Recent events bring to mind modern-day prophets’ clear warnings to us all. The Proclamation on the Family was issued in 1995 in anticipation of recent events, and says the following:
“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
Here is the entire text, which M* believes should be carefully re-read today:
WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His 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. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
TheMillennialStar: Time to re-read the Proclamation on the Family http://t.co/Bg6c0Hs71Y #lds #mormon
A lot of people are going to be pointing to the Supreme Court ruling today since gay marriage is legal that they must be fully accepted in the church and the temple. Well, alcohol is legal and if you are a practicing alcoholic you may not have full fellowship in the church. Same with gay marriage.
The brethren always seem to start talking about things about 20 years before those issues really come to a head. The fact that the brethren have seemed really concerned about religious liberty issues over the last few years is worrisome.
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: Time to re-read the Proclamation on the Family http://t.co/Bg6c0Hs71Y #lds #mormon
Winifred, you are right, that people will be calling on LDS to support this. I would direct them to Elder Oaks’ 2013 talk, “No Other Gods” and Elder Lynn Robbins Talk, “Which Way Do You Face”. Both talks teach how we, as Latter-day Saints, must choose G-d’s laws first over the laws of man and society. We also have many examples from the scriptures of valiant people standing up for the right things: Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Esther, Nephi, Alma, Amulek.
Reading through the opinion quickly. I am surprised by the exceptionally negative tone reflected in the dissents towards the majority. Usually they are a little more diplomatic, but they really rip on the majority. Interesting.
From Elder Neal A. Maxwell:
“Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.) President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ! We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.
…
Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. M. J. Sobran also said, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.
…
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, “summer is nigh” (Matt. 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat!”
(h/t to LDSPhilosopher)
Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng
Time to re-read the Proclamation on the Family: http://t.co/SrelBguFJZ
Scalia in dissent:
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and
the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The
opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—
and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the
Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution
and its Amendments neglect to mention. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee
of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant
praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the
freedom to govern themselves.
When a Supreme Court Justice worries, we should all worry. Maybe it’s time for a constitutional amendment to do away with Article III judges that serve for life, and make them elected judges that can, with enough effort, be voted out of office.
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: Time to re-read the Proclamation on the Family http://t.co/Bg6c0Hs71Y #lds #mormon
From the four dissenting justices: “Chief Justice Roberts: “But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening….The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial ‘caution’ and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice.'”
Justice Scalia: “The [majority’s] opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so…The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”
Justice Thomas: “Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.”
Justice Alito: “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion,the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
Though unsurprising, the Court ruling is a serious disappointment. It further mocks democratic process, and justifies an attitude of contempt for judiciary fiat. There will surely be a proportional backlash that may be more significant than the all the parading homosexual antics which drove this whole scenario.
I am thinking that massive civil disobedience is not beyond possibility. This is not a contest about civil rights, it is more a question of whether or not the human race will survive another enactment of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Alito in dissent:
Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the
majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure
those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights
of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will
soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that
those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their
thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat
those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots
and treated as such by governments, employers, and
schools.
And I would add — the bloggernacle.
Geoff, it would be good if you could put in a reference and link to that Maxwell quote. Thx.
^ I’ll second that Bookslinger request!
Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: Time to re-read the Proclamation on the Family http://t.co/Bg6c0Hs71Y #lds #mormon
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: Time to re-read the Proclamation on the Family http://t.co/Bg6c0Hs71Y #lds #mormon
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: Time to re-read the Proclamation on the Family http://t.co/Bg6c0Hs71Y #lds #mormon
Church issued this statement on its website today: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage.
Reid, actually that’s an old link. Here is the correct link:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/supreme-court-decision-will-not-alter-doctrine-on-marriage
Today’s statement was brief:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court’s decision does not alter the Lord’s doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice.”
By way of addendum, in a different font than the press release, the page links to the previous, lengthy article on the divine institution of marriage.
Religious institutions are free to believe and practice whatever they want, in accordance with local laws. If they don’t drink, they don’t have to work in industries that offer alcohol. If they don’t play cards or gamble, same applies. Same with dancing, wearing or not wearing beards or a whole host of practices.
Just because they do not believe in or practice such things is a separate issue from what the particular country holds to be lawful. Many, many counties where LDS live have recognized same-sex marriage for quite a while. More countries are adopting it. People just have to distinguish what the law allows with what churches practice. They’re separate.
One might also consider the reasoning according to the majority opinion in the matter of US law:
“”No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.”
~Justice Anthony Kennedy, June 26, 2015″
Just a comment on the gay-alcohol comarison – “alcoholic” is not a legally protected class. There are numerous protected classes associated with sexual orientation and identity.
PA, so if marriage is about preventing loneliness, please tell me why three people cannot get married. If there are two men married, why can’t they marry another woman or man? Shouldn’t all three of them have “equality?”
Once you have dealt with that issue, please tell me why six people and a dog cannot be married, or why five people and a tree cannot be married.
Geoff, I think that a bit of a silly argument because animals and plants can’t give consent nor do they have right that can be considered violated in the same way. However I do agree with you – and Roberts brought this up in his dissent – that this almost certainly opens the door for polygamy.
The one reason why it might not happen for polygamy is simply because of course decisions aren’t purely made in terms of law. While the left wanted gay marriage they typically hate polygamy as misogynist. So there is a chance that they won’t open it up. Further most polygamist groups merely want cohabitation legal and to be left alone. Often they make use of welfare programs for extra wives. Getting formal recognition of their marriage may be counterproductive for them. All that said, I’d lay good odds that polygamy is legalized within the next decade.
