12 Reasons Why Gays Should Not Be Allowed To Marry

[Guest Starsky]

I am Scott Gallan, my wife is Denise, and the kid is Reni (eight now but never baptised). The Ward is Parker. The Bishop is Penn. The SP is LEVI. And the Stake is Lake Havasu City.

Are you in Arizona? My husband is from there.

[sgallan]

Yeah, were in Parker. About a block from the Colorado River.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 29 2004, 04:55 PM

Yeah, were in Parker. About a block from the Colorado River.

Cool. My husband is talking about moving back...and we just might be down there...he is talking about Henderson and Kingman...We'll see.

We now have land down in ST David...not worth much...10 acres of mesiquit (sp) trees...his uncle is running cattle on it right now....

[sgallan]

We go through Kingman all of the time. We camp, or get a cabin up in the Hualapai mountains. Plus the occasional wrestling or swim meet out there. LOts of room there but kind of a quirky sort of place. Especially on the outskirts. Henderson is a "burb" of Vegas now.

We like Parker. Like any small town it is provencial and fairly underachieving in attitude. The schools are not good. But we don't have to lock our doors at night. As she gets older; if the kid does something she's not supposed to in the morning we will probably find out about it by noon. We are on talking terms with all our neighbors. Lots to do. Pretty sunsets. Better sunrises. 8 months of the year are wonderful. The summers are brutal, but there is the river.

[Guest Starsky]

That's right Henderson is on the outskirts of LasVegas....that is where my husband is working right now on the chapel next to the temple.

I hear you on the hot summers...we lived in Phoenix our first years of marriage...whoo!

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 29 2004, 05:43 PM

**** For starters we are in an LDS forum, I will expound as I have been instructed to.****

Cool. But I am still technically LDS so I will disagree. And I know other active LDS who disagree with your specific take as well.

**** You don't let the word of God rest on your tongue.****

True. I see no value. Often I see just the opposite. Mt wife finds some value..... but no longer your specific version. Heck, she probably wouldn't even be welcome in your Ward if most think as you do. You don't like her "type".

**** Secondly, I DON'T respect ignorant, malicious, absent-minded beliefs...for that you are right. *****

And this is why I said the above. Unless a person is conservative (not talking politics) you would no doubt want them to leave your Ward and Stake. Hey, a standing offer though...... if I am so insulting to you; I am Scott Gallan, my wife is Denise, and the kid is Reni (eight now but never baptised). The Ward is Parker. The Bishop is Penn. The SP is LEVI. And the Stake is Lake Havasu City. I have a lot of stuff I have written (especially at Beliefnet). Feel free to out me.

*** Now, i respect that you exercise your agency, but not the result of it. There is a difference. I have the truth of the Restored Gospel and the Plan of Salvation, as do the others on this board who are LDS. Regardless of what you or any other non-believer "think" or "say" that does not change the fact that we are the only true church and God's Kingdom on Earth. I will express my beliefs whenever I feel impressed to do so, and I will stand up for and defend my beliefs in the same manner. *****

I don't mind you saying that. Heck, they all say it. It's when they try to import those beliefs that things get problematic. Religions have done some pretty horrific things in the name of "true" gods over the years, and even now.

So let me get this straight "Scott", if the Lord sends instruction, what is it meant for? I'm just curious. And I welcome all "types" of people, it's when they turn into propaganda machines that I appreciate their absence more than their presence. To me, when they Lord says something, their is no compromise. Homosexuality, wrong. BOM True. Joseph Smith true Prophet, called of God. We don't pick and choose what revelations from God we do and don't like. I remember just a few years back when the Prophet got up and said that we are not desicrate our bodies with tatoos and unnecessary piercings. Well, I was planning on getting a tongue ring and a few tattoos...but the Prophet said no can do for a reason. So I don't have any of the affortmentioned things I had planned on. So when I see people "debating" whether or not it is a) wrong to be a homo. and B) wrong to support Gay marriage...I Get a little concerned, because as I recall, the Lord does have a little bit of current knowledge for that topic laid out by the 12. So if God says Yeah, do you debate whether or not if could be a Nay, provided you impune a negotiable rationalization? NO!!! It's black, or it's white. If it is anything else, it is because we are not ready to recieve that information. God's will not your's bro. OBEDIENCE is key. Do you like it when your kid(s) talk back to you, break your rules, and direspect your postion as a parent. Such is the nature of our father(only in a perfect state), sometimes that we forget we are still the children. Even the Prophet is still a child in the Lord's eyes. Also, we are instructed to preach the Gospel and share it with others, "Every member a missionary!" The literal gathering of Israel is the key, these petty sideshows that you call debate take energy away from our true task. Course, if you have a temporal perspective, somehow I guess this builds your ability to "understand." Don't think any of this is a slam either, if you take it that way, maybe that should tell you something. Sometimes our idea of "Free Thinking" get's a little vague, till the point where we are resting our laurels on the arm of flesh.

