Mormon church enters Calif. gay marriage fight

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
Then let's start denying gluttons the right to marry. Let's start denying alcholics the right to marry. Let's start denying lazy people the right to marry. That should send kids the message that it's wrong to be a glutton, or an alcoholic, or lazy, correct?
Don't you realize how ridiculous that would be? Homosexuality is legal in this country. Short of making it illegal, you have no right to deny a person their constitutional rights based on the fact they engage in behavior that you consider immoral. The fact that you only want to stop homosexuals from marrying and not other people that you consider immoral makes you a hypocrite. Good news - that gives you something in common with many religious people.

Hey now.. I said take it easy...

Let me clarify.. I said the problem is that America is based on freedom. What I meant was the problem with restricting civil rights based on religous beliefs is that America is based on freedom.. Hopefully that was obvious but in case it wasn't

Olivia wrote:

You're right. Civil rights are not up to the majority. Yes, the courts decide what is fair and equal. I can't argue that. If we have a chance to have our voices heard though, we should take it.

That's what I don't understand. You say that you believe the courts are the proper place to determine what is fair and equal when it comes to civil rights, and yet you are supporting an amendment that takes the issue away from the courts to decided. How do you reconcile that???

TimeforChange23 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey now.. I said take it easy...

You think that was rough? You should have read what I started to type!! I toned it down quite a bit.

TimeforChange23--"Olivia,
Let me try this. I also believe homosexuality is a sin."

And you're entitled to that opinion, but it's not Christian. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says this. Homosexuality harms nobody. Why on EARTH would it be a "sin"?

"Based on my beliefs I struggle with allowing same sex marriage. I firmly believe that by giving government recognition to same sex marriage we as a society are essentially endorsing it."

We are endorsing what this nation's ALWAYS stood for...equality. That's it.

NOBODY will "turn gay" because we allow gay marriage, if that's your worry.

"By giving homosexuals the societal benefits tied to marriage we are rewarding a behavior that we as Christians think is a sin and is immoral."

WRONG!! WRONG!! WRONG!!!

First off, homosexuality is NOT A BEHAVIOR! A gay virgin is still gay. Secondly, YOU can believe it's "immoral" for whatever strange reason but do NOT say "we as Christians" for it is NOT a Christian belief. There are thousands of gay Christians, many more who do NOT believe it's any more a "sin" to be gay than it is to be left-handed.
our job as Christians is simple...treat other people the way you would want to be treated. If because of something you did NOT choose, and can NOT change, you were denied basic rights, were called awful names, and had your relationship with the person you love more than anyone in the world insulted and put down, would you like it?

Of course not.

We CANNOT as Christians do the same to others.

"The problem is America was based on freedom. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a civil right. I can not justify denying civil rights to two people who are willing to commit to one another based on my religious belief."

Good for you. I wish every Christian would take this attitude, whether or not their "religious belief" understood that being gay isn't a sin.

"Just because you and I do not think it is "moral" doesn't mean you can justify denying civil rights. I have stated that I think the government should get out of the marriage business. Call all government "marriages" civil unions regardless if it is opposite or same sex."

And I think that's a hideous, horrible idea that nobody could ever possibly get passed, thank God. Marriage is a wonderful thing and throwing it away because of the homophobia causing some people to have problem with this minor change is just vile. No, a thousand times no! Marriage is a wonderful thing and must be preserved.

"Civil unions should be nothing more than a contract. If two people are willing to enter into this contract so be it.
Marriage can then be defined within your social group."

No. We cannot have a society with a thousand different meanings for "marriage," because too much goes into that and this "civil contract" stuff will NEVER be the same. Without the deeper meaning of marriage, it just won't be taken seriously...already it's not taken seriously enough.

"Hope this helps."

