A PHOTO ESSAY (VIDEO) OF TOLERANCE

Here is a video compiled by someone that demonstrates the love, tolerance, and rationality of those opposed to proposition 8.

NO ON 8 PROTESTS OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE

Opposition groups have begun to target the leadership of the Church. Read about the protests and see videos of the anti-traditional family protesters in front of the L.A. Temple here.

Protesters are also beginning to organize in front of the Salt Lake Temple. Read about that here.

This quote from President Benson seems applicable:

"As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words, but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn't exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord's second coming, you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them."

PROP 8 HAS PASSED!

A major battle has been won, but the war is not over. This will not be the end of attempts to alter the traditional family structure. Below is a talk given by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in 1978. These are prophetic words...

"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. 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.'

"This is hard doctrine, but it is 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. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.

"Resistance to abrtion 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.' Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat."--- Elder Neal A. Maxwell

There is still a little hope in the state of California.

ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR PROP 8

Below is an article that was referred to me. In a previous article I wrote here, I discussed many of the same points, but the articulation of this individual surpasses my articulation.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Adam Kolasinski

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

This article was originally posted here.

REMEMBER TO VOTE YES ON PROP 8

Election Day is Tuesday. Remember to vote. I have received many emails from people regarding my stance on Proposition 8. Most have been in disagreement with me. Here is my final plea and argument on the matter before the election. It is a summary of the discussions I have had with people over the last few days.

The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God. The marriage ceremony was governed by religious traditions. In addition, practically every culture on earth associates marriage with their religious beliefs. Even if you are an atheist, you cannot deny the historical fact that marriage and religion are inseparable in nearly all cultures.Here is a brief Christian history of marriage via scripture and modern prophets:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:3)

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)

"Marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17)

"God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other." [1]

If you believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph F. Smith, then you believe that God himself instituted marriage and is without question a religious ordinance. Since marriage and religion are inseparable whether by fact (from the revealed word) or by historical association, let us look anew at D&C 134:4.

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to interfere in prescribing religious marriage ceremonies. We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to dictate who should be married. We DO NOT believe human law has the right to assume supreme authority on the definition of marriage. It is a religious ceremony, a religious union, and a religious sacrament. The government has no business involving itself whatsoever in a religious ceremony. It is obvious from scripture and latter-day prophets that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Therefore two people of the same gender do not have the right to marry, and the government cannot intervene to dictate otherwise. The only reason government involves itself in any way in the religious institution of marriage is for issues regarding divorce, i.e. the division of property, custody of children, etc.

Since the government cannot dictate to religious organizations who can be married, and marriage in religious organizations is between a man and a woman, the only unions to which a government can ever involve itself in with regard to marital dissolution, are those between a man and a woman.Since the government has clearly overstepped its bounds by involving itself with religious ceremonies and religious definitions, I have the right to voice my opinion to the government that it has intervened where it should not have.

D&C 134:4 is a mandate to all members of the Church to voice their opinion, that the government has intervened in proscribing rules of worship and dictating public devotion with regard to marriage. Marriage is a religious function, and the government has no business defining what marriage is. It does not have that right. Yes on Proposition 8 reaffirms that the government has no business in defining or dictating a historically religious institution.The opponents of traditional marriage have not been tolerant nor open minded regarding the religious nature marriage has for the majority. Instead of seeking equal protection under the law they have sought to force their views upon everyone using government force. Instead of promoting legislation in congress where open debate and discourse can occur, they have used the judicial system much like a tyrant.The Book of Mormon warned of the tyrannical use of the judicial system:

"the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." (Alma 10:27)

Our system of government must be done with open discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas. Under the Constitution, judges are not to legislate or make laws, they are to judge based on the laws the people have chosen. The people choose representatives whose sole purpose is to makes laws according to the will of the people, and judges are to judge based on those laws, and NOT create their own.The Book of Mormon again asserts this principle:

"If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE." (Mosiah 29:29).

These principles are found in our Constitution. The will of the people as expressed in their laws has been overturned in a process that is not Constitutional. As a method of last resort against a tyrannical government, the Founders placed in the Constitution the means that the people could have the final say in their government, and that is through the amendment process.Instead of promoting their ideas through peaceful means, instead of promoting legislation for their cause, instead of discussing the injustice they felt they have incurred, opponents of traditional marriage have sought tyrannical means to overthrow the will of the people. This will only cause further strife and contention in our society. The means sought to enact laws by opponents of traditional marriage is beginning to lay the foundation of the destruction of our Republic.I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because the government has sought intrusion into religious institutions.

I am voting Yes on Prop 8 because my right to open discourse and debate on this issue has been taken away from me through unconstitutional means. I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because a Prophet of God has admonished me to preserve a sacred and religious ordinance from the clutches of a tyrannical judicial system. I am voting Yes on 8 because it is the only resort left that I have to tell my government they cannot interfere with my religious beliefs.

