News Flash: LDS Church WILL Be Actively Opposing Gay Marriage in California This November

Surprised to see the authenticity of the memo questioned. For what its worth, the memo was sent to me by a high-ranking LDS Director of Public Affairs in Southern California.

Matt, I’m glad to hear some independent confirmation of the authenticity.

If anyone’s interested, here is a chronology of how things went in California during Prop 22:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/doma.shtml

“And if so, does the U.S. Supreme Court have the authority to overturn it at some point?”

That’s a loaded question … the answer is yes. Just a matter of reinterpreting the constitution of the United States and overturning precident, which it does more often than you would think.

The best example is Brown v. Board of Education.

Looking back, everyone sees that as a good thing, though the transition was rough. Had a friend who became property as a result of integration, and was subjected to all the effects of property. She actually said it was a good thing, because it put her off limits to those outside the gang who decided that they owned her.

The analysis I read of the amendment a few months ago in our local paper said that it would be just as subject to overturn by the California Supreme Court as the law established by Prop 22. But I’m not a legal expert and wasn’t preparing for a quiz, so can’t sum up the reasons for it. Incidentally, 3 of the 4 judges who voted to overturn Prop 22 were appointed by Republican governors. Arnold has said that he will not support the amendment on the ballot.

Hmmm. I know it sounds insensitive, but in a way I feel as though I don’t have a dog in this fight. But as I think of it, I do have a small dog (maybe a chihuahua) in this fight. I have a visible career, and my religion is known. When the membership is seen as a body politic, there are problems for all of us. Obviously, it limited Romney, and that was when the church remained neutral. I would prefer not to follow our evangelical brethren down this slippery “cannon fodder in God’s army” slope. I am just not a social conservative. Perhaps that means I lack vision or that I am just looking out for number one. I’m sure both are true.

Being optimistic, though:
1 – I hope the official release is less politicized than it sounds.
2 – It still seems pretty clear that although they are applying pressure to participate, it’s not mandatory or “enforced” in any way (e.g. not “worthy” if don’t join in).
3 – I live in AZ, not CA, so it looks like it won’t be read in my state since it’s not in legislation.
4 – The law of chastity is certainly clear in the church (e.g. you can’t be in good standing and have any extramarital, premarital, or homosexual sex). I highly doubt that if homosexuals are legally married, the church would say, “Oh, I guess that’s not a violation of the Law of Chastity now, so welcome back! My bad!” I suppose that if same sex marriage becomes legal, the church will have to make an even stronger statement about the Law of Chastity, maybe (?). My objection is on the grounds that I don’t like to legislate morality.

Vote the way you would if the Savior stood beside you, and you won’t go wrong. Given that instruction, I believe it’s quite possible we could vote various ways in good conscience. As for cracking open the checkbook, this still seems a matter of conscience to me. Do what you believe to be right.

I just don’t know how the church can say the Constitution is inspired and then go ballistic when the provision for extending the rights to the pursuit of happiness and equal protection to everyone comes up.

I’m still not over being angry that they didn’t think I should have equal protection of my rights.

I just don’t know how the church can say the Constitution is inspired and then go ballistic when the provision for extending the rights to the pursuit of happiness and equal protection to everyone comes up

Err, because they are (a) talking about the State of California’s Constitution here, not the United States Constitution, (b) inspired doesn’t mean every word is gospel and never to be amended, (c) we are talking interpretations of a document that alter its original meaning.

On the other hand, see: http://ethesis.blogspot.com/2008/06/eleventh-article-of-faith.html

‘Ouch.’ ‘Administrator????? (or John Dehlin?????)

Actually that ouch should be directed towards the mormon blogganacle which insists in being sympathetic to the homosexual agenda!

Never has the church given any indication that they will one day change the law of chastity. And gay sex is simply against the law of chastity. So you can’t keep comparing it to blacks/priesthood issue (that comparison only fits for divorced men).

At least the evangelicals and most catholics understand that permitting more gay ‘penetration’ in society will lead to its downfall spiritually and in simply religiosity; and, if God keeps his word, eventually in societies own destruction with more family breakdowns and children raised in dysfunctional families…..and on and on it goes. All consequences of breaking the Law of Chastity!

You ALL ought to support this political intervention no matter what the social consequences, or to any other Romney family member future campaign! (Although Nick here #2 has a point in that it doesn’t seem to be typical FP language so the letter itself is probably fake).

#22 hawkgrrrl

‘My objection is on the grounds that I don’t like to legislate morality’

D’oh! Almost every law is based on morality: don’t kill, don’t rape, don’t abuse children, don’t abuse wives, don’t steal…and we should still have don’t cheat on your spouse and don’t have gay sex or you’ll go to jail.

Almost all of them. Maybe taxation law can be considered not morally based since the money goes to politicians.

“Err, because they are (a) talking about the State of California’s Constitution here, not the United States Constitution,”

California’s equal protection guarantees are modeled after the ones in the US Constitution. The principle is exactly the same and I think it’s nothing other than sad for the church to lose their perspective on that.

You can see homosexuality as a sin. I don’t because I’ve known a lot of thoroughly decent and downright exceptional gay people and realize that what they do in their private lives has no bearing on mine. But that aside you can see homosexuality as a sin and still have a sense of perspective that recognizes that there is a world of sin out there in people’s personal and public lives. Fixating on one questionable one that separates the church from an awful lot of people in the country, brings great turmoil to LDS families that have gay members and causes significant numbers of saints to lose their testamonies is a painful and dysfunctional mistake that puts the church on the other side of the inspired Constitution.

#36 – I agree that law is based on morality. The problem is that by the Church claiming to only be involved in moral issues, not political ones, they are really saying they have a right to be involved in EVERY political issue that exists, since they are all based on the morals of society.

I just wish all the money that is going to be thrown away on this issue were put to good use, like lessening the economic inequality of the world so there are no poor among us…

Conservative member, you are sick sick sick. I find it impressive that you are twisted enough to decry buttsex, but actively support genocide. Kudos to you. Pervert.

Nick – I would support any legislation to ensure equal rights and treatment for all. The sticking point is the concept of “right to equal treatment before the law.” Is “marriage” a term defined by the state or by religion? I would posit that the terms “civil union” and “marriage” should have equal rights before the law, but use different terminology. I would certainly defend your rights to equal treatment, but if the name of one’s union is the only distinction in so-called rights, then I think your analogy is actually okay with me. To be called “recognized inhabitants” with the exact same right to vote, same taxes, same laws applied, equal rights and obligations to military service, etc. What is the difference then? I realize this sticking point is important to you personally, but I don’t agree that the term “marriage” makes a jot of difference in how people should be treated or how their rights should be respected. The law is there to protect. The church’s position is that the term “marriage” is theological, not created for or by the state. I’m not trying to knock the hornet’s nest, but maybe the issue is that the legislation isn’t written right if the only way to afford equality to all is through the term “marriage.” What about all those people who don’t believe in marriage but are living as if they were married. Should they not have access to the same rights in some cases? Does common law marriage cover them adequately? Why not apply common law logic to same sex couples then?

Damn it.

RE 73, Well the Gov’t could just require a brief civil ceremony of some sort (on par with getting something notarized: no muss, no fuss) as happens with LDS couples in some European countries. Then the happy, legal couple could do whatever they like at various churches.

“The analysis I read of the amendment a few months ago in our local paper said that it would be just as subject to overturn by the California Supreme Court as the law established by Prop 22. But I’m not a legal expert and wasn’t preparing for a quiz, so can’t sum up the reasons for it.”

I believe this is incorrect as a legal matter.

The Cal decision was based on the state constitution. If that is amended through constitutional amendment process, then the Cal decision will effectively have been reversed. The court will not be able to rule otherwise.

In general, a court cannot find that part of the constitution is itself unconstitutional.

I believe this is pretty uncontroversial, as a matter of law. I’d be very curious to see a legal argument the other way.

Kaimi, what I read was in the San Diego Union Tribune, so it must be true.:) Actually, I was fairly surprised to read that, since I thought that an amendment would be untouchable by the court, but that’s what that particular analysis claimed. But I don’t remember who it was that wrote the article.

In our particular neck of the woods, high home prices haven’t deterred anyone from moving here– our more expensive wards have been growing quite a bit, but my guess would be that anyone who wasn’t in a very high income field would have moved elsewhere in the last few years.

“It’s not just the issue of an inspired Constitution. It’s also the very basic Mormon teaching of a Council in Heaven, wherein the bad guy came up with a plan to enforce commandments upon all of humanity in order to bring them all back to the presence of deity.

It never ceases to amaze me that leaders of a faith which holds this teaching insist upon engaging in the same tactic by attempting to legislatively enforce the tenets of their faith on a diverse citizenry.”

There you go parroting Satan’s propaganda again Nick. Satan is always trying to claim that God’s commandments are evil restrictions on freedom. That any social order based on those commandments are violations of our agency, and that any laws that dare to promote a virtuous society or behavior is hypocritical.

How is upholding the God given definition of marriage a restriction on anybody’s freedom?

1: The government did not create marriage, God did- so I think it highly arrogant for government to claim it can decide what marriage is.

2: Gays are free to form committed monogamous relationships if they want to regardless of what the government says about marriage. This is not about freedom, it’s about sodomy being socially unacceptable behavior You don’t like that so you want to use the societal approval of sexual relationships within marriage as a way to gain societal approval for your sexual aberrations and perversions.

You gays can go do what you want, but please stop demanding that we redefine and rewrite the laws concerning marriage to include you. Leave us alone and we leave you alone. That’s what I call tolerance. Not this demand that we upend the entire social order.

Might I point out that marriage has always been between man and woman- even in societies where sodomy and homosexual relations were acceptable- even approved of.

Did the people of Thebes define marriage to include homosexual relations, or between those of the same gender? They did not. But surely you don’t accuse Thebes, the home of the Sacred Band (an elite military unit that required it’s members be pairs of gay lovers), surely you don’t accuse them of denying gay marriage because they’re homophobic or bigoted.

There is this stunning arrogance among “progressives” to assume that tradition has no value and that modern morality is always oh so superior to older morality. There’s this assumption that somehow we are the first to ever debate these issues- and yet it is truer to say that there is nothing new under the sun. There is a reason that successful societies have restrictions on sexual behavior- and particularly in limiting marriage to male and female pairings.

“The government did not create marriage, God did- so I think it highly arrogant for government to claim it can decide what marriage is.”

And yet God has modified the practice of marriage at various times. Meanwhile, the First Presidency is calling upon CA LDS to actively influence how government claims to decide what marriage is. hmmmmm Would that be arrogance?

Latter-day Guy #48,

“Conservative member, you are sick sick sick. I find it impressive that you are twisted enough to decry buttsex, but actively support genocide. Kudos to you. Pervert”

Ummmm, is it kudos to me, or am I a pervert?

I wouldn’t say I decry ‘buttsex’ as you put it, just homosexuality. (Lets be polite here, OK?)

And I am a bit ‘sick sick sick’. Sick of the mormon blogganacle’s constant defense of gay marriage and gay union when all the church does is condemn it as immorality; as breaking the law of chastity and nothing else.

Genocide? well, just get rid of homosexual activities and we will all be better off! [Rant about being ok with killing people deleted.]

I bet within a decade you’ll see things like a Mormon-owned wedding reception center getting burned down because they declined gay business and other persecution.

In Canada you see them fined and actively punished by the Government there (some interesting cases fining people and rendering punitive treatment against them for turning down business). No one needs to burn them down.

The arson against Church buildings and Mormons mostly takes place in other areas, for other reasons.

I just haven’t seen the specific **rights** that will be gained by marriage vs. civil union. I really would like a list of them. — that is actually one of the reasons that the law was struck down, what Volokh notes is a clear result of slippery slope application. The lack of a difference in rights justifies striking down laws that give things different names.

I just wish the action was reversed – to define “in the law” all recognized unions as “civil unions” and let religious organizations define “marriage” any way they choose. the point of the alternate reading of the Eleventh Article of Faith that I posted …

As to #66 — Nick, you do know that this is a hot topic in the disabled community? As it is as the foundation of the right for children who can not consent to sex to have abortions without parental knowledge or consent? Some interesting twists there, not so much a trap as another huge can of worms.

Kaimi I believe this is pretty uncontroversial, as a matter of law. I’d be very curious to see a legal argument the other way. you are right as a general principle, the two approaches I’ve seen are to turn to readings of the federal constitution and to find that the constitution conflicts with itself and reject the alien portion (even if it is newer and the proper rule of construction would be to read the constitution to harmonize the new/alien portion as dominant).

Fun stuff courts get into.

Nick, that wasn’t fair to tell Cicero to look for historical examples and ignore Thebes. You should have, perhaps, referred to the Sioux Indians, or other anthropological sources. He has you on Greece, where family, love and child bearing were not seen as necessarily related topics. But regardless of what most people think, Greece was not the whole world (just the best, my Grandfather would say).

That approach tends to just irritate the people you are talking with, persuading them that Orson Scott Card was right.

Two points/questions. (1) I live in Massachusetts and the Church was conspicuously absent in organized efforts to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Why is the Church now piping up in California?

(2) Of all the pressing social issues of our day, the Church has designated same-sex marriage as worthy of a press-release and political activism? Not poverty? Environmental degredation? Universal health care? Again, why is the Church silent on all these issues, but chooses to do battle over same-sex marriage?

