As I listened to last evening’s broadcast I was struck by how often and how forcefully two Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ emphasized how we should be tolerant of those who oppose our view point on traditional marriage. Over and over, they emphasized throughout the hour long broadcast to be respectful of the views of others. We were counseled to reach out in love, and to act as Jesus Christ would have us act.
I wonder whether those who oppose those our views on traditional marriage are receiving similar counsel of tolerance. I certainly hope that none of the Saints would ever particpate in such acts of intolerance as appeared on this Yes on 8 sign, sitting on private property on a Church next to the Stake Center in Santa Maria. Tolerance? Update 10/9/08 8:30 p.m., more tolerance after the jump.
Update 10/10/08 9:20 p.m. further intolerance added to the list.
October 9, 2008 at 9:47 am
Guy,
One could argue that inherently this ban on gay marriage is in itself intolerant. Thus defacing a sign on private property does not pale in comparison to the intolerance brought about by religionists who wish to force upon others their own morality.
As just another comparison, say you were setting up a proposition to bring back slavery. You ask everyone to be tolerant, but your own proposition reeks of intolerance.
Why should someone show tolerance towards an intolerant proposition?
October 9, 2008 at 10:04 am
Dan,
So, if I understand your argument, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are exhorting us to be intolerant? Is that it?
You comparison to slavery–black or any other kind is untenable. There is no logical or legal equivalent between slavery and preserving the definition of historical and traditional marriage.
The proposition is not intolerant.
October 9, 2008 at 10:32 am
Defacing the sign was unacceptable, but the issue of “tolerance” on both the pro and con sides of Prop. 8 are reasonably up for debate (although both sides would, predictably, deny this).
October 9, 2008 at 10:53 am
No, it’s not equivalent to slavery, but it is quite germane to the denial of the priesthood to the blacks. What going to happen 50(?) years down the road when the church finally acknowledges that SS people fall in love and deserve the benefits of ‘marriage’. Will the future prophets ignore/cover-up/deny the SS intolerance of current prophets as how the current prophets have done about the blacks/priesthood issue in reference to past prophets?
October 9, 2008 at 11:21 am
Actually yes, Guy, the prophets are indeed asking us to be intolerant. Why are you afraid of that? I’m not. I don’t think gays should call their unions marriage.
The proposition is intolerant.
October 9, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Guy, I’m disappointed that you’ve decided to publicize the illegal work of an immature vandal. I’m also disappointed that you’ve done so in a way which implies that all who oppose Proposition 8 are intolerant and/or engage in criminal acts.
The fact that LDS leaders have chosen to redefine tolerance (ironic, given their allegations of “redefining” marriage) does not, for the vast majority of humankind, magically transform the political campaign against marriage equality into a “tolerant” or “loving” act. Rather, this redefinition of tolerance is a rationalization, crafted specifically to address the fact that many faithful LDS members do, in fact, see the Prop 8 crusade as intolerant. In short, it’s an excuse to go along with Monson’s dictate, even where doing so is revolting to individual LDS members’ consciences (what many LDS consider “the light of Christ).
Surely those Americans who persecuted the LDS church over the issue of plural marriage thought they were protecting religious moral values and fighting against “sin.” The fact is, however, they were being grossly intolerant of the LDS church and its members. No reasonable LDS member at the time would have concluded otherwise. LDS members should apply the same level of scrutiny to their own actions, that they would to the actions of others.
October 9, 2008 at 2:24 pm
The argument that the proposition is intolerant is weak. Prop 8 does not seek to ban people from engaging in homosexual activity. Restricting the right of individuals to engage in homosexual activity would be intolerant. However, those individuals do not need the ratification of marriage to engage in that activity.
Did Jesus shun the woman at the well? No. That exchange was the prefect example of tolerance. Paraphrasing, “Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more.” We shouldn’t condemn those who participate in homosexual activities, but we shouldn’t have to accept it (which, should prop 8 fail, we would have to) either.
October 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Guy,
I do not need to understand the issues here. They are far too complex for my poor troubled brain to muddle through anyway. The fact is, the brethren have spoken on this matter. We can either support them, or not. That is the choice. Everything else is just background noise.
I chose to follow the inspired direction of church leaders, long ago. That makes the choice even easier for me.
October 9, 2008 at 2:49 pm
ed,
What cover-up? Although it’s not my favorite piece of church history, I’ve never once – once! – had anybody deny that blacks were not permitted to hold the priesthood from sometime in the 1800s until 1978. In fact, the revelation permit blacks to hold the priesthood is canonized. So help me with how that’s a cover-up?
October 9, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Jimbo, nobody is asking you to “accept” anything that your particular faith considers “sinful.” No matter what the civil law allows, you are free to make your own determinations as to personal approval or disapproval. How your personal religiously-based approval or disapproval should impact the law of the land, of course, is a very different discussion. To suggest that Proposition 8 would force you to “accept” marriage equality is either uninformed, mistaken or dishonest.
As for tolerance, Proposition 8 seeks to change the currently-recognized legal status of legally-recognized same-sex couples. Those who argue against marriage equality make it abundantly clear that they consider a committed same-sex relationship “underserving of” or “demeaning to” the title of marriage. These individuals consider a committed same-sex relationship to be inferior to a committed opposite-sex relationship, and they want the civil law to reflect that perceived inferior status, by means of withdrawing the respected title of “marriage.” That’s what Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to, Jimbo. Trying to use the civil law to relegate others to a socially and/or legally inferior status is the very essence of intolerance.
October 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Why can’t we pass marriage laws that require all state recognized marriages to take place in public places? Why couldn’t we legislate against temple marriage? I’m sure the anti-Mormon protestants wouldn’t need much convincing to pass such a law.
If you start passing laws against a specific group of people, don’t be suprised when the same thing is done to you…again.
Personally, I don’t need the state’s approval for the covenants I make with my wife/wives. I have God’s approval under His law. That’s good enough for me.
God’s law trumps man’s law, unless you’re a coward.
October 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Nick, would “separate but equal” pretty much sum it up?
October 9, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Re: Jimbo,
Restricting the right of individuals to engage in homosexual activity would be intolerant. However, those individuals do not need the ratification of marriage to engage in that activity.
Whether we are denying people the right to engage in private homosexual behavior or the right to marry the partner of their choice, we’re dealing with a denial of rights. The California Supreme Court has held that there is a right for same-sex couples to marry under the state constitution. Proposition 8 seeks to deny them that right.
If denying the right to engage in private, consensual homosexual behavior is intolerant, then how is denying someone the right to marry not intolerant?
October 9, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Re: #11,
If you start passing laws against a specific group of people, don’t be suprised when the same thing is done to you…again.
You hit the nail on the head. Just over a century ago, our people were derided and oppressed for engaging in marital arrangements that mainstream society considered immoral, threatening, and at odds with Christian precepts. Back then, it was our nontraditional marriages that were under fire; we were the ones who were seen as threatening the traditional family. Over 1000 Mormon men went to jail for polygamy, and the government nearly brought our church to its knees over the issue.
