I wonder if there will come a point that Americans sort their residence based on this issue. I doubt people would leave their current states because they disagree with the marriage laws, but it could be a factor guiding future moves—deciding to take a job in another state. It is puzzling at times how much concern there is about whether homosexuals can marry each other or not, but if this issue didn’t exist then something else would have to take its place. Are there any signs yet in New England what the next banner-rallying conflict will be for them?

I wonder if there will come a point that Americans sort their residence based on this issue.

I think that if we ever do reach a point where a majority (or even a significant number) of states allow gay marriage there will be a move in congress to force all states to accept any legal marriage from any state. Just my opinion.

I grew up and lived for the first 26 years of my life 1 mile from the New Hampshire border. Many of my relatives live in New Hampshire. The first 10 or so years of my working life was spent in jobs in New Hampshire. So I think I am qualified to comment on the culture of New Hampshire.

I would hardly describe NH as “liberal”…the “Live Free Or Die” state is decidedly libertarian. Gay marriage should not be seen as a liberal issue, but it fits perfectly with the libertarian ideal of freedom from government interference, and part of the reason that it is quite in line in New Hampshire. This is a state with no sales or income tax, and even with the influx of Taxachusetts escapees, NH will be quite libertarian and individualistic for some time to come.

I doubt it. A referendum banning gay marriage has succeeded in every state its been tried. As recently as last fall Florida banned SSM with 62% in favor, 29 states in total if I remember right. Here in TX the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed with 75-80% of the vote. Good luck implementing SSM in the South.

Its going to largely remain a deep blue state issue. NE has been in deep decline both economically and demographically since the 1960′s. NY has similar deep economic and demographic issues as well.

1. Jota G – Since I am not an Attorney, I won’t comment on the court issues, but in my simple mind, I do see it as a rights issue.

2. John Mansfield – good perspective John on the need for a cause. Here in Mass I think the new cause is fighting against taxes and corruption – I don’t see any new moral causes on the horizon and you never hear anything about gay marriage anymore (at least as it related to Mass). Sorting where you live – hasn’t that already happened when you look at the electoral map?

3. Dan – I absolutely agree with you on your comments. Divorce and teen age pregnancy (I see a lot of this in my town) seems to destroy many more families.

4. Kari – good point, I see that happening at some point, a tipping point of sorts.

5. Mark D. – thanks for the commentary – sad fact of where we are that you can get divorced more easily than fired.

6. Phouchg – you are correct and I should have split out NH as “live free or die”. We go there quite often and I am amazed at the lack of laws – no helmet laws, some of the towns don’t really have building codes, very relaxed up there about laws.

7. Phouchg – I don’t know, if Mass went that way, I don’t see RI far behind.

8. bbell – true on the anti-gay marriage view in the South, but you may find that the states go with domestic partner benefit laws such as Utah has been contemplating as a compromise…

As for NE being in deep decline economically – do you know where the second largest cluster of biotech companies is in the country? Not in the South. Also, there is a strong financial services industry, medical device and high tech industries here. Hard to be in decline when you have Harvard, MIT and a gazillion other schools. So I respectfully disagree with you on that one.

9. John Mansfield – that may be true, but history is on their side. At some point the cause is lost

I object to equating the Democratic processes of Maine and New Hampshire with the judicial fiat (read: oligarchical thuggery) of Massachusetts and California (the recent California constitutional amendment was a response to a California Supreme Court decision; incidentally, if the court overturns the ballot initiative, it would be reverse its earlier decision expressly allowing the ballot initiative with its wording — the ultimate in ad hoc judicial politicizing).

Furthermore, polls that offer three choices (viz., no recognition, civil unions, and same-sex marriage) consistently show that only a small majority of Americans support gay marriage (cf. this summary at National Review Online).

Polls that offer only two choices (viz., no recognition and same-sex marriage) show that a bare majority support it, but CNN is committing journalistic malpractice by headlining such misrepresentative polls as the basis for meaningful political analysis. It’s biased reporting, and your reaction is exactly what they’re going for.

Dan: The problem with the groups against gay marriage is that their argument just doesn’t hold water… The fact that Massachusetts has not collapsed since 2004 makes that point.

I agree to a point that opponents of gay marriage lack the data they need to show that gay marriage (or things like no-fault divorces) damage our society. That is a real problem. But the fact that Massachusetts hasn’t “collapsed” after four years of allowing gay marriage is entirely beside the point. As I understand the argument the idea is that things like no-fault divorces or gay marriage etc have roughly the same long term effect on our society as cigarettes have on our lungs. That is, the real results might not be obvious until decades down the road in the form of cancer.

With Tobacco the studies that came out, Tobacco has now lost its ubiquity in American society. Lots of individuals died painful deaths along the way but society in American general has come around to frowning on tobacco use. The fear with these social issues (gay marriage, no-fault divorces, etc) is that it very well could be our society as a whole that gets the cancer in the decades to come and that will be a bigger deal. But again, the problem is that without studies to conclusively back up those fears for society the opponents of gay marriage will remain at a major disadvantage in the debate. Supporters of gay marriage can simply accuse detractors of gay marriage of fear mongering and the detractors won’t be able to prove them wrong.

Devyn, the Quinnipiac poll is one of the polls mentioned in the summary that I link to. I’m not misrepresenting anything by neglecting to mention that civil unions enjoy the broadest popularity. For pro-SSM advocates, only full-on marriage will do and they don’t like the civil union solution at all; prop-8, for example, didn’t rule out civil unions, just gay marriage, yet the SSM crowd still called its supporters bigots. Your conclusion that gay marriage is inevitable is the product of CNN’s transparent bias in using misrepresentative polls, which (as I stated earlier) is journalistic malpractice and (as I’ll add at this point) is par for the course with CNN, which publishes a lot of trash and has now become the least watched news channel.

For my part, if you want to know where I stand, you can listen to a podcast that I did a few years ago with J. Nelson-Seawright, Rosalynde Welch, and John Hamer on gay marriage in the old Mormon Matters podcast that John Dehlin used to produce (it’s episode #18, available here). Here’s a summary: I strongly favor civil unions, and I have a mild preference against same-sex marriage legislation and a strong objection to same-sex marriage being imposed by the court. And in practice, I don’t have any issue with gay couples being married under either regime (once our objections and stated and the dust settles, the law is the law, after all).

DKL – True that SSM advocates don’t like civil unions but neither do the prop-8 supporters – it is a compromise that neither side likes, but a viable alternative in my mind. Thanks for the perspective on your stance – seems rational and, while I like the outcome of some court mandated edicts, I certainly agree that it is not reflecting the will of the majority of the people. Key question is (and I am certainly not qualified to go much farther here), is should that matter or should the court represent the rights of all?

“1973: The demise of the shotgun wedding“:

The age of first marriage for women crept upward after 1960, perhaps due to increasing levels of higher education for women. But the marriage age for men had stayed right at 23 until about 1973, after which it shot upwards for about two decades before stabilizing at around 27. Indeed, if I had to guess the very day the average age of marriage for men started to rise, I’d put my money on Jan. 22, 1973, the day the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Devyn S: fair enough, but lets take abortion. It has been legal for 35 years or so. What have been the long-term impacts on our society?

Well if you believe the theories of these guys, one major impact was a major reduction in the crime rate in America…

But really that is beside the point. The impacts that marriage related legal shifts have on our society don’t have much to do with the impact abortion related shifts have on our society. (No more than the impact of tobacco has on health than the impact alcohol has on health if we want to extend that analogy).

Devyn, if the court is empowered to make up fundamental rights out of whole cloth, then the women’s suffrage movement was a huge waste of time and effort. Instead of investing the time and resources to pass a constitutional amendment by winning over a supermajority of 3/4 of the state legislatures, they should have just tried to convince a bare majority of the Supreme Court to discover a right for women to vote in the US Constitution.

Because all Federal Judges and many state judges are appointed, legislating from the bench amounts to oligarchy, and the only plausible justification offered by even the deepest-thinking constitutional theorists is that it yields good results. Since I’d rather live in a democracy with which I disagree than an oligarchy with which I agree, I find this outlook be to detestable. The best retort that the constitutional liberals have to this is that everybody does it anyway, and the examples they proved are pretty laughable, equivalent to saying that everybody is kind of a communist because we don’t object to labor unions in principle.

You are probably right that a tipping point is not too far in the future (unfortunately).
As for “SSM” being an equal rights issue, I will continue to disagree. It is a simple nomenclature issue with a simple solution.

Geoff J, though it’s customary for readers to find Freakonomics to be astonishingly candid, in reality it is pretty superficial fare. Regarding the abortion argument in particular, there is a good deal of dispute surrounding it. Wikipedia is by no means the last word, but its characterization of the dispute is thus:

In work with John Whitley at the University of Adelaide, Lott has considered crime rates and the possible influence of laws which place abortion decisions with the pregnant person other than boards of physicians. They acknowledge the old 1960s argument that abortion may prevent the birth of “unwanted” children, who would have relatively small investments in human capital and a higher probability of crime. On the other hand, their research suggests that liberalizing abortion rules correlates with an increase in out-of-wedlock births and single parent families. In turn, they argue that this increase in single parent births implies the opposite impact on investments in human capital (i.e., average investment per child decreases under their argument). Using the correlation between children in poverty and in single parent homes with crime they build an argument that liberalization of abortion laws increased murder rates by around about 0.5 to 7 percent.

I attribute the decrease in crime to a fairly aggressive attack on lifestyle crimes in major metro areas based on the adoption of James Q. Wilson’s Broken-Window theory of crime.

Yeah, well I wasn’t endorsing the theory DKL, just mentioning it. Obviously it is a highly disputed claim they make. The book is a very interesting read though and the authors actually mention the broken-window theory specifically. (I actually read “Tipping Point” just before I read “Freakonomics” and the author of Tipping Point spent quite a bit of time touting the broken-window theory so I was surprised to see his enthusiastic endorsement on the cover of the later-published Freakonomics)

Devyn #10 –

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment reads: “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It means that the law must treat every person equally. It does not mean that the law must treat everyone equally based on their respective personal preferences. I don’t want to write a treatise, so I’ll keep this relatively simple.

Because of the Equal Protection Clause, the government can’t enact a law that says, “The right hand side of the street is reserved for [INSERT SUBSET OF CITIZENS].” Such a law would not treat every person equally.

That said, just because someone might prefer to use the left side of the street, it would not violate the Equal Protection Clause to enact a law that says, “EVERYONE must use the right hand side of the street.” This enactment would pass scrutiny because it treats every citizen equally even if some citizens preferred the left side of the street over the right side of the street.

Prior to the recent legislative enactments, the law in each state said something to the effect of “Every person of marrying age may marry another person of marrying age of the opposite gender.” Every person was treated equally. Everyone was allowed the same right – i.e., to marry someone of marrying age of the opposite gender. Just because some people didn’t want to marry someone of the opposite gender didn’t mean that the law itself violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Some argue that to be truly “equal” the law must allow any person to marry any other person (or people) regardless of their personal preferences. That may be so, but that does not mean that the law, as it existed, violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Geoff, I haven’t read The Tipping Point, but I did read Blink. Gladwell is a talented popularizer, but I’m suspicious of a lot of the stuff that he writes, because he gets the info about new Coke wrong in Blink. He claims that Coca-Cola misunderstood the results of Pepsi’s taste test because it did not understand results for sip test vs. the home-usage test. However, Coca-Cola was already well aware of the differences in these tests. In fact, Coca-Cola ran television advertisements in the years preceding the release of new Coke in which Bill Cosby answered the Pepsi ads that sited taste-test preferences for Pepsi. In this series of ads, Cosby states that because Pepsi was sweeter, a sip tasted better, but Coke tastetd better for the long haul. If I recall correctly, there were multiple advertisement with this theme, but here’s one that I turned up on YouTube after about 45 seconds of searching.

Furthermore, the taste for new Coke was developed as the Diet Coke product, which included both sip and home-usage taste tests. New Coke was basically a naturally sweetened form of Diet Coke that was also tested for both home-usage and sip tests. Subsequent taste tests by independent teams investigating the dominance of Coke Classic confirmed that new Coke beat every competitor in the cola market by any reasonable standard (just like Bush beat Gore in Florida). Even so, Coca-Cola dropped new Coke in the early 1990s after it a failed attempt to rebrand it as Coke II.

I’ve written extensively about New Coke/Coke Classic (and Diet Coke/Coke Zero) history and many of the issues surrounding it, first as Miranda PJ at Banner of Heaven, and later as DKL. When I read blink (one day sitting in an auto-dealership waiting for them to replace my air conditioning condenser), I was astonished that he got such a simple matter completely incorrect. Since then, I have been equally astonished by how many people I’ve heard repeating it and siting Gladwell as though he had provided the inside scoop on something.

It’s worth noting that New Coke actually tastes nothing like Pepsi. New Coke hits the tongue with a strong sugar flavor, followed by a medium cola impact. In the mouth, it has an orange citrus flavor and caramel finish. Pepsi tastes like cheap high school party punch by comparison, consisting of little more than a light cola impact with a lemon citrus complement.

Diet Coke has the same flavor profile (of course) as new Coke, including the initial sugary impact in spite of the fact that it is altogether artificially sweetened; try Diet Coke with Splenda, which is the closest thing to new Coke to have been on the market since Coke II died. For some strange reason, Diet Coke with Splenda is only available in cans, since Coca-Cola discontinued the bottled version after the first month, in spite of the fact that it sold more than several other of the myriad Coke derivatives now available. I’ve heard that Coke Lite from Mexico is a real treat, but I haven’t been lucky enough to try it.

