Thank you for posting that.  It was quite informative.  I have supported the Marriage Protection Amendment for my own reasons, and I have defended our church in supporting it, but this clarifies why it stepped up to bat on the issue.

Why do you not feel the government should provide special recognition, privileges, or protections to marriage and those who in it?  At a fundamental civil level, marriage is a contract.  And a contract is subject to civil law.  The government has every obligation to uphold and sustain the rule of law.  Ultimately, any of these privileges and protections and tax breaks that are afforded to married hetero couples are given in order to protect and provide for the upbringing of children.  Not providing the same things to others who chose not to enter into what the law states is marriage is of course a discrimination in the form of a disincentive.  And what is wrong with that?  Oh, sorry, it is that "D" word, right?

Nothing in the law precludes anyone from entering into the same (not alternate but "equal") sort of contract and thereby gaining those same incentives.  They make themselves unequal by choosing to either live as unmarried heterosexual couples or as single individuals or to live in so-called "committed" homosexual relationships.  While it is indeed up for debate in the pc climate we live whether or not any of this is perverse behaviour, their very call for and activism to make things equal for a diversity of different conditions that are and can never be equal is nothing more than a blatant call to perverse the law of the very government they claim to be appealing to.

Should the government also "get out of the business" of regulating what is legal and what is not legal in the form of business contracts?  Should the government have just kept it's eyes closed to the examples of corporate scandel in Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, et al?  I mean, after all the folks who were running the show were only trying to get their piece of the pie and support the lifestyle they were accustomed to, right?

Where law is meaningless or non-existant, it is foolish to imagine the natural man is going to regulate themself in an ethical manner.

We're not going to win this one.  There will never be a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man one woman.  The homosexual agenda will win, our government will recognize homo marriage as legitimate as hetero marriage, and will award those unions the same rights and privileges.  When that happens, political pressure will be brought to bear on religious institutions to accept and acknowledge those lawful unions.

In the beginning, marriage was ordained by God.  It is a religious doctrine and ordinance.  The State needs to abolish the legal contract aspect of marriage and let marriage be solely the prerogative of the Church.

In an effort to be more clear, I guess my point is that I don't care much about whether homosexuals get tax benefits. I care about wether society (and the government) starts to view homosexual marriage as equal and equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage will be one of the major tools of the downfall of civilization, because it cheapens heterosexual marriage, which is the foundation of civilization.
Whether the government recognizes homosexual marriage, or just gets out of the marriage business , it means the same thing: homosexual marriage would be viewed the same as heterosexual marriage.

In my effort to be succinct, I do care if homosexuals recieve a tax benefit that not only incents them to live a lifestyle that will do no more than serve their own short term existence but outright endorses it.

It is not an eventuality that gay marriage is something that is going to be considered legal (in the long term) and upheld by the law of this land and the voice of the people.

I don't think the argument of it being a high contributor to the downfall of our civilization was also used in the anti-polygamy arguments of well over a century ago. I think the argument used against it was the same argument used by abolitionists to further the antislavery movement... that it was a form of slavery equal to and as abominable to the enslavement of one race by another in the view of the Yankee interpretation of christianity.

It was not uncommon for a man to be married multiple times in his life, as many women died in childbirth, so implying that polygamy would have cheapened heterosexual marriage is not really viewpoint they would have taken. Cheapening monogamous heterosexual marriage, well yeah, but that is different. Polygamy was viewed in Yankee and most European sensibilities as something non-christian. Only the Turks and Arabs did it (Muslim world) or other less civilized and barbaric savage nations / peoples practiced polygamy.

A federal constitutional ammendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman is indeed unlikely to pass as it is so narrowly worded. But, that is not the same thing as the nation embracing gay marriage as legitimate and equal under the law. What proof is there that it is going to be an eventuality anyway? It seems to me that in nearly every state where the voice of the people have been able to speak, they have spoken clearly against it. That sounds more like the probability is very limited that it will ever come about... unless the bulk of the people really do start not having a problem with it because, hey after all, it isn't hurting me and whatever floats yer boat man. The laws of the land (in any free land), in theory at least, are originally based upon the basic laws and principles of God, and have been throughout time. I believe there is even a modern revelation in the D&C regarding this principle. Hence, there is a vested interest of sorts in retaining the government (which generically speaking is ordained of God) of man's contractual recognition of traditional marriage.