It's certainly a different opinion I don't agree with all of it but it's great to hear something fresh, instead of the same old thing over and over again! And you're wrong on some things but at least thinking and open to listening to others, which puts you ahead of about 98% of the rest of the world, it seems!

human too wrote:

Matt, your second sentence is perhaps the most overlooked (and critical) element in the whole church/state debate. I appreciate that you "get it". When Jefferson coined the term "wall of separation", it was to reassure a minority religious group that they had no reason to fear arrest, confiscation of property, exile, or other government persecution for their beliefs. The modern attempt to use the "establishment clause" as a weapon (to intimidate religious people into silence on social issues) is a 180* perversion of its original intent.

Well wrote! I don't understand why they insist calling it a marriage? Civil Union with the same rights as a marriage I can agree. But a Marriage is between a man and a woman from the beginning of time.

John From Maryland--"Well wrote! I don't understand why they insist calling it a marriage?"

Because that's what it is.

"Civil Union with the same rights as a marriage I can agree."

So long as they don't pretend their relationship is as valid as a "REAL" marriage, right? This shows the bigotry ingrained in the refusal to grant REAL equality, including marriage rights. You're saying it's still not the same, still 2nd class, still something less. That's NOT equality, it's not fair, it's not just.

"But a Marriage is between a man and a woman from the beginning of time."

Hogwash. History is FULL of marriages between a man and several women, a woman and several men, and gay marriages.
There are ALREADY thousands of gay couples married, this is just about legal recognition. You've given NO reason NOT to grant it, just "you don't want it." Why? Why should they accept 2nd class status? What's wrong with simple equality?

John From Maryland wrote:

<quoted text>
Well wrote! I don't understand why they insist calling it a marriage? Civil Union with the same rights as a marriage I can agree. But a Marriage is between a man and a woman from the beginning of time.

First, as states and countries that tired to institute civil unions have found, civil unions are not treated the same as marriages even though they were designed to do so. Separate is not equal. Who knew, right?

Second, tradition is not a legitimate reason to deny a group their basic civil rights, including their right to marry the person of their choice.

Ben wrote:

<quoted text>
...Infringing on someone's rights to live how they wish is as anti-American as you can get.

Those who disagree with the government--or activist JUDGES--imposing the notion of the foundational societal institution of "marriage" to be *GENDER IRRELEVANT* on all of society, are merely exercising their First Amendment Rights of free expression.

We are in *no way* denying homosexuals "rights to live how they wish." They can live how they want, with whomever--but THEY have no "right" to redefine what "marriage" is for all of the rest of us, AND DEMAND government 'stamp of approval' upon their lifestyle.

OkieDarren wrote:

John From Maryland--"Well wrote! I don't understand why they insist calling it a marriage?"
Because that's what it is.
"Civil Union with the same rights as a marriage I can agree."
So long as they don't pretend their relationship is as valid as a "REAL" marriage, right? This shows the bigotry ingrained in the refusal to grant REAL equality, including marriage rights. You're saying it's still not the same, still 2nd class, still something less. That's NOT equality, it's not fair, it's not just.
"But a Marriage is between a man and a woman from the beginning of time."
Hogwash. History is FULL of marriages between a man and several women, a woman and several men, and gay marriages.
There are ALREADY thousands of gay couples married, this is just about legal recognition. You've given NO reason NOT to grant it, just "you don't want it." Why? Why should they accept 2nd class status? What's wrong with simple equality?

The bible is full of examples of man's sins However, Jesus instructed that his Father's will from creation was between a man, and a woman they shall become one flesh. Therefore anything outside of this is a sin against one own flesh and the Father's will. All I'm saying is all should respect the real meaning of marriage. I have no right to judge anyone. we all will have to answer for one's self. I with all my heart feel you should have the same rights as any others. Marriage however, for me has a different meaning then you. civil not marriage!

Don Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand that you get all your information straight from the GOP spin room. You may want to notice they re-write history all the time. You have to remember what they say today, to notice they say something different tomorrow. Please pay attention to this. You are being deceived by your information sources. They are outright lying to you. If you pay attention you will clearly see it. Please pay attention.

