CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8; Gay Couples Remain Married

The campaign was largely Church (religion in general) sponsored, however the law passed based by the vote of the people, so the Church and State argument doesn’t fly well. The one that has confused me is how Utah money can go unchecked in support of a campaign that effects California citizens.

Options 3 and 4 don’t make any sense. Overturning Prop 8 would have automatically allowed all the marriages to continue, and therefore their legal status wouldn’t even need to be addressed. And incorrect on both, that prop 8 should have been overturned and none of the previous marriages acknowledged as marriages, is nonsensical for the same reason. There are really only three possible outcomes of this decision:

1 – The court was correct on both counts.
2 – Prop 8 should remain, and should cancel all previous same-sex marriages in California.
3 – Prop 8 should have been overturned.

I vote for #3.

I think the decision to allow a majority to vote away the rights of a minority is a TERRIBLE mistake. I think this should go directly to the US Supreme Court. And I think, further, that every minority in the country is vulnerable if this decision stands. That should give every one of us great concern because we all represent some sort of minority at various times and aspects of our lives. Meanwhile, the protection of the rights of the minority has, until this moment, always been a keystone of American democracy.

Sadly, I can’t help but wonder how soon the LDS church and its “Yes on 8″ lackies will start petitions circulating for a second amendment, specifically making Prop 8 retroactive, in order to wipe out the 18,000 families they missed the first time.

No, I’m not just being snarky. Look at the comments at the Deseret News, and you’ll get some idea (misrepresentative sample, to be sure) of how many LDS are angry that the 18,000 marriages still stand.

Alice: “Meanwhile, the protection of the rights of the minority has, until this moment, always been a keystone of American democracy.”

I can’t say I agree with that statement. Minorities of all kinds have fought and continue to fight various battles throughout the history of our country. Although there are many serious implications for minorities everywhere with this decision, there are also serious implications for rule by minority. It’s a delicate balance to be struck, and the responsibility of our judicial system. But you surely must realize that this is the nature of people in general, that there will always be a disagreement on something? (Lest we forget, the LDS church in general is in many ways and places –Utah obviously not included–a minority of its own, and is no stranger to discrimination. I think it’s only fair to keep this in mind.)

Personally, I think the arguments were weak as well. And I also think that upholding legal marriages prior to the passage of Prop 8 was the right thing to do. If the anti-8 side were to present more solid arguments in the future, I think the court is wholly obligated to consider the case again with as much of a blank slate as possible. Going straight to the US Supreme Court is a it much at the moment, but if reasonable process is followed and that’s where the case goes, then seeing where it goes will be an interesting ride

#11

Prop 8. can’t go to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was strictly a matter of California state law.

“Minorities of all kinds have fought and continue to fight various battles throughout the history of our country. ”

Can’t say I disagree with this. Still, the direction of evolving law has been to ensure the rights of minorities who present their petitions to the courts.

In the case of Prop 8, the appeal was directly to the electorate who voted away rights of a minority. And the CA Supreme Court, in allowing this, has turned its back on a vital pillar of American democracy.

Justice has never been a guarantee. It has ever been a struggle and always will be.

#13

There’s no reason it shouldn’t go to the US Supreme Court. State Constitutions are subordinate to the US Constitution. They specifically cannot outlaw a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Since this is very much a question of equal protection under the law, the USSC is the next logical and imperative step.

Thanks, Douglas, I had forgotten about that while I was distracted with Alice’s comment.

Alice, I don’t know that it would in any way serve as some sort of consolation for the moment, but I think that gay marriage will find its way into legal status with some time. I personally probably wouldn’t vote for a law legalizing it; I do think public opinion will shift in favor of gay marriage rights. I assume that from your perspective this probably doesn’t fix the here and now, though. As for justice, I doubt we would ever completely agree on a common definition, so I’d rather not stray into the ways that figures into whether or not justice was served for either side in this situation.

Nick, I was simply trying to point out that vilifying a single church, which rarely actively involves itself in legislation, and is commonly the object of discrimination, for one piece of legislation is a bit harsh. Do you feel similarly about other churches that joined in the effort but were not made as prominent, or are Mormons a special case??

JRo- I fully anticipate that same sex marriage protections will become the law of the land. I expect it will happen within the lifespan that is left to me at the age of 60+.

As to my perspective and my need for consolation, I assume they’re the same as every other American’s who values the protections of the Constitution. As a straight woman in a marriage of more than 40 years with 3 straight children, I have no other agenda but justice and compassion for my fellow man and, in that, I assume we’re all equal and comparable.

As for those who are offended by the concept of same sex marriage, I am equally prepared to defend their right not to enter into one. Again, I assume we’re on more or less the same ground here keeping in mind that the Constitution grants equal protection under the law but has no protection from being offended. Thank God, because some people will be offended about just about anything.

#19:
Nick, I was simply trying to point out that vilifying a single church, which rarely actively involves itself in legislation, and is commonly the object of discrimination, for one piece of legislation is a bit harsh. Do you feel similarly about other churches that joined in the effort but were not made as prominent, or are Mormons a special case??

It amazes me that LDS leaders/members will cry “religious persecution,” let alone “discrimination,” when anyone criticizes their political crusade against marriage equality. As for the LDS church being “singled out,” their own leaders were boasting in firesides, etc., that they were carrying the bulk of the work and contributions on their shoulders—but then cried “persecution” when opponents of Proposition 8 used the same claim against them. Suddenly, the LDS were “just one part of a coalition.” Nonsense. The fact remains that approximately 60% of the contributions to “Yes on 8″ were made by LDS members at the behest of Mr. Monson, not to mention the countless volunteer hours. Even the “Yes on 8″ campaign leaders openly acknowledged that they never would have succeeded, if not for the LDS involvement.

Re #14 “it would have been inappropriate judicial activism by the court to overturn this referrendum”

Agree

Re #14 “it passed by a slim margin as it is. It’s my opinion that the next time this issue shows up on the ballot in CA, many people will be unwilling to align themselves with the anti-gay marriage movement and the result will be different.”

Agree. The California voters will pass it next time. Barack will not be on the next ballot measure and the voter turnout and representation will be different. As far as mobilizing against ANOTHER California marriage initiative, who would want to have cars marked “Bigot lives here” parked in front of their homes again (for putting up a sign in their yard)? Who would want to be pressured to resign from their job because of a donation recorded on the internet again? Church members were asked to give of their time and means to support the measure, but not their jobs and lives. With the number of other states that have now legalized SSM, the California voters on the fence are more likely to see it as inevitable. Isn’t it already?

You’re correct that it doesn’t relate so much to the legal issue, Ray. I was only answering another commentator’s question.

Thanks, Nick, for your thoughts on the LDS church’s role in the matter. I think I understand clearly your feelings about that part of the Prop 8 issue. When I said “a bit harsh” I did choose my words carefully–not saying “extremely” or “wildly” or “unbelievably” harsh. I’m not trying to cry “religious persecution” as you mention, and it’s probably coming across that way. Really, I mentioned the church’s history of being discriminated against more for historical perspective. I think it’s valuable to keep in mind. You’re free to criticize, and I’ll maintain that it is rare for the LDS church to take political action on this scale and that should be considered somehow even if the purpose was disagreeable. I would say, though, that it’s a fact that there were other people involved in the campaign, and I’m interested in your thoughts about the other half of the question: do you feel as negatively toward the other groups on the “Yes on 8″ side? You’ve very thoroughly explained your opinions about the LDS church; please, I’d just like your thoughts on the rest of those involved in the effort (and don’t bother naming names, I’m not asking for a list of who you do and don’t like, just your thoughts about other churches/organizations who supported the measure). A clear answer to that question and I’m out of your hair.

Ray, i don’t see the need for you to apologize so much. Everyone on both sides of the fence has their own opinion. Do you see any anti-Prop 8 people apologizing?

AdamF:
You are right. If we were all a bit more civil, things would be better. Point taken.

On taking the case to the US Supreme Court, my understanding is that there is a “federal case” to be made for gay marriage on equal protection and full faith and credit grounds, but with the current court, ultimately it would certainly lose there by a 5-4 or 6-3 vote. Such a precedent could easily cause a 20- or 30-year delay in full marriage equality. Gay rights activists are therefore working state-by-state and avoiding taking cases to federal courts at this time.

#18 green mormon: “This will not go to the supreme court. Marriage is a state-run institution. And the arguments of the CA supreme court were that equal protection was not in question since there are civil unions in California granting full rights and protections of married people.”

You know, in all the confusion and bickering in this matter, I’ve never been able to actually establish whether the civil unions really ARE 100% equal to marriage except in the title of “marriage.” Some YES people have tried to tell me that we’re simply fighting over the right to call it marriage, that gays are getting the same rights and protections via civil unions so they should be satisfied with that, whereas gays are saying that’s not true. I find it hard to believe that people are simply fighting over a title. Either side apparently feels they are being denied something if they lose.

I sometimes feel like I have to be a lawyer to really understand this issue and to cut through all the propaganda from either side.

#40:
That Deseret site is probably THE best place to gauge average mormon thought, and its typical of what I’ve always found in Church were homosexuality and hence gay marriage, is considered both unnatural and dirty.