Is it an eventuality that illegal drugs will be legalized? Is it an eventuality that assisted suicide is going to be made legal any place other than Oregon (and that it will remain legal there as well?)? Is it an eventuality that Hollywood is going to become family friendly and start producing movies that will build and uplift that which is right? Is it an eventuality that the US will ever return to inter-city rail travel outside of a couple minor geographic areas for a sizeable number of travelers? Is it an eventuality that a cure for AIDS will be found?

The argument that anything is an eventuality so stop fighting the inevitable is one of the fallacies and snares put out by Satan. The fact of the matter is that if all people of good conscience and sound reasoning and faith in God said "Okay, here you go. We'll stop denying you your "rights" so that we can have peace", it still would not be enough. You already aluded to the fact they are leveling political pressure on religious organizations already. So, we let it be in the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities. Yeah, and how long is it going to be until they start coming after every religious denomination demanding that they be married by them, and sueing them for refusing to do so since marriage is now the sole domain of churches? They already are targeting churches behind the scenes. Since religious organizations take stands against their agenda, there are forces that are in place gearing up to put pressure with the government to revoke tax exempt status for churches. In other words, you will accept our agenda and desires or we will penalize you and possibly cause you to "go out of business".

Roper wrote:

---

No-fault divorce legislation has rendered the legal contract of marriage meaningless:  The contract is utterly unenforceable and can be abandoned at any time for any reason by either party.

---

How does the existence of no-fault or liberal divorce laws render the contract of marriage utterly unenforceable?  The contract is a covenant (and not just in the religious sense) that is entered into between the state and the couple where (and this sounds so cliche here) certain things are promised in exchange for other things from the other parties.  The state promises certain protections of the man and woman that is not afforded those who do not enter into this covenant in exchange for them entering the covenant.  Bestowing of those protections is very enforceable.  The breaking of the covenant or contract does not affect the enforceability of the rights inherent to the contract.

 

---

  Is it really worth trying to preserve?

---

Is any marriage worth trying to preserve?  Wouldn't it be fair to say that the homosexual challenge to traditional marriage is simply the current major affront and attack against the family as it has been ordained and set up by God?  The first major affront was perhaps the gradual loss of social stigma for infidelity from the '50's and '60's, free love and freedom from consequences (including abortion) from the '60's and '70's, then came the next one in the '70's and '80's where divorce become not only easy legally, but vogue and the answer to nearly every difficulty and problem.

---

 That, too, I believe is a lost cause. 

---

Defeatism will ensure that anything is a lost cause if everyone thinks and behaves that way.  Do you really want an environment that is "kinderfeindlich" (children-hating) in our society and nation?  Destroy the value placed on the traditional nuclear and extended family, and you will have a situation where children are viewed and treated as nothing more than novelties at best and as nuisances and inconveniences on the other side.  Look around.  I'm sure you've seen ample evidence of this sort of stuff already.

---

In my view, the only things that really matter are that marriage is performed by God's authority, and that the parties keep that covenant with absolute fidelity.

---

Well, ultimately, sure.  One could point out that unless a couple is sealed by God's priesthood authority, they are really just shacking up together... hence, the only difference between a married couple and those in common law relationships or those living together is a marriage certificate (oh how many times I heard that argument by Europeans while on my mission).  But the fact is very few people recognize God's authority, and if that is only one of the two things that matter (the other being absolute fidelity and commitment), then you won't be able to recognize as valid any other man / woman marriage who are not married by a valid and duly authorized Priesthood holder of the LDS Church if the government is no longer in the marriage license business.  The Lord recognizes / acknowledges marriages between a man and a woman that are not entered into under the sealing power... He just indicates they are not in force or valid out of this mortal world.

Roper wrote:

---

I don't think our government should provide any special recognition or privileges based on marital status. I believe marriage should be left for religious instituions to define, perform, recognize, and reward as they see fit.

Gay rights activists have, I believe, a valid point:  It's not fair for our government to officially recognize and give privileges such as tax exemptions to hetero citizens who are married but not to homo citizens because their marriage isn't legally recognized.  I think the best solution is to get the government completely out of defining, recognizing, (and taxing in the form of licenses) marriage. 

