If the governments of man want to define non-heterosexual unions of any sort, let them call them by another name. “Marriage” has already been taken, thank you!

Regards,

Neal

P.S. Just for the record – I’m a homosexual Mormon who opposes gay marriage.

It seems like Mormons are generally in opposed to government control of moral issues but, why does everyone want the government to step in with this?

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Issues like this in other contries may not be a topic at general conference, but they certainly do matter. My parents served a mission in Africa and the LDS church is the only one who has any sort of opinion/standards on what marriage is. The Saints there are being warned and encouraged to support marriage. The brethren care about the issues that effect people all over the world, not just in Utah. You’re kidding yourself if you think that!

The four judges didn’t say it’s all going to be ok. The four judges said that nothing indicates that it isn’t going to be OK. There’s a difference there.

I am kind of shocked at this comment…as though this somehow changes things. In some ways, it almost makes it all more problematic to me…the casual, almost cavalier attitude of leaping into the unknown with something this significant all on the premise that “it seems like it will probably be ok, but we aren’t sure, even though others in our position disagree and even though the majority of people want something else.”

Can you really say that you don’t see anything wrong with this? Imagine if it were something you cared about that had stood the test of time, religion, practice, and experience as a solid foundational institution for society. Would you think that changing all of that for four people’s interpretation of a few words (against the opinion of others in their position) would be ok?

I can accept that you have an opinion about gay marriage, and you think legalizing it is a good thing. But I do not see how anyone can look at the way this has been decided, and the lack of solid support from fellow judges or the people or experience and time, and the lack of assurance that it is actually the right thing for society, and the apparent lack of considering potential future ramifications for other kinds of rights, and think that what has happened is ok…particularly with something of this magnitude.

So, I have appreciated your more ‘non-religious’ reasoning as well.

How about the children of Israel in Egypt under the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph? I think the lot of them recognized being in slavery was wrong. Even Jehovah said, “Let my people go.” Yes, there is historical evidence for a lack of condemnation of slavery. But, it’s pretty universal that those enslaved did not like it; did not merely accept it; did long for freedom. That that individual recognition should be universally applied (i.e., if me being enslaved is wrong, then anyone else being enslaved is wrong also) hasn’t yet been completely incorporated in human practice. A shame. But, it is widely recognized.

Even if I allow that history/tradition is not a strong enough argument against SSM, there is no history/tradition for a definition of marriage other than as between people of the opposite sex. Advocates who want marriage’s definition to include people of the same sex, therefore, put themselves in a position of moral superiority to virtually everyone who has ever lived before and to those who think the Judeo-Christian value system has benefit and wisdom. The 6,000+ years of understanding and practice of marriage should be discarded for less than 40 years of notions about SSM “because……ummm….well, 6000 years is – you know – OLD.”

Personally, I do think there are reasons stronger and more persuasive than history/tradition: modern revelation is tops for me. (Yes, I realize that is personal and not “applicable” to others.)

Even those morally repugnant laws banning interracial marriage never permitted any white citizen to marry any other white citizen. In general, they said any white citizen could marry any white citizen of the opposite sex.

Antiquity is full of examples of interracial marriage – Moses married a black woman. The banning of interracial marriage does not have strong support in any religious heritage. Therefore, since those bans could not be strongly supported by an appeal to a Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Christian, etc. tradition, overturning them was a sustainable and proper proposition.

The Constitution of the State of California failed to define marriage, I believe, because of the long, long, long historical understanding of what the word means – namely, the legal union of persons of the opposite sex. It has never meant otherwise. But, now comes the SSM advocates and their four judges, who overturn the SSM ban by changing the definition of marriage based on nothing other than their arrogance and sympathies.

Since the traditional understanding of marriage is suspect because it possesses the label of antiquity (don’t trust anyone over 30 – Korihor referred to that as a “foolish tradition of [the] fathers”), a Constitutional Amendment (sadly) is necessary.