I suspect that it is *this* moreso than gay marriage that really worries the church. I also think that the issue of taxes used as leverage to change church doctrine will be an issue over the next 10 years.
I should add that I think religious conservatives blew it decades ago thinking they had the upper hand in everything. I think the signs were clear in the 90’s that society was changing and gay unions were going to quickly become normative. What churches should have done then is started to try and separate civil marriage from religious marriage and perhaps even get rid of civil marriage entirely. It was the failure to do that when there was a chance that made today rather inevitable.
And already the polygamy articles start. Politico has up an article “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy: Why Group Marriage is the Next Horizon of Social Liberalism”
Alohalarsen
The comparison is correct. U may not have full fellowsip in the lds church if u r a practicing homosexual.
Alohalarsen,
And why shouldn’t alcoholics be in a legally suspect class? After all, they are oppressed because society looks down upon them. They are certainly discriminated against (think public intoxication laws). It seems our government is just behind the times in not recognizing them as a suspect class. And what about left-handers? They suffer immense persecution at the hands of the oppressive, right-handed majority. After all, when they write with pens, any text that happens to be on the pen is upside down for them, thus forcing them to have to read it upside-down while writing!
Anyway, I think you see I’m being facetious. In truth, I’m suspicious of suspect classes to begin with, we do not have rights because we are men, women, black, white, gay, or what have you; we have rights because we are individuals. Thus individual liberty trumps class. If it’s wrong to do it to an individual, it’s wrong to do it to a group of individuals of whatever classification scheme you can imagine (think hate crimes).
Geoff B, that’s an old, recycled ‘what if’ that’s been put up and put down since these discussions began. Usually followed by ‘what about incest, pedophilia, bestiality” questions.
Do a little research. I’m not much in the mood to spoon-feed easily obtainable information for people who may or may not be interested in serious answers.
Geoff B
Just read your bestiality reference.
Yep, you’re not serious.
Clark – I agree. I kept waiting for religious institutions to pursue civil unions. They did not. They gave lip service, but no actionable support. I do think the speed of change took them by surprise. Seems to happen regularly these days.
PA, part of my comment was not serious, but this part is: please tell me why marriage can or should be confined to two people.
Question:
Now that the civil marriage situation has changed, are we violating the Proclamation on the Family’s injunction to “promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society” if we a) advocate the eradication of civil marriage, or b) try to force progressives, in the name of ideological cohesiveness, to support state-sanctioned bigamy?
Goeff B.
As I noted, this ‘question’ has been addressed for years. Every outcome I’ve seen cites the same cases and precedents and arguments. Then it pops up again. Frankly, I’m tired of relooking up things like this when I realize seekers of understanding can find it just as easily. Only tricky part if finding online sources that are actually about serious understanding.
Thanks, too, for the part about part not serious. That’s a big difficulty in online discussions – it can be difficult to detect sarcasm, dry wit or a tongue-in-cheek remark.
I did come across an asserting that Justice Roberts’s dissent implied an opening of the door for polygamy. I’ll have to pursue this. It’s an interesting line of speculation as to what the LDS Church would do with this, seeing as how ‘doctrine’ is one man and one woman, period.
JimD
Where’d the bigamy thing come from?
Who’s advocating the eradication of civil marriage?
Sounds like a couple of strawman arguments.
PA I notice that some lawmakers, including here in Utah, are finally starting to push the “no civil marriage” position. However it’s really too late and they have little hope of getting it passed at this point. Had they wanted that as a live option they had to have pushed it years and years ago.
PA, not everything is about progressives and their agenda.
At the moment, conservative/libertarian discussion boards are full of talk about both bigamy and eliminating state-sanctioned marriage.
Hence, my question.
Clark, yep, agreed. That train on civil unions has left the station. And as a friend reminded me, there’s the entire ‘separate but equal’ thing.
Had an extended discussion about five years ago online with a gay member of the forum. I was pushing civil unions. He held them as not fully equal. Second-class recognition. It took me quite a while to see his point of view.
Not long after another blogger made a comment about how children in such relationships would be at a disadvantage. He had a great reply. Noted he and his partner had been together 35 years. Raised three kids (partner’s sister and her husband were killed, left three little ones, no one else in the family would step forward to raise them). He suggested the blogger ask his kids about their disadvantages. One son was retired military, multiple combat tours, wife stayed with him the whole time. Daughter gave up an Ivy League education (scholarship) to be a stay-at-home mom so her kids could have the family life she had. Other son, driven to excel in business, which he did.
So much for the disadvantages.
It’s the old saying, get to know members of a group, pretty soon the prejudices fade away.
PS. he also related how, when ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ was being debated for being done away with, he wrote to his son (then in combat) and asked him what he thought the reaction would be among the soldiers, if having gays serve openly would affect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. His son wrote back that he purposely didn’t tell him about all his experiences, but that day on patrol was the second time a gay person had saved his life. The first was right after his parents were killed.
Sounds like strengthening families to me.
JimD
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll just note that my experience on conservative blogs is the discussions tend to go to the extreme right out of the gate and, in cases such as you cite, there’s an awful lot of ‘what-if’ scenario building and very, very little reading of the decisions or related cases to see if it had already been addressed. Usually just recycling of things heard elsewhere and not verified.
Roberts’ dissent said the following:
“If not having the opportunity to marry ‘serves to disrespect and subordinate’ gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same ‘imposition of this disability,’ … serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?” he writes. “I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any.”
One major difference between legalized SSM here and that in Europe: we didn’t vote for ours, while they did.
The voice of the people was not only ignored, but rejected. The 14th Amendment never was meant to apply to SSM or any other type of marriage. Otherwise, why did Reynolds v USA ever pass the SCOTUS, banning plural marriage?