---

Governments give special incentives or disincentives to behaviors and actions they want to encourage or discourage all the time.  Everything from zoning laws, business tax breaks for enterprise zones, $$$ for cleaner burning technologies, etc.  If marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society and the best place for raising children the government can elect to give benefits to those who choose to engage in this as a matter of encouraging a behavior that is deemed of benefit to society.  As a business owner I can choose to locate my business in an enterprise zone and garner tax benefits or somewhere else and not garner those benefits.  Certain towns in the midwest will give you land to build your home if you move there plus in some cases fee utilities.  Benefits I cannot get in Los Angeles.  The government of that city feels that giving these incentives benefits their town and it's future.  It isn't discriminatory because I choose to live in Nazifornia and can't get the same benefits.  The city or county may also limit where I put my business based on zoning laws which are determined for the good of the area.  Puting my factory in a residential zone would do harm.  Zoning laws have successfully been used in some areas to keep adult book stores out of areas near houses, schools, etc.

It isn't discriminatory when the government does this.  The government simply chooses to classify and reward the behavior of heterosexual marriage because it is of benefit to society and the nation as a whole.  Because it is based upon making a choice (entering into a marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex) versus something beyond one's control (Such as skin color, race, national origin).  Because gaining the benefits of marriage result from engaging in marriage even a person who is gay can marry someone of the opposite sex and gain recognition.

I agree with you Roper that we will probably lose the fight as evidenced by the recent lack of will of the Mass. legislature to allow the people to vote even though the court there admonished them in their duties but did not rule to force them to vote.

As I wrote somewhere before, even if we do not win this fight we must fight it with all we have.  I am reminded of the Zion's camp march by the early saints.  They marched and suffered numerous hardships.  Many died of disease.  In the end they never fought and accomplished nothing of tangible value or any visible results for their sacrifice.  Yet their efforts were enough in the Lord's eyes.  Many of the great future leaders of the church were present on this march.  This may be the Zion's camp moment for our generation, a sort of Thermopylae for our futures.

Sorry for such a late post on this topic.  I've been fighting cold symptoms the last couple days.

Roper wrote:

---

salesortonscom wrote:

---

As I wrote somewhere before, even if we do not win this fight we must fight it with all we have.

---

Jason, I intend to fight it with all I have.  But not head-to-head on the battleground of civil legislation. If this war is so important, then I believe the best strategy is to remove the incentive to fight--remove government consideration based on marital status.

When the true meaning of marriage is attacked, when the State seeks to impose an interpretation of marriage on the Church, I will be on the front lines.  As long as the State maintains the ability to define marriage, I see that as the real threat.

---

I view removing government from the equation to be the same thing as surrendering. My goal is not to keep homosexuals from getting tax benefits (although, as a homosexual couple, they are not, in my opinion, entitled to them). My goal is to keep them from forcing society to view their "union" as equivalent to marriage. That is their ultimate goal, to have their "union" viewed as equivalent to real marriage. Tax benefits and the other things are secondary.
If we remove government from the equation, we have essentially accomplished 90% of their agenda for them in one fell swoop. Since there are churches who would happily "marry" homosexual couples, suddenly their "union" has no more or less meaning than a real, heterosexual marriage, in the view of society at least.
I fail to see how getting government out of the picture is anything but a total surrender. Besides, there are many things that government is absolutely going to be a part of, whether or not they are issuing marriage licenses. For instance, there's the question of inheritence. If I die, my wife automatically inherits what I own in the absence of a will. Why? Because we're married. If marriage is defined by each individual church, then homosexuals can claim, what's the difference? If their church defines marriage as a union of any two people, then legally they can inherit the same as heterosexual couples. How can a hospital deny visitation rights to a homosexual partner if their church says that they're married? If the law doesn't make a distinction anymore, then they basically have the same rights.
But again, that's beside the point. Getting government out of the picture would automatically make it appear as if there is no differencce between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. That is what I want to avoid. The tax benefits, visitation rights, etc are beside the point, even though they would, in all likelihood, get those too.

arbilad wrote:

---

Getting government out of the picture would automatically make it appear as if there is no differencce between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. That is what I want to avoid. The tax benefits, visitation rights, etc are beside the point, even though they would, in all likelihood, get those too.

---

On the contrary: Keeping the government in the picture guarantees that eventually there will be no lawful distinction.  And all of the benefits you lament going to homosexual couples will lawfully be given to them.  It's only a matter of time.  That's not defeatism--it's realism.

