In Re Marriage Cases was a badly worded, discriminatory decision clothed in equal protection. It is akin to a court ruling that equal protection on the basis of race applies to people of black descent, while a footnote states that this protection does not apply to people of Asian descent.

Polygamy is the perfect world for men. They get to have sex with many women (which is what most men want) and they have a whole community of people to do the housework and take care of the children.

I think one should be hesitant about Jesus’ lineage as they differ in Matthew from what they do in Luke. But like you infer, these people may have had an actual “role” in the real lineage, whatever it was. That the generations are arranged numerologically significant, I think hints us toward the interpretation that you espouse: That Jesus is a King of Humanity. Given Matthew’s Jewish halacha-focused audience, I don’t think it insignificant that the lineage is not strictly patriarchal (which was the only authentic Jewish lineage), and that the four women included are gentiles or unclean. Fits nicely in arguing against those of the day who rejected Jesus because he was considered a bastard child.

And of course, the nice message of Luke’s lineage is that Jesus is Priest of Humanity who broke all the literal, hierarchical and cultural barriers of Divine access — which dovetails nicely with Acts and Paul’s Grace-focused epistles, given that Luke is credited to have accompanied Paul in missions and written Acts.

I think the OT goes to great lengths to show that Jesus was born King of Humanity, not JUST King of the Jews – or even King of the Abrahamites – or even King of the Righteous Good – or King of the Chaste – etc.

Your interpretations of scriptures are always interesting and give me something to think about. I’m wondering what other differences may exist from the traditional interpretations in the “NLT” version of the bible. I wonder what your take is on the Jonathan and David story…

That’s just it, Stu. Those who support marriage equality, like myself, aren’t trying to impact the rights or beliefs of the LDS church or its members. The legal recognition of same-sex marriages does not require the LDS church to change its doctrine. It does not require the LDS church to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. It does not require the LDS church or its members to ecclesiastically accept same-sex marriages. It does not limit the LDS church or its members from expressing or teaching their belief that homosexuality, or even same-sex marriage, is morally wrong.

On the other hand, the LDS church, along with many of its members, is actively trying to detrimentally impact the rights of homosexuals, the vast majority of whom do not fall under that church’s ecclesiastical authority in any way. Does the LDS church have a legal right to exert its resources and influence in this way? Yes, though it must abide by the restrictions of the federal tax code in doing so, or face lawful consequences.

Whether or not this is a moral activity, undertaken with full respect for the moral agency which the LDS church teaches that all humans have, is quite a different question. When those outside the LDS church went to similar efforts to detrimentally impact the rights of LDS members to live according to the dictates of their religion, LDS members rightly called in persecution. Evidently they don’t apply the same standard of behavior to themselves, that they did to “gentiles.”

Therefore, in Leviticus we have anti-sodomy laws shoulder to shoulder with different versions of the ten commandments, dietary injunctions and Sabbaoth regulations. If most of this law was fulfilled in Jesus, at least for Gentile converts, then why did Paul (and the Didache writers) still affirm Jewish anti-sodomy teachings? Again, Paul was quite “unenlightened” on female issues and slavery, which we have considered it a cultural standard now free to deviate from. Was he more likely arguing against the negative products of Hellinization which included sexual standards — including the wide practice of fornication and pederasty — that were liberalized far greater than he considered healthy for a Christian community? Was Paul condemning homosexual relations in descriptive practice or the form in which it took in the culture of the day?

This is the argument that is gaining persuasion, even among Christians. If homosexuality is not condemned in practice, then it is its form which makes it an acceptable or unacceptable community holiness standard. Ergo, if gay or lesbian people are in committed, monogamous unions/marriages, then isn’t that ultimately the form that most closely identifies acceptable community sexual practice?

I’m not entirely persuaded that the time has come for the form to be changed of what is the Christian community holiness standard relating to marriage. So I appreciate the slow process this is, and must be, if and as change happens. But it seems quite clear to me that anti-sodomy teachings, in its state of being an abomination, reflects a holiness standard, a standard of community belonging, and not a state of salvific acceptableness/non-acceptableness before the Lord. In that way I think much of Christianity is wresting the Bible too greatly, and especially in their “righteous hatred” of GLBT persons, and in applying that religious perspective to American legal standards. However, I generally affirm the Christian holiness standard, if altered, need not to be done swiftly, summarily and without sympathy for the historical Christian standard. IOW, Christian denominations should be free to alter their community holiness standard to accommodate homosexual marriages if they wish or don’t wish, without other Christian denominations who feel differently using that as a standard by which to measure whether they are accurately Christian or not.

What groups on either side of an issue don’t spend large amounts of money to further their own BELIEFS to be imposed on others (free or otherwise)? Why condemn the lds church for doing what is in their own best interest?