You’d think we would have learned something about imposing the morality of the majority on politically unpowerful minorities. Especially when it comes to the right to marry.
For this reason, the Church–at the very least–should be neutral on this issue. But if you want my real opinion, I think that our own history behooves us to stand with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters (even if the Church disagrees with their lifestyle!) in their fight for marriage equality. Otherwise, we’re hypocrites.
I would like to pre-empt the response that our apparent hypocrisy makes sense if we believe that divine revelation was behind polygamy (as Oaks stated in his LDS.org interview on SSM). Even if we assume that polygamy was commanded of God but homosexuality is forbidden of Him, Oaks’ response only further muddles things, for it requires us to accept that God would have us fight for our rights when threatened, but fight against certain others when their same rights are in peril. Given that God is “no respecter of persons,” I don’t know how that position can be justified.
October 9, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The reason the church is pressing this issue so hard is because the more gay acts get legitimized, the less the church can claim it is a sinful act.
Contrary to what some may believe, what is considered a sin has changed dramatically over the millennia that we’ve been here on this planet. A lot of that has to do with how well a message is accepted within a given society, or how far a society will go. Frankly, stoning women for adultery (when not stoning the men) is reprehensible, not just merely unacceptable behavior of a society.
Homosexual acts are considered, or classified, as a ’sin’ because men who God calls as his representatives claim it is a sin. Sins are based, or judged, by our ability to choose our own way in life. We come to a road with two choices. 1. Commit an act. 2. Not commit an act. One is considered a sin. The other is not. But external factors are at play as well. In the case of sexuality, it is equally as hard for a man who has feelings for men to hold back his desire for HIS ENTIRE LIFE as it is for a man who has feelings for women to hold back his desire for HIS ENTIRE LIFE. But we give heterosexual men a way out to fulfill that natural desire. We allow them freedom from sin. We call it marriage. Nothing really changes. It is merely abstract. Someone in authority says it is no longer a sin. The act is the same whether one is married or not. We do not allow homosexuals this release though. They have to suffer through their ENTIRE LIVES with this desire burning in their bodies because someone in authority refuses to give them a way out, a way in which the performance of that act is not called a sin.
Frankly it is intolerant. But alas, I don’t think our world and our society is ready yet to really be acceptant of this point. Will we ever allow homosexuals the ability to release their natural desire, to escape that torment, without someone in authority classifying it as sin? No. We’re not ready for that. We need that reconciliation at some point though. We’re going to continue being a divided society until it is reconciled.
October 9, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Frankly, I think gay couples should start pressing for common law marriage. I mean, that sure looks to me like a mighty big loophole in our system of law. The funny part about that is that heterosexual couples can claim to have sin free acts without someone in authority saying their acts are sin free. Heh.
October 9, 2008 at 8:26 pm
You can be tollerant or forgiving of a sin with out voting to make it legal. You might as well tell God you think he’s wrong.
October 9, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Steve M wrote,
We have learned something, which is why the LDS Church leaders have come out so strongly in support of Proposition 8.
The Church’s news release “The Divine Institution of Marriage” (13 August 2008) frames the issue very well:
So what could happen when the church and state collide? Several things come immediately to mind:
1. LDS Family Services could lose its license to operate in some states.
2. BYU could lose its accreditation and tax-exempt status.
3. Individual members of the Church could be sued for discrimination against same-sex couples.
If the opponents of Proposition 8 consider such outcomes desirable, they should be honest and say so.
Most of us are aware of the campaign waged by the government against the Church over the issue of polygamy. I for one do not wish to see another such campaign over the issue of homosexuality. That is why I support Proposition 8.
October 9, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Bro. Jones #3
I am sure there are some on both sides who will act intolerantly; but, I disagree that the issue of tolerance is up for debate on both sides. It has been, and continues to be abundantly clear that LDS leadership has counseled its members to be tolerant. I have seen nothing remotely suggested by the leadership of those opposing 8.
The comments on this thread are a prime example. Based on many of the no on 8 comments made thus far, I and everyone else who supports man/woman marriage are intolerant for simply holding that religious belief, and for deigning to express that belief under the most protected form of speech–political and religious speech. So, I beg to differ that the issue of tolerance is up for debate. It simply is not true. I can’t tell you how many times I have been called homophobic or filled with hate, or what have you for my religious beliefs.
ed #4
I don’t think so. Major differences:
1. United and unanimous quorums of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency issuing a proclamation setting forth core eternal doctrines in support of man/woman marriage.
2. Affirming that man/woman marriage is a core and eternal principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, serving as the foundation of eternal marriage and families.
3. Long history of prophets seeking to overturn the ban on Black Priesthood ordinations.
These are just some of the major differences between the Blacks and the Priesthood analogy you suggest and the Church’s promotion for man/woman marriage, which was even the case when the Church allowed polygamy. It was still man/woman marriage.
For the Church to change, as you suggest 50 years down the road means they will deny what Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have described as core and fundamental principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I frankly don’t see it.
Dan #5,
Sure they are, Dan.
Nick #6
How surprising, we disagree. Of course you’re disappointed. You would much rather have a very different picture of “tolerance” on the no on 8 side.
Please reference the specific language anywhere in this post, or else where, where I imply any such thing.
So, only folks who agree with your position on genderless marriage are tolerant, and all of us who have differing views, based on religious beliefs and other reasons, are the intolerant ones?
Jimbo #7
Agreed.
Jim #8
Pretty much sums it up. Yep.
Sam B #9
Well, Sam, when we’re not busy being intolerant to the rights of others, we’ve got to be covering something up.
Nick #10
Even if true (which is arguable–since ss couples in CA enjoyed and continue to enjoy marital rights if registered) it is not at all a sign of intolerance; but, an expression of the popular will of CA residents, already previously registered at the ballot box.
No. They make it clear they hold the religious and/or legal views that marriage always has been, and should be for a variety of compelling reasons to be between a man and woman. This is your continued characterization attempting to paint anyone with a differing point of view than yours as intolerant. It doesn’t work, Nick.
Brent #11
You’re missing the point Brent. This is about the definition of marriage: The definition from time immemorial. It’s not about where they can or should take place. Or religious weddings. They aren’t the same questions as what is in question here.
Mark N. #12
Nice sound bite–except, again there’s no analogy here between equal but separate and marriage’s definition.
Steve M. #13
. . . we’re dealing with a denial of rights.
No. We’re dealing with societal acceptance of a lifestyle. It has nothing to do with rights–especially here in CA.
Except there is no constitutional authority or precedent for such a legal theory, at least in CA constitutional law. The court simply created out of whole cloth a new fundamental right, and a new suspect class of individuals to enjoy that right.
