Civil rights should never be put to popular vote. The will of the majority should never take away the rights of any minority, otherwise mob rule, rules. The small number of people who lashed out after prop 8 passed was nothing compared to the millions of people who bullied and persecuted an already vulnerable population at the ballot box.

You are also incorrect as James pointed out many real life examples. This is my point regarding laws around marriage and/or hate crimes. They will lead to religious persecutions and infringement upon religious rights granted in the constitution. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. At some point you must make a stand for what you believe. Do you know where to draw the line?

Next to murder, sexual perversions are the next most heinous sins. Abortion is the culmination of these two sins – immoral sexual behavior leading to an unwanted child leading to desires of abdication of parental responsibilities leading to the escape of parental responsibilities through the murderous act of abortion (killing a defenseless human being). Homosexual behavior is only one vein of the evils of perversions. You could add to your list, pornography, etc.

Don’t neglect to think about the unwritten laws that govern our society. Unwritten laws related to civility, etc. It was not that long ago that immoral behavior was looked down upon and led to dishonor of oneself and family. Now the world embraces it and as you pointed out looks down upon people espousing principles of moral integrity as backward and stupid. Is this a turn for the better? You cannot legislate moral character, but without it society crumbles. Why should we as a society condone behavior that leads to the destruction of the traditional family and ultimately society? However, in our society anyone speaking out against the societal ills of immorality is persecuted and mocked. If same-gender marriage is allowed the “new unwritten laws” that seem to govern our society will only be given more credence and people of faith will be further isolated from public debate, ridiculed, etc.

I am reading the book Standing for Something by Gordon B Hinckley. At the end of the book is an epilogue entitled “The Loneliness of Moral Leadership” I am looking forward to reading that chapter.

I am also looking forward to reading the conference address of Elder Dallin H Oaks entitled “Love and Law”.

Read and ponder.

I’m actually pretty certain that many people will read religious acceptance of gay marriage as somehow legally obligable (or gay marriage’s opponents as more backward than they already believe they are) if/when gay marriage is legalized. Still, organized religion already opposes many things that are legal – abortion and promiscuity among other things – so while this legal change would definitely have a large social effect I don’t think it’s necessarily religious discrimination, though it would certainly lead to some. It’s a difficult area.

Aside from forcing religious organizations to ‘solemnize’ gay marriages (as in perform them), which seems unlikely to happen any time soon, there are many other constraints that will be imposed, affecting the free exercise of religion. Look at where gay marriage is already law, and how religious leaders are censored in their speech. Look at how school texts already in circulation are contradicting the core beliefs of the children forced to read them. Look at the fertility doctors who have to decide between their job and their religious moral standards.

It looks like the government has already got a good start on “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion in some areas.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

Creating laws that allow same-gender marriage would lead to government infringement upon religious rites and rights.

I read an interesting article in the paper today that shows the LDS church’s support of a nondiscrimination ordinances in Salt Lake City. This is very consistent with past statements made by the church.

Michael, I would encourage you to gain a better understanding of the LDS church’s stance on the issue of same-gender marriage and the US constitution before being critical of Mormons.

People of faith have as much right as anybody else to participate in the political process and express their views. The people have a right to amend their state constitutions. These two points are inarguable.

As far as being accountable, well we are all accountable to God.

You are comparing things that have no relation to the issue at hand. The LDS Church (and the many other churches who participated in Prop. 8) are not seeking to make sin illegal—nor are people trying to enshrine these sins in law. Nobody here has sought to make homosexuality a criminal offense punishable by law.

The society-accepted institution of marriage, however, is different. Working to confine it to a man/woman dynamic in no way is an attempt to infuse religion in politics, theology into public policy, or any other backwards claim you’ve made here.

Finally, a friendly warning: keep your anti-LDS points in check, or else you will be banned from participation on this blog. I have no problem with you opposing something or questioning it, but your derision and rudeness layered on top is quickly wearing out your welcome.

There is one statement which seems not particularly life giving. Some people are sterile or born with birth defects which do not allow for reproduction. This command is not reasonable because it cannot apply to everyone that has come to earth.

“We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”

What is the next step for Mormons? To make a law that everyone must reproduce, or at least try to?

That statement sounded arrogant and ignorant to me.

“You are adding insult to injury with your words to Dave. ”

In what way? I think Dave can speak for himself, he may not feel that way.

“For the rearing of children, a marriage of one man to one woman is the best. It is the ideal. It follows God’s plan.”

That is your spiritual convictions, what right do you have to use the law to enforce your point of view on others?

I might be projecting here, but don’t LDS people feel that prostitution is also a moral danger? Has the LDS church ever tried to make it illegal in Las Vegas? Even with that danger being legal, that hasn’t harmed the LDS church, it has enough members in the area to support a temple in Vegas.

Adultery is also a danger in the LDS view.(again I could be projecting) Shouldn’t the LDS people be promoting laws which sanction ‘snitching’ on people who violate there marriage? You could refuse to recognize the marriages of adulterers. Perhaps they could be forced to wear a large letter “A” so everyone knows that they are a possible danger to society. This is what is possible if an organization uses the legal system to enforce moral values.

Is divorce an evil for the LDS church? its certainly a danger to a marriage. Shouldn’t that be illegal, given that its a danger to the family unit?

At the heart of the issue is this. Marriage is not a simple contractual agreement. Rather it is an institution and the structure through which God sends his spirit children to earth. Parents have an obligation to care for each other and their children and in love to teach them good morals (think 10 commandment and sermon on the mount). For the rearing of children, a marriage of one man to one woman is the best. It is the ideal. It follows God’s plan. There is no argument against this point and once you concede to this truth then you will start to bring your other beliefs into alignment. Are you going to stay mute on this point? Are you going to deny the truth? Same Gender Marriage is morally wrong.

