Seth writes:
“to maintain our status as a qualified 501(c) tax-exempt organization we would be required to allow gay marriage ceremonies be performed within our chapels.”

RJW: Two things:
1) The fancy “501(c)” in your sentence sure sounds official. Unfortunately, what you are saying is entirely false. A complete lie. Or maybe you’ve just deliberately decided not to think about the issue. Either way, shame on you. You know already that the church is under no legal obligation today to let just any heterosexual couple that wants to get married in our chapels. Think about it, if a bunch of hell’s angels wanted to have a good ol’ heterosexual wedding ceremony in our chapel, is the church legally obligated to let them? Of course not. Why would that all of a sudden change with the legalization of homosexual marriage? What you have here is a classic *scare* tactic.
2) Let’s assume what you’re saying is true (even though it’s a deliberate lie). So what? Does the church only stand by its principles as long as they are inexpensive? I personally don’t care if the church pays taxes or not. Why should the church’s *financial* status have any bearing on this?

Seth also writes:
“Your stats on Army divorces is incorrect.”

RJW: they *are* not my stats. If you had read the report I linked to, or any of the reports, you’d notice that they are the *army’s* stats. Do you honestly believe that the war has not had an impact on the marriages of enlisted soldiers? If so, then shame on you. You need to get to know a few more soldiers and learn about what they are currently suffering. It’s not pretty.

Seth also writes:
If Prop 8 passes, “the church would be forced to allow any type of married couple adopt children through its agency.”

RJW: again, Seth, you are either deliberately lying or else deliberately uninformed. The church has *very* rigorous rules about who can adopt through its adoption agency, and none of these would be at all affected by Prop 8. Consider for example, that it’s currently legal (in non-Mormon adoption agencies) for heterosexual couples who drink alcohol to adopt a child. The church’s adoption agency, however, has a strict policy about alcohol in the homes of its adopting families. Just because something is *legal* does not mean that the church has to accept it as *moral*. Just because non-Kosher meat is legal doesn’t mean your local synagogue has to serve it. To argue otherwise is to be guilty of deliberate misinformation and *lies*.

Seth again:
“Homosexual tendencies have not been proven either way as “born with these feelings” or acquired over time.”

RJW: Seth, even the church’s own psychologists and therapists agree that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture. To argue that one’s biological proclivities have nothing to do with it is (*sigh*) again to be deliberately lying or else going out of one’s way not to find out the truth.

Jim Riley writes:
“It’s been quite some time since I’ve read such high-minded, nuanced, utterly senseless drivel.”

RJW: I’m glad you thought it was nuanced.

Jim also writes:
“If some child-sacrificing cult in the suburbs were being investigated, would you cry fowl just because your great-grand-pappy had to watch his barn burn down in Kirtland?”

RJW: Jim, I feel great pains in my soul that it is even necessary to point this out, but there is a *huge* difference between a child-sacrificing cult and a homosexual union. Consider just a few (so-totally-obvious-I-can’t-believe-I’m-writing-this) differences:

Child-sacrificing cult: kills people
Homosexual union: doesn’t kill people
Child-sacrificing cult: wants to hurt children
Homosexual union: doesn’t want to hurt children
Child-sacrificing cult: is anti-human, based on hate (or else vindictive insanity)
Homosexual union: is completely human, based on love

Oh, and did I mention that the one actually *kills* children?

Jim writes:
“What argues against this sort of barbarity? Christianity! You better hope Christianity influences the state or you will get the sort of secular humanism that allowed the worst outrages of the 20th century to take place under Bolshevism and Maoism.”

RJW: I don’t see why one has to be a Christian to argue against human sacrifice or even abortion. You can certainly believe that life is precious and that people should have basic human rights without necessarily believing in Christ. Why does one need Christ to believe those things? Certainly you can’t argue that Christians have been less violent and intolerant than other people throughout history! There have been violent and terrible people of all kinds, Christian and non-Christian. It’s an attractive fiction to believe Christian societies have been inherently more tolerant and non-violent over the years than other societies. It’s not true, but it’s fetching.

Jim:
“I have a copy of a New Hampshire Justice of the Peace Manual on my shelf–for 1830. Among other things, it plainly states that an atheist should not be allowed to testify in court, since he had nothing to “bind his conscience.” You should all read the record, the historic record, before you post such incredibly uninformed observations. Most of you are a discredit to your faith.”

