Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Orson Scott Card Weighs in on Prop. 8

Orson Scott Card weighs in on the Prop. 8 backlash in "Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle." Here's an excerpt where he calls special attention to single LDS members in California's single wards and the challenges they are facing now:
Outside the Church, most of their peers were against Proposition 8; inexperienced in marriage and child-rearing, they saw no harm in gay marriage.

So when our Latter-day Saint singles heeded the call of the church's leaders to take part in the defense of marriage, they, more than any other group of Saints, were swimming upstream.

They worked hard. They took risks. And many of them paid a price that is heavy indeed.

Many of them lost dear friends -- sometimes with bitter, angry recriminations from people they had once been close to.

It seems ironic that these young Mormons were open-minded enough to be friends with people whose lives were so different from their own; but their friends, in the name of tolerance, could not remain friends with Mormons who merely stood up for their faith.

If the situation had been reversed, if Prop. 8 had failed, these LDS young people would not have rejected their friends who voted to repudiate the meaning of marriage. And if they had, would they not have been condemned as bigots, for being unable to tolerate someone else voting his conscience?

I have been more fortunate. All my gay friends who might have repudiated me for supporting Prop. 8 had already condemned me long ago for standing by a Christ-centered, prophet-led church. The gay friends who remained at the time of the vote already knew my views, and our relationship continues.

(Not that I lack for hate mail and death threats from the "tolerant," mind you. It just didn't come from my friends.)
While I can understand some of the frustration of the gay community over society's desire to protect traditional marriage and not change the definition of the term, I hope the frustration will not translate into intolerance for those who hold more traditional views and have concerns about the impact of changing the nature of marriage. I can also understand the frustration felt over the role of Latter-day Saints and other groups in actively standing for their beliefs in supporting Proposition 8. What saddens me is the assumption from some of the anti-8 activists that anyone supporting Prop. 8 must inherently be a hateful bigot. There are legitmate arguments that can be made on both sides of the debate, and legitimate reasons for differences. To transmute those differences into bigotry toward the alleged bigots is a sad abandonment of civic responsibility.

45 comments:

SingleSpeed said...

"inexperienced in marriage and child-rearing, they saw no harm in gay marriage."

I think it's pretty patronizing to suggest that their opposition to Prop 8 is due to inexperience.

Edmond said...

>I hope the frustration will not translate into intolerance for those who hold more traditional views

Sorry, already happened. :(

>anyone supporting Prop. 8 must inherently be a hateful bigot.

Yep, that's what I found out when my church was spray-painted by some didactic Prop 8 opponents recently. I also found out that I was in a cult, which I never would have considered had it not been spray painted in huge black letters for me to see.

When we've had enough time for the more violent emotions to run their course, maybe Hollywood can step in and release a well-directed PG-13 movie about how religious people are ignorant fools, just to catch any stray LDS people who hadn't noticed.

Anonymous said...

Funny thing about cults is that those that are in them, don't know it is a cult.
If they thought it was a cult, most would leave the group. Members of cults that have left say they had no idea their worship and obeying of the leader was cult like. Nor did they think it was odd not to question their authorities nor think that the leader could do no wrong.
When people think of cults they usually think of jim Jones type situations. That is really the extreme.
Easiest way to know if someone is in a cult is to hear them talk about how they obey the leader and lead their lives based on those teachings. There is almost a hero worship of the leader.

Anonymous said...

Much like Huckabee expects the Republican party to follow him.

Dan said...

I don't believe that our church leaders considered this cost when they pushed for its members to pay for the support of this legislation.

Ryan said...

Hmm... that link points back to this post instead of to Card's article.

Here's the one Google turns up: http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002

Nick Literski said...

Come on, Jeff. You can do better than to post Orson Scott Card as some sort of authority on the Proposition 8 issue. This is the same guy, after all, who called for violent overthrow of the government, in the event that Proposition 8 failed! The guy is an extremist, and should be an embarassment to those who supported the initiative.

Mormanity said...

Nick, you raise a fair point. I didn't mean to imply that Orson is an authority on Prop 8 and its legal implications - but he is an authority on how his gay friends have reacted to him, and how his single LDS peers have been treated. It's that experience which made his article of interest to me - and I hope it will help the tiny minority of vitriolic activists in the gay community understand that there are some self-defeating ironies in their highly-publicized reaction.