[sgallan]

Porter, glad to here from you. I love these kinds of conversations.

**** So let me get this straight "Scott", if the Lord sends instruction, what is it meant for? I'm just curious.*****

That would be a bit of a non-sequitor for me. I don't believe in a god, and you can't prove a god, much less a proscribed religious one.

**** And I welcome all "types" of people, it's when they turn into propaganda machines that I appreciate their absence more than their presence. ****

I knew that. I even said as much. I get the feeling you don't like very many people, and are just sorta enduring waiting to get to a better place. That's your choice.

To me, when they Lord says something, their is no compromise.*****

Prove he said it. To a non-believer. You cannot. So I do not feel obligated to take your various statements on this anymore seriously than I do any other religions statements.

*** Homosexuality, wrong. BOM True. Joseph Smith true Prophet, called of God. We don't pick and choose what revelations from God we do and don't like.****

Faith thing.

*** I remember just a few years back when the Prophet got up and said that we are not desicrate our bodies with tatoos and unnecessary piercings. Well, I was planning on getting a tongue ring and a few tattoos...but the Prophet said no can do for a reason. So I don't have any of the affortmentioned things I had planned on. ****

That's nice. Neither do I. Not my style.

**** So when I see people "debating" whether or not it is a) wrong to be a homo. and wrong to support Gay marriage...I Get a little concerned, because as I recall, the Lord does have a little bit of current knowledge for that topic laid out by the 12. So if God says Yeah, do you debate whether or not if could be a Nay, provided you impune a negotiable rationalization? NO!!! It's black, or it's white. If it is anything else, it is because we are not ready to recieve that information.******

That is all well and nice within your religion. As I am not active I'll let those active folk argue these points if they disagree. It is when you try to import these views outside of the religion that you "enter the fray" so to speak. Then I join in. Or when I see somebody say something which is stereotyping or not true. Or even hatful then I may point it out.

**** God's will not your's bro. OBEDIENCE is key. Do you like it when your kid(s) talk back to you, break your rules, and direspect your postion as a parent. Such is the nature of our father(only in a perfect state), sometimes that we forget we are still the children. Even the Prophet is still a child in the Lord's eyes. ****

I am a big boy now. I have had a wealth of intense life experiences of my very own and have come out just fine thank you. I see no need to worship a God who is a lot like conservative older gentlemen in SLC. Nor would I want to spend an eternity with such a god. This would be a heII for me.

*** Also, we are instructed to preach the Gospel and share it with others, "Every member a missionary!" *****

With all due respect; you should probably leave the missionary stuff to others. You are not very good at it. You are among the many reasons I will do my best to indoctrinate my cute and gifted little one to avoid your religion (would you like to see a picture?), and any religion, for that matter. Seriously. Anytime my wife takes an interest in the LDS religion all I have to do is show her the attitudes of folk like you and she utters some profanities and gets that out of her head. You are sorta of a anti-missionary.

*** The literal gathering of Israel is the key, these petty sideshows that you call debate take energy away from our true task. Course, if you have a temporal perspective, somehow I guess this builds your ability to "understand." Don't think any of this is a slam either, if you take it that way, maybe that should tell you something.*****

What should it tell me? I am intrigued.

**** Sometimes our idea of "Free Thinking" get's a little vague, till the point where we are resting our laurels on the arm of flesh. ****

Honestly, your values and attitudes are so far removed from mine I consider the laurels of the so-called "arm of flesh" far better than anything you have to offer. Not a slam, just the way I feel.