Conservative Member,
You should read about Nazi Germany’s courageous persecution and attempts to exterminate homosexuals. Sure they took things overboard a bit with the Jews, but at least they had the moral clarity to bare the sacrifices entailed by ridding their society of sin.

Seriously, advocating a “final solution” for homosexuals is infinitely more immoral than any sin they might be guilty of. Gordon B. Hinckley is rolling at his grave at the notion that a self-styled Mormon is publicly calling for such anti-Christian violence. If you really think that exterminating homosexuals is a lesser sin than LoC violations, I’m ashamed you’re a member of Christ’s Church. And, I’m pretty sure Christ isn’t exactly bragging about it either.

Although I’m a native Californian, I’m glad I don’t live in California right now. My faith and devotion to following the Brethren of the Church are too tenuous right now to be forced into a political battle such as this promises to be. What do you do when “morality” as defined by the Church does not match your own? Isn’t morality one of the great territories of religion?

Andrew Callahan (a.k.a. Friend): Thanks for coming clean. I knew you were joking when you mentioned that the boy needed to read “The Miracle of Forgiveness” in 2-3 days. I guess playing devil’s advocate works best when all parties involved know what’s going on. Cheers.

#96 What do you do when “morality” as defined by the Church does not match your own? Isn’t morality one of the great territories of religion?

I think this is a tough issue. I wasn’t a member of the church prior to 1978, but I can certainly see at least some parallels (even if not a perfect parallel) between this issue and the treatment of blacks generally in the church. The church leaders seemed for a long time to only be comfortable with blacks as somehow something other than what they themselves were. Perhaps that is the parallel that I see the most, that somehow black people weren’t equivalent to white people in the church, just as somehow homosexual marriage isn’t equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

I cannot understand how allowing a black man to pass the sacrament lessens or in any way damages a white man’s priesthood. Similarly, I can’t see how a gay couple’s marriage lessens or in any way effects my own marriage.

I know many members who were very uncomfortable with the blacks and the priesthood issue, and this looks like history repeating itself to me. The majority appealing to “tradition” to limit the minority’s desire to be treated equally.

just as there are a handful of religious bodies who shun marriage altogether (talk about serious shrinkage problems!).

That’s why genuine Shaker furniture is now a collectible.

More importantly, however, are you describing a truly causal relationship, or a mere correlation?

I don’t know the answer to that. Which is why I’m not speaking with forcefulness of any kind on the subject.

You seem to suggest that if a church accepts marriage equality, it will become “post-christian,” have “serious shrinkage,” and have trouble in primitive backwater nations where social disapproval is expressed via molotav cocktails and genocide.

The Anglican communion is having those problems. Spong+ and the rest are definitely a post-christian movement. Overall it has serious shrinkage. In Africa it has serious trouble as a result of what goes on in the United States. But, would they have the shrinkage anyway? How much of the trouble in Africa is from female clergy vs. gay clergy vs. gay marriage? I don’t know. Though I will note that the local federal judge I admire the most attends a gay friendly church in Dallas.

If I had answers, I’d be sharing them. What I have are questions.

Today’s lesson in our High Priests group featured this talk:

A Matter of a Few Degrees

with this section that came to mind:

When he had the Lord’s help, Saul was a magnificent king. He united Israel and defeated the Ammonites, who had invaded their land.9 Soon a much greater problem faced him—the Philistines, who had a terrible army with chariots and horsemen “and people as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude.”10 The Israelites were so terrified of the Philistines that they hid “themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks.”11

The young king needed help. The prophet Samuel sent word for him to wait and that he, the prophet, would come and offer sacrifice and seek counsel from the Lord. Saul waited seven days, and still the prophet Samuel had not arrived. Finally, Saul felt he could wait no longer. He gathered the people together and did something he had no priesthood authority to do—he offered the sacrifice himself.

When Samuel arrived, he was brokenhearted. “Thou hast done foolishly,” he said. If only the new king had endured a little longer and not deviated from the course of the Lord, if only he had followed the revealed order of the priesthood, the Lord would have established his kingdom forever. “But now,” Samuel said, “thy kingdom shall not continue.”12

I admit I’d be a lot happier if either (a) homosexuals could be easily cured (regardless of how that is defined) or if (b) no homosexuals had switched orientation later in life and if (c) there were not the people with sexual orientation that was not oriented towards living humans (which is what the pan-human reference was about).

I don’t have answers, only questions and concerns.

Within the Church, no matter what it does, there will be people who are really upset. Neutrality offended a number of people. Taking positions will as well, regardless of what position we take. Blacks and the priesthood resulted in almost universal joy. At present, gay marriage within the Church probably would not (that is purely my guess, I could well be wrong).

Though are gay unions something that we should oppose completely? Given what President Hinkley said, how we would have to have civil unions, I don’t think so, but that could have been just a passing thought, without meaning.

I wish I knew.

#98 Andrew — I can’t quote it in it’s entirety but I couldn’t agree with you more! Meanwhile, I get a very sick feeling in my stomach when it think of the church allowing the kind of ill informed antipathy that they do (they do!) now and then asking people to do a 180˚ reverse in another generation.

And expanding on #102, I have read that between MA & CA the US will now have more opportunity for same sex marriages than all the countries in the world that presently permit it. The provision for out of state same sex marriages also has much more direct implication for UT and other mountain states. Even though the marriages won’t be recognized, they do present a platform for someone to sue for recognition. And someone will because the Constitutional question is burning.

PS to Andrew — I like you much better as Andrew and I admire your defense of Conservative member’s reputation. Extremely decent of you!

# 105 academic lesbian — thank you for commenting.

In Texas, synagogues really are shrinking. Wichita Falls went from three synagogues and a Jewish mayor to one synagogue that is only open part time in the summers. When I moved to Plano, a big part of our choice of location was to be near Jewish friends of ours who had moved down.

In attending the bar and bat mitzvahs of their son and daughter (and hosting the grandmother at our house for the second one that was held — you can keep a lot of kosher with disposables) I was struck by how their congregation here had only 4-5 families who attended regularly, the rest being people in attendance for bar and bat mitzvahs. Huge day care operation, almost as if the religious meetings were an incidental use of the building.

Nationwide Reform synagogues are in decline, which is sad to see. I’m glad that isn’t true where you are. The same is true of the Anglican Communion in the United States.

I’ve a post pending on theological justifications for gay marriage from within an LDS framework. If it did not have an emotional impact on gays, I wouldn’t care about the issue. It obviously does, which is why there is concern.

I can think of gay couples I’d like to have as members of my ward, which is currently unlikely.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed people’s comments.

Just to clarify, I should have typed “anti-gay marriage,” not “anti-gay rights,” which is too broad a term. I even personally actually lean somewhat in favor of civil-union-type rights for gay couples, though I’m not 100% sure (you know, that old slippery slope concern).

At the same time, I’m really concerned about anything that seems to publicly legitimize, encourage, and even celebrate the gay movement, including pop culture. And yet at the same time I’ve very much enjoyed several books by the gay memoirists David Sedaris and Augusten Burroughs. (I’ll include that in the “Double Talk” ward newsletter.)

There’s a gay Mormon fiction writer named Johnny Townsend whose work I’ve found compelling, including his gay-themed stuff. One unpublished story he wrote, which is probably too graphic and perverse to ever get published anywhere and is titled “The Ass Man Cometh,” amazes me with how a gay writer can bring to light such frank doubts about the gay lifestyle and second thoughts about not sticking to the Mormon template. If I ever personally know a person who is struggling with same-gender issues, I will share this story with them (I won’t bother sharing it with people who aren’t struggling anymore because they’ve chosen to embrace the gay movement, of which I know a few…).

Wow, that “Friend” thing was well done, really a lot of fun. If I were still doing The Sugar Beet, I would definitely invite you as a regular columnist.

Stephen M,
Do you have statistics (provided by non-right-wing sources) that show that Nationwide Reform synagogues are in decline? It’s certainly possible, but I haven’t seen any stats showing thus, whereas the ones about the Anglican church are widely publicized, for obvious political reasons. Also, the way this ‘argument’ (such as it is) usually goes, the contention typically proferred is that whereas liberal Christian denominations are in decline in membership numbers, right-wing Christian churches are growing by leaps and bounds (the latter is certainly a rather strong exaggeration, as I’m sure you know. For heaven’s sake, even I have seen the hand-wringing about the lack of enormous growth in LDS and there’s practically mandatory prosyltizing in that case). The implication–sometimes explicitly drawn, sometimes not– is supposed to be that former members of liberal congregations are leaving for the right-wing ones. Whether or not that is true in Christian communities (I have no idea) it is certainly not true in Jewish communities; that was the point behind my glib remark about people not leaving Reform synagogues to go become Hasids in droves.
As for the decline in Reform synagogues in Texas: well, do you know from whence the decline? Are they, perhaps, just moving elsewhere? (diminishing Jewish population overall, fleeing from Texas generally or parts thereof) Or just ceasing regular attendance? If a small enough is community to begin with, one or two annoying families (or people) can easily make one stop attending on a regular basis. Do you have any reason at all to suppose that those who have left the Reform communities (or just stopped attending) have moved on to more right-wing religious venues?

#103 adcama wrote: “If this really is history repeating itself (i.e. blacks & the priesthood), seems to me that there may be a moral obligation to speak up in opposition to the church’s opposition…..especially since this is both a political and moral issue. But how to go about that and what is appropriate is tricky…..”

Who among us would write a letter to the First Presidency and suggest to them that they are wrong in doing this? Would doing such be foolhardy or faithful, or something else?

Who among us would write an Open Letter to the First Presidency and suggest to them that they are wrong in doing this and publish that Open Letter for all to read?

Going the other direction, I have been told by members that they had family memnber leave the church in 1978 when the Priesthood was extended to blacks. I think Jeff #115 is correct when he says the church is between a rock and a hard place.

I think there may be some who will leave the church because of this. I think there could be some who would leave the church if they didn’t do this.

This issue is divisive, no doubt. And, I don’t have a broad understanding of the feelings of the membership, but again, what frightens me about this situation is the seeming parallel between this and the issue with blacks and the temple/priesthood.

Re 86, CM,

I don’t know if you’ve been banned yet, but just in case you’re still reading, I’ll respond.

1) Okay, the “kudos” part was sarcasm. It was an ironic echo of your comments regarding Paul Cameron.

2) I understand that you might prefer to use a different terminology regarding sodomy. I respect that. However, your request for politeness rings a little hollow in the face of your evident support of a “final solution” for homosexuals.

3) Yes, I agree with the Church’s position regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. That does not mean that any LDS person is absolved of the responsibility to be kind, loving and charitable. Your comments characterizing murder as a “sacrifice” we will just have to “bare” [sic]when it comes to homosexuals are in clear opposition to the standards of the Church and basic humanity.

4) How far would you like to apply your “final solution”? Are you advocating death for anyone that breaks the law of chastity? All those who don’t hold temple recommends? I mean, it would simplify church discipline proceedings: break a commandment and get shot.

5) I think that insofar as your attitudes (as observed here) are out of sync with Mormon teachings, you might consider another faith community with whom you align more closely. I would suggest that the Westboro Baptist Church might fill that need for you. Clearly, your agreement in praxis is far more substantial than any disagreements you might have regarding doctrine.

#119, “As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them”

Perhaps I’m just being flippant now (I’m getting tired), but it seems to me that this could be what is happening right now. we are forgetting about the particles of darkness of our past, and are therefore possibly plunging headlong into a similar abyss.

Stephen M- I understand. Anecdata is always just that (mine too).
Spector: my goodness. First, the article to which you first link suggests two possible explanations of such decline as there is/might be in overall Jewish U.S. population: (1) people moving to Israel and (obliquely) & (2) birthrate (I gather that’s what the author means by ‘natural attrition’). Second, according to that first link (whose reliability I cannot judge without more time than I have now) there is an increase in the Jewish population of Israel. Third, you might note that even if everything you say is true, and the best explanation of declining overall Jewish populations are birthrate and intermarriage there is no reason, none, not one, to suppose in any of that that it has anything remotely to do with some Jewish communities recognizing the marriages of their gay and lesbian members, or women rabbis, or any of the typically proferred marks of a ‘liberal’ religious community.

I’m surprised no one has yet brought up parallels between this issue and the ERA. To me they are, in essence, the same – providing equal rights for individuals. The campaign against SSM is a closer fit with the campaign against the ERA than with blacks and the priesthood. I am too young to remember the events, but from what I have read, outspoken opponents against the Church stance on the ERA were disciplined.

Steven B #87

“Conservative member, perhaps you would kindly cast the first stone?”

Sure, no problems with that since I’ve never engaged in sins of homosexuality. (And those who were going to stone the adulteress were obviously all adulterers, as was the entire generation there during Jesus’s time on earth) [Ridiculous scriptural conclusion left intact.]

Conservative Member,
Your comments are not out of line for the fact that they express a conviction that homosexuality is sinful. You’ll notice that no one here has accused bbell of being manifestly un-Christian or a wannabe Nazi. And while bbell and I disagree on many things, I think we stand together in opposing the genocide of homosexuals. Your comments are out of line because they evince murderous intent. It might be heretical to go against the brethren on this or that social/political issue. It is positively blasphemous — evil of truly Satanic proportions — to advocate a “final solution” do deal with the this or any sin.

leave conservative members comments. (and those in response, and those who think s/he a troll). let the truth be preserved. Here too let it not be forgotten.