There is no constitutional authority in all the rest of American Constitutional Jurisprudence, except for MA to support such an odd and radical interpretation of constitutional theory.
October 9, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Guy,
I have to push back on the idea that the logic of the Marriage Cases was made of whole cloth. I posted this back in May, and you didn’t answer it, so I’ll submit it again.
1) Prop. 22 was interpreted as excluding same-sex couples from the institution called marriage, but it did not exclude the legislature from setting up a parallel institution whereby same-sex couples could receive all the same rights and benefits as marriage.
2) The point of this statutory scheme was to allow same-sex couples the same substantive rights while signaling that their unions were not equal in dignity to traditional marriage.
3) A statutory scheme that achieves no end except stigmatizing an unfavored group is an illegitimate legislative purpose that violates the equal protection clause.
Which of these statements do you disagree with?
October 9, 2008 at 11:25 pm
P. K. Andersen #18
Had the church stated that their only concern was with protecting the “definition of marriage,” that would be one thing. But they also clearly explained their position:
Clearly the church also wants to be able to legally discriminate against same-sex couples. Does this not speak “intolerance?”
October 10, 2008 at 1:00 am
Nate #20: That pretty much nails what I meant by “separate but equal”.
You gay people? Would you mind drinking from that water fountain over there, while we straights drink from this one situated a little more conveniently over here?
Don’t worry: the water that comes out of each fountain has the same source, so you won’t really mind, right?
October 10, 2008 at 4:19 am
Guy,
#19,
1. I’m not for or against this proposition. I’m on the fence still. I don’t believe that those for this proposition have done a good enough job to convince me that this is the way to go.
2. It is indeed intolerant. It lacks tolerance. Don’t be afraid of it, Guy. Religious beliefs are by nature intolerant.
Really, Guy? What examples are there in the public record?
So your definition of tolerance is the expression of popular will? I guess the people of Salem were expressing tolerance towards women they called witches. After all it was the popular will of the time.
Tolerance/intolerance is not defined by popular will, but by higher standards that are immovable. Otherwise a lot of very bad things that would otherwise be considered intolerable would be tolerable. Like I said earlier, for example, stoning a woman for adultery is not showing tolerance in any way shape or form.
Tolerance, on the other hand, does not mean acceptance. This is why I am on the fence. I frankly don’t care what gays do with their lives. I don’t think they should attempt calling their union a marriage because marriage has, for all its history, been between a man and a woman, and not really a matter of love.
October 10, 2008 at 8:28 am
I guess I just don’t get it, but it seems fairly silly to say “Hey, we don’t mind that you get all of the same legal rights as married people, we just don’t want you to use the word.”
October 10, 2008 at 8:33 am
To be honest, I completely agree with Daniel in that I could care less what gays do with their lives. This is one reason why i’m mostly on the fence with 8. The one problem I do see is pointed out by the church.
(q)Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”(/q)
Is this true? Will this law (or other laws like it) force the church to perform SS marriages in the temple? Or, is this just a slippery slope argument? Is there any prior presidense for this argument?
October 10, 2008 at 9:18 am
Ian,
It won’t place church and state on a collision course unless a particular church gets state funding of some sorts.
In the case in Massachusetts where the Catholic charity pulled out of adoption, that Catholic charity was getting state funds. Because the state of Massachusetts no longer discriminates against homosexual couples, any organization that wishes to use state funds will have to abide by those rules or lose out on those state funds.
A private institution cannot be forced to abide by state laws regarding discrimination. As one example, KKK organizations have full right to exclude blacks from their groups. Blacks can’t sue KKK organizations to try to get in. It just won’t happen because KKK organizations are private and they can exclude whomever they desire.
Now, in the case of our church, particularly the temple marriage, you have to realize that there are two parts to that temple marriage. One is civil in nature (the state required marriage contract) and the other is spiritual in nature (which the state doesn’t really care about at all)—the sealing. The state cannot force the church to marry someone the church doesn’t desire to marry, both civilly and more importantly, the sealing. As a private institution, though charged with the authority to give out marriages, the church does not receive government funding to handle the costs of giving out marriages. Thus, the state cannot force the church to live by the standards the state sets up. The church is fully in its right to deny whomever they want the right of marriage in the church.
October 10, 2008 at 10:31 am
I call photochop. No way were the first two photos taken at 02:06 a.m. and 02:00 a.m., respectively.
California, for all its virtues, is not the land of the midnight sun.
October 10, 2008 at 10:33 am
It is the golden state though, Peter. All that gold surely brightens the countryside even at 2am.
October 10, 2008 at 10:37 am
I guess I just don’t get it, but it seems fairly silly to say “Hey, we don’t mind that you get all of the same legal rights as married people, we just don’t want you to use the word.”
It’s called a principled stand, the opposite of consensus and compromise.
October 10, 2008 at 10:38 am
True, Daniel ; )
October 10, 2008 at 10:58 am
“It’s called a principled stand, the opposite of consensus and compromise.”
The establishment of new law ultimately depends on precise wording of legal statutes and definitions. I fail to see how insistence on requiring the use of differing legal terms (our group gets to use the word “marriage” while that group doesn’t) while simultaneously insisting that there be no difference in the legal rights accorded to both groups can possibly be seen as a “principled stand”. If all of the legal rights are to be the same, then the wording must be the same, otherwise a can of legal worms is opened that nobody can close again.
Just admit it: “separate but equal” (which we all know is a legal sham) is what you want.
October 10, 2008 at 12:20 pm
#19 Guy:
Perhaps I was not clear. The disappointment I expressed had to do with giving publicity to the criminal act of an individual, regardless of which side of this question that person was on. I would have felt the same, had you posted a photo of a “No on 8″ sign with similar illegal vandalism. Since you’ve brought up the idea of portraying one side in a particular way, however, I think it’s fair to ask why you don’t have any photos of defaced “No on 8″ signs. I would be genuinely shocked if none exist.
As for your refusal to admit that “domestic partnership” and “civil union” are separate and socially inferior titles (in comparison to marriage), the respective majorities of the supreme courts of both California and Connecticut disagree. However formidable your legal knowledge and experience may be, Guy, there is little reason for anyone to assume that it is vastly superior to at least eight supreme court justices from two states. Furthermore, your oft-expressed opinion that committed same-sex relationships are undeserving of the title, “marriage,” directly supports my point.
Frankly, I’m surprised that someone with your level of obvious intelligence doesn’t simply admit that reasonable minds can differ, rather than consistently making absolutist declarations that state supreme court decisions are “made out of whole cloth,” “unsupported,” “without precedent,” etc.
October 10, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Ian Cook (#25),
This article on NPR’s website will answer your question about precedents and slippery-slope arguments: “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash” (NPR.org)
October 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Daniel wrote,
You are right that the state is unlikely to force the LDS Church to perform homosexual unions, whether in the temple or not.
However, that issue is something of a red herring.