[porterrockwell]

Well for starters, you say you are still a member technically? Yet you don't believe in God? One thing that humbles me quite frequently is a scripture(I won't state it because then it will just get twisted) that speaks of the "dust of the earth". The dust is obedient to the command of God, to his will, his way. Are we like that, we aren't perfect, but are we truly that obedient...do we desire to be? In that respect, we are no better than the dust of the Earth if we don't share the same charity and love for the Plan of Salvation as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Now, you don't believe you would want to be with a God that is like conservative old men in SLC. Fine don't be like them. I am a "conservative"(although I have come to dislike the rhetoric of it all...and don't pay attention anymore) and one the Youth Leaders(Im 20 now so I just talk with him on Sunday) in my ward is a retired professor who is DEM. all the way(minus the pro-choice and feminism and gay issues). But we still have the same common view and aspiration, to be more like our Heavenly Father. If you let people dictate how you feel about something, and think of all mormons to be the same as the ones that offend you, then you won't end up in a very good place. I know a lot of charismatic people who wouldn't think twice about taking advantage of my want for that quality in a person. As far as me leaving the missionary work to others. Don't think so. If you actually knew me, the person(instead of the screen name) you'd feel differently about that statement. I am probably one of the most charitable, patient people you will ever meet. Granted I am not perfect, and very fiery, but that is only because I don't want to see ANYONE who I can communicate with, not know the truth, not have the opportunity to get back to their Heavenly Father, not have the opportunity to come to know Christ and ALL the blessings he has in store. Most of all, I don't want to be standing before the Judgement Bar of God and have him ask me, "Why did you say nothing to those who needed to hear?" I don't to be teaching those in Spirit prison, and come across someone I could have said something to, and know that I as a bearer of the truth said nothing, and because of it(however small of a part that played in his or her life) they are still sitting...waiting...hoping...to hear the truth...and be able to accept it. I don't hate people for sinning, there is nothing anyone could do to make me hate them(when I truly sit down and ask myself that question...again...not perfect). But when someone doesn't find anything wrong with sinning, I cannot sit around and allow that to be spread without some righteous opposition. I have people come and talk to me all the time about things they have done, that frankly they need to talk to the bishop about or still feel guilty about, and do you know what I say to them "You are not perfect, and the fact that you are trying with Godly intent to correct it, makes all the difference." "Besides, nothing is too bad in the Lords(there are exceptions of course) eyes." I like to think of it like this, it is not what you did, it's if you want to correct it or not. I'll tell you what, let's Micheal Jackson actually does have a sexual problem with younger boys And let's say that he did want, and have a chance to repent, and cleanse his slate of that sin. Would you forget about, and treat him as such? I know I would. I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would. What is sad is the world wouldn't. The comics wouldn't, the analysts wouldn't, none o them would. So I guess it puzzles me that you have such a harsh view of the church and it's members. I would hope you would have a change of heart. And when your wife shouts obscenities about our church, do you think that is of light. Or a window for Satan to convince your wife to stay away from from it? Also, depending on an arm of flesh will only make you Satan's footstool.

[sgallan]

**** If you actually knew me, the person(instead of the screen name) you'd feel differently about that statement. I am probably one of the most charitable, patient people you will ever meet. Granted I am not perfect, and very fiery, but that is only because I don't want to see ANYONE who I can communicate with, not know the truth, not have the opportunity to get back to their Heavenly Father, not have the opportunity to come to know Christ and ALL the blessings he has in store.*****

I understand youthful exuberance. But there is something I don't think you understand. By saying what you say on discussion forums, you are communicating with more people (there are many who lurk but do not post), than you would otherwise. People have developed lasting friendships on these boards. Some have met spouses. Many have gotten around to meeting in person. I have a place to stay if needed in many cities now. By letting your guard down - so to speak - on the forums, you are suggesting there is no place in your religion for the likes of my family. Do you realize this? By saying what you do about homosexuals you are saying hurtful and mean things about family of ours. It IS what chased my in-laws away virtually right after they were baptised..... it was their kid who was gay. Do you think I would want my eight year old hearing such awful stuff about people who she loves dearly, and love her dearly? Taught this? Well we as a family don't, nor will we teach her these things. They do not match our values.

*** Most of all, I don't want to be standing before the Judgement Bar of God and have him ask me, "Why did you say nothing to those who needed to hear?" I don't to be teaching those in Spirit prison, and come across someone I could have said something to, and know that I as a bearer of the truth said nothing, and because of it(however small of a part that played in his or her life) they are still sitting...waiting...hoping...to hear the truth...and be able to accept it. *****

Yet, with your words, and the way you have worded them - until this post - you actually are taking the risk of perhaps chasing away more than you are bringing. There has been little love until now. Just judgemetalism and words which sounded a lot like hate.