I would gladly fight to protect the right of LDS leaders to teach their beliefs on the subject of homosexuality, no matter how I view those beliefs. When they spend millions of dollars in an effort to codify those beliefs into civil law, thereby impacting the rights of millions of free citizens who are not members of their faith, I will certainly raise my own voice to object.

Where, exactly, did I do any such thing, Stu? Are you paying any attention at all?

I didn’t use Millet to define “scripture”, I used it to define lds “doctrine”.

Which means, as I’ve already noted, that you completely avoided the original challenge to find any canonized source, wherein deity “divinely appointed” that marriage was only to take place between a man and a woman. I have to conclude that either you don’t read questions carefully at all, or you are simply unwilling to honestly acknowledge that no such source exists.

The PS&Rs will cave to the gay mafia…

I keep hearing about this “gay mafia.” Where the heck is it? How do I join? You sure make them sound like a powerful bunch! Are they only limited to making LDS leaders “cave,” or do they control the major world governments and monetary systems while they’re at it?

I didn’t use Millet to define “scripture”, I used it to define lds “doctrine”. Don’t call yourself a believing member of the lds church if you are not going to accept its various sources of doctrine.

Don’t worry Nick. As you pointed out previously, “…if the LDS church changes its position on homosexuality, it will, as demonstrated by past behavior, radically change its representation of what the Proclamation is about–and LDS leaders will act as if the “new” interpretation was that way from the start.”

So you see, all of this arguing doesn’t matter. The PS&Rs will cave to the gay mafia that exists within the church and to pressure from without. A “revelation” will be given that God always intended for gays to be celestially married and then EVERYONE will enjoy the blessings of temple marriage and homosexual members of the church won’t have to feel guilty about having all the butt sex they want.

Oh! Then I can only suppose that your comments were completely irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality, since nobody has argued that homosexuality should be a “means” of procreation! I’m glad you’ve cleared that up, Stu.

You said: “I certainly challenge you to find any canonized source where deity “divinely appointed” that marriage was only to take place between a man and a woman.”

Bob Millet in “What is our Doctrine?” (which is available on lds.org) gives the test for sources of doctrine:

Now it’s your turn to “miss the point entirely,” Stu. Where did I ask what the doctrine of the modern LDS church is? Nowhere. We’re all quite aware of what modern LDS church leaders have to say on the subject of homosexuality. I asked you to find any canonized source. Don’t try to weasel out with the broad LDS definition of “scripture.” In LDS understanding, not all of what falls under the term of “scripture” is canonized.

You said: “I certainly challenge you to find any canonized source where deity “divinely appointed” that marriage was only to take place between a man and a woman.”

Bob Millet in “What is our Doctrine?” (which is available on lds.org) gives the test for sources of doctrine:

“In determining whether something is a part of the doctrine of the Church, we might ask, Is it found within the four standard works? Within official declarations or PROCLAMATIONS? Is it discussed hi general conference or other official gatherings by general Church leaders today? Is it found in the general handbooks or approved curriculum of the Church today? If it meets at least one of these criteria, we can feel secure and appropriate about teaching it.” [Emphasis added.]

I have quoted the Family Proclamation and it is clear: “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly PROCLAIM that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” [Emphasis added.]

And don’t give me your el toro poo poo such as “this statement doesn’t EXCLUDE other types of marriage.” If other forms of marriage are ordained of God, the 15 PS&Rs of the corp. of the president had an opportunity to include them in this proclamation of lds doctrine.

I mentioned common-law marriages in #33, but on BCC I made the point that those who give reasons to oppose gay marriage generally ignore the heterosexual applications of those reasons. They use them against “others”, but they don’t use them against “themselves”.

The best example might be, “Children deserve to be raised by a father and a mother.” If you REALLY believe that enough to disallow gay couples to adopt or raise children on that ground, you also should take children away from single mothers and fathers – and do absolutely whatever it takes to make orphanages extinct. You should exempt single parents completely from adoption and foster care – and remove all children from unwed welfare mothers at birth – etc.

If ANY statement is used to justify a restriction on gay marriage or activity, to be a *valid* LEGAL reason, it MUST be enforced equally to ALL – or it is discrimination in practice. That’s my primary problem with the way this issue generally is addressed; it’s rank hypocrisy. I simply can’t support that.

Ultimately, of course, the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” chant relies on the presumption that marriage is only, or at least preeminently, for the purpose of procreation. If marriage has any other legitimate purposes, then the current inability of same-sex couples to procreate together must be dismissed as any sort of dispositive point. Of course, the mere fact that we allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry is proof that our society (including the LDS church) considers marriage to have legitimate purposes other than procreation.

How then can a diversion from that which is divinely appointed and ordained of God be acceptable to God?