THE SEPARATION OF MARRIAGE AND STATE

Here is my latest correspondence with the creator of the www.lds4gaymarriage.com website:

Discussing this issue with you has finally helped me reconcile the same inability you have had with scripture and the perceived attempt of the Church to force its views upon other people. It is now clear to me that I have been looking for the reconciliation from a fallacious starting point. In reading your response I actually believe you will agree with me if you look at the issue from a different starting point.

I agree with you 100% that I do not have the right to impose my religious beliefs upon other people through the use of government force. Such action goes against the free agency given to man by God himself.

Your response did not indicate any dispute with my assertion that marriage is by fact or historical association a religious act. I will therefore assume that you are in agreement with that assertion.

If marriage is a religious institution, then any government intervention into that institution is unconstitutional per the first amendment. D&C 134:4 also affirms the same. The government simply has no business in involving itself with marriage. The legal contract that is formed as a consequence of marriage is an entirely different issue.

When the United States of America was founded, the commonly held definition of marriage was as follows:

Marriage: The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The culture at the time of our nations founding was much less diverse in terms of religious views. Because of this and out of convenience, there was no perceived problem of the governments intervention through the civil contract component into the religious institution of marriage. Marriage was God's, civil contract's were Caesar's. Because of the diverse beliefs people have in our current society, the two components, religious and civil, should be separated. Since marriage is by definition, by fact, and by historical association a religious institution, the government must now remove all references and uses of that word. The government is should only be involved in who can make contracts with one another.

By separating the two components, the government is no longer meddling with religion. Marriage is performed and regulated at church, civil contracts are performed, regulated and enforced by the government. Any attempt by the government to define what marriage is oversteps its bounds. The government can only determine what contracts it will consider valid.

Under this system, the following scenario would occur. A man and a woman go to a church, and are married according to the methods of worship they subscribe to. They will then go to the government and announce they intend to enter into one of several types of contracts with one another. A church could require their members to enter into this contract before they will be allowed to be married. It is the religious organization's choice to determine the rules and definitions of marriage.

If a man and a man want join a church that performs same gender "marriage", such a church would have the right to do so, per their definition of marriage. The two men will then go to the government and announce they intend to enter into one of several types of contracts with one another.

Consider this brief example of the type of contract two people can enter into. Two men go to the government and announce they intend to form a partnership, very similar to current partnership laws which govern business. The contract can specify the assumption of the other partner's pension, inheritance, lease transfers, burial rights, etc. Current partners under certain partnership laws will automatically be liable for the debts or obligations of another, similar to what happens in current marriage law. Basically, two people can contract with one another to form a business entity. It is not marriage by definition, and by the fact the government cannot intervene in the religious institution. It is a contract formed by two people.

By definition, atheists cannot marry, but they can form a contract. An atheist could go to a church and get married, but they would then have to go to the government and announce their intent to form a binding contract. The atheist could simply avoid the church and bypass a meaningless ceremony (from their point of view) and go straight to the contract ratification. Government stays out of marriage. If the atheist couple decides to have children, the contract relationship formed would dictate the state's involvement.

The issue with Proposition 8 is governments intervention into the Judeo-Christian perception of marriage. As I have pointed out, the government must separate itself from marriage and only recognize contracts, not religious ceremonies. The majority of the people in this country associate marriage with religion. Attempts by the government to redefine marriage are seen as an attempt to redefine their religious beliefs. Proposition 8 is the will of the people telling the government to stop interfering in religious matters. The state must acquiesce and separate itself from dictating religious definitions. All of the rights and privileges associated with marriage can be solved through contract law, and defined as contract law and not marriage.

For this reason I support Proposition 8. For this reason the admonition by the leaders of the church to stop government intervention in marriage is in complete harmony with all scripture. The government must leave God's realm and go back to Caesar's. Caesar's place is enforcing contract law. Of course, the LORD will be the final enforcer of how Caesar enforced his laws.

I believe this scenario satisfies all of the examples you provided in your response. Marriage is religious, contract law is government. Yes on Prop 8 denies government intervention into the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the government does not have the right to tell me otherwise. Opponents of Prop 8 should stop trying to mix government and religion and focus on contract rights.

The opponents of traditional marriage have not been tolerant nor open minded regarding the religious nature marriage has for the majority. Instead of seeking equal protection under the law they have sought to force their views upon everyone using government force. Instead of promoting legislation in congress where open debate and discourse can occur, they have used the judicial system much like a tyrant.

The Book of Mormon warned of the tyrannical use of the judicial system: "the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." Alma 10:27

Our system of government must be done with open discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas. Under the Constitution, judges are not to legislate or make laws, they are to judge based on the laws the people have chosen. The people choose representatives whose sole purpose is to makes laws according to the will of the people, and judges are to judge based on those laws, and NOT create their own.

The Book of Mormon again asserts this principle: "If you higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE." Mosiah 29:29.

These principles are found in our Constitution. The will of the people as expressed in their laws has been overturned in a process that is not Constitutional. As a method of last resort against a tyrannical government, the Founders placed in the Constitution the means that the people could have the final say in their government, and that is through the amendment process.