BrianJ, how do you know that an “at least equal” number of young anti-marriage-equality people will change their views as they mature?

Oops! You’re absolutely right, DKL. Sorry for the error!

SilverRain,

I’m no lawyer, but I’m scientist enough that I know you can’t measure something which is a result of a lack of something. (I.e. you can’t measure the effect of children not being born. Who can say but that one of those children would have found the cure for cancer? Or that they wouldn’t have?) That doesn’t mean that there was no impact.

Now that’s just silly. You can certainly measure the result of things lacking. Google “lack of folic acid” for a simple example with all sorts of measurable results. What kind of scientist are you again?

What really disappointed me about Gladwell is that he had the opportunity to ask the women with the well-trained palettes about Mexican Coke vs HFCS Coke and he didn’t do it. Or if he did the result of the question was edited out of the book. Coward.

Nick,

BrianJ, how do you know that an “at least equal” number of young anti-marriage-equality people will change their views as they mature?

I don’t know, and that was my point: we don’t have enough info to make that prediction, one way or the other. (Is it possible, perhaps, that you mistakenly read a political motivation into my comment #33?)

DKL,

Obviously her example of someone that was aborted finding a cure for cancer and yours of Caesar are in the realm of science fiction rather than science. That doesn’t mean that no reasonably scientific statements can be made about the effect of various rates of abortion on the population and on society.

Addressing you example specifically, I am reasonably certain that had Caesar died of natural causes he wouldn’t be nearly as famous as he is today. Assassination seems to do do wonders for one’s place in history. Ask Abel, JFK, or Jesus.

It seems obvious to me that the Church has already decided that — no matter what happens anywhere else — California is “the tipping point”.

It’ll be real interesting to see what the CA Supreme Court (maybe we should call it the “Surprise Court”) has to say in June, given what has played out in all of these other states since March’s big SC hearing on the topic. Had no advances taken place in other locations since the arguments, pro and con, were made before the court, I could easily see them backing down to some extent on their earlier decision. But now? I don’t think they can just act as if nothing has happened elsewhere in the meantime.

Geoff,

#49,

If they were tying the weakening of marriage and family structure to the destruction of a society like the Roman Empire, then it wouldn’t make sense to attack gay marriage as that really doesn’t have much effect on heterosexual marriage. Contrary to what people like Ms. Prejean believe, you don’t choose between having a gay marriage or a heterosexual marriage. Divorce is still the most dangerous and destructive force against heterosexual marriage and the family unit. Far nastier and deadly than gay marriage could ever become (seeing again that gay marriage is an option for gays and not heterosexuals).

It’s interesting, though, that you do bring up the Roman Empire (and its earlier Greek influences). The Roman Empire was far more open toward same sex attractions, if I remember correctly. And the Roman Empire lasted for 1000 years. The Greeks lasted quite long too. The fact that they tolerated homosexuality did not destroy their cultures nor their civilizations. Why would it America’s? The Roman Empire failed, in the end, because it reached too far for its capabilities, and lesser powers eventually ate it up. It did not fail because of its tolerance for homosexuality.

Why on earth do gay people insist on marriage? All the reasons I’ve heard would work just as well as a civil union. I oppose SSM. I can’t adequately explain why but in my gut I think “no way.”. And Devyn I think we’ve already reached the tipping point. But not for the domino effect of the need for us to stand up or shut up. I see a real battle nationally. That’s the tipping point. We’ve reached the point where we can hope this works itself out. It’s not going to.

21. bbell – yep would likely have broken our welfare system. When I was a missionary in a large city in the US, probably 80% of converts had been involved in an abortion. I was an assistant and had to do many of these second interviews given the volume. After doing so many and hearing the sad stories, I began to think that maybe abortion was not so bad for those poor fetuses after all given the hell they would have been born into. In addition, the abortion and subsequent guilt were often the impetus for seeking God which was so ironic. Anyway, for me it was a eyeopener and really turned the abortion debate on its head.

22. Geoff J Good points and as DKL points out one can manipulate non-data many different ways…

DKL,

Once again you’ve missed both my point and my joke used to illustrate it. Perhaps I should go on at length.

There are certainly things that are impossible to predict with any certainty. You’ve made a great list. There is a large body of fiction dedicated to such speculation.

Despite that there are a few specific things that can be said (such as my joke about being famous) about your example and lots of general things that can be said about SivlerRain’s original statement.

Let’s look at the two slit experiment from particle physics as an example. For any given particle you can’t predict which slit it will pass through, but you can see the aggregate effect of many particles. Similarly we can’t predict the effect of Caesar not being assassinated, but we can make some predictions about the aggregate effects of the legalization of abortion.

Things that it might have a predictable impact on include the population, GDP, revenue from income tax, poverty rate, marriage rate, age of marriage, and even (infamously argued in Freakanomics) the crime rate. One could reasonably extrapolate what the rate of scientific progress would be given various rates of abortion.

So the statement that “you can’t measure the effect of children not being born” is wrong. Go ask the Japanese or the Italians. They are well aware of the effects of children not being born.

If what you (and SilverRain) mean to say is that someone might have aborted the next Einstein (or the next Hitler) and thus changed the course of the world, then I agree that is unknowable. It also doesn’t serve one side of the abortion debate or the other. But given (as you are fond of saying) that we live in the best of all possible worlds then it stands to reason that the cure for cancer has not been lost through the means that SilverRain suggests, for it if where so, then the world in which that did not happen would be a better one, which is, of course, impossible. :)

(I am compelled to include the smiley since all my jokes seem to be missed in the most unfortunate ways.)

29. Seth R. – how does one take Govt out of the situation? Sounds interesting.

30. Geoff J – glad you have read the Tipping Point – it was an interesting read I thought.

31. John Mansfield – she must be a Republican scientist…

32. Jota G – thanks for the mini-treatise that was useful. By that standard though, doesn’t the evolution of society result in shift of what is defined as “fair” – for example civil rights, slavery, etc? If so, then perhaps the definition of marriage could evolve as well to be more “fair”? I have no idea as I am likely on very slippery legal ground here.

33. BrianJ – While I think you are correct that most people become more conservative as they age, it is also true that overall our society is much more tolerant and liberal than 50 years ago. Therefore, it is possible that the “young” may shift to be more against gay marriage the older they get, but overall the entire society will shift to a less conservative stance on the issue (a la women’s rights, civil rights, etc.)

Sorry all for the multiple responses but I thought that many of you had some great points and I wanted to respond.

arj, sorry for missing the humor.

Even so, if you assume that everybody is pretty much like everybody else and that nothing ever changes, than your aggregates statistics can tell us everything we need to know. The problem is that everybody is just like everybody else, except when they’re not.

But even if everybody is just like everybody else, and there are no great historical figures — say we adopt Tolstoy’s view of history — aggregates of people still behave differently based on factors like size and distribution. The Wall Street Journal published an article a few years ago contending that the demographics of abortion favor Republicans; because abortion-minded Democrats had smaller families, the environment selects Republicans. Ironically, if Republicans succeeded in banning abortion, the environment would select Democrats. All of this is clever and certainly plausible on some level, but it’s also altogether hypothetical. If the people aren’t here, all we have is some rough guestimates based on what we know about a sample that may or may not be an accurate sampling of the larger set that we’re speculating about.

Plus, there are myriad uncertainties related to factors such as migration and it’s impact on social policy, land use, and government services. How would America’s economy be impacted if Mexico had substantially more or substantially fewer abortions and the subsequent impact on migrant labor? And these are just the factors that we can foresee. I don’t deny that we can build models to estimate these things, but they’re fundamentally untestable.

61 – Danithew – maybe acceptance of polygamy? Then it all comes full circle… Seriously, it is a good question but I am sure our society will find something else to worry about.

annegb: “Why on earth do gay people insist on marriage? All the reasons I’ve heard would work just as well as a civil union. I oppose SSM. I can’t adequately explain why but in my gut I think “no way.” If your gut feeling is sufficient for you to oppose SSM, why would you ask for a rational explanation from SSM supporters?

Devyn, I did a detailed post on this over at Nine Moons summer of last year:

http://www.nine-moons.com/2008/07/13/looking-toward-egypt-why-government-endorsement-cannot-save-marriage/

It’s the beginnings of a preferred solution. I also think it’s a solution that both Mormons and gays could get behind if we’d drop our hammers for a second and cooperate a bit.

Seth R.,

While the idea of civil unions for all is an idea I would support I have to think that it is (unfortunately) a non-starter because of the “we have to destroy marriage to save marriage” aspect of it.

Not only is this a widely unappealing prospect, but enough of this outcome is on the hands of the courts that it will never happen. There is no way for a court ( as opposed to a legislature) to arrive at such a solution, and it is the courts that are going to reach a solution first.

Danithew, I think the next civil-rights battle will about regarding pets as full-fledged family members. Employers will be pressured to fund health insurance for animals. Public places, such as restaurants, will have to be as accomodating of dogs as they are of children. The pet owners will wish they had not been so successful, though, when leaving a cat home alone all day results in a visit from Pet Protective Services.

Nate – sorry but separate but equal – your entire comment could have been published 40 years ago in reference to Blacks wanting equal rights to whites. It justifies why YOU want traditional marriage to stay that way, but does not address why others want access to traditional marriage.

Never again will I be able to look at restroom doors without thinking that maybe the signs should read “innies” and “outies” instead of “men” and “women”.

Devyn wrote: “… fair enough, but lets take abortion. It has been legal for 35 years or so. What have been the long-term impacts on our society?”

KMB wrote: “Other than the millions of dead/non-existent children, you mean? Was that a trick question?”

Bookslinger says: And the millions of immigrants who have arrived to fill that vacuum. Even among the legal immigrants, think of how many H1B visas have been issued, and consider if any of those aborted babies could have grown up to fill those jobs. X % of those aborted babies would have grown up to be programmers, skilled technicians, doctors, professors, etc.

Geoff J wrote: “Well if you believe the theories of these guys, one major impact was a major reduction in the crime rate in America…”

Bookslinger writes: And in counter point, the crime rate (not counting the crime of illegal immigration itself) of the _illegal_ immigrants from south of the border (who have come in part to fill the vacuum created by the missing workers who were aborted) has now surpassed that of any other demographic in the US. As illegals constitute a growing percentage of our population (at least 10% now, estimates of up to 15%), their higher crime rate then has a growing impact on the overall crime rate (which has been observed in California.)

Geoff J wrote: “As I understand the argument the idea is that things like no-fault divorces or gay marriage etc have roughly the same long term effect on our society as cigarettes have on our lungs. That is, the real results might not be obvious until decades down the road in the form of cancer.”

Amen. When the taboo of homosexuality is mostly gone from our society, and SSM is normalized and made acceptable, a future generation will see homosexuality as an acceptable _choice_.

It’s not the mainstream that will be effected immediately, but the marginal ones. Just as when illegitimacy lost it’s taboo, not every woman went out and had babies out of wedlock. But the marginal cases, those who would have otherwise remained abstinent, or who would have given up their babies for adoption, had and kept their babies. Then it became more and more acceptable. It wasn’t until over a generation later, with a 30% illegitimacy rate (70% among African-Americans), that the effects of having so many children raised in single-parent parent families became obvious to the mainstream.

Within 11 years of national recognition of SSM (the span of a primary and secondary school career), we’re likely to see an increase of the rate of declared homosexuality among those reaching adulthood, in part by those who are marginal in their sexual orientation, such as late-bloomers, or the unpopular. And in part by the adventurous types who like to explore and push boundaries.

Homoexuality won’t be limited to people who feel they are born that way. If homosexuality is totally acceptable in society, no taboos, a future generation will then see it as an acceptable and legitimate choice, and a percentage of them will choose it.

Bookslinger,

a future generation will see homosexuality as an acceptable _choice_.

So you currently view homosexuality as an unacceptable choice? Or a choice at all?

#71:
3. Marriage is a term that has traditionally meant an exclusive lifetime commitment of one innie and one outie who have chosen to forsake all other innies or outies…

BZZZT! Sorry, wrong answer! The tradition of polygyny is much, much longer established than the tradition of monogamy.

9. Society needs to come up with a word to define and recognize this separate but equal relationship.

Wow….Did you sleep through high school civics class? I’m amazed that anyone in this country would advocate a “separate but equal” legal status, given the ubiquitous cultural recognition of the Supreme Court’s view of such arrangements.

“So, annegb, are you prepared to shred that marriage certificate of yours, and give up your personal right to be married, in exchange for a “civil union” certificate? It would “work just as well,” right?”

Don’t know about annegb, but I would.

As far as I’m concerned Nick – you don’t have a right to government approval of your “marriage.” And neither do I. And neither does anyone else in the nation. The tangible benefits that government currently offers to married people can all be offered under the aegis of “civil unions.”

arj,

I agree with you that “civil unions for all” is a tough sell in some respects. It is too easy for people to paint it as “they’re taking away our marriages!” Few state legislators are going to want to give their opponents the opportunity to paint them as “the guy who took away marriage.”

But on the other hand, we’re never going to know how this argument works until we try it. We have to start pushing this idea in the public consciousness.

I have been on numerous gay advocacy forums online and, once I can get people to calm down, they have been willing to concede that this arrangement of civil unions for everyone would at least be acceptable to them. True, they are a bit jaded and don’t think it will ever fly – just like you. But they seem to be willing to “meet in the middle on this.”