Carlos, keep in mind that I’m talking about the “reader comments” on the Deseret News website, rather than the actual newspaper content. Granted, even the newspaper gets some wild stuff, like Orson Scott Card calling for the violent overthrow of any government which provides marriage equality.

That said, have you taken the time to read the “reader comments” at desnews.com lately? Some are thoughtful, but many of them are embarassing to either side of the topic. Several LDS critics who post there are often prone to hyperbole, while several LDS members who post there are enough to make Chris Buttars look progressive and (dare I say it?) “saintly.”

Heck, anyone who’s seen my blog comments knows I can be a bit incendiary at times, but even I cringe at the unfettered vitriol that gets poured out by both sides in desnews.com (as well as sltrib.com) “readers comments” sections! (Not that I don’t read them—who can look away from a train wreck?)

What I find interesting (read: funny) is that anyone would take the “readers comments” of ANY newspaper and categorize it as a representative sample of a population as a whole.

It was merely a general, all purpose statement. Not one directed at you, Nick.

#43 “Carlos, keep in mind that I’m talking about the “reader comments” on the Deseret News website”

Yes, sorry, I was talking about the comments section too. Its that us Mormons, I think, are rather repressed and frustrated individuals in church on Sundays -one simply can’t go off on tangents too much or say anything contentious due to that “Spririt of Contention….” , so then all we have to really show our true inner vessel is A)the bloggernacle comments sections for the more liberal mormons and B) deseret news comments section for the more traditional/conventional type.

But yes, some are rather rude and embarrassing but its what Mormons actually think -imho off course. I’d say that SLTib is 10 times worse than Deseret because, it seems to me, that there are more non-members and full blown anti-mormons there.

#48, Sure some youth suicides are due to identity conflicts but there is a lot more involved in youth suicides. It isn’t that simple but here the subject matter is different one.

#50

I must confess I have no idea if or to what extent “it is settled law that the right to marry is not a constitutionally protected right”. Mind citing the information that supports this?

As to “no such suit [challenging other states' right to withhold recognition from gay people married in MA under the full faith and credit clause ] has ever been brought”, this would tend to murky the waters on the establishment of the judgment you refer to in the preceding paragraph.

From a FAQ piece on Slate.com in 2004:

“If Massachusetts (or any other state) passes a law saying that same-sex couples can marry, do all other 49 states have to give full faith and credit to that law?

The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution states: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” This seemingly broad rule, however, is not without its exceptions. Importantly, a state may not have to give full faith and credit to a law that violates its “public policy.” That, of course, raises the question of what a particular state’s public policy is. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has noted that “states have been permitted to refuse to recognize marriages from states with different policies toward polygamy, miscegenation, or consanguinity for decades.”

Complicating the matter is the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed in 1996. It states that “no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex ‘marriage’ ” and then goes on to define “marriage” and “spouse” for purposes of federal law (for example, for purposes of federal income tax law). Adding another layer of complexity, 39 states have passed their own defense of marriage acts, which tends to support any argument that same-sex unions violate those states’ public policy. These issues will eventually play themselves out in the courts.”

This is obviously not a primary source, or even a necessarily good one, and not current. However, it reflects my understanding of the issue of marriage contracts vis-a-vis the full faith and credit clause. That is, that marriages have long been excepted from protection under the full faith and credit clause for a number of reasons. That said, perhaps this will be revisited in the courts with respect specifically to gay marriage. The other good point the article makes is the Defense of Marriage Act which specifically exempts states from having to recognize gay marriages from other states, although there has been much litigation surrounding the DOMA.

I see. That actually seems quite clear. …until it’s challenged. And I suspect that will happen.

I still believe that this is very much a matter of equal protections under the law and I have no doubt there will be a case to that effect. Not sure whether additional states granting the right to marriage or some legally protected alternative thereto will take pressure off with respect to a broader ruling on equal protections or increase the number of people who want clarification of their particular marriages or unions as they move through the national population.

In any case, I think it’s extremely premature to think of the CA Supreme Court’s most recent ruling is final.

The homosexuals currently have the exact same rights as the heterosexuals, they can marry anyone from the opposite sex they wish. In the case at hand, the homosexuals are demanding “special” rights, which in my opinion should not be grnated [sic].

Don’t worry, LD! We don’t want any special rights that you’re not also entitled to! When marriage equality is upheld, you (as a presumably heterosexual man) will have exactly the same right that I have, to marry an individual of the same sex!

That way, we can be even on this whole “you have the same rights we do” argument. I’ll have the right to legally marry a person of the opposite sex, just as you’ll have the right to legally marry a person of the same sex, and vice-versa! I would never, ever, wish to deny you the right to marry a person of your same sex, when I expect to have that right myself!

I think Nick wants you to stop making an argument that contradicts itself.

#41

“You know, in all the confusion and bickering in this matter, I’ve never been able to actually establish whether the civil unions really ARE 100% equal to marriage except in the title of ‘marriage’.”

An interesting question, to be sure. In fact, I think if anyone takes the time to read the CA Supreme Court’s ruling, they reassert the right of same sex couples to enter into legal relationships that afford ALL the protections enjoyed by straight couples. They seem to have gone to some trouble to make clear that, as a result of Prop 8, any legal relationship between gay people can not be called a marriage but that there must not be any actual protection denied to them or go unrecognized.

Alice:
Society is perpetuated by the concept of husband, wife, and children. However imperfect, no other model works. Not 2 men, not 2 women. The State of Washington Supreme Court ruled recently that the lawmakers did indeed have the power to make marriage between a man and woman only. In order to perpetuate society and keep it going, is discrimination acceptable by not permitting same sex marriage, marriage between close relatives, polygamy, etc? Yes. Society shold not legitimize the deviancy of homosexuality. It would have grave consequences for society.

To “deviate”, in the purest sense, is nothing more than to be different. It is not necessarily a moral affront and there’s no reason it has to be viewed as an attack on the conventional. It’s the insecure, intellectually limited or the simply rigid, I think, who tend to overreact and apply moral restraints instead of recognizing that it’s “deviates” like Benjamin Franklin, Joseph Smith, Henry Ford and Martin Luther King who say “let’s do something a different way” and move a whole culture ahead.

Is there something “wrong” with homosexuality? I suppose there is to people who choose to persist in the belief that it’s behavior that gay people choose as an affront to the private lives of the general population or to decency itself. But the growing evidence of biology is that it’s a condition of birth that is no more related to anyone else’s biological drives than eye color or height. Viewed that way, as an attribute deigned by Heavenly Father before birth, getting exercised by who has children is no more appropriate than tallying the children of those who are sterile, who have had reproductive systems ravaged by disease or who are unable to find life mates — intrusive and piling on.

Meanwhile, Mormon popular and public culture, if not the church itself, has embarrassed itself by spreading hysterical lies, demonizing it’s own youth, putting the integrity of it’s own families in jeopardy, tarring the spiritual mission with a political agenda that creates great distrust in the general population, attacking the essential principles of the Constitution and squeezing the stressed financial resources of families in an economic crisis with a mere fool’s errand.

Not easy things to say. Not easy things to watch happen. NOT said in rancor. But, as a matter of simple observation, there’s truth to it. And, at my age, I’ve seen it happen before in the Civil Rights era and in the ERA era. Neither time was the church on the side of the angels and neither time did it prevail for long. Both times it wounded itself both internally and externally. …but not, I think, as much or with the consequences, as it is today.

—

As to what “special” right gay Americans are asking for, the proponents of this argument should be ashamed to make it. You have as much right as a fish to breathe underwater. If it is not your nature to do so, referring to that “right” is pointless and insulting.

Haven’t enough faithful and sincere gay Mormons been pushed into straight marriages only to eventually give in to the fact that it’s not a sustainable lifestyle for them or the straight spouses and dependent children? Haven’t you seen enough suicides and families broken up in confusion, sadness and turmoil? Perpetuating that is foolishness, cruelty and tragedy and I hope it never happens to any of the children of people here just as much as I hope gay Mormon Americans can pursue companionship and their right to the promise of domestic tranquility, that Black Saints can have all the blessings of the priesthood and that, eventually, women will be able to bless their own children !

Haven’t enough faithful and sincere gay Mormons been pushed into straight marriages only to eventually give in to the fact that it’s not a sustainable lifestyle for them or the straight spouses and dependent children?

Individuals like LD and CarlosJC believe that I (as a gay man) should indeed marry a woman. Such a position, however, demands that we ask each of them one question: Which one of you gentlemen will eagerly approve a “faithful” gay man marrying your own daughter?

So what is bisexuality?

Lone Danite, this is a patently absurd statement regarding a church that is led by ongoing revelation, and one about which its leaders have said literally ANYTHING is righteous when commanded by the lord. Out of the context of revelation and the will of the lord, nephi’s murder of laban, the doctrine of polygamy and even the conception of jesus, would all constitute the violation of the most serious commandments of god. The point is, according to LDS theology god can condone any behavior he chooses and that behavior ceases to be sinful. Additionally, your statement completely ignores history, which has shown that strongly held, fundamental mormon doctrines and practices have been abandoned or changed. In practicality you may be correct that the church will never accept homosexuality. But that doesn’t make your statement any less inappropriate. The church does not grant you, or any other man, including the prophet, the right to make such statements, and it is not supported in the doctrine.