A more patient, loving response from the gay community would serve their cause much better. That may be the case for a large percentage, but the organized efforts of some to intimidate and harass only exacerbate some of the concerns behind the Pro-Prop 8 effort.

Anonymous said...

GBH must be rolling over in his grave. All the hard work President Hinckley did to elevate the image of the church has been single handedly wiped out by his predecessor. Nice legacy.

Anonymous said...

errr...that should be successor.

nujkwm said...

Why would President Hinckley be disappointed at all? We all know that the Church during Christ's time wasn't well liked at all. What makes you think that the church is going to be 'liked' any better during the last days. The wicked always fight against the righteous. Maybe the prophet is just finally setting some boundaries on how long we will sit and watch the world ruin itself

Nick Literski said...

A more patient, loving response from the gay community would serve their cause much better.

You know, Jeff, there's a real dichotomy involved here. On the one hand, I completely understand this view, and I condemn illegal actions which have taken place in the wake of Prop 8's passing. On the other hand, I applaud the protests, and have taken part in them. The simple fact is that no minority groups have achieved the recognition of their rights by quietly sitting in the corner and being "good boys and girls." I think it's a mistake to think that gays and lesbians will achieve equal civil rights by quietly accepting discriminatory treatment.

Nate W. said...

I have been more fortunate. All my gay friends who might have repudiated me for supporting Prop. 8 had already condemned me long ago for standing by a Christ-centered, prophet-led church. The gay friends who remained at the time of the vote already knew my views, and our relationship continues.

This may be the single most self-righteous thing I have ever read. I'm guessing that self-reflection is not one of Mr. Card's strong points.

Mormanity said...

Nate, can you explain a little more? If he had taken out "Christ-centered," would the passage be much less offensive? Many gays are Christian and I don't think he meant to suggest they are enemies of Christ for not sharing his religious views - but standing by the LDS Church, whether you call it Christ-centered and prophet-led or not, obviously can challenge some friendships. Sorry for not grasping your perspective - would like to better understand.

Mormanity said...

Nick, much of the concern about SSM is found in fears about it being used as a wedge to force the rest of us to change. There are fears of an anti-religious, anti-Christian agenda, fears of lawsuits being used to do things like force Christian churches, adoption agencies, and businesses to do things against their beliefs, or to silence other viewpoints, etc. Mobs gathering against temples, vandalism against buildings, crowds harassing peaceful Christians, etc., only give teeth to those fears and justify suspicions of something beyond "live and let live."

Nate W. said...

Jeff,

I don't mind at all. I don't think it would have been less self-righteous if he would have left out Christ-centered. I meant by my comment that Mr. Card's comment directly says that people hate him because he's righteous. That may not always be a self-righteous thing to say; sometimes it may be true. I think that it's far more likely having read Mr. Card's essays at Meridian and elsewhere that his ability to be friendly to those whom he disagrees with is lacking, and that's why his gay friends have left him.

It's possible to be friends with people you disagree with. When someone claims that they are losing friends because friends are not tolerant of that person's views, I am always strongly suspicious that the real reason is that person is incapable of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Mormanity said...

OK, that helps. Personally, I don't think Card was praising his righteousness (that seems rather unCardian to me), and my sense of the man is that he is highly accepting of others (don't know him personally though), but I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint. I think I see better where you were coming from.

Pops said...

It isn't fair to accuse Card of being self-righteous. He said his friends abandoned him because he stood by his beliefs. What, he should abandon his beliefs if they are different from those of others? Seriously...

I'm still waiting for a pro-gay-marriage argument that isn't a strawman. Gay people already have exactly and precisely the same right, respecting marriage, that heterosexual people have - the right to marry one person of the opposite sex, with some restrictions regarding age and kinship. The list of people and things one is not allowed by law to marry is near-infinite.

Anonymous said...

"Funny thing about cults is that those that are in them, don't know it is a cult."

Well then, perhaps God will patiently look past our blissfully gross naivete and consider the good intents of our hearts. I suspect as much--from a just omniscient being, that is. Or is that too naive?

Jack

Anonymous said...

Jack,
People who are in cults are not naive. They are brainwashed.
This would mean any effort to instill certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — in order to affect that individual's value system and subsequent thought-patterns and behaviors.
Attitudes. Beliefs. Change value system. Change thought patters. Change behaviors.
You can have a cult that brainwashes people to stop smoking and drinking alcohol. Those are all great things to change, but doesn't change the fact that a cult brainwashed the individual into changing his thoughts and behavior.