RJW: Perhaps you could explain what possible relevance the New Hampshire Justice of the Peace Manual from 1830 possible has for the discussion at hand. Am I to believe that because a New Hampshire governmental manual said something in 1830, I should believe it? And I’m even a little confused by what you seem to be implying. Do you also believe that atheists should not be allowed to testify in court? If so, then wow. That’s really bad. I mean really, really bad. In your world, in a dark alley, a Christian could come upon two atheists, murder one of them, let the other one survive, and there’d be no one to testify against him (except that I’m starting to wonder if in your world the other one would survive at all). Perhaps you should consult that other “Peace Manual” (the bible) about that one.

Melanctha writes:
“Ancient sexual taboos exist because they have social utility, unless you believe the nation should be burdened with the sort of severe deformities that can result from incestual reproduction.”

RJW:
As much as I hate the thought of incest between consenting adults, you cannot *legally* restrict it simply because the reproductive possibilities include potential birth defects. Of course, you could require in all instances of incest-marriage that the couple get sterilized. Just like Hitler did with the mentally handicapped. Maybe we should make it a law that anyone who might have children with birth defects has to get sterilized?

But of course, it’s just another wonderful scare tactic to talk about gay marriage as if it were going to open the floodgates of incest, as if people were just *dying* to marry their siblings and the only thing stopping them is the law. Please.

Melanctha:
“Homosexual men also have a higher incidence of anal cancer.”

RJW: And I can see that your support of Prop 8 is motivated by a deep concern about how many gay people get cancer. We can really feel the love here.

Melanctha:
“The embracing of “homosexual marriage” as a respected choice, with the full approval of the law, is a perverse nod to the notion that human populations must be managed. Whenever man attempts to manage ‘human populations,’ you wind up with all kinds of havoc, ranging from Hitler’s eugenics to the fiscal crises that may bankrupt the nation soon.”

RJW: This is my favorite part of your post. Let’s just map out the logic of your comment: 1) embracing homosexual marriage leads to 2) the idea that human populations must be managed, and therefore 3) we “wind up with all kinds of havoc” like Hitler. Melanctha, this is laughable. First of all, which position is it, exactly, that is trying to “manage” the human population? The one that *restricts* marriage to heterosexuality or the one that does *not* restrict marriage to heterosexuality? How is allowing more consenting adults to decide what they want to count as “marriage” at all, in any universe, a “managing” of human populations? Who exactly is doing the managing here? No, my dear Melanctha. Prop 8 is exactly an attempt to “manage” what is acceptable among a given human population, and you know it.

Melanctha writes,
“And in another 30 years, will we be ignoring other ancient taboos that have had social utility? If your ‘consenting adults’ standard gets argued down to 12 or 14, as some have tried in Britain, will you have no defense against pederasts? If the “consent” of animals is measured by their compliance, are you ready for the sort of epidemics that can result from beastiality?”

RJW: this is known as the “slippery slope” logical fallacy. You can Wikipedia it for an explanation, but here it is in a nutshell: “In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies.” That is, if you allow gay marriage, people will be marrying children, animals, toasters, etc. etc. It’s yet again another scare tactic. Man, I tell you, people can do (and say apparently) horrible things when they are filled with fear. Logic is usually the first thing out the window. (An interesting side note here: in some of the literature distributed to me and my fellow ward members, one of the ten “talking points” about Prop 8 was actually called “Slippery Slope” ha ha).

Melanctha:
“God is not ok with it, nor any other sexual deviancies and, looking through the long lens, it may not be in our life times, but it will come, rest assured.” And homosexuality is “an ‘abomination’ for which cities were burned.”

RJW: Ultimately, this is your only argument: *God says I’m right.* Unfortunately, for you, this is not a logical argument. Fortunately, for me and other opponents of Prop 8, illogical arguments like this have no legal standing.

M

And don’t talk about this ruling of the California Supreme Court being deeply “American.” The establishment clause was intended to keep government out of the church, not Judeo-Christianity out of Government. The Aztecs and the Druids believed in human sacrifice. Pete Singer of Princeton is calling for the right to kill unwanted children under two years old. What argues against this sort of barbarity? Christianity! You better hope Christianity influences the state or you will get the sort of secular humanism that allowed the worst outrages of the 20th century to take place under Bolshevism and Maoism.

I have a copy of a New Hampshire Justice of the Peace Manual on my shelf–for 1830. Among other things, it plainly states that an atheist should not be allowed to testify in court, since he had nothing to “bind his conscience.” You should all read the record, the historic record, before you post such incredibly uninformed observations. Most of you are a discredit to your faith.

One of the more obvious occurrences of this is with the Aaronic Priesthood in ancient times. In those times, in order to hold the Aaronic Priesthood, one had to be a direct descendant of Aaron. Discrimination? Or a wise withholding of privileges by our Lord?