And I would point out that here in Colorado a few years ago, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family actually publicly advocated for getting gay couples civil union rights. It was a bit of a shocker, and he took some heat from his own camp for the position. But some of his arguments were similar to mine – if you don’t provide gay couples with rights, they will always be able to play the unfairness card. By giving them rights, you take the wind out of the sails of the gay marriage movement.

Think what you want about him. But I think this shows that even those on the most conservative wing of the Christian Right are willing to consider the options here as well.

But it’s never going to happen if we all just throw up our hands, dismiss this as idealistic nonsense, and retreat to our current state of trench warfare. If we keep up with the current strategy – advocates of traditional marriage are going to lose.

We are going to lose.

This strategy is nothing more than a formula for self-righteous failure. Fairness matters to Americans. In another 20 years, most of the allies for keeping government-sponsored marriage a purely heterosexual affair will frankly be dead.

This marriage exclusiveness movement is going nowhere. We need a new paradigm.

For starters, I’d like to see some young Mormon and Evangelical heterosexual couples bringing lawsuits against state governments claiming that the government has no right to force them to obtain a marriage license on grounds of free exercise of religion. They need to be arguing that the government should provide the benefits normally associated with “marriage” without requiring a “marriage license.”

Churches do not need the government’s permission to solemnize marriages. The fact that the government is currently requiring that we seek its blessing is a violation of the rights of all of us.

We can meet in the middle on this. But only if we are willing to start somewhere.

75. John Mansfield – wow, perhaps she is an anarchist. Sounds like a tough woman…

78. Bookslinger – how do immigrants equate with aborted fetuses? I don’t see the link. Likely we would be in the same situation regarding immigration with or without abortion. Please help me understand your logic here? And what is with the illegal immigrant tirade?

In addition to equate SSM with Smoking/cancer is just wrong. In one case you can measure the impacts on society via hospitalizations, treatment, rate of cancer, etc., while in the other case what are you measuring?

You basically say that if SSM is legal more people will become gay. Hmm, I have a hard time seeing the logic there. Perhaps more people who were closeted homosexuals may come out. I see that as a good thing as it would prevent men from getting married to a woman, having a couple of kids, then leaving to join a homosexual lifestyle.

Nick – I must admit I agree with you thus far on this issue…

Seth R.,

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great idea. My response wasn’t as detailed as it could have been due to typing on an iPhone.

Perhaps a compromise would be to have a date at which all government endorsed unions are called civil unions. That way you don’t have to retroactively change anyone’s government “marriage”.

There are other complications that were brought up in the 9M discussion. The LDS Church currently places a great deal of emphasis on having couples be “legally and lawfully married”. Under your proposal (and frankly under the current situation in some states) the Church would have to start using different terminology in order to specify which unions/marriages it considers acceptable.

There is also the problem that nearly all the arguments (such as they are) that have been used by the Church and others against gay marriage would apply equally to universal civil unions. Getting the church to advocate for civil unions for all (as opposed to civil unions for gays, and marriage for heterosexual couples) would be very tricky. Currently the Church doesn’t actually advocate civil unions for gay people, it is simply not opposed to them.

Longer term where I see this going is an increased emphasis in the LDS Church on sealings as opposed to marriage. We already have our own institution that doesn’t share terminology with the government institution, and the Church will take advantage of that fact.

Devn S: No, your point was pointless. Don’t bring the enslavement of others into this–there is no connecion. Gay people aren’t losing any rights. I’m calling for a separate but equal ‘word’, not relationship. Any outie can go grab another outie, right now, run down to his local attorney’s office and write up a contract that gives them all the same protections as marriage does to the innie/outie people. They just haven’t come up for a word to call it yet and they want to take mine. They are welcome to take my word–to have and to hold it–but they have to do it with their opposite–just like I did.

Nick 79: Do you believe that there is a difference between two innies in a relationship and one innie/one outie in a relationship. If one is an apple and one is a orange. We mix them together and call it a marriage. We’ve done this for forever. Now some guys want to mix two apples and call it the same thing. It’s not the same thing. It’s different. Not less equal, just different. We need a word for each type so everyone can know what to order. Why should I have to give up my word? I’ve had it longer and people know what it means–apple/orange combo.

Nick 82: Right–polygny was around longer. So when we monogamists decided we wanted to try something different, separate and equal, we didn’t try to call it polygny–because that was not what we were doing. We decided to called ours marriage. Gays would do well to follow our example.

They are welcome to take my word–to have and to hold it–but they have to do it with their opposite–just like I did.

Then what you’re really saying is that they’re not welcome to take your word, because you get to remain in control of when and how it gets to be used.

Either they’re welcome to the use of “your” word or they’re not.

Use my car all you want, but you’re not allowed to drive it to liquor stores, gas stations with a big yellow picture of a shell on their sign, or movie theaters that have ever sold buckets of popcorn at outrageous prices, so long as you get my permission to use it 3 weeks in advance, and you tell me exactly where you plan on taking it. Oh, and you’re not allowed to have any passengers with you. (Have I put enough restrictions on it?)

. . . “if many developed nations and 25% of the US population live in regions where SSM is legal, I think it is more likely than not that it becomes legal in more as opposed to less areas in the US.”—Devyn S.

You may be right, but we aren’t close to that point. I considered Prop. 8 to be a potential turning point such as you are considering. I don’t think the combined actions of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have nearly so much weight. Even in Europe, only a few nations have instituted sex-indifferent marriage requirements, yet people act so though it’s law of the land in England, France, and Germany.

ARJ:

It doesn’t matter what I, or you for that matter, think of homosexuality today, choice or not, nature or nurture.

The question I put forth for consideration is how the total removal of the societal taboo (societal homophobia, or what-have-you) will affect how _future_ generations consider homosexuality, specifically the _marginal cases_ as they transition through adolescence and reach sexual maturity or early adulthood.

Even if the gay-apologists are correct in that all gays today are “born that way” (which I don’t 100% agree with, I think there are “nurture” and environmental factors too), that doesn’t mean homosexuality can’t or won’t become an available choice for a fraction of a future generation.

As an example, I point to the trend that started about 10 or 15 years ago for college women to experiment with lesbianism. It became “chic” for a while.

One of the agruments made by gay-apologists is: “Why would we choose homosexuality in this homophobic society?” Okay, so remove the homophobia, and then it becomes available for a choice.

As a pattern of what might happen , I put forth the example of what did happen when our society removed the stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy/birth.

When out-of-wedlock births and keeping the baby had been destigmatized, the _marginal cases_, those who would have been held in check by the social stigma, then crossed the line, and we got more out-of-wedlock births, and more single women keeping their baby instead of giving it up for adoption to a married couple. Then the next ones closest to those marginals became the new marginals, and then they crossed the line too, and so on, and so on.

Now we have 30% of all births, 70% of all African-American births occuring out of wedlock, and society seems to have finally realized that there’s negative societal consequences to that, yet we don’t seem to be going back to the old way of thinking.

It was not an all-or-nothing issue. Destigmatizing out-of-wedlock births did not cause _all_ women to bear children out of wedlock. But look at what a 30% rate overall has done. And many people would say that the 70% illegitimacy rate has devastated the African-American community.

Not every woman gets an abortion, but look at how the normalization of abortion has devalued human life overall. Look at how abortion played a part in lowering our country’s overall birthrate and “provided space” for so many illegal immigrants.

We don’t know what effect the wholesale societal normalization of homosexuality will have on children as they mature from almost asexual beings through adolescence. (Children raised by gay parents still are subject to society’s and the media’s influences, so those studies bear little insight on what will happen.)

We haven’t yet graduated high school students in Massachusetts who’ve been exposed to normalized SSM their entire 12 year school career. So Massachusetts doesn’t tell us much yet. Wait a few more years, and then we’ll see.

We don’t know what the effect will be on those marginal children/adolescents who mature a little slower or later than average, or who don’t get the proper imprinting or bonding with their parents. We don’t know what the effect will be on those marginal people who are “soft-coded” in their sexual orientation as opposed to “hard-coded”.

But like the illegitimacy issue, it doesn’t have to be all-or-nothing. SSM is not going to turn an entire generation gay, but like illegitimacy, it doesn’t have to be all-or-nothing in order to have a huge effect throughout society.

#83:
Civil unions would be society’s concession to something that detours from the norm. I don’t believe homosexuality is normal.

From what I can see, annegb, you’re defining “normal” as whatever you believe your deity directs. What about all the other things that your deity prohibits, that the LDS church doesn’t try to legislate against? Is smoking “normal?” Is sexual activity between two unmarried, but opposite-sex partners, “normal?” How is homosexuality “not normal,” when homosexual activity has been observed in over four hundred species?

Not so many years ago, LDS leaders (among other christians) declared that marriage between persons of two different races was “not normal.” Were they right or wrong?

Those ancient societies who openly practiced homosexuality eventually perished.

Ummm…annegb, those ancient societies who did not openly practice homosexuality eventually perished, as well. That’s why we call them “ancient” societies.

but that step—saying that marriage between a woman and a woman is acceptable under the eyes of God—I’m just not willing to assent to it.

This may surprise you, annegb, but I don’t think you should assent to the idea that marriage between same-sex partners is “acceptable under the eyes of” your deity. I think you should continue to hold whatever doctrinal ideas your conscience directs. I don’t ask you, or anyone else, to agree that my potential marriage is acceptable by any deity. I absolutely support the right of a religious group to refuse ecclesiastical recognition of a legally-recognized same-sex marriage, even to the point of excommunicating any of their members who enter into such a union.

I only ask that our civil government provide civil marriage recognition, rather than using a different label. Calling same-sex committed relationships by another name inherently proclaims that they are inferior and unworthy of being called “marriage.”

#90:
Do you believe that there is a difference between two innies in a relationship and one innie/one outie in a relationship[?]

I’ve been in both an opposite-sex marriage and a same-sex relationship. I’ve also had many opportunities to observe relationships of both combinations. From my observation and experience, I can only conclude that every relationship is different, Nate. (I also think you’re “innie” and “outie” classifications are sadly unimaginative, but that’s a topic for another discussion.)

90. Nate C. – I would not disagree that most of my points are pointless… However, your wording did sound a lot like “separate but equal” which immediately leads me to think of the civil rights movement – do you see it differently? I think that homosexuals are missing out on rights and this is why they want SSM. Will a different word matter if the rights are the same? I have no idea, but I don’t see why you care if they use the marriage word. Why does it matter? To me, we have our special word which is “sealing”

93. Bookslinger – hmm, I really don’t think that this is a productive discussion. We don’t know if any of these people would have been programmers or not. Realistically, the economy would just be larger and we would need that many more programmers anyway as the other xx% would be doing all of the other random jobs people do in this country. Therefore, we would likely still need the immigrants. Ok, so there is higher crime amongst the poor (regardless of ethnicity), what does this have to do SSM?

94. John Mansfield – fair, I think we are agreed that we are likely close (I think closer than you do) but that at some point in the near future we will have tipped the scales and the “war” (as some call it) will be lost.

Devyn: (I have a comment in moderation).

Devyn: Durn it, you first brought up abortion. And you asserted it had no long term negative effects. I’m saying that 40 million abortions since 1972 did have an effect on creating a vacuum due to those 40 million people not being here. The absence of 40 million people who would have otherwise entered the workforce, created a vacuum that has been partially filled by immigrants, legal and illegal. Well, not all 40 million would be in the workforce now, but all those aborted prior to 1987 would have been.

It didn’t just shrink the population across all age groups, it wiped out the babies, and changed our population pyramid to more of a tower or obelisk. I believe it did create a demand, because the older generations kept chugging along, and there weren’t enough young up-and-comers to fill the entry-level positions created.

Abortion had long term consequences in terms of numbers/demographics, in addition to changing attitudes about the sancity of life. So I’m countering your assertion that abortion had no long term effects.

Your assertion that “there’s high crime among the poor regardless of ethnicity” is also misleading if not outright incorrect. Culture/Ethnicity (not just ethnicity alone and not just poverty alone) factors in a big part of crime stats even when you hold economic status constant. The crime rates during the Great Depression were nothing like what started in the 1960′s, so poverty per se doesn’t cause crime.

The illegal Hispanic demographic has higher violent crime rates than any other demographic, even when comparing equal economic status. The fact is that by letting in all the good hard-working Hispanics who’re just looking for work to support their family, the unintended consequence of it being _uncontrolled_ immigration is that many criminals and predators (pimps, drug dealers, thugs, rapists, murderers) took the same opportunities and crossed the border with them. And the criminals were able to do so precisely because there were no controls.

It all illustrates unintended consequences of when too many people refuse to admit there were reasons for things like laws and social conventions, and they do away with those laws and social conventions saying “don’t worry, nothing will happen”. Well, they’ve often been wrong so far.

This is all a prelude to trying to open people’s minds to consider the consequences of normalizing SSM and removing society’s taboo against homosexuality. My comment in moderation goes into more of the linkage between societal approval of homosexuality and a greater percentage of ‘marginal’ people then choosing homosexuality.

The belief that homosexuality is totally in-born and only in-born will not be universally true under a new paradigm where society removes the barriers (stigmas, homophobia, etc) that keep in check some people who are on the edge about their own sexual orientation.

Having known cases where childhood sexual abuse or recruitment/grooming seemed to guide some impressionable or “soft-coded” (in terms of sexual-orientation) people towards homosexuality, I’m not subscribed to the idea that homosexuality is totally genetic or in-born.

Society’s approval (via SSM, and the attending curriculum changes in schools) will really open the doors for that segment of the homosexual community that does recruit/groom.

