Leavitt is a bought and paid for politician. His views reflect those who think
you can compromise with principle and morality. Very disappointed.
From what I see from this article is one man who has political courage and one
that does not. I personally don't care if the gay marriage issue is a
"political certainty" or not. I can't in good conscience support
gay marriage.I believe that we as a people need to be free to make
our own choices and accept the consequences to those choices. I believe those
who actively practice homosexuality, like any major choice in our life, has
consequences. I do not put homosexuality in the same 'civl rights'
category as race and gender. I do not believe that being black or white, male
and female is the same as who we choose to have sex with.I also
believe that a traditional family (a Mother and Father) is the most essential
ingredient to the foundation of any civilization. True many heterosexual
marriages fail, but that does not justify marginalizing them or make this an
argument for gay marriage. Traditional marriage is eternal and was established
from the beginning of time. We are fools to think we can simply change it's
definition. We do so at our own peril.
Robert George is correct the fight must go on or religious liberty will cease.
The effort to punish and silence the LDS church for its efforts on Prop 8 is
continuing. Hollywood and billionaire leftists have created documentaries that
have been cruel and slanted.Obama hasGay Marriage as a cornerstone of his
second term. The family will disenengrate at an evenfaster pace if those
supporting marriage give up.
Gov Leavitt, as always, expresses the res;ponsible, thoughtful response to the
question of same-sex ,marriage. We owe respect to all humans. Our gay borthers
and sisters deserve the happiness and fulfillments we desire for ourselves.
Princeton professor Robert P. George is right in saying the family is the
foundation of just about everything good in the country including the economy,
culture, and health, and welfare. Gays have a human right to make choices, right
or wrong, but their same-sex unions cannot arbitrarily be raised to the same
level as traditional marriage. Gays have the right of free choice for their
lifestyles in the same way that Adam and Eve were given the free choice not to
eat of the forbidden tree. Mankind was given the right to free choice, but not
necessarily without price especially when that choice goes against nature
itself. Humans are free to disobey God-given precepts but at their own peril.
Gays choose to live lifestyles contrary to God's command to increase and
multiply and that is the ultimate test. Gay unions can no more be called
marriage anymore than soda and other beverages can be called water. Once flavors
have been added to water, the resulting beverage is no longer water.
The reality is that George has confused government support for religion with
freedom of religion. The only way this gets resolved is to leave the contract to
the government and the sacrament to the churches, instead of combining the two
as we now do. Ironically, that is the only way to truly advance the cause of
freedom of religion in a diverse society.
I would submit that the ultimate outcome in the same-marriage game is the effort
to destroy organized religion. How often have we seen in history a group
attacking one entity when the ultimate prize was something completely different?
Yes, where this is headed is a high-noon showdown with organized religion. The
pathway is logical. With the passage of same-sex marriage, the inevitable focus
of certain elements within that movement will set their sights on the ultimate
prize: challenging the legitimacy of religious organizations that refuse to
sanction same-sex marriage. It makes absolute sense then to attack religions
that will not accept same-sex marriage. The bully club that the federal
government has at its disposal is tax status. As non-profit entities, they will
find themselves in the cross-hairs of the leaders of the current same-sex
movement, who will brand such religions as bigoted and illegal entities. Once
sufficient judicial strength is established, inevitably the organizations'
non-profit tax status will be lost. Too far-fetched, impossible you say? Hardly,
see today's attacks on the BSA. Without doubt, the ultimate prize is not
same sex marriage. It's our religion.
'Religious liberty' needs to be contained in the context of religion,
not the larger society. Otherwise, we are all prisoners of religion, and
that's not how it's supposed to work.
The marriage equality/sexual orientation civil rights groups end goals are not
marriage equality nor sexual orientation civil rights. Their end goal is to
marginalize religion. Their end goal is to destroy religious liberty which was
the founding liberty of our nation. It was liberty #1! Now it will be gone.
Their goal is to change the 4000 year old Judeo-Christian marriage ethic of male
and female. I am surprised at how naive many good intentioned christians are of
the marriage equality/sexual orientation civil rights groups line of "our
same sex marriage doesn't effect your rights". They are using this
line to get in the door and those sucker enough to accept that line at the door
will find out when they get in the house that they will take a sledge hammer to
the house. But by then it will be too late.