Brad said...

Nate said "I don't believe that our church leaders considered this cost when they pushed for its members to pay for the support of this legislation."

They may have, they may have not. Who can anticipate irrational behavior? What they did consider was what the consequences would be if Prop 8 didn't pass. And that would have been tragic.

As Jeff said, Prop 8 was much more than just about SSM. The gay community has a purposeful agenda. This is a minority trying to rule the majority and that is wrong when the gospel so clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. As Calvin Coolidge said, "It is one thing to have compassion for those who are exceptions to the norm. It is another thing to redefine the norm."

Another thing I am tired of hearing is saying that we are "taking away the rights of the gay community." Here in CA, they already enjoy all the rights of a married couple and still will even with this amendment to our constitution. Also, there never was and there is no "right" to get married. Where is it in the US Constitution? It's not in the Bill of Rights. It is a privilege that is granted by the states. There never was a right for homosexuals to get married, therefore there is no right taken away. Marriage originated as a privilege to legally have children. As Elton John, a celebrated sexual deviant, said just last week, why does the gay community need the legal term of "marriage" to have their relationships.

The wording on the ballot, "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY" was put there by Jerry Brown, our illustrious State Attorney General, who is, of course, biased. In an unprecedented action, he reworded the title of the proposition to suit his agenda. Like I said, there never was a right for SS couples to marry, so Prop 8 did not eliminate them.

And this issue of "civil rights." OK, so you think anyone should be able to marry whoever they want? How about a man marrying a boy. (Look up North American Man-Boy Lovers--"NAMBLA.") How about a father marrying his daughter? Well, why not? Because as a church we believe that to be despicably wrong. As a society, we believe that to be morally disgusting. So we have laws against that. (Administered by the states, BTW.)

And speaking of states, why is it hardly mentioned that MOST STATES HAVE ALREADY SIMILAR AMENDMENTS TO THEIR CONSTITUTIONS OR LAWS OR WORKING ON SIMILAR AMENDMENTS? CA is not the only state by far. As a matter of fact, pro-gay marriage states are only a handful.

And who pathetically posted that Pres. Hinckley must be rolling in his grave? HAH! Are you talking about the same Pres. Hinckley who asked us CA members to get Prop. 22 passed in 2000? What in the world are you talking about? Anonymous, you obviously are a non-member troll on this blog. I guess that's why you are anonymous, huh?

Isn't it ironic that the 60's mentality of "anything goes," the root of all this evil, now says that "domestic partnerships" are not good enough for homosexual partners?

Homosexual marriages will not affect you or me? What a great lie! To legally legitimize these illegitimate relationships will affect society--to its downfall.

I am amazed that there are some members of the church who are blinded to what's at stake in this issue and yet call us "blind."

Here is one explanation to why the opponents of the passage of Prop 8 are so vitriolic and even violent: Wickedness never was happiness.

Anonymous said...

This is a minority trying to rule the majority and that is wrong when the gospel so clearly defines homosexuality as a sin.

Being homosexual is a sin? What an ignorant statement.
Minority rule the majority? Yes, that black minority in the US trying to rule us white folk and make us treat them as equals. The nerve of the minority.
Let majority rule. Let's roll back time to the 40s and 50s. Back when White was Right and Gays were spit on.
I had lots of friends and roommates at BYU that were homosexual. No Bishop I ever had told them that to be a homosexual is a sin. No Priesthood authority I ever had told us they were sinners because of their sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is not a sin. At least know what you are talking about before you post some holier than thou diatribe

robert said...

I think the government is about to get out of the marriage business altogether by offering civil unions to both gays and straights. This will allow anyone who wishes to be “married” to do so in their own preferred way (church, synagogue, druid forest). Everyone will just get a civil union certificate first (like a birth certificate) and then people can do what they wish about the rest of it just as they do now with baptisms, christenings and the like. Its the only practical solution to the separation of church and state. I look forward to it.

Carey said...

OSC never called for a violent overthrow of the government, he did suggest a peaceful boycott should our government quit being of the people, by the people, and for the people. He specifically said we should not resort to violence.