I have never seen NAMBLA represented in a gay pride parade, LD, nor do I believe that such a thing would ever be allowed. If you are simply suggesting that there may be one or more pedophiles walking in a gay pride parade, I would simply point out that the same is quite likely true of any parade. In fact, not so many years ago, there was an active pedophile serving in the First Quorum of the Seventy of the LDS church.

Furthermore, your attempted analogy is entirely misguided. First, children are legally incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activity (as are zebras, box turtles, and your livingroom sofa). Second, sexual activity with minors is a criminal offense throughout the United States.

So what is bisexuality?

Do you need a dictionary, LD? Bisexuality is a sexual orientation, characterized by sexual and romantic attraction toward persons of both the same and opposite sex. One can be a bisexual virgin, just as one can be heterosexual virgin, or a homosexual virgin.

George P. Lee. He was excommunicated.

Alice:

“As to what “special” right gay Americans are asking for, the proponents of this argument should be ashamed to make it” Ouch! your nails scratched me bad girl! it hurts.

“You have as much right as a fish to breathe underwater. If it is not your nature to do so, referring to that “right” is pointless and insulting.” Doh! Ok, but if I give the fishy his right to breath underwater, say with some special equipment (like a frogman) would that be OK with you???

# 72 “Aren’t there men who are sexualy oriented/attracted to children (NAMBLA) that march in Gay-Pride parades? Should I accept them?”

Of course not! Those are people who use their greater power and authority to victimize unwilling people who don’t have the resources to refuse them or don’t understand that they’re not required to consent. To conflate that with consenting adult partners is intellectually dishonest.

#78:
“The thought of marrying a woman is every bit as repulsive to me as marrying another man would be to you”

I wish I knew why this is so.

Hehehe…and there, my friend, is the fascinating mystery of human interaction, both physical and emotional! Aside from the fact that your attraction is common in society, I wish I knew why you would find women so attractive!

You clearly have not done your homework, NAMBLA is a condoned organization within the homosexual movement, and has been allowed to march side-by-side with them in their parades. Look it up for yourself. Why do I have the feeling you already know this?

Hay strongly opposed the notion that “gays” should assimilate into larger “straight” culture. Thus, in the eighties and nineties, when homosexual activists began banning NAMBLA from “gay pride” parades to clean up their public image, he and other “gay” liberationists were outraged.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/2751/CFI/cfreport/index.htm

“I have never seen NAMBLA represented in a gay pride parade, LD, nor do I believe that such a thing would ever be allowed.”

It’s this kind of attitude that is so evil about you people. Yes I said YOU PEOPLE. You are evil. You know that homosexual men rape boys, but you pretend to not know.

Why am I feeling deja vu?

And perhaps you should do your homework, LD. Why don’t you read the research and enlighten us all as to what percentage of child molesters and rapists are homosexual? Generally I am tolerant of people’s ignorance, because I don’t know much myself, but your ignorance on this topic is hateful and dangerous. You don’t know what you’re talking about, so I would suggest you do a little research before you start spewing your bigoted garabge on a friendly site. I don’t mind bile, but at least get your facts straight.

Homosexuals have no problem with pedophilia. Ten or fifteen years ago they started distancing themselves to try to clean up their image. Today they lie and act like NAMBLA has never had any association with the gay movement (as shown by your friend’s comment to me above). Why else would they openly march with them in gay-pride parades, which very much did in-fact take place, if they don’t condone their activity?

Some NAMBLA people used to be prominent in the gay rights movement. So what? They aren’t anymore. Everybody hates NAMBLA now, and it barely exists as an organization anymore anyway.

You never answered my quesions Danite.

As discussed earlier on this site, a pedophile was a member of the first quorum of the 70. Does that mean the church accepts pedophilia? Of course not.

Further, the Church is very organized. You can’t really compare an organized church to the homosexual movement.

But again I say, what does this have to do with homosexual marriage? You seem to be arguing for the banishment of all gays from society. That is not the issue here, the issue is whether they should be able to marry.

I noted above, that LDS leaders “have already ‘accepted’ homosexuality, and repeatedly stated that it is not a sin. In fact, they openly admit that they don’t know the cause of homosexuality, and that it may be biologically influenced.”

In #84, J.Ro asked:
Can you provide some references for the rest of us? I’m not familiar with the statements you speak of, and they seem at best a stretch of what I have indeed heard.

Absolutely. In late 2007, the LDS church released their most recent official statement on the subject, in pamphlet form. You can find the pdf version at http://www.lds.org/topics/pdf/GodLovethHisChildren_04824_000.pdf

To quote from the pamphlet:
“Many people with same-gender attractions have strong testimonies
of the gospel and, therefore, do not act on those attractions.
Attractions alone do not make you unworthy. If you
avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed
even if you feel such an attraction. The First Presidency stated,
“There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings
and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual
behavior” (letter, Nov. 14, 1991).”

Simultaneously with the above pamphlet’s appearance, Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the October 2007 Ensign. Again, let me provide some relevant quotes:

HOLLAND: “I too affirm that God loves all His children and acknowledge that many questions, including some related to same-gender attraction, must await a future answer, perhaps in the next life. Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

HOLLAND: “In saying this, let me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. The First Presidency has stated, ‘There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.’ If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed.”

Also in 2007, lds.org published a “interview” on homosexuality, between the LDS Public Affairs Department, Dallin Oaks, and Lance Wickman. From that article:

OAKS: “The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression.”

OAKS: “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.“

I trust these are sufficient to help clear things up for you, J.Ro.

#85:
You clearly have not done your homework, NAMBLA is a condoned organization within the homosexual movement, and has been allowed to march side-by-side with them in their parades.

LD, you need to provide us with sources for these outlandish and truly offensive claims. I’m not calling you a liar, but I think you’ve been quite dramatically deceived.

The gay community likes to pretend that it is not guilty of pedophilia. In the straight community there are lots of pedophiles. In the gay community there are lots of pedophiles. Society has no obligation to promote or legitimize homosexual relationships. Gay sex and gay marriage have no purpose.
Addiction to gay sex is like any other addiction. It’s an addiction.
http://www.evergreeninternational.org
This website promotes the idea the people are not born gay and that same sex attractions can be diminished or eliminated. If this is true, Satan is fooling alot of people. In the pamphlet God Loveth His Children, the First Presidency says that same sex attraction was not present in the pre existence and that it WILL NOT BE present in the next life.
This is clearly the best argument I have ever heard against gay marriage.

Gay marriage doesn’t satisfy life’s purpose

It is amazing to me the extent that people will go to in order to achieve their personal goals. Take, for example, Prop. 8 that was on the ballot . This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people.

They keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”

Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature’s laws.

If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.

Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.

Society is based on the family of husband wife and children. This is how the next generation rises. Society should not legitimize the deviancy of homosexuality.

#104:
Nick, I think #101 is a little misleading, in that the church was extremely late on this…I understand the church has clarified their stance lately but I don’t think it is fair to act like the church accepts homosexuality and does not consider it to be a sin.

Actually, Derek, what the LDS church has done is follow (as in quote verbatim) the rhetorical softening of the evangelical anti-gay movement. The latter realized over the years that they were simply getting tuned out as hatemongers, so they toned things down in the same ways that the LDS church subsequently did. I’m simply being charitable, by letting the most recent official statements represent the current “official” position of LDS leaders.

As for Mr. Oaks’ advice to the parents of gay children, I agree with you that it’s entirely reprehensible.

Same sex relationshops are deviant and unnatural and society has no obligation to condone them.
The only way society perpetuates itself effectively is husband, wife and children.
My posts speak for themselves.
Discrimination is acceptable if society wishes to continue perpetuating itself. All these pro-gay marriage folks are asking all of us to accept this deviant lifestyle and it just is not going to happen. Two men and two women do not constitute a marriage no matter how much you try to change the definition.

#105:
The gay community likes to pretend that it is not guilty of pedophilia. In the straight community there are lots of pedophiles. In the gay community there are lots of pedophiles.

The “gay community” is no more “guilty of pedophelia” than the “straight community.” There are straight pedophiles, and gay pedophiles. Both are to be condemned for their victimization of children.

Addiction to gay sex is like any other addiction. It’s an addiction.

Sexual addiction is quite a different subject. There are gay sex addicts, and straight sex addicts. One can even be a purely monogamous, heterosexually-married sex addict. Yes, sex addiction is an addiction—regardless of the object of one’s sexual desires.

This website [Evergreen International] promotes the idea the people are not born gay and that same sex attractions can be diminished or eliminated.

Evergreen International is not sponsored or endorsed by the LDS church. Further, that organization’s blanket claim that “nobody is born gay,” and that homosexual orientation “can be diminished or eliminated” is in contradiction to the words of the LDS First Presidency, which specifically acknowledge that not everyone will “overcome” homosexual orientation “in this life.”

This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people.

So will you still champion “the will of the people” when a later initiative revokes Proposition 8, and marriage equality again becomes the law in California?

The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law [i.e., heterosexual activity only].

Homosexual activity has been observed and documented in over 400 animal species. Google it.