Anyone who is concerned about families and children should SUPPORT gay marriage,
not fight it.More than 100,000 gay couples in the US are *already*
raising children, with or without marriage. These gay-led families won't be
going away. Giving these couples the right to marry will increase the stability
of their households, and help their children. How is that a bad thing?Many groups of child-development experts -- including the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the
American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, AND
the American Psychological Association -- officially **support** gay
marriage.The AAP's position statement declares, in part:
“There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the
scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men
or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to
children of heterosexual parents" and "Marriage strengthens families and
benefits child development".You will not find ANY groups of
child-development experts who oppose gay marriage.People who think
children are important should ENCOURAGE gay marriages, because marriage
encourages stable families -- and THAT is what helps kids.
Gay marriage is not about love, but are acts we all know to be being wrong.
Rationalization does not justify.Society thrives on a strong family
unit of a man, and women, and we need leaders who'll step up to the plate
and leads us in a positive direction.
If followers of Jesus get involved in political agendas, might they lose in the
end no matter which position they take?
Good grief, Professor George. Anyone who passionately advocates for including
gays in marriage rights is also a passionate advocate of family and marriage,
The movement to silence those who support traditional marriage is the
McCarthyism of our time. History does not repeat itself but it rhymes and right
now it is rhyming like McCarthyism.
The true argument here has really nothing to do with marriage. It has everything
to do with equality. Monetary equality, not human rights equality. At some point
in the past, marriage lost its sanctity and became secular, more of a business
contract between two people. When marriage transformed, local and federal
government butted in, seeing marriage as a taxable event. Marriage is now
nothing more than a government benefits, corporate benefits and IRS
consideration. Gays. Straights. Forget about it. Who cares anymore.
Everyone just wants benefits, not safe, secure happy families. The real losers
in this political, money driven game are single people. No marriage. No tax
breaks. As long as marriage is a government run and controlled contractual
event, it will be nothing sacred, or important or meaningful. If
marriage continues to be monitored by the government, marriage will continue to
be a joke; a mockery before God. That is of course if God exists and I'm
not so sure if the majority of humanity really believes one does anymore because
the art and beauty of procreation seems to be in a state of devolution.
Tough issue but the family is the stable unit of society. This means a mother
and a father and the special love of a mother. Love is lacking in a sexual
relationship. Alfred Adler equated sex with power. Selfless love is seen as
giving and not taking. We are a sex obsessed and self fulfilling society. It
would appear that our society is going the way of the great Roman civilization.
The barbarians (translation Germania) overcame and overthrew the vaunted Roman
discipline. The phalanx was replaced by the mob. The National Socialism of Nazi
Germany was one long range result. The Egyptian pharohs evolved into Islam. The
orthodoxy of the czars was obliterated by Communism. Now, we have forces at work
to unite all of these forces together into a one world church-state. Religion is
the target and not the accomodation whether it be that of the pharohs, Mohammed,
Moses, or Christ. All are seen as male dominated and not gay friendly.
The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states' marriage laws must be
based on "the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the
union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the
sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best
guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent
progress in social and political improvement."
Re:jasonlivy"Accept the consequences of those choices"The question is--who will act as "judge" and impose the
"consequences?"You or God?God commanded us to
love one another as ourselves above all other commandments except to love Him.
He also commanded us to not judge. I know if i were homosexual i
would not/could not live my entire life without a companion and marriage
partner, or without hope of ever having a companion and marriage partner.
Why does the public discourse not discuss the impact of SSM on our civilization?
The omens are clear from the fall of the Roman (and earlier) Empires. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over.
As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study
of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost
what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology
department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions
that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in
which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of
homosexuality. Giving same-sex relationships the same special status
and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the
destruction of a bedrock foundation of civilization.
Many churches have no problem with same-sex marriage and are glad to solemnize
them. Yet Mr. George apparently has no qualms about using the power of the
state to infringe on their religious liberty. For him, it seems, liberty is
only for those who agree with him. He will have to resolve this conflict for
his argument to have any merit and be taken seriously.
If they attack religous freedom, that would violate the 1st amendment. That is a
battle they will not win because they would be suppressing the 1st amendment.
