Monson: Gay Marriage Fight in CA 'Is Our Gettysburg'

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

this is a surprise to me as based on the last referendum and all the statements I had heard here, I though the pro- forces were favored.

Like I said, it is my non-scientific gut feeling about the issue. I talk to people that I talked to 8 years ago and they don't seem to have the fire in the belly anymore. There seems to be a certain feeling of gay marriage as a 'fait accompli" that I thinhk will be hard ot overcome.

I could esaily be wrong, and remeber, I am in the Bbay Area which almost surely skews my perception, but it is just my feeling.

btw, mike, have ther been threads or posts abotu the church's support of secession in the civil war? I did a quick search and didn't see nay. Do you recall a thread or post about this? I would like to read it.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The next metaphor will probably be The Alamo. BTW, could you provide substantiation for the church's "support" of the South in the Civil War?

I was curious too, as one of the reasons Mormons were kicked out of Missouri was they were considered anti-slavery.

I found this from Mike Quinn:

http://www.kued.org/productions/prom...ews/quinn.html

BY's pronouncements slavery pronouncements aside, Utah (speaking of the citizenry) did not share the South's cause. That England supported the confederacy didn't mean they were pro slavery. Utah's support the the south(if Quinn is correct) seems abviously motivated by a desire to be left alone by the federal government, which largely happened during the Civil WAr.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't really respect the position that you fully agree with the church on the issue, but you don't want to commit any resources unless you think it will win. If in fact that is your position.

I didn't say that I fully agreed nor did I say that I would not pony up if asked. I said it would be hard for me to commit money to a lost cause. My position is that I am skeptical of it and glad I am not being forced to decide whether I would support it monetarily or not.

[MikeWaters]

Yes, it is a curious thing that Lincoln is so revered by church members, when he was enemy #1 to the church at the time.

We don't talk about the church's support for the Confederacy in our manuals. We don't mention BY's support of slavery. It doesn't fit in with our perception of always being right.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It doesn't fit in with our perception of always being right.

Speaking of ironic . . .

[SoCalCoug]

I looked at that protectmarriage.com site - we've seen it before, and it's a joke. This time I clicked on the "Read More" link for point # 3 about how in countries where same-sex marriage is legalized, there has been an increase in out-of-wedlock births, and it led to this: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/F...rong_direction

Frankly, it's embarrassing that the church is supporting such a poorly-reasoned and illogical website, as protectmarriage.com. It really is laughable. You would think that since this is such a good cause, they'd be able to come up with something better. It may sway people who don't want to (or can't) put a lot of thought into it, but it's not going to convince intelligent people to support their cause.

[MikeWaters]

If same-sex marriage is legalized in Texas, Farrah and I will divorce and have a child out of wedlock just to make a point that it harmed our marriage.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If same-sex marriage is legalized in Texas, Farrah and I will divorce and have a child out of wedlock just to make a point that it harmed our marriage.

I think you should have Farrah waterboard you too, to demonstrate how waterboarding terrorists has hurt you.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Like I said, it is my non-scientific gut feeling about the issue. I talk to people that I talked to 8 years ago and they don't seem to have the fire in the belly anymore. There seems to be a certain feeling of gay marriage as a 'fait accompli" that I thinhk will be hard ot overcome.

I could esaily be wrong, and remeber, I am in the Bbay Area which almost surely skews my perception, but it is just my feeling.

btw, mike, have ther been threads or posts abotu the church's support of secession in the civil war? I did a quick search and didn't see nay. Do you recall a thread or post about this? I would like to read it.

We're in the intermediate phase of trasition from outright hatred to enlightenment. As usual, the LDS will be the last to continue hating after the mainstream has experienced enlightenment by and large.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Brigham Young's July, 1859 interview with the renowned newspaper editor Horace Greeley, makes Brigham's view of slavery pretty clear. I am unaware of any controversy regarding it, other than the SL Trib reprinted it in the early 90s (which is how I first came upon it). From the interview (capitalizations are in original):

H.G.: What is the position of your Church with respect to Slavery?

B.Y.: We consider it of Divine institution, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his decendants.

H.G.: Are there any slaves now held in this Territory?

B.Y.: There are.

H.G.: Do your Territorial laws uphold Slavery?

B.Y.: Those laws are printed--you can read them for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the states, we do not favor their escape from the service of those owners.

H.G.: Am I to infer that Utah, if admitted as a member of the Federal Union, will be a Slave State?

B.Y.: No; she will be a Free State. Slavery here would prove useless and unprofitable. I regard it generally as a curse to the masters. I myself hire many laborers and pay them fair wages; I could not afford to own them. I can do better than subject myself to an obligation to feed and clothe their families, to provide and care for them, in sickness and health. Utah is not adapted to Slave Labor.