Is today ignorant day? I have never seen so many posts with no rationality behind them.

Jon: Is any specific marriage the norm? Should marriages where the bride is taller than the groom be labeled deviant because they are not the norm? Should marriages where the bride is five years older than the groom be outlawed because they are not the norm? Should marriages of white women to black men be outlawed because they are not the norm?

Addiction to heterosexual sex is an addiction. Period. Should it be avoided just like you would avoid meth?

This site is addictive. I need to avoid it. I am wasting too much time talking to people who refuse to use logic.

Seriously though, jon, I shouldn’t make fun of your comments. Like you, I was once a closeted LDS man, who knew full well that his sexual/romantic/emotional attractions were toward other men. I know exactly what sort of anguish you’re going through. I also know how easy it is to grab onto “easy explanations” like the “addiction” claim, or the “dad was absent, mom was too close” theory, or Evergreen’s “you just haven’t learned how to be manly enough” teaching. I’ve been through all of those, believing them one by one, until further examination revealed their flaws.

I wish you all the best, as you grow through these difficult times. Most of all, I wish you the peace and joy that can eventually come as you learn to love yourself for the gay man you were created to be, never more to suffer the pain and humiliation of constantly trying to hide who you are.

Wrong, Nick. I know that SSA exists but to act on it is akin to acting on pedophilia urger or urges to kill. Acting on it, ultimately, will lead to nowhere. When the First Presidency says that all members with SSA who will not act upon them and will keep the commandments is promised all blessings in the life after this, that’s a mouthful. Good, solid, true doctrine.
When societies continue to embrace worldy doctrines, there will be catastrophes of all kinds. Recessions, depressions, natural, unnatural disasters.

#119:
I know that SSA exists…

Yes, the Social Security Administration, does exist.
Of course, you probably are referring to the imaginary diagnosis of “same sex attraction.” That term was coined by the evangelical anti-gay movement, in order to make homosexual orientation sound like a syndrome/disease/disorder. The LDS church subsequently adopted the term from them. There is no such diagnosis among licensed therapists, with the exception of those who are actually employed by anti-gay religious groups.

When the First Presidency says that all members with SSA who will not act upon them and will keep the commandments is promised all blessings in the life after this, that’s a mouthful.

Yes, it certainly is a mouthful. Of course, the First Presidency doesn’t make such a promise, since one also has to be in compliance with a host of other commandments, in order to receive the promised “blessings.”

When societies continue to embrace worldy doctrines, there will be catastrophes of all kinds. Recessions, depressions, natural, unnatural disasters.

Of course, societies like the State of California, which reject “worldly doctrines” by enacting Proposition 8 never experience recessions, depressions, natural disasters, or “unnatural” disasters.

Okay….okay, everyone…stop laughing at that last part, or you’ll make him feel bad!

Amen, alice.
Unfortunately, this is a very emotionally-charged topic for many. Often, there’s a whole lot going on “behind the scenes” that we can’t be privy to.

#124:
You see to be roughly equating thoughts, inclinations, attractions etc. with action on them.

Rather, I’m pointing out that it’s inaccurate to say that LDS leaders consider “homosexuality” a sin. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation–a matter of physical/emotional feelings and attractions. LDS leaders have been quite clear lately in stating that those feelings/attractions are not, in and of themselves, sinful. What LDS leaders do condemn, on the other hand, is homosexual activity, i.e., sex between persons of the same biological sex. You can’t get excommunicated for being homosexual (anymore—that used to be different), but you can get excommunicated for having sexual relations with another person of the same biological sex.

if propagating the species is the way of nature, and therefore a desirable ends, and again therefore a social justification for prohibiting same sex marriage, then I think monogamy, and even marriage in general are socially destructive. If we look to the animal kingdom as an example (though I am no expert, I realize that the mating and nurturing habits among species vary) wouldn’t we, as a society, be better off then to promote alpha males in impregnating all females of the pack, while relegating the subdominant males to then help the pregnant women in the nurturing of the offspring. Monogamy certainly contravenes effecient propagation by limiting the number of children concieved by our superior specimen. There are theories out there which suggest that homosexuality is natures way of managing overpopulation – which any economist will tell you can be a blight on natural resources. I can’t certify whether this correct or not, but it provides a reasonable explanation as to how and why homosexuality fits very naturally into the scheme of biology. In other words, the inability to produce offspring may very well be the point- which is ironic given that is the justification used by LD to explain how un-natural homosexuality is.

Ray, thank you for your ever-patient reminders. I do apologize if I’ve been part of the problem; I hope I haven’t, and that my following comment doesn’t have to be moderated. I apologize particularly to Nick and Alice if I’ve been inflammatory in our discussions. I didn’t intend to.

Nick, I didn’t actually tell you but the link to “God Loveth His Children” definitely was helpful in clearing the church’s position. My only disagreement with what you’ve said is that the way I read it, the publication encourages “Latter-Day Saints who are and sometimes feel discouraged but sincerely desire to live a life pleasing to our Father in Heaven” to do things that presumably would lead them further from that attraction. Certainly not closer to it. If the church sees an activity as condemnable, the logical step would be to dissuade people (in some way, again certainly not to encourage it) from the attraction toward said activity, though the attraction itself is not condemnable. For that reason, I have trouble seeing the church’s position on Prop 8 in a negative light. Churches whose beliefs are otherwise could have been (and some likely were) equally rightfully anti-8.

And I thought JRo represented his perspective reasonably and articulately. That makes the discussion between well-intentioned people looking for light and knowledge all the more interesting and useful.

I join JRo in hoping I wasn’t part of the problem.

This isn’t a topic that I would normally be interested in commenting on but I am wondering how far the legal ramifications of allowing same sex marriage would reach. If I understand correctly, the proponents of same sex marriage argue that it should be allowed as equal rights under the law. I believe that was the reasoning behind the CA Supreme Court’s previous decision which legalized same sex marriage and the IA Supreme Court’s recent decision. If same sex marriage is legalized based on the principle of equal rights, wouldn’t that same reasoning demand that other currently illegal marriages be legalized? Wouldn’t polygamists and those who wish to enter into a polygamist marriage be able to demand and be granted the same legal marriage status based on the principle of equal rights? Would it be fair to deny that right to three or more consenting adults? What about incestuous marriages? Wouldn’t cousins, siblings, and even parents and children be able to demand and be granted the right to marry based on the principle of equal rights? What about marriages between adults and children? If a parent consents to a twelve, ten, or eight year child (who also consents) marrying an adult, could the state deny that if they are demanding equal rights? Remember, this isn’t about what’s morally or ethically right but about what’s legal based on equal rights under the law. How far would this be carried out? If anyone responds to this comment, please don’t comment on what is morally right or wrong, but keep the discussion focused on what is legally allowable.

DB: I presented a similar argument a couple of years ago to some friends and acquaintances, who instantly proceeded to discard the idea and exclaim that a slippery-slope type of argument was highly fallacious (Incidentally, I was not aware that a number of them had degrees in philosophy.) Anyhow, without getting into the morals of it, and with the qualification that I have no legal training, I think it would be difficult to use same-sex marriage law in and of itself as justification for the things you mention. I doubt that any current court in our country would allow these things. But, while the type of argument you bring up may be considered fallacious, I would say that it’s still possible, but only with same-sex marriage as one of many events over time leading to serious changes in our society and what we consider acceptable. Now that I think about it again, the additional necessary conditions may be what make the argument a difficult one. The legal issue that concerns me more than this has to do with the implications new marriage laws could have for churches that will not perform same-sex marriages. (Obvious example: the legal status of LDS temple marriages, which the church would never make available to gay couples. Again, I’m no lawyer, and someone may have an argument against this or see some way around it, but that still doesn’t account for future laws. With the many potential implications extending beyond moral and religious beliefs involved, it seems to become an increasingly complicated matter.)

#39:
DB, others have already pointed out the reasons that most of your listed scenarios wouldn’t be likely, but I would have to say the situation is different in regard to plural marriage between consenting adults.

That said, those who wish to marry plurally already have a worthwhile equal protection argument, whether same-sex couples are allowed to marry or not. The two are completely independent, albeit similar in terms of legal theory, from one another.

#41:
The legal issue that concerns me more than this has to do with the implications new marriage laws could have for churches that will not perform same-sex marriages.

Assuming, of course, that the United States does not amend the U.S. Constitution to revoke the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, the government is already prevented from requiring any religious organization to solemnize (or even recognize or approve for ecclesiastical purposes) any marriage that is in conflict with their teachings/beliefs.

Have you ever heard of any churches being forced by the government to perform marriage ceremonies for interracial couples? I can assure you there are still religious groups in the United States who believe that deity absolutely forbids interracial marriage, at least when it comes to persons of African descent. Society as a whole may condemn such an attitude, but nobody can force those churches to perform such a wedding.

For a more specific example, the LDS church did not allow persons of African ancestry to receive temple ordinances until 1978. This means, of course, that on the basis of their race, these persons were refused an LDS temple marriage. Still, there is no indication that the LDS church was ever pressured, let alone required, to perform such marriages. Even now, the LDS church does not permit non-LDS persons to be married in an LDS temple, and again, no government is going to require them to.