Brad, again #48 brought up genocide, I just played along. But my original comment #32 wasn’t along those lines.

But continuing with this doesn’t Ray live in Utah and support the death penalty as almost all Utahn’s LDS do? [Incorrect and stereotypical assumption not deleted but left in to illustrate stupidity of argument.] Well if its so, (and I don’t know if it is) it would be a wee bit hypocrital since only the USA has a death penalty in the western world (I think your pals with Saudi Arabia/China only in death penalty states!) And if homosexuality is a bad and serious sin, just as bad as adultery, why not [Stupid legal analogy allowing killing people deleted]? the jews (victims of that final solution) would mostly agree based on the old testament, so would the evangelical, and southern baptists, and probably most conversative LDS…….

But seriously, Sunday has now passed, so was it or is this letter legit? was it read out as the newflash claims? I still have doubts as the legitimacy of the letter.

Steven B,

No, not the gas chamber, [Stupid Mormon theology statement deleted.]………

OK, sorry, no more dealth about gayness! promise.

Hawkgrrrl: agreed. But the bloggernacle, the mormon one, doesn’t necessarily do that. They mostly openly defend gay unions and even, mistakenly, compare gay marriage and homosexual issues to the blacks/priesthood issue of the past. They think that one day the church will change its law of chastity doctrine to permite homosexual marriage as they changed its POLICY on blacks/priesthood. And they are dead wrong, the blacks/priesthood issue only has parralells with divorced men/priesthood callings issue, if one studies both cases closesly.

CM – “But seriously, Sunday has now passed, so was it or is this letter legit? was it read out as the newflash claims? I still have doubts as the legitimacy of the letter.” The original link showed the letter was going to be read in CA only on the 29th, not the 22nd (today). So, we’ll see (or at least if you live in CA, you’ll see).

Well, the amendment may not be voted on in the upcoming election. On Friday, gay rights advocacy groups, led by Equality California, petitioned the California Supreme Court to declare the initiative unconstitutional and strike it from the ballot.

. . . advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state’s Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone – a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters.

The lawsuit also contends that the initiative petitions circulated to voters before the court ruling were misleading because they declared that the measure would make no change in the marriage laws and would have no fiscal impact.

A PDF of the entire Petition for Relief is here.

#142 #140

Yes, it does has the 29th.

I now see why this post is done by ‘administrator’. Seems some Californian bishopric or stake presidency member can’t keep 1st Presidency letters confidential, and that includes clerks. This is another issue which should be addressed some day.

#144 – I said all references to killing people would be deleted. The “Stupid Mormon theology statement” dealt with an analogy to killing people, therefore it was deleted. If you notice, everything else was left untouched.

Don’t misconstrue what was deleted to twist my theology. I have only deleted statements condoning killing people or linking Mormon theology to killing people – and I will continue to do so, Carlos. (You can’t hide your writing style with so many comments.)

Actually, JimD, that would be your conclusion that Chris was “off his rocker.”

Nick, if you thought Chris’ warnings legitimate and credible, then I must say you expressed those sentiments in a rather curious fashion.

Ummm…I’ll tell you what, JimD. As soon as you embrace Paris Hilton as the official spokesperson for American heterosexuals, I’ll pretend I have some reason to explain the random comments of Elton John, as if they represent any significant portion of homosexuals.

I know that Elton John doesn’t speak for you. My primary purpose was to point out the (forgive me) rather blatant hipocracy in your refusing to even acknowledge his relevance (as you have in other discussions) while labeling nutjobs like Paul Cameron as “significant voices” in the gay marriage opposition and (apparently) using his rantings to justify the application of a prima facie assumption that the bulk of gay marriage opponents want to take us to a “final solution”. (Shouldn’t that have invoked Godwin’s law, by the way? )

JimD, there will always be misguided people, both gay and straight, who will attempt to silence other groups or individuals.

Agreed.

I’m in this church for the religion. I will stand firm for the faith that I believe in. I will proclaim peace and the salvation of Jesus Christ. This gospel is true. But alas, I will not participate in this church’s politics.

Got it, Nick. Thanks for clarifying.

What’s with the “[Stupid analogy of killing people and Mormon theology deleted.]” in some people’s posts? (I guess just Conservative Member’s.) It’s bad enough to censor, but then to editorialize by saying “stupid” makes it worse.

I can see deleting commercial spam, but why not let CM have his say? I certainly don’t personally agree with him, but after all the Old Testament people stoned adulterers, so CM’s outlook is not totally off the planet.

Chris, #157:

You state that one of your concerns is that homosexuality will become more accepted, therefore, more people will experiment with it…especially among certain social groups.

I think one of the most ironic arguments conservative/family/responsibility oriented organizations (like the church) make is that gay men and women who choose to become totally committed to one another and who wish to make that committment formal by taking some type of marriage vow, will somehow add to the problem of sexual promiscuity in the world. By definition, don’t gay couples who marry wish to have only one committed partner? Doesn’t promiscuity “refer to sexual behaviour of a man or woman who either casually or regularly copulates with several partners?”

Gay marriage does not equate to the image some refuse to relinquish of the mini-skirt wearing transvestite selling himherself to a married man who has been pretending to his wife he is straight for the last 40 years. Gay marriage will not cause the world to turn into such…..quite the contrary. There are loving committed couples who wish to live a life of monogamy and fidelity….but are not allowed out of the promiscuous box because the very organizations who claim to want to clean up society and encourage everyone to live in a monogamous and faithful relationship are implying they would rather have gays fit the stereotype that has apparently been established by god. I find it dripping with irony…..gays want to become socially responsible, committed to one person and live a life of happiness with their ONLY partner, and we say….nah, you guys are going to make the world come to a premature end.

The prophet of the Church needs to explain himself as to why this is something we need to do. He needs to get down to the nitty gritty details, because general “repent or be destroyed” threats just don’t work these days. Or maybe he needs to advocate that we stop learning about the world around us and be uneducated, mindless simpletons who do as they are told. Because, for my part, I cannot reconcile the two. There is strong evidence that gays are born with those desires, a fault in the genes, or the chemistry. As such those desires and feelings that they have for others of the same sex are not of their own choosing. Why should they be punished for a decision they did not make? Why make them live miserable lives just to “protect” something that is not even at threat by gays? My marriage to my wife is not in the least bit threatened by the two little old ladies who, after 50 years together, finally tied the knot. I’m not going to run off and find me the local gay guy and run away from my wife. My wife won’t do the same either. I will teach my daughter correct principles and let her choose for herself as God has intended for her to do. Where is the threat to marriage? Spell it out, please, President Monson. We deserve to know what you know. No hiding behind innuendo and vague threats. No “confidential” letters to local church leaders. Say it out in the open. Let us hear the rationale. Please pray about it. Please fast. What is the Lord’s will in this matter? Our generation is far more educated than any other in the history of the world. We make informed decisions these days as never before. But we cannot do that if we do not know enough.

I will not follow blindly anymore.

Chris – “I saw this happen as a teen back in the early eighties when I was a denizen in Salt Lake City’s underground punk/new wave scene. Being gay was very much a trend among certain factions of this group, and many people experimented with it” OK, I would have totally LMAO on this comment had I not personally known about this happening in SLC in the 80s. I can confirm that Chris’s example (heard from what I assume is a completely different source) actually occured as he said.

SteveS – “we don’t make heroes of our alcoholics or porn addicts.” That’s not totally true. We buy their books, we make movies about addicts, we revere their courage for speaking out and trying to right past wrongs. Frankly, half of Hollywood or more fits this mold, and they are revered for getting sober, staying clean, being honest about their addictions, etc. Coming clean about these things takes a lot of courage, and we recognize and reward that courage, perhaps disproportionately in some cases. Plus, if the person is smokin’ hot like Robert Downey, Jr, we are looking for a reason to like them despite (and maybe even for) their flaws. Makes em more human and more accessible. Just sayin’.

So, having said that, I do believe most same sex attraction is innate. But since I don’t experience it, I leave it to God to judge. People have to live their own lives. That’s not, IMO, what this amendment is about specifically, as I’ve stated.

Oops – missed a closing italics tag in my last post. Sorry. Here it is without italics if that is easier to read:

re: #25 “the bad guy came up with a plan to enforce commandments”

I know this was from early on in the conversation, but I wanted to make a comment on this statement and the several replies to it. It was pointed out to me several years ago that nowhere in the scriptures does it say that Satan’s plan was to force us to keep the commandments. That is a common Mormon misunderstanding. The idea that Satan wanted to remove all the consequences of sin is more accurate.

I don’t expect people to agree with me on this, but it is my opinion that although Satan lost back then, he’s still pushing this plan full-force to all who will listen. “Sin all you want – don’t worry about the consequences.”

SteveS (#159) wrote, “You mention gays being held up as heroes. Just for conversation’s sake, why do you suppose they might be held in such a regard if theirs can be passed of as an addiction like heroin, alcohol, porn, etc.? I don’t think you can; we don’t make heroes of our alcoholics or porn addicts.”

You missed a key part of my point, which is that the world is in fact now defining homosexuality as NOT an addiction or a vice or a perversion but as an acceptable alternative and unavoidable identity. Humans need heroes and righteous causes, but as the world becomes more irreligious and immoral, the quality of the heroes is fast progressing downward, judging by our celebrity worship, etc. Yet with gays, it’s easy for people to become sympathetic with their cause, which does on the surface seem to have some validity that reminds us of our victories in other civil rights areas. There’s some honest compassion and charity there, but it’s being misguided and mischanneled by the deceptive Satanic forces who are aiding and abetting the whole gay movement (speaking of both spirits and mortals). Even if irreligious, worldly people are not gay, the gays are becoming their big cause, something that seems to assuage their consciences about being good people, etc. It’s similar to how they’ve embraced the environment (yeah, it’s good not to pollute and to conserve, but for many irreligious people the environment becomes their substitute cause that replaces true religion; same thing is happening with gays).

I can totally see how Satan is turning things around to make gays into the world’s noble heroes and turn anti-gay religionists into the bigoted enemy. It’s classic “Calling good evil and evil good,” and the depth and scale that it will eventually reach (within a decade, I bet) will really accelerate the unraveling of society/civilization as we have known it, at least on the coasts and in big cities. I believe we’re going to see the nation split into two big tribes, pro-gay and anti-gay, and they will even live in different areas. It’s going to remind us of the slavery/civil war situation, only this time it will be the Northeast and the West Coast that are defending the wrong side and the Mormon corridor and Bible Belt South that are on the right side this time. (Wow, this would make a great speculative novel to write…)

Speaking in general terms about our society, irreligious, immoral people who are deep down looking for a reason to despise religious people and thus self-justify and feel better about their own sinful, godless paths have their perfect opportunity in the gay issue, because it’s so easy to self-delude themselves into feeling righteous indignation about the perceived prejudice of the religious who don’t accept the gay movement. “They’re anti-gay bigots, which obviously proves that their whole outlook is wrong. But I’m a kind, progressive person who can accept and love people who are different. Gays can’t help it, but religious people can, so let’s hate the religious people, not the gays.”

Not that religious people can’t accept and love same-gender-challenged people who acknowledge that it’s a sinful lifestyle/movement and are trying to repent, but I really don’t think we should love and accept those who are willfully disobeying God’s commandments. I think we need to tell our children that those people are sinning, breaking God’s laws, not a good model to follow, will ultimately be desperately unhappy, etc. If the church can possibly help rally the voice of the people to put off the gay encroachment as long as possible, that would be great, but I’m sure the brethren in Salt Lake know that the irreligious/immoral will eventually overpower the religious/moral as the majority voice. I bet that being anti-gay will become no more a legally protected religious stand than practicing polygamy is now. I bet within 10 or 20 years the California government will shut down our temples for refusing to perform gay marriages.

The bottom line for me is that if you are a Mormon who is pro-gay movement and pro-gay marriage and anti-Mormon-church-resisting-the-gay-movement-and-gay-marriage, then your spiritual radar is off kilter. Even if you’re not gay yourself, the world and/or some kind of intellectual pride have gotten deep inside your heart and mind, and you are in spiritual trouble. That’s in essence what the church is saying, and I’m on the church’s side. How could you not be, with what clearly lies ahead for our civilization? You really think the church is ever going to come around and say that anal sex between males is acceptable? Talk about a vice; you’ve got to be pretty willful in your sin to cultivate a taste for that, overlook fecal mishaps, etc.

You think things are going to start getting better if we get behind the gays and enable their lifestyle and their movement? Gays need to repent. There is no other way and never will be.

Chris, and at one point the church talked about negroes making the wrong choice in the pre-existence and being inferior-as did much of the world (I can provide quotes if you really needme to). The church was wrong then and I certainly hope that they will accept be wrong on this one too. I am confident that people in the church who spoke out and supported civil rights were accused of being spirtually “off-kilter”. Personally, I think anyone who fights someone having equal rights is spiritually off kilter. What you are saying is the same thing. “It is ok to love the Negroe, but marriage between races is wrong”.

Also, if you recall, the church said oral sex was wrong at one time. In fact it was a temple reccomend interview question-and then they realized they were wrong, it was not appropriate to ask that question. So yeah, I think they will accept anal sex as acceptable-and I notice you don’t mention sex between women. So is that ok?