So not only have you bought into unproven assumptions about the origens/causes of homosexuality, you’re also ignoring past illustrations (such as abortion and illegitimacy) of the unintended consequences of social re-engineering via removal of long-held social stigmas.

I do not look forward to the world that SSM proponents want to bring about. They are the same “team” that brought us no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, and removed the stigma of out-of-wedlock births.

Any particular reason my #105 is “awaiting moderation?” If I managed to get myself blacklisted, I hope one of the moderators will advise me.

#98 Nick, oh of course you’re right about the “ancient” civilizations. I crack myself up with my dumbness.

But if I look at this from an eternal perspective, taking literally the Plan of Salvation (or maybe simplistically), I believe we came here to establish eternal families. And the prophet talks about marriage between a man and a woman. Although, on the other hand, I don’t want to be with anybody eternally, so I guess I should just say “knock yourselves out, gay people.” Can’t do it.

Well said, bookslinger.

Grooming occurs with pedophiles, too. It’s that sort of benign loving sexual contact that starts when a child is very very young. So confusing for the child.

An eternal perspective is key when assessing acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle. Because gay people are people, human beings, some good and some bad and I love some of them. It’s so easy to get confused and think because they are good and kind and generous people, their lifestyle must be okay.

I’ve become less and less sure of this issue as time has passed for this very reason. But I have to think of why I’m here—why we’re all here. We lived with God before we were born, we are here for a reason and we will live with Him again. This life isn’t all there is. If we believe—and I do—that Heavenly Father is a man and his partner is a woman and we are to become like God, the debate is over.

That doesn’t do much for those who are living in anguish because they have homosexual feelings or because they have a loved one struggling. But it does make it easier to know which side of the debate for SSM marriage we come down on.

Devyn’s right, this has gone beyond hypothetical. We can’t have some states recognizing gay marriages while others don’t. The logistics become a nightmare. We as a country have to decide. And at that point, this very gray issue will need to become black and white.

Makes me glad I live in this little corner of southern Utah; which is a hotbed of bigotry and judgement and church activity is a great substitute for compassion and Christ-like living.

104. Bookslinger – I did first bring up abortion but you brought up immigration :)
Is it really 40M since 1972 – Wow? I am not sure you can equate the lost people with a vacuum as really there is not vacuum since people were still born during this time period. If there had been an additional 40 M born, then they would have dispersed through all of the random things people do so the overall economy will be larger and the need for more immigrants would be available… I should note that most of the positions filled by various immigrants are service positions not high tech. So I am not sure I completely agree with you – it is easy to argue either position without any data. I also don’t really see the link between abortion and SSM…

I will check on the moderation comment.

I disagree with you, Seth, about the church changing this policy to conform. Marriage between a man and a woman are at the heart of our faith. We lived with God before we were born; his companion is a woman. If the gospel is true, there can be no allowances made for homosexual marriage. If it isn’t true, it doesn’t matter.

If the gospel isn’t true, then of course, it’s only fair and right to allow all people the same privilege.

But looking at it through the lense that Joseph Smith saw and spoke with God, that we have the restored gospel, that life is eternal, it’s just not the way life was meant to be. I can’t reconcile the two. Can you? Marriage between a man and a woman are fundamental to our faith. There’s a lot you can allow, like shorter garments; and corrections to be made, like black men and the priesthood; marriage and family is not one of those places that needs to be corrected.

I have so many beefs with our leadership and I’m deeply disappointed in the lack of true Christianity in the members I live among, but I believe we got this one right.

B Tippets – Not sure what the point of your article was from Iowa, but I tend to agree with Nick that it is pretty much garbage.

Sam, ROTFLOL!!! :-)

Nick – what is your prediction for the future in the case of SSM? What is the view of the community on this issue (not the goal, but the realistic view)?

annegb, the problem with your logic is that you’re relying on your own particular faith’s unverifiable version of pre-earth history, along with your particular faith’s version of correct behavior. Mind you, it’s entirely okay for you to rely on those beliefs for your own personal decisions.

It is not particularly useful, however, for you to use the subjective beliefs of your particular faith as a basis for legislation which restricts the legal rights of other members of society, who don’t subscribe to your faith. In the civil/political sphere, your religious beliefs (or mine) are no more valid than those of Catholics, Muslims, Scientologists, or even Satanists. Just because you think your particular religion is right (just as followers of most other religions think their particular religions are right), doesn’t mean that your faith in an objectively-true basis for legislation.

Nick,

It is no more subjective of Anne to attach her religion and values than for you to attach your values to the debate- whether they be arguments of equlaity or rights, they are values.

The only way into a meaningful discussion, or action on SSM is to ACCEPT other people’s subjectivity, let them tell their story and seek some consensus. And others ought to accept your subjectivity, though no more than Anne’s or anyone else’s.

Thinking that laws and rights are objective is naive at best. Thinking that there is true objectivity is naive. We all reference from the context in which we stand, from the moment in which we stand.

Besides, following a philosophy of empiricism and objectivity goes against your movement- those are decidedly enlightenment etimologies that are masculine in nature- generally accepted as sexist and racist. Our global society demands a more holistic approach to problems, unless we simply want wars of ideas and cultures. And then we are only continuing the practice of getting what we want at the expense of society- not in terms of SSM, but in terms of conflict and hate.

123. nasamomdele – oh I lost “it” long before this, but you bring up a good point that my own bias shows through in the post – that is always the challenge in these things, I always have a bias and it usually shows through in the posts – I am happy to admit my flaws there… Although it is both bias and experience as I have seen no change in any way since SSM was allowed here. No one ever talks about it anymore and we live in an area with a lot of gay couples. It just seems to be a non-issue now.

125 – Anne – fair response

#125:
So, I get to choose what I believe. It doesn’t have to make sense, it’s just what I believe.

Absolutely! I think you know me well enough to realize that I would defend your right to believe what you will, whether it “makes sense” or not.

Because this is a Mormon blog, I think it’s pertinent to bring the discussion back to our idea of eternal life.

Oh, I get that. At the same time, however, this blog has pretty consistently welcomed different viewpoints other than the “Mormon” view. (I’d say the modern LDS view is, in itself, different from historical “Mormon” views, but that’s another discussion.) I’m not trying to say you can’t bring up your religion’s creation story in explaining your views.

Rather, I’m suggesting that the creation story of any particular faith is a poor basis for civil policy decisions in a diverse population. In the civil arena, one faith’s unverifiable creation story is no more significant than any other faith’s unverifiable creation story.

I’m pretty sure that none of the various competing faiths want civil legislation to be based on some other faith’s unverifiable creation story. If anything, they all want civil legislation to be based on their own unverifiable creation story, whether that be the LDS “council in heaven,” or the Scientologists’ invasion by Zenu (sp?) and his alien minions.

Sorry, I didn’t notice #120.

Honestly, I think it’s realistic to expect full marriage equality in the United States within about 15 years. Most states will do it on their own, but a few will hold out until the Supreme Court intervenes. In other words, it will proceed just as inter-racial marriage has. Within 30 years, most members of society will find it amazing that the matter was such a conflict. Some religious groups will find a way to adapt, while others will remain adamant in refusing to recognize same-sex marriages as legitimate in the eyes of deity, perhaps excommunicating congregants who enter into such legal unions. The religious freedom of both types of religious groups will continue to be protected by the U.S. Constitution.

In short, to the surprise of some, life will go on, pretty much as it always has.

Nick – thanks for the answer. I would agree with your prediction for the most part. Do you really think it will take Supreme Court intervention? Would we ever see an equal marriage amendment? But in the end, we will all look back at much ado about nothing as religious marriages will be protected as will SSM.

Queuno – you are likely correct, I don’t see the Church recognizing SSM anytime in the near future.

John, my understanding that the reason for the ban on interracial marriage here in the US was purely about separation and prejudice. I could be wrong but that seems to be why it was instated. At least there were racially segregated marriages at the time that were “equal”. In the SSM case there is definitely a separate but equal approach to things that smacks of the civil rights era in my mind regardless of how I feel about SSM from a religious perspective.

# 127 Nick,

How do you define objectivity without values in the mix of waht not to do? If you’re talking about subjectivity/objectivity, 1) you’re kidding yourself, 2)you’re talking about the evils of moral positions, value positions, and ethical framework. Frankly, the fact you’re addressing faith in terms of your own values (civil superiority) while claiming objectivity is comical.

Like I said, you ought not try to supress religious testimony in an effort to make faith invalid in civil discussion. Doing so is bigotted and has a history of being frowned upon. Welcome faith into the debate and address it on equal and civilized terms.

#136:
Nasamomdele, your comment suggests that you’re completley misunderstanding me. Let me try to help clarify things:

We’ve talked about two kinds of religious beliefs here, moral values and historical claims. These are two very different categories. For example:

Moral Values include such beliefs as:
“All men are created equal”
“Homosexuality is evil.”
“Interracial marriage is wrong.”
“Giving food and shelter to the poor is good.”

Historical Claims include such beliefs as:
“All men were created as children of her deity, prior to the existence of this earth.”
“Odin created the earth from the corpse of a giant he killed.”
“P’an Ku, while he was growing inside an egg, created the world, then broke his way out of the egg, only to die in the effort of further creation. His body parts the became various geographical features.”
“Humans evolved from clams, and then the spirits of aliens killed by Xenu attached themselves to our ancestors, causing most of our mental and physical ailments.”

To distinguish between the values and the historical claims of religion is not an “attack on religion.” You’ll notice that I didn’t pass judgment on whether Annegb’s particular historical claims were accurate. I only noted that they were unverifiable, and that they conflicted with the unverifiable historical claims of many others, whether religious or secular. As such, those historical claims don’t provide a real basis for civil legislation.

Annegb’s moral values, on the other hand, can be a genuine part of the discussion toward civil legislation. Not everyone will agree on every moral value, but we can seek out common ground and understanding. Annegb and I may disagree on our moral values regarding homosexuality, but I suspect we do agree on the moral value that “all men and women are created equal.” Ideally, we find a way to build on those common values.

In some cases, building on common ground means recognizing that our personal moral values are best used to govern our personal behavior, rather than the behavior of society at large. For example, I do not believe that my personal moral values regarding homosexuality should govern the teachings or practices of religious groups which hold different moral values on that subject. Nor do I believe that the moral values of certain churches toward homosexuality should legislatively govern the behavior of those who don’t share their particular faith. As a result, I don’t try to make the Westboro Baptist Church (for example) change its beliefs regarding homosexuality, though I can disagree with those beliefs and oppose attempts to enforce those beliefs on society at large.

I hope this helps you to understand better what I was saying.

Bro. Jones – nicely put – I agree with you exactly. It is more of a choice / freedom issue for me than moral.

Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, gave an honest answer to a politically charged pageant question more than three weeks ago, and has been viciously attacked ever since. I’ve been appalled and disgusted by all who have sought to ruin the life and reputation of one who chose to voice her honest and widely held, yet “politically incorrect” opinion about the nature of marriage.

It warms my heart to see her courage and conviction in the face of such an overwhelming onslaught of contempt. Her experience has encouraged and inspired me immensely to continue to stand firm for marriage. I am heartened to hear of the hundreds and thousands of people who have offered their support for Carrie and her views during the character assassination she has regrettably had to endure.

It’s unfortunate that we have had to learn from Carrie’s experience that intolerance for Christian or conservative beliefs runs rampant. It’s interesting that such a level of intolerance even exists given the ardent pursuit of “tolerance” championed by the left.

We have seen that an outright effort to search and destroy often takes place when religiously based views are publicly expressed. That critics would stoop to the depths of digging up dirt from Carrie’s parents’ divorce is unconscionable.

Defenders of Marriage Need Not be Perfect

Carrie Prejean is not perfect. None of us are. She’s done some things I don’t necessarily agree with. But, let’s be clear that defenders of marriage or any other religious belief need not be perfect to speak up or stand up for that which they believe is right and good for society.

I’ve said it before that I’m not a big fan of pageants or modeling, as I believe they increase the chances of having to compromise one’s standards and beliefs. It’s not a career choice for those concerned about modesty. But this notion held by some that those who profess religious beliefs must somehow be perfect in order to express an opinion is an unacceptable standard that must be rejected outright.

Carrie was unwittingly forced into a public firestorm after expressing her sincere belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. (Incidentally, expressing one’s opinion is still a constitutional right in this country, though it will be seriously weakened if so-called “gay marriage” advocates have their way.)

It’s quite telling that you simply never see anything like the kind of attack Carrie has endured when the comments voiced are left leaning.

Thankfully many have risen to the occasion to offer support even amidst Carrie’s mistakes of the past. Maybe other young women will learn that posing for any questionable photos is not a good idea.

Still Standing Strong

In a press conference on May 12, 2009 Miss California , Carrie Prejean, shared some of her story since standing up for marriage:

“Being at the center of a media firestorm is not something that I had planned or signed up for. But the days since have taught me to stand up for what you believe in regardless of the consequences, personal attacks, or disagreements…. I am not an activist, or anything, nor do I have a personal agenda. I was thrown into this firestorm from the time I was asked the question on stage. I have become an advocate for the importance of not redefining marriage based upon my own upbringing and beliefs. While I am not the most vocal proponent of traditional marriage, it appears that by my singular response I have become the most visible.”

Carrie went on to say, “Young adults and teenagers are greatly impacted by both media and culture, and I want to encourage them to maintain their integrity and not concede their values because of what they see or hear going on around them.”