I agree with Dexter that incestuous marriages and marriages of legal minors who CAN NOT give informed consent would still retain their adverse consequences to the general society and and, therefore, remain illegal.

The case for consenting adults in polygamous marriages is somewhat different and I can foresee the possibility of a time when a challenge could be brought and a later time when it could prevail. (What the church would then do, would be interesting to see…) However, since it already IS happening, I think having it out in the open would present the opportunity to monitor the effect on minor children (the real potential abuse in polygamous families) and to establish a standard of financial responsibility. Both the federal government and several state governments could benefit considerably by not being duped into supporting the various wives of a single husband. Furthermore, having a legal status, an abused wife or wives could openly call for assistance. I see that as a positive. Finally, the fundamentalist communities wouldn’t necessarily be restricted to mating within the same genetic group and perhaps the astronomically soaring incidence of fumarase deficiency could be stemmed.

Whether or not there are a significant number of consenting adults lining up to be in polygamous marriages at some point is a situation I’d be willing to see and to endure — not having to enter into one myself — so that the hundreds of thousands of gay Americans who are daily and certainly being discriminated against could have the same availability of enduring love & companionship, the right to domestic tranquility and the opportunity to give stable homes to homeless children.

As I said, someone else may see ways around it. I know there were a number of people who were concerned about the implications of the wording of the California law when it comes to LDS marriages. I don’t claim to have read the actual language of Prop 8 or the California constitution (and have never claimed such). I’m not a California resident, and none of the states I’ve lived in have voted on it either (during my eligible years in those states). That said, I put more stock in what those I know with legal training said than I did in my own lack of understanding of the legal language. I also don’t know on which issues a given state’s constitution takes legal priority over the country’s constitution. These are some of the reasons I avoided activism on any of the issues.

I know it’s pointless to worry about everything that could ever happen. Predicting the future consistently and accurately is quite impossible for us. The situation I raised, however, does seem conceivable. Minorities of all kinds have, as we’re all well aware, been denied all sorts of things throughout history. Many express concern about the legal future of same-sex marriage. Why is concern about traditional marriage (though not in minority)0 so unreasonable? For many in the past I expect it was only barely conceivable that same-sex marriage would ever become legal. But see how much closer it’s come to legality now than it was a hundred years ago? Two hundred, three hundred years ago? So many never thought that black people would have rights equal to whites. Now, excepting the opinions of some rather individual and isolated cases, they have been given those legal rights for decades.

What we see as impossible today is not necessarily impossible in the relatively near future. If it’s a matter of a change to the US Constitution then I say that laws, even major ones like in the US Constitution, have been changed before and can be changed again with the right conditions, however unlikely they may seem imminently.

While the language of Prop 8 is “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”, it’s worth noting that the CA Supreme Court seems very much only to have ruled with respect to the word “marriage” when they issued their ruling earlier in the week. They let stand the provision that only a man and a woman could be “married”. But they took pains to reaffirm the rights of gays in CA domestic partnerships. They ruled that Prop 8 was not an unconstitutional revision of the CA constitution specifically because it did nothing to jeopardize the fact of or the equal protections of same sex domestic partnerships. They have recognized, if you will, “separate but equal” institutions based on gender discrimination and that is why I think it’s still destined to be struck down — and rightfully so — by the US Supreme Court.

So then, all opinions aside about whether the law is right or wrong, is there any possible way for a state to interfere in a church’s marriage rights like we’ve been talking about, without changing the US Constitution?

No, though the government isn’t strictly obligated to recognize any religious marriage ceremony as a legal, civil marriage. On the other hand, if the government recognizes the marriages of one religious group as legal civil marriages, they have to recognize those of all the other religious groups. It’s an “all or nothing” sort of thing.

Were the law to have been written differently but reasonably in California, say, could they have obstructed temple marriage?

The only possible way I can see that happening, is if a constitutional amendment were passed in California, saying that only marriages solemnized in a publicly-accessible location would be valid or recognized by the state. This is actually the situation the LDS church faces in many foreign nations (which, of course, are not under the U.S. Constitution). In those countries, couples go to city hall for a public civil marriage, and then right away afterward, they go to the temple for their religious marriage/sealing ceremony.

Such an amendment wouldn’t be considered religious descrimination, btw, because it wouldn’t interfere in any way with the practice of the LDS faith. Couples could absolutely still be married in a private, restricted-access ceremony, according to their faith. They’d just ALSO need to go through a civil ceremony that was public, in order to make it legally recognized.

In those countries, couples go to city hall for a public civil marriage, and then right away afterward, they go to the temple for their religious marriage/sealing ceremony.

That’s is what my wife and I did in Japan. We went to city hall and the US embassy in the afternoon and filled out some papers and boom! we were legally married. About 4 hours later, we went to temple and got sealed.

I agree with Nick and brjones that Lone Danite’s responses are offensive.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I wonder where perversion resides.

You are correct that the SC would have to strike down DOMA if it were to determine that sexual orientation was a protected class and legalize gay marriage on the federal level. I suspect that eventually that is what will happen. The difference between DOMA and the state of the law on polygamy is that DOMA is merely codified federal law that has yet to be tested at the SC, while laws banning polygamy have been tested before the SC and have been found to be upheld as constitutional. At some point DOMA will go before the SC, but until that time, the state of the law surrounding it will remain unsettled. The law surrounding the legality of polygamy is completely settled. As stated above, however, the SC could decide to reverse that stance at some point and legalize polygamy, but I would be surprised to see it happen.

“as someone who is not LDS, Nick …. : That’s surprising to me since I always saw Nick as a Mormon who wasn’t excommunicated because he’s inactive only but that he was still LDS inside or in essence. So then if the church did change its doctrine on gay sex and SSM, in that it wouldn’t be a discipline issue, Nick still would not be a member? is that what the case is? just wondering now, more than before. It puts all these comments in context then.

And yes, our history with marriage show that the government can and does intervene in what we consider a religious practice. It may also happen today with baptism for the dead since if some get their way in Congress that practice will also be banned as offensive to a minority, Jews mainly. So when they say that Temple marriage won’t be affected I take a wait and see stance. I’m not yet convinced that the gay lobby won’t be able to condemn the Church as a organisation that discriminates against them because it doesn’t ‘Temple Marry’ a SS couple.

brjones:

“while laws banning polygamy have been tested before the SC”

What are those other Laws? I only know about Reynolds. And yes I hope they do test DOMA in SC but before Obama loads the court with wild left wingers, or racists Latinas, although somewhat hot latinas , like this Sotomayor seems to be.

#159:
“as someone who is not LDS, Nick …. : That’s surprising to me since I always saw Nick as a Mormon who wasn’t excommunicated because he’s inactive only but that he was still LDS inside or in essence. So then if the church did change its doctrine on gay sex and SSM, in that it wouldn’t be a discipline issue, Nick still would not be a member? is that what the case is? just wondering now, more than before. It puts all these comments in context then.

Sorry about the confusion, Carlos. I voluntarily resigned my membership in the LDS church in January 2006, by directing that my name be removed from their records. For the record, I was under no censure of any kind at the time, and my stake president thanked me for not having “broken my covenants” or given any cause for disciplinary action.

That’s an interesting perspective on diabetes and, potentially, same sex attraction. Never heard that before. Will look for additional info related to it.

As to your second point, I’m not sure I’m clear on it. Mind elaborating?

So, shall I interpret that to mean that the message of American churches, as such, is already sufficiently unwelcome that adding even the perception of tolerance for same sex attractions is enough to put missionaries and other church personnel in jeopardy?

What portion of overseas missions would this apply to? And what areas? Certainly not to Western European nations where equal marriage rights are gaining support and even complete legitimacy.

No, jon, I was not “mistreated at church” for being gay, because I was closeted. The few leaders and/or friends who were aware of that fact were quite compassionate. In fact, the single best, most loving experience I ever had with an LDS priesthood leader was when I told my stake president (at the time I was serving as his executive secretary) that I was coming out of the closet and leaving the LDS church. He was an amazing individual.

I is highly unlikely would ever return to the LDS church, even in that event, CarlosJC. Understand that I did not leave the LDS church “because I was gay.” Rather, I came out of the closet and left the LDS church after having lost my faith in LDS-ism, Mormonism, and christianity as a whole. In other words, I have much larger, more foundational disagreements with the LDS church than just their requirement of “super-chastity” for homosexual members.

I don’t know if this has been mentioned in any of the previous comments, but a federal lawsuit was filed last week challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8. A number of experts have opined that this could be the first case regarding SSM that may go all the way to the Supreme Court.

I suppose the marriage etc was all to fit the mold of good Mormon, in the beginning.

I was a full-blown religious zealot, Carlos, and I did what I truly believed deity demanded of me. Sad to say, there are many gay LDS men out there, who are such true believers that they have married heterosexually, believing that their obedience would be rewarded. Many of them were even promised by their bishops, stake presidents, etc., that if they married (and in many cases they were told never, ever to tell their wives that they were attracted to men), deity would turn them straight.

I hear from countless men in this situation, almost daily.

Well Nick, although I hope you’ve found your peace, I kind off agree with that idea that deity may help a gay person. Not necessarily ‘turn them straight’, I doubt that, but maybe help then find peace. It’s a similar situation to single men and women, finding peace with life’s given conditions and challenges.

