Lies, Damned Lies & the “Six Consequences” of Marriage Equality
By now you’ve probably heard of the “Six Consequences” that will afflict California if marriage equality is continued. Like allegations of Barack Obama being a Muslim, they are now viral on the internet making the rounds in forwarded emails and on blogs.
- Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
- Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public.
- Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father.
- Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
- Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines.
- It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors).
These “six consequences” aren’t just misleading, they are downright lies. Marriage equality is already law in California. If the “six consequences” were real, we could verify them because they would be happening all across California. But they are not real. They are lies.
Morris Thurston, a prominent Harvard educated attorney, who is an active member of the LDS Church, has authored a response to the “Six Consequences”. If you had previously been swayed by the “Six Consequences”, I urge you to read it. He addresses each fear, one by one, and demonstrates with facts why they are lies.
Why would the Yes on 8 campaign use these lies in the campaign?
Let us look to one of the masters of fear and deception in American politics – Richard M. Nixon.
Richard Nixon first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1950. He was running against Democrat incumbent Senator Helen Douglas. He was an underdog, so to infuse his campaign with new life he played the fear card. His campaign began to make an allegation they knew was false- that Douglas was a communist:
Conversely, Nixon benefited from the national uncertainty about communism in general. With increased media exposure focused on him during his interrogation of Alger Hiss (who was charged with espionage), Nixon quickly went on the offensive against Douglas, establishing his anti-communist credentials and engaging a network of seasoned operatives from past congressional races to spread the word that Douglas was at the very least a communist sympathizer.
Nixon knew that Douglas wasn’t a communist. But he knew that if he could paint her as a communist, it would make people emotional with fear and would distract from who she really was and the real issues in the race. His scare tactics worked and helped get him elected to the Senate. Throughout Nixon’s political career, he repeatedly used fear.
Of course Richard Nixon didn’t invent the use of fear in the political playbook. Politicians and campaigns have been using fear to manipulate and distract us since the dawn of mankind. Fear is to politics what the pick and roll is to basketball or the option is to football. Machiavelli argued centuries ago that fear was perhaps the most effective political tool available to control the masses.
Some opponents of marriage equality are behaving like Richard Nixon in 1950. They know they are losing on the real issues in the Prop. 8 debate so now they are making issues up – the “Six Consequences”. The “six consequences” are a deliberate smokescreen intended to distort the real issues and objective discussion. These opponents of marriage equality hope to work the electorate into an emotional frenzy of fear that will translate into victory on election day.
Here’s a response to the “Six Consequences” from an LDS lawyer who supports Prop 8 (opposes marriage equality):
Although I hoped that we could keep politics out of our blog, Prop 8 has inevitably crept in. In the previous post, I commented that there is a lot of overblown hyperbole on both sides of this issue. One of the worst examples is a document making the rounds called “Six Consequences,” which recites a parade of horribles that will somehow come to pass if Prop 8 fails in California. As a lawyer, my intuitive reaction was that none of these supposed consequences had any basis in reality, or was likely to come to pass.
For the record, we here at the Lorenzen Family support Prop 8, but I, for one, do so for reasons wholly apart from the “Six Consequences.”
A prominent retired lawyer, who is a long time member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which is officially supporting Prop
has written an excellent, rational rebuttal to the Six Consequences. This isn’t meant to change any minds (I’m a firm believer in confirmation bias), but I reproduce the article here for those who are interested in why the “Six Consequenses” is little more than manipulative misinformation. Again, we are for Prop 8, but peddling lies and misinformation is wrong even when they happen to support your position.
Pretty commendable of this fellow to come out and denounce a bad argument from his own side of the debate. I would add that if you are opposed to marriage equality, that is fine, many good and intelligent people are. Just make sure that your opposition is based on fact and not viral rumors on the internet.
-Tom
44 Comments
Leave a Reply
Oct 17th 2008 • 08:10
by Jesse Harris
Except that some of these things have already happened. Number 1? It’s happening in Massachusetts schools as early as kindergarten. Number 3? It happened in Massachusetts as well. Number 4? Happened in California. Number 5? It happened in Canada. Number 6? It happened in New Mexico.