**** So I guess it puzzles me that you have such a harsh view of the church and it's members. I would hope you would have a change of heart. ****

Nah just some of the members, and the occasional church activity. Otherwise it is more of the situation that many of the values of the church do not meet our values, nor are they the values we want to teach our gifted little girl. Otherwise, this is a small town, I count many friends who also happen to be LDS. Some who were friends before our foray with your church, who stayed that way. Others we picked up as a result of being members.

****And when your wife shouts obscenities about our church, do you think that is of light.****

Nah, she is shouting them at folks like you. You are not the church. Just a member.

*** Or a window for Satan to convince your wife to stay away from from it? Also, depending on an arm of flesh will only make you Satan's footstool. ****

I don't do either boogeymen nor fear tactics. If your God is a God that exists, and this is His nature, I would want nothing to do with such a God.

[Guest Starsky]

I think representing the church as a 'judgmental' order is quite precise. But Christ only judged those who were trying to destroy or who was doing things that were destructive... rather than doing things to build up.

I think that is an important 'doctrinal' premis that has been forgotten.

[sgallan]

**** I think representing the church as a 'judgmental' order is quite precise. But Christ only judged those who were trying to destroy or who was doing things that were destructive... rather than doing things to build up. ****

Following this premise; is it also okay what the Wahabbi sect of Islam does judgement wise in the name of their version of God? Especially to women? But even to infidels such as yourself, and of course me? What is the difference other than the insistance that you have the correct version of God?

**** I think that is an important 'doctrinal' premis that has been forgotten. ****

It is also the same premise which has been used throughout history for the religious to committ atrocities. Where is the line?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 1 2004, 11:56 AM

**** I think representing the church as a 'judgmental' order is quite precise. But Christ only judged those who were trying to destroy or who was doing things that were destructive... rather than doing things to build up. ****

Following this premise; is it also okay what the Wahabbi sect of Islam does judgement wise in the name of their version of God? Especially to women? But even to infidels such as yourself, and of course me? What is the difference other than the insistance that you have the correct version of God?

**** I think that is an important 'doctrinal' premis that has been forgotten. ****

It is also the same premise which has been used throughout history for the religious to committ atrocities. Where is the line?

Well, 'my version of God' only does what is best for his children. He set up rules that would guide us to happiness and joy.

I know that 'some' wild Islam believe that their God would have them kill the infidel

who is a capitalistic pig...

And I know that the proper Islamic people believe women are inferior...but so did the Christian nations....

But Christ didn't.

[sgallan]

Well, 'my version of God' only does what is best for his children. He set up rules that would guide us to happiness and joy. *****

It wouldn't being me happiness and joy. ESPECIALLY, if God is truly like conservative older Utah men. Therefore to me it would only less brutal than some other theocrasies, but nonethess a form of subjucation.

**** I know that 'some' wild Islam believe that their God would have them kill the infidel who is a capitalistic pig... ****

And I know of some LDS who would incarcerate my Gay family and friends.

*** And I know that the proper Islamic people believe women are inferior...but so did the Christian nations....

But Christ didn't. *****

But within my paradigm, your religion treats women as inferior due to proscribed roles which would marginalize my gifted little one.... though I do understand within your paradigm this is not the case.

[Guest Starsky]

The 'church' is people. Individual people...and it is getting more and more individualized every day.

You won't find two Mormons who believe everything exactly the same anymore.

I find it interesting that the talk by Bruce R. McConkie...The 7 Heresies of the Church included the heresey of Not having the Holy Ghost to unify their beliefs.

In this talk BRM pointed out that if everyone were to have the HolyGhost in an Elder's quorum meeting...there would be no debates, no arguments...but totally agreement upon the truth...but that that was not the case.

It is sadly true....the Holy Ghost is not 100% used by 100% of the members.

Also there is a lot of pride as spoken of by Mormon 8:35-41..and until the Lord comes and cleans his house...it will only get worse.

That is why we were given the BofM...so that we would recognize the same situations and problems they had and avoid them.

[sgallan]

**** It is sadly true....the Holy Ghost is not 100% used by 100% of the members.***

Interestingly enough, I know some devout members, whose views are very different from many of yours, who would insist they do so and this is what they were told.

[Guest Starsky]

Like I said....no two believe exactly alike...not even about the Holy Ghost's confirmations.

[sgallan]

Hey, speaking of the river area, proscribed roles, gifted kids, and the way we our raising ours, My kid is famous again .......

