in favor of the domestic partnership ordinance in SLC.

IMHO, Mormonism needs to start proactively endorsing state-law alternatives short of marriage to remedy the very real problems gay couples currently face; and it should start trying to broker a Constitutional initiative explicitly applying 14th Amendment (and possibly Civil Rights Act) protections to gays while also clarifying that, with regard to the religious practices of churches and individuals, the First Amendment trumps the Fourteenth.

(Quite bluntly, I think the bulk of the gay rights lobby will never sign on to that kind of deal. But even if it fails, it will have unmasked the movement's true motivations and intentions.)

Edited August 8, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[ADoyle90815]

Churches have never been, or ever will be forced to perform marriages they don't support, and that includes gay marriages.

[Just_A_Guy]

Churches have never been, or ever will be forced to perform marriages they don't support, and that includes gay marriages.

Hmm. Let's change that to:

Churches have never been, or ever will be forced to perform marriages they don't support, and that includes interracial marriages.

Discuss.

[Soulsearcher]

So when you say everything will be OK if Mormons only stop "throwing stones", I have to ask 1) what do you really mean by "throwing stones", and 2) will gay-rights activists a generation or two from now, stand by that definition without seeking to broaden it?

To me throwing stones is by using fear tactics. If gay marriage happens then all these horrible things will come to pass. None of it is proven, none of it has solid proof backing it, but it scared people. Coming from a country that has gay marriage and not seeing any of these evil things and noticing the total lack of huge political issues over it on either side up here, makes me wonder why paint the other side so bad when you have nothing to support it. A few random law suits and such by fanatics to make a point doesn't define the whole position. The arguments that we'd damage the population was silly because it didn't make sense. Gay marriage is legal so the entire majority of child bearing people are going to go gay? Population will take a major plummet? Does that sounds reasonable really considering homosexuals have been around a long time and population still grows? We are out to get your kids was another tactic. Is that really responsible campaigning? Vote down gay marriage so gays don't turn your kids gay? Honestly it went two fold, portray the gay people as targeting peoples kids and trying to convert them which horrifies good christian families, but also dismisses and reinforces the stance there is no biological component, as to which there is not enough proof on either sides to state fact. Just as i consider us possibly trying to force ourselves into religion having to accept us as throwing a stone as well as some of our other arguments, using fear and not facts to me was akin to throwing stones instead of fighting an honest campaign, something neither side did as well.

I don't liken the stance to blacks in the priesthood to tossing stones, just compare it to a political black eye that people don't want to understand, they just tend to hold it against the church on appearance basis.

I honestly can't speak for future generations. I can speak for what i try to say to people on both sides and what i will and won't defend. You can't promise that there will never be a push to take things away from us. You can say that history shows it's not likely, but a lot has happened that a lot of people thought might never happen. I won't speak for what future generation will or won't do. I will speak to what i'd like them to do and what i will put my energy into trying to get them to see and understand.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Just_A_Guy]

To me throwing stones is by using fear tactics.

I think there was a mix of totally inappropriate claims, along with some that had some kernels of truth--probably not worth parsing them out here, except as below:

Just as i consider us possibly trying to force ourselves into religion having to accept us as throwing a stone as well as some of our other arguments. . .

I do think there's something to that, though the Prop 8 supporters drew that link poorly and, in some cases, disingenuously (in fairness, it's a hard case to make in a thirty-second sound-byte). I've gone over it in more detail a few times here, drawing especially on Elaine Huguenin's fate in New Mexico. The main responses I've heard are "we would never do that", silence, or (my personal favorite) the "well, you shouldn't really be allowed to do that anyways" argument.

I don't liken the stance to blacks in the priesthood to tossing stones, just compare it to a political black eye that people don't want to understand, they just tend to hold it against the church on appearance basis.

I appreciate the clarification. It seems, though, that my point stands--as long as Mormon theology is what it is, we aren't going to make any friends (or legal allies) just because, from a legal standpoint, we decide to drop the fight and welcome our new gay-marriage overlords.

I honestly can't speak for future generations. I can speak for what i try to say to people on both sides and what i will and won't defend.

I appreciate your candor.

You can't promise that there will never be a push to take things away from us. You can say that history shows it's not likely, but a lot has happened that a lot of people thought might never happen.