Let’s see. At one point, LDS believed it was “divinely appointed” that they build a temple in Independence, Missouri, during the natural lifetime of those who were contemporaries with Joseph Smith. When that proved to be unworkable, the early Mormons diverted from that “divine appointment,” and deity expressed direct approval for the change of plans. It seems that deity “divinely appointed” a temple in Independence, and then “divinely appointed” that it didn’t have to be built by that generation, after all. It is a well-established doctrine of Mormonism (and even of LDS-ism, really) that deity holds men accountable according to their particular circumstances and abilities, rather than issuing absolutist edicts.

Likewise, at one point, The Book of Mormon indicates that monogamy was “divinely appointed.” Wisely, however, Jacob noted that deity could just as easily “divinely appoint” plural marriage at any time. As Joseph Smith wrote, when discussing this same subject, he explained that “whatever god commands is right,” even if god had said, under different circumstances, that it was wrong.

In any case, I certainly challenge you to find any canonized source where deity “divinely appointed” that marriage was only to take place between a man and a woman. I’ll even give you a head start, by pointing out that deity’s evident approval of Adam and Eve’s nuptuals didn’t include any statement to exclude other, additional family relationships.

That is NOT precisely what I’m suggesting. What do you think the statement “the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed.” is saying? “The means” consist of one part male and one part female to create life. We are not talking about whether one part or the other or both function properly (infertility) only the “means”. These “means” are NOT the same. They are heterogeneous and according to mormonism, these means are “divinely appointed”.

Notice also that the Family Proclamation doesn’t say marriage between a man and a man is ordained of God.

How then can a diversion from that which is divinely appointed and ordained of God be acceptable to God?

No way, no how, nope. The Church won’t go near legalized polygamy with a 10-foot pole. Legal scholars, for quite some time now, have questioned the validity of the Supreme Court’s century-old polygamy precedents. In other words, if it were really interested in bringing back “the Principle,” the Church certainly could launch a broadside attack. It has not done so. Re-embracing polygamy would be a practical and theological nightmare for the Church.

Too often, we classify those who tend to disagree with us and see what they do as “mental gymnastics” – all the while practicing our own high bar routine in our own private gyms.

I repeat, I am NOT accusing Nick of mental gymnastics. Rather, I am asking others to avoid accusing him of that. I am asking everyone to recognize we all see things the way we see things – and there is no reason to classify that by using a derogatory term like “mental gymnastics.

Perhaps in the same way that infertility among heterosexuals “fits into” deity’s plan. If lack of procreative ability was determinative of a relationship’s validity, which is precisely what you’re suggesting, then it would be a “sin” for any infertile person, let alone any person who didn’t want to have children, to marry. I think deity’s “Plan” is far broader than you conceive it to be.

IF? I think you need to consult JS as one of your lds sources. Didn’t he claim to have knowledge of the location of the Garden of Eden?

Absolutely! How does the mere existence of the Garden of Eden prove the entire story is historically factual? While I certainly tend to favor Joseph Smith’s teachings over those of the men who have presided over the LDS church, it’s worth pointing out that various LDS presidents, including Spencer W. Kimball, specifically stated that the Genesis account was “figurative” as it pertained to “the man and the woman.” Kimball’s statement was incorporated into the opening words of the LDS endowment ceremony for many years.

Since he proclaimed himself a PS&R, shouldn’t we give heed?

I would suggest that “since he proclaimed himself a prophet, seer and revelator” is perhaps the very worst reason to “give heed” to anything Joseph Smith said. After all, many people through history have “proclaimed themselves” to be the voice of deity on earth. One would hope that you “give heed” out of your personal spiritual conviction that Joseph Smith was a prophet, rather than because “he proclaimed himself” as such.

Gay members who leave the church don’t pay tithing.

Neither do a substantial percentage of actively-attending LDS members. The last statistics I heard, perhaps five years ago, was that only about 50% of active LDS members declare themselves as full tithe payers.

I have a question for you: When did homosexuality cease being “an abomination” in the sight of God?

Since I am aware of the cultural conditions which prevailed at that Leviticus was written, as well as those of the time of Paul, I’m not as convinced as you seem to be that deity ever considered homosexuality, per se, to be “an abomination” in the sense that you seem to interpret that word. What is clear is that the author of Leviticus claimed that deity pronounced those men (not women, interestingly enough) who engaged in sexual relations with those of their own biological sex to be unfit for ritual service in the tabernacle (the real meaning of the word, “abomination,” as used in the Old Testament). It is also clear that the author of the epistles of Paul considered the practice of men having sexual relations with pagan male prostitutes (which featured in local religions not devoted to Yahweh) was improper. I am also well aware that never, in all of recorded scripture, was Jesus quoted as teaching that deity condemned homosexual relations as such.

Since there is no objective evidence that deity condemned homosexuality per se, I am unable to answer your question as to when deity “stopped” doing so. Your question is akin to me asking you, “When did you stop beating your wife?”