Instead of promoting their ideas through peaceful means, instead of promoting legislation for their cause, instead of discussing the injustice they felt they have incurred, opponents of traditional marriage have sought tyrannical means to overthrow the will of the people. This will only cause further strife and contention in our society. The means sought to enact laws by opponents of traditional marriage is beginning to lay the foundation of the destruction of our Republic.

I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because the government has sought intrusion into religious institutions. I am voting Yes on Prop 8 because my right to open discourse and debate on this issue has been taken away from me through unconstitutional means. I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because a Prophet of God has admonished me to preserve a sacred and religious ordinance from the clutches of a tyrannical judicial system. I am voting Yes on 8 because it is the only resort left that I have to tell my government they cannot interfere with my religious beliefs.

MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY

The following is my latest response to an unidentified, self proclaimed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The author is part of a group who has established a website www.lds4gaymarriage.com. A major premise regarding their view that the Church's leadership is in error rests on D&C 134:4. After considering his arguments, I have come to realize my own error in the manner I have been computing this issue. Here is my response:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:3)

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)

"Marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17)

"God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other." [1]

The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God. The marriage ceremony was governed by religious traditions. In addition, practically every culture on earth associates marriage with their religious beliefs. Even if you are an atheist, you cannot deny the historical fact that marriage and religion are inseparable in nearly all cultures.

If you believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph F. Smith, then you believe that God himself instituted marriage and is without question a religious ordinance. Since marriage and religion are inseparable whether by fact (from the revealed word) or by historical association, let us look anew at D&C 134:4.

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to interfere in prescribing religious marriage ceremonies. We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to dictate who should be married. We DO NOT believe human law has the right to assume supreme authority on the definition of marriage. It is a religious ceremony, a religious union, and a religious sacrament. The government has no business involving itself whatsoever in a religious ceremony. It is obvious from scripture and latter-day prophets that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Therefore two people of the same gender do not have the right to marry, and the government cannot intervene to dictate otherwise.

The only reason government involves itself in any way in the religious institution of marriage is for issues regarding divorce, i.e. the division of property, custody of children, etc. Since the government cannot dictate to religious organizations who can be married, and marriage in religious organizations is between a man and a woman, the only unions to which a government can ever involve itself in with regard to marital dissolution, are those between a man and a woman.

Since the government has clearly overstepped its bounds by involving itself with religious ceremonies and religious definitions, I have the right to voice my opinion to the government that it has intervened where it should not have. D&C 134:4 is a mandate to all members of the Church to voice their opinion, that the government has intervened in proscribing rules of worship and dictating public devotion with regard to marriage. Marriage is a religious function, and the government has no business defining what marriage is. It does not have that right. Yes on Proposition 8 reaffirms that the government has no business in defining or dictating a historically religious institution.

In regards to the church loosing its tax exempt status, I find the threat of the government to impose fines on an organization for speaking out on political issues deplorable. It violates the right of individuals to express their views. Through the tax code, the government has found a clever mechanism to silence its greatest threat, people who believe in a being superior to the state. I believe the current tax code is immoral and should be abolished. I do not believe the government should have any right to participate in social engineering by granting favorable treatment to people who are married or to whomever it deems.



[1] Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith, compiled by John A. Widtsoe [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939], 272.

A RESPONSE TO YESTERDAY'S POST

A member of the group I wrote about in yesterdays blog responded to my inquiry. Here is their response. What they say has been changed to blue in order to better distinguish what I wrote from their response:

CM - Thank you for being honest and letting us know about your blog posting. We have no objection to you posting it on your site. We wish every LDS in CA would read it. We also think it would be equally honest to publish our response/rebuttal. It would show honesty and fairness. Responses are embedded below -

1. LDS scripture (D&C 134:4) says we can't use our religious opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others.

I submit that this group has interpreted this scripture incorrectly. Since the entire argument for this group is based on the interpretation of this single scripture to support their position, it is critical to examine each phrase in full:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, ...

This means that any person, who practices any religion, is accountable to God only, in how they practice.

CM - Agreed!

Continuing:...unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;...

In other words, there is a rational limit to what a person's religious liberty will allow. If I believe in human sacrifice as my religious belief, I will have to infringe upon another humans right to live. At that moment, I become accountable to a human law, that says homicide is illegal, regardless of my religious beliefs. The purpose of this verse is to declare the limits of which government can interfere in the religious beliefs of individuals. In other words, if my religious views do not infringe upon the rights and liberties of other people, the government CANNOT become involved in any way.

CM – Agreed. We can't use our religion as an excuse to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Gays have a right to marry in CA and we LDS are using our religious beliefs regarding marriage as a reason to try and revoke those rights. This also violates Paul’s statements as to how the religious opinions of others do not have the right to limit his own rights (1 Cor. 10:29).

The first amendment of the Constitution says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". The government can make laws against homicide however, and if committing homicide is part of your religion, your right to freely exercise that religion can be limited.

This group views this scripture as a limit on what individuals can do, when it is actually a limit on what government can do.

