Oh that I were born in the days of my father…

I have an idea. Why don’t we get rid of the idea of a legal marriage and allow marriage to be a personal or religious commitment. We can give all the same rights and responsibilities as legal marriage now contains and grant them as “civil unions”. That way, you can have your religious marriage, and your civil union. Right now, there are in fact people who have been legally divorced, who have not been granted a “temple divorce”. This recognizes that perhaps there is some wisdom in separating the two.

Brigham Young himself admitted that he was not legally married to all but one of his wives. Anna Eliza Webb Young when divorcing Brigham found out she had no legal claim against Brigham Young’s assets, just as Brigham’s legal counsel had argued.

In Utah, we have a history of separating legal marriage (civil unions if you want to call them that) from religious marriages. To a great extent, that is what the Supreme Court of California was trying to address. And by the way, six out of the seven judges I believe were appointed by Republican Governors.

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com has an interesting post on the subject.

It’s only a matter of time before this is the law of the land.

Maybe social conservatives could start selling “Heterosexual Marriage Protection Kits” so sodomites don’t californicate traditional marriages. I’d hate to see perfectly good heterosexual marriages be ruined by gays getting married.

The best way to protect heterosexual marriages would be to

- prohibit spousal weight gain
- outlaw poor financial decision making
- mandate toilet seats be put down

Perhaps what Californians should do is consider what Nevada did: make it a Constitutional Amendment. Judges can’t very easily override that.

Actually, traditional marriage proponents are already working to collect sufficient signatures to amend California’s constitution.

Obi Wan’s proposal would be exactly the same in practice as legalizing gay “marriage.” There is overwhelming evidence that children and society benefit most from being raised by a mother and a father. Hence, the state has an interest in providing special treatment to heterosexual marriage.

The slippery slope argument is accurate. We’re already seeing it in Europe and Canada. When gay “marriage” becomes the law of the land, states will soon find that they have no power to restrict polygamy, polyamoury, or any other such “marriage” arrangement. And schools will be forced to include curriculum that advocates these alternative arragements and treats them on the same level as monogamous heterosexual marriage. This is already happening in Massachusetts.

Obi Wan’s idea of getting rid of legal marriage would produce precisely the same results.

Stanley Kurtz has done a lot of research that shows definitively that heterosexual marriage rates drop off, and significant family and social decline occurs when three factors are in place: 1) unmarried heterosexual unions become generally accepted, 2) it becomes common for couples to have more than one child out of wedlock, and 3) gay marriage becomes legally acceptable. It doesn’t matter in which order these things occur.

It will take only two generations of this to completely destroy traditional marriage as a societal norm. No society in history has ever survived such devastation.

I agree with you that homosexual marriage can cause societal problems, but I have trouble rationalizing Constitutionally the comment that “regardless of the lack of moral authority, government feels inclined to favor heterosexual marriage to encourage the support and propagation of the family, the basic unit of society.”

Doesn’t seem like a Constitutional role of government but merely a good thing to do, exactly the sort of thing that government should butt the heck out of, perhaps a bad choice of words given the topic of this post.

Then again, my church favors a constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual in nature so maybe a strict Constitutional interpretation isn’t the way to go in every case.

(Nice image. Looks to me like Jeff Bridges and an overweight Danny Trejo just got hitched.)

Reach, you nailed it.

Reach, on what basis do you argue that gay marriage will damage children? You start out with an assumption that may or may not be valid. And even if it were true, is it possible that children of a gay couple struggle because of the isolation gays feel in a community that demonizes them? And really, how healthy is heterosexual marriage as an institution anyway.

Maybe more inclusion and more tolerance is what children need to ensure they get the nurturing they need to develop. Perhaps children learning that it is ok to be different rather than face the pressures of excessive conformity is less of a threat to the health of our children.

Let’s face it, gay marriage isn’t a threat to hetero-sexual marriage. It is a threat to the prejudices of those who cling to ancient bronze-age mythologies and to the institutions that cling to those mythologies and profit from them.

Atleast, that is my take.

Let’s remember, though, that although homosexuality is evil, the most serious sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not sexual, but that they did not care for the poor and needy. We might not be able to do much about same-sex marriage, but we can do a lot about the other.

Jay

Let’s face it, gay marriage isn’t a threat to hetero-sexual marriage. It is a threat to the prejudices of those who cling to ancient bronze-age mythologies and to the institutions that cling to those mythologies and profit from them.

Does not God’s doctrine “cling to” and His work “profit” from the ancient bronze-age institution of hetero-sexual marriage? So then, according to your take, gay marriage is a threat to His work (the exaltation of man). Interesting. I would agree with you.

Perhaps children learning that it is ok to be different…

… and pretty soon nearly everything is ok because there is a whole lot of “different” stuff out there that we need to be tolerant of.

Even if the fight against gay marriage is lost politically, I believe we have an obligation to stand up against it.

For what happens in cultural decline both leaders and followers are really accountable. Historically, of course, it is easy to criticize bad leaders, but we should not give followers a free pass. Otherwise, in their rationalization of their degeneration they may say they were just following orders, while the leader was just ordering followers! However, much more is required of followers in a democratic society wherein individual character matters so much in both leaders and followers.

Neal A. Maxwell “‘Repent of [Our] Selfishness’ (D&C 56:8),” Ensign, May 1999, 23

Perhaps children learning that it is ok to be different

Perhaps teachings children that it is “ok” to SIN will bring the condemnations of God upon our heads. Homosexual behavior is sin. Whatever urges someone feels, whatever inclinations they have in that direction, it is still a sin to act on them.

We should teach our children to be compassionate and humble (the Lord’s version of “tolerance”), but to teach them that any behavior is ok is in defiance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

face the pressures of excessive conformity

The pressure to conform? Well, our modern society and philosophy has taught us that our conscience is merely a social construction - that we feel bad for things we do only because other people disapprove of them. Modern philosophy is teaching us that our conscience is merely “a pressure to conform.”

The Lord has taught us that our conscience is divinely given, and that we sometimes feel bad for some of our actions because they are genuinely wrong. No amount of societal acceptance will change that… although we can sometimes use the opinions of our peers to drug our conscience and make ourselves feel good about it.

Well, I’m very pleased to see the recent decision in California because I believe that all Americans should be treated equally under the law.

I have to say that I like Obi Wan’s suggestion that marriage be made just a religious or personal thing. Get government out of our personal lives; right, anti-government conservatives? Or is marriage some kind of club? Tribal affiliation? Am I getting warmer? colder?

Being that the vote was 4-3 in favor of overturning the state’s same-sex marriage ban (passed through a proposition by that pesky thing called the “will of the people”), not all of the judges concurred with the ruling.

The will of the people is a fine thing, but in this case it’s irrelevant. If forty years ago, the majority of people were against inter-racial marriage, it would not justify banning the practice. Sometimes society moves ahead. If you’re hoping to hold the process back, I hope you have strong fingernails.

Don’t fret. We straight folks can still have all the marriage we want (one per person, more where applicable). Having a few gay people getting married won’t affect your marriage in the slightest. In fact, you should be glad. You know what happens to the frequency of sex after marriage. There could be less gay sex going on than ever before!

If there’s one thing we learn from Christians, it’s that the Christian god has an all-consuming curiosity regarding other people’s sex lives. Hmm. Maybe he did create us in his image.

Reach said: “There is overwhelming evidence that children and society benefit most from being raised by a mother and a father. Hence, the state has an interest in providing special treatment to heterosexual marriage.”

To the first sentence I agree. It doesn’t flow logically to the next, however. While having two parents may be better than one, there is no evidence that those parents need be heterosexual. If you do have said evidence, please share it. What I have read on the matter in fact suggests that kids of homosexual parents do just fine.

The evidence says “mother and father” not just “two parents”. There’s a big difference.

Great, Cameron, but where is the evidence? Do you have a link or any studies or books? I am (sincerely) interested.

The info I have (Fatherneed, by Kyle Pruett, M.D. - in which he refers to some studies suggests that: 1-children of gay parents are not more likely to be gay themselves, 2-they may have a more difficult time being judged by their peers, 3-tend to develop a less prejudicial view of the world, 4-gay father place greater emphasis on verbal communication, 5-show more consistency in enforcing limits, 6-respond more reliably to the perceived needs of their children. (Many of these points are from: Bigner, J., & Jacobsen, R.B. (1989). “The Value of Children to Gay and Heterosexual Fathers.”

The point was also made in the book that we have a lot more to study. For any study does not confirm truth, but rather points us in certain directions.

So, as I said, where is your evidence? I would like to read it (again sincerely).

If successful, perhaps this might postpone the impending wrath of God?

The showdown is over, because State Supreme Court won’t block start of same-sex marriages.

We’ll see if the voters have the stomach to attempt to overturn something in November that will have been allowed since the prior June.

Bring on the wrath!

Will it be the same wrath that Belgium’s getting? Or Canada? Spain, perhaps? Is it the wrath where God sends you economic prosperity and a largely stable democratic process?

I’m waiting for the wrath to begin.

Doop a doop a doop…

…still no wrath…

Did you know that Australians say it like ‘wroth’? I don’t know why.

Just making conversation.

…doop a doop…

Were you going to say that we will see some wrath later eventually? Like after Jesus comes?

‘Cause wrath is a dish best served cold?

Taste the cold wrath.

One time I had wrath, and I didn’t know it was supposed to be served cold. I almost sent it back to get it warmed up until I realised.

No wait, that was gazpacho.

Still waiting… doot dee doo…