Please read and ponder The Family, A Proclamation to the World. I would urge you to prayerfully study this document, repent of your sins, and bring you life into alignment with God’s will. I hope you find peace and healing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Are you applying this as a general statement about homosexuals? Are you also making the statement that this indicates that there is something inherently wrong with anyone seeking marriage equality? (hetrosexual or homosexual?)

The riots in the 1960′s around segregation caused a lot of damage to property. Do you think that this indicates something inherently wrong with the civil rights movement? Keeping in mind that not everyone seeking equality participated or agreed with these activities.

Why do you think the federal government stopped the LDS church from practicing polygamy? And more recently took action against the FLDS church. From what I understand however, the some of the governments approach to the situation was inappropriate.

What has the LDS scriptures said about condemning any sin?

” 41 No apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the bpriesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; ”
D&C 121:41

There isn’t anything there about a legal battle.

The 11th article of faith,
“11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

There isn’t anything here about using the law to enforce any LDS value.

“Men need to bring their laws into alignment with the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Who is determining this? Charles Darwin? Pope Benedict? the koran? Thomas Monson?

“I do not buy the cultural arguments. They are nonsense and do not apply to my culture. Additionally, I do not view all cultures as having equal value. ”

No they aren’t nonsense. Your statement displays ignorance and arrogance. Dare I ask you to list all cultures in the world according to your perceived value?
More knowledge and sensitivity to other religions and culture could actually help the LDS movement. That is what makes the persuasion mentioned in D&C 121:41 possible.

“It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.”
D&C 131:6

In the context of the LDS faith this would mean ignorance of LDS principles. However, I think it could be applied to ignorance of things outside of the LDS faith.

It’s my sincere belief to attempt to consider alternative explanations, context and evenhandedness when considering an issue, particularly when it will affect others. I can’t imagine anything worse than, and believe it would be morally and intellectually wrong to, act in a harmful way or advocate a potentially harmful direction because of my confidence that I fully understand the situation.

So “devil’s advocate,” when the goal is truth, compassion and intellectual honesty? Certainly not. The expression may be a little tongue in cheek, I’ll give you. Still, a healthy understanding of ambiguity and a lack of unshakable confidence in one’s human abilities to reason a situation from possibly incomplete information is anything but devilish. All of us come from exactly one foundation of experience and, without quoting Alma to you, our abilities are pretty limited. I’m not referring to this specific issue and certainly not to you personally, though moving forward with a great deal of confidence and conviction and frankly no idea of where we’re going can’t end well.

I do not buy the cultural arguments. They are nonsense and do not apply to my culture. Additionally, I do not view all cultures as having equal value. For instance, some cultures place little value on life, mistreat and abuse women and children. Should this be accepted for diversity’s sake? God forbid!
Cultural behaviors that are offensive to God should be stopped by helping the people to recognize their errors and giving them a chance to repent. If they don’t repent then God’s judgments will be upon them. I look down on sinful social and cultural practices with contempt. God teaches us to hate sin (bad behaviors), but that we should recognize everyone as a child of God. That means not accepting/ not condoning sinful behavior, but tolerating it when there is no other option than to tolerate it and keeping the door of repentance open to the unrepentant prodigals. Men need to bring their laws into alignment with the laws of nature and nature’s God.

Lastly, for the rearing of children, it is inarguable that a marriage of one man to one women is the best. Again, you are only bringing in nuance (how and if children come into the marriage) and really have no arguments against this point.

Excluding legal recognition of racially mixed couples is not nuance, thats a big deal. Accoding to the law at the time my parents did not have a legal marriage. I don’t know how this could affect me, or them because their marriage was not legal. Some laws apply retroactively, and some do not. I haven’t the slightest if legal recognition eventually applied to them.

“In all of the examples on marriage you shared, marriage is still being defined as one man and one woman”

You didn’t read close enough, or did not think about it. The example of the wife sharing is primarily about a man and woman, but may include many other men and women. In many cultures this is viewed as adultry, but these wife sharing cultures did not consider this a violation of the marriage.

“I believe that the traditional family as I described previously is better for the rearing of children than any other alternative.”

And what about couples who cannot have children, or do not plan on ever having children? Are you saying these marriages serve no purpose? My brother and his wife do not have children, and they do not want to have any. I have not questioned them about that, but rather respect their choices, and respect their marriage.

“What about the religious freedom of the Metropolitian community church…”

The Metropolitian Community church performs same sex marriages, for a time California recognized this, but now they have been repealed with prop 8. Some other states may have also recognized these marriages. Denying legal recognition denies them benefits that mix gender couples enjoy.

“If people fail to keep their marriage vows and His other commandments then they will have to answer to God.”

This is a legal issue, in theory a person could marry and divorce dozens of times in their life, or more and the law in theory could recognize all of them. The las vegas style drive through marriage is legally recognized. That would make the marriage part pretty easy, the divorce process would slow things down, but who knows maybe that process will be accelerated in the future.

I would be a “devil’s advocate” if I took contrarian positions to stir up debate, though I use the expression in a more mellow way (in fact, didn’t know the full definition until I just looked it up). I’m very unconfident at my ability to really understand a situation, and so I do try to bring context into my reasoning and point out context such as I can in the reasoning of others. It’s really just who I am so the alternative would be not to join interesting discussions ;).