Never Back Down

Carrie went on to tearfully express her pride in America and her appreciation for those who have fought for her freedom of speech (which has been under attack):

“I am proud to be an American. I am proud of the freedoms we enjoy because of the brave men and women serving this great country and who have served. My grandfather served under General Patton during World War II and is someone I admire greatly…. He did speak about the freedoms he fought for, and taught me to never back down and never let anyone take those freedoms away from you. On April 19 on that stage I exercised my freedom of speech, and I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America . It undermines the Constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought.”

Do Not Be Silenced

Although her life has been significantly altered since that fateful question weeks ago, Carrie Prejean expressed her newfound understanding of the purpose of the nasty experiences she has endured since speaking in support of marriage. She has been strengthened by the ordeal, and has developed a passionate conviction for encouraging us all to stand for our values and beliefs. She stated:

“I am convinced now more than ever of the importance of standing up for your beliefs and convictions. For everyone out there listening—Do not be silenced! Take this story of mine and apply it to your own life. I hope I have inspired others to maintain compassion, civility, respect and tolerance while staying true to your convictions, and to never, ever compromise your beliefs in the pursuit of his or her own goals—regardless of the consequences.”

We Can Agree to Disagree

In her closing comments, Carrie Prejean made another great point suggesting that we all show respect for each other’s differing views, and simply agree to disagree on the issue of marriage. She said, “Think about how much better out society would be if we could just agree to disagree and show respect.” In all my study and pondering on the subject thus far, simply agreeing to disagree seems to be the only viable option.

Contrary to some opinions, standing up for marriage has nothing to do with “hatred” toward anyone, and everything to do with a belief in marriage and its vital role in raising children and sustaining civil society. This is not about being against anyone or anything. It’s about being for marriage.

Why Marriage Matters

A well-known media personality recently commented on how public opinion had significantly shifted on a politically charged issue in favor of the conservative perspective. He noted that it was because of constant effort to teach the truth about the issue.

Taking the time to reinforce the importance of and truth about marriage allows hearts and minds to be proactively influenced for good. Protecting the definition of marriage holds within its grasp the keys to protecting our freedom to speak and our freedom to live by our religious beliefs.

The marriage debate often gets muddled with a lot of secondary distraction. So, I reiterate here what’s at stake in the marriage debate. The issue is threefold:

Marriage is a sacred institution for rearing children. It is not up for redefinition.
Freedom of speech is at stake.
Freedom of religion is under attack.
Marriage as a sacred institution. Marriage is a sacred institution instituted by God for the procreation and ideal rearing of children by a biological mother and father. As it states in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” “Marriage between man and woman is essential to [God's] eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.”

Marriage is the best method for raising healthy, happy and well-adjusted children even though we all fall short of perfection in marriage and parenting. The definition of marriage—divinely designed by God—is not up for human redefinition. People may have the right to live as they choose, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Freedom of Speech. As Carrie Prejean’s chilling experience so well illustrates, one’s belief in God’s design for marriage puts you at risk of being silenced in the public arena. If marriage were to be officially redefined, we might all be accused of “hate-speech” in speaking out for traditional marriage. It’s already been happening around us.

On the side of teaching children, you can bet that our children will be taught that a man and a man or a woman and a woman (or whatever combination they come up with next) will be an acceptable alternative to a husband and wife. The inevitable message will be sent that a father or a mother is unnecessary and/or unimportant in raising children if same-gender couples become redefined as equal to a mother and a father.

Freedom of Religion. According to the National Organization of Marriage (NOM) prominent religious liberty scholars have warned that any legislation changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would weaken religious liberty.

Imagine a Christian minister being forced to perform a same-sex ceremony against his beliefs. Religious beliefs supporting traditional marriage would no longer be sufficient protection. For a country founded on the freedom to worship and live by religious principles, religious freedom must be protected.

Fear Not

In watching the ongoing drama surrounding Miss California and the issue of marriage, it has at times seemed disheartening. The hate and contempt displayed has been astounding. Although the battleground for marriage may seem particularly rancorous at times, I take comfort and direction from the scripture, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kings 6:16).

The issue surrounding marriage is not just about two individuals and their private lives. It’s about the future for our children, for civilization, and for our freedom of speech and religion. The issue of marriage has become Satan’s latest battleground to weaken marriage, family and society.

I join Carrie Prejean in her call to stand for marriage, and never back down. We must not ever allow ourselves to be silenced. What’s at stake is simply too great.

Mr. Tippetts,

You need to stop plagiarizing other people’s work. This is the second time in two weeks.

http://strengtheningmarriage.com/blog/culture/still-standing-strong-for-marriage/

143. John Mansfield – I must admit that is a funny response – it certainly made me laugh

144. Jota G – nice catch…

Nick,

It is impossible to separate value statements from historical claims. Your value statements stem from your rejection of historical claims of one color in favor of historical claims that validate your decisions, dispositions, temperament, genetic makeup, wiring, or whatever you might call it.

Annegb is equally validated in her statement of faithful historical claim- though it does not apply to you. But you are under the same responsibility you claim her to be under- you must either recognize the difference in her claims from yours as valid or you end up the bigot.

Just because you don’t believe in the fore-ordination and sacred nature of heterosexual marriage does not take away from its truth- according to those who feel that it is truth. Sounds like something close to your own heart, doesn’t it?

This says nothing about civil unions or any other form of marriage that is or will be government-recognized. Many SSM proponents are likely to be supportive of full civil union rights for SS partners. Marriage is tied deeply to their cultural and belief-story, which shapes their values, which I have been arguing that you ought not dismiss either.

Personally, I don’t care about were you or anyone else stands, but attacking someone’s personal beliefs as invalid is simply intolerant.

As Jota G noted, #142 is just a “cut and paste” posting from an anti-marriage-equality website. This practice seems to be popular among a few LDS bloggers, and I’m not sure why. Do the “cut and paste” bandits, who rarely cite the source of their material, hope that they’ll appear personally erudite by stealing another’s words? Do they think that the posted material will somehow settle all debate on a question, without the slightest personal commentary to make it relevant to the discussion at hand? Do the authors of these essays send out private “repost what I said everywhere you can on the Internet, in blogs, etc.” messages to their devoted readers? If the “cut and paste” bandits feel so strongly, why can’t they articulate their position in their own words?

I’ve been appalled and disgusted by all who have sought to ruin the life and reputation of one who chose to voice her honest and widely held, yet “politically incorrect” opinion about the nature of marriage.

The only person capable of ruining Ms. Prejean’s reputation is Ms. Prejean. Ms. Prejean posed for photographs which most conservatives would consider pornographic, and then lied about that fact when she filed her application for the Miss California USA pageant. Once villified by the embarassingly classless Perez Hilton, Ms. Prejean abandoned her contractual duties as Miss California USA, choosing instead to engage in a media blitz for the National Organization for Marriage and other anti-marriage-equality groups. Ms. Prejean allowed these groups to hold her up as a shining example of “christian” virtues. Quite predictably, the skeletons in Ms. Prejean’s were soon revealed. Ms. Prejean’s first reaction was to lie, claiming that no other such photos existed. When more photos were discovered, Ms. Prejean and her “christian” meal tickets attempted to shift attention away from Ms. Prejean’s repeated lies, by accusing gays of “religious persecution.” The above author continues this game, claiming to be “appalled and disgusted” by those who exposed Ms. Prejean’s true character, while avoiding any discussion of Ms. Prejean’s repeated deceptions and pornographic modelling–something that the author would also likely consider “appalling and disgusting,” if it wasn’t so inconvenient to her argument.

It’s unfortunate that we have had to learn from Carrie’s experience that intolerance for Christian or conservative beliefs runs rampant.

Apparently the author is so enamored by Ms. Prejean’s anti-marriage-equality views, that she now considers “bearing false witness” and soft-core pornography to reflect “christian or conservative beliefs.”

But, let’s be clear that defenders of marriage or any other religious belief need not be perfect to speak up or stand up for that which they believe is right and good for society.

So in effect, any personal behavior can be overlooked by this author, so long as Ms. Prejean is anti-marriage-equality. That single view apparently cleanses Ms. Prejean’s character of any stains!

Carrie was unwittingly forced into a public firestorm after expressing her sincere belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

To the contrary, Ms. Prejean took every opportunity to capitalize on the fame her pageant experience could bring. Nobody “forced” Ms. Prejean to go on countless right-wing interview programs (while failing to appear for her contractually-required appearances elsewhere). Ms. Prejean has milked this controversy for all she can get.

“On April 19 on that stage I exercised my freedom of speech, and I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America . It undermines the Constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought.”

Ms. Prejean, along with the author quoting her, would do well to take a basic civics class. The First Amendment applies only to efforts by the government to suppress speech, and there is no indication that any government has acted in any way with regard to Ms. Prejean’s pageant comments. Further, Ms. Prejean is engaging in the new tactic of the anti-marriage-equality movement, claiming that anyone who criticizes their words or actions is “punishing,” “persecuting,” or “denying them their rights.” There is no constitutional right to have one’s statements or actions free from criticism. Nor is one’s claim to religious motivation a “trump card” (no pun intended), making it illegal/immoral/unethical to criticize those statements or actions.

Contrary to some opinions, standing up for marriage has nothing to do with “hatred” toward anyone, and everything to do with a belief in marriage and its vital role in raising children and sustaining civil society. This is not about being against anyone or anything. It’s about being for marriage.

Despite the rhetoric of this author, it’s the supporters of marriage equality who are “standing up for marriage.” The right of same-sex couples to marry does not, in any way, infringe upon the right of opposite-sex couples to marry. The only parties trying to destroy marriages are the opponents of marriage equality, who are actively trying to destroy over 18,000 marriages which took place in California during 2008.

As Carrie Prejean’s chilling experience so well illustrates, one’s belief in God’s design for marriage puts you at risk of being silenced in the public arena.

It is truly breathtaking that anyone would suggest Ms. Prejean has been “silenced in the public arena!”

…if same-gender couples become redefined as equal to a mother and a father.

Here the author betrays her supposed passion for equality and freedom. Note that the author clearly states that it would take “redefinition” for a same-sex couple to be “equal to” an opposite-sex couple. It’s not about “protecting marriage.” It’s about this author’s insistance that homosexuals are inferior and unequal to heterosexuals.

Imagine a Christian minister being forced to perform a same-sex ceremony against his beliefs.

That’s all the author can do—”imagine.” Either the author’s already-evident lack of education regarding the Constitution is worse than we thought, or (more likely) she’s knowingly engaging in the same sort of false witness that Ms. Prejean did, hoping to frighten readers into believing something that is clearly prevented by the First Amendment.

Yes, I think you’ve been incredibly polite, Nick. I’m conflicted about the whole thing, to tell the truth, but then I go back to the Plan.

Back to Devyn’s original post and question, I see a real problem if the US legalizes gay marriage. I don’t mean a problem in the way it impacts society, but I’m thinking a civil war problem. There are those who simply won’t accept it. There’s no peaceable solution to this.

Unless homosexuals accept the societally (I don’t know if that’s a word) “less-than” solution of civil union or contracts.

That feels respectful to all to me and eliminates the war that I believe will erupt. Well, the war is supposed to erupt anyway. I never thought about it being over SSM until now.

I believe that Obama is trying very hard to reconcile all parties, within his own belief system. But it feels like the polarity is growing, not lessening.

149. nasamomdele – it is scary but true. The state can define something to be whatever it deems. Look at the definition of a POW and how that evolved with GITMO. Other examples include whether cigarettes are a drug or not, who can vote, etc.

On July 24, 2008, Orson Scott Card publicly (in the Deseret News) called for the overthrow of any government which provided marriage equality. He stated that if a government didn’t ban same-sex couples from civil marriage, “then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.”

He further elaborated: “Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down…”

Lest there be any misunderstanding, Card ended: “If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.”

http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=3237 (emphasis added above).

You will note that Mr. Card’s language was particularly militant, and did not in any way rule out violence (indeed, quite arguably urged it) as a means of political change.

I said before that our historical claims, or perspectives, shape our values. To say otherwise would be to propose that you are a wholely spontaneous personal with no wiring of schema or heuristic. Your shrink would get a good laugh over that one.

This is also an untrue statement. My value of “all men and woman are created equal” in no way conflicts with Annegb’s historical claims.

Ah, but all I said is that you reject annegb’s claims, as well as the possible claim that all men are not created equal (not credited to annegb).

You’ll notice that Annegb has not claimed that I have attacked her beliefs.

Oh, I’m not defending Annegb, Nick.

You say it very well here:

…my original point—that one particular religion’s ideas about history aren’t sufficient to overrule all others’ ideas, when it comes to forming public policy.

My point is that ideas about religion are as valid as ideas derived from science or any other means. I keep calling what you are saying “attacks” on reiligion because you have not separated the word “religion” from what you see as flawed in pro-sanctity of marriage movement epistemology. You’ve only refered to religious values, religious historical claims, and religious ideas as being less-than some other ideas out there, mostly by precluding them from rational decision-making for public policy on grounds of unverifiability.

I say that’s a political position that is succeptable to its own range of irrationality.

One’s religious ideas are enough to inforn one individual as to their voting preferences and therefore, inform and sometimes dictate public policy. Such is Democracy.

Such influence should not be looked at as us v. them, but rather as an opportunity to tell our (equally valid) stories and come up with a sensitive win-win prescription. All we have to do is see each others’ values as valid and equal.

Many SSM proponents [I think you really mean "opponents" here?] are likely to be supportive of full civil union rights for SS partners.

This is much like a 1960s racist claiming that many who oppose social integration of the races are likely to be supportive of fully-operational separate water fountains for “coloreds.”

Wild swing. The diferences can actually be so stark that you would think yourself silly for bringing up this over-regurgitated talking point.