Woman have never been ordained to the priesthood. Young men have to be at least 12 years old to receive the priesthood. One must be worthy to enter the temple. God has always withheld privileges from certain groups of people. Sometimes the reason is obvious, sometimes it is not. Even the gospel itself has been withheld from certain groups of people (Matthew 10:5-6).

This is not a perfect analogy, but I do believe it is right in line with what is happening today. The Lord is once again inspiring His leaders (at the time of the constitution we know of no prophets of His that were on the earth) to establish a constitution built upon the gospel. I only bring up this point because this is a predominantly LDS conversation. If you believe the scriptures and doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the LDS Church, then I don’t see how you cannot arrive at this conclusion. The Lord inspired the founders of this country (D&C 101:80) to draft a constitution for the people, to protect our rights, according to just and holy principles (D&C 101:77).

It is very saddening to see all this conversation coming from LDS members, who have the restored gospel at their fingertips, and the guidance of living prophets arriving on a constant basis. Might we all strengthen our faith in the Lord and His prophets, whom do His work for Him in these days (D&C 1:38).

God bless.

I was born and raised in the Church in an devote LDS family in Salt Lake City. I come from a long heritage of Mormons dating back to Liberty Jail with the Prophet Joseph, to the Hans Mill Massacre, to Navoo, and to the hand-cart pioneers who helped settle Salt Lake City. I was born and raised in Salt Lake in an extremely active LDS family, served a mission, performed with the Mormon Youth Chorus, and worked for 5 years in the Church Administration Building with President Monson and our other Church leaders.

However, at the age of 32, after being faithful and active in every way, I was forced to acknowledge that prayer, fasting, priesthood blessings, and professional therapy would not remove the fact that I too am gay. I was forced at that time to choose between suicide and separation from the family and friends I loved by moving away from UT.

I am grateful for choosing the later, moving to California, and finally acknowledging that I am a Gay Mormon. My life is now filled with love, joy, peace, and the support of my family. I am so happy to still be alive today.

Although I will never be as eloquent as you and many of the posts here, I am grateful that there are intelligent, thoughtful people such as you who recognize Prop 8 as simple hatred and discrimination. I am deeply hurt that my LDS brothers and sisters could be so filled prejudice that they could even consider this proposition. I can’t believe they could hate me this much. I am one of them.

How can an entire faith of people with such a long heritage of being persecuted and subject to discrimination, now find it acceptable to do the same to another group of people? Was it really so long ago that we have forgotten how it feels to be hated and feared? Thank you for posing the question of are we really Christians. What happened to the Christian principles I was taught in Primary of “As I have loved you, love one another?”

I am grateful for intelligent people such as yourself and for my family who have decided that family is the strongest bond on earth and in heaven, that Christ’s gospel was that of love for all mankind even if they are different from us, and that it is more important to do the right thing than it is to bow to political pressure being exerted in our worship services. Thank you for confirming that even I am a Child of God and that my life also has value.

Dale Barton

But still, to sum it up, my partner and I have been together 15 years today. I love him more and more each year. Our families have always been fully supportive. Our friends have become mostly other married couples, and the majority of them are heterosexual couples. The town we live in is far left of center. We feel blessed.

We do not feel our relationship is supported by government or religion. We do not need or particularly care about this support. But we also do not feel our relationship is supported by the so-called GLBTI (they just keep adding letters, don’t they?) community. When I pick up a “GLBTI” paper, most of the articles are geared toward young single men. And of course, a large portion of the classifieds deal with seeking out anonymous sex. When we attend urban Pride festivals, again, the festivals are geared mostly toward singles. In large social settings when I tell someone hitting on me that I’m married, it usually makes no difference in their subsequent persistent behavior. And then there are the so-called “open” relationships. Give me a break! If you want to mess around, do not call yourself married. I know of anecdotal cases where this works for the long term, but usually it is a signal that the relationship is over. The point is that if we want the world to recognize and respect our familial relationships, the recognition and respect has to begin within our community.

Yes, I want Prop. 8 defeated. I don’t really care what makes a Prop. 8 supporter tick. We are all on our own paths and hopefully make our decisions based on what we believe to be best for everyone. I honestly cannot flatly state that all Prop. 8 supporters are ignorant wack jobs. Undoubtedly some are, but similar could be said of some Prop. 8 opponents.

In our household, Prop. 8 passage or defeat will barely be noticed. By the way, no, we have not gotten legally married. As far as we’re concerned we did that 15 years ago, by ourselves, exchanging rings while sitting on a cliff at the Presidio overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge and the glittering Pacific Ocean on a warm and sunny August afternoon. No government or church can take that away from us.

Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks