I was surprised there were only 50 (do I have that right?). Did you know the other marchers? Did you see anyone you knew in the crowd? Any LDS authority figures? I’m assuming you have no ambivalence–how did you arrive at that? Did you struggle with it? Your daughter is gorgeous. I’m guessing because she’s younger, this is an easier decision for her to make??

Wow! 3 generations in agreement. That would be a miracle in my family. I am in your mom’s camp. I don’t have a solid handle on this whole same sex issue, but I do believe in agency and in loving one another. Have you seen this post? http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of

A friend posted it on her FB page and I read it. I am still in various stages of shock. I mentioned the post to my husband and newly-returned missionary daughter and she knew the family from her mission.
I long for the good old days when I thought in absolutes and had a sure knowledge of everything. Now I do a whole lot of shrugging my shoulders and saying, ” Geez, don’t ask me. What do I know?”

wow,John.feeling personally attacked much?

I guess I’m with your mom, Marta. She raised you, so I know she must be pretty loving.

Heard from any bishops? :)

I know John to be a loving person, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming this stirs up emotions in ways we are unaware of. I’m reading resentment (ya think?)—maybe he thinks the (erroneous?) premise behind the Mormons for Equality movement is based on Mormons NOT being loving.

But John, I experience unloving behavior and I’m not too far from the (at least outwardly) norm. I know the ward you live in in Vegas is–was pretty loving, from experience (I felt loved!) But here in Cedar, we could all use reminders of love and compassion. On the other hand, like I’ve said, the gays here are a pretty vocal and strong group. They must feel kind of safe.

For me, I wish we could talk more about mercy instead of justice and works. Which is a threadjack, but applies to the broader discussion. We’re too much about damnation. I’ve heard a woman who is a staunch Democrat appeal for love in our meetings. Our business-like approach makes it harder for society’s rejects to fit in.”Is there no room in God’s church for me?”

But John has a point, I think. There might be something insulting in presuming to represent Mormons in a parade scolding others about being loving. God has the answers but I don’t and accepting gay marriage would require a paradigm shift that would strike into the heart of our (current) tenets.

My nephew’s current happiness and relative conformity don’t take into account years of promiscuity and I think, abusive situations associated with homosexual behaviors. But, guys, been heterosexual and twenty lately?

Which makes me wonder, Marta, did you see any outrageous and vulgar behavior?

Because that kind of stuff makes me uh, think those who oppose gay marriage might be right.

I think it’s about perception. And that’s relative to myriads of issues. What Bookslinger said about all the disagreements in the ancient church holds true, I believe.

I’m troubled by ths schism I see occuring in our church. John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks seem to be spearheading a reform movement for which I have some sympathy. I don’t like the word sympathy, but I’m guarded in my support. John’s essays have helped me enormously, so in that he does speak for me, as a Mormon. I’m worried about that call for tolerance turning into a mere fan club of two dynamic personalities combined with a knee-jerk search for something—anything to criticize.

You know, though, if a staunch Mormon speaks out on an isse, I don’t hear the other, more liberal group say “they’re speaking as a Mormon, but they don’t represent all Mormons.” Do they? I don’t know.

Seriously. Marta, I’ve never seen a gay parade or anything like the crazy stuff I’ve heard about. Is it hyperbole or are there a lot of half naked people acting out sexually? I’m curious. Surely they don’t want that kept a secret if they did it in a parade.

i didn’t get to see much of the parade. i did see scantily clad people but no sexual behavior, but don’t know whether it was happening where i couldn’t see it.

I think you’re missing the point Bookslinger.

You can be in favor of allowing all people to marry the person they want without approving their behavior. Being in favor of marriage equality actually has nothing to do with approval of sin. It has to do with fairness under the law. In fact, even the Church’s arguments against SSM don’t really address sin, because sin is a theological issue, and marriage equality has nothing to do with theology. It is a legal issue.

You may not approve of homosexual behavior. You may not agree with homosexuals and most scientists that have studied the issue that homosexuality is primarily a genetic trait. But you don’t have to agree with those things to believe that the law has no business discriminating between people in their choice of a mate.