In short, we see many of these things already happening, so how is it that these things are a lie?
Oct 17th 2008 • 09:10
by Glenn
I’m not opposed to so-called marriage equality, I’m supporting protecting traditional marriage. Nice try at the spin game though!
Oct 17th 2008 • 09:10
by Tom Grover
Jesse,
Go read the article by Thurston.
Oct 17th 2008 • 10:10
by Robert
I read the article, it appears to be very well written and thoughtful. However, I do believe that it does miss the essence of the debate.
He was arguing that those things would not happen in California at this time. The church however is more concerned with the trend, and the potential for these consequences to happen over time across the country. I was living in eastern Canada when this same debate was raging. In my opinion, I do not feel that these consequences are totally unfounded, as potential consequences. As immediate consequences, I agree with Thurston, that given the current situation, these threatened consequences will likely not materialize immediately (or in the near future). It is kind of the frog in the warm water analogy, in my opinion that is driving this action. The church is well within its rights to take a stand on a moral issue.
Oct 17th 2008 • 10:10
by Tom Grover
Though I disagree, that is a very reasonable position Robert.
Oct 17th 2008 • 10:10
by Tyson
The article thoroughly rebutted the “consequences” in the context that they are brought up and highlighted why they are deceitful and why religions would do better to not use them as part of their argument against it.
That religions believe in traditional marriage is the most honest answer to opponents of prop8, not misleading rhetoric.
Oct 17th 2008 • 11:10
by GregF
Unless otherwise referenced, I researched all of these items via Google:
#1: 2005- David Parker in Massachusetts wanted prior notification of same sex education in his child’s Public School. This was a kindergartner, receiving a book that included homosexuality in marriage, with no prior notice that these subjects would be introduced. What was the School District’s answer? “Same Sex Marriage is legal in Mass., so it’s okay to teach it without notification or consent from parents.” What was his reward for defending his rights as a parent? Check it out, very interesting.
#2: See #’s 4 and 5 below.
#3: March 2006- Boston’s Catholic Charities halt all adoption work. State law would require them to consider same sex couples equally against heterosexual couples. Archbishop Sean O’Malley: “Sadly, we have come to a moment when Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Boston must withdraw from the work of adoptions, in order to exercise the religious freedom that was the prompting for having begun adoptions many years ago”. The article continues, “Gay rights groups criticized the decision”. Hmm, criticized for exercising their right to practice what they preach.
#4: Early 2000′s- Yeshiva University, New York City. 2006- University of Hawaii. 1970′s to 1980′s- Bob Jones University: A private institution chose to reject interracial marriage based on interpretation of Biblical principles. According to Wikipedia, this institution had its tax exempt status revoked by the IRS. It did go back and forth in the courts ending in 1983 at the Supreme Court.
#5: The same Wikipedia article referenced in #4 above mentions the Bob Jones University case as a starting point for grounds to remove tax exempt status from Christian broadcasters who do not support gay rights. Could this affect item #2 as well?
#6: ACLU’s website: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/. Read all of the areas that the ACLU has stated they have and will defend.
Here’s my take: Will these things happen in California if the vote strikes down the effort to amend the state constitution? I hope not, but heck, I don’t know.
I feel that my quick research has discovered a few instances where the consequences identified by the 6 statements HAVE occurred in other places. Maybe it’s a stretch, but I think it could happen in California, too.
Oct 17th 2008 • 11:10
by GregF
I guess I could have summed it all up with a short quote – without any research.
Children’s Song Book:
“Follow the Prophet, he knows the way.”
For some, that may be too simple of an answer. Maybe my research and my first comment on this post did have the right tack.
Oct 17th 2008 • 12:10
by DCL
I am the blogger quoted at the end of this post.
Thurston’s rebuttal to the “Six Consequences” shows that many of the consequences have nothing to do with Prop 8 because they are not affected by the definition of the term “marriage,” which is all Prop 8 is about. Therefore, it is misleading to assert that the six consequences will naturally occur as a direct result of Prop 8 failing.