CM - The "...unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;..." portion says that men will not only be accountable to God for infringing upon the rights of others (it’s a sin), but also accountable to man's laws and punishments. IOW, the first clause of the verse says that we are subject only to God for our religious practices unless we do things in the name of our faith that infringe upon the rights of others. In such a case, we will not only be punished by God for the sin, but be punished my man as well.

...but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion;...

Again, this verse states that government should not interfere with how people choose to worship. There are no limits however, placed upon the individual in voting according to their religious beliefs. As a human being, and believer in a set of core moral values, I have the right to advocate my position, persuade others to my position, and vote according to my moral values.

CM - We agree "that government should not interfere with how people choose to worship." as you state, but that does NOT give you a free pass to infringe upon the rights of others. Gays in CA have a right to marriage and you want to use your vote to remove that right. That's a clear infringement upon the rights of others. You have the LEGAL right to do so, but not the moral right, per scripture. It is a sin to infringe upon the rights of others. We are to use kindness, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to persuade people to live righteously. Using government is force (per Pres. Benson and others). Force is Satan's Plan.

I believe that incest is wrong..... I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. ....I believe that men and women should not commit adultery. This position comes from my religious beliefs. I feel society would be better off if adultery was never made a legal act. I believe this is a moral issue that happens to limit the liberty of two consenting adults who desire to have sexual relations while breaking their marital vows.

CM - We agree if all of the above weren’t practiced in society, society would be much better off. That does NOT give us the right to use force to make it so. Our religion also teaches that girls shouldn't wear bikinis or date prior to 16 or single date until 18. We also believe that drinking iced tea is a sin. Shopping on Sunday is a sin. Etc...We may have a LEGAL right to try to force these on society. If we catch a 14 y/o girl wearing a bikini on a date while shopping on Sunday at beachfront shops with an iced tea in her hand, should she go to the slammer? She violated 4 of our "laws". Again, we may have a LEGAL right to do it, but we don't have a moral right, per our religion.

I do not believe it is right for the state to institute Christianity as a state religion, to force people to be baptized, pray, or dictate how I worship God. I will no longer be ashamed of my positions. The purpose of the oft repeated phrase "separation of church and state" was to limit government intrusion into religion. THE CONSTITUTION STRICTLY FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM EXERCISING THEIR RELIGION FREELY. My religious beliefs teach me that incest, same gender "marriage", and adultery are wrong, and I have the right to express my views in the way I vote. I will not be intimidated; I will not be thwarted in my efforts. God has given me the right as an individual to express my views and no government will ever prevent me from voting my conscience.

CM - IOW, you feel free to let your religious opinions prompt you to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Let's throw the little bimby in the slammer for strolling through those beachfront stores on Sunday, in her bikini while on a date and drinking iced tea. Those are sins and society would be better off if people didn't sin. Let's therefore outlaw all sin. We live in a democracy so let's vote these laws in. I sure hope that Seventh Day Adventists don't do these things...they may outlaw shopping on Saturday and force businesses to close. They might also outlaw meat being served in restaurants and in grocery stores. . Those are MORAL issues to them, NOT civil rights issues. Why are we so willing to “do unto others” the evil which had been “done unto us” yet scream when others try to do something to us? Why are we being hypocritical? We may have a LEGAL right to infringe upon others' rights in this case, but we don't have a moral or scriptural right to do so.

I close with words from Gordon B. Hinckley:

"Why does the Church become involved in issues that come before the legislature and the electorate?"

"I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. ..."

CM - Didn't others think it was in the best interest of society to issue an Extermination Order or have the US Army invade Utah? Wasn't polygamy considered to be contrary to the best interests of society? Ben Franklin said that a pure democracy is like 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. It's great if you are in the majority (wolves), but stinks if you are in the minority (sheep). This is why we live in a constitutional republic with protections for the sheep, but we LDS are trying to remove those protections for certain sheep so that we can have lunch. Again, we are to use kindness, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to persuade people to live righteously. Force is of Satan. We can only use force when someone is objectively infringing upon our rights. The gays aren't. No one's rights are objectively harmed.

"There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

Cm - But in our secular democracy, we have to ask - "Whose God?" The god of the churches that allow gay marriage? That same line above was probably issued by others opposition to polygamy. Not everyone agrees as to what the "best interests of society" really are. This is why we keep church and state separate and allow people to do as they please as long as they don't infrige upon the rights of others. Should majority rule without regard to the rights of the sheep. We sure hate it when others have used the majority to harm our rights. Why are we being 2-faced about this?

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality.

Cm - It is OBJECTIVELY a matter of civil rights. We are trying to use CIVIL means (voting) to deny CIVIL RIGHTS of people that currently have the CIVIL RIGHT to have our CIVIL government recognize their marriages. To us and other Christians, there is also a moral component, but it is first and foremost a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Check out our site again and read the words of Bruce R. McConkie regarding the separation of Church and State.

Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Cm - I agree that we have a duty to speak out. As stated above, we are to use kindness, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to persuade people to live righteously. We have to be careful though, because we do NOT have an unfettered right to our tax-exempt status. The Church might have it revoked if we are too involved in politics. The Church would have to pay taxes on the tithes it collects and we wouldn't be able to write off our donations on our taxes. Revoking it would NOT be an infringement on our religious rights. You can bet that we would scream bloody murder if there was a serious attempt to revoke this thing which is not in any way a CIVIL RIGHT, yet we take offense when others oppose our own attempts at revoking an ACTUAL CIVIL RIGHT.

The Lord, the scriptures, the prophets, the Constitution speak out against government intrusion into forcing religion upon people. The Lord, the scriptures, and the prophets declare that we must vote for moral values, and the Constitution protects that right.

CM - Shouldn't we be careful about imposing our morals on others when others have that same right in states or countries where THEY are the wolves and WE are the sheep? We complained when the Russian government denied us the opportunity to buy land and build chapels. The Russians considered it a MORAL issue because we would preach things that are contrary to their morality - the superiority of the American Constitution, doctrines which contradict the official state church, ideas about minimalist government rather than Communist/Socialist ideas, etc... Was that a MORAL issue or was it a CIVIL RIGHTS issue from our standpoint? What goes around, come around. We need to be careful about not incenting others to infringe upon us.

CM – The bottom line is that 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4 frown upon the idea of people using their religious as motivation to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. The language is clear and can’t be wrested to mean the opposite with redefining what the definition of the word “is” is. We have seen when others have infringed upon our rights, yet we don’t bat an eye about doing the same unto others. What goes around comes around. Perhaps a liberal CA legislature could remove our tax-exempt status in the state. It was considered after our involvement in Prop.22 and there is even more justification now. We can’t simply can’t expect to run roughshod over the rights of others and not expect the same treatment. Even worse, we are violating the CLEAR teachings of scripture, ignoring our own history of having our rights infringed when we were the unpopular minority, and breaking apart LDS families with gay children. This is anti-family and anti-missionary work. There are few things that rival this in being sin.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE

With the election drawing near, the forces against the YES on Prop 8 campaign are becoming more fierce, more clever, and more deceptive. Beginning this last weekend, a group of people began to picket outside of the Oakland Temple. A news article by SFGate.com details the encounter. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is coming under increased attacks from the opposition. The news article provides access to a website where people are tracking the amount of donations given by individuals who are members of the Church. While this is public information, one of the goals of the site is to provide a list of people that can be intimidated and mocked instead of engaged in rational debate.

The website also contains a large list of websites in opposition to the Church's involvement in the preservation of marriage. There are also many websites that cleverly use the scriptures and the Church's doctrine in a twisted manner to show the Church's alleged hypocrisy in this matter. The best website which demonstrates this false use of scripture is www.lds4gaymarriage.org. I believe this to be an excellent example of how the scriptures can be misused. A textbook example of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. There are many warnings against this type of issue within the scriptures themselves. Here, here, here and here.

Here is the groups argument:

A Brief Summary As To Why Promoting
California's Proposition 8 Is Contrary To Scripture

We feel that promoting Proposition 8 violates the scriptures. For those in favor of Proposition 8 please tell us why, how and where we are wrong in our step by step analysis. We always welcome your thoughts and constructive criticism.

1. LDS scripture (D&C 134:4) says we can't use our religious opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others. (1 Cor. 10:29 does as well).

2. Gays in California currently have the right and/or liberty to marry.

3. By supporting Proposition 8, we are attempting to infringe upon this right/liberty, in contradiction to scripture, because our religious opinions regarding marriage and homosexuality prompted us to instinctively do so, just like Uzzah who instinctively tried to steady the ark contrary to extant scripture.

4. The prophets have also stated that their own words are overruled by scripture and that we are to ignore anyone's teachings, including their own, if those teachings contradict scripture. Scripture trumps the words of all men. Consider these two quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee.

Unless a statement is raised to the status of scripture as Harold B. Lee outlined above, it can't overrule previously given scripture.

5. Since D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 overrule contradicting statements made by ANYONE, even the prophets, according to the prophets, and since no efforts to overturn them via the historic guidelines of Common Consent have even been discussed, D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 remain the prevailing and governing statements.

6. Since D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 remain the prevailing/governing statements and condemn those who use their religion as an excuse/reason to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others, our efforts to infringe upon the existing rights and/or liberties of gays, prompted by our religious opinions, are therefore wrongheaded, contrary to the clear meaning of scripture, and thereby violates OFFICIAL LDS Doctrine. It's that simple.

Number 2 is factually accurate; under California Law, people with homosexual tendencies can be legally recognized as "married". Number 4 is accurate and is they way people can know if a teaching of any leader is accurate. Number 5 is accurate as well; unless the members of the Church give their common consent to an addition to the scriptures that contradicts the two scriptures mentioned, such teaching is invalid.

This invalidation of scripture or previous teachings has been done in the past. For example, when the gospel superseded the law of Moses. Christians are not bound to follow certain aspects of the law as contained in the Old Testament. Another example is when the practice of plural marriage was discontinued by the 1st Manifesto.

Numbers 1, 3, and 6 are all inaccurate because this group has not correctly interpreted the scriptures for which they base their reasoning. Here is what D&C 134:4 actually says:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

Again, here is what the group says:

1. LDS scripture (D&C 134:4) says we can't use our religious opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others.