The church is slowly but surely softening it’s stance on homosexuality. It used to be that having the thoughts was caused by selfishness, and if you just marry a member of the opposite sex it will go away. Now, they don’t say that. In fact the official stance is don’t get married.

Part of loving someone is wanting them to be happy, and not demanding that they satisfy you. Gay marriage does not hurt anyone. Even if you think they are going to burn in hell for it, it doesn’t hurt anyone else accept them.

Oh, and Chris, you need to repent of judging others. Unless you are a bishop (Judge in Israel)and they are in your flock, you don’t get to have an opinion on whether ot not they need to repent. In fact, you have no way of knowing what their leaders thinks of their particular circumstance.

I am not at all clear on the Same Sex Marriage = destruction of civilization as we know it equation. That is something I don’t get at all.

I am not clear that this is such a complicated issue. The text of the statement seems to appeal to the will of the people, but ignores the danger of mob rule. Mob rule was the driving force that disenfranchised the Church in the last half of the 19th Century. Recognizing the rights of others to contract seems pretty straightforward.

Even if there is some causation equation between SSM and the Destruction of Civilization, I have a very hard time imagining the threat being greater than spousal / child abuse; exploitation of immigrant workers; exploitation of the environment; systemic infidelity by spouses and partners; or, if the voice of the people is that important – working to promote the voice and power of the poor and disenfranchised.

I am very disappointed with what the church is doing here because it does nothing to improve anybodies life as far as I can see.

Brain Study Shows Differences Between Gays, Straights:

Gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men — the right and left sides were about the same size, the researchers found. Gay women’s brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women — the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

If this were the cause of the destruction of our civilization, then blame God. He designed the human brain.

Jeff Spector….not me in either case.

tk, I am not saying that the church doesn’t have the “right” to organize on this issue….of course they have the “right” to stand up – just as they have the “right” to discipline members who publicly disagree with them. I’m just saying that I personally wish they wouldn’t do either.

Mormon Soprano,

The problem is that I don’t think the First Presidency or the Prophet have succeeded in showing exactly how traditional marriage would be harmed or even defeated by allowing gays to marry.

#184 Mormon Soprano – and when the First Presidency sent out signed letters stating that it was God’s will that blacks be denied the priesthood and temple ordinances, were they right then, too? When church presidents and apostles railed against interracial marriage, and they claimed to be supporting all of society according to God’s plan for society.

They claimed to be speaking to preserve society even then, and that they were trying to “save the world from itself.” Do we now see that as a beautiful thing?

If they would explain themselves in clear, rational terms, I think things might be different. However, I suspect they can’t, because their thinking on this one is based on irrational fears and stereotypes, just like the irrational fears and stereotypes of previous leaders denied equality in the church to blacks well past the time most other churches had granted it. In a thread not too long ago here there was quite a defense mounted for the prophets who were seen as doing their best, but only acting on “folklore” not “doctrine” even though they themselves proclaimed it doctrine. Are our current leaders now doing the same thing? Is this really “doctrine” or is it more “folklore”?

Here’s another angle on the story. The Pew study on religion shows that 24% of Mormons responding indicated that “Homosexuality should be accepted by society”. That’s more than I expected.

Looks like we won’t have to wait until Sunday and word from our California brothers and sisters to know if this letter is authentic: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700237300,00.html

…or even if they’re way overdue on a makeover for the letterhead. ;>

Something that kind of bothers me is that the Church tried to cover its tracks in the Danzig case by saying that Danzig falsely accused the Church of going against his conscience, that the Church never said that he should write his senator to oppose gay marriage, but rather members were encouraged to write their senators to express their “feelings,” without explicitly saying that they should be anti-gay marriage (not that I was in doubt of the Church’s stance, but still). But this is explicit, so the Church loses its integrity in this case, in my eyes.

I don’t see the correlation between tolerance or acceptance of the gay lifestyle and the definition of marriage. And it surely has no correlation concerning race issues. No men, including gay men where ever stopped from marrying any women or vice versa. Everybody has had an equal right to that choice regardless of sexual orientation. It just does not correlate to race issues where people were denied access to any number of privileges. Marriage has many restrictions on it both before and since the Calif supreme court decision. The question at hand is what are reasonable restrictions in organizing societies norms. I would imagine everybody would agree that there should be some restrictions on peoples behavior even if that behavior is innate rather then learned. Then the question becomes what is reasonable and acceptable and a benefit to society. This is a public debate whose time has come and belongs in the political discourse rather then the majority opinion of a few judges.

This is a public debate whose time has come and belongs in the political discourse rather then the majority opinion of a few judges.

I’d hate to put my rights into the hands of the majority. It’s a bad idea that the U.S. Constitution was designed to avoid. It protects the rights of the minority from the bullying of the majority. We Americans don’t live in a pure democracy. We live in a constitutional republic and I like it that way.

There is a long standing tradition prohibiting same sex marriage. But my position is that the prohibition effects everybody equally regardless of race or sex. That Is why I don’t believe it is a civil rights issue but an issue of legislating societies norms and what the proper venue is for that process. And for the record, hate speech, no matter from what side it comes from, is not acceptable discourse.

Let’s go for 200 comments! Here’s a grab bag of responses from moi, for the three people who may still be following this:

Shawn Larsen #171: “With all due respect to the participants, this thread reflects exactly why I dread having this SSM fight all over again. God help us all.”

Question #1: If you’re sick of it, why did you bother to scroll down 170 comments? Question #2: Do you really think we won’t be debating SSM until the Second Coming? Personally, I sometimes get so bored and disconnected from the LDS Church (mostly on the cultural level) that I’m really grateful to have an issue that gets me stirred up on the church’s side again. I actually looked around the room in Sunday School yesterday and thought, “Ah, these are the people who, by and large, get it about homosexuality being a sin and the need to resist the gay movement.” On the other hand, I admit I get more of a kick out of going against the grain of the Bloggernacle than with it.

Truly Confused #172: “At one point the church talked about negroes making the wrong choice in the pre-existence and being inferior-as did much of the world (I can provide quotes if you really needme to). The church was wrong then and I certainly hope that they will accept be wrong on this one too. I am confident that people in the church who spoke out and supported civil rights were accused of being spirtually “off-kilter”. Personally, I think anyone who fights someone having equal rights is spiritually off kilter. What you are saying is the same thing. “It is ok to love the Negroe, but marriage between races is wrong”.”

I don’t accept the comparison between the blacks and the gays. Being born black is clearly not a choice, at least not in this world (who knows what happened in premortality; probably a big variety of things). Living the gay lifestyle is a choice to put aside the church’s teachings and give into temptations that could be avoided.

“Also, if you recall, the church said oral sex was wrong at one time. In fact it was a temple reccomend interview question-and then they realized they were wrong, it was not appropriate to ask that question. So yeah, I think they will accept anal sex as acceptable-and I notice you don’t mention sex between women. So is that ok?”

I don’t think the church necessarily “realized they were wrong” about oral sex but decided to leave that to individual couples and their own conscience. I bet if you surveyed the general authorities, nearly all would still hold the opinion that oral sex is better avoided. And no, just because I don’t directly address lesbianism doesn’t mean I think sex between women is OK. But thanks for asking.

“The church is slowly but surely softening it’s stance on homosexuality. It used to be that having the thoughts was caused by selfishness, and if you just marry a member of the opposite sex it will go away. Now, they don’t say that. In fact the official stance is don’t get married.”

Just because the church has softened its stance to be more kind and understanding toward those with same-gender attractions and gays who wish to repent doesn’t mean it will go all the way and accept the homosexual lifestyle. And I’m glad they’re warning against marriage as a solution.

“Part of loving someone is wanting them to be happy, and not demanding that they satisfy you. Gay marriage does not hurt anyone. Even if you think they are going to burn in hell for it, it doesn’t hurt anyone else accept them.”

Gay marriages set a horrible example, for one thing. It legitimizes sin and will confuse our children growing up.

“Oh, and Chris, you need to repent of judging others. Unless you are a bishop (Judge in Israel)and they are in your flock, you don’t get to have an opinion on whether ot not they need to repent. In fact, you have no way of knowing what their leaders thinks of their particular circumstance.”

I can accept that I risk coming across as perhaps too quick to judge. But I did say earlier that I acknowledge that only God knows an individual’s accountability on the same-gender issue. It could be that there are some gays who really biologically have no choice. But the minute you say that, the minute you get lots of people self-justifying and self-deceiving. And there’s absolutely never ever an excuse to say, “OK, I’m going to ahead and live the gay sexual lifestyle.” Any bishop who gives a green light to that and gets caught should be immediately released and maybe worse. It may be that those who face a real biological same-gender issue (not just something brought on by society’s acceptance or their own unwise experimentation) face one of this life’s hardest tests and will be rewarded accordingly. Saying that there’s no tolerance for gay sex in any form—especially in pseudo-”marriage”—is a righteous judgment, just repeating the Church’s teachings.

The Green Man #176: “I am not at all clear on the Same Sex Marriage = destruction of civilization as we know it equation. That is something I don’t get at all.”

I don’t think SSM will single-handedly cause the destruction of civilization, just that our embrace of the gay movement in any form is ungodly and contributes to the unraveling of our society. It will certainly polarize people even more.

“I am not clear that this is such a complicated issue. The text of the statement seems to appeal to the will of the people, but ignores the danger of mob rule. Mob rule was the driving force that disenfranchised the Church in the last half of the 19th Century. Recognizing the rights of others to contract seems pretty straightforward.”

Yeah, everybody has the right to sin if they want to, especially if it doesn’t cause immediate physical harm to anyone else, but to legitimize their sin by giving them equal marriage rights is an abomination for a country founded on the tenets of Christianity. People have also gotten really serious about their pets in recent decades, to a neurotic degree in many cases. I bet you some people would “marry” their dog too, if they could. If the majority of society gets to the point where it wants to allow these ungodly rights, then that’s the tipping point at which it will soon become time for Mormons to start withdrawing more from the world because the society has become immoral in its majority. Like someone said, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” (I hope 2008 doesn’t go down in history as both an economic and moral tipping point toward a new dark age, but it well may…)

“Even if there is some causation equation between SSM and the Destruction of Civilization, I have a very hard time imagining the threat being greater than spousal / child abuse; exploitation of immigrant workers; exploitation of the environment; systemic infidelity by spouses and partners; or, if the voice of the people is that important – working to promote the voice and power of the poor and disenfranchised.”

That doesn’t make logical sense. No one is saying we should legalize and celebrate those other things.

“I am very disappointed with what the church is doing here because it does nothing to improve anybodies life as far as I can see.”

It improves some people’s lives by making it clear that they shouldn’t go down the gay road if they still want to be a good Mormon, and there are many willing to make that sacrifice. As a sin, homosexuality leads to unhappiness, if not right now then in the near future, and if someone gay manages to die in a good mood, then they’ll face their unhappiness in the spirit world. It also improves the lives of our children by not confusing them with a society that accepts gay marriage, perhaps leading some of them to go down that path.

Dan #178: “‘Brain Study Shows Differences Between Gays, Straights.’ . . . If this were the cause of the destruction of our civilization, then blame God. He designed the human brain.”

This is another thing that bugs me in these conversations: the assumption that human science can give the conclusive final word on much of anything. It’s a somewhat interesting blip but doesn’t prove anything. For one thing, they looked at adults and not babies, so how do they know that homosexual behavior doesn’t reshape the brain, like it can the hypothalamus? And even if someone is born with such a brain condition, is that an excuse for them to give up and become gay, any more than someone with a gene that makes them prone to alcoholism should give up and drown himself in alcohol?

Norm Al Mormon #181: “It is so good to see you writing pieces for the Sugar Beet again! These parodies you have written here have me slapping my knee and ROFLMAO. Keep up the good work!”

That’s a clever, funny ad hominim attack! It would be fun to do a parody like Friend did, but I’m quite serious. Anyway, half the stuff I wrote for the Sugar Beet has a kernel of truth to it.

Mormon Soprano #183: “I think it is important to note that the First Presidency letter is not ‘anti-gay’. It is PRO-Family.”

Yes, they are walking that line quite well. The Church has got SOME politically correct PR savvy. After all, with the 1978 breakthrough they nearly always managed to avoid mentioning blacks, focusing more on the “all worthy males” angle.

#198 “There is a long standing tradition prohibiting same sex marriage.”

There was a long standing tradition prohibiting blacks to drink from the same water fountains as whites (didn’t deny them water, you understand, their’s was just different and in the back, not near ours – that’s tradition, it’s not hate). This was enshrined in law. Our church actively spoke out against Civil Rights as a “moral” issue, because it would lead to the sin of interracial marriage, and the polluting of the white race.

There was a long standing tradtion of allowing men to discipline their wives with corporal punishment. This was enshrined in law in many places.

There was a long standing tradition forbidding married women from owning ANYTHING, which meant that if a woman of property married, everything she owned went to her husband. If he then divorced her, he kept the property.

Lots of long standing traditions need to be done away with because they are bad ideas.

hawkgrrrl- I think it’s unfair to characterize this as a violation of the law of chastity when there is no possible outlet for a primal human need *within* a chaste state. That is the very possibility they are fighting.

If you author and advance a law that says no blue eyed people are allowed to purchase groceries how can you castigate them for stealing them?

