LDS Church issues statement of support for LGBTQ concert event

[David13]

Not exactly. 44 states at one point had banned gay marriage, 35 at the state constitution level. All told about 4 got gay marriage through a legislative process. Gay marriage had effectively lost. California was worth it because of it's left politics, if you could win there you could win anywhere.

But the tyrants on the Court are what was the deathblow. Things were working as they should until the usurpers stepped in.

Time, I think, for a review of the legal situation that developed. First up. To suggest that the courts are "usurpers" shows a profound lack of understanding ...

...

GK
That's a good analysis, but why won't the license to carry a concealed firearm from the state of Utah be recognized in California? Under your analysis, it should be, should it not?
dc

The reason, as I understand it, is that such a license is not a contract. Full faith and credit deals with contracts. Also keep in mind that full faith and credit wa just one of the three legal legs that the same sex marriage arguments were based on and even then not the primary one.

From the Constitution:

Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations)
Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2

1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

...

dc

[Sirocco]

Well age does humble people, some people, indeed some become more picky (it's a psychological thing people do to make themselves feel better, it's so they don't have e to face any of their own problems and instead can pass blame onto others, if no men measure up it's their fault, why should you change?)
And our culture encourages that sort of thinking, most people wise up to it, though sometimes it's way too late, I understand my flaws and feel I'd be an alright husband and father, but I do feel the deck stacked against me, Mormon or not.

[gkearney]

Time, I think, for a review of the legal situation that developed. First up. To suggest that the courts are "usurpers" shows a profound lack of understanding ...

...

GK
That's a good analysis, but why won't the license to carry a concealed firearm from the state of Utah be recognized in California? Under your analysis, it should be, should it not?
dc

The reason, as I understand it, is that such a license is not a contract. Full faith and credit deals with contracts. Also keep in mind that full faith and credit wa just one of the three legal legs that the same sex marriage arguments were based on and even then not the primary one.

From the Constitution:

Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations)
Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2

1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

...

dc

You might be able to argue that full faith and credit should be applied to things like concealed carry permits. Perhaps it has even been tried, I do not know. However I know that there is a long body of case law citing full faith and credit as applying to contracts of which marriage is a type. If you think about it in contract law such a provision would be critical otherwise a person could break a contract by simply removing himself to another state and then claiming the contract could not be enforced.

[Gage]

Well age does humble people, some people, indeed some become more picky (it's a psychological thing people do to make themselves feel better, it's so they don't have e to face any of their own problems and instead can pass blame onto others, if no men measure up it's their fault, why should you change?)
And our culture encourages that sort of thinking, most people wise up to it, though sometimes it's way too late, I understand my flaws and feel I'd be an alright husband and father, but I do feel the deck stacked against me, Mormon or not.

Sadly in today's world with today's women the one that gets to be the husband/father is not always the one that will make the best husband/father. They want the rich, good looking guy that they cant trust.

[Col. Flagg]

The truth is you avoid a truckload of scriptures.

:)) They are my best defense.

[Sirocco]

I think it's less then them and more about me to be honest.

[Serragon]

I find the direction the church has taken on this issue over the last 2 years very troubling.

The current stance of the church is to normalize homosexuality while requiring that the homosexuals do not engage in sex. The brethren have bought into the idea that people are born homosexual and that it is not simply a sexual fetish. This has been a massive mistake and will change the entire church culture. I believe this stance to be morally wrong and the solution to be untenable.

The idea that if you simply do not act on your homosexual feelings you are not sinning is incorrect. If you are nurturing those thoughts then it is indeed sinful. By nurturing your fetishes, you focus on them and eventually will most likely act out that fetish. This is why we are constantly taught to keep our thoughts pure. A man who nurtures his thoughts about adultery has already committed that sin in his mind, and most likely will be an adulterer in deed.

It is untenable because more and more pressure will be put on the church to allow homosexual unions. After all, if it is normal and can't be helped, how can it be wrong? Eventually the church will have to abandon its position of homosexual marriage being wrong.

This is fundamentally different than the position change on polygamy and blacks/priesthood. First, race and sexual fetishes are not comparable. Second, there is scriptural precedent for each practice. You can actually identify cases where the Lord has allowed polygamy and has restricted His priesthood because of race.

There is NO scriptural precedent for the idea that homosexuality is not a sin. From the beginning of Judeo Christian history homosexuality has been a sin. It has never been otherwise. Now we are asked to believe that homosexuality is in fact normal, that you are born that way, and that you have no burden to try and overcome this weakness but glory in it as the single most important factor in your identity (but don't have sex).