I submit that this group has interpreted this scripture incorrectly. Since the entire argument for this group is based on the interpretation of this single scripture to support their position, it is critical to examine each phrase in full:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, ...

This means that any person, who practices any religion, is accountable to God only, in how they practice. Continuing:

...unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;...

In other words, there is a rational limit to what a person's religious liberty will allow. If I believe in human sacrifice as my religious belief, I will have to infringe upon another humans right to live. At that moment, I become accountable to a human law, that says homicide is illegal, regardless of my religious beliefs. The purpose of this verse is to declare the limits of which government can interfere in the religious beliefs of individuals. In other words, if my religious views do not infringe upon the rights and liberties of other people, the government CANNOT become involved in any way.

The first amendment of the Constitution says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". The government can make laws against homicide however, and if committing homicide is part of your religion, your right to freely exercise that religion can be limited.

This group views this scripture as a limit on what individuals can do, when it is actually a limit on what government can do.

...but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion;...

Again, this verse states that government should not interfere with how people choose to worship. There are no limits however, placed upon the individual in voting according to their religious beliefs. As a human being, and believer in a set of core moral values, I have the right to advocate my position, persuade others to my position, and vote according to my moral values. I believe that incest is wrong, and that there should be laws that prevent a blood brother and sister from marrying one another.

This position comes from my religious beliefs. I feel society would be better off if such unions did not exist. I believe this is a moral issue that happens to limit the liberty of two consenting adults who are blood siblings.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This position comes from my religious beliefs. I feel society would be better off if society defined marriage in this way. I believe this is a moral issue that happens to limit the liberty of two consenting adults who are of the same gender.

I believe that men and women should not commit adultery. This position comes from my religious beliefs. I feel society would be better off if adultery was never made a legal act. I believe this is a moral issue that happens to limit the liberty of two consenting adults who desire to have sexual relations while breaking their marital vows.

I do not believe it is right for the state to institute Christianity as a state religion, to force people to be baptized, pray, or dictate how I worship God. I will no longer be ashamed of my positions. The purpose of the oft repeated phrase "separation of church and state" was to limit government intrusion into religion. THE CONSTITUTION STRICTLY FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM EXERCISING THEIR RELIGION FREELY. My religious beliefs teach my that incest, same gender "marriage", and adultery are wrong, and I have the right to express my views in the way I vote. I will not be intimidated, I will not be thwarted in my efforts. God has given me the right as an individual to express my views and no government will ever prevent me from voting my conscience. I close with words from Gordon B. Hinckley:

“Why does the Church become involved in issues that come before the legislature and the electorate?”

I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues. Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married. (To view the entire talk click here).

The Lord, the scriptures, the prophets, the Constitution speak out against government intrusion into forcing religion upon people. The Lord, the scriptures, and the prophets declare that we must vote for moral values, and the Constitution protects that right.

RAMIFICATIONS OF SAME SEX "MARRIAGE"

Below is a video that documents some of the side effects same sex "marriage" can have on a society. Same sex "marriage" has the potential to drastically increase the power of the state and lessen the power of the individual.

THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

Webster as of 2008 defines marriage as: "(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as a husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Here is the Webster 1828 dictionary definition of marriage: "(1): The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children." Note that Webster relates current and common use of words in a culture.

The difference between the two definitions is almost so different as to make one believe they are not the same word. When Mosiah discovered the people of Zarahemla, he could not understand them because their language had become corrupted. The source of the language corruption was the fact that no records had been brought with them.

The people of the United States have allowed the government to take over the religious institution of marriage. Moral decay in Western Civilization has given rise to the revised definition as reflected in Webter's Dictionary. The overt religious reference to God has been stripped away completely. The definition and semantics of this word have obviously changed for the majority of society since 1828.

Per the 1828 definition, marriage is (1) a contract between a man and a woman; (2) it is the means of securing the well being, education, nourishment and prosperity of children, (3) it is a sacred obligation between a man and a woman to remain faithful and true to one another. By removing the critical components of the true definition, marriage has evolved into nothing more than a simple contract which can be voided anytime one party is tired of the arrangement.

A contract is an agreement creating and defining the obligations between two or more parties. Both parties have obligations to one another. The debt incurred by one is the debt of the other. The assets acquired by one are the assets of the other. The two parties contract in essence to become parties to a single entity.

The sacred obligation to remain true and faithful to one another is the covenant aspect of marriage. A covenant is a solemn promise to engage in, or refrain from a specified action. In contrast to a contract, it is a one way agreement whereby the covenanter is the only party bound by the promise. It may have conditions and prerequisites that qualify the undertaking, but there is no inherent agreement by such other parties to fulfill those requirements. In this sense only person making the covenant can break it.