As for the Danzigs, I know there are competing stories but I don’t know that the Danzigs made it public prior to the church disciplining them and publicly humiliating them.

I doubt we’ll resolve this in any way but it seems clear that in at least some corners of the bloggernacle there’s a serious rift between what the church says and asks for and what some saints feel good in their hearts about.

I remember this feeling from the civil rights era and I remember it from the ERA era.

#203 – you’ve hit that one on the head. Although I personally found what the Danzigs did to be distasteful.

#204 – “I think it’s unfair to characterize this as a violation of the law of chastity when there is no possible outlet for a primal human need *within* a chaste state. That is the very possibility they are fighting.” That’s the church’s stance, fair or unfair. This resolution would not change that one way or the other. The church will only welcome celibate homosexuals, regardless of marital status under CA law.

Personally, I don’t object to gay civil unions, as I’ve said repeatedly here, but that doesn’t change what the church will recognize. My personal view is I would prefer to keep moral and legal issues as separate as possible, especially where individuals are pursuing their own happiness without infringing upon the rights of others.

Re: “The question at hand is what are reasonable restrictions in organizing societies norms.”

This is a good question, but it is not the question that seems to be relevant to the supreme court. That is one of civil rights. If you look at GLBT is one of many alternative lifestyles, then the question of reasonable restrictions looks like the question at hand. An alternative lifestyle is simply defined as “a lifestyle generally perceived to be outside the cultural norm.” From Wikipedia, the non-typical sexual lifestyles named as examples of alternative lifestyle include “LGBT, BDSM, swinging, or polyamory, etc.”

If I dedicated my life to one of those lifestyles, then it would make sense that I would want to push to move it into mainstream culture, regardless if it offended others. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That movement is a relentless one. If state constitutions are amended to define marriage as one man and one woman, then push is on to legalize civil unions until the amendments can be overturned. One would be naive to think that once same-sex marriage is legalized, the push to move it into mainstream culture has ended.

Marriage certificates/birth certificates would be changed to Party A/Party B or Parent A/Parent B. (Actually this has already happened in Massachusetts, no?) A woman would be criticized for insensitivity if she lectured a womens group at a college and stated that a woman can have it all…a career, a great man, and a great family. (oops, this already happened too). Don’t believe it is safe to say that absence of ever increasing change to society in countries and states that have made same sex marriage legal. The strategists for the movement will not want to jeopardize states on the fringe of legalization from moving forward by pushing their agenda too quickly.

The irony about the issue of one alternative lifestyle pushing to become mainstream on the basis of civil rights is that courts grant unequal attention to the civil rights of the other groups who are not the currently loudest squeaker. Even the abbreviation GLBT combines groups that will not be able to express their lifestyle with equal recognition with a court decision that concedes a right to marry for members of the “G-L” categories.

Wow, and did I say “Wow”?

I know that a large percentage of the folks in the Bloggernacle lean left politically and that only people with really strong feelings are posting. But I’m disheartened by the number of active members on the Bloggernacle taking a cynical view of this First Presidency letter.

Could it possibly be that the FP is encouraging the preservation of traditional marriage because they’re concerned that legally recognized homosexual marriages will, you know, be a detriment to traditional marriage, end of story?

Can anyone be confident that there will be no unintended consequences as a result of changing our laws, and therefore our social reinforcements? Yes, I do suspect that the privileged “traditional marriage between a man and a woman” that I enjoy will be negatively affected by granting gay marriage the same status. I don’t intend to stand by while the sacred and eternal principle of marriage is downgraded to the status of “one of several valid and completely equal approaches.”

I think a bit of humility is in order for those who think they know exactly what the long-term consequences would be if traditional marriage lost its privileged status. I’m not saying I know either, but when the proposal is to completely revamp an institution that is at the core of our eternal progression, I’ll opt for caution. I can’t imagine the effects of such a change in the world we’ll be living in 10, 20, 50 years from now, and I dare nobody else in this forum does, either.

Sorry, but with the exception of their being slow on spotting the good behind the civil rights movement, I’m glad the brethren’s default mode is resistance to sweeping social change. They’ve been in the right and ahead of the curve on most things. (And yes, I’m including the ERA in that. The stated goals were noble, but many of those pushing the agenda were anything but. Women are probably much better off now because we didn’t bite at the chance to possibly institutionalize a brand of ’60s and ’70s feminism that many modern-day feminists now correctly reject as anti-man, anti-motherhood and anti-family.)

Anyway, I see the gay rights agenda the same way. Proponents of gay marriage cannot predict or control the consequences of such a social change 10 or 50 years down the road once the horse is out of the barn. I, for one, admire the brethren’s track record of fighting the Trojan Horses, even if the majority often succeed in letting them in the gate.

I wish more active members in the Bloggernacle showed evidence that they were giving the brethren the benefit of the doubt on this issue, or at least considering why they might be right rather than formulating arguments as to why they might be wrong.

Lorin has put into words what I have felt as I have read this comments. Thank you, Lorin.

#212 – If the First Presidency knows what detriment to “traditional marriage” will be caused by this, they should tell us, warn us.

Your temple marriage is currently legally equivalent to a bikini clad man and a woman dressed like Charlie Chaplin getting married in a drive-thru in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator. Why is that an acceptable “traditional marriage” but two well-dressed middle-aged women being married in their protestant church by their own minister not an acceptable “traditional marriage”?

You wish more bloggernacle people would give the FP the benefit of the doubt, and I think the FP might get more of the benefit of the doubt if they would state clearly and plainly WHY marriage between gays is unacceptable to God. They stated clearly and plainly in the past that interracial marriage was unacceptable to God, and they told their reasons for it. They ended up looking like racists and fools. Perhaps they aren’t sharing their reasons now because in 10 or 20 or 50 years they don’t want to be judged to have been homophobes and fools.

Andrew (216),

It’s because they learned their lesson about why no one should put words into the Lord’s mouth. Quoting Dallin H. Oaks, circa 1986:

“… It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to [the priesthood ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. … “The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. … I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.”

#173 “I might also point out that most of those who are critical of the church for supporting the California constitutional amendment are either outside of the church (former members and never members) or those who fancy themselves on their way out.”

#213 “I wish more active members in the Bloggernacle showed evidence that they were giving the brethren the benefit of the doubt on this issue, or at least considering why they might be right rather than formulating arguments as to why they might be wrong.”

I’m very committed to the LDS church, with no plans to leave any time soon. So of course I’m not going to be publicly critical of the church about their stance, but that doesn’t mean I agree. I’d really like to support our leaders on this, but I really do not feel good about it and it’s not because I haven’t tried to consider why they might be right. I really empathize with those in CA who have expressed how hard it was for them to have to face this directly – I can’t help but wonder what the spiritual and social ramifications really would be for me and my family if we lived in California and I had to explain over and over why I don’t want to put a sign on my lawn, I’m not going to be making phone calls, or I’m not giving any money to this.

Chris,

#200,

This is another thing that bugs me in these conversations: the assumption that human science can give the conclusive final word on much of anything. It’s a somewhat interesting blip but doesn’t prove anything. For one thing, they looked at adults and not babies, so how do they know that homosexual behavior doesn’t reshape the brain, like it can the hypothalamus?

I don’t take the evidence from science as undeniable truth. Not in the least. But I am a firm believer that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Religion doesn’t work in a vacuum. It works in the world in which we live, and must abide by the laws of that world. The scientific evidence to this point leans fairly strongly in the direction that gays did not choose to be gay. This must be reconciled within the realm of religion. If gays did not choose to be gay, are they sinful? Can you be forced to sin?

Dan #222:

When you say “gays did not choose to be gay,” you’ve grossly oversimplified it. For starters, please carefully reread comment #149. There are many, many different factors that go into “gayness” and most every natural man on this earth has some mix of homo and hetero potential, which can change and evolve over time (look up “Kinsey scale” on Wikipedia).

It’s all about which impulses you choose to follow and which disciplines you apply to yourself. Just because you feel same-gender attractions, even very strong ones, does not mean you have to choose the gay lifestyle.

Here’s another question. The church’s statistics say that 1.79% of the CA population is LDS (and LDS families being what they are, there’s a good chance an inordinate number of them are not of voting age). Reading “comments” in the DesNews, it appears that at least some vocal CA Mormons will be voting against the amendment. I think it’s Pew Research that puts at 51%-42% the number of CA voters opposing it. So the FP’s impact on this amendment is not likely to be favorable or effective in the long run.

What is the point then? Everyone already *knows* the church’s position on this. It seems like they could only lose — both politically and with many younger members. And they raise the attention of the non-LDS population to their interference. What was the point?

Lorin, I suspect you are correct. They won’t explain themselves. Ours is not to reason why, just be obedient and trust them, just like with polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, Civil Rights, the bank in Kirtland, Mountain Meadows, Kinderhook Plates, Mark Hoffman, the Adam-God doctrine, the United Order, the Greek Psalter, the nine different versions of the First Vision, horses, pigs, steel, etc. in the Book of Mormon, 3000 plagairisms of the KJV of the Bible in the BoM, the incorrect translation of the Book of Abraham, the statements that no seer stone was used, Joseph Smith didn’t get arrested as a con man, Joseph Smith didn’t lie about his polygamy, DNA doesn’t show Mongolian ancestry for the “Lamanites” but Middle Eastern, linguistic evidence among the “Lamanites” shows they do have a linguistic tie to Middle Eastern languages, descriptions of Captain Moroni are not very similar to descriptions of George Washington, the View of the Hebrews isn’t at all related to the BoM, etc.

Since our prophets and apostles have done so well on these “minor” things in our religion, it makes perfect sense that they would get a “major” thing like gay marriage right so we should place our complete obedience, faith and confidence in them.

#228 – Andrew C., be careful making a laundry list like that. Some of those things need serious consideration; others simply are silly, tired arguments that hold no water whatsoever. This isn’t the thread for a more detailed discussion, so I won’t attempt it. Suffice it to say that some of them really have no substance.

I adamantly oppose bigotry in all forms…even against religion.

What an unbelievably irresponsible, immoral, and un-Christ-like directive.

#237 – Lorin wrote: “I welcome the opportunity for you to show with the passage of time that this inclination really is a thing of the past.”

Thank you for the invitation. Right now I doubt I will take you up on it. I think that as painful as it may have been for me, I may have discovered truths about myself that I didn’t want to discover. I really don’t want to “not believe” I just can’t find a way “to believe” any longer. And, although this may be hard for you to accept, I think you are right, I wasn’t as neutral as I was letting on, but I hadn’t actually told myself that yet. I hadn’t let myself realize fully that it just doesn’t work for me any longer. I was trying to find a way to make it work, and couldn’t, and that led to frustration, and sometimes outbursts.

If I in fact have already made up my mind (and it now appears even to me that I have) then I don’t know what would be to gained by continuing to visit here and offering what to many would seem like tired, old, insincere arguments or listening to what would seem to me like “mental gymnastics”.

Again, Lorin, I apologize for my actions, and even my own stupidity, at not being able to see what I actually already believe. I think I was blinded by what I WANTED to believe. I WANTED to have what many of you have, but I can’t let that blind me to what I DO have.

I don’t enjoy arguing (I know that seems hard to believe also, but I really don’t), and unfortunately I think much of what would happen if I stuck around would be little other than arguing (and I don’t mean that in the scholarly sense), so I think I’ll just try to slip away. (But this place is kind of addictive.)

Again, best wishes, and thank you. You seem sincere and I appreciate your role in helping me to discover what should have been obvious to me—namely, my own beliefs.

Nick #238: I find your comment a little . . . incomplete. How could you possibly know what I know? Are you telling me that no gay man has ever experienced pain, fecal mishaps, permanently blown-out sphincter, etc. due to anal sex? Because if you are, you’re quite wrong! I’ve read and heard enough directly from gays (or from someone who worked in the hairdressing station next to a gay man with a blown sphincter) to know otherwise.

And then there’s the gay Mormon fiction writer I mentioned earlier, who has this description in his unpublished story I read [WARNING: graphic alert]: “[Deleted for obvious reasons to anyone who read it before it was deleted.]”

But if you can somehow back up your ass-ertion, I’m all ears… You people who are sweetly romanticizing male gay marriage, have you really thought through the logistics? And a big part of this gay Mormon’s story is how gays talk the talk about husbanding each other in long-term commitments, but in reality it’s quite rare that it lasts. As far as I can tell, we’re talking about an ugly perversion here, something that definitely makes the baby Jesus cry.

RE 242,

W. T. F. !!!???

Chris, thanks buddy. I am scarred for life. Do you want to post a link to 2 girls 1 cup while you’re at it? There are no words… my soul is dead.

Oh, Admin… You were too late… too too late… [sobs, curls into fetal position]

#200 quoting #17 Truly Confused:

“Also, if you recall, the church said oral sex was wrong at one time. In fact it was a temple reccomend interview question-and then they realized they were wrong, it was not appropriate to ask that question. So yeah, I think they will accept anal sex as acceptable”

As a side point, the church was actually inspired in trying to have members avoid oral sex as some studies are now proving linking human papillomavirus to a mini epidemic in throat cancers:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/06/10/1212863620224.html

Notice that scientist believe that throat cancers due to HPV may overtake the number of cervical cancers in a decade or so.

Sure they then considered the question inappropriate for Temple interviews, but they knew the truth before science did, just like they did with tobacco or alcohol.