Apparently some people here cannot tell the difference between a person with same sex attraction and a homosexual. Here is the webster definition:

ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation:
\ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1892

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Finding people of the opposite or same gender attractive as a result of hormonal or other biological impulse is not a sin.

Entertaining thoughts of sexual gratification with someone of same or opposite gender outside the bounds the Lord has set IS a sin.

Having sexual relations with someone of the same or opposite gender outside the bounds the Lord has set is an abomination of the worst kind that abuses the sacred powers of procreation and stops any eternal progress unless full and complete repentance is made.

Therefore, to be a homosexual, you must have sexual desires or intercourse with a member of the opposite sex.

Now, regarding cults. The word cult is a stupid word and has almost no meaning. By the definitions offered here, any organization that teaches a specific philosophy is a cult. By the same definition, Jesus is a cult leader. Its a word that is meant to stir up fear and loathing and has no redeemable value. Observe its Webster's definition:

Cult
Pronunciation:
\ˈkəlt\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date:
1617

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator "health cults"
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

According to this any philosophy with a following is a cult, including all religions, as well as secular movements with leaders including Al Gore or Barak Obama.

Regarding the question about whether the church expected the negative response, they knew exactly what would happen. My in laws in CA attended a stake conference with Elder Nelson where he asked members to support the family and told them that they would be persecuted for it. They are fully aware of the nature of the opposition and he who leads them. They are not prophets, seers, and revelators for nothing.

Anonymous said...

Carey is spot on. If I wanted to follow the definition of a cult given earlier in these comments, I could say the entire homosexual movement is a cult, what with their Judy Garland, Ellen Degeneres, Freddie Mercury, The Village People, ad nauseum. And they don't even know it!

See. When you use words improperly just to denigrate something you don't agree with, you'll quickly find others can do the same to you.

Moral of the story: stop being stupid.

Shabba said...

I'm LDS, single, and live in the Bay Area so I've seen it all with regards to Prop 8.

It has always seemed to me that the most fundamental question about this whole issue is never, ever asked-What "right" are the gays losing? I mean don't they have all the rights of married couples except they aren't considered "married" in name by the state? It seems like a fight over a naming convention. The gay community will never come out and say it, but it seems to me like they're attempting to legislate their morals from the bench. And they believe if they persist long enough that they will win.

The intolerance and hatred of religion is just terrible in this area. It's a tough place to be LDS, no doubt about it.

Alex Valencic said...

Every now and then, I have these random, stray thoughts pop into my head as I am going to sleep or waking up. The most recent is this:

How many LDS people voted in favour of Prop 8 solely because the First Presidency wrote a letter encouraging them to do so?

In other words, are there members of the Church who were planning on voting against Prop 8 and then changed their minds? My guess is that no, there probably are not. After all, we've all heard about the members who opposed it. And, as far as we know, they did vote against it. So, how, exactly, is the Church to blame in this matter?

Oh, sure, members of the Church donated heaps of money to support the proposition. But there were millions put into the campaign to defeat it, as well. And it isn't as if the LDS community in California solely funded the pro 8 campaign.

So why all the hatred directed at the LDS church? Is it just because it is such an easily recognisable target? I know that Calvary Chapel has been targeted, as well, but it seems that the LDS church has been given the lion's share of the attacks. (Incidentally, I find it horrifying ironic that, of all the other church's, Calvary Chapel is being linked with the LDS church in their support of Prop 8. But I guess if you've never lived in Cali, and don't know anything about Calvary Chapel, you wouldn't understand.)

MG said...

The Christian Response?

I believe we use this term too loosely without having a good understanding of what this actually means. We cannot know the Christian response without studying the life of Christ. And His response varied depending on the situation. To Herod, He had no words. To Pilate, He bore pure testimony of truth. To the Romans at the crucifixion, He prayed for mercy for them, showing His awareness that lack of correct information was at play. To the Pharisees, lawyers and scribes, some of His most vehement and persistent enemies, He called them on the carpet and used sharp language to expose their true nature-hypocrites, vipers, etc. He took physical action when a sacred institution, the temple, was being defiled.

Sometimes the Christian thing to do is stand up and defend a sacred institution, in this case, marriage. Everyone has a truth claim. When someone stands up with a truth claim, especially religious, the label of "self-righteous" or "bigot" is easily applied.