You "get all your information straight from the [Daily Kos and the like idiots] spin room. You may want to notice [BO, Empress Pelosi, Mr. Bill & Shrill, etc.] re-write history all the time. You have to remember what they say today, to notice they say something different tomorrow. Please pay attention to this. You are being deceived by [the two-faced elitist LIBERAL politicians, and the msm who are in their pockets]. They are outright lying to you. If you pay attention you will clearly see it. Please pay attention."

Olivia wrote:

I believe that homosexuality is a choice. I believe it is the same as any other sin. For example if I was an alcoholic, which I would believe to be a sin, it is a choice. Was I born an alcoholic? No, but for some reason, it is a weakness of mine. I might try for years to overcome this sin and perhaps never kick the habit. Does that means it wasn't a sin because I couldn't help it? No. This is the same way I view homosexuality. For some people this is their weakness. They then have the choice to overcome it or not. This is my mindset. I don't think anyone has to believe the same way I do. I just think that to say the Mormons are being dishonest by using their right to vote is wrong. The Mormons didn't put this on the ballet. They didn't have an agenda. The members of the church who vote to keep marriage between a man and a woman only are letting the state know how they believe since the state was asking.

First – Alcoholism is a disease – unfortunately, one that you may not know you have until you take that first drink not comparable to someone’s sexual orientation and neither is it a weakness or a sin. With all the hate, rage, constant public comment, not having the same rights as a straight person do you honestly believe that a person would make the “choice” to be a homosexual? If they had a choice WHY do you think they would choose the one that makes life more difficult? Homosexuals have lost their jobs, their families, their lives and again you really think they would choose this?

chief22 wrote:

Okie,
right not a "single person" will be better off, not homosexual or normal couple, and few will suffer as a result because nothing will have changed. But Society will be better off in that the foundation of the family will be left intact

How, specifically, will society be better off,, details please

Ace wrote:

<quoted text>
...What a joke to put marriage on some sort of pedestal when it actually represents the failings of our society.

If "Marriage" "represents the failings of our society," then why in ......would you want any part of it?

Ace wrote:

<quoted text>
That was true about inter-racial marriage also.
You guys lost THAT battle, lol.

Who are you referring to as "You guys?" As Dennis Prager wrote in a May article (link below):

..."the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism -- ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side."

townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/... ?

Dram wrote:

<quoted text>
Just remember the US is a republic, not a democracy.

Yes it is. It is also not a *dictatorship* by narrow (majority of 1) judicial fiat!

That is exactly why 4 unelected judges should NOT BE DICTATING to millions of people, radical changes in social policy/laws, which contradict the will of the people, as passed into law by them several years ago.

Brom wrote:

<quoted text>There is no logical relationship between marriage and anything homosexual. The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron....

You might find it interesting and helpful to read articles on these topics at onenewsnow.com , also www.marriagedebate.com , and at www.nationformarriage.org , among others.

Hold on there my Mormon friends...you've already got enough sex scandals running throughout your history - you might not want to get in on this one.

Nimrod wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes it is. It is also not a *dictatorship* by narrow (majority of 1) judicial fiat!
That is exactly why 4 unelected judges should NOT BE DICTATING to millions of people, radical changes in social policy/laws, which contradict the will of the people, as passed into law by them several years ago.

Please look up the definition of a republic.

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
...How is denying the legal recognition of marriage to same-sex couples discouraging homosexuality?....

Can you HONESTLY deny that we GET MORE OF what the GOVERNMENT puts a *stamp of approval upon?*

Here is an example of what I'm referring to:

A few decades ago our brilliant congress decided to authorize welfare payments to young girls who are pregnant and unmarried. Now we have millions of people who are the legacy of this vicious cycle of uneducated, unprepared young girls attempting to raise children.

It still continues, because what the government 'sanctions,' we get more of.

The logical converse is that if government refrains from putting a "stamp of approval upon" something, then it (in this case homosexual relationships) will not increase as much as it would without that government's "stamp of approval."