The Church can still preach against homosexual behavior even if SSM is legal. The Church preaches against a lot of things that are legal, including coffee, alcohol, gambling, sex outside of marriage, abortions, etc. Making SSM legal is not going to change the Church’s stance on homosexual sex. The Church will still regard it as a sin, as it has a perfect right to do. It will only change the fact that some people who currently can’t marry the person they love under the law will finally be able to do so. Those people are going to have sex regardless. Isn’t it better that they at least be able to get mariied and have the benefit of that commitment if they want it? Doesn’t it speak well of them that they want to be able to make that commitment to each other? And what does it say about us if we stand in their way? It doesn’t say that we oppose homosexual sex, that’s going to happen whether they are married or not. It just says we oppose them being able to legally commit to each other. And why, again, would we want to prevent that?

MCQ – it depends on how the SSM comes about. If it comes about as a result of judicial fiat based on Equal Protection grounds, then there is a pretty darn good argument that the State’s allowing churches to perform such marriages without extending the same rights to all is a violation of the 14th Amendment as well. If it comes about through legislation that allows specific exceptions for religious organizations, then it may be more palatable. Why not insist that marriage is in essence a religious ceremony and that at most civil governments have authority to do civil unions for anyone? That way we don’t muck up the categories and what churches do differs from what civil governments do — as the First Amendment requires.

Further, it is one thing for government to permit sinful behavior (like alcohol and so forth) and quite another to foster and protect it. SSM seems to do the latter to me. Further, it seems to me that further study on the effects on children of SSM is necessary before we reach conclusions about whether SSM fosters the well-being of children who become children in such unions.

It’s pathetic how easily I am swayed. All in all, everybody’s points sound good to me.

Gay people certainly deserve to be loved by any and every one, just as all of us do. It is not a reality because we live in a fallen world, of course. But I believe they (as so all of us) DO deserve love, acceptance, and agency.

As Christians, we Mormons and other Christians, we are commanded to love everyone. Even those who practice a homosexual lifestyle!

I love them. I accept that their life choice to practice homosexuality IS their choice and an expression of their agency. I will not support (and we have been directed, I believe, of the Lord and our Leadership that we should not support) their efforts to have their union legally qualified a marriage. It is not. It is a union that is NOT sanctioned by God. There is no way to argue that it is if you believe in God, His Word, and modern-day revelation.

Whether anyone believes it or not, homosexuals ARE either born desiring those of their own gender or come to know it during the period of sexual awakening in the tween or teen years. This happens without any thought on the matter whatsoever by those individuals. However, they use their agency to choose the Lord’s Way or the way of the flesh. This is the same struggle (though more intense, surely) that most humans have in various forms. It is (surely among many difficulties they are here to overcome), a part of or the primary source of their “cross” to bear and their “natural man” to overcome.

If gay marriage is legalized across the board in our nation, one day the right of every worthy Mormon to worship in the temple will be discontinued, at worst, and, at best, interrupted because it will be put in jeapardy by court proceedings originating within the homosexual community. Someone will desire to be sealed to their same-sex partner and push their marriage on the LDS church and try to push it in to the temple for the Sealing ordinance.

This would interrupt every Mormon’s ability and legally protected right to worship as we desire and have been commanded of the Lord to do. Thus, the reason we are directed that we must love our neighbor, but not necessarily encourage all his legal efforts toward having his or her union called the same (marriage) when it simply is not the same.

March for love, tolerance and agency. Not for equal marriage “rights.” Oh, DANGEROUS Doctrine!

You almost had me convinced, MCQ–all that Kumbayah moment of love and equity and fairness, decrying fear and paranoia and injustice, etc., etc. Even after my initial reaction to your last two paragraphs, which was about what Vinny said after the prosecutor’s opening argument. Except for the “Thank you.”

But now, from the Telegraph online, a story about our Danish friends.

So, hope for the future all you want, but be careful what you hope for.

Thanks for the article Mark B. I believe something akin to what’s happening in Denmark will happen here. Presuming SSM is legalized, the argument will then proceed thus: In order to perform marriages, religious officials have to be recognized by the state. Under equal protection principles, those religious authorities who register with the state will have to agree to perform SSM’s because they are technically functioning as an extension of the state. The only way around that position will be to have a two tier system set up, where couples are married civilly by some state authority, then they would be free to participate in a separate religous ceremony. I wouldn’t say it’s the end of the world, because that is done is some countries now where religious ministers are not given state permission to perform marriages, or the minster of a particular religion (like an LDS Temple Sealer) is not given permission. I’m not quite sure how Denmark can rationalize a law the requires religious ministers to perform SSM’s unless somehow Catholicism is a “state” religion. At any rate, these are exactly the kind of issues that I feel church leaders are fighting. I think they see the forest for the trees, whereas LDS proponents of SSM do not. Some would point to the PH ban and other changes made, but technically, the church never gave an official reason for the PH ban. It’s quite the opposite with SSA and SSM. Church leaders have based their position expressly on fundamental doctrine, going so far as to put it in a church handbook for all members to read and pray about. LDS supporters of SSM seem to be saying “Don’t listen to church leaders. I received revelation on the issue, and I say SSM is perectly fine.” When it’s all said and done, I would rather follow 15 prophets, seers and revelators.