There is inconsistency here, meaning we could see Reynolds dismissed as the law of the land.
And the reasoning behind marriage: that of bearing children, is now meaningless. Government restricted plural marriage in Reynolds to protect the wives and children from abuse in plural marriages. That no longer stands, as traditional marriage is no longer the preferred relationship for the government.
rameumptom “And the reasoning behind marriage: that of bearing children, is now meaningless. ” From the majority opinion: “That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful
for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability,
desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a
prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of
precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to
procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have
conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment
to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has
many aspects, of which childbearing is only one. ”
The ‘bearing children’ rationale was dismissed in lower courts. If your assertion were correct, somebody better tell Elder Russell Nelson, who married at age 81 to a woman who was what, over 60?
“The voice of the people was not only ignored, but rejected.”
The purpose of the Court is not to do what the the majority want, but to the rule of equal justice under law and holding the Constitution as the overriding authority.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
PA, with your quote you have made rameumptom’s argument for him. I don’t know if that is what you meant to do, but I believe in a decade polygamy will be made legal. All he is saying is that with today’s rational for “gay marriage” that Reynolds arguments become legally obsolete.
“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient […] prophets.”
I once started putting footnotes to the Proclamation, and surprisingly had hard time finding references to the calamities foretold by ancient prophets (I was mostly interested in the scripture references, thus the focus on ancient prophets). There are many warnings for Israel about being adulterous, but that usually refers to breaking the covenant she has with Jehovah, and doesn’t necessarily refer to ‘disintegration of family’.
If any of you could share any good references, I would appreciate that.
Thanks Geoff, that whole Maxwell talk is pretty awesome.
Skimming over the rest of the comments, I’m always tickled by those who repeatedly deny the slippery slope, even as the scenery whizzes past! There are none so blind…
Niklas, I’ve always read that as saying that much of the tribulation of the last days, will, when viewed in perfect retrospect, be seen as having its root in the disintegration of the family.
Doh! Completely hashed up that comment…..
What I meant is that the prophecies only speak of the calamities themselves, not the proximate cause(s). That the state of the family is relevant is, as I understand it, a modern prophecy.
G’morning, jetboy.
I was not addressing rameumptom’s speculation regarding overturning Reynolds and legalizing polygamy. I was addressing his assertion of “the reasoning behind marriage: that of bearing children,” hence my use of the Elder Nelson marriage example.
I find it interesting that on a forum which primarily attracts LDS there is so much concern regarding legalizing polygamy as a negative possibility. I’ve noted before the assertion marriage is to be only between ‘a’ man and ‘a’ woman (singular?) seems to contradict with LDS history and practice. I can see such an outcome (legalizing) becoming a problem for some in light of past practice and statements of what some take to be doctrine. I’m not much concerned by it. Too much in the speculative realm and it would not impact me, anyhow, just like legalizing certain drugs would have zero impact on me as I don’t use them.
Niklas – clarification, please. Is citing ““Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient […] prophets.” used to support or be in opposition to, the Court ruling under discussion?
I’m not sure it fits, as ‘family’ (couples, parents, parents with children, grandparents with children and grandchildren, siblings, extended families) working together in love and support for each other is not the same as ‘marriage.’
But, ‘marriage’ is an important element in the concept of ‘family,’ especially given the reasoning in the majority opinion. As I read through the opinion, it seems to me this decision strengthens families.
“To [gay marriage foes], [same-sex marriage] would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.
The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend that these cases cannot end there. Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”
“The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.
For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman. See N. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9–17 (2000); S. Coontz, Marriage, A History 15–16 (2005).”
“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.
* * *
As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.
Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”
The unique relationship between children and protection of the child by “marriage” between the adults who engendered/conceived the child was ruptured a thousand years ago, in a series of changes that was widely debated when done in political circles and simply obeyed when it issued from the Pope.
I really liked the school example from a previous discussion. Many things happen in schools. However education is the fundamental raison d’etre of school. Similarly, the historical raison d’etre of marriage was protection of children.
While it is certainly permitted and even encouraged for men and women to remarry after the departure of the spouse to whom they are sealed, there were specific cases in the early 1900s where such a remarriage risked losing the possibility of eternal union with the departed spouse. In those cases, the widows remained unmarried despite terrible privation.
In the LDS view, heterosexual marriages on earth, even if not reproductive due to circumstances related any number of factors, are the mortal pre-requisites to eternal covenant marriage, wherein man and woman bring forth spiritual children. There is no reason to suspect that doctrine will change to proclaim that Heaven might alter that heterosexual pre-requisite.
Looking at the matter of Blacks and priesthood, which in retrospect was obviously a ban based on custom and outrage regarding individual acts, what we learn is that even for a stupid and harmful policy based on folkways rather than eternal truth, the leaders of the LDS Church will not shift off point until such time as God permits. As to why God would permit and even command the ban remain in place, I submit the lesson learned by the Israelites when then were forced to remain in the wilderness for forty years for their disobedience. Mormons learned to hate the fact of the ban. And thus we see that the first black individual ever elected to Congress by a predominantly white district was elected by a district where Mormons are in the majority. While Mormons were forced to obey a hated ban on granting Blacks the priesthood, most came to love all mankind. You would never see a Mormon shoot up a historically Black Church for ideological reasons. And thus a species of good came from what most agree was a bad thing.
Regarding the recent popular demands that women be given the keys of priesthood administration, we continue to see the leadership hesitate to act until formally commanded by God. Thus Kate Kelly and others, in dashing themselves against the rock of the Church in hopes of pulverizing that rock have served instead to remind a new generation that petitions and op ed pieces are not the boss of God.
