Comments on: No Fair! You’re Saying What the Amendment Does!

By: Vailes

Vailes — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:51:17 +0000

Good ?dea

By: Corby Kennard

Corby Kennard — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:08:47 +0000

And this is why I no longer purchase or read OSC books. “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.”

By: William

William — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:03:08 +0000

In case anybody is wondering, Card’s article is now here:

http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=1586

By: shredder

shredder — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:43:28 +0000

This blog Is very informative , I am really pleased to post my comment on this blog . It helped me with ocean of knowledge so I really belive you will do much better in the future . Good job web master .

By: Peter Ahlstrom

Peter Ahlstrom — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:42:36 +0000

I just read this and thought some of the people who were involved in this conversation here might be interested to see what the LDS Church itself says on the issue.

By: Rico

Rico — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:52:49 +0000

Get the government out of the business of marriage altogether. If we all had civil unions from the governement, we could return the issue of marriage back to the churches. Since some churches would marry gay couples and others wouldn’t, everyone should be satisfied.

The only things the state should provide concern property rights and taxation. Civil unions are sufficient to provide equality in all of those areas. Anyone who wants the “m word” for a deeper meaning can go their church.

By: Jesurgislac

Jesurgislac — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:16:21 +0000

Sub-Odeon (335) – So, supposing you’d been bringing a man home as your future spouse, how easy do you suppose it would have been for your man to “pass” as a woman so as to make your marriage acceptable to the Mormons who would otherwise have supported it?

But, that aside, I do recognise what you’re saying as most people who oppose same-sex marriage aren’t doing so because they’re actively homophobic – or, really, homophobic at all. They’ve just never heard of such a thing, and they’re “instinctively” agin what they’ve never heard of.

But these people are exactly the people who will come round in approximately five minutes or so once they realise that this awful skyfalling GAY MARRIAGE is in fact just that nice George and Brad getting married after being together for 15 years. In short, the cure for these people’s feelings of being agin gay marriage is simply to legislate (or have the courts determine) that it’s legal for same-sex couples to get married.

Within about a month, I think I can almost certainly promise, everyone who had listened with half an ear to the homophobic nutcases saying that if two men or two women were allowed to marry THE WORLD WOULD COME TO AN END, will be witnessing their friends and neighbors getting married, and wondering what all the fuss was about.

By: Jesurgislac

Jesurgislac — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:29:18 +0000

Sub-Odeon wrote:

I proposed my solution, and I think it works for our 21st century America. Virtually all modern Americans opposed to gay marriage, oppose it on religious grounds. Removing ‘marriage’ as a state function and giving it strictly to the churches gives the religious conservative what they want. It also gives gays what they want because they can still MARRY according to their own religious (or areligious) convictions, and enjoy equal protection under the law. Separate but equal? How does that apply to a Union document that provides IDENTICAL legal rights and protections to straight, gay, and poly alike?

This solution is what was made law in the UK on 5th December 2005 – same-sex couples can register a civil union (civil partnership) which has virtually identical rights, responsibilities, and obligations to marriage. Civil partnership is legally equal to civil marriage, but marriage (civil or religious) is for mixed-sex couples, civil partnership (if you want a religious ceremony, it must be held separately) is for same-sex couples. Separate but equal – and the UK government was a lot more serious about the “but equal” part than the Southern states ever were.

Was this an acceptable compromise to the homophobic bigots who oppose gay marriage? Hell no. Because civil partnership is legally identical to marriage, they said “This is just gay marriage under another name!” and they protested – and still protest – same-sex couples having the right to enter a legal, state-sanctioned civil union with all the rights, obligations, and responsibilities of marriage.

Civil partnership was Tony Blair’s attempt to offer the homophobic bigots who use religion as their excuse an acceptable compromise. It didn’t work. It won’t work in the US, either. (I have a stack of stuff about this on my blog tagged equal marriage, including a blog post about the registrar who claimed it was against her Christian faith to solemnize a civil partnership ceremony.)

Legal marriage in the US has been civil marriage only for as long as the Union has existed – the fact that a couple can ask a pastor to marry them does not affect the fact that it’s the civil ceremony that binds them, not the religious one. To redefine “marriage” as a “religious union only” would be to change the whole history of marriage in the US – and be pointless as a means of appeasing homophobic bigots who oppose same-sex marriage, because they’ll oppose it no matter what you call it.

By: Jonathan Vos Post

Jonathan Vos Post — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:10:35 +0000

Before OSC and his fans march on the Capitol with torches and pitchforks to overthrow their perceived tyranny, can we head them off with a compromise law to have the motto on currency changed to what he seems to prefer: “Insert Tab A Into Slot B We Trust”?

By: Sub-Odeon

Sub-Odeon — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:31:57 +0000

Test test test.

test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test….

Thanks!