The Young and the wrest-ful

By PAUL CLICK

The Daily News

BULLHEAD CITY -- Parker's Reni Gallan and Lake Havasu's Josh Lacy were named Saturday's outstanding wrestlers of the young wrestlers meet held in the old gym at Mohave High. Both won their respective divisions as there was plenty of action on the mats during three rounds of competition.

"It's all about kids wrestling," Mohave High head wrestling coach Jim Daly said.

More than 200 wrestlers vied for the outstanding wrestling honors handed out twice. Gallan went 5-0.

The rest is at this link....

http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/20...rts/sports1.txt

[Snow]

Congrats sgallan.

[Guest Starsky]

Tell your daughter congratulations and good job!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Dang -- I spend a day or so doing some actual work, and six pages' worth of thread goes by.

In case anyone's still interested in anything said several pages back, Cal wrote:

PD-I don't have time right now to respond to everything you have said but:

1) What exactly do you think gay marriage imposes on the rest of us?

IMHO opinion gays just want to be left to enjoy the same right to cohabitaion and protections under the law as the rest of us. How does that impose on YOU?

There is a breed of secularist who breaks out in hives every time a high school choir sings a Christmas carol -- because he interprets a government-affiliated expression of religious sentiment as a government endorsement of a religious principle he doesn't hold, and is offended.

Although I think society bends over too far to avoid giving such an offense, a sound principle is involved: People should generally not be compelled to affirm a belief they do not hold. In a democratic society, it's at least partially true that the official position of the government is effectively the official position of the collective society.

The special status afforded to marriage is at least partially a declaration by society that a monogamous union of a man and a woman is a morally admirable thing. A majority of the people in this country do not believe that a same-sex coupling is as morally admirable as a marriage between a man and a woman. To mandate same-sex "marriage" would be to force a majority of the country to declare, at least by democratic proxy, a moral belief that they do not hold. The fact that gay "marriage" is in the process of being imposed by one state's supreme judicial court and another state's lawless officials makes it even worse.

So if a secularist has a right to be offended by the public suggestion that there is a God, with which he profoundly disagrees, shouldn't he expect that someone else might be offended by a public stance on a profound issue which that person disagrees with? Leave the First Amendment and its implications out of this for a moment, and focus on the underlying harm that the modern interpretations of the First Amendment are meant to address. I submit that the same principle is implicated here.

Scott -- "I contend that we are both sexual prudes. I just believe in one fewer moral sexual practices than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible couplings, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

(Apologies to Stephen Roberts)

[sgallan]

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible couplings, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ****

Actually, I cannot think of any couplings I dismiss between consenting adults. Not a one. Live-ins. Polygamy. Man on man. Women on women. Swingers. As long as all parties are okay with it, and nobody gets killed or mutilated I am okay with it as well. I choose not to do those things but I have no problem with those that do.

Others - thanks for the kudo's. Just to clear the record though.... Reni has learned a bit of humility of late, wrestling in really tough tournaments in Southern California. 3 thirds, a fifth, and a DNP in a statewide type all-star tournament. The DNP was a tough draw, but also rocked her a bit. So the one she got the press notice for was and a nice local confidence rebuilder for her.

[sgallan]

Hey Duck -

Following your train of thought..... why don't we (again) outlaw mixed race marraiges. And of course we need to bring the sodomy laws back on the books. Oral sex too. Of course nowadays these concepts are no longer considered valid. Give it 10-20 years and the same things will be thought about Gay marraiges.

Though the events in San Francisco and other places may be ahead of the societal curve a bit, I think the idea is to bring the issue to the forefront so people can be educated a little. You know, the stuff I do by describing the lives of my Gay family and friends;, everyway normal except for the occasional roll in the hay. And instead of seeing the freakish parades, they instead see a bunch of people who look fairly normal, celebrating the joyous event of a committment with the one they love. Sort of makes it normal. And after the initial shock wears off, it may indeed speed up the societal change.

[Tr2]

After viewing this thread I can understand why anti-gay marriage argument has gone nowhere. People need to start thinking logically if you are going to convince anyone that homosexuality is wrong.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 2 2004, 10:16 AM

After viewing this thread I can understand why anti-gay marriage argument has gone nowhere. People need to start thinking logically if you are going to convince anyone that homosexuality is wrong.

Logically? LOL...how much more logical can one get...two women have no way to come to gether without the aid of 'extras'...and men cannot come together without using the stinky..end which was not created for that purpose...