Dehlin, Snuffer and others who have presumed that claiming all LDS leadership devoid of prophetic power would convince those prophets to “realize” their error and bend to popular opinion have similarly had their respective days of disappointment.
I would suggest that people, in addition to reading the Proclamation on the Family, read the book of Ruth and the chapters in Daniel describing how the rule of law was used to force the King to cast Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the fire and subsequently forced the King to cast Daniel into the den of lions.
I project we will see (as a result of this ruling) cases that appear to be modern examples of these Old Testament harbingers – cases where the rulers are shocked to find that the laws they were persuaded to pass have caused harm they never intended. But as this is a habitual peril of rulers, I’m not sure that this case will rise to a level of notice.
“In the LDS view, heterosexual marriages on earth, even if not reproductive due to circumstances related any number of factors, are the mortal pre-requisites to eternal covenant marriage, wherein man and woman bring forth spiritual children. There is no reason to suspect that doctrine will change to proclaim that Heaven might alter that heterosexual pre-requisite.”
Again, that is the view of some LDS, popularized by a few general authorities who presented their views (Elder McConkie and his father-in-law, President Smith) that the procreative pattern we have in mortality is the same (or very similar) ‘procreative’ pattern that exists among exalted beings. It leads to a number of questions, such as ‘how are spirits created? Do they spring into existence from nothing? Do LDS believe in creation from nothing? Is it the result of a physical union? A spiritual union? Is it transformative in a sense of matter? Is it a matter of will”?
It is highly speculative. Lots of LDS have lots of beliefs. Some have a general belief. Some have specific. It’s fine. But taking general statements or personal belief and extrapolating from that to a ‘this is the way it is’ stance is or from “this is the mortal, earthly process I understand so it must be pretty much the same in eternity” is problematic, especially as a way to justify a position in a current secular matter of law.
I view it as a sacred topic and I think many times we can diminish it with speculative assertions. It’s also why I try to separate my personal religious beliefs and practices from the law and practices of whatever country I’m living in.
Posted here before, but posting again as I view it as a good treatment of the topic(s):
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V15N01_61.pdf
Clarification: I did not post the above to say or imply “this belief is wrong, this one is right, someone has to change their mind.” LDS believe different things about the same topic and that’s fine. Popularity of a particular belief does make it ‘doctrine’. Ours is a decidedly sparsely doctrine-based faith. It’s one of the things that sets LDS apart from many other churches in Christianity.
Hi PA,
The nature of the activity that results in spirits is not known. Some presume it is similar to the kind of activity that creates mortal vessels for spirits.
If you read LDS canonized scripture, it is clear that we are eternal – thus never created. The earliest form of pre-mortal existence mentioned in scripture is not “spirit” but “intelligence.” It is this “intelligence” that enters into the spiritual vessels engendered/conceived by Fathers and Mothers in Heaven.
In Abraham 3, we see discussion of the intelligences that suggests that we were individuals even when we were intelligences.
Certainly one can reject LDS canonized scripture. Those who are not LDS would have no reason for giving heed to scriptures they don’t recognize as authoritative. Mormons who reject the doctrines clearly taught in LDS canonized scripture are on shaky ground, whether through ignorance or rebellion.
When someone claims that these doctrines are only the recent, personal, musing of individual leaders, I am never sure if it is due to ignorance or rebellion.
Thanks, Meg
Not ignorance or rebellion. My point was the adoption of definitive viewpoints of some general authorities. Seems those popular in publishing or who make certain topics recurring themes get accepted by many as ‘this is the way it is” even when the First Presidency says that’s not the case or when the authors are pointedly instructed to revise their writings and not present themselves as speaking for anyone other than themselves.
There are some general authorities who’ve taken issue with what you wrote about the individuality of the ‘we’ in being eternal. There has not been unanimity of agreement with ” It is this “intelligence” that enters into the spiritual vessels engendered/conceived by Fathers and Mothers in Heaven.” I certainly do not consider it doctrine, although you may have a meaning behind the word with which I’m not familiar. I don’t think general authorities who’ve spoken different views are ignorant, rebellious or don’t understand doctrine, either
You seem to be in the neo-orthodox camp as referenced in the link. That’s fine. But it’s simply one camp, not the only true camp.
I think we’ve stated our understanding and beliefs and anything else might get into recycling the same material.
Thanks again for the points of view.
PA
A few years ago a winter storm caused a large branch to fall from a neighbor’s tree into our yard. As we reduced it to kindling we discovered that rot had weakened the branch. I believe the tree of the Church is generally in good health but there may be many branches lost as the storm proceeds.
Niklas – clarification, please. Is citing ““Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient […] prophets.” used to support or be in opposition to, the Court ruling under discussion?
I’m not sure it fits, as ‘family’ (couples, parents, parents with children, grandparents with children and grandchildren, siblings, extended families) working together in love and support for each other is not the same as ‘marriage.’
Well, here’s one humble suggestion:
A gay couple cannot have a child unless they tear that child away from either its biological mother or its biological father.
So, if we say marriage is related to parenthood, and gays should be able to parent on par with straights; then what we’re really saying is that a) there is no real harm to either biological parent or child, to have the relationship between the two permanently severed; b) a child has no inherent right to be raised by his or her biological parents; and c) a parent’s right to raise his or her biological offspring is, at best, no more than a proprietary right.
Once you make that view mainstream–what’s really wrong with Huxley’s Brave New World or Plato’s Republic, where children have no relationship with their birth parents and are placed in whatever situation that The State has deemed most advantageous?