I agree. What I'm going off of, though, is a) (I'll be honest here) which contingency will hurt me more, and b) which contingency is more likely based on the way our government currently treats other "bigoted" groups, the foundation of the constitutional jurisprudence that has already been laid in conjunction with what is being laid now, and the stated objectives of some of the more extreme self-professed gay-rights activists.

As I pointed out earlier, conservatives haven't yet managed to resurrect slavery. But liberals have managed to get children taken out of homes on the basis that they were being indoctrinated with racist or sexist ideas. Given the way the cultural winds are blowing, I think we'll see governments pronouncing Mormons to be unfit parents in toto before you see the restoration and enforceability of the old anti-sodomy statutes.

[Soulsearcher]

I'll admit I'm mixed on the Elaine Huguenin case. If she and her husband clearly advertised they were Christian and that they operated their business based only on Christian beliefs, i think the case should have been tossed. If they advertised and then brought people in and said, " oh I'm sorry we won't take your business even thought we advertised we will and then changed when we found out who you are" I don't think it was quite right, and yes I'm biased i'll admit it. In the old days is a black person went into a white only place of business it was pretty clear what was going to happen, but if you are advertising to everyone and then someone comes in and expects to be treated fair, to me there is an issue. But as has been previously said people should have the right to limit who they serve, i just think they need to be upfront from the get go when they market themselves.

Now you use this case and as i say I'm mixed on the results of it, i agree with the finding and disagree, but then we also have to look at other possible cases on the other side. People have lost their living spaces for being gay, lost their jobs, and I'm sure lost other things, and this is still supported and championed in some places. There's resistance from conservatives against changing these things. People on this forum want civil unions gone or restricted so gays get none of the same government assistance. So we have seen conservatives fight with a lot of power to prevent even things you think are reasonable. So while you see a liberal agenda that seems to keep moving forward, I see a conservative base that's split on something as simple as gays being able to have a living space they have no real reason to be tossed out of, or keeping a job they are qualified for but fired because of what they do in private. Both sides see things very different in "what the current trend is". We respond to what we perceive is happening to us and what's going on around us that might affect us or might not. As for slavery I'm not sure i've seen a push for it recently, but the fact it might not be around could have something to do with the fact over time conservatives saw " oops, you know owning another person just might never have been right" How long have liberals really been fighting for stricter gun control and really they've made almost no real progress, some might disagree, but again i come from a country with gun control and as some one who's been raised with fire arms I've never had an issue. Conservatives have been able to stall or put off a lot of things and drag them out into very long battles, yes they have lost some, but they haven't lost all of them.

I do understand the concerns and see exactly where you are coming from, but as always there is a flip side that while it may seem negligible, there can be something to it. As silly as it may seem to me that religion might be forced to accept this within their congregations, i can't rule it out, just as it might seem silly that we might end up on the hit list might seem silly to you, but you can't rule it out. I think the view of the SCOTUS is an example. These people set the tone for the country. conservatives and liberals alike want the deck stacked so their way of life becomes the way of life, i find both sides tend to care less about what is actually right and more wants this body to act more on their moral standing. That scares me a lil for both sides to be honest.

[Moksha]

Moksha has just shown why, regardless of the actual political position the Church takes, it will never see gays springing to its aid in any palpable manner. There may be individual gays such as yourself (and GaySaint, whom I find to be eminently reasonable) who would be willing to cut such a deal, but I doubt that will be the case for long. That's the trouble with liberalism's inexorable march leftwards--today's moonbats are tomorrow's mainstream progressives.

JAG, I think a distinction should be made between a group who would probably not befriend us because of the position we have taken regarding homosexual behavior and making outright enemies because they perceive that we are conducting an actual vendetta against them.

For many in the world, there is something sympathetic about supporting a misunderstood and persecuted minority (Mormons). They tend to want to offer friendship and support for the downtrodden. These people are called liberals.

However, when we shift gears from a persecuted minority to a persecuting minority, we tend to lose sympathy and gain enemies. This by no means is good for a Church who wants to follow Jesus in meekness, peace making and love for God and the other. The religious ideal gets lost in the persecuting and ideology.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'll admit I'm mixed on the Elaine Huguenin case. If she and her husband clearly advertised they were Christian and that they operated their business based only on Christian beliefs, i think the case should have been tossed. If they advertised and then brought people in and said, " oh I'm sorry we won't take your business even thought we advertised we will and then changed when we found out who you are" I don't think it was quite right, and yes I'm biased i'll admit it.

