Celebration of Marriage

The Sutherland Institute is hosting a significant event on 31 Mar at 7:30 pm in their "Celebration of Marriage". Ryan T. Anderson will be the featured speaker.

Reservations are available for those wishing to attend.

Also available online now at the Celebration of Marriage site are videos of the speakers that were featured at the "Stand for Marriage" rally held in the Utah State Capitol on 28 Jan, as well as a link to the Ryan T. Anderson event with Rod Arquette.

It was an informative presentation, followed up by a Q&A session with Anderson and Arquette fielding questions from the audience.

Thanks again to Mary Summerhays for helping to bring this all together.  Though it got off the ground rather slowly, the presentation is well worth watching.

Some of Mr. Anderson's ideas on negative impacts of accepting same-sex "marriage"...

First, redefinition of marriage eliminates upholding the ideal that all children deserve a mom and a dad.  It is being replaced with the proposal that marriage is now about nothing other than consenting adult relationships.

Second, the slippery slope.  Redefinition risks opening the door to any arbitrary radical relationship as "marriage", thereby eliminating the "monogamy" standard, replacing it with temporary trendy fads.

Third, compromise of religious liberty by government forced "discriminatory discrimination".  As evidenced in government regulation against adoption agencies and child care with religious basis, services that act on the religious ideals of owners.

From the Q and A session...

"Red herring" argument that pleads for "gay" hospital visitation.  This issue has been settled years ago by "power of attorney" regulations, and the problem no longer exists anywhere in the US.

Divorce and "gay" marriage.  Single definition for "marriage".  This is an "up and coming" industry for lawyers.  Convoluted legalistic issues.  This was one of the chief justifications for DOMA.

"End game" predictions.  Using the law and government to force others to recognize arbitrary "marriage" redefinition. No real "live and let live" concessions.

Why not pursue legal counter-suit?  Some issues currently appealing to Supreme Court for review.

Results of social studies.  After decades of evidence that traditional marriage is best, isolated non-representative sampling studies argued that lesbians are best.  Most divorces are implemented by women.  Maleness is promiscuous.

Where is this all going, what to do to moderate?  Possibilities.  Appropriate response in comparison to Supreme Court "Roe v. Wade".  Continued pro-life fight against abortion over time as an example.

Another video presentation from Sutherland Institute's Paul Duncan.  Discussion of proceedings at Tenth Circuit Court at Denver CO, 11 April 2014.

"Gay" in the News: Federal Judge Rules Against Texas DOMA

 Oh, what a surprise.

Another federal judge rules to overturn democratically-approved state restriction of same-sex marriage.  This time in the great state of Texas.  And in response to yet another lawsuit.  Imagine that.

I guess the motto will also require some revision.  "Don't mess with gays and federal courts!"

The judge, in his decision, intones,

Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution. These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex.

Perhaps one of the problems being that of course there is "legitimate governmental purpose" in all sorts of governmental regulatory restrictions on marriage.  I cannot marry my mother or my sister even if I wanted to.  Neither can I marry my 1995 Toyota 4-Runner, no matter how much we profess to love each other.  But who knows, maybe those rules will also change.

This specious rationale is just further insistence that if we call the tail a leg, the government has a Constitutionally-vested interest to force everyone to recognize that a dog has more than four legs.

"Gay" in the News: Supporting Traditional Marriage

At the "Support Traditional Marriage" rally a couple of weeks ago, the "gay" interests held a competing rally on the same location several hours before.  Some of them stayed on, apparently intending to disrupt the subsequent rally.  They marched down the aisle while the Utah Attorney General was trying to speak, and threw glitter-filled balloons at him.  Then they fell on the floor kicking and shouting like an angry two-year-old in a tantrum.  That part was not particularly interesting to me, but it was fascinating to see dozens of media representatives rush down the aisle to make a record of the petulant outburst.  There were more cameras than cops.  The reporters swooped in from the periphery like a flock of vultures as the cops dragged them away.  Thus the protesters apparently fulfilled their purpose.

It would seem that most of us pitiful and pathetic people have an independant life of our own.  Others seem compelled to publicly exhibit a contrived "gender identity" that we must never presume to question.  That would constitute a thought-crime against humanity.

I'm pretty sure I have little understanding of what "transgender" hopes to accomplish.  As far as I can tell, what happens to a developing human takes place a long time before anyone is even born.  A bit of snipping and cutting, an excision or augmentation here and there, is not going to ever change that.  Cosmetic surgery makes changing some rather superficial physical characteristics about as easy as changing your clothes.  And as meaningful.

I personally feel that the ramifications of my own life are more important than an actor's wardrobe.  Sexuality is a human attribute, but I would think my life shallow indeed if I held that to be anything more than a small integral piece of what defines me.  Those advocates for "gay" thinking seem to be letting one obsession define the whole of their existence.  I could never be so narrow.

An associate once challenged me about my presumed "homophbia", suggesting that I should "try being gay for a day".  My impression has long been that I would find no real difficulty in doing so, in every bit as superficial manner as those who would project a "gender identity".

In me it seems to represent a character defect that I must work to overcome.  But others are apparently privileged to argue, "I was born this way".

Weren’t we all... 

"Gay" in the News: Oklahoma Religion in the Courts

Oklahoma court ruling clashes with religion, business.  Most religious systems advocate for moral values.  Business represent a number of religious individuals who choose not to cater to immorality.  Therein lies the conflict.

"Gay" in the News: Constitutional Freedom?

Some hail the delay in Indiana as an indicator of a sea-change in attitude.  Perhaps the tide has changed.  People are convinced that deviance is a normal and socially acceptable form of public expression.  To justify this, they promote all kinds of new ideas, such as "gender identity", and the notion that their ideas of "marriage equality", which basically appears to be an approach to government-enforced anarchy, somehow represents newly discovered Constitutionally protected freedom.