JimD
“A gay couple cannot have a child unless they tear that child away from either its biological mother or its biological father.”
Consider what happens to that line of reasoning when it’s phrased in terms of infertile hetersexual couples:
“An infertile, hetersexual couple cannot have a child unless they tear that child away from either its biological mother or its biological father.” etc to the rest.
Most of the Bloggernacle rings with silent anticipation for the Church to announce repudiation of the Family Proclamation, the Law of Chastity, Eternal Marriage, and every other doctrine or principle that offends the popular trend.
Indeed, few of the Bloggernacle participants seem wont to believe that tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices.
Jim Cobabe, I long ago stopped reading most of the other sites in the Bloggernacle, and I am much happier for it.
Jim (9:34), I can’t see the church changing anything on the basis of this decision. Many of those at other blogs who were for this decision liked to point out that Europe, Canada and other nations already had legalized gay marriage years ago with no due effect. By the same logic that means the Church didn’t change anything in those countries and won’t change things here.
Meg (9:47), as others have noted the nature of how we are eternal isn’t clear. While I take the more traditional view that we always existed as “people” in some sense, that wasn’t Brigham Young’s view and appears not to be the view of Bruce R. McConkie and others. They think there is some spirit element out of which we’re made but that intelligence as a soul is made. The middle ground is Orson Pratt who held that self-existent intelligences were eternal but that they probably couldn’t yet be called people and likely weren’t self-aware. The “traditional view” arises more with the more scientism period of Mormon theology with Widstoe, Roberts and Talmage before the countermovement with Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and others.
PA (6:10) that’s certainly one view. The other view is that the state has privileged a certain relationship and that gays are free to enter into that relationship but due to biology don’t find such a relationship fulfilling. Why one view over the other is picked tends to be tied to wider social trends of what is or isn’t appropriate. The arguments themselves are indecisive.
rameumptom (6:24) while I think it would have been better decided democratically, I don’t think we can say the principles of democracy were violated here. (Ben Huff made a similar point at T&S but cut off comments before I could reply) First by polls alone this is a popular decision. Those opposed may not like that, but were the policy put up for a national referendum it would almost certainly win overwhelmingly. The only reply then is due process which really is an attempt to leverage the various veto points in our Republic to hold off policy change. But that type of process, while I think wise from a governmental perspective is quite undemocratic. (Again, the US is not a strict democracy and I see that as a feature not a bug)
As to what the 14th amendment was or wasn’t intended to do. That then becomes tricky because you inexorably move into judicial interpretation. Of course there is not a single jurisprudence. You might have a theory of interpreting texts you favor. But of course not everyone follows that. For instance I favor a scheme where the meaning of the text in its original context dominates. I tend to be skeptical of original intent because I see it as incoherent given the number of people involved. Further even among people who favor original intent they’ll break from that in some cases. In any case given the stated structure of SCOTUS as the constitution outlines I’m not sure we can say original intend controls the meaning of the constitution, although Presidents are free to appoint justices who follow original intent.
Even if one follows original intent though what the 14th amendment was intended to mean and whether the writers intended this result aren’t the same thing. One would have to take the intended meaning of the 14th amendment and then apply it to contemporary case. That tends to be a bit more open than you suggest.
None of this is to say we can’t have our own views of what’s constitutional. Just that it seems odd to point to Reynolds which to my eyes is a case very poorly decided. (Although to be fair I’m no attorney – but I think Reynolds like decisions like Dredd Scott were very much a product of their times when few really followed original intent as a formal jurisprudence)
PA:
“An infertile, heterosexual couple cannot have a child unless they tear that child away from either its biological mother or its biological father.”
Not true, of course. IVF does not deprive a child of his/her biological parent(s).
In the case of adoption–this takes place when a child has *already* experienced the loss of one or both biological parents. It is a loving response to an already existing loss.
It is true that a child conceived through surrogacy is deprived of one or both biological parents. But the Church frowns on surrogacy for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Clarification: I should have said “conception by use of donors” rather than surrogacy.
Rikvah: exactly, and to clarify: the Church discourages both surrogacy, as well as any IVF or artificial insemination using donor material.
Fraggle,
thanks, that is a good reading of the paragraph.
PA,
Well, I guess people can read it in different ways, as is obvious based on this thread too. I think that ‘disintegration of families’ more likely refer to the current divorce rates, than same-sex marriages.
And then the question of ‘tearing a child away from its parent’. As PA said, in case of infertile couple, that would be a horrible statement. Adoption is not about parents rights (gay or not), it’s about the child’s rights.
Rikvah then make it an infertile heterosexual couple for whom in vitro does not work. It’s the overall reasoning behind the argument. It’s an emotional appeal.
“In the case of adoption–this takes place when a child has *already* experienced the loss of one or both biological parents. It is a loving response to an already existing loss.”
Which applies to both same and opposite sex marriage.
I find it interesting to follow the train of objections raised, ending with “think of the children.” We’ve had children in the foster care system, children living in areas with poor educational and vocational programs, poor health care, all sorts of negative impacts. Yet it’s when the sex of the parents becomes problematic that we find a rush of concern.
Niklas – as I’ve noted, people can have different opinions and that’s fine. It’s also fine to question the premise behind the opinions, then leave it alone and accept people will believe what they will.