Social conservatives defend the Six Consequences, however, because these are all items supposed to be in the “gay agenda” (whatever that is) and they are at least theoretically possible. However, the connection of any of these consequences to Prop 8 is tenuous at best, and it is misleading and manipulative to imply otherwise.
Oct 17th 2008 • 12:10
by Robert
I agree GregF.
Quentin L. Cook, Stanford trained attorney and church Apostle, not to mention USU alumni, alluded to these “consequences” in the church’s media release.
It seems blasphemous to title a blog post, “Lies, Damned lies,…” When the leadership of the Church is putting forth the argument (specifically school curriculum, adoption and tax exempt status if failing to participate in gay ceremonies).
How can someone possibly accept the premise of the church, being modern day revelation through modern day apostles, while at the same time, regarding their direction and council as “damn lies.” For non-LDS people of course this isn’t and issue. But for self proclaimed “active” members of the LDS church, it truly creates a dilemma. Can you truly believe in the Church and think the leaders are lying to you about an issue? Truly a slippery slope…
Oct 17th 2008 • 12:10
by Tyson
Tax exempt status is only threatened when the LDS leadership tell the membership how to vote.
But that the LDS leadership wants members to vote that way is the most honest answer to why it is best for them to vote for prop 8.
Oct 17th 2008 • 12:10
by Tom Grover
Robert,
The Church did not author the consequences. Your allegation of blasphemy is ridiculous.
Rather than talk issues, you are seeking to make my faith the issue. It is a red herring of the worst sort. I do not assume the worst in you – that you are a narrow minded bigot and blindly naive – and I ask the same of you. I assume that you are sincere in your opposition to marriage equality and that there is nothing malicious or intolerant about your motives.
The reason this debate is so toxic is because each side assumes the worst of the other. We could make this a debate about whether Tom Grover has a testimony and/or Robert is a bigot, but that would be unproductive and bring out the worst in everyone.
Let’s assume the best in the motives of one another and stay on topic.
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by Tyler Riggs
On fear: Fear rules all in this world. Why don’t most people commit crimes?
Fear of going to jail? Fear of harming others? Fear of going to Hell? Fear of not going to Heaven?
Why are people supporting Prop 8?
Fear of going against their religious leaders/beliefs.
Why do I oppose Prop 8? Because I fear the day that millions of people attack something I believe in because they are misguided by their own fears.
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by Tom Grover
That’s well said Tyler. I should have qualified my use of the term fear with “unfounded”.
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by Robert
Tom,
Elder Cook regarding Proposition 8.
“He presented three specific consequences that would occur if Proposition 8 failed. He said curriculum in public schools would change, resulting in young children being taught about same-sex marriage; religious adoption agencies that refuse to let same-sex couples adopt will be forced to shut down; and religious tax-exempt status will only apply to religions complying with same-sex marriage.”
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/69741
TOM- THE CHURCH DID AUTHOR THESE CONSEQUENCES!
It was in the church broadcast!
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by Tom Grover
Robert,
You are wrong. The Church did not write them. Glen Greener did.
http://justinmclachlan.com/08/09/six-consequences-author-had-rocky-start-in-salt-lake-politics/
Glen Greener speaks for the Church in no official capacity.
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by Tyson
Actually, the California courts included in their ruling that the state cannot force religions to marry anyone. The church hasn’t been forced to let everyone into the temples because the government cannot force them to do it.
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by Tom Grover
Exactly Tyson. I can’t say this enough – if the consequences were real, THEY WOULD ALREADY BE HAPPENING ALL ACROSS CALIFORNIA. Thousands of Churches would be being forced to admit and marry gay couples and on and on.
The best evidence against the Consequences is that marriage equality is law in California AND the consequences are not happening.
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by GregF
DCL;
Changing the definition of marriage in the constitution of a state has nothing to do with the 6 consequences? Then you’re telling me that in Massachusetts, the instances of actual events – discovered through research – related to items #1 and #3 on the list, were not brought about by that state recognizing marriage to include same sex couples?