Every prophet from Moses to apostles in general conference a few short years ago have said that homosexuality is a sin. Our modern prophets have repeatedly said that the idea that you are born homosexual is a lie. This now has changed completely. There has been no new revelation, no scriptural refutation of previous prophets. Just a subtle shift in the language and in marketing which will cause people to accept homosexuality gradually.

If you want to say that every prophet in judeo christian history has been incorrect on this issue then come out and say it and validate your position. Show us the revelation where God has revealed this. Show us the research from the scriptures where you have identified how this was incorrect. Even show us the modern research where it has been proven that people are born homosexual. But to simply change positions as the world changes positions with no explanation is rather frustrating.

[Fiannan]

The current stance of the church is to normalize homosexuality while requiring that the homosexuals do not engage in sex. The brethren have bought into the idea that people are born homosexual and that it is not simply a sexual fetish. This has been a massive mistake and will change the entire church culture. I believe this stance to be morally wrong and the solution to be untenable.

I do not mind teaching that we should respect people's right to live their lives and that God will eventually judge. However, I wonder how impressionable children could be harmed by Church statements in recent years. Children need absolutes and I am seeing some really contradictory actions lately.

[Serragon]

The current stance of the church is to normalize homosexuality while requiring that the homosexuals do not engage in sex. The brethren have bought into the idea that people are born homosexual and that it is not simply a sexual fetish. This has been a massive mistake and will change the entire church culture. I believe this stance to be morally wrong and the solution to be untenable.

I do not mind teaching that we should respect people's right to live their lives and that God will eventually judge. However, I wonder how impressionable children could be harmed by Church statements in recent years. Children need absolutes and I am seeing some really contradictory actions lately.

I agree. We respect peoples rights to live as they wish.

But we also attempt to help repentant people overcome their sin. This is a fundamental purpose of the church. The problem with the current position is that it will never lead the homosexual to repentance as we teach there is nothing to repent of.

[Fiannan]

Well age does humble people, some people, indeed some become more picky (it's a psychological thing people do to make themselves feel better, it's so they don't have e to face any of their own problems and instead can pass blame onto others, if no men measure up it's their fault, why should you change?)
And our culture encourages that sort of thinking, most people wise up to it, though sometimes it's way too late, I understand my flaws and feel I'd be an alright husband and father, but I do feel the deck stacked against me, Mormon or not.

Sadly in today's world with today's women the one that gets to be the husband/father is not always the one that will make the best husband/father. They want the rich, good looking guy that they cant trust.

Not all but a lot. I knew a schoolteacher who had a knockout wife. He used to get comments like "How can a schoolteacher wind up with such a beautiful wife?" I do not think it was an issue of economics. I think that most people who become teachers (at least male teachers of young children) tend to be the high-empathy, low psychopathy sort of guys. Women tend to like the guys who are more aggressive and so even though the average lawyer makes the same income as the average teacher male lawyers I have known very often have really attractive wives. So when pairing off takes place generally the women who are the knockouts gravitate to the more aggressive men. Yet one could assume that even the women who do marry more empathetic men secretly admire the ones "that they can't trust."

Also, I am not saying that teacher's wives are ugly. I am saying by "knockout" the sort of woman that walks into a store and even the women are checking her out.

[Gage]

The current stance of the church is to normalize homosexuality while requiring that the homosexuals do not engage in sex. The brethren have bought into the idea that people are born homosexual and that it is not simply a sexual fetish. This has been a massive mistake and will change the entire church culture. I believe this stance to be morally wrong and the solution to be untenable.

I do not mind teaching that we should respect people's right to live their lives and that God will eventually judge. However, I wonder how impressionable children could be harmed by Church statements in recent years. Children need absolutes and I am seeing some really contradictory actions lately.

Just renaming sin, trying to diminish the severity of the sin, pretty soon its not even considered a sin. A drunk now has a disease they call alcoholism, like it couldnt be helped. Homosexuals are born that way, it cant be helped its the way they are born, they dont have a choice in the matter. A young woman has an abortion because she is too young to have a kid, its what is best for the mother and the unborn child. A man moves in with a woman because they need to try each other out first and see if it works before they consider marriage, that's not really fornication.