Orson Card is making a truth claim. Call it "self-righteousness" if you will. So be it. I reject the claim out of hand. Yes, we declare we are led by a prophet. Reject the claim? So be it. If our position is driven by popularity of the claim, then we have nothing. We invite those who will to read the Book of Mormon and pray with a willingness to follow the answer if received. That's all we can do.

We declare that marriage is fundamental to civilization itself. Procreation is the only reason we are on this planet. That is common sense that a 5 year old can understand. Homosexual marriage simply does not have the inherent ability to preserve the race. Mother Nature has declared that man and women are the preferred method, and marriage as defined that way follows that wisdom. Reject that basic truth? So be it. We believe we have a right to participate in a democratic process. If we win, great. If we lose, we will have expressed our opinion within the bounds of the law. If a state or nation chooses contrary to what we know to be eternal truths, we leave it in God's hands to judge.

We know that we will not convince those who are opposed. We cannot force anyone to believe our views. But we declare them and leave it in God's hands to judge.

Anonymous said...

I'm a faithful LDS priesthood holder and I oppose prop 8. My agency far outweighs the opinions of the current leadership of the Church.
If you've ever read Mark E. Peterson's comments on the passing of the 1978 proclamation on the priesthood, you should know these things are discussed and argued and tossed around in counsel for years before the brethren say anything. There are no special visitations involved, no holy declarations by an Old Testament-like sage. It's meetings, meetings, and more meeting (like so much else in the Church). I have to believe there are some among the brethren who think like I do and realize the only marriage that really matters is that which takes place over the altars of the temple. Let the world do whatever it wants, it doesn't change God's covenants.
Mormons put very little legitimacy on marriages performed outside the temple, so why should faithful LDS people presume to dictate how anyone should live their lives? It's a common mindset among the faithful: "I live the gospel and have a temple recommend, therefore everyone else should do the same." Get over it. Let the world spin on how it will.

Carey said...

Helaman 13
25 And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out.
26 Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil.
27 But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.

Sound familiar?

bunker said...

"Mormons put very little legitimacy on marriages performed outside the temple, so why should faithful LDS people presume to dictate how anyone should live their lives?"

Correction:

The Church puts legitimacy in earthly marriages but encourages us to be sealed. There is not little or much legitimacy. Just legitimacy.

Nick Literski said...

OSC never called for a violent overthrow of the government, he did suggest a peaceful boycott should our government quit being of the people, by the people, and for the people. He specifically said we should not resort to violence.

I beg to differ with you, Carey. Orson Scott Card, in his "Mormon Times" column, wrote thusly:

"If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages. Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary. . . . How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. (emphasis added)" http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=3237

Carey, Card's words above clearly suggest violent overthrow of the government. You will note he doesn't say to change "government," but "change governments, i.e. replace the current one with another. He then reiterates this same theme more explicitly, saying that he will act to "destroy" and "bring down" the government, if marriage equality is not stopped, so that the government can be "replaced" with one to his liking. There is no other reasonable conclusion to draw from his words. Further, I've gone through the article multiple times, and there is no talk of "peaceful boycott," let alone any statement that people should "not resort to violence." Perhaps you are thinking of a different statement by Card, and haven't read the one I've quoted. Feel free to follow the link I've provided, and see for yourself.

Tracy Keeney said...

Jeff-- you and many of your readers will be very glad to hear that the Presidents, Founders and Chairmen of several well known Christian organizations and Pro-family organizations are standing up for the LDS church on this issue. Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family, Richard Land from the Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Dr. Gary Bauer of American Values, and many, many more have joined Abovethehate.com, with a letter of support directly to President Monson. The letter has also been signed by hundreds of ministers and pastors of individual churches.

ltbugaf said...

Funny thing about cults is that those that are in them, don't know it is a cult. If they thought it was a cult, most would leave the group.

What are you basing this on?

Members of cults that have left say they had no idea their worship and obeying of the leader was cult like.

What is "cult-like" supposed to mean?

Nor did they think it was odd not to question their authorities nor think that the leader could do no wrong.

Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't take the position that its leaders can't be questioned or do wrong, how is this relevant?

Easiest way to know if someone is in a cult is to hear them talk about how they obey the leader and lead their lives based on those teachings. There is almost a hero worship of the leader.

So everyone who chooses to make life decisions based on the teachings of Buddha, or Mohammed, or Jesus, or Ayn Rand, or Jean-Paul Sartre, is a cultist? Fascinating! Just how many people aren't cult members?

