Another classic case of failing to call evil, evil. And good, good. Those who
look to find common ground with societal trends that run afoul of their religion
are probably trying to sell something to the masses. Like books. Abinidi, Paul
and others probably would not have been best sellers and able to keep their
image alive, but they knew what was right and what was wrongGood job
Eyes. As always, you are artful at staying in the middle ground.
As to the first point, Utah became the target and focal point for gay marriage
when it foolishly adopted Amendment 3. Amendment 3 did not protect heterosexual
marriage, it invited a legal challenge to it. Similarly, some legislators want
to repeat the mistake. Right now there is no issue regarding whether religions
have to perform same sex marriages. They don't. But if Utah amends its
constitution to say so, look for a legal challenge probably arguing that such an
amendment violates the separation of church and state clause in the first
Eyres: "The lesson is that those who want to keep marriage between one man
and one woman ought to work at least as hard at honoring, promoting and
celebrating heterosexual marriage as they do fighting same-sex marriage."How many states have recently passed constitutional amendments or
significant legislation prohibiting or significantly restricting divorce? How
many voter initiatives have there been, how many dollars have been spent, to
prevent single parenthood? Now answer the same questions about banning gay
marriage.If the goal of family policy is to help children have their
entitled two parents, then, as the lolcats would say, "U R not doing it
right." Heteros make up about 95% of the population and half of hetero
marriages fail, leaving children with a single parent. Then there are all the
children born to unmarried straight mothers who also have a single parent.
OTOH, gays only make up about 5% of the population and most do not have children
(about 20-35% do). From a return on investment standpoint, the numbers do not
support doing much to fight gay marriage, if protecting children is truly the
goal. Besides, banning gay marriage keeps the children of gay couples from
getting their entitlement.
I have to ask the Eyres if their first reason for getting married was "the
children" or if it was for love of one another?
The state made the "Gold Standard" family of married Dad+Mom+Kids the
centerpiece of its defense in the Kitchen case. That's the optimal policy
mechanism maximize positive outcomes in children’s lives, it argued. But
look at what Utah has done, rather than what it says. It has allocated vast
public and private resources towards banning SSM while committing comparatively
few resources towards promoting the "Gold Standard" it professes to
desire. Opposing gay marriage hurts the children of gay couples by denying them
the benefits of having married parents and diverts finite resources from
strengthening straight marriages, so those kids don’t get the married
parent benefits, either. Children lose all around. A rational person looking
at that could conclude that "Gold Standard" equals "Lip Service"
and seek another motive behind the state’s offensive against SSM.
It’s not a big leap to conclude animus towards gays is a factor. And from
animus it’s a short leap to equal protection.So-- the
state's campaign against SSM not only hurts the children it professes to
love, it also provides fodder to buttress the legal challenges of its opponents.
That's irony for you.
Lagomorph,That's not irony. That is the blinders of religious
Speaking of ironies, did you know that the LDS church, which is a major champion
of religious freedom, has actively fought to deny other faiths the ability to
have their marriage ceremonies recognized by civil authorities? Many faiths
support and sustain marriages between same-sex couples. But the LDS church has
fought against these religious institutions. O, the irony!
@Lagomorph;Don't forget the state's dismal performance in
health outcomes for the children of poor heterosexuals; and their dismal funding
of education for these same children.
I Goggled how many people are gay and how many of those people stay together. I
learned that it's nothing to be concerned about.So I figure it's about
the 15 minuets of fame. Than I thought about the movie called 15 Minuets, The
Russian Guy said; I love America, no none is responsible for any thing. Than I
thought of a Post that someone wrote. A family is having Responsibility's.
How true that is. every one has to have responsibility's to feel like they
belong to the family. I see family's and family Reunions end because of the
@dalefer so the voters in Utah and 30+ other states were foolish for voting to
keep marriage between a man and a women like it always has been? And I think
the divorce rate is far less than 50 percent if you look at it carefully. I am
sure most students as they enter college leave home still living with there
Mother and Father. In the case of same gender marriage you are not living with
one of your biological parents. So it is not 50% divorce and most of the people
have always believed marriage is between a man and a women. Hopefully so called
same gender marriage will topple under it's own weight. Evil cannot last
too long in the promised land.
"Almost like fighting wars overseas to keep the conflicts from coming to our
shores, some felt that if they fought same-sex marriage hard enough in other
states, they would never have to face the issue in their own state"This doesn't make any sense. Maybe if those people had never taken high
Lagomorph says "How many states have recently passed constitutional
amendments or significant legislation prohibiting or significantly restricting
divorce?"Anti-divorce laws are anti-marriage. In fact, I
believe, no-fault divorce in California has done more to damage families than
same-sex marriage. Until recently, second-marriages (including LDS) were not
recognized by Argentina and were not given any protection by the courts.A marriage license is a contract backed by the U.S. judicial system. A
commitment to pool your resources together for a lifetime plan together. If one
partner breaks the contract through abuse, theft, or infidelity, you should have
the right to sue for divorce. Co-habitation commitments
(heterosexual, same-sex, or polygamous) do not have the same recourse for the
victims of abuse.