@Brentbot --"The omens are clear from the fall of the Roman (and
earlier) Empires."The ancient Roman and Greek civilizations each
lasted for roughly 1000 years -- and both of them encouraged homosexual
relationships. That's a lot longer than we've been around.Unwin died 80 years ago. Sorokin died more than 50 years ago, and he was
regarded by many as a kook besides. We've learned a lot about the world
since then.@JBQ --"Love is lacking in a sexual
relationship."Really?? Hopefully, most married
couples are having sexual relations. Do they therefore not have love??I know gay couples who have been together for decades -- through thick and
thin, richer and poorer, sickness and health. Is that not love??"It would appear that our society is going the way of the great Roman
civilization."The great Roman civilization lasted for 1000
years.@Tekakaromatagi --"The movement to silence
those who support traditional marriage is the McCarthyism of our time." Nobody is being silenced. Heck, this UVU symposium wouldn't have
been *possible* if anyone was being silenced. However, some folks
HAVE needed to be reminded that we live in a Constitutional Democracy -- not a
States are legalizing same-sex marriages; States are legalizing the use of
marijuana.. What does this tell us? The country is going to pot.
Hutterite: "'Religious liberty' needs to be contained in the
context of religion, not the larger society."A great argument
for hypocrisy, for a "double-minded man" or woman who is "unstable
in all his ways."Make sure religion doesn't influence
anything one does in "the larger society." Why then bother with
religion at all?
Re:BrentbotSorokin has been mischaracterized by opponents of
same-sex marriage. The key to enduring civilizations, according to Sorokin, was
altruism. He founded the Center for Altruism at Harvard. He wrote about the
importance of family units and about the evils of war. He wrote about the
decline of civil society as people seeking merely to please themselves. Marriage signifies couples making a committment to each other--
forsaking all others. It is a stabilizing force in society and in families. The enemy of marriage is not same-sex marriage-- but promiscuity and
@brebtbotSorry for my skepticism of your "quote" from the
supreme court but would you please site the case this "quote" came from
since you seem to believe you have stumbled onto something that everyone on this
debate has missed for the last 20 plus years.
How does professor george rationalize punishing people for the way they are
What if there were a Church who believed only in same-sex marriage? It sounds
extreme, and contrary to all religious forms currently existing, but with the
name "church" being applied to a wider and wider range of organizations
such an organization is not impossible. There has already been a church that
believed in absolute celibacy for both men and women.So would this
hypothetical church be given full freedom of religion? Or would lawmakers and
regulators insist that to be a "real" church they would have to fit
within existing definitional confines?The sword cuts both ways. The
fight for morality and liberty are not the same fight. I once penned: "The
only government that can completely guarantee full freedom of religion is a
non-religious government." I also wrote "The constitution does not
exist to promote righteousness, it exists to promote liberty."If
you follow the logic there is only one destination - Libertarianism.
Religious liberty was intended to allow a person to follow his conscience
without government intervention or consequence. It is the foundational
cornerstone to preserve and maintain a free and prosperous society. It was intended that religious liberty would provide individuals with the
values, standards, and moral convictions that would influence the structure and
stability of public society. It was not intended that religion would have no
influence on society, that we would leave our beliefs at the pulpit. Quite the
contrary, it was intended that government would not prohibit the free exercise
of religion, with the expectation that religious freedom would thrive and
prosper without persecution, in order to provide a stable and moral backdrop for
a strong and sustainable sovereign society. Our founding Fathers
were very well studied in the Greek and Roman cultures. They understood the
best those societies offered, and the weaknesses that brought them to their
destruction. Our founding fathers expected that individual conscience through
religious liberty would provide the influence in establishing public policy to
preserve a nation from moral and civil decay.
In these posts I see lots of great arguments for gay marriage from very smart
people. When men get pregnant and naturally produce babies THEN I might believe
that this argument is about family. Same for two women. This is not an argument
about whats best for society. It's about truth contortion and self
justification. It's about wanting to command God against His natural order.
Maybe if we gay marriage is true and good long enough it will be true. IT
WON"T! You may say it enough to change public opinion and get your way, but
it will NEVER be true.
I do not believe "gay marriage" is any sort of threat to religious
freedom. If you want your church to live a certain way, that right will not be
abridged, just as you cannot abridge the rights of others that have different
So agree with Eagles63. I don't think Govenor Levitt is agreeing with gay
marriage, as much as he's saying it's a battle that is basically over.