"Gay" in the News: Indiana Obstruction

 

Indiana "gay marriage" advocates celebrate delay from the State Congress voting on  a State DOMA law.

Ironically, one of the protester's frequent slogans is the legal aphorism, "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied".  That seems to be the case except in instances where you disagree with "Justice" and legislative foot-dragging serves your interests.

Parenthetically, I observe that those bar symbols, although somewhat less popular these days, still look like nothing less than a military insignia to me.

But that's just me.  I was born that way.

"Gay" in the News: Don't Need No Stinking Trials

"Gay marriage" proponents in Idaho now use this rationale in appealing to judges for "justice" absent any need for an actual trial.  Since we all know how inevitable this sentiment, an actual trial is just a bother and a waste of time.  Again, the claim that this is a Constitutional rights issue, but ignores democratic process and goes directly to appeal to federal courts.  It seems to have been quite effective in other places.

"Gay" in the News: Colorado DOMA

Colorado most famously joins the states being challenged over state DOMA.  The middle-of-the-street staged photo-op for this illustration indicates that the motive for such very public lawsuits is obviously a very sensitive personal matter.

Gay in the News: Refusing to Defend DOMA

The state most notable for hazelnut production opts not to defend the State Constitutional DOMA.   As in other places, those who are commissioned by the people of Oregon to do this job choose not to defend the State DOMA, which was enacted by democratic process.

The Oregon Attorney General tells reporters that the "gay marriage ban" "cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review."  It goes without saying that the Tenth Amendment is no longer any consideration, and that Oregon officials will never cater to pressure from minority special interests.

Judging by the media response, she is probably correct.  This response raises the greater question of how to deal with government representatives that decide that they are excused from doing do the job they were appointed to do.  What point is there in having an Attorney General that generally declines to attorney?  I don't reside in Oregon any more, but wonder if it is not time for the AG to go back to school.

"Gay" in the News: Will Not Commit

Mr. Obama is now being characterized as backing away from the "gay marriage" controversy.

Federal judges have recently ruled that Tenth Amendment rights are less compelling than Fourteenth Amendment rights. Apparently Mr. Obama currently disagrees that States Rights are less important, but we are familiar with his history of "evolving" opinions, and "bumps in the road". 

"Gay" in the News: Indiana DOMA

Indiana DOMA moves forward through the State Legislature.   This is being reported from a number of different perspectives, which is confusing, but is probably an accurate reflection of the reality of the situation.  Apparently, opponents were able to force a change in the wording of the bill, which even though it has now been approved, by the rules cannot be considered again by the Indiana Congress until 2016.

"Gay" in the News: DOMA in Virginia

This court ruling is a victory?  Some people obviously would have you believe so.  Others are not so sure.

"Gay" in the News: Texas DOMA Surgical Bypass

Same-sex marriage comes to Texas.   They're ALL blushing brides.  I'm sure there's a point to all this.

The deceivers who tangle the web...

Interesting SLTrib article today, from outspoken church critic RB Scott.

Mixing religion and politics: Oh, what a tangled web . . .

Ron starts off on the wrong foot with his blatantly inappropriate and offensive poetic title, and just naturally flows down hill from there.

He flatly -- and mistakenly -- insinuates that church leaders are practicing deceptive tactics in order to play a political game. Stirring up controversy, sowing the seeds of confusion and discord -- these are exactly the kind of reaction Ron always seems wont to provoke.

President Hinckley is not a liar by any definition. He needs no defense from people like Ron, who always manage to twist things to serve their own point of view.

I personally am certain that Ron will find, sometime in the future, that editorializing against the church carries a far greater cost than he can afford.

I have been following the reaction of various church members toward the First Presidency statement. It makes a fascinating study.

For the most part, in the general body of the church I think there is little controversy or question in our minds. When Church leaders counsel us to act, we act. Since we already support and sustain members of the first councils of the church as prophets, seers, and revelators, when they speak with authority, critical analysis can wait.

There are many, however, for whom some deliberation is apparently warranted. They demand to test inspired counsel against the philosophies of men, to satisfy their own intellect, or simply to show their own politically-correct approval or disapproval.

Whatever the reason, this small but vocal minority can always be noticed in such matters. They take the forefront in media coverage. They seem to love to "be seen of men". And, I believe, because they hear their own voices echoing in the silence, they presume to represent the rest of us.

I have no objection to others voicing their opinions, but I take exception when they presume to issue moral or intellectual judgments against the church or in opposition to Church authority. Those of us in the silent but faithful minority need to participate in the public forum, so as to avoid leaving the impression that dissenters and dissidents represent any significant segment of the faithful disciples. While it goes against my natural inclination to be outspoken, I have learned through sad experience that if we fail to protest when we are misrepresented, many of those who view things from without will assume that we have no opposing views and nothing to say in such matters. Apparently, from the legalistic perspective, it is true that "Silence gives assent".

In case any are mislead by the attempts so sow doubts about the legitimacy of religious groups engaging in political activism, at this link some of the guidelines are nicely illustrated.

It is a specious red-herring to insinuate that the tax-exempt status of the church is in jeopardy, or to suggest that the church would fail to take imperative action or unequivocally express an official position on issues with clear moral implications. This misinformation has often been perpetuated by the doubters and naysayers as justification for advocating non-involvement or avoidance of politically sensitive issues, but it is clearly contradicted by the facts. Those asserting that the church is putting tax-exempt status in jeopardy are apparently more interested in sowing the seeds of doubt than any loss of tax status.

When there is an issue upon which the voice of the Lord has been heard, the church will let it be known, in clear and unmistakable terms. Those with ears to hear, let them hear.