Churches do much more than perform marriages. Traditionally, they have offered a wide variety of religious, educational, charitable, and social services. The LDS Church, for instance, operates Brigham Young University, LDS Philanthropies, and LDS Family Services.
You have suggested that the Church could avoid conflicts with the government merely by refusing state funding. Unfortunately, that may not always be true.
Consider, for example, LDS Family Services (LDSFS). Many states do not permit unlicensed agencies to offer adoption services. It is doubtful that LDSFS could retain its license in some areas if it were found to discriminate against legally married homosexual couples in the adoption process. This is not a question of government funding but rather government regulation.
October 10, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Thirty years ago no one thought or even imagined gay people would be pushing for their “right to marry.” Yet, here we are.
We can’t see into the future to know all the ramifications of gay marriage. I think some of the consequences will be negative, especially because the prophet has said so. I urge people who do not have a crystal ball to try to imagine the consequences. Are you sure they will all be positive?
October 10, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I don’t have to have a crystal ball to know the hatred and disdain people have shown throughout the ages and continue to show toward those who were born this way. I for one repudiate it. You don’t have to have a crystal ball to see that the church’s position relative to this issue has migrated over time. So what’s with that? How does that square with what the prophet says now? Indeed, what has the prophet said?
October 10, 2008 at 10:11 pm
P. K. Andersen #18
Boy that’s for sure. And, we continue to learn every single day.
Nate W. #20
I’m not sure what you have reference to here Nate–so I can’t really comment one way or the other. Or, perhaps I am just missing your point. Perhaps you can clarify for me.
If you mean to say that the current domestic partnership statutes in CA provide same sex couples, and in some circumstances other couples, the same legal rights as married individuals enjoy under CA law, then I would agree with that portion of #2; however, I do not agree it signaled their unions were not equal in dignity. It meant that marriage was reserved for men and women, as it has been for thousands of years, long, long before there was a California, United States, or many other modern nation states.
Is this some type of legal or constitutional standard you are trying to articulate? If so, I don’t think it is a legal standard recognized in general constitutional interpretation or construction. I have stated over and over that in my opinion the CA supreme court exceeded its judicial authority by enacting legislation from the bench, by creating a new suspect protected class in CA constitutional law, and by also creating a new fundamental right for this newly created suspect class to enjoy. Hopefully this clears up my position and answers your question sufficiently. If not, please let me know and I’ll try again.
Steven B #21
Actually, I think the Church is wanting a clear and consistent constitutional interpretation of civil rights based on long standing constitutional precedent and reasoning. I don’t think this question–genderless marriage–is one of civil rights. Rather, it is a question of societal acceptance, and the hijacking of traditional marriage and its definition by the genderless marriage proponents in their efforts to gain that societal acceptance.
That the Church leadership, and many of its members have a difference of opinion on genderless marriage does not make them intolerant.
Mark N. #22
Your fundamental problem is confusing the genderless marriage movement with the racial civil rights movement of the 1960’s. They were not, and are not the same.
#23 Dan
Well Dan, from a strictly LDS perspective, if the united and unanimous proclamations of the Quorums of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency have not persuaded you, after pondering their guidance and praying about it, folks like me are even less likely to persuade you. Besides, conviction comes from within–not by rational arguments of others.
Please refer to the David O. Mckay biography, which chronicles President McKay’s attempts over several years to have the policy changed. This included others in his Presidency and in the Quorum of the Twelve who advocated this change. I can’t remember now all the names of those who supported and encouraged Pres. McKay to overturn this policy; but, you can certainly look them up.
October 10, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Guy,
My first point meant exactly what you interpreted part of my second point as meaning–that regardless of prop 22, there was no functional difference between domestic partnerships and marriages in California. The only function of Prop 22 at that point was to reserve the title of marriage for opposite-sex relationships.
I think your disagreement with the Court’s decision belies this statement. The very premise of your argument is that the word “marriage” is a symbol of something special–and that by including in the definition of that word the relationships of same-sex couples takes away from the specialness of the word. You have two parallel legal institutions that are functionally identical but are known by different names. What is the motivation for keeping them separate if not to exclude people from one of them? And what is the point of that exclusion if not to say that those who are excluded are less than those that are included? I think history shows us that segregation rarely if ever has benign motives.
Really? See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (Ruling that because a zoning ordinance was based “on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded” that the ordinance was without rational basis); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (holding that Amendment 2’s “sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”). This standard is known as “real rational basis” scrutiny or rational basis “with a bite.” Setting up a parallel institution for the purpose of stigmatizing a disfavored group is a purpose based solely on animus and irrational prejudice, and such a law would lack rational basis.
So, even if you balk at the scrutiny level applied by the California court, my point is that prop. 22 did not even pass rational basis scrutiny and so the decision was justified.
October 11, 2008 at 12:02 am
As a sidenote, I do want to thank you, Guy. I know that I am unlikely to change your opinion, as you are unlikely to change mine. I appreciate that you are still willing to engage my arguments in a serious way. It is becoming increasingly hard to find people who will do that, and I felt I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude.
October 11, 2008 at 2:22 am
31:The establishment of new law ultimately depends on precise wording of legal statutes and definitions.
I don’t know if any law really depends on precise wording; some thrive on ambiguity allowing disparate parties to make different interpretations thus garnering support from a broader base than otherwise possible.
Anyway, the California Supreme Court has already decided that the more or less precise definitions in California statutes regarding marriage is unconstitutional. Precise definitions are not an end unto themselves, particularly if conflict with other precise definitions.
California’s legal and legitimate review process has come into conflict with one of the pillars of California’s equally legal and legitimate form of direct democracy, but at the end of the day the issue really has little to do with precise definitions; for many people it is a very emotional issue, and if the proposition passes it won’t be because 19 million or so considered legal scholars call California home.
I fail to see how insistence on requiring the use of differing legal terms (our group gets to use the word “marriage” while that group doesn’t) while simultaneously insisting that there be no difference in the legal rights accorded to both groups can possibly be seen as a “principled stand”.
As you note, a principled stand is an “insistence” something rather than a willingness to compromise; one who takes a principled stand is interested more in the principle upon which is being stood than finding consensus on a watered down version. Sometimes we believe this is heroic, other times idiotic. But it is what it is and Proposition 8 is a principled stand.
If all of the legal rights are to be the same, then the wording must be the same, otherwise a can of legal worms is opened that nobody can close again.
Not in California where the people can pay a couple hundred bucks and collect signatures to close any can they please.
Just admit it: “separate but equal” (which we all know is a legal sham) is what you want.
?
October 11, 2008 at 10:38 am
Guy distinguishes between the trajectory of LDS priesthood policy vs. the trajectory of LDS policy/beliefs on homosexuality, by noting a “Long history of prophets seeking to overturn the ban on Black Priesthood ordinations.”