[Sirocco]

Well age does humble people, some people, indeed some become more picky (it's a psychological thing people do to make themselves feel better, it's so they don't have e to face any of their own problems and instead can pass blame onto others, if no men measure up it's their fault, why should you change?)
And our culture encourages that sort of thinking, most people wise up to it, though sometimes it's way too late, I understand my flaws and feel I'd be an alright husband and father, but I do feel the deck stacked against me, Mormon or not.

Sadly in today's world with today's women the one that gets to be the husband/father is not always the one that will make the best husband/father. They want the rich, good looking guy that they cant trust.

Not all but a lot. I knew a schoolteacher who had a knockout wife. He used to get comments like "How can a schoolteacher wind up with such a beautiful wife?" I do not think it was an issue of economics. I think that most people who become teachers (at least male teachers of young children) tend to be the high-empathy, low psychopathy sort of guys. Women tend to like the guys who are more aggressive and so even though the average lawyer makes the same income as the average teacher male lawyers I have known very often have really attractive wives. So when pairing off takes place generally the women who are the knockouts gravitate to the more aggressive men. Yet one could assume that even the women who do marry more empathetic men secretly admire the ones "that they can't trust."

Thats what I worry most, we have a trade up culture and I am not a top prize lol

[Fiannan]

Thats what I worry most, we have a trade up culture and I am not a top prize lol

Not all women grew up with superficial mothers.

[Sirocco]

Thats what I worry most, we have a trade up culture and I am not a top prize lol

Not all women grew up with superficial mothers.

Too true, I am not jaded as more afraid.
It boggles the mind indeed that such people could exist, I am sure they do but I would have to win one over, that's a mountain climb.
I'm not terrible, inexperienced yes and awkward but I try and I learn.
Life has been a strange journey thus far, people being the strangest.
It's fear that brings so much of this, I have no ill will towards women, especially since I think it's me not them.

[Serragon]

Thats what I worry most, we have a trade up culture and I am not a top prize lol

Improve yourself. If you do not have any confidence in yourself, no woman will either.

Begin by eliminating these types of self-deprecating comments from you language.

Self-reflect and think about your weaknesses. If you are shy to a fault, then put yourself in positions to overcome that. Just as we improve in athletics or music by practice, we also improve in social skills via practice. It will be difficult and painful at first, but will reap dividends if you stick with it.

[Gage]

Yeh you wont get very far with most females if they sense fear or timidness. Like was mentioned they like aggressiveness.

[David13]

GK
That's a good analysis, but why won't the license to carry a concealed firearm from the state of Utah be recognized in California? Under your analysis, it should be, should it not?
dc

The reason, as I understand it, is that such a license is not a contract. Full faith and credit deals with contracts. Also keep in mind that full faith and credit wa just one of the three legal legs that the same sex marriage arguments were based on and even then not the primary one.

From the Constitution:

Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations)
Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2

1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

...

dc

You might be able to argue that full faith and credit should be applied to things like concealed carry permits. Perhaps it has even been tried, I do not know. However I know that there is a long body of case law citing full faith and credit as applying to contracts of which marriage is a type. If you think about it in contract law such a provision would be critical otherwise a person could break a contract by simply removing himself to another state and then claiming the contract could not be enforced.

I was hoping for a citation to some of those cases here.
dc

[brlenox]

I find the direction the church has taken on this issue over the last 2 years very troubling.

The current stance of the church is to normalize homosexuality while requiring that the homosexuals do not engage in sex. The brethren have bought into the idea that people are born homosexual and that it is not simply a sexual fetish. This has been a massive mistake and will change the entire church culture. I believe this stance to be morally wrong and the solution to be untenable.

The idea that if you simply do not act on your homosexual feelings you are not sinning is incorrect. If you are nurturing those thoughts then it is indeed sinful. By nurturing your fetishes, you focus on them and eventually will most likely act out that fetish. This is why we are constantly taught to keep our thoughts pure. A man who nurtures his thoughts about adultery has already committed that sin in his mind, and most likely will be an adulterer in deed.

It is untenable because more and more pressure will be put on the church to allow homosexual unions. After all, if it is normal and can't be helped, how can it be wrong? Eventually the church will have to abandon its position of homosexual marriage being wrong.

This is fundamentally different than the position change on polygamy and blacks/priesthood. First, race and sexual fetishes are not comparable. Second, there is scriptural precedent for each practice. You can actually identify cases where the Lord has allowed polygamy and has restricted His priesthood because of race.