Statistically the support has grown and grown. I read an article reacently
where supporters of Gay marriage basically said, don't rock the boat, wait
for the current support to die off and the eventuallity of Gay Marriage passing
is a forgone reality. The battle now is keeping religous freedom. Just as
plural marriage became a political hot point for the church in 1890, so will our
stance and the stance of other religions that teach against a gay lifesytle end
up in the "cross hairs" as Eagles63 noted.
First of all, the title to this article is hilarious. The only way these guys
are icons, is if you change the meaning of the word icon.Second, the
whole argument about whether lealizing gay marriage will end religious liberty
is a huge red herring. Therefore the subject of the "debate" between
these two is ridiculous and we are wasting our time listening to them.People who have a problem with gay marriage are slowly dying off just as
people who had a problem with interracial marriage died off. It's time to
get over it.
The issue boils down to is "To what extent can government power be used
against churches who promote ideas that the government dislikes?"If gay marriages become legal, the government could revoke the Church's
privilege to perform legally recognized marriages. Jesus said to "render
unto Caesar" the things that are Caesar's. Legal/governmentally
recognized marriage belongs to Caesar. If LDS/Evangelicals won't provide
this legally recognized act for gays, government could rightly prevent any
LDS/Evangelical clergy from performing a LEGALLY recognized marriage. LDS
couples would have to be married at City Hall and then, if they choose, have a
NON-legally recognized temple sealing. This is done in other countries already
where LDS and/or religious weddings are not legally recognized. Churches do NOT
have a 1st Amendment right to have their marriages recognized by Caesar.Revoking tax-exempt status is far-fetched. Even many gay marriage
supporters would reject that and would support a constitutional amendment
restoring it. Doing so would also violate the 1st Amendment since government
would be rewarding/punishing churches based on RELIGIOUS doctrine. That would
violate "equal protection" as well.I believe that the above
is something we could live with.
I am a person of faith. My partner of many years and I were married, by a rabbi,
in a mainstream Temple, before God and our families. It was wonderful. It gave
social and religious standing to what was already, for many years, the most
important aspect of our shared lives. People are free not to
believe in God the way we do, of course. And their religions may carry out
different rites, and may set their own conditions for those rites. That's
about faith, though, and I think we have to respectfully acknowledge that we may
all never agree, nor do we have to.Now we are looking to protect our
most important relationship legally, civilly, so that we are not legal strangers
to one another. We share a house, a car, a mortgage, bills,
decisions about what to have for dinner and decisions about life and death.I see very little difference between the way my partner and I live our
lives from that of our non-gay, married neighbors. Those couples apparently
felt the need to protect their most important relationship with a single
marriage contract. We need to protect ours as well.
How does allowing same-sex marriage threaten religious freedom? How does
allowing same-sex marriage differ from allowing other things religious groups
Maudine: "How does allowing same-sex marriage threaten religious freedom?
How does allowing same-sex marriage differ from allowing other things religious
groups oppose?"There are many good responses to this written
here and elsewhere ad nauseum. If you don't accept all the many reasons
given before, you won't accept a new one either. There are only so many
ways to state well not only the obvious but the obscure. There's no point
to restate endlessly what isn't acceptable to you now, nor to try to find a
new manner of appealing to your sensibilities on the subject. Your mind is made
up, which is your privilege and choice. So are the minds and hearts of us who
already know the answer.
@lds4gaymarriage"If LDS/Evangelicals won't provide this
legally recognized act for gays, government could rightly prevent any
LDS/Evangelical clergy from performing a LEGALLY recognized marriage. LDS
couples would have to be married at City Hall and then, if they choose, have a
NON-legally recognized temple sealing. This is done"It would not
make any difference if a government official performed the legal marriage all
that really matters is that God accepts the NON-legally recognized temple
sealing which according to LDS beliefs makes a couple man and wife for eternity
where the government cannot alter, change, or penalize in any shape, form or
George is an academic who doesn't have to worry about practicality.The simplest thing to do is to have the Church *not* perform weddings,
@jasonlivy"I believe that we as a people need to be free to make our
own choices and accept the consequences to those choices."Therefore, you support banning people from making a particular choice just
because you don't like it.@BrentBot"Why does the
public discourse not discuss the impact of SSM on our civilization? The omens
are clear from the fall of the Roman (and earlier) Empires."The
fall of Rome had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality. Pick up a history
In the last days good will be called evil and evil will be called good. Line up
on line, here alittle there a little. They know what they are doing to destroy
this country. Ezra Taft Benson had a soviet union official say that America
would be destroyed from within. He asked why? He was told because americans are
so gulible. or is it just stupidity. We just seem to keep voting this philosphy
in every couple of years.
