The "Kiss-In"

[Tex]

I read this AP article yesterday on a staged "Kiss-in" by gay activists, and was perplexed by two different quotes.

The 31-year-old [BYU graduate from Switzerland], who was raised Mormon but is not active in the church, said the church shouldn't be involved in Prop. 8.

"I encourage them to promote the values they believe in and to defend their religious principles in advertisements, but civil rights have nothing to do with religious principles," she said.

What I hear from my community and from straight progressive individuals is that they now see the church as a force for evil and as an enemy of fairness and equality," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights. Kendell grew up Mormon in Utah.

These are odd statements to me. I feel they reflect a lack of understanding not only of the principles of democracy, but more importantly about why the church and its members so fundamentally oppose normalizing homosexual behavior. Coincidentally I was recently reading in the Joseph Smith manual and came across an interesting quote. Joseph Smith reportedly instructed the Relief Society that one of their objects was to "assist by correcting the morals and strengthening the virtues of the community." This strikes me as an excellent and succinct reason why church leaders and members feel so impelled to oppose gay marriage.

The act of homosexuality is highly immoral. It is serious sin, of the sort particularly destructive to the soul. It sets those who engage in it at odds with God and inhibits the influence of Spirit of the Lord. Proponents say it is simply nature, but Alma cautioned that man's "state of nature" is nothing but carnality, bitterness, and bondage. Proponents say it is the only way for a person with this temptation to be happy, but again Alma warned that acquiescing to nature puts a man "in a state contrary to the nature of happiness."

"Okay, fine," some will say, "but what gives you the right to force your religion on others?" It isn't really a religious question, but a moral one. It so happens that in my case, my religion informs my morals, but as my atheist friends are fond of reminding me, one does not need religion for morality. Society has long used the law to outline the boundaries of morality. Merely labeling something a civil right does not make it so, nor does it grant immunity from the democratic process.

It is not only our right, but our solemn divine obligation to "correct the morals" and "strengthen the virtues" of our communities. As it concerns Prop 8, states like California are communities--albeit large ones--in their own ways, and roughly half of them have acted in favor of protecting traditional marriage. We are under covenant to continue the effort to oppose normalization of immorality, whatever its form.

[MikeWaters]

So like Scalia, you believe the state has the right to make homosexual sex illegal?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So like Scalia, you believe the state has the right to make homosexual sex illegal?

If you're referring to Lawrence, I agree with Scalia that the Court's reasoning was nakedly political and not legally sound.

[MikeWaters]

Do you advocate for homosexual sex being illegal?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Do you advocate for homosexual sex being illegal?

Non-answer in 3...2...1...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Do you advocate for homosexual sex being illegal?

Advocate? No, I don't think I advocate that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Advocate? No, I don't think I advocate that.

And there it is.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Advocate? No, I don't think I advocate that.

of course being that we while we may believe certain things are commandments from God, we do allow for freedoms that violate those commandments in many instances.

Coffee will keep you of the temple, but I don't think it should land you in prison. Or even the equivalent of traffic court.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

of course being that we while we may believe certain things are commandments from God, we do allow for freedoms that violate those commandments in many instances.

Coffee will keep you of the temple, but I don't think it should land you in prison. Or even the equivalent of traffic court.

I don't either, but to get back to my original post, we're not talking about prison.

We're talking about whether the church's aggressive stance on marriage is interference with a civil right and/or "a force for evil."

[Tex]

Today on NRO, Maggie Gallagher provides some very real but non-cataclysmic short-term predictions about the consequences of gay marriage:

1 .In gay-marriage states, a large minority people committed to traditional notions of marriage will feel afraid to speak up for their views, lest they be punished in some way.

2. Public schools will teach about gay marriage.

3. Parents in public schools who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will be told with increasing public firmness that they don't belong in public schools and their views will not be accomodated in any way.

4. Religous (sic) institutions will face new legal threats (especially soft litigation threats) that will cause some to close, or modify their missions, to avoid clashing with the government's official views of marriage (which will include the view that opponents are akin to racists for failing to see same-sex couples as married).

5. Support for the idea "the ideal for a child is a married mother and father" will decline.

I think that's about right.

The problem for me with gay marriage is not just about marriage (though that's certainly important). As I alluded in my first post ... it's about legitimization. And I don't believe the gay community--particularly the militant wing--will be satisfied with stopping at marriage. They seek to force acceptance of their lifestyle and quell any opposing view. Marriage is just the current battleground.