I think it’s important to note that the general membership of the LDS church did not know in the decades leading up to 1978 that there were “prophets seeking to overturn the ban.” Sure, we now know that McKay had his concerns about the policy, and that other apostles and members of the First Presidency tried to push for a change, but those debates/discussions weren’t public at the time. Rather, they came out via historians, 30+ years after a change had officially been made.
The point, Guy, is that we actually don’t know whether there are any LDS general authorities now seeking a change in LDS policy/belief regarding homosexuality, and we might never know of such efforts until long after such a change takes place. We are told in various conference talks, etc., that these men voice their different opinions quite freely, but regardless of what those individual feelings are, these men will publicly support whatever decision the president of the church makes. That “unified front” has been an important part of the LDS church’s success as an institution.
October 11, 2008 at 11:54 am
“Your fundamental problem is confusing the genderless marriage movement with the racial civil rights movement of the 1960’s. They were not, and are not the same.”
California’s Chief Justice, Ronald M. George, disagrees with you.
From an LA Times article (Sunday, May 18, 2008, “Same-sex case weighed on chief justice”):
According to a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll, how one feels about gay marriage depends to a great degree on who one knows.
And according to the first article, “[Chief Justice] George, who grew up in Los Angeles, said he counts gays among his friends.”
Maybe the decision all came down to who Justice George’s friends are. And maybe the vote in November will be decided by who the voters’ friends are.
One way or the other, I don’t think the vote on the amendment next month is going to settle anything.
October 11, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Ian Cook #25:
I don’t know that imposed genderless marriage from the bench, as it has been here in CA will necessarily lead to forced genderless marriage in the Temple; but, there are some things certainly bound to happen, and I believe untold others.
My greatest concern is the new protected constitutional class of individuals, “gays.” Being gay, whatever that might mean, was never, ever a constitutionally protected class under California’s Constitution, in the state’s history. Now it is a newly created protected class. That affords them the same constitutional protections other minorities, i.e., such as racial, or even religious minorities have historically shared. This, in my view will allow for future and further litigation in the “gay rights” arena.
The other thing the CA supreme court did, which is very troubling from a legal perspective is to create from whole cloth, a new “fundamental right”: the right to genderless marriage. Again, up until May of this year, this was never a fundamental right in CA, and was wholly without any legal precedent in CA constitutional legal theory and interpretation up until May.
Armed with this newly protected class, i.e. sexual orientation, or being gay, and this new fundamental right of genderless marriage, I foresee continued litigation and pressing of the gay agenda throughout society, including at the grade school level, where the Education Code does require schools to teach about marriage.
Anyone who thinks the gay rights full court press is about to stop now that they have acquired genderless marriage in CA, I believe is naive.
Dan #26:
Prophets, Seers, and Revelators disagree with you, as do other legal scholars. I’m standing with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency on this one.
Nick #32
Well, frankly Nick, I haven’t even seen any no on 8 signs. But, assuming for our discussion here that they do, it is quite clear that the tones of the two campaigns are very different, particularly given the Church’s counsel to avoid harsh criticism and confrontation. It seems the No on 8 folks have a different focus. They are happy to call those who have different opinions bigots, and hateful. Just today I saw a No on 8 button worn by a supporter which advocated voting No on hate. That’s just absurd, and reflects the difference in how these campaigns are being waged.
Besides, Nick, you used to run a very nice pro-Mormon website. So, I know you know how to create and maintain one. Why don’t you do that for all those defaced No on 8 signs?
So, if I understand your argument, the side with the most supreme court justices win? Is that how you understand constitutional construction to be undertaken? Even assuming that to be the case, the traditional man/woman marriage folks win. There are, I believe, six other states which have found there is no such thing as a constitutional protected class of “sexual orientation” (whatever that might be), nor is there any “fundamental right” to genderless marriage.
So, if we’re totaling up the numbers, it looks like traditional man/woman marriage wins under your legal analysis. You also conveniently neglect to mention that of all the supreme court cases which did create the new fundamental rights of genderless marriage there were vigorous dissents of justices equally knowledgable and experienced in the constitutional laws of their respective jurisdictions. It’s not just me making up this stuff.
I do admit reasonable minds can differ. (And, thanks for saying–though probably not really believing I am intelligent) But part of that difference is the reality, that at least in CA, the supreme court did make up its new fundamental right and protected class out of whole cloth. There are many legal scholars (not me) who support that conclusion. The CA marriage decision was unsupported in CA appellate constitutional construction, and was in fact without precedent. It’s that simple.
P. K. Andersen #34.
This is a very real and valid concern. As I have previously stated, armed with new fundamental rights and a newly created suspect class, the gay rights agenda is going to press forward making all kinds of legal claims wherever they see an opening. I don’t know all the legal arguments and challenges that will come: But, I have absolutely no doubt but that they will.
jks: #35
Well put.
Walt #36:
Whether they are or aren’t born that way, is really irrelevant and the subject of an entirely different post, perhaps somewhere else, but not here.
The relevant part of your statement is the part about hatred and disdain. None of the Church’s leaders in any of their discussions on this topic, in any related way, reflect hatred or disdain. And, their counsel to all has been the exact opposite. Believing that marriage should be limited to men and women does not make one hateful, a bigot, or any of the other adjectives so easily tossed about by those who oppose 8.
Nate #38:
And, I see nothing wrong with that. Proposition 22 simply codified what had been the very, very clear understanding and meaning of marriage in California since the inception of California and its legal system. Nothing wrong here. Furthermore, it was the reflection of the voters of California, who in overwhelming numbers spoke on this issue eight years ago. Let me repeat: The voters. Not the supreme court justices. Not even the voters representatives, the legislature. But, the voters themselves. The “we the people” folks who make California run from day to day.
I disagree. I hope to post shortly something more along the lines of the arguments you were making in your comment here. Perhaps we can take it up again there. But, in short, I think there are compelling state interests that allow for the constitutionally permissible distinction and reservation of marriage for the man/woman relationship.
Nate #39
Here we agree, at least as to the engagement of arguments in a serious way. Thanks for your thoughts without all the hoopla that accompany too many of the No on 8 arguments.
October 11, 2008 at 5:34 pm
The other thing the CA supreme court did, which is very troubling from a legal perspective is to create from whole cloth, a new “fundamental right”: the right to genderless marriage.
Guy, this does not acurately represent the written rulings of the state supreme courts which have ruled in favor of marriage equality. While this sort of characterization admittedly won the day in some state supreme court decisions, it is very much akin to saying that Loving “created from whole cloth, a new ‘fundamental right’: the right to marry a person of another race.” It is akin to saying that Griswold “created from whole cloth, a new ‘fundamental right’: the right to privacy (or the right to use contraception).” It would be more credible for you to acknowledge that the majority of the California and Connecticut supreme courts concluded that the established fundamental right to marriage must equally apply to those who wish to marry a person of the same biological sex, and then marshall your arguments as to why you think this was an incorrect conclusion. As things now stand, your insistence on twisting the courts’ rulings in the above manner honestly taints the rest of what you wish to communicate.
