tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post3562694733965254884..comments2023-11-03T07:49:49.304-04:00Comments on deltar's delirious dominion: homophobic?Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00973935026872349062noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-47982343621133831722018-10-14T19:58:04.305-04:002018-10-14T19:58:04.305-04:00ten years and yes I am appalled at the prejudiced ...ten years and yes I am appalled at the prejudiced attitudes taken by many of its views Archer Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14969049224282865979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-60074785226891981622008-10-23T06:33:00.000-04:002008-10-23T06:33:00.000-04:00in keeping with my daily swing on how to vote, mik...in keeping with my daily swing on how to vote, mikey's question had me thinking again. <BR/><BR/>what's the difference? the only change is that the government gives an extra 'star' to same-sex couples. because otherwise the rights of same-sex couples all already exist in california.<BR/><BR/>sure, that extra 'star' may afford more anti-discrimination rights to same-gender-attracted couples in the grand scheme, but what is the difference.<BR/><BR/>carolina and kendall come through once again with an important argument i've seen elsewhere too. if this is just about a moral judgement, then the government should perhaps not be involved in this arena. perhaps, allowing all couples who want to band together will lend more stability to our society and that should be the business of government. then different religions can attach their brand of importance to marriage and define it however they please.<BR/><BR/>maybe it should be held that condemning certain types of partnerships in schools is cruel and should be disallowed. perhaps teaching about these types of couples to our youth will allow for more tolerance when they encounter friends' parents in these situations...paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06701118457171556292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-80041028084831457762008-10-22T22:31:00.000-04:002008-10-22T22:31:00.000-04:00In a nutshell, I think that the solution Carolina ...In a nutshell, I think that the solution Carolina mentioned is a good approach--give everyone the opportunity to have a domestic partnership (with all of the tax benefits, visitation rights, etc.), but don't call it marriage. Limit marriage to be a religious ceremony performed in no way by the government. This would allow two widow sisters, as an example, to share benefits as domestic partners but not be "married". <BR/><BR/>I think this makes sense because I believe that the purpose of "marriage" from the government's perspective is to promote social stability. If one person loses a job, the other can work. If one is injured, the other can care for them. etc. etc.Kendallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17174041170669388272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-33076530260292075452008-10-22T16:51:00.000-04:002008-10-22T16:51:00.000-04:00look at this. i am again agreeing with her. oh, a...look at this. i am again agreeing with her. oh, and one other thing, governor patterson here in new york has started recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. so, although new york does not currently allow same-sex marriages, it will recognize those that are conducted in either massachusetts or connecticut. cute, right? way to go gov. he should know something about discrimination, being new york's first legally blind governor. ta da....Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00973935026872349062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-40752883698655599322008-10-22T16:33:00.000-04:002008-10-22T16:33:00.000-04:00Actually, I may have to correct my previous commen...Actually, I may have to correct my previous comment. I didn't take into account the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which (if Constitutional) might allow California to decline recognition of same-sex marriages at all:<BR/><BR/>" 1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.<BR/> 2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."<BR/><BR/>It looks like Congress was specifically trying to take same-sex marriages out of the realm of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I think there is a good argument that this Act is unconstitutional (even Scalia suggested in Lawrence--post-1996-- that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would require recognition of same-sex marriages). I understand Obama has indicated a desire to push for a repeal of this provision.<BR/><BR/>Either way, the same point remains--what is the distinction between marriage and domestic partnership? If there isn't any, then we should all be satisfied with domestic partnerships.Carolinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15670842888808430314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-21425407020630726922008-10-22T16:05:00.000-04:002008-10-22T16:05:00.000-04:00i stand corrected by carolina, whose views and kno...i stand corrected by carolina, whose views and knowledge of the subject are much deeper than mine. i agree with everything she has said or will ever say (probably).Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00973935026872349062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-87506109107409198872008-10-22T16:01:00.000-04:002008-10-22T16:01:00.000-04:00mikey. that's correct. and that happening, in my v...mikey. that's correct. and that happening, in my view, is unfair. can you imagine us approaching a racially mixed married couple and telling them that their marriage can no longer be called a marriage? or even approaching a racially mixed couple (peter and emily for example) and telling them that they can receive all the benefits of marriage, but because they are different, they cannot call what they have a marriage? it just doesn't make any sense to me. to think that that couple would be okay with all the legal benefits only implies that the couple is fine with discrimination and prejudice.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00973935026872349062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-45214289688733688062008-10-22T15:43:00.000-04:002008-10-22T15:43:00.000-04:00I don't know what I'm doing posting here again (ca...I don't know what I'm doing posting here again (call me an addict). <BR/><BR/>I imagine current same-sex marriages in CA will remain marriages if Prop 8 passes. After all, they were legally created marriages. <BR/><BR/>This is already routinely done in other contexts. States recognize marriages that never were or are now illegal in their own states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution--states must recognize and enforce contracts, etc., that were legally entered into in any other state of the Union. Also, as a matter of comity, states usually observe marriages that were legally entered into in other countries.<BR/><BR/>What Prop 8 would do is remove marriage as an option for same-sex couples going forward. I imagine any other partnership arrangements available currently would probably remain options (unless someone successfully argues all the way to the California Supreme Court that alternative partnerships are de-facto marriages prohibited by the California Constitution).<BR/><BR/>So I suppose a Prop 8 supporter could argue that prohibiting same-sex marriages doesn't really affect gay rights--they can still enjoy all of the same benefits by entering into domestic partnerships. But that very argument weakens the argument in favor of Prop 8. If Prop 8 does nothing to affect substantive rights, why does California need to pass it? Is California just trying to make a statement about homosexuals? Is this just all about the definition of a word? If it is, then what distinguishes, legally, a marriage from a domestic partnership? Does the difference just boil down to whose God sanctions what? Is a "domestic partnership" an agreement among two adults and the state and a "marriage" an agreement among two adults, the state, and God? And if that's the case, isn't defining marriage in a state constitution a problematic melding of Church and state? Wouldn't a better solution be to remove the word "marriage" from the law? What if we all just entered into domestic partnerships and then got "married" in our own churches according to the dictates of the God we know? It wouldn't take any of our substantive rights away, so it wouldn't be a big deal, right?<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry for the long post, especially after I promised to stop commenting.Carolinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15670842888808430314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-20577137306774345262008-10-22T14:11:00.000-04:002008-10-22T14:11:00.000-04:00If prop 8 passes, then those gays already married ...If prop 8 passes, then those gays already married will still receive the same benefits as married couples, except it would be called a "domestic partnership" and not a "marriage". Is that way off?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-82475463171473438042008-10-22T03:44:00.000-04:002008-10-22T03:44:00.000-04:00And just FYI...Many have asked about what the chur...And just FYI...<BR/><BR/>Many have asked about what the church’s involvement in the Prop 8 issue is really like in CA right now. Truthfully... very little has been said over our pulpits aside from the letters read and the normal announcements about our responsibility to vote in the upcoming elections. In fact, leaders are very pointed about NOT making this a “pulpit” issue so as not to confuse it (thankfully) with doctrine or temple worthiness, etc. Any actions taken are strictly voluntary and outside of official church activities. Voter registration papers are being passed around in Relief Society and Priesthood meetings to be sure that everyone who wants to is registered to vote, but we are not being told how to vote.<BR/><BR/>There is a very organized volunteer effort that we are encouraged to be a part of. Each ward has someone assigned (not called) to be a representative/organizer for all volunteer activities in the ward. They do call and make contact asking members if they want to volunteer in different ways. <BR/><BR/>Those who have volunteered have walked precincts (knocking doors) and made telephone calls to ask people how they are planning to vote. Yes, probably yes, no, probably no, or maybe. I’ve been told that this was mostly get a “soft count.” Those who said yes (supporting traditional marriage) were asked if they would like to volunteer or if they would like a sign for their yard. Those who said maybe will be sent literature about the proposition. Those who say no are left alone. <BR/><BR/>During election week, those who have said yes will receive pamphlets and doorhangers reminding them to vote. And on the evening of election day, callers will be calling the “yeses” who haven’t yet voted to remind them to go vote.<BR/><BR/>We have been challenged to dedicate 4 hours a week to promoting and supporting Prop 8 by assembling and passing out materials, making calls, etc.