Hutterite is right. 'Religious liberty' needs to be contained in the
context of religion, not the larger society. But that is exactly WHY the
government CANNOT support gay marriage. As it stands currently, the
government has a NEUTRAL stance on the religious definition of marriage and on
the morality of intimate gay behavior. The government currently does not
imprison, fine, or otherwise punish gays for marrying. Nor does the government
punish gays for engaging in intimate behavior.IF however, the
government legalizes and endorses gay marriage, it no longer will be advocating
a neutral stance. It will be taking sides on both issues. It will be supporting
ONLY the definition of marriage as espoused by gay marriage advocates. By
extension, the government likewise will be supporting ONLY the moral views of
those who believe intimate gay behavior is not a bad thing.Sorry,
but that would NOT be containing religious liberty within the context of
religion. That would be government opposing, neglecting, shunning, and ignoring
one group's religious views in favor of endorsing, supporting, celebrating,
and rewarding another group's religious views.
Anti-Bush-obama we are fighting to keep the 2nd ammendment if it goes down. what
makes you or anyone else think that the other ammendments that they the
liberals, socialists, etc want to destroy are safe. Start down hill and its hard
How does is this Professor have a job in this PC world.
It's not a religious issue; it is a biological, human evolutionary issue.
Humans are a heterosexual, pair-bonding species. The purpose for sex is to
reproduce the species. The purpose for pair bonding is to provide the long-term
nurturing and training that human children need. The urge to form a heterosexual
pair bond is strong--so strong that even people with same sex attraction are
able to form strong exclusive heterosexual pair bonds and be excellent parents.
Though there are behavioral aberrations,this is is how we evolved and
experimenting heterosexual marriage or natural human pair-bonding, will have
disastrous consequences and contribute to a huge human population crash. Already
many countries are reproducing at below sustainable levels. These also are the
same countries that advocate gay marriage. If gay marriage is inevitable, people
with strong heterosexual pair bonds and their children will be the most likely
to survive the population crash but the crash won't be a pleasant
experience for anyone.
George said "It is difficult to think of any item on the domestic agenda
that is more critical today than...the effort to renew and rebuild the marriage
culture.” Why hasn't he considered that marriage equality
will promote the rebuilding of "the marriage culture"? There will be
more marriages, fewer excuses to avoid marriage, and a stronger social message
that will tend to make marriage the norm again. George seems
blinded by ideology.
If being gay becomes a civil right, what defense will the Church have in
refusing gay members temple sealings? Won't that be discrimination,
subjecting the Church to Federal prosecution? It will be the same fight the
Church had with the federal government over Polygamy.
@JSB --"experimenting heterosexual marriage or natural human
pair-bonding, will have disastrous consequences and contribute to a huge human
population crash."Only about 3-5% of the human population is
LGBT. Allowing them to marry will have virtually NO effect on global population
growth. Legalizing gay marriage will not suddenly "turn" straight people
gay."Already many countries are reproducing at below sustainable
levels."The fact is that world population has grown
**continually** since 1350. World population is still growing at greater than 1%
every year. Our population is ALREADY threatening the global ecosystem, and the
problems will only get worse in the future. Slowing down that growth rate should
be the LEAST of our worries.@RAB --"IF however, the
government legalizes and endorses gay marriage, ...It will be taking sides on
both issues.....Sorry, but that would NOT be containing religious liberty within
the context of religion. "Legalizing gay marriage doesn't
threaten anyone's religious freedom any more than legalizing the sale of
alcohol does. If you believe drinking alcohol is a sin, then don't do it.
If you believe that gay marriage is a sin, then don't have one. It's
really very simple.