So, if I understand your argument, the side with the most supreme court justices win?
Guy, that is a parody of my argument. I simply pointed out that you tend to make absolutist statements which portray any supreme court justices who disagree with your personal analysis as complete legal morons.
“sexual orientation” (whatever that might be)…
Being gay, whatever that might mean…
Guy, these two comments directly contradict the official LDS statements that proponents of Prop 8 should be respectful and loving toward those who disagree with them. These two comments are dismissive and demeaning. If you didn’t actually intend to convey such a tone, then I hope this serves as feedback to help you see how these words may come across to some readers, particularly those who have struggled a great deal in coming to terms with their sexual orientation, and who identify as gay.
You also conveniently neglect to mention that of all the supreme court cases which did create the new fundamental rights of genderless marriage there were vigorous dissents of justices equally knowledgable and experienced in the constitutional laws of their respective jurisdictions. It’s not just me making up this stuff.
Guy, I never commented on any “supreme court cases which did create the new fundamental rights of genderless marriage.” It would be impossible for me to do so, since no such supreme court cases exist.
As for court cases which found that the fundamental right of marriage must be equally applied to persons who wish to marry a person of the same sex, I specifically stated that the conclusions in these cases were by a “majority” of the respective courts, which is an obvious acknowledgement that there were dissenting opinions–just as there were dissenting opinions in the state supreme court rulings which ruled against marriage equality.
I do admit reasonable minds can differ.
Thank you, Guy. Seriously, I appreciate you stating that.
(And, thanks for saying–though probably not really believing I am intelligent)
Guy, this was uncalled for. I recall that in a past thread, you outlined your education and career, and it is indeed impressive–far more than any of my own achievements in the practice of law. I don’t have to agree with you to respect your knowledge and experience.
October 11, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Nick #41
I fail to see how that is relevant at all to this discussion.
I hear that argument all the time about Blacks and the Priesthood changed, and therefore, the Church will eventually change its position on homosexuality. I’m not certain what kind of change you think will occur.
It is a core fundamental doctrine of the Church that marriage is between a man and a woman; that an over riding purpose of marriage between a man and woman is to procreate and create the family unit–essential in mortality and the eternities. It is a core fundamental and essential element of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that marriage is ordained of God. And, that marriage is between a man and a woman, again resulting in man/woman procreation and a family.
It was never a core fundamental doctrine of the Church or element of the Gospel of Christ that Blacks not be ordained to the Priesthood. They are not the same now. They were never the same. They will never be the same. The change you think will come, toward homosexuality, based on what happened with Blacks and the Priesthood, would amount to the dismantling of these core fundamental beliefs, doctrines and elements of the Gospel. How likely do you think that is to happen?
Mark N. #42
That’s OK, the feeling’s mutual.
Nick # 44
Yes, it does accurately reflect the written ruling, at least in CA, the one with which I have the most familiarity. Before the ruling, marriage was limited to the man/woman relationship. And, marriage was, as you know, a fundamental right. After the ruling, the new fundamental right of genderless marriage was created. Spin it how you want–but those are the facts.
No. Loving did no such thing. The differences between Loving/Perez, and the genderless marriage cases are great. I hope to do another post soon on those, and look forward to the debate with you about them.
Thanks for the lecture, Nick, on how disrespectful and unloving I am; however, it is abundantly clear from my comments that my critique is a legal critique and argument. I repeat, I have no idea how a court arrives at a protected class based on “being gay” or “sexual orientation.”
What legal standard is there to discern these phrases in a legal context? It’s pretty clear who the protected classes are when one discusses the protected classes of say, race, gender, religion, or the like. I don’t see how one discerns the legally protected class of “being gay” or “sexual orientation.” How did the CA supreme court do it? They created this new protected class out of whole cloth, just as they did the new fundamental right. Before May, there was no such constitutionally protected legal class in CA. After May, there was such a new protected legal class. Created out of whole cloth, not because I disagree, but because there was and is no CA legal precedent for such a vague legally protected class. That, Nick, is what I mean by created out of whole cloth.
Never in any of my comments or posts do I denigrate individuals because of who or what they claim to be. Your insinuation to the contrary is simply untrue. I do, however, take exception to the legal arguments set forth by the gay movement, and the shaky legal grounds upon which the CA supreme court has based its marriage ruling.
October 11, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Yes, it does accurately reflect the written ruling, at least in CA, the one with which I have the most familiarity. Before the ruling, marriage was limited to the man/woman relationship. And, marriage was, as you know, a fundamental right. After the ruling, the new fundamental right of genderless marriage was created. Spin it how you want–but those are the facts.
Great, Guy, so you won’t mind providing us with a direct quote from the decision of the California Supreme Court, actually stating that there is a “fundamental right to genderless marriage,” or as you’ve phrased it elsewhere, “a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.” After all, you’ve repeatedly denied the fact that the California Supreme Court’s decision simply ruled that the existing fundamental right to marriage must apply equally to persons who wished to marry a person of the same biological sex. So don’t just spin here (and to be sure, you are the one spinning), but give us an actual quote from the court, where they state the finding you have repeatedly (and falsely) claimed.
Here’s a quote from the actual case, just to get you started: “The flaw in characterizing the constitutional right at issue as the right to same-sex marriage rather than the right to marry goes beyond mere semantics. It is important both analytically and from the standpoint of fairness to plaintiffs’ argument that we recognize they are not seeking to create a new constitutional right — the right to “same-sex marriage” — or to change, modify, or (as some have suggested) “deinstitutionalize” the existing institution of marriage. Instead,
plaintiffs contend that, properly interpreted, the state constitutional right to marry affords same-sex couples the same rights and benefits — accompanied by the
same mutual responsibilities and obligations — as this constitutional right affords to opposite-sex couples. For this reason, in evaluating the constitutional issue before us, we consider it appropriate to direct our focus to the meaning and
substance of the constitutional right to marry, and to avoid the potentially
misleading implications inherent in analyzing the issue in terms of “same-sex
marriage (page 53).”
As a bonus, here’s one more: “Accordingly, we conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage (page 79).”
Thanks for the lecture, Nick, on how disrespectful and unloving I am;
Funny you’d say that, Guy, since I went to great pains to make sure that I was addressing your statements and not you or your personal character.
I repeat, I have no idea how a court arrives at a protected class based on “being gay” or “sexual orientation.”
Guy, you raise a valid question, in terms of how a court is to measure sexual orientation, or to determine who is gay. Absent some sort of objective test, we are largely left to an individual’s personal declaration (not that a straight person is likely to falsely declare themselves gay, in order to marry a person of the same sex!). In that respect, I don’t take issue with your comment. I don’t even take issue with you arguing that sexual orientation is not, according to your legal analysis, a protected class.