<BR/><BR/>Just thought those of you who aren’t fortunate enough to live in California right now would want to know...Amy Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01192340288605821357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-40715946236558278172008-10-22T03:43:00.000-04:002008-10-22T03:43:00.000-04:00Whoa... look what's been happening here while I've...Whoa... look what's been happening here while I've been on vacation! It just took me 1.5 hours to get through all of this, and I have two pages of notes on my thoughts and feelings. My dishes are still undone. I realize the discussion has pretty much happened. I'll spare you all of my conflicted thoughts, but I will say this.<BR/><BR/>There is a long history of prophets guiding people to do things that didn't "make sense." Hindsight leaves us with a lot of questions about past guidance. Paul (my husband, not the apostle) mentions something about the possibility a broader "grand design."<BR/><BR/>The prophets are given to us as watchmen on the tower... a tower much higher than the ground I am standing on. And no matter how hard I strain my eyes to see, I won’t see as far as they can because I don’t have the same position/responsibility as they do. In the end, the sins of this generation is upon them if they fail to warn and call repentance.<BR/><BR/>I have no doubt they have prayed about this one before they issued any letters or made any suggestions or held any broadcasts. They obviously didn't get a "no" answer.<BR/><BR/>And I feel like I would be sacrificing more personally by not following them than I would by following them.<BR/><BR/>Is that selfish of me?Amy Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01192340288605821357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-54780143975976909942008-10-21T23:35:00.000-04:002008-10-21T23:35:00.000-04:00mikey, two points: first, there are already many g...mikey, two points: first, there are already many gay people that are married in california. what happens to them if prop 8 passes? second, if it doesn't pass, the status quo stands, which allows gay people to get married. right?Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00973935026872349062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-50625838551367629662008-10-21T22:02:00.000-04:002008-10-21T22:02:00.000-04:00I just found one thing that I wanted to ask. If Pr...I just found one thing that I wanted to ask. If Proposition 8 were to pass, it does not take away any rights that gays don't already have, it just defines marriage as between a man and woman. Is that right? If it doesn't pass, what does that mean for gays then? California law already says "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.)Mikey, Anna, Lillie and Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11026096288843248447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-57386388901608868632008-10-21T17:22:00.000-04:002008-10-21T17:22:00.000-04:00The excerpt from Dallin Oaks is right on point--a ...The excerpt from Dallin Oaks is right on point--a good find.Carolinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15670842888808430314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-20699825582417427482008-10-21T12:35:00.000-04:002008-10-21T12:35:00.000-04:00i should also add that my local leadership has bee...i should also add that my local leadership has been very specific that church membership/worthiness is not contingent upon supporting prop 8. they have asked that support for the proposition not be asked for nor vocalized during the block meetings.<BR/><BR/>i wasn't here for prop 22, but this seems to be a shift...and a very appreciated one.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06701118457171556292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-8815611283497967742008-10-21T11:50:00.000-04:002008-10-21T11:50:00.000-04:00“When churches or church leaders choose to enter t...“When churches or church leaders choose to enter the public sector to engage in debate on a matter of public policy, they should be admitted to the debate and they should expect to participate in it on the same basis as all other participants. In other words, if churches or church leaders choose to oppose or favor a particular piece of legislation, their opinions should be received on the same basis as the opinions offered by other knowledgeable organizations or persons, and they should be considered on their merits. By the same token, churches and church leaders should expect the same broad latitude of discussion of their views that conventionally applies to everyone else’s participation in public policy debates. A church can claim access to higher authority on moral questions, but its opinions on the application of those moral questions to specific legislation will inevitably be challenged by and measured against secular-based legislative or political judgments.” Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Values and Public Policy,” Ensign, Oct 1992, 60 [1]Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00973935026872349062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-42360206110778458432008-10-21T11:21:00.000-04:002008-10-21T11:21:00.000-04:00sorry i joined the conversation so late. i saw st...sorry i joined the conversation so late. i saw stephen's original post and felt conflicted enough to shy away. i didn't realize this discussion was raging away.<BR/><BR/>i don't have much time right now, so i'll give a cop-out answer and say that i'm glad susan joined the conversation and i enjoyed her comments very much. <BR/><BR/>willy purple has some hard-hitting and important points about how church 'doctrine' and 'policy' evolve.