#1: Teaching same sex marriage as a part of family life in that state’s public schools may have occurred regardless, but when challenged, what was the argument? Same sex marriage is recognized in Massachussets, so too bad, bucko, we’ll teach it without your consent.
Item #3: The article I found on Google about the Catholic Charities ceasing all adoption services WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE STATE CHANGING IT’S DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
Tyson;
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Page 5, Jeapordizing Tax Exempt Status:
One of the items relates to providing a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation.
Page 6, further explanation:
A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.
Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Does the concerted effort for this proposition go beyond the allowed activity?
Close reading of Robert’s comment does not give me the impression that he thinks the Church authored the original document. The Church is agreeing with the document. If you see it as a pack of lies being distributed, than so be it, but it is the position of the Church at this point.
What can I as one person do to solve the debate on any issue, probably very little? The more imprtant test is whether individual members of the church will put James and Moroni’s promises to work in their behalf and once done follow the teachings that have been verified by the spirit.
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by GregF
Look past the present, please. It doesn’t have to be happening now, to be a threat. It starts simply, ends dramatically.
I imagine it took a fair amount of time for the entire earth to be covered by water after the rain started.
Oct 17th 2008 • 13:10
by Tyson
GregF, tax exempt status on this issue is ultimately up to the IRS and the courts to decide.
As far as I see it, the LDS church is officially telling it’s members to support legislation. If not then they don’t have anything to worry about. I can only speak from where I am sitting on that particular point.
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by Tom Grover
While I don’t agree with Greg’s analysis, I do think that his arguments are strong and are the kind I would like to see more of. This is the kind of good discussion we should be having.
I cannot say enough times that while I have taken a different position than the Church, I support the Church being involved in the campaign. I disagree with those who have called for the Church to withdraw or lose its tax exempt status. Of course the Church has the right to speak out and be involved in the campaign.
I am upset that my statements have been construed to the point that I have to actually say this explicitly, but that’s unfortunately where this debate has gone- I have not and do not accuse the Church of lying. I love the Church and believe it to be Christ’s one true Church. The Church is my heritage, my faith and my community. Let me be crystal clear on this – I do not believe nor have I ever believed that the Church is or has been engaging in any deliberately unethical or dishonest behavior in its support of Prop 8 in California. The Church is motivated by a sincere, noble desire to ward off what it feels is a real threat to the family.
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by Tyson
I am not saying that I think the church should lose tax exempt status, but I am saying that it might become a self-fulfilling prophecy… so to speak.
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by GregF
Well stated Tyson, which is why I perceive it as a slippery slope going the other way as well.
I return to the instance in my first comment on this issue, related to Bob Jones University. I don’t know if there is anything more to that case than the interracial marriage discrimination argument that Wikipedia talks about, but it appears to be the reason – or main reason – for the loss of tax-exempt status.
I don’t see the leaders of the Church coming out and saying, “let’s just forget about our previous teachings about morality, that we have said were from God, and join up with the world on this issue”. (The God ceasing to be God vs. no longer able to claim to be the true church argument)
Would that open up the possibility of a Bob Jones University type action against the Church? If they stick to doctrine and not allow state sanctioned marriage between same sex couples to occur in their buildings, I think the argument could be made, right there in California.
That’s a great biblical interpretation discrimination battleground, just like the other case.
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by GregF
I am glad we can have discussions about topics such as these. I can get a bit hot under the collar when I try to express my thoughts. I sincerely hope I have not offended in any of my comments.
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by Tom Grover
Greg,
If you’ll email me a list of the instances of consequences you are aware of, I will look as many up on Westlaw as possible.
Based on my reading of Thurston’s article and his dealing with many of these “examples” they are cases that are misunderstood or misinterpreted that then become viral.
Like any issue, I COULD BE TOTALLY WRONG ON THIS. I am happy to look into or consider any additional information or position.
You have my email. Make me a list and if I have time this weekend, I’ll go through it and put up the results.