Corrected information does not always lead to changed opinions (especially on matters of belief, even when belief is based on inaccurate facts, let alone matters of fact) as one of my favorite studies illustrates:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
One thing I’ve wondered about, as this thread illustrates: how does an LDS person explain to a nonmember the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage with an explanation that does not come across as bigoted, ignorant or grasping for a reason? I’m not sure there is one. I’d love to hear ideas, as I’m at a loss. Granted, there are those who will take objection to anything that is said that conflicts with what they believe, but I’m referring to those who are really interested. As I’ve noted, it’s tough to discuss matters of faith with someone who does not want to accept an opinon from a nonfaith perspective. As I’ve read listened to the back-and-forths (other venues besides this blog) it seems to me to reduce to an assertion about propriety of sexual relations between same-sex men or women (primarily men, though, as that’s where the unflattering comments center). (It’s a tough case to make to those who do not take a common reading of a few scriptures, particularly if they do not share common religious views, so please, no getting off on a tangent with Bible quotes, as I’m referring to people who may not accept the common readings or who say such should be kept out of secular law, just as they would want to keep other religions’ beliefs out of secular law).
Which is why I’ve decided to pretty much leave the topic alone and not go looking for opportunities to broadcast opposition to what is now the law in the USA.
Thanks.
. . . then make it an infertile heterosexual couple for whom in vitro does not work. It’s the overall reasoning behind the argument. It’s an emotional appeal.
PA, the trouble is that you don’t generally know for certain that a couple is infertile before they actually get married and begin trying to conceive. What are you going to do–*ORDER* a couple to try to conceive before they wed, and grant the marriage license only when they are successful? It is true that you can be “pretty sure” an elderly couple won’t conceive–but only because the female is infertile, not the male; and if you deny marriage only to post-menopausal women then you’ve created another sort of discrimination. Bottom line: there are many, many male-female couples who can create progeny without borrowing genetic material and/or a body.
I find it interesting to follow the train of objections raised, ending with “think of the children.” We’ve had children in the foster care system, children living in areas with poor educational and vocational programs, poor health care, all sorts of negative impacts. Yet it’s when the sex of the parents becomes problematic that we find a rush of concern.
Children do have a right to a mother and a father–ideally, their biological ones. It’s one thing to concede that this ideal is not always possible, and plan accordingly. It’s entirely another thing to say that this isn’t even the ideal any longer. And I think you know that. It’s interesting to me that, two days after it’s been raised, you still can’t (or won’t) tell me why a Brave New World or Republic child-rearing regimen would be theoretically impermissible now that the institution charged with safeguarding our Constitutional liberties has done away with that ideal.
Lost a sentence somehow. The end of my second paragraph should read “Bottom line: there are many, many male-female couples who can create progeny without borrowing genetic material and/or a body. There are no homosexual couples who can do this.”
JimD – just responding to the nonstarter of ‘but marriage is for bearing children, period’ argument. Plus, there’s a difference between ‘bearing’ and ‘raising.’
“It’s entirely another thing to say that this isn’t even the ideal any longer.”
Because it’s presented as THE ideal, not one of many ideals. Just like ‘a man and a woman’ is one ideal and not even consistent within the Judeo-Christian tradition, let alone LDS history.
It gets back to an earlier thread – looking for sociological arguments to bolster religious beliefs. I’ve not seen that work out very well for attempts to make law for the entire country. As far as the novels – people ‘what-if’ things to death, digging many rabbit holes in the process, each one getting farther and farther away from the issue that started it all.
The US now has established law. If there are legally-supported challenges, make them. If not, continuing to go looking for a way to broadcast differences with such arguments (yes you are two women but you’ll do irreparable harm to children and since you can’t procreate you shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place) will continue to add fuel to the fire of the impression LDS are hostile and intolerant, when we should be work towards the opposite.
I will offer the instruction of President Harold B. Lee seems applicable to this topic:
“All over the Church you’re being asked this: “What does the Church think about this or that?” Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? “What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?” “What do they think about the war?” “What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?” Did you ever hear that? “What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?” Did you ever hear that? “How should we vote in this forthcoming election?” Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you’re going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it’s the smart man that will say, “There’s only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I’m not that one man.”
I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, “What does the Church think?” and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church’s policy is. Well, you’re not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you’re not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you’re expected to be an expert. You’re expected to know your subject. You’re expected to have a testimony. And in that you’ll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn’t go shopping for the answer.” ( Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 445)
The Church has stated its position and teaching. Many, it seems to me, are shopping for an answer to justify and explain what the Brethren meant, rather than simply relating what they considered to be an adequate statement.
“One thing I’ve wondered about, as this thread illustrates: how does an LDS person explain to a nonmember the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage with an explanation that does not come across as bigoted, ignorant or grasping for a reason?”
Ultimately the only answer is, “this is what God’s asked of us right now.” We don’t have to understand why. For a lot of other Christians that’ll be acceptable. To people more secular then any appeal to revelation is unpersuasive.
JimD – just responding to the nonstarter of ‘but marriage is for bearing children, period’ argument.
A “nonstarter” that Kennedy’s majority opinion explicitly embraced.
Plus, there’s a difference between ‘bearing’ and ‘raising.’
Yeah, that’s kind of the crux of my argument. Do parents have an inherent right to raise the children they actually bore (and do children have an inherent right to be raised by the parents who bore them), or do they not?
Because it’s presented as THE ideal, not one of many ideals. Just like ‘a man and a woman’ is one ideal and not even consistent within the Judeo-Christian tradition, let alone LDS history.
So, a child being raised by his or her biological parents is not THE “ideal” anymore.
And this alleviates the concerns I expressed . . . how, exactly?
As far as the novels – people ‘what-if’ things to death, digging many rabbit holes in the process, each one getting farther and farther away from the issue that started it all.
I’m sorry–wasn’t “gay marriage” one of the “rabbit holes” that those who had concerns with Loving, or the ERA, or even just the nullification of anti-sodomy statues, warned about? And conservatives were told that that would never–never!!! happen.