We would never be debating gay marriage if we hadn't first strayed decades
ago. Men had begun living a double standard, winking at indiscretions rather
than honoring their wives. We foolishly devalued family stability by allowing
no-fault divorce. Youth in the '60's made the mistake of confusing
lust with love, shouting, "make love, not war." Many claimed, "you
can't legislate morality," "victimless crimes," "consenting
adults," and "government has no business knowing what goes on in the
privacy of my own home." We celebrated selfishness. Public media began to
scorn religion as outdated. Irrational fear of population growth justified a
host of selfish policy changes from birth control (excluding abstinence) to
abortion. Motherhood, a cherished American institution was demeaned in favor of
career fulfillment.We now have few youth who have ever grown up in
stable homes, raised by faithful, lifelong birth parents. Even if you
don't accept old standards of chastity and virtue as divine commandments
the costs of abandoning them are now clear. Promiscuity is socially acceptable,
porn floods the media, and prohibitions still enshrined in our Utah Constitution
against adultery, fornication and sodomy are practically unenforceable.
dalefarr,Foolishly? Kind of like the United Kingdom "foolishly"
stood against Germany in the 1930s and 40s? Sometimes one must
"foolishly" fight against something that is wrong. In so doing, one may
loose many battles. But in the final analysis, standing for what is right
carries with it inherent rewards that are worth the cost. The same-sex marriage
issue is a conflict of ideas rather than a military war, but the analogy is apt.
Both sides in most conflicts feel that they are right, or justified. That
situation does nothing to reveal which side stands on the moral high ground.Societies are all about balancing the good of the whole against the disparate
desires of individuals. Since societies inherently involve interpersonal
interactions, the ideal of "live and let live" is constrained. The
recent situation in Charleston, WV dramatically illustrates this. To try and
pretend otherwise is truly "foolish."
Lagomorph,One simply needs to look at the US history of the 1950s, 60s,
and 70s to see that the LDS Church (among others) expended a great deal of money
and effort defending heterosexual families and children. The same forces of
“sexual freedom” that are still at work today were at work then too.
The battlefront has simply moved. You have eloquently described some of the
fruits of “sexual freedom” trumping society's need for the
greater good of the whole. It is ironic that you don’t seem to see this.
Ranch,I suspect that the loving one another in the way they do and wanting
to have children are inseparable from the Eyre’s perspective. From my
perspective, your attempt to separate them makes no sense. From my perspective,
having sexual relations with someone outside the context of establishing a
“traditional” family isn’t love. It is simply
self-gratification. There are many ways to express love besides sex. While it
is true that not all heterosexual couples will be blessed by children, if a
willingness and desire to accept children isn’t part of the package, their
love will be incomplete. It isn’t just the actual children that augment
love; it is the mindset.
Scientist,While there is no shortage of profound hypocrisy on the part of
individuals on both sides of this issue, the position and actions of the LDS
Church regarding the society importance of God’s Law of Chastity, and of
families, are completely consistent. It is only by ignoring the Church’s
embrace of the complete Law of Chastity that one can imagine hypocrisy. One
might vehemently disagree, but there is no hypocrisy in the Church’s
@Lagomorph – “From a return on investment standpoint, the numbers do
not support doing much to fight gay marriage, if protecting children is truly
the goal.”Excellent comments!Identifying hypocrisy
is often the best method for cutting through obfuscation and seeing
people’s real motivations. Personally, I have no respect for articles like
this – people should have the courage of their convictions, state why they
(truly) believe what they believe, and let the political chips fall where they
may.For example, I find oremtigger7’s comment disturbing
(assuming he/she meant gays were evil) and think his/her basic sense of human
decency has been deranged by religion, but at least I respect his/her courage to
be honest – especially since we live in a democracy where our ideas have
to compete for legitimacy. Though it sounds like some on this board
would prefer a theocracy…
Classic examples of the mote v. the beam in one's eye.
Ranch: Not only are you off-topic, you are also dead wrong in suggesting that
the LDS Church somehow causes neglect of children. The LDS church is the
largest contributor to children's welfare in the state. Not only does the
church provide large amounts of food and aide to poor families, it also
maintains Primary Children's Hospital which cares for critically ill
children.Even if you want to criticize on the basis of the actions of
members, again you are wrong - statistics consistently show that members of the
LDS church contribute a much higher than average percentage of their income to
charities.And LDS Family Services helps couples adopt unwanted children
and provide good homes for them - for much less than it would cost through other
agencies (I am speaking from personal experience on this point).