Unfortunately, Guy, the two comments I quoted from are worded in such a way that they communicate something different. To me, they came across as sneering comments, suggesting that you considered “sexual orientation” or “being gay” to be fictions, and therefore not capable of being the subjects of a protected class.
Before May, there was no such constitutionally protected legal class in CA. After May, there was such a new protected legal class. Created out of whole cloth, not because I disagree, but because there was and is no CA legal precedent for such a vague legally protected class. That, Nick, is what I mean by created out of whole cloth.
Guy, by the same reasoning, every protected class under the law is “created out of whole cloth,” and no protected class “exists” until a court recognizes it as such. As such, the “invented out of whole cloth” mantra is ultimately a meaningless propaganda tool.
October 11, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Never in any of my comments or posts do I denigrate individuals because of who or what they claim to be.
I missed this before, Guy, but you did essentially the same thing here that I pointed out in your earlier comments. Note that you didn’t say “who or what they are.” You said “who or what they claim to be.” The implication, to any reasonable reader, is that you do not, in fact, accept that homosexuals exist. Your wording suggests that in your world, the subject individuals just “claim to be” gay. That, Sir, is indeed disrespectful, unloving, and denigrating.
October 12, 2008 at 5:07 am
Guy,
Don’t pit me against the Brethren in every answer. It’s intolerant.
October 12, 2008 at 11:28 am
Guy:
As I read through your blog, I comprehended that you questioned whether the opponents of proposition eight were as committed to tolerance as the church’s leaders are. You suggested they were not. Hence, you posted the obliterated signs. I made one short statement:
“I don’t have to have a crystal ball to know the hatred and disdain people have shown throughout the ages and continue to show toward those who were born this way.”
You dismissed my phrase “those who were born this way” as irrelevant to the subject. Well, it’s your blog and you are its judge and jury.
A common definition for tolerance is the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
I have found it quite common for many gays and lesbians to describe themselves as having been born that way, of never having known anything different. Yet you simply dismiss my phraseology, calling it irrelevant. Well, it is your blog and you are its master.
Next, you said what the relevant part of my statement is. Thank you. I didn’t think it required clarification. Again, judge and jury.
While it may be true that the church’s leaders in their recent discussions on the topic have never reflected hatred or disdain—a point I do not comment on here, it is not hatred or disdain that you put at issue in your entry, it is tolerance: the capacity and practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs and practices of others.
Incidentally, to “limit marriage to men and women” doesn’t require a proposition eight. Matters as they now exist in California limit marriage to men and women. I know that isn’t what you meant to say, but do you see what I mean?
There is a long and tired history of intolerance toward these brothers and sisters. It’s time we recognize and respect their beliefs and practices.
October 12, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Just for the sake of argument, does anyone know of any opposite-gender couples that have registered their partnership as a civil union? Is this even a legal option? Just from googling around a little, it looks like it’s legal for opposite-gender partners to enter a civil union in New Zealand, but all of the articles I’ve seen in America discuss it as a purely gay phenomenon.
Perhaps a better question would be, why would they want to? Would a cohabitating opposite-gender couple that doesn’t want to make the commitment of marriage derive any benefit from entering into a civil union?
Finally, from a church perspective, assuming that it is legal for opposite-gender couples to enter into civil unions in jurisdictions that recognize them, would the church still make them wait a year to be sealed in the temple as they currently do with civil marriages?
October 12, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Why?
It is one thing to expect people to put up with beliefs and practices that they find disagreeable. That is the essence of toleration, and it is necessary in a pluralistic society.
It is quite another thing to demand that people respect (i.e., esteem, admire, or honor) disagreeable beliefs and practices.
Such respect must be earned.
October 12, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Why?
A good question. One, I’m sure that has been asked by countless non-LDS Christians when the topic of “toleration of Mormons” comes up.
Mitt Romney was apparently unable to earn the respect of non-LDS Christians during the primary season. A lot of them believed they had him all figured out, just because they knew he was a member of the “Mormon Church”, and didn’t get their vote because of it.
Toleration is a two-way street.
October 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Indeed it is, or should be.
Although I was never a Mitt Romney supporter, I witnessed a number of on-line discussions between his supporters and his opponents. The latter included some Christians who simply could not vote for a Mormon.
Well, you know what? People have every right to vote against a candidate because they find his Mormonism distasteful. It is up to the candidate to earn their respect, if he can. (I must say, however, that relatively few cited disapproval of Romney’s religion as their reason for withholding their vote. More often, people were put off by what they viewed as his flip-flopping on major issues.)
But let’s consider a case closer to home. Several members of my LDS ward, including me, are involved in a carpooling arrangement with a couple of lesbians. The lesbians know we are LDS; we know they are lesbians. No one is trying to convert anyone, so we get along just fine. That is toleration.
Now, if the lesbians in question were to demand that we express approval of their domestic arrangement and refer to it as a “marriage,” I doubt the carpool would continue. I am not about to pretend that I find homosexuality acceptable.
October 12, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Now, if the lesbians in question were to demand that we express approval of their domestic arrangement and refer to it as a “marriage,” I doubt the carpool would continue.
To me, it seems like that would be a silly thing to end a carpool and a friendship over, but to each his own, I guess.
If they announce during the ride one day, “Hey, guess what! We got married over the weekend!”, would you immediately insist they get out of the car and walk the rest of the way to work, or would you just wait a few days to call them up after work and say, “Well, you know, we don’t think this carpooling thing is working out, so you’ll need to find new arrangements from now one”?
People have every right to vote against a candidate because they find his Mormonism distasteful.
Yes, in other words, people are allowed to do stupid things, for stupid reasons. We can’t force them to like us, but it certainly doesn’t reflect well on their thinking abilities or judgment.
October 12, 2008 at 10:10 pm
So, I assume an announcement that one woman carpooler and one man carpooler are involved in an affair with each other while both are married to opposite-gendered spouses also recieves carpool banishment in your carpool? You see homosexuality in that same light?
You see though, in such a case betrayal is involved. In your case the same-gendered couple is involved in commitment and loyalty to each other.
So is it just the sex? What about the carpooler who openly admits to masturbation? Or a single carpooler who had a wet dream?
What is it that makes it that drives your sense of repulsion?
October 12, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Would a cohabitating opposite-gender couple that doesn’t want to make the commitment of marriage derive any benefit from entering into a civil union?
They would, to the best of my understanding, get all of the same rights accorded to those whose relationship is openly deemed to be a marriage.
After having read a good portion of the CA Supreme Court’s decision, it seems that they, too, felt that if all the legal rights accorded to civil union couples are the same as for “married” couples, there was just no compelling reason to maintain two separate names for the same, exact contract between individuals. Civil unions do, indeed, walk, swim, look and quack like the duck named marriage.
If there had been a difference in the rights accorded to the two groups, the court might have found a reason for keeping same-sex couples from using the word marriage.