But then again we’d have to measure which ‘peace’ is better. The Deity one or the one that comes from full acceptance of one’s homosexuality and then gay relationship or SSM etc. Sometimes I wonder, off course, but with an eternal perspective.

The ‘full-blown zealot’ kind off tells me a lot. I’ve never know a zealot to last the distance in church. Obviously that’s not the way to go about with church things imho

Cheers,

#79:
Well Nick, although I hope you’ve found your peace, I kind off agree with that idea that deity may help a gay person. Not necessarily ‘turn them straight’, I doubt that, but maybe help then find peace.

That’s certainly true, Carlos, and each person needs to find their peace, whatever that means. When I’ve communicated with men in this situation, I’ve stressed that they need to live with integrity. There is no peace in hiding who you are, but there is even LESS peace in violating marital and religious promises (as opposed to openly and honorably withdrawing from those promises when appropriate). Whatever a man concludes he must do, he needs to do without the burden of deception.

Nick-

It really grieves me to read about families torn apart by this. And it’s tragic — nothing short of tragic — to hear that children are cut off from their fathers and vice versa.

The gay guys that I know (not LDS) — being close to me in age (62) — were also in straight marriages and had kids in the era when no one was accepting of same sex attraction. …least of they themselves. They have been fortunate enough to get themselves sorted out and to go on to have wonderful relationships with their ex-wives and their grown kids and healthy, lifelong relationships with new partners.

Makes sense to me that families can be saved even in divorce! They’re wonderful guys and they were attracted to the women they married (if not sexually) and the women to them. After all that all of them have been through, it’s great to see them resolve the hurt and confusion and salvage the abiding friendships. But how tragic to think of people who are left with the hurt and alienation that compounds itself…

THAT’S why a little honesty about who people are in their deepest core and some tolerance for it is imperative. There isn’t a fiber of my body or my soul that doesn’t believe Heavenly Father wants it or children wouldn’t be born gay.

#180-”In a surprising number of cases, the men are “out” to their wives, but only to their wives. These wives would rather keep the family intact (at least in appearance), despite having little or no physical or emotional intimacy with their husbands. A few of the wives even allow their closeted gay LDS husbands to seek out sexual activities elsewhere, all the while maintaining appearances via activity in the LDS church.”

My question in relation to these situations is why is the wife the one having to sacrifice physical and emotional intimacy and give up her relationship with her husband (while protecting him in his and allowing him to satisfy his “needs”) in order to keep her family intact? Is the family not the responsibility of both the mother AND father? So, the mother sacrifices all of her needs in order to let the father get his needs met and feel good? Is it just me or doesn’t the idea of placing sexual desire in front of a spouse you’ve committed yourself to (not to mention children) seem ridiculously selfish?

I understand if a person is attracted to the same sex and chooses not to marry into a heterosexual relationship because of this, but once the choice has been made to marry into a heterosexual relationship and to have children it is not about how you “feel” anymore. That was a choice you made and a committment that needs to be honored. How many parents have handicapped children or spouses who become mentally ill and stay there with them as they committed too even though they would love to be somewhere else, WITH someone else? Everyone starts out single so they can decide what they want, but once they make that decision, it is not fair to “jump ship” on your family because you don’t feel a certain way. Lots and lots of people don’t feel warm and cozy in their family relationships but they do what it takes to make it work because they are committed to them.

Alice-

What does it mean to be incompatible? I was raised in a home with an abusive father and my mother stayed with him until he died. Were they right for each other? They did love each other when they got married but my father became selfish and thought more of himself, his feelings and his needs than my mother’s. It is a CHOICE to think more of oneself then another and it is a CHOICE to love your spouse. Having years of experience watching the selfishness go on in my family of origin, it is NOT about incompatibility most of the time, it is about thinking of oneself and behaving selfishly. When a person chooses to put their spouse’s needs above their own and vice versa, it can work, especially when they chose each other above all others in the first place.

I do agree that there are appropriate times to divorce and that is between God and the couple, but if a person is entertaining ideas of being with another person and this is the reason, I don’t feel you can justify it.

Ray-

I realize that I was responding more to what Nick said was going on within a group of people than to what Nick himself actually said. I have watched specific people I know and deeply respect stay with their spouse under the most severe of circumstances. One man in particular stayed with his wife as she became severely mentally ill and through the years did many erratic and costly things. I am quite sure he was not sexually fulfilled during these many years of marriage. I don’t see how sexual attraction (whether it be to a man or a woman) could ever be a justifiable reason to break up a family. When I read the things Nick said were going on, it is greatly disturbing that people are willing to allow sexual feelings, attraction, etc. to take precedence over their family’s well-being. That was what I was commenting on and it probably would have been better to comment about it to my spouse or friends then on this blog. I realize that my comments are taking this post way off topic so I will make this my last.

#185:
My question in relation to these situations is why is the wife the one having to sacrifice physical and emotional intimacy and give up her relationship with her husband (while protecting him in his and allowing him to satisfy his “needs”) in order to keep her family intact? Is the family not the responsibility of both the mother AND father? So, the mother sacrifices all of her needs in order to let the father get his needs met and feel good? Is it just me or doesn’t the idea of placing sexual desire in front of a spouse you’ve committed yourself to (not to mention children) seem ridiculously selfish?

Jen, first, I need to point out that if you read my comment carefully, you’ll see that I in no way condoned such an arrangement. To the contrary, I criticized it as being without integrity. That said, these women are HIGHLY codependent. For some LDS women, a substantial portion of their personal worth comes from their standing in their church community, and despite some real advances over the last couple decades, a divorced LDS woman simply doesn’t have the same social standing as a married LDS woman–especially if that woman has self-esteem issues in the first place. It’s not the men saying “I’ll stay if you let me fool around.” It’s actually the women saying “I can’t bear you leaving, even if that means you need to fool around.” Either way, however, it’s sick and wrong.

Nick-

As I mentioned in comment #191, I was commenting on what you said was going on with some people, not to you specifically. In response to your comment “It’s not the men saying “I’ll stay if you let me fool around.” It’s actually the women saying “I can’t bear you leaving, even if that means you need to fool around.” I feel that is a major generalization. I agree with you that some LDS women are highly codependent, but I think there is a difference in being codependent and expecting a husband to do his share in providing for the care of his family. I believe many LDS women don’t want their marriages to fail, so they try to do what they feel is best to assure that doesn’t happen. I imagine many of them are seeking the Lord’s guidance as well (obviously this applies to LDS men as well). This may make them appear to be codependent when in reality they are just trying to be careful about making any final decisions that will affect them and their children so deeply. As you know, the world does not have the same perspective on marriage as LDS people do and because we believe it goes beyond this life, I am sure many LDS people don’t want to let go of something until they are very sure there is nothing left to hold on to.

Just go to the link. My example was, unfortunately, viewed as code.

#194 Nick-

You mentioned that your situation became unbearable and that you divorced and came out of the closet. I am curious now that you have been away from the LDS church and your previous life, do you feel you have found the emotional intimacy you were lacking?

Experimenting:

that the situation eventually became unbearable

testing only

#204 “Only problem for me here is that this is the same argument made by every Woman who I saw confess to adultery, her needs for Emotional Intimacy weren’t met but they got ex’d anyway. They never say it was about the hot sex! It ended up being just an excuse.”

Carlos-

I don’t doubt that some people want and need emotional intimacy and some people have no idea what that’s all about. If you don’t, you’ll probably always think it’s just about sex. ::shrug::

At my age I can tell you that in my marriage the sex is not all that abundant — hasn’t been for years and that’s mutual — but the intimacy is what makes it the most valuable thing in my life. Ever! And makes me believe an eternity together is possible and worth living for.

I don’t doubt that some people want and need emotional intimacy and some people have no idea what that’s all about. If you don’t, you’ll probably always think it’s just about sex. ::shrug::

What, you saying that its OK to commit adultery so long its for emotional intimacy reasons? or what? love using these tags cause I’m ::shrugging:: here

[ I love using these tags ]

#208 Nick-

If you don’t mind answering, is God a part of your life now, or has He had to drop out of it because of the conflict you felt in the past?

I have a family member who is a lesbian and ended up leaving the church and now talks of God as a She, so I am curious how coming out has affected your perceptions of God.

#213:
This has been a wonderful discussion over the last few dozen comments.

As I go frantically counting back a “few dozen” comments, to discover what part wasn’t wonderful….

Nick,

Great that you can see the why, just my personal experiences not necessarily any revelation.

Re: Where do you draw the line between excuses and “real issues?” For me its all about the Action , what was done. Sure there’s this reason and that reason but as you law guys say, those are the motives and the first step needed to committing a crime/sin, second is action, right? Then the ‘real issues’ determine how long it take to change, repent and be forgiven imho

But we again agree on something. What you say about integrity is certainly true in that its better to leave marriage first than break any covenant by cheating and lying, and realistically one can’t have ‘adultery’ without deception or lies first. Its also good,imho, that you encourage truth first to those you know. But then we probably disagree about the final steps. I think in the end God looks to the heart and if a gay man is emotionally involved and loves his partner then I’m sure they take that into consideration and repentance is quicker than it is for adultery (which has many extra sins/issues on top). But I believe they will still ask a gay man for repentance because a gay relationship is a dead end situation in eternity, no kids no exaltation, limited life in the afterlife. For me this is why they call you to repentance but I’m sure we disagree here But anyway, have to go to work now, so I’ll read up on MM again tomorrow, cheers.