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by Douglas
Cal voted on this about 2002 and passed the law that marriage was between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court declared that was unconsitutional. Now they are doing the same thing again. My father lives there and is very frustrated with the state’ government. Too liberal!
If prop 8 fails there will be a number of people who will leave California because it opens up all kinds of problems, immediate or future.
Once all the good people leave CA, Utah will have water front property!
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by Tyson
I agree Greg, it helps me to read where others are coming from… and sometimes it may even change my mind (I am stubborn though).
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by Tom Grover
Greg,
Let me be clear. You have not offended me. I consider you a friend whose differing opinion I have always valued and appreciated.
I enjoy having your responses to my posts on this. Your arguments are reasoned and on topic.
Like I said earlier, if there are real consequences, I want to know. Email me a list of the stories you have and I will go through westlaw this weekend with as many as I can.
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by GregF
I will try to do that Tom, but I may end up in SLC area tomorrow (car shopping still). Thanks!
Oct 17th 2008 • 14:10
by Michael R
I’d like to chime in.
I see repeatedly a tendency in some on this discussion board to try to pass off concepts that stem from bigotry and elitism as rational arguments. All of us LDS individuals have been taught over and over and over and over again that it is not our place to judge our brothers and sisters, and that it is against the way of the Lord to do anything but uplift and support each other.
That said, re-examine your arguments in the appropriate mindset.
#1 – If your children are learning about same-sex marriage in public school, take some responsibility for your household, as we all need to be doing anyway, and teach your children your own values. There’s no harm in educating a child about a factual part of the world that they are living in – in fact, the harm comes of NOT doing so.
#2 – Rather than assuming that a federal law is infallible and we should, therefore, forget everything we’ve been taught about respect and love our whole lives, maybe we should second-guess a system that would punish an entire religion for choosing to follow their own doctrine. Take GregF’s advice and look into the future – what kind of slippery slope are we in store for if we let our government push religions into unnecessary tough decisions? On the other side of that coin, there is no slippery slope to allowing people to free, as and good LDS person knows that God intended, and allowing religions to practice as they see fit.
#3 – Again, rather than forcing someone to adhere to our belief system, something we would all hate to be subjected to, why not in stead change the system that would suggest that no adoption service is better than a religiously convicted one.
#’s 4, 5 & 6 – See 2 & 3.
There is no doubt that this is a complex issue, considering the unprecedented participation of the church in a political procedure, but please remember that there are tests in this life, often very hard ones. No matter how you would choose to vote regarding Prop 8, don’t let your judgement become clouded. We may all agree that Prop 8 is great, we may even all take the same bus to our voting booths or support centers on its behalf, but don’t fall pray to the deceit. If you’re thinking about this issue the way you aught to be, these 6 consequences are as obvious an attempt to take you personally off the right track as any of Satan’s other plots and plans.
I know how hard it is, believe me, but we can all support each other rather than letting it tear us apart.
Oct 17th 2008 • 15:10
by Rich Okelberry
For me personally, I believe gay marriage should be legal if the government is also in the business of recognizing other religious unions as marriage. I can show you 3 churches, the Catholics Church, Lutheran Church and LDS Church. While each marriage may seem similar on the surface, each faith would argue that they are very different from each other. For example; the Catholic faith holds marriage as a sacrament and Lutherans don’t. That said, the government has decided that it will sanction some religious “marriages” but refuses to accept others. I personally feel that the government either needs to get out of the marriage business completely or accept all forms of marriage from all faiths, including those that would perform same sex marriages.
I will always trust my faith and doctrine to reveal what is right and wrong before I will trust the government to do the same. I will then take it upon myself to teach my children this regardless of what the public education system tries to teach.
With all that said, I would like to state that it is up to the members and leaders of the LDS faith to decide whether or not to fight the California constitutional amendment for traditional marriage. I don’t like those that are outside the LDS faith proclaiming that the Church has no business getting involved in another state’s law making. The LDS Church does not just live in Utah but is worldwide and therefore has a direct interest in politics worldwide. That said, I believe they would do best to tread lightly.