I think our end objective is the same.  I just think my strategy is better than all y'all's

But who am I trying to fool?  It's gonna happen no matter what the srategy, and so probably the best I can do is teach my children that even though society views homosexual relationships as an acceptable lifestyle choice, the Lord does not.

*humming* "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord..."

Have you ever met people who were nonreligious but obeyed the law? I think that's another reason to encourage marriage in a legal sense. Marriage is good for man AND FOR SOCIETY, even if he doesn't believe in the divine portion.

It is the best society has to offer in which ALL children may be raised, and it encourages individual responsibility.  

--Ray

Hoss: Nice rant. 

The gay thing doesn't just affect nonLDS. You must be lucky to have avoided the heartbreak of it in LDS homes.  May it ever be for you.

--Ray

 

I'm sorry that for you two, the line seems to be muddled and indistinct and that so many non-related issues, complaints, concerns, or rants you seem to hold about other people ostensibly get brought into the equation to further cloud it for you.

Again, no one has presented anything viable as far as strategy to what should take place outside of having the government / civil authority in the marriage definition business and how that will be better both short term and long term. The marriage contract is not a private thing. It is a matter of public record.

We have the Ten Commandments. We have the Proclamation on the Family from The Lord's Annointed Servants, and we have the Doctrine & Covenants concerning our responsibility towards and belief in civil governments' responsibilities towards us. See D&C 98 4:14, D&C 134:1-2, 5.

I think anything more or less than these items puts one at risk when included in an individual's decision of where to stand on concerning any proposed legislation that changes the law to allow "civil unions" or legal marriage recognition between individuals of the same gender. That is just my thought and opinion, not pointing of fingers, not being judgemental, not being hateful, or anything.

Those who choose to live in that lifestyle (regardless of root cause) reject outright or indirectly any doctrine or law (be it from man or God) that will not uphold their lifestyle choice. It is therefore only relegated to relativism, so they seek to replace that which they reject and supplant it with the opposite.

At some point, one has to recognize the line that has been drawn for us by those with said stewardship, so that we are not left to figure it out on our own, of where loving the sinner ends and it turns into supporting the sin(s). I am sorry if my words seem hard.

arbilad wrote:

---

We have been told by the bretheren that living the homosexual lifestyle is wrong. We have been told that homosexual "marriage" is wrong. There are many, many reasons to support that, both anecdotal and empirical, but for me the issue stops when the bretheren say it's wrong.

---

And you'll find no argument in me to the contrary.  However, whether or not we should amend the Constitution to define marriage is a seperate issue. 

Adultery and fornication are equally grievous sins.  Should we push for a Constitutional amendment to define and legally recognize only sex between one man and one woman who are married to each other?

I still see it as an unnecessary intrusion into the prerogative of the Church and into the private lives of citizens.  Marriage is a covenant between the individuals involved and, in some cases, God.  It is not a contract with the State, as some here have asserted.

This has been a good discussion. Elder Oaks has a legal intellect far superior to mine, and I respect his analysis of the subject.

I also respect this from the OP:  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.

As a citizen with a decidedly Libertarian bent on most issues, I agree with and support the LP's plank 1.9 on sexuality and gender.  http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml  It calls for the end of government discrimination based on those factors, including the repeal of divorce laws which unfairly award custody based on gender--a sad component of my own life.

Well, on to more positive endeavors.

Not meaning to fan any flames or anything, but I thought this quote from an article ( http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070102/D8MDD82O0.html ) on the late Pres. Ford's state funeral was interesting...

In his homily, Episcopalian minister Robert G. Certain touched on the fractious debate in the church over homosexual relationships, and said Ford did not think the issue should be splitting Episcopalians. He was Ford's pastor at St. Margaret's Church in Palm Desert, Calif.

"He asked me if we would face schism after we discussed the various issues we would consider, particularly concerns about human sexuality and the leadership of women," Certain said. "He said that he did not think they should be divisive for anyone who lived by the great commandments and the great commission to love God and to love neighbor."

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that so often those who promote homosexual lifestyles take a statement like that and twist it around to make it sound like those who do not support it do not love God or their neighbor?

I think Mr. Ford's statement gets it right at the most basic level.  It is not divisive for anyone who lives the two great commandments.  Living of the commandments is not defined as tolerating everything on a view based in 'what feels right for you is right'.  But, it sure sounds like this minister is inferring it.