There’s no telling? That’s where we disagree. In the service of stoking the fires of fear, you are willing to believe anything could happen. I’m not. I have more faith in God and trust in our constitutional system than that.

thank you MCQ.

IDIAT, i let your comment out of moderation not because i agree with you, but because i believe that you deserve to be heard. and, what MCQ said.

i am just remarkably inarticulate. with any luck, annegb won’t ever ask me to post again.

Of course we can avoid it. Denmark is not the US. They do not have our constitution. The question is whether what is happening there is in any way applicable.

Thanks, rbc.

Does this influence your thinking? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557098/New-Mexico-photographer-loses-third-round-of-gay-discrimination-case-but-attorneys-vow-fight-isnt.html?pg=all

#20- “If gay marriage is legalized across the board in our nation, one day the right of every worthy Mormon to worship in the temple will be discontinued, at worst, and, at best, interrupted because it will be put in jeapardy by court proceedings originating within the homosexual community. Someone will desire to be sealed to their same-sex partner and push their marriage on the LDS church and try to push it in to the temple for the Sealing ordinance.”
This has been SO thoroughly debunked, it’s hardly worth mentioning. http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mat-responses-to-six-consequences-if-prop-8-fails-rev-1-1.pdf covers the legal ramifications nicely.

As for #34- note that that lawsuit is happening in a state that does NOT allow gay marriage. In other words, the problem is not gay marriage. Most states have anti-discrimination clauses and have for years. They exist for a reason and I’m glad they do. If I couldn’t find a pro photographer to photograph my wedding party outside the temple because everyone thought mormon temple weddings were wrong, I’d want some legal recourse too. Regardless of how I feel, if cases like the one in that news article bother you, then you need to fight against anti-discrimination laws in general, not against gay marriage.

Because of my mormon upbringing, I believe strongly in the idea of free agency. Laws exist to protect rights. Two homosexuals getting married has ZERO effect on my rights (or anyone else’s); therefore, I don’t want to limit their agency to make that choice. Especially if I know how much harm it is doing and hatred it is promoting. The government definition of marriage has NEVER been up to my standard. If Britney Spears can get knocked up, married, and divorced in quick succession (which the church would decry but would not try to make illegal), and that is legal, why can Joe and Stan down the street, who have been committed to each other for 20+ years and raised 2 well-adjusted, good kids get married? If it’s a sin, well, I don’t care. Not my business. I’m lucky, I guess, all my sins happen to be legal.

I appreciate each comment here and value each point of view. I frankly and cowardly hope I never have to decide where I stand. My brain will probably explode. Thanks for disagreeing respectfully.

green devil and Mark B.,

Perhaps Church history provides a little background and context. When it became impossible under US law to legally practice polygamy the Church abandoned the practice of polygamy, at least for the living. (That’s what makes the Church’s full throated defense of traditional marriage a little ironic since we still practice very non-traditional marriage-at least by western standards-in our temples: polygamy. Thanks to temple marriage there are a couple of current practicing polygamists among the Q of 12 and all over the Church among regular members.)

I know nothing about Danish law or if there is even a Danish constitution and if there is a constitution what civil rights, if any, it protects. And, honestly I don’t really care. The Church’s presence in Denmark is microscopic and its abililty to influence or shape Danish law is probably nill and the Church’s impact on Danish social mores is even less influential, sad to say. But, I trust the Brethen will adapt. If Danish law were to require all religions to perform SSMs and even if the law went so far as to require a Danish civil servant to witness religious marriage ceremonies in order for the marriages to be valid, the Brethren would adapt. They would either allow SSMs to be performed in the Copenhagen temple or they would shut the temple down. Closing the temple would be most unfortunate for the Danish saints, but they will still have the Sweden temple and other temples on the continent aren’t too far away. If that absurd parade of horribles were to happen like you all imagine it might, then I repeat what I said above, we will get a taste of what our gay brothers and sisters went through in California when their legal marriages were reversed thanks in part to the hard work, brains, organizational skills and resources of the Mormons. The shoe would be on the other foot, so to speak. Kind of sucks, doesn’t it?