There is NO scriptural precedent for the idea that homosexuality is not a sin. From the beginning of Judeo Christian history homosexuality has been a sin. It has never been otherwise. Now we are asked to believe that homosexuality is in fact normal, that you are born that way, and that you have no burden to try and overcome this weakness but glory in it as the single most important factor in your identity (but don't have sex).

Every prophet from Moses to apostles in general conference a few short years ago have said that homosexuality is a sin. Our modern prophets have repeatedly said that the idea that you are born homosexual is a lie. This now has changed completely. There has been no new revelation, no scriptural refutation of previous prophets. Just a subtle shift in the language and in marketing which will cause people to accept homosexuality gradually.

If you want to say that every prophet in judeo christian history has been incorrect on this issue then come out and say it and validate your position. Show us the revelation where God has revealed this. Show us the research from the scriptures where you have identified how this was incorrect. Even show us the modern research where it has been proven that people are born homosexual. But to simply change positions as the world changes positions with no explanation is rather frustrating.

You are conflating heavily here. The churches stance of "don't act on your homosexual desires" is not the projection of the popularized societal direction of "born this way." The church does not claim such. Neither can the brethren change positions on the acceptability of SSM advocating the church stance that it is acceptable. I can certainly see rhetoric to the effect of that it may be approved by the world as it does not govern itself by the laws of God, but the Church will not itself embrace such a stance.

In fact you completely misunderstand Moses and his motivations, for the most significant scriptural precedent on changing the laws to accommodate man's sinful nature there is no greater precedent than the one Moses set and it interestingly is relative to the laws of marriage and I do not think that coincidental. Please consider:

Matthew 19:7-9

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

It is interesting that the people asking the question construe the situation as you have done here. With the same subtle nuance of selective emphasis they claim the highest most respected authority of their culture - Moses the prophet of God- commanded that a writing of divorcement be provided if a man desired to "put away" his wife. This Moses did do - it is an absolutely correct evaluation that the prophet of God issued the decree to permit them a method to legitimize their wickedness. There is a reason for this but that is not the issue for now.

The point is they sought to emphasize that Moses as the authority spokesman for God authorized divorce. Christ in his response sees through the subtlety of the false claim of legitimacy as an authorized sanctioned behavior by the servant of God and corrects the emphasis to placing it back on the people who required some relief from their evil tendencies else they should all be condemned from the get go with no means of recovering them later for their egregious breach of the laws of eternal marriage. In other words as an act of mercy the Lord backed away from the enforcement of the original law so that instead of condemning so many of them in their weakness he might permit them an opportunity to retain their affiliation with the rest of the gospel laws in hopes they could later repent and return to a righteous state.

However, it is an interesting thought game to analyze why we as a people do not have the degree of righteous indignation concerning divorce as we currently see towards SSM. For in reality while divorce is the equivalent of horribly sinful transgression as SSM and in the church divorce has some stigma, but it borders on shoulder shrug acceptability and surely is lacking all of the emphasis that Christ relates to it as an act of adultery. From the Lords perspective, as he shifts the responsibility back to the demands of the people, divorce is akin to adultery and is the equal risk of SSM in that it results in a sacrifice of the eternal life of mankind for the loss of the opportunity for eternal life for having failed to keep the covenants of marriage. That is always a risk of making allowances for bad behavior, for though it may save some it creates a callousness towards a particular sin in the majority. Joseph Smith speaks to these principles very eloquently in the following:

“It is one evidence that men are unacquainted with the principles of godliness to behold the contraction of affectionate feelings and lack of charity in the world. The power and glory of godliness is spread out on a broad principle to throw out the mantle of charity. God does not look on sin with allowance, but when men have sinned, there must be allowance made for them. … The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more we are disposed to look with compassion on perishing souls; we feel that we want to take them upon our shoulders, and cast their sins behind our backs. …

All the religious world is boasting of righteousness: it is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness.

...We must walk uprightly all the daylong. How glorious are the principles of righteousness! We are full of selfishness; the devil flatters us that we are very righteous, when we are feeding on the faults of others. We can only live by worshiping our God; all must do it for themselves; none can do it for another.

“… How oft have wise men and women sought to dictate Brother Joseph by saying, ‘Oh, if I were Brother Joseph, I would do this and that;’ but if they were in Brother Joseph’s shoes they would find that men or women could not be compelled into the kingdom of God, but must be dealt with in long-suffering, and at last we shall save them. The way to keep all the Saints together, and keep the work rolling, is to wait with all long-suffering, till God shall bring such characters to justice. There should be no license for sin, but mercy should go hand in hand with reproof.”(History of the Church, 5:24; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 9, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Eliza R. Snow.)

While it is obvious many members do not grasp what Joseph is speaking to above, it is wonderfully apparent that the brethren do understand this principle. They understand the "principles of godliness." While this situation with "don't act on desires" has it's elements of distinction, in principle, I see it as no different from the reasons for why Moses was required to alter the laws on marriage to save the hope that the current state of wickedness would not be a single point of failure and defection from the laws of God. To what ever degree the leaders are required, they will nudge the process to the furthest extremes of acceptable boundaries to salvage as many as may someday return through the gates of repentance in hopes of avoiding the immediate rejection of the gospel as a whole and total loss of many who may someday see more clearly and return. It is a merciful response that seems to be escaping many. There is an outer limit that this can go to and if we hit that point then the same clarity that Christ provides when asked concerning divorce will of necessity be forthcoming from the brethren if they deem it necessary to answer the question at all with more than silence.

[Sirocco]

Thats what I worry most, we have a trade up culture and I am not a top prize lol

Improve yourself. If you do not have any confidence in yourself, no woman will either.

Begin by eliminating these types of self-deprecating comments from you language.

Self-reflect and think about your weaknesses. If you are shy to a fault, then put yourself in positions to overcome that. Just as we improve in athletics or music by practice, we also improve in social skills via practice. It will be difficult and painful at first, but will reap dividends if you stick with it.

Good point .

[Col. Flagg]

Here’s what is really perplexing – last year the church comes out with their new policy for gay couples where children residing with homosexual parents cannot be baptized and same sex couples within the church are ex’d, yet, here we are endorsing an LGBT concert???

[bbsion]

Thats what I worry most, we have a trade up culture and I am not a top prize lol

Improve yourself. If you do not have any confidence in yourself, no woman will either.

Begin by eliminating these types of self-deprecating comments from you language.

Self-reflect and think about your weaknesses. If you are shy to a fault, then put yourself in positions to overcome that. Just as we improve in athletics or music by practice, we also improve in social skills via practice. It will be difficult and painful at first, but will reap dividends if you stick with it.

Good point .

I know this whole conversation is rather off topic, but I thought I would chime in here. I would agree with improving yourself. From what I've learned, women are more attracted to confidence then they are looks. There were times in high school where I would wonder why the jerks were always getting the girls. "What does she see in him?" Ever asked yourself that? I think in high school the girls tend to make the mistake of thinking arrogance and confidence is the same thing. That actually still happens. I broke out of my shell a little bit in high school and dated a lot but it was not until after high school that I really broke out. I tried to be as confident as I could without being arrogant. Not only did that work, but you feel much happier with your life when you realize just how much you have to offer. You may be super lucky to be with her, but she's lucky she has a guy like you to treat her well and make her happy. But you can't make her happy if you're not happy with yourself. Be you, but be confident.

[bbsion]

Here’s what is really perplexing – last year the church comes out with their new policy for gay couples where children residing with homosexual parents cannot be baptized and same sex couples within the church are ex’d, yet, here we are endorsing an LGBT concert???

I thought the same thing. Perplexing is the right word for sure though. That's kind of why this endorsement feels like cheap politics.

[brlenox]

Here’s what is really perplexing – last year the church comes out with their new policy for gay couples where children residing with homosexual parents cannot be baptized and same sex couples within the church are ex’d, yet, here we are endorsing an LGBT concert???

Col. I suspect you might be one of the prefer short posts kind of folks but I would like to hear your thoughts on my last a bit long post about two or so above yours. It is very addressing of this issue which you seem to be struggling with in such degree. I don't suspect it will change your mind but there is compelling material for thought and I wonder if one so steeped in your personal stance can see those things.

[Seek the Truth]

Not very successful, though I got a pretty nice apartment and I live alone, but I'm also Canadian- in Canada- so if they voted for McMuffin then that's even worse lol
Also a bit socially awkward and pretty lousy at dating, it's been a miserable experience, and I still fear my green shirt and bowtie (I don't like wearing white, and traditional values may not be enough.
Though if she is my age (28) and single she may be a tad less obsessed with jobs and material things, but in this day and age, who really knows.
I am planning to go to the church close to where I will be moving to next month, in the east end of my city, the one in the west end of my city was very tricky to get to, as things sometimes are here.