Let’s examine a few things.

1) “Separate but equal” was not. Thus its failure.

2) For the federal gommint to arguably ‘redefine’ marriage, it would have to weigh: the impacts on those who do not agree with SSM (religious liberties, civil liberties), or even the viablility of LGBT as a viable human condition- weighed against the benefits to the public in providing a definition of ‘marriage’ to include any combination of genders. This is a very tall order and will likely be left to states for a long time.

You would have to subjugate the beliefs of many people in order to reform the definition of one word that means more than rights (and more than America) to them. I for one, see government as a transient, impermanent, and fluid concept, especially compared to my religious historical traditions.

3) The federal gummint could legislate a civil union, or common law union based solely on legal recognition of a couple’s legal and financial unification. Let ‘marriage’ be, and simple grant equal rights to all commited partnerships, except to the value-loaded title of ‘marriage’, which will denote a religiously specialized form of union. Then you let religions or private organizations define what they want ‘marriage’ to mean. Blammo! ‘Separate but equal SSM works!

Really, my only real point here is that:

1) Faith is a valid informer of public policy/voting/politics – as valid as epistemology of “equality and liberty”.

Look into ethical theory and you’ll find that there are a range of epistemologies, and that is only one- it is not universal and is not the one truth, just as one faith is not.

I don’t think the population is as diverse as you do, Nick. I don’t know all the big words you guys do but my view historically here is based on eternity, not the rise and fall of the Roman empire.

Do you believe in the Plan of Salvation and how does that figure in this debate for you?

#160:
I don’t think the population is as diverse as you do, Nick.

I speak of a “diverse” citizenry in the sense of having many different beliefs and values, Annegb.

…my view historically here is based on eternity…

Yes, I understand that you accept LDS teachings regarding historical events alleged to have taken place prior to the creation of this earth. Many others have very different beliefs concering the historical creation of the earth, involving such things as giant eggs, demon corpses, and space aliens named Xenu. Naturally, you would not expect everyone to accept without question the historical claims of your particular religion (with its relatively paltry 15 million or so members of record, approximately half of which are active).

#161:
I stand with the LDS Church on this one that marriage is between man and woman and try to redifine it may have detriment influences on children.

Unfortunately, the LDS church engaged in a highly-funded political crusade to redefine marriage in California. You are correct that the LDS church’s successful effort to redefine marriage in California brought detrimental influences on thousands of children, who now lack the legal protections which are given to children of heterosexual married parents.

If marriage were to be officially redefined, we might all be accused of “hate-speech” in speaking out for traditional marriage. It’s already been happening around us.

While we’ve been focusing on the terrible example of Ms. Prejean, I think that this is a valid concern. At what point does our Church’s advocacy of a particular standard turn us into “hate speech” advocates?

Frankly, I think this was more of the point of Prop 8. That, and a Zion’s Camp paradigm…

Sorry for the duplication. I did not tell the first post came through .

“Unfortunately, the LDS church engaged in a highly-funded political crusade to redefine marriage in California.”

This Year Zero tactic of the anti-8s is pretty disturbing.

I never suggested that anyone’s values were not influenced by their understanding of history.

In proposing a dichotomous or mutually exclusive relationship, you did.

For the record, my understanding of the history of this discussion is that you are the only one who has resorted to suggesting that those who disagree with you are in need of professional mental health treatment.

I call shenanigans: cop-out. An equally sinister cop-out: I’m not the one saying here that all people who have a shrink are in need of mental health treatment. I only mentioned a shrink because her knowledge of personality and behavior would cause her to laugh at the idea that a human behaves without some predisposition and bias.

While Annegb’s moral views may be influenced by her religiously-based historical understanding, it’s her values which are a valid part of the discussion for public policy, not the historical claims themselves.

I’m interested in understanding how a value can be separated from a historical claim. It is my understanding and experience that values are derived from historical claims, i.e.:

Moral Values include such beliefs as:
1) “All men are created equal”- from a historical claim based on a historical document, based on biblical reference and expounded in ethical theoretical traditions.
2 ) “Homosexuality is evil.” – a biblical claim, no doubt.
3) “Interracial marriage is wrong.” – a misguided, inferred historical claim, from historical claims based on race inferiority/purity.
4) “Giving food and shelter to the poor is good.” – biblical historical claim.

Historical Claims include such beliefs as, and can convey such values as:
1) “All men were created as children of her deity, prior to the existence of this earth.” – Love thy neighbor as thyself, etc.
2) “Odin created the earth from the corpse of a giant he killed.” – The Earth was created by deity; reverence for Earth and Deity; what have you…
3) “P’an Ku, while he was growing inside an egg, created the world, then broke his way out of the egg, only to die in the effort of further creation. His body parts the became various geographical features.” – see above
4) “Humans evolved from clams, and then the spirits of aliens killed by Xenu attached themselves to our ancestors, causing most of our mental and physical ailments.” – Evolution is religiously grounded, spiritual purity may lend to physical health, etc.

The point is that mythology’s (historical claim) main purpose is to convey values, to teach morals.

One person’s religious beliefs about history do not, however, forever settle the question for those who don’t happen to share that person’s historical beliefs.

I submit that there is nothing that “forever” settles the question. But I get the feeling you think your paradigm does.

All we have to do is see each others’ values as valid and equal.

That, of course, is both unlikely and unwise. Do you really see the story of Xenu as “valid and equal” with the LDS creation story? I doubt that.

I don’t see why not. Should I go and try to suppress the story of Xenu when we decide what to teach in a school? Let believers try and persuade…

you insist that “separate but equal” in regard to civil marriage rights somehow is equal, and will somehow be a “success.” This would be a remarkable lack of consistency on your part.

Wild swing. My point: racial “separate but equal” was separate, but not equal. Religion is separate from the state, but given freedom from state intrusion- separate but equal. There are innumerable examples in civil society of working “separate but equal”. Your argument here is an emotivist talking point that has little to do with your issue.

you propose that we redefine civil marriage by eliminating it.

It depends on your historical claim regarding marriage. Mine goes like this: 1) it has less to do with rights provided by government than it has to do with salvation of souls, and 2) mine has been around in every culture as a norm since history was history. Thus I say I am “preserving” marriage and I would say that SSM advocates are trying to eliminate marriage through temporal governmental intrusion.

To argue otherwise, you would need to accept that the faith of certain evangelical christians is a sufficient basis on which to pass legislation declaring it illegal to belong to the LDS church. Such a proposition, for any rational person, is ludicrous.

That’s the way it works. And it is only ludicrous because we live in a system that protects our Faith from such a thing. That story can be told and is valid, but it would be hard to persuade others.

Faith is absolutely a valid informer of individual policy, voting, and politics. Faith is not a valid determiner of legislation to govern a diverse population.

It is the only way to govern a diverse population. What you have to realize is that every single person acts politically on faith, religiously characterized faith or faith as a general definition for behavioral foundations, namely ‘assumptions’. We are all operating on the same grounds. And democracy demands sufficient equal representation, especially of faiths/assumptions.

On this particular issue, SSM advocates are advocating a social experiment- completely on faith that no harm will be done to society- a valid point, though entirely unverifiable.

But in the end you are talking about religious faith as insufficient for informing public policy- in the same breath touting another type of faith as sufficient for all. Therefore, your arguments suppress religion in order to promote your agenda, which is no more valid than the evangelical’s.

There has been a very good column in the NYT reinforcing all of this.

#169:
Nasamomdele, it’s becoming increasingly clear that you are intentionally misconstruing my comments, in order to “refute” them. You even go so far as to block quote from my post, and then respond as if I had said something entirely different: To wit:

I previously stated:
Faith is absolutely a valid informer of individual policy, voting, and politics. Faith is not a valid determiner of legislation to govern a diverse population.

You pasted that quote, but then you “responded” to it by writing:
It is the only way to govern a diverse population. What you have to realize is that every single person acts politically on faith, religiously characterized faith or faith as a general definition for behavioral foundations, namely ‘assumptions’. We are all operating on the same grounds. And democracy demands sufficient equal representation, especially of faiths/assumptions.

Honest readers will see that your comment misconstrues what I said. Directly after quoting my statement that faith was an “absolutely valid” influence on individual policy, voting, and politics, you “refuted” me by telling me that I “have to realize” that “every single person acts politically on faith.”

The remainder of your latest comment engages in similar misrepresentations and “refutations.” Until you can discuss the matter honestly, I think I’m done conversing with you.

So I have pointed out that you cannot go around saying that anyone’s God or Historical Claims or values are irrelevant or should be kept to themselves in conversations regarding public policy.

Yes, you’ve consistently “pointed out” something that I never said. Now, you’re doing it again. You keep “refuting” (now “successfully so,” you say) things that I haven’t said.

Your biggest (and I’m becoming convinced it’s intentional) mistake is your repeated accusation that I’m saying people can’t discuss their individual religious views. I’ve never once said that, and if you’re at all literate, you know I haven’t said that. All I have said is that the religiously-based historical claims of ONE INDIVIDUAL cannot, IN THEMSELVES, be the deciding factor in a public policy consideration, because people have different beliefs. I’ve never “dismissed” Annegb’s religious views. I’ve only pointed out that they don’t decide the issue, since we have many competing religious views in our society.

I’d advise you at this point to follow your own religion, particularly the part about being “honest in all things with your fellow man (or woman).” Your repeated false witness is not only tiresome, but completely evident to anyone who actually reads my comments above.

Nasamomdele, you continue to completely misrepresent me as saying that religious people should have no voice. That’s called “bearing false witness,” and I’m quite confident that it’s against the teachings of your faith.

Your point (revised version) is that her singular subjective view ought not be the basis for public policy. I refuted that claim, stating that she has as much right to her view being accepted as the basis for public policy as any other “objective” view…

You didn’t “refute” anything at all, because I never suggested that Annegb had no “right to her view being accepted.” You’ve repeatedly LIED about what I said, nasamomdele. Your own scripture contains some rather strong words concerning the fate of LIARS such as yourself.

Nobody here has claimed that religious persons have no right to voice their views, or even to attempt to convince others of those views. Indeed, one person can convince any number of people of a particular religious view, even to the point of inspiring genocide.

Nick, you have got to be kidding me.

You have been saying over and over that religious historical claims are unverifiable and therefore do not form an acceptable basis for public policy.

And I disagreed with you.

I didn’t lie and don’t have to. I disagree with you flatly.

…but makes it resemble poop less and less.

Just so I understand Nick,

You believe it is perfectly reasonable for Anne, or any person, to cast her vote based on her religious and moral understandings?

That is also the case if Anne is an elected representative?

#181:
Great questions, Jota G!

You believe it is perfectly reasonable for Anne, or any person, to cast her vote based on her religious and moral understandings?

I believe a person may cast their vote on any basis they wish. (Sadly, some studies seem to suggest that many elections for office are influenced by such things as the candidates’ hairstyle!) Whether I agree with a person’s rationale or not, they have every right to vote as they choose, for whatever reason they see fit.

That is also the case if Anne is an elected representative?

That’s a more complicated question, isn’t it? I think it’s fair to say that we expect our elected representatives to (as much as possible) represent their collective constituents, rather than any one particular segment.

If, for example, Anne had been an elected representative in the late 19th century, I would hope that she would vote against measures intended to prevent Mormons from exercising what was then a very important aspect of their faith, i.e., plural marriage. Some would say that she was narrow-mindedly voting to protect her own church. Others (like me) would say that while she was certainly a directly interested party, she was voting to strengthen and protect a larger Constitutional and societal issue of religious freedom.

On the other hand, (and just for the purpose of this illustration, let’s set aside the obvious church/state problems involved) suppose that because Anne firmly believed that only LDS temple marriages could be eternal, she pushed for legislation by which only marriages solemnized within LDS temples would be legally recognized. She could argue, on the basis of her sincere faith, that legal recognition of any other marriage was harmful to children, since children “deserved to be born in the covenant.” She could also argue, also on the basis of her sincere faith in the teachings of her church (as she interpreted/understood them), that deity married Adam and Eve eternally by his own priesthood authority, thus establishing forever the only “right” definition of marriage. If Anne did this, I’m betting that even most faithful LDS would find it disturbing, if not outright offensive behavior on the part of an elected representative.

What do you think, Jota G?

Nick,

If Anne did that it is doubtful that she would find much legislative support for it. It is also likely that she would not be re-elected if the majority of her constituents disagreed with such legislation.

Beyond that, (and I know that you said to ignore the church/state issues) there would likely be a court challenge if such legislation passed. And frankly, judges tend to do whatever pleases them and then look for a legal rationale.

It is worth noting that many in the Utah state legislature seem to frequently do what your hypothetical Anne does: take an extreme interpretation of LDS concepts that has never (or not recently) been articulated over the pulpit and then find some rationale to use to argue that it should be law. I think of this as bad public policy, but all I have is my vote, a few yard signs, and donations to try to change things.

John,

You are exactly correct.

#186:
I completely agree, John. Thank you for understanding the distinction I was making between the religious opinion of a single person/organization, vs. a “convinced majority of voters.” The former cannot unilaterally decide public policy in our system, while the latter most certainly can decide public policy (for good or bad).

The question is: Is there really a superior historical claim?

I say, no. Not even the perceived “American values of freedom” or “human rights”.

So no historical claim is succeptible to scrutiny of another.

As was mentioned above, scrutiny comes in legal ways, and I would poin tout, has ruled equally for and against just about any cause or claim you can think of.