I also find it interesting that the individuals that were crying foul about the outside money and efforts that were put into defeating the School Voucher Program her in Utah are now heavily involved in this effort in California. Conversely, many who seemed to have no problem receiving the help from outside sources on the voucher issue are now the same ones complaining about the efforts of some Utahan’s to affect California law.
Oct 17th 2008 • 15:10
by DCL
GregF,
You are right about Catholic Charities – I believe they shut down in Mass. because they specifically chose to rely on the state’s definition of marriage when they stood in the shoes of the state by placing children in state custody with families. Since LDS adoption services doesn’t do any of these things (i.e. act in place of the state), Prop 8. will not affect LDS adoption services in California. It is because distinctions like this aren’t being made that I think the “Six Consequences” document is misleading.
Also, if you read the rebuttal, you may notice that the California Education Code already requires that other committed relationships be discussed on equal footing with marriage, and has for some years. California also has liberal parental consent and opt-out laws. It’s clear that Prop 8 doesn’t affect these provisions that are already in the Education Code.
School management is extremely local in the U.S. though, and this issue will be hashed out between parents and local school boards to reflect community standards as have many other similar issues, such as banned books and sex ed. There is little reason to think that this issue is any different.
Oct 17th 2008 • 16:10
by Robert
Tom, I apologize if I offended you.
I certainly did not intend for my comments to be an attack on your beliefs, or values. The tone of the language used in your original post (damned lies, viral rumors, etc…). Put me, and likely several others, on the defensive, as many of the same points were detailed by the church itself.
I certainly wasn’t attempting to single you out with my comments, but I do think that you can’t separate religion from this issue. It is THE issue. It is not simply an LDS issue but many faiths are supporting this position or similar ones. Anyone who is at odds with their church over an issue is in a difficult spot, regardless of the particular faith.
Trying to take religion out of an issue like this, is very difficult (for the religiously inclined), and regardless of religious persuasion will likely create some internal as well as external conflicts. Again I sincerely apologize if you felt I judged or condemned you personally, it truly was not my intent. I should have more carefully chosen my words , as with such a charged issue, the slightest misunderstanding can lead to hurt feelings, and detract from a very important discussion which needs to take place.
Oct 17th 2008 • 16:10
by Tom Grover
Robert,
No worries, buddy. I do appreciate your words. It’s a combustible issue for certain as it mixes all of the most potent dimensions of politics – religion, rights, morality and such. It can get a bit heated sometimes, but I think for the most part all of us in this thread (yourself included) are doing a pretty good job of making good arguments and considering the other side.
I look forward to reading more of your arguments on this.
Oct 17th 2008 • 18:10
by Tyler Riggs
Morris Thurston will join us live on KVNU’s For the People from 4 to 5 p.m. on Monday. Be sure to tune in. He will take phone calls the second half of the program.
Oct 18th 2008 • 09:10
by Cali Mom
As for the consequences not having happened yet in California, that is true. Of course, the courts just started allowing the “Same Sex” marriages in California recently and it is coming to a vote of the people, again! So, if you were a proponent of the No side, why in the world would you force the things that you deny will happen before the vote of the people. You wouldn’t because you know that it could change a lot of peoples minds. It was that way in Massachusetts, too. As a mother, I’m not willing to take the chance to see the come about. As a school employee, I’m not willing to have to teach something that is totally against my moral beliefs. Because of this, I’m willing to take a stand and battle for the “Yes on 8″. I’m willing to stand up for Marriage being between a man and a woman. This is a moral battle, and unfortunately, the other side is not being too nice to us, or to our ads. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjkKqjkq1r4
Equality comes in many ways, so allow us the equality of our freedom of speech.
Oct 18th 2008 • 10:10
by Paul Mero
Most amazing for me anyway is that four of the six consequences are presented as legal speculation…and so Thurston gets a free, law professor, intellectual ride to hammer them because (with the exception of two…the first and last) they are written in FUTURE tense:
#1 (first exception)…”will have to be”…but this has already occured in MA where a father was thrown in jail for a night for interfering in the new gay marriage-centered curriculum in his kid’s public school.