Now that was graphic...but some are sooooooo in the dark they need a picture painted for them to get the LOGIC!!!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible couplings, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ****

Actually, I cannot think of any couplings I dismiss between consenting adults.  Not a one. Live-ins. Polygamy. Man on man. Women on women. Swingers. As long as all parties are okay with it, and nobody gets killed or mutilated I am okay with it as well.

All right, then; you recognize one fewer criterion for disapproving of sexual conduct than I do. You draw the line based on two criteria: consent and "nobody gets hurt."

As to consent, I believe that there are occasions where society is justified in disregarding two parties' consent. For example, in law, a person can't consent to a contract in which he waives the right to sue his doctor or lawyer for malpractice. The transaction between the professional and his client involves more than merely the two people involved; it also implicates society's interest in policing professional practice.

I think that given how powerful sexuality can be in overpowering people's ability to think rationally (similar to drugs), society has a legitimate interest in trying to keep the sexual atmosphere from getting completely out of hand. While a society may pass laws against indisputably destructive sexual practices like child molestation, laws can never be enforced perfectly. When a society, on the one hand, sends a general message that people should gratify whatever sexual desires they may have, and sends a more specific message that certain behaviors are still unacceptable, people whose chemistry or environment has formed their sexuality so they fall on the wrong side of the line receive a very mixed message. Human nature being what it is, they have every reason to rationalize that what they want to do really isn't so bad -- the inability of minors to consent, after all, is only a legal fiction, which gets more and more tenuous the further into adolescence a person gets ...

So when society simultaneously says "Do what you will" and "Don't do X, Y, and Z," society must expect that some people will conform their behavior to the first, and more general, of these contradictory commands.

As for "nobody gets hurt," your second criterion -- Isn't this just as arbitrary as my criteria? Couldn't a person reasonably take the position that consent, alone, is sufficient? A person's body is his or her own, isn't it? There are plenty of people (also invariably left of center) who believe in the "right to die" -- to commit suicide. If a person has a right to end his life, or consent that it be done, why can't he consent to end his life as a filet mignon d'homme on the plate of some German cannibal? Of course I'm not making this scenario up.

Bottom line is, we both draw lines. You draw the line at consent-plus-no-injury; I draw the line at consent-plus-no-injury -- plus a sense, part rational and partially derived from the religious tradition I have chosen as my general moral framework, that marriage is the most proper form of sexual expression.

A question occurs to me, Scott: Are there any forms of sexual activity that you consider less morally admirable than others, but that you would nevertheless not want criminalized?

Following your train of thought..... why don't we (again) outlaw mixed race marraiges. And of course we need to bring the sodomy laws back on the books. Oral sex too. Of course nowadays these concepts are no longer considered valid. Give it 10-20 years and the same things will be thought about Gay marraiges.

Why would my train of thought lead to outlawing mixed-race marriages, or sodomy laws, or restrictions on oral sex? No significant part of the public would want these things. My train of thought is simply that if it is offensive to a secularist to have his government seem to endorse a religion with which he disagrees, it is also offensive that the general public have their government endorse a moral proposition with which it disagrees. The whole concept relates back to the general idea of government by consent that is the foundation of the whole Anglo-American tradition of ordered liberty. Governments, as the expression of the public will, should try, to the greatest extent possible, to avoid contradicting their constituents on matters of the deepest conviction.

In any case, it strikes me that there are three ways a legal regime can address a particular practice: It can (1) forbid it; (2) tolerate it (society may or may not have moral objections to the practice, but does not either prohibit it or encourage it), or (3) give it special recognition and status. In 10-20 years, will there be a special institution giving society's approval to oral sex -- call it "orriage"? "Sodomage"? By your logic, the iron laws of history must not only strike down barriers to sexual practices, but lead to their special recognition by society.

Though the events in San Francisco and other places may be ahead of the societal curve a bit, I think the idea is to bring the issue to the forefront so people can be educated a little.

And I think the "idea" is absolutely lethal to consensual government. Public servants are responsible to the law. Gavin Newsom is every bit as out of line as that judge in Alabama with his Ten Commandments monument. While I doubt we're going to go the way of Haiti anytime soon, when public servants elevate their personal beliefs over the law -- making their jurisdiction into a government of men, not laws -- that's completely inconsistent with republican government. Those officials need to be impeached every bit as quickly as the Alabama judge was removed.