The second issue is whether or not scrutinizing one epistemology from the perspective of another is a “lamentable” practice in itself. I have argued- yes.

I think it is an exercise of domination- the kind that was illustrated by the recent comment regarding Utah legislature.

The final question to ask is whether or not we are guilty of such a lamentable practice.

Nick,

I have repeatedly lamented the tactics that both sides in the Prop 8 debate adopted. I fear that while many people claim to prefer calm, rational debate it is the hysterical fearmongering that really sways them.

Jota G,

Even more importantly, it doesn’t matter what their reasons were. Voting is multiple choice, not an essay question. Each idiot counts the same as every other idiot. Except perhaps in Florida…

You guys keep talking about annegb’s religious beliefs. Our faith is based on the idea of eternity and the plan of salvation. Don’t my beliefs reflect most of your beliefs? And if not, how do you reconcile that with the basics of Mormonism?

annegb,

To answer your question, my beliefs are the same as yours.

What I’ve been discussing with Nick is partly what arj is referring to- not necessarily the correctness of belief, but more important in our society is that we are free to believe and make choices according to those beliefs, even political choices and choices that will impact others (as all choices do).

Oh, good grief. I never “targeted” Anne. Anne and I get along well, and have even enjoyed speaking with one another offline. I simply responded to her earlier comment, which spurred an onslaught of “you’re attacking religion” rants. Anne’s comments happened to be the relevant example of a particular religious belief–nothing more.

To put this to a concise question related to your original discussion with annegb,

It is not particularly useful, however, for you to use the subjective beliefs of your particular faith as a basis for legislation which restricts the legal rights of other members of society, who don’t subscribe to your faith.

Why not?

It’s not my intention that anyone be required to “keep their faith to themselves” in the public sphere, Nasamomdele. Rather, my concern is that some people of faith seem to consider it their duty to enforce the particular behavioral rules of their faith upon the rest of society, including those outside that faith.

This concern isn’t unique to me. Utah, despite having a high number of LDS members in its state legislature, was one of the last places to restrict smoking in certain “public” places. Perhaps this had something to do with tobacco lobbyists and political contributions (not an accusation—I’ve no idea on that), but it also appears that lawmakers were concerned that they would be seen as enforcing LDS standards on the entire state.

We all have our own idea of what a perfect society would look like. It may surprise you to know that at one time, I was such an extremist believer, that I was sure a perfect society would consist of a theocracy consisting of the priesthood leadership of the LDS church, who (I believed at the time) would rule by divine revelation. That would be an example of religious faith being “the deciding factor” in public policy, as opposed to “one influence among many.”

There are many valuable ideas that I learned from Joseph Smith. One of those ideas comes from his statement, saying that he was just as ready to fight and die to protect the rights of a Methodist, as he was for a Mormon. On that principle, which I value a great deal, I would readily fight to support the legal rights of the LDS church to (1) not to perform same-sex marriages, (2) not to ecclesiastically accept same-sex marriages, and (3) to deny church membership to persons who are involved in a same-sex marriage.

Maybe that’s part of the reason that I resent the extreme efforts which the LDS church and its members went to, in order to make sure I was denied legal rights.

206 – Nick – that is one of my favorite Joseph Smith quotes as well. That is why I feel that I should fight for the right for SSM – it is all about equality and freedom.

You didn’t answer my question guys. Devyn, how do you put SSM in an eternal perspective?

#209:
The last sentence you write I have to take issue with…the LDS Church and membership would validly claim that they did not seek to deny anyone a right, but rather sought to protect their culture from civil intrusion.
It is unquestionable that rights have been denied, but to claim that was the intent of the movement is disingenuous.

Nasamomdele, I realize that LDS leaders, in connection with the “Yes on 8″ campaign, repeatedly stated that Proposition 8 would not take any legal rights away from gays and lesbians. Such a statement has to be either (a) a knowing falsehood, or (b) an open refusal to acknowledge the legal authority of the California Supreme Court to interpret that state’s constitution. As you note, it is unquestionable that the effect of Proposition 8 was to deny rights which gays and lesbians already had under the California constitution.

The intent of Proposition 8 was clearly to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to be legally married. The LDS church may have had additional reasons (doctrinal, social, etc.) to explain why they wanted to see that right eliminated, but I just can’t find it credible to say that eliminating the right was not their intent.

That said, there’s an unspoken message in your comment, reminding us that whenever possible, we should assume good intent on the part of others. I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I also feel that where the evidence contradicts that initial assumption, we have to follow where that evidence leads. Fair enough?

Boy, Devyn, that’s where we totally disagree. I realize that we can’t fanatically put everything on an eternal perspective. Divorce, for instance, would never be allowed; I think abortion in some instances is entirely appropriate.

This is different. I’m pretty sure any argument I could give for the “differentness” of it would be blasted out of the water by you really smart guys, but I think it’s different. For one thing, your own caveat points out the awful mess this could become. It goes to the fabric of our beliefs.

One side has to give. Either the whole homosexual lobby; all homosexuals have to agree to accept civil union or contracts and bypass marriage or all Christians have to accept SSM. There’s no compromise.

I was just thinking, what if everybody has to go through a civil union procedure, apply, fill out the paperwork, etc.; make it legal, THEN have the ceremony, religious, or otherwise. Hmmm…..that might work. One would be contract; the other would be covenant.

Annegb, I think it’s entirely correct for you to put your own decisions in what you consider an “eternal perspective.” That’s simply a matter of acting consistently with your beliefs. What do you think about that approach, however, when it comes to making decisions for other citizens, who don’t share your beliefs? After all, there are plenty of “christians” in this country who, in their own “eternal perspective,” would really love to be able to “rescue your soul” by making it illegal to belong to the LDS church! EEK!

…or all Christians have to accept SSM.

Actually, christians don’t need to accept marriage equality at all. Nobody can force the LDS church, for example, to ecclesiastically accept marriages between partners of the same sex. In states which provide marriage equality, the LDS church is absolutely free to excommunicate those members who enter into a same-sex marriage, no matter how legal that marriage is. The LDS church can refuse to baptize individuals who are married to a person of their same sex, no matter how legal that marriage is. I could go on down the list, but surely you get the idea—christians don’t need to “accept” marriage equality at all.

I was just thinking, what if everybody has to go through a civil union procedure, apply, fill out the paperwork, etc.; make it legal, THEN have the ceremony, religious, or otherwise. Hmmm…..that might work. One would be contract; the other would be covenant.

Annegb, think this through just a little bit further. Right now, what you describe is what already takes place. If a couple wants to get married, they have to go to the government first, apply for a license, fill out the paperwork, etc. THEN, they have a ceremony of some kind, whether secular or religious. It’s already a two-step process—the first step truly is a contract, while the second part is a covenant, commitment, etc.

Really, this should help clarify the whole issue for most people. Same-sex couples aren’t asking to enter into a “covenant” under your faith. They’re asking to enter into the same legal contract that opposite-sex couples enter into—-and that legal contract is strictily a civil, legal, governmental matter, entirely separate from religious ceremonies or covenants.

“Actually, christians don’t need to accept marriage equality at all.”

Considering how courts have already ruled against providers of such services as wedding photography and fertilization treatment, this promise that individuals will remain free to deal with same-sex marriage according to their own consciouses rings a bit hollow.

212. nasamomdele – I absolutely agree with you on the inefficiency of government is being able to understand who and how to protect groups. Agreed that most of the great minds and leaders are not in politics – they are smart enough not to go there. hmm, maybe I am more libertarian after all… Time to move to New Hampshire

213. annegb – I think that I separate these things into two buckets – there is church and there is non-church. SSM fits into non-church at this point as it has little to no impact on my church life. You laid out the way I see it in your last sentences – it is about basic fairness in my mind

219 – Nick – you deftly dodged Anne’s question. I would guess the answer, “No I do not believe in the LDS version of the plan of salvation.”

#222:
You are correct, I do not believe in what the modern LDS church considers to be deity’s “plan of salvation.” That, however, really doesn’t answer Annegb’s question as she asked it.

I fully understand that you have a very strong, sincere belief that your religion is “the only true and living” one, and that as such, there is only one real “plan of salvation” to ask me about. I hope you can understand, however, that as a person who is not LDS, the question you’ve asked is loaded with all sorts of additional considerations.

I wasn’t really interested in the conversation until I saw annegb’s query to Nick. From your perspective Nick, I am curious. You have every right to respond or not respond.

I think that participation in a larger doctrinal system requires everyone to submit to some degree (for some it is a lot for others a little) their own worldview to the larger plan. To say it another way, I may not like it or completely understand it, but it is still part of my faith so I work to understand with the hope that one day I will believe. I am not expressing it very well, as a former member, I think you probably see what I am trying to say.

So for someone who has rejected a faith over a particular doctrine/practice/belief can the conversion ever happen again once one’s personal belief system has rejected doubt? Is there such thing as a pre-qualified spiritual conversion, the pre-qualification being for or against a particular doctrine/practice/belief?

No one should be required to perform a service which contributes to immorality.

Devyn,

“was your faith lost due to historical claims as well?”

No, not at all. My faith is as flawed as the next guys, but certainly not lost.

I am just asking Nick because the question that annegb posed piqued my interest that’s all. Not specifically about SSM, but about the cafeteria approach (for lack of a better term). Once one starts down that path, where does one expect to end up?

When Nick talks of the balance of things, I don’t necessarily agree with the language, I would prefer to talk about faith overcoming doubt. It isn’t my take on things, but I can still see where he is coming from.

I understand what Nick is saying about the bar being very high, but what is left once you throw the bar away, is there an alternative to becoming a religion of one? So I guess that is what my question to Nick is, having a ‘personal’ doctrine, can one ever shoehorn that doctrine into a religious creed? (and please Nick, I don’t intend to put words in your mouth, shoot me down if I am way off base.)

#230:
So I guess that is what my question to Nick is, having a ‘personal’ doctrine, can one ever shoehorn that doctrine into a religious creed?

I think everyone has a “personal” set of doctrines, MAC. Very few of us seem able to agree with each and every facet of any particular faith. When I was a devout, “extremist” Mormon, I believed a number of things from early Mormonism which didn’t really contradict modern LDS-ism, but certainly hadn’t been taught for many years.

Affirming a specific set of “doctrines” requires some level of certainty—an attitude which most religious believers seem to value. As an “extreme” Mormon, I can tell you I thought I was certain about a good many things. After I left the LDS church, however, I soon found that uncertainty can be a whole lot more peaceful than the “certainty” we often think we have. I don’t claim to have a lot of “doctrinal” answers to spiritual issues these days, but I’m okay with that.

Nick, my comments go into moderation, also. I think it’s certain keywords, but I forget which ones I used.

B Tippetts – so what exactly are your views? You seem to cut and paste a lot from other sources but I have not seen you own opinions expressed yet.

I think this aricle is consistant with the subject of this thread. The Church probably has over played its hand when it launched a campaign for Prop 8. You certainly do not see mass resources opposing SSM in New York, Vermont, etc. Reason why may be a public immage problem and there are not enough LDS in other states to be effective. Part 2 of the below article is forth coming.

‘The Mormons Are Coming!’ (Part 1)
Supporters of Same-Sex Marriage Trumpet the Church’s Work Against It

» Links to this article
By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 29, 2009
LOS ANGELES — As more states take up the debate on same-sex marriage, some advocates of legalization are taking a very specific lesson from California, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dominated both fundraising and door-knocking to pass a ballot initiative that barred such unions.
With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.
“The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!” warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy “borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.”
“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people,” said Fred Karger, a former Republican campaign consultant who established Californians Against Hate. “My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”
The strategy carries risks for a movement grounded in the concept of tolerance. But the demographics tempt proponents of same-sex marriage: Mormons account for just 2 percent of the U.S. population, and they are scarce outside the West. Nearly eight in 10 Americans personally know or work with a gay person, according to a recent Newsweek survey. Only 48 percent, meanwhile, know a Mormon, according to a Pew Research Center poll.
Many Mormons also acknowledge a problematic public profile that could make it difficult for them to lead the fight against same-sex marriage. A 2008 poll by Gary C. Lawrence, author of “How Americans View Mormonism: Seven Steps to Improve Our Image,” found that for every American who expresses a strong liking for Mormons, four express a strong dislike. Among the traits widely ascribed to Mormons in the poll were “narrow-minded” and “controlling.”
“We’re upside down on our image,” said Lawrence, who organized Mormon volunteers in California, where on a typical Saturday 25,000 turned out to knock on doors. “People have misperceptions of us because of ignorance, because of the history of polygamy, and because we organize quickly, which scares some people.”
Mormon officials have tried to stay out of the controversy that followed the California vote, when the church’s prominent role in the marriage fight became clear. A spokeswoman in Salt Lake City declined to say whether the church is involved in debates going on in states such as New Jersey and New York, except to say that leaders remain intent on preserving the “divine institution” of marriage between man and woman. The faith holds that traditional marriage “transcends this world” and is necessary for “the fullness of joy in the next life.”
The church has a top-down hierarchy that answers to the First Presidency, who also holds the status of prophet. Last June, congregations were read his letter urging that “you do all you can” to pass the California initiative, known as Proposition 8. Lawrence, who like Karger worked as a Republican political consultant, professed no concern about the effort to shift the focus away from the definition of marriage.
“He is demonizing the opposition. It’s Political Consulting 101,” Lawrence said of Karger. “The average guy does not know the extent to which the Mormon Church was involved on Prop. 8.”
The proponents’ strategy is grounded in a stubborn reality: While the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage is slowly increasing — Maine recently became the fifth — in every case the agent of change was either a court or a legislature. Voters have rejected the idea wherever it has appeared on a ballot.
The election results track public opinion nationwide. Polls consistently show that while a majority of Americans support some legal recognition of gay unions, more want to keep marriage reserved for a man and a woman.