A popular passage from traditional marriage ceremonies includes the following: "Do you take this woman, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, rich or poor, until death do you part?" The officiator of such a ceremony is asking one party to make a solemn promise (covenant) to love and cherish his wife even if she becomes ill, poor, disabled, disfigured. So for example, something happens to her in the future and she is burned in an accident and becomes disfigured. The man becomes revolted at her appearance and abandons her. Such a man has broken his solemn promise (covenant). She did not break any covenant as remaining perfectly healthy was not a condition of the covenant. Her husband promised to love her no matter what physical circumstances might occur in life.

The current Webster definition reflects a view of marriage nearly devoid of its original meaning. No matter what laws are passed, no matter how the definitions are reworded to appeal to the thought police, my view of marriage is and always shall be based on its original meaning. Our civilization is founded upon the fruits the original definition has provided. Even the phrase "the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them" has been removed.

I am thankful for the modern day prophets who offer the Lord's will and counsel regarding critical issues such as marriage. I am grateful and proud to be a supporter and activitst for the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in my home state of California. It is time people reaffirm what the true meaning and definition of marriage is. It is time we stop letting outside influences such as government, media, and activist groups change the meaning of the word in our society. Marriage the way the Lord intends, is the most noble union between a man and a woman that can be achieved in mortality. It is an ideal to aspire to and proclaim.

Below is a video that was sent to me by my Bishop. It was made by CatholicVote.com. It is a powerful message regarding the moral issues that face our nation this next election day.

THE EROSION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

The following article was brought to my attention by my mother-in-law. It is chilling. I apologize for not posting much lately, as I mentioned before I am in the process of studying for my last CPA exam and my wife and I have purchased a home and plan to move very soon!

When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty - NPR.org

June 13, 2008 · In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.

Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:

Adoption services:

Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.

Housing:

In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools:

California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls'parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services:

A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Psychological services:

A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.

Civil servants:

A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Adoption services:

A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Wedding services:

A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Wedding facilities:

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use,therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's
Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.

Youth groups:

The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other likeminded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.

END OF ARTICLE.

AFFLUENCE DESTROYS CIVILIZATIONS

Read the following quote and decide what year it was written:

"In our own time the whole of [our nation] has been subject to a low birth rate and a general decrease of the population, owing to which cities have become deserted and the land has ceased to yield fruit, although there have neither been continuous wars or epidemics....For as men had fallen into such a state of pretentiousness, avarice, and indolence that they did not wish to marry, or if they married to rear the children born to them, or at most as a rule but one or two of them, so as to leave these in affluence and bring them up to waste their substance, the evil rapidly and insensibly grew."

Would it surprise you to learn this was written by Polybius, a Greek historian about 150 BC? When a culture decides to stop having children, they die out, literally. The total fertility rate of a population is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime. In order for a population to replace itself, the total fertility rate must be slightly higher than 2.1 births per woman over the course of her lifetime. If Sam and Jenny get together and have two children, they have in essence only replaced themselves in the world. If they had three children, they contributed +1 to the world population. The replacement rate is above 2.0 due to such factors as childhood mortality and mortality in the female population before the end of childbearing years.

Developed countries tend to have a much lower fertility rate than less developed nations. Click here to see fertility rates by nation. It seems that affluence kills societies due to a number of factors. As countries become more developed, the cost of living increases, making child rearing an expensive proposition. This leads to what is called the demographic-economic paradox. Developed countries have more wealth, and would logically suggest they would be able to have more children. Yet this never happens, in fact the more affluent societies around the world become, the less children they have. As socialism creeps further and further into developed nations, radical changes will occur in the near future. Secular societies with socialized economic models are built upon the high birth rates found in religious beliefs. In other words by promoting an increased secular, affluent, and selfish ideology, the secular state will always kill itself. People stop having children, and then there is no one left to pay for fat government pensions. Look at the fertility rate of the European Union, 1.50! Remember your population shrinks if you fall below 2.1 births per woman.

This topic is discussed extensively in a book written by Mark Steyn called America Alone. It will change the way you look at demographics.

NATURAL MARRIAGE AND ATTEMPTS AT IMITATION

The purpose of the government's preferential treatment of the traditional marriage relationship is to foster the natural relationship between a man a woman to raise children and form a stable society. [1] The relationship between a man and a woman to create life is unique amongst all other relationships. As it propagates the species of human beings, it is the natural state of human life and continued human existence. If one of the parties in the relationship cannot physically provide the components for human life, they are still patterned after the natural state of the relationship.

Technology has created the means whereby a woman can have the needed ingredients of a man to whom she has no relationship placed in her to create a child. Although a male is required for the child to be created. This is an unnatural relationship only to the extent that absent current technology, such a procedure would not be possible.

A same gender relationship cannot produce a child. Therefore this relationship is unequal to a male + female relationship.

• Male + Female = Child


• Male + Male ≠ Child


• Female + Female ≠ Child

The relationships are thus unequal in terms of being able to produce a human being. The one being the natural state of the human relationship, the other being unnatural. This inequality has been established by nature, evolution, or in my belief, by God.

This inequality by nature is the reason the government has fostered, through favorable laws, the male + female relationship, aka marriage.