The difference between Leavitt and George is more nuanced than the headline made
me believe. As someone who actively campaigned for and donated to
Prop 8 in California, I agree with George that hetero-gender marriage is the
only appropriate form of marriage in any society. I think history, biology, and
religion all support that assertion.I foresee, as many Californians
do, that, if the Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, there will be battle after battle
on the same issue for years to come, and I will continue to defend hetero-gender
marriage.But I pay close attention to the public schools in
California, and I can see the way the public-school winds are blowing. It is
possible that same-gender marriage may someday become legal here (or the Supreme
Court could exercise one of its occasional gross injustices and overturn Prop 8
and speed the process). If I understand Leavitt, one thing he seems to be
saying is that the battle will change into a fight to defend religious liberty
balanced against the temptation to descend into violence and hatred. I add that if history is any indicator, religious liberty will be in grave
I have been working on my family history. It goes back to the 1500's.
Nowhere in any lines do I see anything except a father and a mother for
generations of my ancestors. Go to FamilySearch and look at your line. Any other
"arrangement" does not a family make. You can argue it back and forth.
It takes a man and a woman to have a child. It's God's plan. Anything
else is contrary to His plan. Yes, the family unit...a husband and wife...is
worth fighting for!
The issue, 'religious liberty' versus gay marriage, is fake. The
changes that will occur if gay marriage becomes legal are secular. No religion
will be forced to marry same sex couples against its will. Churches can
continue to exclude gays if they want to. So, one has to wonder what is really
going on. I suspect this phony conflict has to do with money. Divisive issues
allow institutions, including political parties and religious dominations, to
raise money by exploiting the emotion attached to the issues. We saw that with
the anti-gay marriage referendums and constitutional amendments that increased
donations to and turn-out for the Republican Party in 2010.But, the
window in time that allowed gay marriage to be used as a wedge issue has passed.
A clear majority of Americans now support it. Prof. George's plan to
continue to promote gays as threats to our entire society will surely fail.
@BYUAlum --"Any other "arrangement" does not a family
make."You have just single-handedly insulted, marginalized, and
demeaned millions of people who have been successfully raised by step-parents,
grandparents, adoptive parents, aunts and uncles, elder siblings, or others of
the myriad loving family arrangements that have existed over the centuries in
this and many other countries.The truth is that there are many many
different family structures around the world, and there always have been."a husband and wife...is worth fighting for!"And
**nobody** is trying to take that arrangement away from anybody. I
just don't understand why some religious people feel so threatened by the
idea of gay marriage. Nobody is trying to make straight people stop getting
married. Nobody is trying to force straight people to take part in gay
marriages. Go ahead and have as many straight marriages as you like, gay people
DON'T CARE.Fun fact: in countries where gay marriages or gay
registered partnerships have been legal for years, there has either been no
effect on marriage rates or the marriage rate has actually INCREASED. Gay marriage is NOT any kind of a threat to straight people.
Or ... it could just be that the GOP lost the White House and they're
looking to add to their voting base.
To those who fear SSM threatens their freedom of religion:My dear
brothers and sisters in the Lord. I am just an average gay man. One who was a
regular devoted and conflicted LDS until he realized that God loves him in the
same way he loves all his children.Because the LDS church does not
accept my relationship of and our daughter as a family, I just don't go to
the Mormon church anymore. There is no resentment on my part against
the LDS beliefs about homosexuality. I said, I'm just an average gay man,
most gay men and women I know feel the same way.I find amusing that
many (not all) of those who oppose SSM attempt to portrait themselves as
victims; Eventhough, they are the ones inflicting the aggression.Let's be logical here. Do you think that any homosexual couple would want
to have their marriage blessed by a church/minister who despises them?I can assure you, that I and many other LGBT will defend your right to believe
we are going to a very hot place.In the meantime, however, we will
fight your attempts to legalize your bigotry and descrimination.
The only way to have true religious freedom is to get the government out of
marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament and should not be defined by the
government. If we followed that rule, advocates for traditional marriage (only)
would not need to worry about gay marriage being defined as marriage in public
kindergarten classes, and advocates for gay marriage could get married as their
consciences dictated in the churches and ceremonies of their choice. A century
ago, the state of Utah would have also had a much easier time if the federal
government had not been in the business of defining marriage. Religion and state
should not be separate, but church ans state should be separate. Church and
state are not separate if the government has the power to define religious rites
and ceremonies like marriage.