Sorry, PA; but history has shown that progressives are either stupendously blind to the logical implications of their own pet theories, or they’re absolute liars. In neither case, should their assurances of “thus far, and no farther” be believed.
The US now has established law. If there are legally-supported challenges, make them. If not, continuing to go looking for a way to broadcast differences with such arguments (yes you are two women but you’ll do irreparable harm to children and since you can’t procreate you shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place) will continue to add fuel to the fire of the impression LDS are hostile and intolerant, when we should be work towards the opposite.
You can’t criticize the moral or practical foundations of our laws! This is America!!!
You have an interesting point re your hand-wringing about how we explain our “bigotry” on marriage to nonbelievers, and I suppose–beyond Clark’s excellent answer–one can only note that we might consider using some of the same principles with which we explain our bat-shizzle crazy idea that a man died, rotted in a tomb for three days, and then suddenly came back to life.
The Church has stated its position and teaching. Many, it seems to me, are shopping for an answer to justify and explain what the Brethren meant, rather than simply relating what they considered to be an adequate statement.
So . . . you, a Mormon, can submit reasons why the policy is wrong; but I, a Mormon, am bound by President Lee’s counsel to merely re-state, not defend, the policy; ultimately retreating into spiritual know-nothingism? \
It really sticks in your craw that people would dare to disagree with you on this, doesn’t it, PA?
JimD
“just responding to the nonstarter of ‘but marriage is for bearing children, period’ argument.
A “nonstarter” that Kennedy’s majority opinion explicitly embraced.”
That is incorrect. Opponents state it is “THE” reason for marriage. The Court held it is ONE of several and rejected the notion that because gay couples cannot procreate they should not be able to marry, as some opponents have argued.
“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards
children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of
childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability
marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing
their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant
material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a
more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue
thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See
Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry is
less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent
protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the
right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment
to procreate. ”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Your arguments seem to me a mishmash that seems to say if one cannot have an ideal in child raising one should not have anything. Reads like an ‘either or’ “if not this, than no” construct. Your premise that same-sex marriage will somehow prevent biological parents from raising the children they want to make is silly.
“I’m sorry–wasn’t “gay marriage” one of the “rabbit holes” that those who had concerns with Loving, or the ERA, or even just the nullification of anti-sodomy statues, warned about? And conservatives were told that that would never–never!!! happen.”
Well, if your wife doesn’t like you to perform oral sex for her, that’s between you two. But the Court has held it’s a privacy issue. So please keep it private.
“Sorry, PA; but history has shown that progressives ”
Oh my gosh, so this is just another in the extremist view of everything’s about ‘progressives vs conservatives” and dividing Saints that way?!!? I suppose that explains the tenor of your posts. Don’t know what you’d say to the apostles who’ve been liberals/socialists, though. I thought that false divide was put aside years ago.
You seem to be getting a bit hysterical. I asked for answers to questions I get asked. You’ve given me nothing I can use. It’s why I came back to my original thought: simply state the Church’s position and follow Pres Lee’s advice in not shopping for answers (“I’m going to educate you in presenting a defense, which I know to be the true reasons they said what they said) and tell everyone what the Brethren really meant and why they said what they did.
You’ve made your points. I’ll stick with simply telling people, when asked, “this is the position and I have nothing to add as I do not speak for the Church.”
That is incorrect. Opponents state it is “THE” reason for marriage. The Court held it is ONE of several and rejected the notion that because gay couples cannot procreate they should not be able to marry, as some opponents have argued.
Thank you for citing Kennedy’s opinion to demonstrate that one reason gay marriage is necessary is, indeed, to confer legitimacy to the relationships between gay couples and the children they are raising. But again, I raise the question–what about those child’s natural parents? What about any child’s natural parents? Kennedy doesn’t answer that question, and it now appears you don’t want to–you just prefer to call people who disagree with you silly, and start making bizarre suggestions about their own sex lives.
Oh my gosh, so this is just another in the extremist view of everything’s about ‘progressives vs conservatives” and dividing Saints that way?!!? I
Your “How . . . dare . . . you not trust me, sir!” schtick isn’t fooling anybody. If you want to alleviate my concerns, give me a solid, cohesive, philosophical/constitutional basis about why a Brave New World/Republic child-rearing scenario can’t happen under definition definition of marriage that SCOTUS has now prescribed. Tell me why “a pervasive system of belief” is not now, and will not twenty or fifty years from now, be good and sufficient reason to remove children from their parents’ homes; when it was good and sufficient reason for Judge Barbara Walther in Texas to remove (with widespread public support) four hundred FLDS children from their homes seven years ago.
Do the constitutional and philosophical precedents that led Judge Walther’s decision to be overruled, still stand?
You’ve given me nothing I can use.
Well, I’ve certainly given you nothing you would want to use; we can agree on that much.
Had to go back an reread JimD’s post to make sure I read what I hoped I hadn’t.
“I’m sorry–wasn’t “gay marriage” one of the “rabbit holes” that those who had concerns with Loving. or the ERA, or even just the nullification of anti-sodomy statues, warned about? And conservatives were told that that would never–never!!! happen.
Sorry, PA; but history has shown that progressives are either stupendously blind to the logical implications of their own pet theories, or they’re absolute liars. In neither case, should their assurances of “thus far, and no farther” be believed.”
Yep, there it is. Concerns with Loving, lumped in with ERA and anti-sodomy as statutes that conservatives “warned about.”
For those of you reading who aren’t familiar with the case, Loving v Virginia was the Supreme Court case that overthrew laws that made it illegal for people of different races to marry. The fear that, oh no, it would be legal for black people to marry white people.