Technology originally designed to help a male and female incapable of having children, has been used by single females, and same gender relationships as a back door to becoming "equal" with the male + female relationship. Two women who want to have a child can now have a child. Note however that a man was and always will be part of the process.

Technology has allowed the human race to participate for the first time in history, in unnatural relationships that can closely, but not fully mimic the male + female relationship. The governments favorable treatment of the male + female relationships is now viewed by those attempting to mimic it, as discrimination against unnatural relationships.

As we have already discussed the traditional male + female relationship, it should be noted that the government prohibits certain male + female relationships from being legally recognized and worthy of favorable treatment. Such relationships involve a male + female relationship where the parties are blood relatives.

Current California law prohibits, (or in the view of those attempting to mimic that natural male + female relationship, discrimination against) the following marriages (the following quotes are straight from California law):

2200. Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

Section 300 and 301 of the California code deal with persons under the age of 18 and the recognition of marriage. The current law regarding marriage also includes:

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Theoretically a male + female relationship where the two parties are a male and female of the same mother, could join in the natural state as described previously to create a child. The government will not recognize such a relationship with the bestowal of favorable treatment.

In terms of the natural state, this male + female relationship is more natural than the same sex relationship as a child can be produced. Yet the state prohibits such action. For what reasons would the marriages of such parties listed in 2200 be prohibited from being recognized by the state? If a same gender couple is in favor of receiving favorable treatment from the government for the unnatural state of their relationship, they cannot logically be opposed to favorable treatment and recognition of a blood brother and sister relationship (or any mentioned in 2200) which is more natural than their own union.

It is important to realize the governments refusal to acknowledge same gender marriage is not discrimination. Women can give birth, men cannot, they are inherently different. Two men cannot produce a child. Two women cannot produce a child. To bestow the same favorable treatment to people who cannot produce what the other can is to disadvantage those who produce and treat the producers unfairly.

Four theories of thought or courses of action could be followed:

1. Rescind all laws that treat any person or relationship as being unequal. The implementation of such a denial would invalidate most social programs or income redistribution programs, progressive income taxation, tax laws catering to specific groups or income levels, ect. (aka dramatically reduce the size of government).


2. Affirm the favorable treatment and bestowal of continued rights upon the natural male + female relationship. (aka amend the Constitution as proposed).


3. Grant favorable treatment and bestowal of rights to same sex relationships reserved for the natural male + female relationship. Since the favorable treatment was designed to foster the raising of children in the natural state, additional rights for acts which cannot be accomplished in the unnatural state are being bestowed. (This would be akin to me receiving additional battlefield pay reserved for soldiers in combat, even though I am neither in the military nor in a combat environment.)


4. Something I haven't even thought of or considered...

Therefore, the courts ruling of May 15, 2008 which overturned the will of the people of California as expressed in Prop. 22, on the basis of discrimination is invalid. The people have a right to petition their government and overturn the court's ruling by the constitutional amendment process. The current amendment as proposed for the November 2008 ballot reads:

Section 2. Article I, Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

If the people of California become opposed to the amendment to the constitution affirming the common definition of traditional and natural marriage, they can amend the constitution to recognize otherwise. Using the courts (for judge shopping) to declare discrimination when none exists, and thus pass laws that give favorable treatment to same gender relationships violates the principles of a constitutional republic form of government.

NOTE: I did not discuss the following principles in this discussion that do have a major impact on my reasoning and point of view.

1. The government should only be involved in marriage to resolve breech of contract issues (i.e. divorce and its implications with property and children). Marriage is a religious ceremony. Would you condone government approved baptism?


2. Marriage is universally defined by all peoples and cultures as a union of men and women. This is the definition of the word. The state begins to walk in shady territory when it begins tampering with the definitions of language. In my view there is no contest as to what marriage is. If the people want to change the definition of marriage they would have to amend the constitution to read that marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults regardless of gender. I doubt the people would pass an amendment condoning same gender marriage. Which is exactly why those in favor go judge shopping.


3. I have not discussed my religious views in this article.


4. Getting back to my everlasting hatred dislike of income taxation, the type of social engineering that takes place through income taxation is one of the points (by those in favor of same gender marriage) as evidence of discrimination. A married man and woman receive favorable tax treatment, a same gender union does not. Same gender couples have an argument. Yet another way income tax is the root of many evils in our society.

[1] - The government treats the male + female relationship of traditional marriage preferentially by allowing the following:

• Joint parental rights of children


• Joint adoption


• Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions


• Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains


• Immigration and residency for partners from other countries


• Crime victims recovery benefits


• Domestic violence protection orders


• Judicial protections and immunity


• Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will


• Public safety officers death benefits


• Spousal veterans benefits


• Social security


• Medicare


• Joint filing of tax returns


• Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children


• Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children


• Child support


• Joint insurance plans


• Tax credits including: child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits


• Deferred compensation for pension and IRA's


• Estate and gift tax benefits


• Welfare and public assistance


• Joint housing for elderly


• Credit protection


• Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
  

According to Lamda Legal Defense fund, these are just of few the hundreds of benefits afforded to married couples. Many of the items listed above are also granted under current domestic partnership laws.