There's a lot of sense in what you say--in fact, I wonder to what extent it might already be covered by truth-in-advertising law. But, interestingly, the practical result would be that we'd see a rise in advertisements saying "Christians only" or "no gays" or what have you. It would certainly be jarring to start seeing that.

People have lost their living spaces for being gay, lost their jobs, and I'm sure lost other things, and this is still supported and championed in some places. There's resistance from conservatives against changing these things.

Yeah; though I think a lot of that is based more in libertarian instinct than in animus towards any particular group. I would like to think that when you get into the public sector, other than marriage, most conservatives would be pretty open-minded to the idea that you shouldn't lose government bennies or jobs simply by virtue of being gay. But within the private sector, rent and employment are just other forms of commerce and conservatives are going to prefer a hands-off attitude for economic reasons, not moral ones.

People on this forum want civil unions gone or restricted so gays get none of the same government assistance. So we have seen conservatives fight with a lot of power to prevent even things you think are reasonable.

Yeah; I think much of that is due to people not wanting their tax dollars or some hint of moral approval given to such unions. Frankly, I think we need to re-think the legal benefits that go with marriage (and even civil unions), and probably get rid of most of them. (Most of them were ultimately designed to encourage procreation; I think we ought to give them directly to the people--gay or straight--who are actually raising kids, rather than to the people who are likely to create kids at some future point.)

There was a law professor at the U of Utah (lesbian, for what that's worth) who was suggesting we take the whole marriage ball-of-wax and remodel it into a system based on corporate/partnership law. I think that makes a heckuva lot of a sense--leave the word "marriage", with all its emotional baggage and moral implications, to the churches; and have the law focus on domestic partnerships for everyone.

Both sides see things very different in "what the current trend is". We respond to what we perceive is happening to us and what's going on around us that might affect us or might not.

No doubt. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, I think a distinction should be made between a group who would probably not befriend us because of the position we have taken regarding homosexual behavior and making outright enemies because they perceive that we are conducting an actual vendetta against them.

Except that our odd views on both polygamy and race, did earn us enemies--not polite, academic disagreements; but vitriolic no-holds-barred battles culminating in legal action (which we mercifully missed out on due to the 1978 revelation, but which other conservative entities--Bob Jones University comes to mind--felt deeply in the form of federal penalties. Who stood up for Bob Jones? Not the Supreme Court, certainly.

For many in the world, there is something sympathetic about supporting a misunderstood and persecuted minority (Mormons). They tend to want to offer friendship and support for the downtrodden. These people are called liberals.

Modern liberalism is not beholden to minorities in general; it's beholden to specific minorities (feminists, gays, blacks, and hispanics being four that easily come to mind) that have historically been reliable donors and voting blocs. If Mormonism butts heads against any of these minorities, do you really think that liberalism as a whole would break on behalf of a patriarchal, homophobic organization like the Mormon church?

However, when we shift gears from a persecuted minority to a persecuting minority, we tend to lose sympathy and gain enemies. This by no means is good for a Church who wants to follow Jesus in meekness, peace making and love for God and the other. The religious ideal gets lost in the persecuting and ideology.

Moksha, it's because we've been a persecuted minority that we're determined not to let it happen again.

And by the way: it was Jesus' prophet on the earth today (and his two predecessors) who entrenched the Church into its position on gay marriage. The religious ideal is overcoming our natural weaknesses and becoming perfect in Christ Jesus. All too often, the (theological, not social) liberal ideal is to redefine weakness as strength and cherry-picking New Testament quotes in order to prop up a phony Jesus who preaches hedonism.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[HoosierGuy]

Except

And by the way: it was Jesus' prophet on the earth today (and his two predecessors) who entrenched the Church into its position on gay marriage. The religious ideal is overcoming our natural weaknesses and becoming perfect in Christ Jesus. All too often, the (theological, not social) liberal ideal is to redefine weakness as strength and cherry-picking New Testament quotes in order to prop up a phony Jesus who preaches hedonism.

What prophets you talking about?

[GaySaint]

Excuse me for saying so, but isn't that the purpose of your participation here, to bring to light your situation and change the view by the religious community?...