And all for what? So what if gays want to get married. Even if your ridiculous fear mongering were remotely true, the Church has been in this situation before with polygamy and the racist priesthood ban. In both cases the Church pivoted, adpated and kind of moved on. I don’t see SSM as rising to the level of threat or pressure on the Church the way polygamy or the priesthood ban did. Of course, I could be wrong. And if I am, I still don’t feel threatened by SSM. To be sure it’s not my cup of tea, but if two gay people want to make the same committment viz-a-viz marriage, I say let them. For the life of me, I cannot see why straight Mormons are so worked up or feel so threatened by SSM.

Why can’t we just accept gay people at their word: it’s how and who they are. Just let them live like everyone else. What is so difficult about that?

This is probably not the right blog to get a good answer, but I still don’t understand what is specifically incompatible between SSM and the Plan of Happiness/Salvation.

I mstyped. I meant this is not the right thread for the answer and I typed blog. You’re plenty smart enough.

@41 Annegb,

Regardless how wishy-washy as you have said that your feelings on this whole issue are, I think you’ve articulated something that is worth standing behind. Thank you.

Homosexual behaviors, according to the light and knowledge we’ve recieved are sin, but the attraction is not. Until our country is a theocracy, that doesn’t matter when it comes to making laws.

[...] to the realization that marriage equality really is the pro-family position? Indications look very [...]

Why would my sexuality be questioned for something somebody else did?

That’s the point.

Your question seemed to indicate that you believe gays behave that way and that it reflects poorly on all of them. But if you saw heterosexuals behaving in the same way, you wouldn’t say that heterosexuals behave that way, you would attribute their behavior to them as individuals. Gays just want to be treated the same way.

I mean—-how do I put this? If a heterosexual couple started kissing in front of me, I’d be as grossed out as if a homosexual couple did. I’m equal opportunity that way. I’m not talking about a kiss. I’m talking about kissing. I actually hate even talking about it.

I’m older generation. I’ve never been to a topless bar or a strip joint and the closest I’ve come to what I’ve heard happens at a gay parade is when that fat lady in the handicapped cart at Wal-Mart was unaware that her butt was hanging out of her pants. THAT was special.

I think you’re both missing the point. It’s not a question of whether you are ok with porn or PDA or whether “Everyone who knows us knows that me and my husband are hot” (really? you’re going to actually say that about yourselves?)

What I’m talking about is this:

So yeah, IF it happens, and is a primary part of gay parades, it reflects poorly on them

If you saw heterosexuals doing that at an independence day parade, would you say it reflected poorly on heterosexuals? Or on Americans? I doubt it. So why do you attribute the behavior of a few individuals to all gays?

Mcq, yes I would! How long have you known me? Of course, I’ve seen lots of people behaving badly, but I was asking in the context of gay parades.

I’ve never ever seen a homosexual person behaving badly in real life. I was just curious.

Listen, I looked at pictures online after I was scolded. Maybe they only take pictures of the crazy stuff. But two guys in tight underwear (I forget what they call them) kissing do not look straight, Mcq.

Since I’ve never actually seen a gay person behaving badly, I can’t comment on their similarity to straight people.

Although, I remembered that my friend’s first girlfriend TOTALLY flirted with another woman at a party. This was right after my friend came out and I was still reeling. I was so mad at her girlfriend; just appalled; and then it dawned on me that I would have been equally as mad if it were her boyfriend flirting. I’d have slapped a guy. I kept thinking “are you kidding me? Get your hands off that other girl!”

Gay men are not like straight men. Well, the gay men I know. They’re SO much easier to talk to. They’re masculine, but kind. And fun. They don’t have that knee-jerk “woman, curb your tongue!” attitude I get so often. So, except for my imagination of their sex life, I’d rather be stuck on a desert island with a gay man than a straight man.

I’m not trying to not sound homophobic. It’s just my truth.

You are both very strange. I’m going to warn my gay friends never to get on a boat with you.

I know what you’re going to say to them, too, Mcq….”you can’t have her, she’s mine!” I know what’s going on in that cute little head of yours.

I’d marry her. But I’m kind of promised to Martha Stewart.