Truthseeker:It seems that all those who support not only gay
marriage, but the gay lifestyle, use the same arguments over and over. No, I do
not have the right to judge to condemnation. I do have the right to judge what I
believe is best for me and my family. Whether I judge or not judge has nothing
to do with there being serious consequences to our choices. Changing the
definition of a bedrock, foundational principle will bring consequences whether
you believe so or not. And what are those consequences? I believe the kind of
thinking that changes the definition of traditional marriage will lead
eventually to the crumbling of the family. Is this to say gay couples can't
rear children? Of course not. What it does say is that as we go down this path
of corrupting essential ingredients of a moral society, the society will
eventually crumble. This is only the beginning...I believe there is
an absolute right and an absolute wrong, not 'moral relativism'.
Right, or in other words truth, is the opposite of chaos. Chaos is what happens
when we ignore God.
Why do gays need to call their union marriage? They can make a contract to be
true to each other, share finances, and death benefits, and follow the own idea
of fidelity. They cannot have children by their own choice so they are not a
family. Otherwise they already have rights necessary to live together as
friends. They should not expect people to accept their life style as normal
because it is abnrmal. We can still be their friends if they are willing to
accept our view.
@BYU Papa --"Why do gays need to call their union
marriage?"Because separate is not equal. If you call it
something different, then it *is* something different. Our country proved that
back in the days of racial segregation."They cannot have
children by their own choice so they are not a family."Actually,
more than 100,000 gay couples in this country are **already** raising children,
with or without marriage. They are just as much "families" as any
infertile couples who choose to adopt, use surrogacy or artificial insemination,
or have children from previous marriages."They should not expect
people to accept their life style as normal because it is abnrmal."Nobody needs for you to accept them as normal. You have the right to keep
whatever personal opinion you may choose. We only expect you to accept the fact
that, in this country, ALL citizens have the right to equal protection under the
US Constitution. And that means freedom from discrimination.If you
think that gay marriage is a sin, then don't have one. It's none of
your business if someone else chooses to have one. It's really just as
simple as that.
Mike Leavitt and some Princeton professor no one has ever heard of are
The problem is, no one against gay marriage can present a legitimate legal
reason why such unions should not be recognized and given the same privileges
and responsibilities as their straight counterparts. You can try, but it's
beyond easy to poke holes in any such arguments. The issue here is religious in
nature, and the government is not allowed to rule according to religion,
expressly because of the first amendment. People can be against gay marriage all
they want, but they do not have the right to deny others what they har simply
because the disagree on religious grounds.
The fact is that the definition of marriage must have these two
elements...mother and father. Without these it cannot be called marriage. That
has nothing to do with religion or anything else. This fact, this truth, has
been the definition and will always be the definition.If we choose
to change the definition then it won't be called 'marriage', at
least the pure definition. You can be as high and mighty as you want in your
rebutles, but marriage by definition must contain a father and a mother, period.
Without flour you cannot have bread, whether you call it
'bread' or not.
@loveless"If being gay becomes a civil right, what defense will
the Church have in refusing gay members temple sealings? Won't that be
discrimination, subjecting the Church to Federal prosecution? It will be the
same fight the Church had with the federal government over Polygamy."Temple sealings are a matter of LDS theology regarding the union of a
man and a woman for eternity. If the government did as you said, that would be a
gross violation of the first amendment which provides for the free exercise of
the issue I see ...and it is a BIG one ... is the heavy hand of the federal gov
forcing the LDS church to permit gay temple marriage even though this violates
the foundation of Church doctrine and standards. I could easily see the new
socialist US government forcing gay temple marriage under the false front of
"anti-descrimination" or some other absurd charge. When ANY governement
becomes so powerful - so intimidating - so overreaching that the people lose
their rights then anything goes....I mean anything! We are close to that point
in the US now. Some people on the left say "not to worry" you will
always have religious liberty... HA!! Really? The goal of the left is a Fully
Communist societty and any serious study of core Communism reveals a culture of
forced athesim and zero individual rights. What does Obama always say...
"this change isn't going to happen overnight"... Only a fool would
think his or her rights aren't in jepardy with Barack and his bunch of
radicals in charge.
Those who comment on the infinite power of Barack Obama could work in a
different way. Go out of your box on this one.Might you possibly assist
the country in channeling Mr. Obama's immense power in other directions?For instance.....Rain for draught stricken parts of American and our
planet.Enough food for all.Do able climate change.Tolerance
and Kindness toward our fellow men, women and all of God's creatures.Lovely, happiness filled elections."Regular people" elected to
all political offices.Peace throughout the Universe.