<BR/><BR/>i agree more with kendall and carolina on this issue--framing the issue legally, logically and morally.<BR/><BR/>thank you melinda for your heartfelt comments on making this decision.<BR/><BR/>stevie: i agree with most of what you said. it is difficult to say that the prophets 'simply didn't ask'. i suppose you're giving them a convenient out there, but it's pretty clear that david o mckay felt that blacks and the priesthood was a policy from '54 on. however, he went to the lord on several occasions (mentioned in the historical record) and his answer was no. i tend to believe this had to do with creating unity on the council, but it could very well have been some part of a more grand design.<BR/><BR/>this is a difficult issue. being the only member of the thread who can't say, "i'm glad i don't live in california" i have to say my decision on how to vote has gone from 'against' to 'for' to 'blank' (don't vote either way) and back again. my mind has changed daily to weekly. i don't know what to do. my absentee ballot sits in the desk here with barack's vote on it...but unsent because of my ambivalence on this issue...paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06701118457171556292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-946920010065962422008-10-21T00:40:00.000-04:002008-10-21T00:40:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.pattyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787412639138690444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-63911805456825449012008-10-21T00:39:00.000-04:002008-10-21T00:39:00.000-04:00What movie Stephen?What movie Stephen?pattyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787412639138690444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-52891020547396446312008-10-20T18:35:00.000-04:002008-10-20T18:35:00.000-04:00stevey. looks like you killed the discussion.i wa...stevey. looks like you killed the discussion.<BR/><BR/>i was kinda hoping to hear paul's $0.02.peteyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04118724965106211243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-29563245592712576712008-10-19T02:37:00.000-04:002008-10-19T02:37:00.000-04:00for all those who have commented, i want to say th...for all those who have commented, i want to say thanks. it's a touchy issue and i appreciate everyone's thoughts. I want to say a few things as way of providing background form my thoughts.<BR/><BR/>first, i think one of the greatest things about mormonism is its insistence that its members do not blindly obey. d&c 9:8 (although it is speaking about the translation process, but i think it applies to this situation) insists that we first study out the issues in our mind. then, when we feel it is right, we ask. likewise, section 8 tells us that the holy ghost speaks to both our minds and our hearts. <BR/><BR/>when it comes to the issue of proposition 8, gay marriage, and homosexuality, there is room, i think, for dissent from the party line. the prophets, indeed, have said many things about homosexuality and gay marriage. it is up to us, then, to study what they have said. we then take our conclusions to the lord. often times, in a previous life, i found myself simply accepting whatever came from church leadership without really studying out the issues for myself first. i think doing this, for me, was a weaker way to practice my religion. the history of our church implies that we should always use our intellect and knowledge to flush out the issues, and then take our conclusions to the lord for confirmation. <BR/><BR/>that being said, do i think that people who oppose gay marriage are guilty of blind obedience? absolutely not. this is a very personal issue, and I respect anyone's take on it, as long as they have studied it out in their minds and then have come to a conclusion that incorporates faith and reason. so, emily, when you say you are acting on faith, i have nothing but respect for that. i do not think it is blind obedience, as I think you have studied out the issue in a very deliberate, sympathetic manner. <BR/><BR/>now, please let me give you my reasons and justifications for supporting gay marriage, and (by implication) opposing prop 8. <BR/><BR/>first, no church authority has told any member outside of california what to believe or how to act in regards to prop 8. i am not voting in california. letters were not read in my sacrament meeting. i have not been asked to support the measure with time and money. i do not think the prophets have spoken to the entire country or, for that matter the world, with final authority on this matter.<BR/><BR/>second, if i lived in california, i would still not vote for prop 8. why? is this outright disobedience to the prophet? as i've studied the issue of gay marriage, i long ago decided that there was no way i could actively work against the happiness of my gay friends on such a level. i truly believe that marriage will bring many gay and lesbian people some measure of lasting happiness, and not just because of added rights and privileges that marriage brings. domestic partnerships, while working to solve the problem, do not address the root problem. by actively working against gay marriage, i would feel like i was actively working against the happiness of my gay friends. i could not, in good conscience, interact with my friends while knowing that i was actively supporting something that would cause them great pain. <BR/><BR/>third, (peter has touched on this) i feel the fight over gay rights is very similar to the civil rights fight. of course, it is not exactly the same, but i struggle to find major differences. over the past couple of