I wondered earlier how LDS could present their position regarding opposition to same-sex marriage without coming across as bigoted. I will submit this is what people should NOT do: broadcast how this is another decision right in there with overturning laws prohibiting black and white Americans from marrying.
Because there is absolutely no way you are ever going to convince people that a racist is not bigoted.
We should note that even supporters of SSM didn’t necessarily think Kennedy wrote a good analysis and fear that it will open unwanted doors. See for example Ilya Somin’s take. Of course for most people the legal reasoning is irrelevant.
As to “natural parents” in the case of an adoption or similar relationship, it’s just not clear to me why that matters. But maybe I’m missing something obvious.
As for Jim, I’m kind of shocked the case history you raise. I think many of those are clear examples of state overreach. Also slippery slope fallacies are called fallacies for a reason. That said, I think liberals clearly were being disingenuous when 10 years ago they said the current state of affairs wouldn’t happen,
Clark, I appreciate your thoughtful assessments, method of presentation and original takes on topics. Thanks.
I agree it’s disingenuous or ill-advised to say something will “never” happen. That’s just not the nature of the universe. What does happen is some view change as threatening but somehow, life still goes on and improves.
PA, I think it was pretty clear 10 years ago that this decision would inevitably happen just like the same reasoning applies to polygamy. (Especially given the particular approach Kennedy used) I think that many were playing a game. Some quite consciously – others simply aping what others said.
For what it’s worth, I wrote a letter to the editor that was read on NPR over ten years ago, in response to a story that attempted to equate polygamy, miscegenation, and same gender relationships. My letter basically argued that with multi-racial relationships (as between my Chinese father and White mother prior to Loving v. Virginia and even before Utah had ceased defining their sort of marriage as void and prohibited) and polygamous relationships (as between seven of my Mormon female forebears and their respective husbands) it would be possible for the parents to have been stranded on a desert island and still produce a child. Not so for the same gender couple.
As for infertile couples and their desire to have a child, my oldest daughter and her husband are, between them, infertile. Luckily, their rabbits are not (a litter of six English angora kits was just born yesterday). As my daughter and her husband look to their future, they have considered long and hard the various options available to them. As they feel the fault in their physiology may be associated with an undesirable trait that could be passed on, they will not be attempting any sort of fertility treatment. Instead, they will, in time, offer a loving home to a child or children who do not have the option of a loving home under other circumstances.
Anyone who can’t express the reasons for supporting traditional marriage as a preference, other things being equal, is lacking intelligence, among other things. In a similar vein, it should be easy for any intelligent person to suggest that if one of two heterosexual spouses is selected by the family to remain in the home to nurture the children, that spouse that is selected to stay home should logically be the female, other things being equal. I say this as a spouse in a family where the husband is the one who stays home, because in our household other things are not equal.
Yeah, happens alot. I didn’t see anything that would provide a convincing basis for overturning Reynolds (dissenting speculation notwithstanding, especially to convince a majority). At the end of the day, though, hetero couples will still get married, will still have children if willing and able and will still experience the joys and challenges of marriage and family life, just as they always have.
This blog could use a ‘like’ checkbox.
First was for Clark, second for Meg.
Hi PA,
First and second…? Would that be a desire to “like” comments Clark and I made, or something else?
Given the kind of comments I make, it would be useful for folks to be able to like or dislike individual paragraphs or even sentences…
Good morning, Meg,
The “like” was meant specifically for your post, but I could easily say the same for Clark’s.
Mention of English angora kits is always a happy thing… 🙂
PA, it is quite possible to agree with the result wrought by a SCOTUS opinion, whilst still having grave concerns about the future implications of the reasoning used in the actual opinion.
But, thanks for tipping your hand and showing that you think those who disapprove of gay sex should be relegated to the same social fringes that racists currently occupy.
And of course my main point continues unrefuted–that progressives are either colossally blind to the logical results of their own dogma, or willfully dishonest about it. And all you can come back with is “but–but–slippery slope! It won’t happen! It can’t happen! Racist!!!!!
JimD
” thanks for tipping your hand and showing that you think those who disapprove of gay sex should be relegated to the same social fringes that racists currently occupy.”
You are the one who lumped in Loving v Virginia (the case which overturned prohibitions on inter-racial marriage) as an example of the kind of thing conservatives warned progressives would cause, right along with same sex marriage.
Anti interracial marriage. Anti same sex marriage. You combined them. Own it.
As I said, there’s no way a racist can convince anyone they’re not a bigot. I have no time for discourse with those who see interracial marriage as something to be opposed.
You are the one who lumped in Loving v Virginia (the case which overturned prohibitions on inter-racial marriage) as an example of the kind of thing conservatives warned progressives would cause, right along with same sex marriage. . . .
I have no time for discourse with those who see interracial marriage as something to be opposed.
You know, at one point I thought you simply didn’t comprehend where your ideologies led; but when you make misrepresentations like the above I become more and more convinced that you do know where your ideology leads–and that you want it to happen.
I have not spoken against interracial marriage. I have not said that conservatives were right to warn against interracial marriage. What I have said is that conservatives were right to note that the reasoning in Loving, as-written, would lead to gay marriage; and that progressives were either wrong or–as I am increasingly persuaded–just plain lying when they said that it wouldn’t.
And, now that you’re stuck admitting that you either can’t or won’t openly articulate what your gay-rights end game actually is, you start throwing up all manner of red herrings and ad hominems. “Slippery slope!” “JimD tries to get his wife to do kinky sex!” “Racist!” “Bigot!” “Squirrel!”