:)

Oops. This is what I get for taking the weekend off.

I think you misinterpret my reason for being here. I have no desire to change the view of the religious community to the point where they no longer believe homosexuality to be sinful. My desire is to change the religious community to the point where they understand the gay perspective so they can better help those who are in the fold and who wish to stay in the fold, as well as have a conversation with those outside of the fold while understanding their point of view (building bridges instead of burning them).

And someone who believes gays are only out to destroy the church and marriage are WAY outside of the realm of reality (while at the same time I would have to admit there probably are some who fall into this category, just like there are members of other religious communities who fall into this category - but the MAJORITY cannot be painted with such a broad brush).

[Just_A_Guy]

What prophets you talking about?

I should have said "predecessor", singular--I thought the memos gay rights activists are harping on came out in 1994 (Hunter's administration), but apparently it was 1997 (Hinckley's administration). That said: the prophets were Thomas S. Monson and Gordon B. Hinckley.

[Just_A_Guy]

Churches have never been, or ever will be forced to perform marriages they don't support, and that includes gay marriages.

Undocumented Imam's Refusal to Perform Interracial Gay Handicapped Wedding Leads to Charges of Racism

According to witnesses, the standoff began at 11 AM EDT when Eleanor Davis, 38, and her partner Mary Markowicz, 43, entered Cordoba House [this is, apparently, the new Islamic Center at/near Ground Zero--JAG] and requested the use of the mosque for a wedding ceremony. They were escorted from the building, but quickly returned with a 9th District Court of Appeals injunction ordering the mosque's Imam to perform the ceremony, citing the US Supreme Court's Kelo and Proposition 8 decisions. They were barred at the door by security guards who countered with their own injunction citing First Amendment religious protections.

[GaySaint]

JAG: The earliest one I have was dated Oct 31, 2005... so Hinckley's administration... not that it matters.

I'm actually posting this because if you have any interest, I have all the letters in question, haha. I'd gladly zip them up and email them to you if you'd like.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG: The earliest one I have was dated Oct 31, 2005... so Hinckley's administration... not that it matters.

I'm actually posting this because if you have any interest, I have all the letters in question, haha. I'd gladly zip them up and email them to you if you'd like.

Thanks, GaySaint; I think for the most part they're the ones available on Wikileaks?

Here's a story on the 1997 memo, FWIW.

Aren't there some who allege that the entire purpose of the Proclamation on the Family (1994 or 1995, I think) was to provide theological cover for the Church's impending anti-gay-marriage campaign? It seems to me I've heard that accusation made in some circles.

[GaySaint]

They are probably the ones on Wikileaks now. I got them somewhere else.

I've never heard that the Proclaimation was used as cover for the anti-gay-marriage campaign, at least not in any of my circles. Actually, I've had lengthy discussions on the doctrinal basis for the Proc - about the fact that it isn't actual doctrine of the church (and in fact, can't doctrinally define marriage as one man and one woman, because that is not the only celestial order), and could actually have room for same-gender marriage.

I don't think anyone disagrees that gender is important to the eternal nature of an individual (and I don't think this takes anything away from a transgendered person if read correctly, nor can someone argue that it is impossible for someone to be born with a body of the wrong sex, particularly in regards to intersex individuals for whom the parent "chooses" - but that's a whole 'nother thread... haha), but the document never actually says anything regarding sexual orientation.

So I feel able to defend the Proc. that way, and don't see why a member of the church couldn't as well.

The original intent of the document, I don't know, but I don't think it speaks as clearly on the issue as those who quote it against us think it does. But that's just my lowly opinion.

[Moksha]

... and cherry-picking New Testament quotes in order to prop up a phony Jesus who preaches hedonism.

Something is amiss when the prime messages of Jesus from the Great Commandments and the Beatitudes is considered cherry picking.

[Just_A_Guy]

I see no reason for you to be bothered by my post unless you include yourself among those I accused of preaching a Jesus who endorses hedonism.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[bytor2112]

Something is amiss when the prime messages of Jesus from the Great Commandments and the Beatitudes is considered cherry picking.

I think it is critical to remember that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of Repentance.....the Gospel of Change. Warning our neighbors and speaking in an unmistakably clear manner that certain actions are sins and will bring upon them condemnation is "loving your neighbor as thyself".