RanchHand -- We (not the Eyres) got married 34 years ago to begin a family
because that was both of our goals. Yes, we loved each other (but in hindsight
didn't, as love takes many years to comprehend). In even simpler terms,
marriage validated the use of procreative powers which we both had saved until
our wedding night; and while doing so has certainly drawn us closer, our purpose
was to have children as soon as possible -- because we believed and still
believe that is the purpose of marriage.
@ksampowWhile it was once true that the LDS church "maintains
Primary Children's Hospital" it no longer is true. In 1975 the LDS
church donated the hospital to the community and it is now run by Intermountain
Overlooked by nearly everyone in this "debate" is the worrisome trend of
the voice of the people being negated by liberal, activist judges who feel their
version of the law is superior to huge majorities of voters in the huge majority
of states who have spoken at the ballot box. Well over 60% in California; over
75% in Oklahoma and similar majorities nearly everywhere. Where did our judges
of today get so confused as to the true role of the judicial system ... that
they are NOT the law makers nor are they the people. Are all the people failing
to grasp the picture ... or is it these 'out there' single person
"majorities" (judges who think they know what we, the people want better
than we do ourselves. It makes me very sad. Whatever your view on this subject
is, this trend should frighten you.
lasaurus to ksampowYou are both right. While the Primary
Children's Hospital is now run by IHC; the financial arm is still primarily
the LDS Church. It is the hospital's largest contributor and donation
drives are still done by volunteers through LDS Church assignments. The Church
sits on boards to see that most of the donations are used directly for the
benefits of patients and not for administrative purposes. The Church has
stretched it's donation power by smart administrative choices. I know this as an insurance agent. You do not have to be in the IHC network to
receive the of benefits of Primary Children's Hospital. Most of the
Intermountain West and most parts of Central America can have access through
their insurance due to the Church.
Mont Pugmire said "Where did our judges of today get so confused as to the
true role of the judicial system ... that they are NOT the law makers nor are
they the people."Yes. I am surprised that articles like this
remind us that 33 states still have bans on same-sex marriage while only 17
allow it, as if those 17 states support same-sex marriage.In
reality, only three states have voted and approved SSM; Maine, Maryland, and
Washington. Six state laws are not enforced because of court
decisions. That's 39 states, nearly 4/5 of the country including
It is hard to believe that there are so many who read the impassioned pleas by
those who have been so successful in creating wonderful marriages who want to
create a counterfeit version of it. It says more about the loss that has
occurred with even the discussion of SSM than the gain by those who view the
counterfeit as something worthwhile. It will take many years, if it ever
happens before God makes His statement, to undue the damage that is about to be
unleashed on 'marriage' and the children of these alternative forms.
Ironies abound, as the Eyres say, but I don't see them in the middle ground
at all. If we want to change the focus of what constitutes a good marriage, I
guess we better start at our own.
Higv and GeoMan. Yes Utah was strategically foolish to Amend its Constitution.
Did Amendment 3 protect hetero sexual marriage? No. Did it invite a law suit?
Yes. Would those who favor only heterosexual marriage in Utah been better off if
they hadn't amended the Utah Constitution? Absolutely. Would Utah Tax
payers be better off without Amendment 3? Yep.
How ironic it is that Satan has been able to manipulate the gay marriage debate
to tricking faithful members of the church into voting Republican, and thereby
voting for economic policies that are not just harmful to families, but
downright sadistically cruel to them. Thereby, Satan manages to create a
situation where he can destroy families either by gay marriage or by Republican
economics and win either way.Would that members of the church would
recognize Satan's tactics and had the moral fortitude to say, "No,
Satan, you will not trick me! You will not trick me into voting Republican.
You will not trick me into voting for anti-family economics."
I hope the evil spoken of is the evil of immorality, not the idea people who
have attraction for those of the same gender are evil.Some appear to
believe that the LDS Church, because it has made its position very clear that
same-sex "marriage" is in opposition to God's commandments, hates
gay people.If the purpose of the LDS Church is to help all people
return to God's presence, then it is easier to understand the Church's
position. The Church teaches that any kind of sexual activity outside of the
bonds of marriage is in violation of God's laws and places us in jeopardy
of returning to His presence after we die.Many don't believe
that doctrine, as is their right. But to verbally pillery the Church for trying
to help people become better is meaner spirited.One has to be deaf,
dumb and blind not to see that one of the next efforts of some gays will be to
force LDS temples to ratify gay unions.
Try, in all this chaos, to live your personal life so that if you were called
home tomorrow, you would be welcomed with open arms. Politics makes for strange
bedfellows, be it over SSM or BHO. Pray with sincerity for guidance for
yourself and your family. Church leaders also pray for guidance for your part
of the flock.
@baddog"One has to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see that one of the
next efforts of some gays will be to force LDS temples to ratify gay
unions."Not many, typically the only ones who care about a
certain church doing them are members of that church. Then most of those people
know that the church has the right to not perform those marriages, just like
say... there's anti-discrimination laws based on religion but churches are
free to not marry mixed-faith couples in the temple for example. So they know
the law can't force them to change... they just want the church to decide
itself to change.
One may call me arrogant, bigoted, or hateful, but I also like being right! On
this issue, I figure I'm in pretty good company. Because I believe strongly
in choice, however,I wish my opponents the best in the looming battle. This is a
battle that won't be finished until God, Himself has a word about it.
Marriage is desirable for many (if not always possible) and provides the ideal
place to start and raise a family. Homosexuality is not a choice but an inborn
characteristic, like heterosexuality. And, the drivers of marriage are the
desire to support each other, the desire to have a family, AND attraction. All
of this has been agreed upon by most, many religious people included. With that,
it seems a logical conclusion that many homosexuals want what they came from or
what the larger culture promotes -- marriage. So, the only components left to
explain the animus are fear, ignorance or intolerance. Fear is vaporizing by the
minute as is ignorance, as evidence by the very comments here and on many blogs,
not to mention hallway conversations at church, and water cooler conversations
at work. That leaves us with intolerance, which, sadly, seems to originate in
religion, where homosexuality is among the most wicked of sins. This problem is
solved by religions staying focused on their own, and letting the
"world" advance in its notion of what is right and wrong.
@SchneeThe comments here regarding activist, liberal judges should
strike fear in the hearts of anyone who loves religious freedom.Today, churches may dictate who can receive what ordinances. But tomorrow,in
this uncertain climate, that could change. And I believe there will be those who
try in the name of "equality" and "fairness."I'd not hang my hopes on the courts protecting religious rights. We have
leaders who don't even believe or follow the Constitution. Why should they
care about the rights of the religious?
David: I disagree with you from a number of standpoints, but the the one that I
disagree with you the most is the implication that God is fearful, intolerant,
and bigoted. I also disagree that it is inborn. what I believe is that the
evaporation of God's word from more and more people's lives has left
some with the only option of man's ideas, which can justify any behavior,
thus giving some the impression that they were made that way. Actually, fear is
evaporating by the minute, being replaced by courage and conviction regarding
cGod's immutable laws. It is, indeed, a brave new world.
GeoMan-some of your comments brought this quote to mind:"By
rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great
stories....The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they
were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the
end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had
happened?....Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something,
even if you were too small to understand why. But I think...I do understand. I
know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they
didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to
something.....That there’s some good in this world...and it’s worth
@bandersen We're just different people: You seem to
define "conservative and traditional" -- someone who seeks to preserve
tradition, who looks back to what was to inform you on what can be. I am more
"realist and progressive" -- I look to what is now and the notion that
things can be better in the future if we shed some of our old ideas. Both are
valid and necessary in a culture... In fact, I came from a home in which both
were taught and practiced, and employ both in my home. Your post
makes you seem pessimistic about the future. I more optimistic. My faith -- and
my rationality -- is key to my positive future outlook. (I am LDS).Finally, I've never believed that the laws of our land are the correct
place for "God's word..." Our hearts -- and especially our actions
-- are the appropriate place for God's word and sadly, this concept is
largely lacking in our communal actions including our government, public policy,
corporations, and individual attitudes. This is what scares me more than
anything! Not two people of the same sex who want legal recognition and
protection or their relationship and family.
@elarue:Great comment! There is so much truth in the Church's
statement that the principles of the Gospel can be found in the platforms of all
major political parties. The Church is politically neutral. As
members, we vote our conscience based on what issues are most important to us.
Having never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, I will have a tough
decision to make in 2016. I fear for those who in need if
Republicans are in charge, but I also fear for the rights of all religious
people to worship according to their conscience if we have 4 more years of
RedWings: What you've actually pointed out is that there are anti-Church
principles to be found in all political parties, as well. Seems to me that
voting for God to be removed from a party's platform (as occurred at the
last Democratic National Convention in 2012) was a biggie.
To me, one of the biggest ironies is that there's so much talk about
fathers being essential in kids lives (to reduce crime, high school drop outs,
teenage pregnancy, domestic abuse, etc. President Obama himself has encouraged
fathers to be more present in their children's lives. He called fatherhood
vital to our nation.) But somehow it is okay to rewrite law to make fathers
optional for kids. Do these not contradict each other? How can fathers be
essential for children when they are legally optional?
All valid points, taken.