Brad said...

Anonymous:

Is that the best reply you can give? What about all the other points I made? Any rebuttals there?

Oh, "homosexuality behavior," then, please excuse the semantics. Read Carey's post above about the definitions of same sex attraction and homosexuality. He's dead on. You are dead wrong.

And BTW, I am not concerned about your BYU friends who have same-sex attraction. They are not the ones with the caustic agenda.

As for minorities ruling the majority, you missed the point. (Of course.) I was referring to this specific issue, that they are on the wrong side of the moral fence.

It is you who suffers from ignorance.

ltbugaf said...

GBH must be rolling over in his grave. All the hard work President Hinckley did to elevate the image of the church has been single handedly wiped out by his predecessor. Nice legacy.

Errr...that should be successor.


Hmm. Well, since Gordon B. Hinckley was active for many years in involving the Church in various ballot initiatives for the purpose of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage, I can't imagine why he would be "rolling over in his grave." President Monson has only continued the same policy pursued by his predecessor. Errr...yup, that's predecessor.

ltbugaf said...

You will note he doesn't say to change "government," but "change governments, i.e. replace the current one with another.

"Change governments" is what we do every time one party replaces another in power. It happens all the time, in the US, the UK, and most other civilized countries, without bloodshed and without the vandalism and violence that some pro-Prop 8 groups have now taken to practicing.

KimLairson said...

Of five sons, one is gay. I hope for tolerance and love for him, and I support historical marriage as a tried and true institution-I also have a cousin who is gay who has been with the same partner for years-their companionship has lasted longer than my heterosexual temple marriage did.

Doug Forbes said...

Same sex marriage a=is a phony issue with no real constituency. What am I saying? In Denmark where same sex unions have been recognized by the state for more than a decade, they comprize only 0.2% of all couples. That is 1 in 500. This would translate into about 120,000 couples in the US as compared to about 60,000 married to their first cousins and 30,000 in polygamous unions. Yet neither of the latter groups get support from the news media as "sexual minorities". In fact the news media either persecutes them or ignores them. Laws remain in 25 states that prohibit marriage between first cousins. The news media has nothing to say about it. As for polygamy, the mainstream media vehemently opposes the right of a woman to choose who she wants to have babies with and who she wants to live with. Homosexuality serves a hidden agenda of the Left or what we call the Left for want of a better word. Other "sexual minories" do not serve that aganda and may even be seen as a threat to it. Find out why ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN hate polygamists (the real reason not their phony excuses) and you will find why they champion gay rights.

ltbugaf said...

these things are discussed and argued and tossed around in counsel for years before the brethren say anything. There are no special visitations involved, no holy declarations by an Old Testament-like sage. It's meetings, meetings, and more meeting (like so much else in the Church).

So you don't think Moses or Abraham ever discussed issues with other people? You don't think Peter met with the rest of the Apostles in council when making decisions about the future of the Church? You don't think Christ's encouragement to seek him in groups--in councils--matters? (See Matt. 18:20, D&C 6:32, D&C 101:22, and D&C 20: 55, 75 for starters.)

Mormons put very little legitimacy on marriages performed outside the temple...

Really? The difference between being a faithful member of the Church in good standing and a person subject to excommunication for fornication doesn't sound to me like "very little legitimacy."

ltbugaf said...

By the way, Nick Literski, I have to agree that Card is being pretty radical when he suggests that whenever any form of fovernment becomes destructive, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sounds radical and dangerous, doesn't it? Yet, it seems to have a familiar ring.

Noah said...

I actually enjoy coming from a religion that's a little "cultish." We aren't afraid to take risks, go against the grain, or put a dangerous amount of trust in personal revelation.

What can I say? It's fun to be a Mormon. I also like how such a benign people could have so many sworn enemies. For better or for worse, we are a peculiar people...wonderfully peculiar.

Carey said...

Nick,
I suppose we're looking at different OSC articles. I got my info from this one:
Upholding the Constitution

Anonymous said...

As usual, Nick mischaracterizes things into something that just isn't there. O.S.C. is clearly talking about what-ifs, he's not advocating anything actually be done.

simple woman said...

I'm a little late to the party but I say if being a covenant keeping, follower of prophet of God is wrong, I don't want to be right. If being firm in my beliefs makes me close minded so be it. Better close minded than having my brains fall out of my open mind.