So, it would appear that the horse left the barn a long time ago, and that this Proposition 8 is just an attempt to close the barn door and hope that doing so at this late date is still a significant action. Even when it was Prop 22, it was still too late to stop the horse from leaving.
October 13, 2008 at 6:24 am
Neither response would be appropriate. I would probably say something polite, then drop the subject. Later, I would privately explain to them my views on homosexuality, and ask that they stop talking about it.
If they were to continue to talk about their sexuality, or insist that we express approval of it (knowing that we do not approve), I would conclude they were doing so maliciously. I would then ask that they make different driving arrangements.
I neglected to mention one important fact about our carpool: We are not driving ourselves to work but rather our children to school. I tend to be especially strict about the behavior of those who would influence my children.
But let’s turn the situation around. Suppose I were to preach repentance, fire, and brimstone to my lesbian friends (and their son!) every time I see them. How long do you suppose our association would last?
Agreed. I would add that pointing out that that their reasons are stupid is unlikely to win them over. Romney would not have gained even a single vote by accusing his detractors of religious bigotry (as some of his supporters did).
October 14, 2008 at 8:25 am
Just for the sake of argument, does anyone know of any opposite-gender couples that have registered their partnership as a civil union? Is this even a legal option?
I was just looking at the family code to see where the wording of Prop 22 was put, and under the section about domestic partnerships I found the following:
There’s more, but I think the highlighted area answers the question.
October 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm
[...] Same Sex Marriage, Traditional Marriage, Yes On Proposition 8 | A quick follow up my prior post on the same subject. I’ve been truly amazed at some of the antics ongoing all over [...]
October 20, 2008 at 8:23 pm
[...] 20, 2008 by Guy Murray A quick follow up my prior post on the same subject. I’ve been truly amazed at some of the antics ongoing all over [...]
October 20, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Guy,
If you really think that intolerance is limited to the No-on-8 folks, then you’re just not opening your eyes.
Take a look at the comments to Clark Pingree’s Youtube video, for instance:
“Homosexuals don’t love each other, they are perverted ”
“What a cheap sob story. What is next, let these gay men marry our twelve year old sons ”
“GOD ordained marriage, not man:
Man + Woman + Marriage + Sex = FAMILY (ideal not perfect).
Man + Woman + Sex = Just a man and woman living together or bastard children without marriage.
Man + Man + Sex = Wrong hole and Nothing without adoption.
Woman + Woman + Sex = Strap on device and Nothing without artificial insemination or adoption.
The propagation of society relies on the hope that marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN will result in the continuation of the species.
YES ON PROP 8! ”
“Just because we can’t stop them from having sex doesn’t mean we should support what they are doing. ”
“same sex marriage harms the children me and my wife created by confusing them about what love really is. It is wrong and sinful to have sex outside of marriage period, wither with a same sex partner or not. I want my children to marry the right person so they can have children and a real family together. I have to explain to them why gay couples cannot procreate and that a child cannot physically have two fathers or two mothers because such thing is a lie.”
“You can explain anything you want to a jackass and it will still be just a jackass. Obviously the guy in the video and others don’t get it. They are sold on the idea that they are just GAY and there’s nothing they can do about it but accept it. If you pit yourself against the Lord’s church than you stand on the wrong side. I will stand with the Prophet and Apostles any day & till the day that I pass from this life to the next, only hoping that others will follow keeping the commandments…”
“Sorry Bud ;-(
You can’t change doctrine – You were NOT born that way, you were NOT ‘created’ that way, Your Spirit is NOT “gay,” and the Church IS lead by a Prophet of God.
Your behavior is the finest embodiment of self deprecation I have ever seen – Good Luck!”
That’s comments from one youtube video. And there’s a whole lot more where that came from.
It’s commendable that church leaders are telling church members to be loving and kind towards gays. But that’s no guarantee that everyone is taking this advice; and Mormons are only 2% of Cal’s population anyway; there are a lot of pro-8 folks who don’t take their counsel from our leaders.
October 20, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Guy,
If you really think that intolerance is limited to the No-on-8 folks, then you’re just not opening your eyes.
Take a look at the comments to Clark Pingree’s Youtube video, for instance:
“Homosexuals don’t love each other, they are perverted ”
“What a cheap sob story. What is next, let these gay men marry our twelve year old sons ”
“GOD ordained marriage, not man:
Man + Woman + Marriage + Sex = FAMILY (ideal not perfect).
Man + Woman + Sex = Just a man and woman living together or bastard children without marriage.
Man + Man + Sex = Wrong hole and Nothing without adoption.
Woman + Woman + Sex = Strap on device and Nothing without artificial insemination or adoption.
The propagation of society relies on the hope that marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN will result in the continuation of the species.
YES ON PROP 8! ”
“Just because we can’t stop them from having sex doesn’t mean we should support what they are doing. ”
“same sex marriage harms the children me and my wife created by confusing them about what love really is. It is wrong and sinful to have sex outside of marriage period, wither with a same sex partner or not. I want my children to marry the right person so they can have children and a real family together. I have to explain to them why gay couples cannot procreate and that a child cannot physically have two fathers or two mothers because such thing is a lie.”
“You can explain anything you want to a jackass and it will still be just a jackass. Obviously the guy in the video and others don’t get it. They are sold on the idea that they are just GAY and there’s nothing they can do about it but accept it. If you pit yourself against the Lord’s church than you stand on the wrong side. I will stand with the Prophet and Apostles any day & till the day that I pass from this life to the next, only hoping that others will follow keeping the commandments…”
“Sorry Bud ;-(
You can’t change doctrine – You were NOT born that way, you were NOT ‘created’ that way, Your Spirit is NOT “gay,” and the Church IS lead by a Prophet of God.
Your behavior is the finest embodiment of self deprecation I have ever seen – Good Luck!”
That’s comments from one youtube video. And there’s a whole lot more where that came from.
It’s commendable that church leaders are telling church members to be loving and kind towards gays. But that’s no guarantee that everyone is taking this advice; and Mormons are only 2% of Cal’s population anyway; there are a lot of pro-8 folks who don’t take their counsel from our leaders.
October 20, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Kaimi #62:
I don’t think that. Nor, do I condone any of the types of comments you have highlighted. I find them equally offensive. You are correct that they do not reflect the counsel from the Brethren.
That said, as obnoxious as are the comments, they are not quite the same, at least in degree as is the trespass on to and destruction of private property. You are correct though, that they are offensive and indefensible. I do not defend them in the least.
November 2, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Proposition 8 is UNJUST and UNFAIR. STOP DISCRIMINATION COLD, and VOTE *NO* on Proposition 8 on Tuesday 11/4.
Obama’08
November 14, 2008 at 11:05 pm
[...] Tolerance IV Posted by Guy Murray under Uncategorized For my other tolerance posts see Tolerance I, Tolerance II, Tolerance III. Well, its been almost two weeks now since election day, and [...]