#2…”may be”…not “has been”
#3…”will be”…not “has been”
#4…”may be”…not “has been”
#5…”may be”…not “has been”
#6 (second exception)…”will” and “will bring”…what? lawsuits? Oh no, that would NEVER happen in America…a lawyer bringing a lawsuit. Give me a break.
You know, suppose SCOTUS’s balance of power is altered…and now we have pro-life majority in the Court and Roe v. Wade is in jeopardy of being overturned. Are you telling me that pro-abortion advocates (and their libertarian friends…and their LDS friends whose sister or mother had to have an abortion at some point in their lives, and who now throw aside reason and principle because it’s “personal” now) wouldn’t print a full-page ad in the NYT about the “303 Consequences of Repealing Roe v. Wade”?
Of the Six Consequences, number 1 has occured and number 6 is soooooo going to happen because of the nature of our legal system and how it is used by the Left to get what they want when “the people” (you know, like “for the people”) have the great sense to not follow some idiotic policy path.
The other four consequences are neither empty speculation…the gay movement is pathological in its quest to gain public approbation. Since Stonewall, they have filed every lawsuit they can imagine to push their quest for acceptance…yes, for what they do, though they believe it’s for who they are. And it seems fit punishment to them to throw someone in jail at any point for just THINKING differently…not actually doing something, like having promiscuous sex in a public place or something like that.
Lastly, most of you who post here cannot remember (maybe weren’t even born yet) when the LDS Church was challenged for years on blacks in the priesthood and women in the priesthood. I was baptized on the day that the revelation on blacks was sustained in GC…and I lived in VA when the ERA was at its height and VA was THE key state…and a few LDS picketers (and their non-member, Mormon-hating, feminist supporters) stood outside a regional conference at the then-Captial Center shouting at members as they drove by.
My point is that I have witnessed apostasy over these sorts of issues. And I pray that LDS members hung up on this particular issue of gay marriage can recover their reason and faith to, at least, keep their struggle of faith to themselves so that the pressures of apostasy don’t overwhlem them.
For those of you who consider yourselves faithful Latter-day Saints, take a step back, above the trees of contentious debate, and look introspectively at which way you are facing. For those of you supporting gay marriage, you will look around a see your Brethren across the chasm of faith.
Legal arguments, political contenions, and speculations will come and go. Anybody can be right or wrong at any given time. But for faithful Latter-day Saints, this is a no-brainer. Face the right way or you might find yourselves out of the Church of your own doing.
Not preaching…I just care about you all.
Oct 20th 2008 • 07:10
by Joey V
Check out some real life facts of the “Same-Sex Marriage” effect on the world today.
http://vimeo.com/1978711?pg=embed&sec=1978711
Oct 30th 2008 • 13:10
by against greener
Glen Greener says is for the saving of traditional marriage yet he has been in a state of adultery for over 30 years that ended his “friends” marriage, caused her family significant mental damage. The woman was disfellowshipped from her church and he writing as an active LDS who trying to save marriages. How ironic.
Mar 11th 2009 • 17:03
by against greener
Glenn how could you write for traditional marriage when your new marriage is a product of an affair. You are the poster child for hypicritical Mormons.
Jun 12th 2009 • 22:06
by Michael Reis
@Paul Mero
Be mindful of stepping into the realm of interpreting God’s will on behalf of “us all”.
Jun 12th 2009 • 23:06
by Michael Reis
The heated debate over the legal recognition of “gay marriage” often leads to a complete departure from reason. Nobody would even care if our recent ancestors hadn’t ruined the institution of marriage by making it a legal affair of the state.
I see so many people in turmoil over this debate and it’s legal outcomes, and yet so few care to even discuss the legitimacy of any court or government to rule either way.
To put all of this another way, the continued acceptance of any group’s false authority over what are God-given inalienable rights will come back to bite us, and we all know where.
Jun 15th 2009 • 15:06
by Wayne Thurston
Thats the way I feel. Not blindly but faithfully.
@GregF