I think this aricle is consistant with the subject of this thread. The Church probably has over played its hand when it launched a campaign for Prop 8. You certainly do not see mass resources opposing SSM in New York, Vermont, etc. Reason why may be a public immage problem and there are not enough LDS in other states to be effective. Part 2 of the below article is forth coming.

You’re assuming you understand the Church’s reasons for launching said campaign. My current feeling is that the Church’s participation in Prop 8 had nothing to do with marriage per se.

Queuno,

Let see. The LDS Church supported Prop 8 which defines marriage between man and woman. So please tell me why the Church position has nothing to do with marriage. I guess you have to go Lds.org and come to your own conclusions.

It is so odd how people can see things in opposite ways.

The issue is clear. LDS Church urged their members to support traditonal marriage in California and Hawaii. However through out other States dealing with same sex marriage, the Brethren hss not been very adament in mobilizing the Saints to counter the changing of tradtional marriage laws.

Probably this whole matter will be decided in the US Supreme courts to which traditional marriage laws may or may not be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

SSM wasn’t done fifty years ago. Was it in violation then? No.

We’ve evidently become a country with no need of a Constitution and become a country of case law only. Yes, that is an exxageration, but it is rapidly becoming a fact.

237 B Tippetts – thanks for the clarity on your view.

243 Rick – ok so you went to your Christian scriptures where it may be clear. Given your quote from Adams, what about the other religous non-Christian texts? What if they are ok with SSM? I think that what you have done is paint yourself into a corner where anyone’s view who is like yours is fine, others are not. Given we are founded as a nation on equality, why wouldn’t SSM fall into this? You argue that 50 years ago SSM was not a violation of the Constitution, well, 50 years ago, there were no civil rights for Blacks – was that a violation of the Constitution?

This is pure indoctrination of young children showing preference to SSM. All needs to be done it to teach tolerance of different life sytles and religious beliefs within our school system

California Public School District Will Force All First Graders to Follow Curriculum That Normalizes Same-Sex Unions
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
By Adam Brickley

(AP photo)(CNSNews.com) – The Alameda, Calif., public schools are adopting a curriculum that will require first graders to read literature that equates same-sex unions with a family made up of a mother, father and child.

Parents will not be allowed to opt their first graders out of the curriculum.

Members of the Alameda United School District (AUSD) school board voted 3 to 2 last week to implement the “Safe Schools” curriculum, which supporters say is aimed at stopping anti-homosexual bullying in schools.

The program includes a between one and four lessons each year between grades 1 and 5 to introduce students to “LGBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) issues.

As part of the curriculum, second graders will be exposed to books like “And Tango Makes Three”–a story book about two male penguins who hatch an egg and raise a chick together in New York’s Central Park Zoo–and first graders will see “Who’s in a Family?” which exposes students to a variety of “different” family structures.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this story incorrectly indicated that first graders would be exposed to “And Tango Makes Three.”)

The discussion plan for “Who’s In a Family?” includes asking students to identify a type of family they see in the book.

Teachers are instructed: “If a student responds that one family in the book is made up of a mother, a father, and two children and a cat, you may acknowledge that some families look like this, but ask students for other examples of what a family can look like.”

Unlike for health and sexual education classes, the district will not allow parents to opt their children out of the LGBT curriculum–angering parents and pro-family groups.

“This will be done whether parents like it or not, and it shows the hostility against parental rights and traditional family values,” said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, speaking for parents who, he said, are adamantly opposed to the plan.

School board president Mike McMahon voted against implementing the plan, but not because he opposes the curriculum. When asked about why there was not an opt-out provision for parents, McMahon told CNSNews.com that one was not required.

“It was the opinion of our legal counsel that this curriculum was not health or sex education curriculum,” he said.

McMahon also said the book, “And Tango Makes Three,” was specially chosen for the curriculum.

“It was the selection of a committee that was put together, and they felt that book portrayed the lesson that they wanted to portray,” McMahon told CNSNews.com.

But School Board Member Trish Spencer, who also voted against the plan, said she worries that its implementation could lead to the harassment of students who have religious objections to homosexuality.

“If there were students that answered that they that they did not think that (the two male penguins) were a couple, or that they did not think that they were good parents, based upon their religious beliefs., that could in fact increase bullying against those students from a protected class,” Spencer said.

“We know that there are children that are already being bullied for their religious beliefs,” she said, referring to a case involving a Muslim girl in the district who she said was bullied for wearing distinctive head dress–a hijab.

“I couldn’t see any effort on behalf of the district to teach empathy and being an ally to those students,” Spencer added. She noted that students in the district are not introduced to Islam until seventh grade.

Spencer cited the 2001-2002 California Healthy Kids Survey as evidence that bullying due to religion is a bigger problem for the district than bullying based on homosexuality.

The survey showed that 14.3 percent of students reported bullying due to race or ethnicity and 9.1 percent reporting harassment because of religion. Both ranked ahead of bullying due to “actual or perceived sexual orientation,” which came third at 7.5 percent.

The state survey is a yearly self-reported of school children in compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

McMahon, meanwhile, said that it was his understanding that young students could express disagreement with the homosexual curriculum based on religion, saying that teacher guides that counsel teachers what to do when children exercise “their First Amendment rights to disagree.”

“If they (children) do, they would be directed to talk to their family, and they would be allowed to disagree,” McMahon said.

Alameda stands across the bay from San Francisco.

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

Viewer CommentsThe following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.

Showing 1-10 of 23 Comments Newer to Older Older to Newer 1 2 3 Next Loading…

Spartan at 09:56 PM – June 09, 2009
Since when does the school board dictate such an opprobrious policy and where does it get the authority to inflict tyranny upon the families who object to such forced indoctrination? Oh …. I forgot. Its across the bay from San Francisco. A place that I used to love. But, no longer will I ever have the desire to return there, unless it be to enable our fellow American s to regain their freedom and constitutional rights to run their own affairs and raise their children as they see fit.

lblalone@wwdb.org at 08:23 PM – June 09, 2009
The solution seems so simple to me – how about just teaching children to be kind to everyone then you do not have to worry about the stigmatization of anyone.

db49 at 07:48 PM – June 09, 2009
What if the NRA demanded that the elementary curriculum should include firearm safety and hunting lessons? I have seen kids whose parents supplement their pantries with game meat get razzed by students who see themselves as so sophisticated that they are above that. Should these “city slickers” be forced to kill and dress out their own food so that the hunters will feel better about themsleves? Of course this analogy breaks down because hunting for sustenance is not immoral-yet.

dansoel at 07:21 PM – June 09, 2009
Kids can be taught to treat others kindly and not to ever be a bully without having to teach young children about homosexuality. Let kids be kids! They shouldn’t be thinking about stuff like that. Also, this type of curriculum can lead young boys into believing that their role as father and husband is not needed in the family (easily/equally be replaced by a woman). This is so false! They are needed! There is a lot of research out there stating that. It takes a man and a woman to create a baby for a very good reason; in fact, a divine reason. Fathers, you are needed and valued!!!! (Of course, mothers are too. I just feel like this movement seems to be more an anti-male thing).

toofewwitnesses.com at 06:52 PM – June 09, 2009
It is the vilest form of child abuse, deviants freely indoctrinating other people’s children, against their will. The new deviance czar appointed by the chief will insure that the Massachusetts model soon dominates all of America’s classrooms. What did California expect from the commander in chief of the war against our unborn, the most colossal form of human rights abuse conceived by feminists and their pathetic male supporters. Denied their right to birth all other rights are meaningless. Feminists remain silent about 25 million sisters in the womb who lost the rights that they enjoy! Parent’s rights, children’s rights mean nothing to the chief, as they are not part of his grand plan. “You ain’t seen nothing yet” is the only real truth that you have heard. That you can believe in.

wcordasco at 04:26 PM – June 09, 2009
Hmmm. The homosexual mafia goes to great lengths, even across species, to “demonstrate” how “natural” homosexuality is. It is also perfectly natural that mammals and birds cannot have same-sex relationships that produce offspring. So, by extension, can’t we shoot down their claim to be “parents”? And Obama supports this? In this macabre world, the likelihood of a same-sex penguin couple producing a chick seems a greater possibility than Obama’s abusive, pampered Kenyan father coupling with a half-witted Kansas hippie and producing the president of the United States. Go figure.

Rosenlundkv at 02:54 PM – June 09, 2009
This should be looked at as sexual harassment. Children at this age do not have enough life experience to process this type of education. If it is to be done the parents should be notified of the date and time and have the option to have there child removed from the class room for that time period. But is that not the catch 22 of pear power intimidation? Just another example of Liberal hypocrisy and control issue.

kraztrain at 01:33 PM – June 09, 2009
I wonder if the “tango trilogy” includes any information or warnings about the risk of “AIDS” with a ” 2 daddy relationship”? And, “monkey see, monkey do” (for the evolutionist). Pavlov’s Dog, repeated subjection to a particular stimulus(even economic)will develop and reinforce a particular response. We reap what we sow! I guess this is another example of the progressive genius of California.

1ofHis2 at 01:02 PM – June 09, 2009
Is the proverbial “frog in the slow boiling pan” ready to jump out finally or will it sit still to the slow death of their family & themselves? If the church started using these tactics w/o allowing anyone to “opt out” it would’ve been ushered out of our society years ago! It’s time to wake up & face the music people – urgent problems require urgent actions. Take your kids out of public schools & homeschool them. One parent leaving the labor force & tending to their children might cause a financial hardship but I’d rather do that than allow the state to force my children to believe their lies about what’s right & what’s wrong. Isaiah 5:20, Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! But God gives us all a “choice” to “opt out” or not!

Jack Kinch(1uncle) at 12:47 PM – June 09, 2009
The federal government has assumed too much power. Urge your state representatives to use the amendment process to take back some of that power before it is too late. Urge your friends to do the same.

Post New CommentYou must be logged in to leave comments! Click here to log in.

Free CNSNews.com Daily E-BriefEnter your e-mail to start receiving daily CNSNews.com stories in your inbox!
Please use a valid E-Mail Address

subscribing…

CNSNews.com ToolboxPrint Article
Email or Share on the Internet
and more!
Subscribe to CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com News Ticker
Related ArticlesLegal Experts Say Calif. Prop. 8 Decision Is Mostly ‘Sunny’ With One ‘Little Dark Cloud’
Schwarzenegger Plan Would Close 220 California Parks
The California Bailout Next on Obama’s Spending Agenda
California Supreme Court Expected to ‘Half Uphold’ Prop. 8
California Awaits Court’s Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Decision
California Leads States With Most Job Losses
Schwarzenneger Declares State of Emergency in California over Swine Flu
60 Mexico Flu Deaths Raise Global Epidemic Fears
Related Videos GOP Whip Decries ‘Anti-American-Energy’ Policy
Teachers’ Union Chief: Obama Kids Can Go Private
Gretchen Wilson: Feds Should Spend More on Education

If gay marriage is allowed. Why not poligamy? It’s very strange to me that two people of the say sex want to mary. Why not one male with multiple wifes. Why the fight on this? This is the natural way of nature. Not male/male – female/female.

We can be politically correct all we want but that still doesn’t change the fact that the Lord frowns upon homosexuality. If we continue down this path, the damaging effects may not be apparent at first, but they will be one of our major undoings in the end. The Family: A Proclamation to the World was not a political statement. We have to remember as Latter Day Saints that the prophet is not some guy that we can listen to when it is convenient, he is the earthly representative of JESUS CHRIST, the God King of this world, who shall soon come to claim His own. The prophets are not perfect. But the Lord will NOT allow them to lead this Church astray. All those whisperers and snakes who spread lies and fear amongst the Church that the Prophet is fallen or is a liar are the often times unwitting minions of our enemy. One of Satan’s major objectives is to rip this Church apart, which I fear will happen in the end. The Church will never fall, but I am afraid that there will be a great schism. The true faithful of the Lord Jesus the Christ will know who to follow. Be strong my beloved brothers and sisters and never forget the Truth!

I guess its their rights as humans. They should have the freedom on what and whom to marry.

Hi, just a question for Jota G,

I really don’t think the logic people are using on equal protection vs same sex marriage bans is valid. I am not disputing that other judges have thought the same thing, I just think it’s poorly thought out.

There is arguably a huge benefit to, say, marrying Halle Berry. If you can manage to do it without a prenup, you are set for life whether the marriage works out or not. You can get a book deal any time you want it, undoubtedly.

But leaving that aside, let’s think about protection. If I am a man I can enter into an intimate, committed, long term relationship with that woman, make it legal with marriage, and then no court in the world would stand between me and my inheritance of her estate when she died. I have access to that protection under the law. But only because I’m a man. If I’m a woman, I am forbidden, solely based on the fact of my gender, from entering into such a relationship with that woman and and receiving the same protection.

And it has nothing to do with a specific person. Suppose we consider the risk involved in marrying a rich man vs marrying a rich woman, if your goal is financial security. Suppose we find that rich men are much less vindictive in court and generally just accept a settlement. Then access to that benefit of the law would be restricted to women alone, and taken from men solely based on their gender.

I can marry Halle Berry and confess to her that I killed my wife in order to get her out of the way so I could do it. I would be protected from a prosecutor forcing that information out of her under oath. My wife could take the exact same sequence of actions except that she would not have the same, or in other words, “equal” protection under the law.