years, the church has changed its stance on homosexuality. it now holds that people who have same sex attraction 'challenges' did not choose these challenges. while the church does not say they were necessarily born that way, they do hold that most likely there is nothing you can do about it. the feelings will most likely not go away. they ask gay and lesbian members to lead celibate lives and stay faithful. the most striking thing i find here is that the church now holds that homosexuality is now a characteristic that is a part of certain people through no choice of their own. i see this as a positive thing, and I'm glad the church has come this far. <BR/><BR/>so now, how do we say there are certain people in the country that have something that is an essential characteristic, something that they can't change, and yet we are going to withhold the privilege to marry because they are born with that certain characteristic. as has been mentioned on this thread, this is very similar to interracial marriage, which the church opposed for a long time. however, we changed our stance on that. we changed our stance on blacks and the priesthood. we changed our stance on polygamy. we altered the definition of the word of wisdom from originally allowing beer to outlawing it by the end of the 19th century (coinciding nicely with a national temperance movement). obviously, some of the stances the church takes are influenced by the society and culture we live in. does that mean the prophets are not prophets? no. it means that the prophets do not think to ask for revelation about certain things until their minds tell them to do so. thus, the church was late in accepting the civil rights movement and extending the priesthood to all worthy males. we are a church slow to accept change and I think that's okay. in order to make major decisions, unanimity is required in church leadership. the church leadership is older and more conservative. this helps the church stay steady and not swayed by the latest fads. it also makes the church slow to accept change, even if it is for the better. because of this, I do believe (or at least hope) that at some point in the future, practicing homosexuals will be allowed to be full-fledged members of the church. i don't really think they will ever be allowed to be married in the temple (and perhaps not attend the temple) but I do think they should be allowed to fully participate and receive the blessings of full church membership.<BR/><BR/>and now i've already written too much. peter and i are going to see a manly man's night movie, in order to prove to you all that, even though we do support gay marriage (at least I do, not sure about peter), we are extremely manly and heterosexual. okay mom? you don't have to worry.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00973935026872349062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-64377948147835381342008-10-18T00:07:00.000-04:002008-10-18T00:07:00.000-04:00the comment was meant to be a joke, as is most of ...the comment was meant to be a joke, as is most of what I say actually. Although I know some people who do have pretty loving relationships with their animals.... <BR/>I don't think beastiality is borne simply out of sexual depravity.....and of course I don't think that of homosexuals at all<BR/> I also think I probably should leave these arguments on this blog to Darin from now on, I get too bored when he is goneThe Frandsen'shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18269620818227520749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-37343345434534125682008-10-17T23:40:00.000-04:002008-10-17T23:40:00.000-04:00I just have to chime in on the goat comment (and t...I just have to chime in on the goat comment (and then I think I'll stop commenting), which I've heard several times now. I'm not sure if the argument is intended to be a joke or not.<BR/><BR/>Goats are not persons, nor are they competent to enter into contracts. Marriage is a type of contract and therefore must be between competent, consenting persons. There is no such thing as a contract (of any kind) between animals or between a person and an animal.<BR/><BR/>I think a better illustration of the intended point would be polygamy, although I think there are legitimate distinctions between same-sex and polygamist marriages.<BR/><BR/>As a very long side note, equating (or comparing) a person's desire to marry an individual of the same sex with a desire to marry an animal suggests an underlying belief that homosexual love is not genuine, easily dismissed, and the product of sexual depravity. That's why I think the argument came into existence--not to highlight a supposed legal slippery slope (although it is couched in those terms), but to buttress the argument that homosexuality is immoral.Carolinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15670842888808430314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-88968530558365632282008-10-17T22:37:00.000-04:002008-10-17T22:37:00.000-04:00what should we do when someone wants to marry thei...what should we do when someone wants to marry their goat? <BR/><BR/>Should their be limits on anything?<BR/><BR/>(Darin is gone tonight, but he says this all the time)The Frandsen'shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18269620818227520749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18700468.post-3401692835535373162008-10-17T21:21:00.000-04:002008-10-17T21:21:00.000-04:00I think John Taylor is turning in his grave.I think John Taylor is turning in his grave.Willy Purplehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00195626780184267171noreply@blogger.com