“I know this is unnecessary, but I just want to thank everyone for the incredibly civil way this conversation has developed. This is a great example that edification doesn’t have to involve total agreement – that people can talk about ANYTHING in a respectful manner if they simply respect those with whom they disagree.

This has been a wonderful discussion over the last few dozen comments.

Thank you, everyone.”

Ray-

With a single exception, I couldn’t agree more!

AdamF-

I don’t know if this post is the best one to talk about these issues because it is going so far off topic, but I will make a few comments anyway.

I do know that many women who have had husbands involved in pornography feel as though their husbands have cheated on them and not just with one woman but with many women. Even though there was no “emotional” affair per se, the physical arousal that men have with other “women” is very devastating to the wife and she feels it very deeply. Not only is trust significantly destroyed but the woman’s confidence can be completely shattered and this can take years to recover from. Many men who are involved in pornography truly don’t understand what the big deal is when their wife finds out about it and don’t understand why she feels so devastated. Men are able to compartmentalize and women cannot do this and many times feel it is directly related to them in that they are not enough for their husband. This type of “affair” via the internet can take a very long time for women to recover from because of the emotional damage it does, so I don’t necessarily agree that an emotional affair is a lot harder to recover from, but I am sure this study isn’t accounting for pornography and the major damage it can do.

Trying to come back to topic somewhat, I had a friend who’s husband left her for another man. This creates a set of feelings that others don’t even have to deal with because truly the woman can’t even compete and is left feeling quite helpless. No matter what “type” of affair, they are all painful and damaging in one way or another.

What do two gay men and two lesbian women do when they look at each other knowing there can be no natural family?

Nick:
Of course. They must find other ways to have a family whether it be through a 3rd party or adoption.

What do two gay men [or] two lesbian women do when they look at each other knowing there can be no natural family?

They must find other ways to have a family whether it be through a 3rd party or adoption.

You seem to have answered your own question.

Actually, jon asked about “two gay men and two lesbian women” forming a family. I asked, fairly I think, whether he knew of any such examples. Of course, jon’s point is that two persons of the same biological sex are presently unable to mix their respective DNA to produce natural offspring of both partners. jon does not, however, entertain us with an explanation of why this fact is germane to a discussion of civil marriage equality.

Given that jon seems to equate a “natural family” with unassisted procreation, it seems fair that we call upon jon to answer the following:

(1) What do a fertile man and an infertile woman do when they look at each other knowing there can be no natural family?

(2) What do an infertile man and a fertile woman do when they look at each other knowing there can be no natural family?

(3) What do an infertile man and an infertile woman do when they look at each other knowing there can be no natural family?

(4) What did Dallin Oaks (at the age of 68) and Kristen M. McMain (in her “mid-50s”) do on August 25, 2000, when they looked at each other knowing there could be no natural family?

(5) What did Russell M. Nelson(at the age of 82) and Wendy L. Watson (at the age of 56) do on April 6, 2006, when they looked at each other knowing there could be no natural family?

Companionship is just as important, if not ultimately even more important than procreation, imo.

Agreed.

Re: 101-
It has been interesting to step back and look at statements made by church leaders regarding homosexuality and how they have evolved over time, softening the church’s stance.

I view it as one of the “products of the time and culture in which we live”. Times and cultures are changing, as will the church’s official statements.

I have always loved Elder Oaks, but I was disturbed by his encouragement for parents to push their children away. The church seems to be testing out different ways of “dealing” with homosexuality in the church, and I think this is just another that was tried out, unsuccessful, and won’t continue to be encouraged.

#240:
One of my biggest struggles is that I have such a strong belief in God and the gay and lesbians that I have had deeper conversations ALL have lost their belief in God or it has changed dramatically from what it was before.

Well, imagine being told throughout your life that deity hated you, or at least that deity hated something that seemed to be a core part of your personality. Imagine being told that if you prayed hard enough, exercized sufficient faith, made enough effort, and “relied on the atonement” enough, deity would “remove” that thing about you that he hated. Imagine you wanted so badly to please that deity, that you spent years praying, fasting, begging, pleading, weeping, and trying to do all you were counselled to do, yet that deity still wouldn’t “bless” you by removing the thing that made you unacceptable to him.

For awhile, you might conclude that you just hadn’t done enough yet to “deserve” that “blessing.” At some point, however, you just might see your faith “lost” or “changed dramatically.”

#244,

Yes, it appears that this once had some traction among LDS

But Kimball put a stop to it, actually I remember it was even before he was president. But there are always some zealots around.

Nick-

Even though it is not the same circumstance, I know what those feelings are like having grown up in a home with an abusive father. I saw my friends with their parents who loved them and wondered for years why God hated me and put me in that situation and I was convinced something was fundamentally wrong with me. I was so full of sorrow I was suicidal as a teen and had no one to talk to about what was going on in my life. I understand the process of praying and trying to have enough faith for things to change, things out of my control, and I watched them NEVER change. I know without a doubt that the experience I had growing up as a child changed my entire life and I lost opportunities that I can never get back because I was so busy trying to survive rather than be a child and grow and develop.

I don’t have to imagine wanting to please God, because I have felt that to my core and have felt like I failed miserably. I realize that this isn’t the same in relation to same sex attraction, but the feelings are very similar. Even though I went through all of those things, for some reason I was never able to not believe God was still there. I was not able to deny Him, even though I really wanted to. This was more what I was curious about, and AdamF led me to a blog where I might find more of the understanding I am looking for.

I hope you know that I did not ask these questions in a judgmental fashion, but in a sincere one having been through somewhat of a process myself in relation to God and sincerely wanting to understand more.

Jen,

My heart goes out to you for the struggle that you have had. It is unfortunate that things happen to the most innocent of God’s children. One of the things I have realized is the power of God’s gift of choice. This is the most powerful gift we have been given by Him apart from our physical body. That power of choice causes people to do good and in some cases, to do evil. The power of choice is a central piece of the great plan of happiness. And, because of it, God is almost powerless to change the wrong choices that some make. it is no consolation to those who suffer at the hands of those who make wrong choices, but they will receive the reward they have earned. but, Savior has invited us to cast our burdens on Him, as Ray mentioned in another post and He will help relieve you of the hurt.

The why “bad things happen to good people” is a great mystery of life.

Jeff-

Thank you for your comment. Looking back now I can say I am grateful for the experience I had as a child because it has made me who I am today, but it took me years to get to that point. I have learned that God doesn’t jump in and save the day for everyone, even when it seems like the most obvious and loving thing to do. Those “thorns in our side” may be there for half our lives or even all of our lives and yet I truly believe God can and will make up the difference someday. It may not be now or in the next 10-20 years or even in this life, but I know He is capable, willing and desirous to give us all that He has if we will but accept Him. I can honestly say that I understand pain so deep it hurts to pray or even consider that there is anyone there, because you can’t help but wonder if they are there, how can they ignore you so perfectly day in and day out? I believe there are many who feel this way inside and it becomes too painful to consider a loving Heavenly Father just watching idle, doing nothing, so that belief in Him has to be shed or changed dramatically in order to cope with the pain, otherwise it is all consuming. I don’t know why God allows some to have to carry so much but I do know that He never leaves them and is always there for them. Me saying that is quite a thing because even now I feel abandoned by the Lord, but still I cannot say that He is not there,it is just not possible for me to do, my spirit knows He is and I cannot deny it.

#251:
I hope you know that I did not ask these questions in a judgmental fashion, but in a sincere one having been through somewhat of a process myself in relation to God and sincerely wanting to understand more.

I didn’t take your comment as judgmental in any way, Jen. No worries!

#252:
What disappointed you the most re: church actions in prop or what may have surprised you in things the general church did/said?

Hmm…it’s honestly rather hard to choose the “most disappointing” or “most surprising” aspect of the whole LDS involvement. I do think it was very unfortunate that some LDS resorted to “eating their own,” even to the point of telling those members who were troubled by Prop 8 that they should be excommunicated for “not following the prophet.” I was shocked, though not necessarily surprised, at how brazen LDS leaders were in claiming that gays and lesbians who criticized the LDS campaign were “religious persecutors,” trying to take their rights away. I honestly still haven’t figured out whether (1) LDS leaders were truly that blind to the irony of their statements, or (2) LDS leaders simply thought gays and lesbians were too loathesome to be entitled to any rights at all.

Bottom line is that society has an interest in promoting heterosexual relationships and not homosexual ones.
How else is society to keep on propagating itself? People will say we have too much people on the planet but truth is the Earth is very fertile and if food were divided equally globally, everyone could get five pounds of food every day.
States/nations have an interest in keeping their states populated. Is discrimination acceptable to not allow other unions such as same sex, polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous, or any other deviant unions? Yes, it is.
To maintain a harmonious society it is essential.
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah and the people of Noah’s time did not believe that the consequences would come.
But they always come.
Sooner or later.