Lord only knows what could happen decades later to those engaged in anal sex, men or women. Why take the risk?

Andrew Callahan, #240

Welcome to a brave new world… I haven’t commented on this thread as I still need to overcome my own prejudices concerning homosexuality. Nick’s analogies have made me think and helped me on the path and therefore I’m grateful to him for posting.

I would ask you sincerely to consider staying here on Mormon Matters for the same reasons. Your posts are thoughtful and well spoken. Many benefit from your perspective even if they’re just reading and not commenting. If intelligent people decide it not worth their time to provide the “other side of the coin”, so to speak, then Mormon Matters will turn into just another pro LDS blog in the blogernacle. That was not its original intention as far as I can tell.

This is supposed to be a place where difficult issues are fully explored by all without fear of church action. All opinions should be valued providing they’re sincere.

P.S. Your laundry list of issues is not near as easy to drive the aircraft carrier through as Ray would like everyone to believe. Some are fully aware of all those issues and more, but still take time to be part of this blog to let others (with like feelings) know they’re not alone. I’m hoping you’ll be one of those… Thanks

Thanks for clarifying that Djinn. Well, that rather negates my last post! I stand (or sit, rather) corrected.

#200/Chris — I’m finally getting around to answering your questions:

“Question #1: If you’re sick of it, why did you bother to scroll down 170 comments?”

That’s easy (and obvious) — because I’m interested in the issue. Nowhere have I ever said that I am “sick of it.” Those are your words, not mine. That sort of “love it or leave attitude” is unhelpful and, quite frankly, unbecoming. Anyone who knows me or who has read my postings knows that I am a big advocate of free and open discussion. Heck, that’s whay I blog here. What always frustrates me about the SSM issue is it inevitably brings out the worst in people. There is very little “discussion”; rather, folks seem much more interested in foisting their agendas and prejudices (both pro and anti-SSM) onto others so as to justify themselves. Regardless of how you feel about SSM, there is no room in the Church for hateful, judgmental or slanderous comments about homosexuals, period. Suppoting the Church’s official position by way of prejudical notions about gays and lesbians totally misses the point, IMHO. That’s what I was trying to express in my short comment.

“Question #2: Do you really think we won’t be debating SSM until the Second Coming?”

I have no idea, but I certainly hope not. I’m much more interested in a discussion of how we can better learn to love our neighbors. Call me old fashioned, but that’s Christianity is about to me. SSM is, at its core, a political issue. Yes, it has moral underpinings that will continue on unchanged regardless of how courts/voters/government rule. But the politial fight will die down eventually (e.g. ERA). I would rather that we, as a Church, spend more time talking about more important topics. If you’re really itchin’ for a “political” tinge to your religion, let’s talk abvout bringing peace to war-torn Africa, or feeding the poor here in the States.

“I actually looked around the room in Sunday School yesterday and thought, “Ah, these are the people who, by and large, get it about homosexuality being a sin and the need to resist the gay movement.””

This, to me, is a dangerous thought for a couple of reasons. First, the idea that everyone in a ward feels the same about all manner of issues, either political or spiritual, is dicey. A ward, just like any other grouping of people is bound to have differences. Assumptions of belief based on membership may be a nice shorthand, but if left unexamined, can also lead prejudice. Second, just because a member “get[s] it about homosexuality” does not mean that they “feel the need to resist the gay movement,” whatever that means. Again, assumptions like these can cause wedges between ward members.

Thank you, Latter Day Guy; I used to post links, but they’d get caught up and disappear into moderation. It’s easy enough to use the magical powers of Google to confirm; this information should be much more widely known. Interestly enough, HPV was (in the 60′s) seen as a disease very easily passed around by babies/young children. Still true, I’m sure; diapers and the changing thereof, you know. Carry on.

#256:

“You mean, sort of like how in reality it’s quite rare that heterosexual marriages last?”

Thumbs up, Nick.

#257: “It’s not a chastity issue. It’s a health issue.”

Well put, djinn.

#248: “a civil union so horrifying isn’t at all horrifying. You seem to have read into things a bit much.”

YYYeah, Stephen, that was kind of the point. It’s not horrifying at all, nonetheless people are adamantly opposed to it because they seem to fear some dire consequence if our nation decides to live up to the ideal of equality for all.

Whoops, the last paragraph in the preceding comment should not have been included in the blockquote.

Whether homosexuality is a sin or not, whether the Church is right in fighting same-sex marriage or not, whether the status of marriage is really in trouble or not, all this is sort of irrelevant to me. We can all draw our own conclusions and have our opinions. However, what bothers me by some of the comments here, particularly Chris’ comments, is that it’s so easy to trivilialize being homosexual. Sure, even if someone is born 100% gay, they don’t “have” to live the gay lifestyle. OK, but have you all really, I mean REALLY thought about what that entails? We heterosexual members are so quick to dismiss it as “sin” or simply a matter of “choice” or even just plain willpower. Even if it’s both, just think of what the life of a celibate homosexual entails. It’s not quite fair to compare it to heterosexual singles, who also are to remain chaste, because they can at least date, kiss, hold hands, have a non-sexual relationship. What can homosexuals do? Would it be acceptable for a gay couple having a non-sexual relationship to hold hands on BYU campus? Of course not. I mean think about it. They can’t do all the non-sexual acts of affection and of course they can’t masturbate because that’s wrong too, so what do they do? Basically they live the life of a priest or a nun, complete celibacy, which is certainly by no means impossible, but the Church is always quick to point out that we don’t believe in that celibate lifestyle anyways. We are a Church about love and marriage. So I’m not saying that the Church should just come out and allow gay marriage. I honestly don’t know what my opinion is on this anymore. But like Alice pointed out, each of us can only listen to our own consciences and what the Spirit is telling each of us. And this is where I have my personal dilemma. I don’t particularly like the idea of marriage being redefined, but some of the Church’s actions just feel wrong, politics aside. I really and truly feel for those who are gay, especially gay and Mormon, and find themselves in the middle of this war. It must be disheartening to see members trivilialize their struggles and throw the blame back at them constantly.

I think back to the days I was single and lonely. It sucked. I mean REALLY sucked! And yet I still had the hope for marriage, or at the very least a companion to do all the things I mentioned above (minus the masturbation ). I would encourage all of you, particularly Chris, to really think back to those times in your life when you were looking for love and companionship and what it would have been like to be told that you were going to be celibate — completely 100% celibate — for the rest of your life. Maybe only then can you have a glimpse — just a glimpse — at what it must be like.

So before you’re ready to cast a stone at the homosexual lifestyle, you better be able to back that up by commitment to the celibate lifestyle of a priest or nun. Personally, I know I’m no Mother Teresa.

#257: “It’s not a chastity issue. It’s a health issue.”

Complete rubbish! You didn’t understand. I wasn’t saying that its ONLY sexuality transmitted but that sex takes the virus to vulnerable tissue such as the cervix or, now, the throat. And MD’s are preaching this as the article clearly states.

HPV can live harmlessly on the skin, become a wart and be inconsequential until it inflects vulnerable tissue.

In the ’50 they saw that convent nuns never had cervical cancer and so realized that sex took the virus to the cervix, maybe from a man touching the wrong doorknob (as you say) to becoming a harmless wart on the hand, to the man’s manhood in normal bathroom practice and then to the wife -never is any promiscuity involved.

Now it can travel the same rout but due to oral sex end up infecting the throat -even if promiscuity is not an issue. It is a chastity matter so one never risks throat cancer caused by hpv.

As for the whole debate –Meh–

Churches have gotten involved in politico-moral issues since time immemorial. Why should the Mormon church be an exception?

Money quote:

Condoms do not prevent the spread of HPV, because condoms only stop semen, and HPV 16 and 18 [those that cause cervical cancer] are not typical STDs. HPV 16 is passed by skin to skin contact, not through semen, so kissing, sharing spoons, breastfeeding, playing sports will all pass it on. [So, since it isn't passed on by sexual contact, prevention during sexual contact doesn't help.]

Are you really going to let someone you love take the risk of dying of cancer because, uh, your uninformed belief that it’s deserved because the woman was a sinner?

If I can step back in here (I was in this debate only once before at #149), let me say this: this has gotten heated.

I am unabashedly and happily married to my wife. I’ll never even consider homosexuality as an option, but I’ve taken the time to understand it. I’ve had enough friends that experimented with it, are homosexual, or are bisexual to understand that it is an extremely complex issue. One that we cannot solve by putting our fingers in our ears and screaming “go away!”.

Yes, I’ll agree that for me personally it’s not an attractive option. Big deal. I also happen to think that I have a reasonably good understanding of why it does not fit into Heavenly Father’s plan, but that’s a very personal understanding, and I don’t really think that I need to share it on this forum. Anyone who wishes to speak with me about it can try to figure out how to contact me in real life. Good luck. My last name is an English word meaning “group of fruit trees” and my email address is a shortened version of my first name, a period, my last name, and I use a popular email service that is constantly increasing its mailbox size and also runs a very popular search engine. If you can’t figure it out, then you don’t really deserve to talk to me.

Now do you think that God has really failed to account for this? Really? In his grand plan, has he failed to account for a strange genetic twist that allows for some of his children to become attracted to the members of the same sex? I seriously doubt it. What He plans to do about this, I cannot say, but the commandment seems to be plain.

Nick, you responded to me, saying that God will judge the desires of your heart, and then talk about the desires of your heart being love and attraction for another man. I look deeper, and believe the Lord does too. What if the real desire of your heart is too serve the Lord? A person may want to serve the Lord, and loves the Lord God, but has this other conflicting desire that makes it difficult. The Lord knows this, and will judge your behavior accordingly. I’ve always felt that’s what it means. He knows the desires of our hearts, and what our impulses are, and how well we control them.

If I acted out my desires, then I would not be a good person. I desire all sorts of base and ugly things, but I do not act on those things. Why? Because it is contrary to the commandments of God, and even more than my desire for those things is my love for God and my desire (also in my heart) to serve him and to show my love for him. So when I am judged, what will show up as the desire of my heart? All of it, I hope. So that the weakness that I have will be apparent, so that my behavior, as weak as it is, will be shown to be more courageous than anyone realizes because of how base and degraded my impulses really are. That is what I think it means to be judged by the desires of your heart. But what do I know? I am just a man.

So when it comes down to it all, I love the fact that the church has room in it for those who are very strong in their desire to support an amendment like this, as well as those who are more concerned about whether or not such an amendment shows a Christ-like love for their fellow man because it may cause them to suffer. As a more libertarian person, I think the government should be staying out of marriage altogether, and that marriage is defined according to religious beliefs, but that seems to be an unpopular view despite the number of problems it solves.

djinn,

You’re twisting the argument beyond the ridiculous. And you need to read #270 again, but properly and see if it finally gets through that think head of yours.

We all agree that hpv can spread in normal life, like [again from 270] when a man urinates it can go from his hand to his member and then he passes it on to his wife -never any promiscuity involved, (and because of this my wife has pap tests every 2 years.)

The point is how it finally reaches vulnerable tissue like cervix or throat. No matter how you try you’re not going to touch a cervix without some form of sex, otherwise you need a gynecologists specula. And that author obviously naively thinks that her nun is a virgin. Nor will someone put their fingers down their throat for fun, most people don’t do that. Yet oral sex will take hpv to the throat (ie the vulnerable tissue) just through skin to skin contact, and the result is this mini epidemic we are now talking about. We didn’t see these numbers back in the ’80s, did we? No, its a result…well the article explains this anyway, if you care to read it properly!

“Are you really going to let someone you love take the risk of dying of cancer because, uh, your uninformed belief that it’s deserved because the woman was a sinner?”

You are so wrong here, so wrong!!! I never claimed it was ‘deserved’, how you reached that is a mystery. Well actually it may be all because of how you twist things to make something that is morally wrong (oral sex) somehow appear right and natural. Just like Lucifer likes to do!!

Next you’ll be telling me that there is nothing wrong with anal sex? off course you will!

This is obviously a very controversial issue. More comments here than in 5 other articles combined. There’s a lot of passion out there.

I’d just like to remind people that this is going to continue, and it isn’t going to go away. While it will be easy for those who don’t know me personally to take what I’m about to say out of context, to push it to the extreme, and to accuse me of being a fundamentalist, manichean, doom and gloom, whatever, but there you have it.

There is, sooner or later, going to be an end to this world as we know it. The proud and all they who do wickedly will literally burn as stubble. There is no getting around this fact: in the end you will either be on the right hand or the left. There is no Third Way, no lukewarm solution to issues of agency, morality, and sin. In the past 20 years or so the Church has gone out of its way to help affluent North American Mormons “fit in.” But the Church isn’t here to simply lead a quiet life. The Church is led by Jesus Christ through revelation. And, as time goes by, the paths of our comfortable culture and the teachings of the Savior will increasingly resemble strait and narrow paths or wide ways.

I’m a lifelong Democrat. And I teach at an elite liberal arts college. I stumped for Obama in New Hampshire. I say all of these things because I live and work amongst people with very strong feelings on gay marriage. And on this issue I find myself feeling like Paul Scofield’s portrayal of Sir Thomas More–come on, it’s best for the country, everybody wants you to do it, just back down, just equivocate, just this once, give your approval to what we’re doing.

