Originally Posted By jdub >>The decision says that the state will recognize gay marriage. Individual religions and churches are under no obligation to. This is as it should be... separation of Church and State.<< Absolutely.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Religion really isn't a factor in something like this. The decision says that the state will recognize gay marriage. Individual religions and churches are under no obligation to. This is as it should be... separation of Church and State." My point was more towards who was funding the anti legal drive and also to the separation. If you look at the end of the opinion, the list of attorneys goes on forever on both sides. It's amazing how many churches and religious prganizations found the resources to hire lawyers to beat this. Which leads to my other point. Here, religion informs the views of the vast majority of people who are against same sex marriage. These two things are what I meant by backbone.
Originally Posted By DAR Whenever this issue comes out I can't help but have the same response one of vast indifference to any decision made. Hey it passed or was overturned great. It was shot down, nothing in my eyes to lose sleep over. Either way it's not going to affect me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, it does affect millions of Americans, DAR. The Americans with Disabilities act, say, didn't really affect me directly, but I'm glad it passed.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Whenever this issue comes out I can't help but have the same response one of vast indifference to any decision made. Hey it passed or was overturned great. It was shot down, nothing in my eyes to lose sleep over. Either way it's not going to affect me." Way to be compassionate.
Originally Posted By DAR In the grand scheme of what's important it ranks near the bottom of my list.
Originally Posted By utahjosh A domestic partnership that offers all the same benfits of marriage seems fair to me. I love and honor freedom. But I also love and honor the institution of marriage and family. I would prefer that the word Marriage continues to mean Man and Wife.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "A domestic partnership that offers all the same benfits of marriage seems fair to me. I love and honor freedom." Coloreds that sat at the back of the bus still got there, and the water at colored only fountains still was wet and generally tasted the same too. And what that has to do with honor and freedom escapes me. "I would prefer that the word Marriage continues to mean Man and Wife." And your upcoming nuptials will. Larry and Joey's won't, but that doesn't affect yours in any way, shape or form.
Originally Posted By utahjosh A domestic partnership that offers all the same benefits of marriage seems fair to me. 2 gay people can't be married. It's impossible. Marriage is between a man and a woman. But they can live together and receive all the same benefits and challenges that a marriage has. Just don't change what a Marriage is. I view homosexual acts as a sin, and I don't condone two men or 2 women sleeping together, ever. I'll never encourage or praise that. But I will be kind and I will be fair to their rights.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 But I also love and honor the institution of marriage and family. I would prefer that the word Marriage continues to mean Man and Wife.<< I used to think that, but then I realized how stupid that sounded. We are either going to allow gay marriages or we are not. To say to those who are gay that "You cannot have marriage, but you can have unions instead", is a joke. If gays want to get married, more power to them. For those who say gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage I just submit Brittney Spears as exhibit 1 and rest my case, the sanctity of marriage is already destroyed if you look at it that way.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "What are you trying to say, SPP?" That you're espousing separate but equal, and that was outlawed in the 50's.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I still favor a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman. I believe most of our country does. It's in Utah's constitution now, and will probably in in California's constitution by the end of next year.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I still favor a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman." Can you elaborate on how this affects your marriage? Any marriage? "I believe most of our country does. It's in Utah's constitution now, and will probably in in California's constitution by the end of next year." No, it won't be. Read the opinion. California's Supreme Court has already signaled it denies gays equal protection under the law. Moreover, it really doesn't matter if the country DID believe that. If it's unconstitutional, it won't be law.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Here is an interview on the subject by a couple of the leaders of my Church. They speak much more eloquently on my belief system's view on the matter. I haven't read this entire thing, but I plan to do so and evaluate my own feelings and see if I agree. Don't have a ton of time to dedicate to this right now. But if you're interested you can read it:
Originally Posted By utahjosh "We’re not trying to regulate people, but this notion that ‘what happens in your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house’ on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage. Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman. A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given. ELDER OAKS: There’s another point that can be made on this. Let’s not forget that for thousands of years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman. Until quite recently, in a limited number of countries, there has been no such thing as a marriage between persons of the same gender. Suddenly we are faced with the claim that thousands of years of human experience should be set aside because we should not discriminate in relation to the institution of marriage. When that claim is made, the burden of proving that this step will not undo the wisdom and stability of millennia of experience lies on those who would make the change. Yet the question is asked and the matter is put forward as if those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman have the burden of proving that it should not be extended to some other set of conditions. PUBLIC AFFAIRS: There are those who would say that that might have applied better in the 1950s or earlier than in the 21st century. If you look at several nations in Europe, for example, traditional marriage is so rapidly on the decline that it is no longer the norm. If marriage is evolving, ought we to resist those kind of social changes? ELDER OAKS: That argument impresses me as something akin to the fact that if we agree that the patient is sick and getting sicker, we should therefore approve a coup de grace. The coup de grace which ends the patient’s life altogether is quite equivalent to the drastic modification in the institution of marriage that would be brought on by same-gender marriage. PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You talked about the harm that could come on society by redefining marriage. What would you say to those people who declare: “I know gay people who are in long-term committed relationships. They’re great people. They love each other. What harm is it going to do my marriage as a heterosexual to allow them that same ‘rite?’ ELDER WICKMAN: Let me say again what I said a moment ago. I believe that that argument is true sophistry, because marriage is a unified institution. Marriage means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. That’s what it means. That’s what it means in the revelations. That’s what it means in the secular law. You cannot have that marriage coexisting institutionally with something else called same-gender marriage. It simply is a definitional impossibility. At such point as you now, as an institution, begin to recognize a legally-sanctioned relationship, a committed relationship between two people of the same gender, you have now redefined the institution to being one of genderless marriage. As we’ve mentioned in answer to other questions, [genderless marriage] is contrary to God’s law, to revealed Word. Scripture, ancient and modern, could not be clearer on the definition that the Lord and His agents have given to marriage down through the dispensations. But it has a profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on what happens in my house and how it’s treated. To suggest that in the face of these millennia of history and the revelations of God and the whole human pattern they have the right to redefine the whole institution for everyone is presumptuous in the extreme and terribly wrong-headed. ELDER OAKS: Another point to be made about this is made in a question. If a couple who are cohabiting, happy, and committed to one another want to have their relationship called a marriage, why do they want that? Considering what they say they have, why do they want to add to it the legal status of marriage that has been honored and experienced for thousands of years? What is it that is desired by those who advocate same-gender marriage? If that could be articulated on some basis other than discrimination, which is not a very good argument, it would be easier to answer the question that you have asked, and I think it would reveal the soundness of what we’ve already heard. There are certain indicia of marriage — certain legal and social consequences and certain legitimacy — which if given to some relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that’s been honored over so many thousands of years. In addition, if people want to legalize a particular relationship, we need to be careful if that kind of relationship has been disapproved for millennia. Suddenly there’s a call to legalize it so they can feel better about themselves. That argument proves a little too much. Suppose a person is making a living in some illegal behavior, but feels uneasy about it. (He may be a professional thief or he may be selling a service that is illegal, or whatever it may be.) Do we go out and legalize his behavior because he’s being discriminated against in his occupational choices or because he doesn’t feel well about what he’s doing and he wants a ‘feel good’ example, or he wants his behavior legitimized in the eyes of society or his family? I think the answer is that we do not legalize behavior for those reasons unless they are very persuasive reasons brought forward to make a change in the current situation. PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage? ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.†As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother. PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had to step in that direction? ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage. There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land. ELDER WICKMAN: Let me just add to that, if I may. It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there. The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution. That’s where the battle has taken it. Ultimately that’s where the battle is going to be decided. It’s going to be decided as a matter of federal law one way or the other. Consequently it is not a battleground on such an issue that we Latter-day Saints have chosen, but it has been established and we have little choice but to express our views concerning it, which is really all that the Church has done. Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens."
Originally Posted By utahjosh Sorry for that long post. The original interview transcript is even longer. <a href="http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction" target="_blank">http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ld...traction</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'll say it again. Religious beliefs cannot, should not and will not impact the law of the land.