Sexual immporality has always been the single biggest cause of societies failing.
Consequences of sexual immorality are inescapable.
Legalizing it to kingdom come makes no difference.
We always pay the consequences for our behavior.

#224 Adam- Thank you for that kind comment. I’m glad I was clear even if I didn’t quite complete the first sentence. ;>

#262 jon- I don’t think it necessarily matters if a response is “popular”. Some of us have had to live with what we consult our consciences with and pray long and hard about for a decade before others can even bear to hear it.

The truth needs to be told! Who knows how the Holy Spirit speaks to the church. Perhaps when a revelation is particularly difficult, Heavenly Father needs a louder voice and speaks with the whole population as He did in the 60s & 70s about the priesthood.

So, if your conclusions are based on the truth and not a personal comfort zone, don’t rely on permission or popularity to speak them. OTOH, if you feel you said what you had to, then I thank you for your contribution to a vigorous and interesting conversation.

“That’s worth pondering in light of the D&C statement about how pervasive unrighteous dominion is.’

I wonder if the label of unrighteous dominion applies to governments and governmental agencies, religious organizations and special interest pressure groups equally…

I’ve been peeking at this conversation here and there but have not chimed in thus far because it seems to be the usual LDS stuff. Two comments from JM catch my eye though.

#261 “Sexual immorality has always been the single biggest cause of societies failing.”

This idea is not exceptional in conservative religious circles, and says more about the attitudes of the person who makes such a claim then it does about any given society. That being said I would love to know how they quantify the relationships between their understanding of “sexual immorality” and a societies ability to govern itself, economic distress and military conflict. The short answer is that they can not and do not quantify such relationships because there is no relationship to quantify. Jon’s statement and many others like it arise out of fear of the homosexual other, who folks like Jon do not understand, or trust, or know much of anything about. What is interesting is that such statements are often made in a religious context that is specifically Christian. But what we can not ignore is that the idea that the other poses a threat to society and are to be feared and fought against due to ontological difference, is an idea that is completely contrary to the spiritual and ethical foundations of the Hebrew and Christian systems of thought.

“When people decide to leave the lifestyle behind, they usually:
1. Recognize gay sex for what it is. An addiction that is not good for them.
2. They avoid people and places that will lead them into it again. This also may involve getting out of a relationship they have been in for a long time.
3. They may find support at the church of their choice.
4. They realize that God’s way are not their ways and God sees what we do not.
5. They realize that they are loved by God and members of the church and that he does not want them to live this way. Alma’s ever eternal words. Wickedness never was happiness.
6. Ultimate healing will come if one remains faithful and makes the choice not to backslide.”

Now this is an interesting statement and I am glad to provide the counter example:
When gay folks come to terms with their gayness they:
1.Realize that all the people telling them that their “lifestyle” is a “choice” have no idea what they are talking about.
2.Become part of supportive communities and being healing and learning how to move past years of self loathing that comes from believing other people’s false idea about them.
3. May find support at the church of their choice such as the UCC or reform Jewish temples, or Episcopalian, or many other religious organizations.
4. Realize that God’s ways are not homophobic and that God can and does love and support them as gay people.
5. Realize that God’s ways are not our ways and that they will need to be more patient, more compassionate than others, and they realize that they will not enjoy full civil rights and participation with out fighting for such rights.
6. may come out of long term depression.
7. Are able to be in higher quality and longer term relationships than they had previously.
8. Get along better with family and friends.
9. Enjoy more stable and productive lives.

Jon’s statements and others like it are textbook examples of the kinds of homophobia we see today. Its not necessarily hateful or violent, but it is very fearful, viewing gay folks as posing a serious threat. What is more, such homophobia is more than willing to be proscriptive. What Craig Owens use to call “The indignity of speaking for the other.” Religious conservatives truly believe that they have a better understanding of homosexuality than people who are gay do.

Further Jon’s statements (and many others like them) use religion in a totalizing and specifically ideological way. Asserting that their understanding of religious truth is normative. One thing that must not be forgotten is the religious experiences of gay folks themselves, including personal revelation, service in the community, preaching and giving blessings. Their prayer lives, etc. etc. etc. Its an ethical necessity that we let gay people describe and assess their own lives and religious experiences, that they tell us what their relationship with God is like, and that we be willing to listen to their experiences and not seek to find theological justification for our own fear of the other.

#262:
When people decide to leave the lifestyle behind, they usually:

jon, what do you mean by “the lifestyle?” Joseph Nicolosi, chief author/promoter of the so-called “reparative therapy” engaged in by Exodus and Evergreen (i.e., that gays just haven’t learned how to be masculine enough, so learning such skills as playing basketball will turn them straight), doesn’t seem to be able to define the “gay lifestyle,” though he certainly condems it loudly. My “lifestyle” as a gay man includes many things, jon, most of which are much like the “lifestyles” of anyone else commenting on this blog.

1. Recognize gay sex for what it is. An addiction that is not good for them.

Sexual addiction will indeed cause myriad problems for an individual who suffers from it. This is true, whether the addict engages in sex with persons of the opposite sex, or with persons of the same sex. Can you provide any reputable data, jon, to back up your repeated claim that all homosexual activity is the result of addiction? If not, you’re simply making an unsupported declaration, as if it was unquestionable fact.

2. They avoid people and places that will lead them into it again. This also may involve getting out of a relationship they have been in for a long time.

You mean places like weekly Evergreen support meetings, jon? Of course, the leaders of Evergreen doesn’t like to admit that their members often hook up with each other for sex right after the meetings, do they? I guess all that talk about Jesus turning them into “real men” gets the gay LDS guys pretty excited!

3. They may find support at the church of their choice.

Yes, so long as they make all the right statements, acknowledging their deity-given duty to hate themselves.

4. They realize that God’s way are not their ways and God sees what we do not.

Then what makes you certain, jon, that Evergreen’s way is deity’s way? What makes you certain that Evergreen sees what deity sees, if you don’t?

5. They realize that they are loved by God and members of the church and that he does not want them to live this way. Alma’s ever eternal words. Wickedness never was happiness.

Wait a second…first you said that self-loathing gays who retreat into the closet can find support in “the church of their choice,” but now you say they are “members of the church,” and follow it up by quoting from The Book of Mormon, indicating that by “the church,” you mean the LDS church. Which is it, jon? Are the people you describe part of “the church of their choice,” or are they all LDS?

6. Ultimate healing will come if one remains faithful and makes the choice not to backslide.

Considering it’s plain that you pulled this list of talking points from Evergreen and/or its adherents, why do your claims oppose those of the LDS first presidency? The LDS first presidency and quorum of the twelve have made it clear that they don’t know the cause of homosexual orientation, so why does Evergreen claim that they know both the cause and the “cure?”

jon, again, I understand what you’re going through. I know how desperately you wish you could “change” your sexual orientation, and I also know how easy it is to fall prey to Evergeen, Nicolosi, et. al. After all, they provide you with quick, plausible-sounding explanations of why you’re gay. They tell you that your parents failed to teach you how to be a “real man,” so you can say it’s “not your fault” that you’re gay. That’s a whole lot easier than telling yourself that you must be horribly evil, isn’t it? So you buy what they’re selling, and then you give them more of your time and money, because if they know why you’re gay, surely they know how to “cure” you and make you straight!

jon, don’t fall for these hucksters. Take a good look at what they’re telling you, and compare that to what has been officially stated in the past two years by the LDS first presidency and quorum of the twelve. If you do so, you’ll see that they don’t line up. Then, since you’re trying to be a faithful member of the LDS church, you need to ask yourself why these men are telling you something so different from what your own church leaders are saying.

#272 – I completely agree, John. I lived most of my life in Arizona, which is plagued by a similar system, and it is absurd.

#261. Help me understand. What societies have failed due to sexual immorality? What are the inescapable consequences of sexual immorality?

I agree with the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887. The practice of polygamy was and is repugnant, disenfranchising women and even worse abuses underage girls forcing them into marriage. The Edmunds-Tucker Act was a success because it forced the Mormon Church to make a decision. The church could either choose to continue practicing the doctrine of polygamy and the result would be the church would cease to exist as a corporate entity. Or the church could choose to keep itself as a corporate entity but give up the practice of polygamy. This put the church into a difficult position because the Lord told prophet John Taylor in 1886 that polygamy was an everlasting covenant that cannot be abrogated nor done away with but will stand forever. The Lord told the prophet that he will never revoke the law of polygamy because it is everlasting. So given the difficult choice of supporting an everlasting doctrine or keeping the church as a corporate entity the Mormon church chose to sacrifice their doctrine and keep the church as a corporate entity. The Edmunds-Tucker act was successful in eradicating the Mormon’s sexual immoral, abhorrent practice of polygamy. Regardless of the legal-ease with the 1887 Act it was successful in stopping the Mormons of practicing this hideous doctrine. The American public, at the time, considered polygamy and slavery as the two great evils in American society.
To answer my own question. One of the consequences of sexual immorality is that the public stands up to demand the practice be stopped, the government listens and takes action to stop the sexual immorality.

Now that the church has survived, as a corporate entity, 122 years later the church can now defend the “right of traditional marriage” against Prop 8 in CA.