So I have to ask myself, do we as Mormons ever have a bottom line? I mean, what do you expect the Church to do in this situation? The Church has never said it would recuse itself from all political questions–it has only said it would not interfere in partisan politics, but in matters of morality and family, it will not back down and it will not be silent. What else are we to expect if we believe the Church is what it says it is?

Not that it means anything at all, but . . . never mind. I can’t find a way to express how sad I am that this has deteriorated this far.

I’m not really sure how it is relevant to the SSM discussion, but it appears that a very short virology lesson is needed.
There are over 100 types of human papillomaviruses, and they have slightly different genes that dictate which body sites they infect, as well as their tendency to cause cancer. The HPV types associated with cervical cancer are not the same types that cause warts on your hands. These types are transmitted almost entirely by sexual contact. If you’ve had oral sex with more than 6 partners, your risk for throat cancer due to HPV-16 is increased, but any sexual contact can result in transmission. If a couple has not had sex before they are married and are monogamous, they will not be able to infect each other with any HPV type associated with cervical cancer (or throat cancer). There is no chance of getting it from a tampon, and if your gynecologist does not disinfect the speculum between patients, change doctors immediately!
That being said, it would be wonderful if the vaccine were available for everyone (men and women, gay/straight) regardless of sexual history or plans for sexual activity.

I realize that the popular comparisons for SSM are with the ERA and the priesthood ban, but does anybody see a more accurate comparison with Prohibition?

Prohibition seems to be much more appropriate comparison: The notion of “legislating morals,” a constitutional amendment that adhered fairly closely with the doctrine of the Church (notwithstanding the acceptance of the WoW as doctrine at that time in our history), etc. I’m no historian, but it seems to me to be one of the clearest examples of legislating morals (along the lines of inter-racial marriages) that I can think of.

And it didn’t seem to work out too well for the country.

#283 Adam said: “Well Ray, that’s what tends to happen. The last time a post went over 250 comments we had started with the church and ended up talking about mayonnaise. Arguably a deterioration.”

I agree. I prefer Miracle Whip.

I wonder if that is because I believe in “miracles” or just prefer the taste?

Faithful Dissident- I thought I’d share this: http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits

Although some of us don’t represent the preponderance of LDS attitude we are NOT alone either. It’s unfortunate that there isn’t comparable historic reference. I suspect we’d see some pretty interesting trends that respond to social and political tides. Not saying I know what they’d be; just saying I’d be very interested in them.

“Even with such a terrible emotional burden to carry, that still doesn’t mean that entering into a gay sexual relationship is going to assuage the pain. It may temporarily, but in the end it will make things worse.”

Chris, this may be right, it may be wrong. I do not know, and if this is a Church teaching, implicit or explicit, I am not sure that it is correct or if it is in the category of justifications given over many years for withholding of priesthood and temple blessings based on race/lineage.

There are some same-sex couples who have lived together for many years and seem to be happy. My uncle was in such an arrangement until his partner died. Although my uncle distanced himself from the Church by choosing this relationship (or perhaps, better said, the Church distanced itself from him because of his relationship choice), he continued to believe in the Church, and his funeral was held in his ward house and conducted by his bishop.

Interestingly, his brothers and sisters, who were almost uniformly “iron rod”, conservative, republican, devout Church members, accepted, loved and embraced my uncle and his partner.

Rigel- What I’ve observed is that gay people — both men and women — have a close-knit and highly social community. In that way, they are more like an extended family with access to lots of mothers and lots of fathers.

As you point out, there is information about the relative “success” of families with same sex parents. The typical women-only family is different and has different typical parenting results than the typical men-only family. Likewise, families with heterosexual parents have other results. Some are more successful on some criteria; some more successful on others. And all of us have things to work on.

It’s still worth considering how many children have been given homes they would likely not have had otherwise (gay families often adopt older harder to place children and children of mixed racial backgrounds or different racial identity than their own) if not for gay families.

300! That’s a lot of comments! But seriously, the comments on this site have been sooooo much more courteous and understanding than those on desnews.com in regards to this letter. You guys and gals all rock!

DavidH #296 said: “Interestingly, his brothers and sisters, who were almost uniformly “iron rod”, conservative, republican, devout Church members, accepted, loved and embraced my uncle and his partner.”

This seems like the right thing to do under the circumstances, actually, if the uncle is respectful of the family in return and doesn’t rub his sin in their faces. I know that when my wife’s gay cousin doesn’t bring a boyfriend to the family reunion, it’s almost a little disappointing. It’s fun to watch when he’s in a relationship, and you can’t help but feel bad for him when he’s alone. I admire his guts in going after what he thinks he wants. I don’t think it’s the right choice and I’m sure it will lead to eventual disappointment and heartache for him, if it hasn’t already, but on an interpersonal level, I enjoy talking with him and hearing his opinions and observing his energy. I’m a little envious that he gets to follow his bliss in life while I often feel hedged up on every side by Mormonism.

You might think I’m a total homophobe based on my online persona, and I do admit to being a total homophobe about homosexuality itself and the gay movement. However, I’m not homophobic about gay people in person. I used to live on Boston’s Newbury Street, where my then-wife was a hairdresser (her regular clients included Mitt Romney, back when he was still just a stake prez and venture capitalist; she found him so charismatic that her knees would quiver a little as she worked on his hair). Anyway, as you can imagine if you know Boston, she had lots of gay coworkers and clients, and we became friends with one of her clients in particular, a very successful, professional, charismatic guy who really had his shee-ite together, much more so in most areas than I ever have or will.

We became close enough that we would exchange dinner invitations, and it was fascinating to spend time with him and his partner in his lovely South End apartment, where they seemed to be successfully playing house. When the partner abandoned him, we were able to offer commiseration and support (he had been playing sugar daddy to a younger guy). I enjoyed enough good rapport with this fellow that, when he was getting ready to treat himself to a post-breakup bacchanalia on Block or Fire Island (which is the big gay one again?), I was able to look him in the eye and half-teasingly say, “Now, you packed plenty of protection, right?” And I think he actually appreciated the concern.

That’s only one of many stories I could tell of my interactions and attitudes regarding gay people in person, because on the human level they’re not hard people to love and in fact can make life quite a bit more interesting. I did have one gay roommate who I didn’t like, but that wasn’t directly related to his gayness, although he was a bit obnoxiously flamboyant at times. What bothered me was that he was kind of a snob and a poseur and dishonest (he would steal from the restaurants where he worked and throw lavish parties with caviar and stuff). When he contracted AIDS, he just said “F— it” and went down in flames, doing needle drugs and anything else he damn well wanted.

However, devoid of human contact at my keyboard, I am able to say what I really think about homosexuality in general, and I stand by it. In fact, maybe my conscience is so clear about my interpersonal dealings with gays that I feel some leeway to say what I think in a forum like this. I think this duality would be called “loving the sinner while hating the sin.” I respect the choice of gay people to do whatever they want amongst themselves, but the line needs to remain clear that it’s a sin, and they need to know that God wants them to come back and repent, and we mustn’t allow sinners to make their sin an accepted part of our Christian-based society. Let’s keep the baby Jesus smiling, folks.

I respect the choice of gay people to do whatever they want amongst themselves, but the line needs to remain clear that it’s a sin, and they need to know that God wants them to come back and repent, and we mustn’t allow sinners to make their sin an accepted part of our Christian-based society.

Chris, doesn’t it depend on how serious we think the sin is? Substitute *gossipers* for gay people, and you sentence would make just as much sense, and nobody is proposing an amendment to the constitution to ban gossiping.

Hey doooooood, there are levels of seriousness even in sexual sin, don’t you agree? Otherwise, we would have to excommunicate 98% of the YM for masturbation. Whatever it is that gay people do with one another, I don’t think it is a bad as fornication, because there is no chance that children will be brought into the world. Nobody is trying to pass a law forbidding the Elvis wedding chapel in Las Vegas from “marrying” the hundreds of pairs of drunks who stumble through the door every week. In my opinion, that is a more serious sin and greater threat to the institution of the family than anything gays or lesbians might do.

But Dan, if the quickie marriage law is changes in Nevada, what would BYU students do for their quickie marriage/consummation/quickie annulment?

Dan @ 309

I was married to my dream girl at the Little White Chapel of Love in Vegas more than ten years, three kids and two university degrees ago. I enjoy the happiest and most enjoyable marriage that I can imagine – I am not kidding or overstating (for once). We eloped when her family and my wife and I’s old mission president was convinced they had revelation that we were not to be married.

In a way though, I agree that the greatest threat to marriage as a contract / institution is the way the occasion is considered on par with the prom – a nice occasion to dress up and have sex, but not much more than that. That is a role where I see the church having an important role to play, notwithstanding my absolute opposition to its political involvement.

Also, on the quickie annulment/divorce scenario – not so quickie unless you are a Clark County resident. Most BYU students are not. I believe it’s a 60 day wait, if I’m not mistaken. Talk about a lost weekend.

Mayonaisse…tampons…..Miracle wip…..virus lessons…..hpv…..(plus djinn brainless skull that doesn’t read!)

Now quickie and ‘consumated or not’. Love the variety here at Mormon Matters, we talk about everything!

Anyway, to those who keep thinking about black/priesthood issue, you need to remember that the church has NEVER denied nor overtuned all the past teachings about sitting on the sidelines in the pre-existance or some form of inferiority that the past apostles taught. They never condemned past prophets’ preaching, just put it aside for now since its out of date. White-washed it one could say.

But really, everything they taught in the past about blacks still stands. Only the one matter of blacks being actually ordained to the priesthood changed, and did so via a revelation well known. So they have ‘invited’ blacks to the priesthood not changed their thinking of why they are black. Nor why lamanites are dark skined either. Proof? how many general authorities are black? only a few area authorities within african areas.

So yes, blacks can feel as second class citizens if they want to (which i’d say they shouldn’t do), as can almost everyone who isn’t blonde/blue eyed in this whitemans church! (whiteman would include Uchtdorf)

I am a 21 year old pissed off mormon. I am going to sacrement on sunday to officially hear the message from the presidency, ask the bishop to expunge my records from the church, and devote any spare time in life to promoting anti crhistian evangelical tyrrany. I am going to tell kids premarital sex is ok, smoking pot is cool, and not to wait till 21 to drink. Oh yea, porn is cool too. The church needs to lose its tax exempt status for this. It is ridiculous.

Alan Turing was not only the saint of computer science, creating the mathematical framework for the field, and hence, the modern world; but he was also the single human most responsible for winning WWII for the Allies. You see, he deciphered the “Enigma Machine,” not to mention diverse other German codes, with the result that for the last five (5) years of WWII we could read the Germans’ most secretest transmissions. With this knowledge, we won. For this astonishing feat, the British awarded him with, uh, well, they discovered in 1952 that he was homosexual, and so not only chemically castrated him, but also fired him. He killed himself a year later.

Today he would have turned 92.

How should we treat such souls as him?

As I stated, Alan Turing is the patron saint of computer scientists, like me. We all know this story; it may be one of the reasons that gay friendly places are also technology/cs/successful places. My younger Mormon contacts find this particular strain of their religion, like Jon above, particularly disturbing. As, I feel, is proper. What should have happened to St. Turing? Knighthood? Castration? Death? Cake?

This discussion was good enough that I had to write my own sexual creed on the matter in my blog.

Oh BTW – I would urge those of us on this side of the issue who live in California do what I am planning on doing Sunday at sacrament meeting. When the letter is being read, simply walk out of the chapel and return a little later on in Sacrament meeting.

Simple, quiet, effective.

Steven B- I have friends who would have done anything to be straight and live their lives the same simple direct way everyone else does. Some of them were guilted into depression and despair. One was strong and saved himself by turning his back on the church. Two others were not. One hung himself at the age of 20. I was out of the country and didn’t find out until several months later. I was not even able to go to his funeral or mourn him with friends. The other developed multiple addictions and didn’t die until he had taken several other lives into wreckage with his.

I saw all this firsthand. I *know* they were good people and didn’t *choose* anything. They did the best they could. They deserved support and help instead of pity, guilt and derision.

All that was back in the 60s and 70s. Before the nonsense of “reparative therapy”. Today I’m glad that most of the country has been open to what science tells us so that much healthier possibilities await people who are gay. In contrast with the aforementioned friends, more contemporary gay friends have been able to establish a family, give a home to a daughter with a schizophrenic natural mother and pursue careers in business and technology. They have given their (straight) daughter a brighter future and provided to our economy and social fabric — some of us may be using computer technology one of them has contributed to right now. Everything about this change in culture is superior and I can’t help but think that my poor tortured college friends would have their burdens eased by knowing it’s different now.

I hope it helps to hear that I understand exactly what you’re saying. And I’m here to say that knowing means you can’t turn back or accept anything else as the truth.

The equal protection clause that the CA Supreme Court based its ruling on is modeled after the one written by the Founding Fathers that God inspired to write the US Constitution. The provision for branches of government that oversee and counterbalance one another is also one of the inspired portions of the US Constitution and mirrored by CA.

Meanwhile, the CA Supreme Court Justices were doing what they were sworn to do — uphold the constitution. There was no “judicial activism”. Their legal argument is clear, direct and supported by the equal protection provisions. That may not feel good. It may not support what you believe to be moral. It may run counter to what the GAs are trying to accomplish. But it’s simple and true.

We are in a great paradox. The church will have to have a revelation that aligns doctrine with the US Constitution (the one written by the Founding Fathers that was inspired, not the one tinkered with to fit a preconceived agenda) and science (which is another way by which we discover HF’s work) or one that says the earlier one that conferred inspired status on the Constitution was wrong all these years.

Same sex marriage is a difficult topic for me. On a legal level, I personally believe it should be allowed, despite the fact that I do not agree with it morally. You must also take into account this is coming from an active member of the Church who has, in the past, struggled with same sex attraction. I personally do not understand why things are the way they are. Will I ever marry? I do not know. Will I have children? I do not know. The issue for me is that I do indeed feel attraction for women, yet I still battle with my feelings. I do know, however, that we have a loving Father in Heaven and a Savior Jesus Christ, who understands my pain and my anguish as I struggle to discover who I truly am. I will be obedient to my God and your God as I strive to keep the commandments that he has given me. My testimony of Jesus Christ and His infinite atonement will see me through anything, for I know that it is real. I will never deny the suffering of my Lord, even my God, as they drove nails in His hands and he hung and suffered upon a cross. And after death, on the third day he broke the bands of death and forsook the tomb. As Elder Wirthlin said, I imagine the Friday when Christ was crucified and died was dark. However, how joyous the day was when our Savior rose from the grave on that Sunday. We will all have Fridays in our lives, but just as Elder Wirthlin promised, I know that our Sunday will come, whether in this life or the next. As we languish, Christ will support us and love us. Through the Prince of Peace, we obtain peace.

Whether or not gay marriage is permitted or whether the Church decides to support this current political action does not matter to me in the grand scheme of things. To be honest, I could care less if homosexuals are allowed to marry. I think in the end, the most important thing we can learn to do is love one another. I don’t care if you are are black, white, gay, straight, poor, rich, male or female, let’s just learn to love one another. Let’s not fight over something that we may have differing views about. Please, I implore all of us to just learn that, in the end, people may not remember everything we said, but they will remember that something was said. Let us reach out to others with love and concern, living the way our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would have us live.

May God bless you all.

Jeff,
(just to clarify)

Actually they never claimed that for the ‘excuses’ previously given for being born black only for the change of giving them the priesthood. ie from your quotes:

““There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things….”

“Forget everything that I have said……days past that is contrary to the present revelation”

So they changed ONE thing as I mentioned too, in #314, by revelation in that blacks should receive the priesthood and that was the subject of McConkie’s talk here, but the reasons given in the past of WHY one is born black have not been disowned or rejected since the revelation didn’t address that. That matter has only been put aside. Nor has anyone said that the past reasons given for being born black where wrong, only the belief that they wouldn’t receive the priesthood in mortality has to be forgotten due to the Lord’s revelation.

djinn #322,

Wow, girl, you actually used 3 neurons here! You’re right about Turing, he was brilliant.

One could add Oscar Wild, MichaelAngelo and a ton of other homosexuals to this list, all talented and brilliant who, well, sinned in their personal life. One could also add talented and brilliant people like Pavarotti, Bill Clinton and Einstein who also sinned but with adultery.

What do we do with them? Excommunicate them so they see what the telestial kingdom is like and let them decide what to do with their lives. But then the description given in D&C of the telestial isn’t very frightening so I guess most will be, and are, OK with telestial law.

As to Turing, the social pressure must have been excruciating and that’s probably why he killed himself. But that was the law back then, draconian (as is the death penalty in the US which affects mostly minorities, not the white double murderer Hoffmann!) So I wouldn’t castrate sinners but I also wouldn’t give sinners all the benefits that non-sinners have, like marriage or church callings imho off course

Callings aren’t a ‘benefit’ for you Ray? Or is only work paid health insurance a ‘benefit’ to you? Dictionary says that benefit is “something that is advantageous or good” ??

And #324 goes along the lines of death and gays, just as my comment did which you deleted so why not delete #324?
Oh, she’s pro gay-marriage; right?

or is it just about hypocrisy? because you’ve only deleted comments from those anti gay-marriage here.

and, btw, I have only edited comments from YOU repeatedly here. I edited one other part of one other comment for very obvious reasons. Anyone who read it would have understood – not agreed unanimously, but understood. No other anti-gay-marriage comments have been edited in any way. None. None of them have advocated killing homosexuals and compared Mormon theology to doing so, so none of them have been edited.

Also, I have not edited any comment on any other thread. Just this one, and just very narrowly – and just after open and direct warning.

I won’t address this again, so take whatever shot you will – understanding I will edit only as I have thus far.

RE 342:

not agreed unanimously

And THAT, Ray, boggles my little brain!

hawkgrrrl: I wrote: “So I wouldn’t castrate sinners but ….” in response to djinn. Obviously it refers to homosexual sin or the sinner in homosexuality, not all of us sinners who never have gay sex! Shouldn’t be necessary to write out all the details.

Ray, your bias is amazing. My first comment #32 never mentioned death, others brought that up and I responded to them if you ever care to read back. But of course you only censored the anti-gays here, not your own repetition of ‘shit’ or that other persons ‘W.T.F!!’ (And stop calling me some other name, it certainly isn’t my legal name!)

Plus you’re just either naive or ignorant of the fact that we did enforce the death penalty to gays in Mormon Utah 1800′s. But sure, enough of this pro-gay agenda pushing post!!!

(Oh, and you still haven’t owned up leaking this letter and all the controversy it has caused, but then you really are pro-gay, aren’t you?)

327 Phouchg – I should have been clearer in 312. Annulment (not marriage) for non-residents of Clark County is what has a waiting period.

People walking out of church? Really? Is that due to being pro-SSM or just being SSM neutral and not liking politics at church?

An unpopular minority — Mormons (see Romney campaign)– trying to limit the rights of another unpopular minority –Gays — about an issue (Marriage) which Mormonism has a somewhat vexed — and very very famous — history, reminds all and sundry about said vexed history, is on the wrong side of history (again–see any number of issues, but perhaps blacks and the priesthood is the closest), hurts the reputation of the church in society at large, does nothing to lessen the distrust of the church felt by the Evangelicals who are the main supporters of the amendment, and in my admittedly brainless conclusion, is the exact opposite of what the church should be doing. The church did change their mind on oral sex, solely because of the outrage of the members; it could happen again.

Nick (351) yes yes yes.

djinn,

“The church did change their mind on oral sex, solely because of the outrage of the members”

Another brainless conclusion dear, or love (see I’m now spreading the love to the enemies of the church!)

We stopped asking about it in temple recommends only because most couples didn’t do it and some singles asked why you asking me. But the church didn’t change its view on oral sex, it still teaches that sex should be ‘natural’ and safe, so oral/anal But it is inappropriate to ASK about it in temple recommend interviews. They replaced everything with the keeping the law of chastity question. They also don’t ask missionaries about masturbation in temple recommend interviews but the church still condemns it.

But then no one polices this, so you can continue doing it….it’s your private business. I doubt it will send you to hell or anything like that.

sorry, Nick, not Hick. It’s early on a Friday.

I think equating the plan of salvation and the ultimate reward of exaltation to a divine game of survival of the fittest is dangerous to the extreme in that it denies the operative power that actually qualifies one for such blessings: God’s grace. Grace counters natural selection by erasing consequences of our actions, desires, or lack of faith, and giving rewards where we have not merited them. You may try to argue that those who reach the celestial kingdom are those who were “fittest” for accessing that grace, but grace just doesn’t work that way. There’s nothing we can DO to merit it, and to demand it from God is presumptuousness in the extreme. I guess what I’m trying to say is that equating the plan of salvation to a game of survival essentially claims that one can, through one’s intellect and actions, succeed where others not so endowed with intelligence or so calculated in their actions, did not. We have to understand that if grace is the gatekeeper, God’s plan is certainly NOT Darwinism. We keep commandments and strive throughout our lives because we have HOPE that God will extend grace to us and allow us to receive the blessings spoken of by prophets; in no way are we in the process of meriting those blessings by our actions.

Also, I don’t know about you, but Love is the only unfailing, unconditional attribute about God that I can positively support. If the Ensign editorial staff didn’t like using “unconditional love”, that’s really too bad. I bet a lot of people in this Church could do well to remember God’s love more often.

Chris Bigelow (#361) said, “Personally, I would prefer to never hear the B.S. term “unconditional love” again.”

Too bad, here it is again: http://mormonalliance.org/newsletter/jul_2003.htm

Dan #359

“If the church doesn’t use government funds, it can set whatever policy it wants and the government cannot do a thing about it”

I believe this is wrong and its the key to this entire debate. The point is that it isn’t allowed to set its own policies at all in this area of adoption simply because it rejects same sex marriage. Its not about using public money or not but in not being allowed to legally provide adoption services, or even provide legal marriage services, since it rejects gay-marriage and this is then seen as discriminatory by the courts. Once gay-marriage is legal, a church will have to marry gays or no one at all, and provide adoption services to both gays and straights or no one at all. Maybe #219 articulates this better. The only way around this is to specifically permit discrimination against same-sex couples in the anti-discrimination act, therefore it would permit a church group to discriminate against some couples just as, say, the military discriminates against persons of certain age in choosing officer candidates (for example). But the discriminating against gay couples would have to be listed as specific exemptions to anti-discrimination law.

Nick,

I doubt I will ever convince you of the wrongfulness of gay marriage or of homosexuality for that matter. But then, as I’ve said before, you are free to lobby your case but so is the church and so is Pt Monson. Oh, you’re right about the testimony on Jesus in 2000, I’d forgotten about that, my bad. So now its the revelation on the priesthood in ’78, then the proclamation in ’95 and finally the Jesus statement? in ’00.

Beautifully said, Green Man.

I found this letter posted by an active member of the church in California, to be very interesting.

You can find it here. http://www.affirmation.org/media/2008_06_24.shtml

I’ll paste it below

Open Letter to California Mormons
“We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy”

by Jeffrey S. Nielsen
24 June 2008

I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we’ve made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders’ encroachment into political matters. In fact, a growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members, are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60′s when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70′s when they opposed legal equality for women.

Of course, religious authorities of any denomination possess the right, and may claim the legitimacy, to set the theology and policy for their religious community. When they; however, attempt to interject religious doctrine into the public spaces of a diverse democracy without reasonable justification, then members, especially faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.

No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violate your religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not physically harm another person. After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.

I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender. So to discriminate and deny them equal protection and equal opportunity under civil law because of these natural traits; especially in this case, sexual orientation, is grossly unfair and should be rejected outright in a compassionate and just democracy. If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.

You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment. I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents. I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the unreasonable and unjust call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family.

Did Joseph Smith not say something along the lines that though he may disagree with another man’s expression of his beliefs he would defend to the death his right to hold such beliefs?This seems to me a useful principle in the circumstances,and leaves me further confused as to the church’s position.

Kennyboon,

Its also about overturning the will of the people, not only the gay marriage issue.

After all the first presidency start that letter by addressing the court’s overturning the the people choice clearly expressed in March 2008. I don’t think that this was the case in the MA. MA voters would probably be overwhelmingly pro gay marriage.

Nick,

I really think you are missing the main point of this entire battle although your argument is logical and appears correct.

While you’re right that there is no requirement to “support” marriage equality a church still can’t discriminated against same sex couples in a ceremony which the state needs to recognize as legally binding. Anti-discrimination laws stop them from doing so for legally binding practices such as marriage or adoption or mediation (which Bishops can do in some areas of the world). Priesthood ordination aren’t recognized by the state therefore not a discrimination issue. But marriage, in many ways, can be seen as a service performed by the church on behalf of the government since the government regulates who can and who can’t marry (underage, siblings etc).

The consequences of all of this is that Temple marriages won’t be recognized by the state anymore as already happens in many countries. And the ability to marry would be taken away from Bishops since they’d “discriminate” against same sex couples. Remember that Bishops can marry because the state grants them the legal authority to do so, not from priesthood authority.

But then again people in many countries need to marry before the state in one ceremony and then travel to a Temple for the church marriage so in many ways this is already happening in some countries and isn’t a concern for the church.

And off course all this could be avoided if they grant specific permission to churches to discriminate against same sex couples as they allow them to discriminate when hiring professors in BYU or seminaries, but I doubt they will.

CM & Nick,

Legislation can not over rule the constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Religion. That guarantee is one of the supreme laws of the land and will nullify the requirements of any religious practice to conform to a practice. Furthermore, that constitutional guarantee allows the Church an almost unfettered ability to set its own policy. The only restriction that could effect faithful LDS is that a Mormon who works as a Justice of the Peace or in any other similar civil capacity would be required, as a function of their office, to perform their civil duties for all, this will undoubtedly create moral quandary and ethical dilemma for those few who object on religious grounds to performing their duties. It would be wise for the legislature to craft legislation that would protect the employment of those who so object. I believe the church would be prudent to actively protect their members by intervening in the political process for that purpose only.

conservative, the real right belongs to everyone. Everyone should allow to marry. The court was protecting the minority. If majority rules, then this world would be unfair. The minority will never be equal to majority. so lets face this, gay marriage will never concern you, your wife and your children. There is nothing wrong to teach children about gay couple. It is their rights to learn. Children will never be gay if they learn about gay marriage. If the children are gay they will be gay. If they are straight, they will always be straight. The LDS church has the right to oppose gay marriage but it is the right of minority to exist and practice marriages too.