The older I get the less tolerant I become, I guess the more I see of the world and the more I see how what I was hates me.
I am glad the internet wasn't really a thing when I was a teenager, by time my twenties hit me I was to immersed in things like Dungeons and Dragons to have a concrete set of beliefs.
After the last girl I was actually quite close to getting with, left, I started to actually think about, like a family and how in a lot of ways I do want one, my own children not someone elses (by which I mean dating a single mother not adopting, though I could never afford to do that).
Its the little things, like what my own father did for me, that I want to do for any hopeful children I have.

Lol old at 28. It's going to be a rough ride for you.

[Seek the Truth]

Not exactly. 44 states at one point had banned gay marriage, 35 at the state constitution level. All told about 4 got gay marriage through a legislative process. Gay marriage had effectively lost. California was worth it because of it's left politics, if you could win there you could win anywhere.

But the tyrants on the Court are what was the deathblow. Things were working as they should until the usurpers stepped in.

Time, I think, for a review of the legal situation that developed. First up. To suggest that the courts are "usurpers" shows a profound lack of understanding of the courts role in our governmental system. As the third branch of government people who feel their rights have have been abused by actions of the government have turned to the courts for regress. Consider school desegregation (Brown v. Board of Education), This was the case with same sex marriage as well. While it is true that in many cases the proponents of same sex marriage turned to the courts for regress, which was their right, it is also true that in some states this change was made by the legislature and even by popular vote.

IN the case of the courts the legal framework for this was based on three legal ideas: stare decisis, equal protection and full faith and credit.

Stare Decisis
Stare decisis is legal speak for "the matter is settled". In many ways this matter was lost in 1967 with the Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. This decision which cited the other two points equal protection and full faith and credit set out the idea that a state had no right to say a couple married legally in one state could not be considered legally married in all states (full faith and credit) and that the states could not carve out a benefit (marriage) to one group of persons while denying it to others (equal protection).

Equal Protection
This was the original argument made in this matter. In effect a legal benefit, marriage, was being granted to one group of adults while being denied to another group. Those objecting had to make the argument that there was some fundamental reason for this, and no, appeals to the Bible, or even worse that we were somehow defending the English language were not going to cut it. This raises the issue of the weak defence raised by those who objected to same sex marriage. I heard people literally argue that same sex marriage should be prohibited because they found what these people did icky, or that the court were changing the meaning of the word marriage, as if the English language itself had standing before the court.

Full Faith and Credit
This was where the mistake of relying on a single vote in California was made. The full faith and credit clause of the constitution means, in this case, that a legal contract, marriage, entered into to one state is enforceable in all the other states. If not for full faith and credit we would be 50 separate little nations. Full faith and credit was what Loving v. Virginia was, in part, based on. The Lovings were married legally in Washington, D.C. but upon moving to Virginia they found that Virginia did not consider their marriage legal. Eventually the case made it way to the U.S. Supreme court which rule in the Lovings favour based in part on full faith and credit.

Where the error was made in the case of same sex marriage was the mistaken belief that the size of the state would somehow matter. As can be seen in the Loving case full faith and credit can be invoked even when the marriage did not take place in a state at all. So once a group of states had legal same sex marriage then the rest of the states had to at least recognize those legal marriages which are in effect contracts. This set up the situation where even had the laws against same sex marriage remained in place they would have in effect been rendered null because same sex couple would need only to travel to a state where such unions are permitted to become legally married. This is similar to the situation we have with law prohibiting close cousins from being married. All the couple need to do is to travel to a state without such a rule, marry and return to their home state, the marriage is then legal because of full faith and credit.

Size of the state does not matter, California carries no more legal weight than does tiny Vermont. This was where the tactical error was made. Those in support of same sex marriage lured the opponents into a costly and time consuming election knowing full well that such was a waste of time, energy and effort. California was an incredibly expensive place to engage the issue and in the end a meaningless one as well. The opponents would have had to mount a full scale assault on same sex marriage in every state, all the time and that was not something they were in a position to do. By tying the opposition up in California it freed the proponents to pursue their objectives elsewhere unfettered by effective opposition.

Social acceptance
All of the legal maneuvering aside the supporters of same sex marriage did one other thing that was, perhaps, the most effective of all and something against which there was no effective retort. They humanized the issue. Up until this debate homosexuals were viewed as "someone else" strange people in far off cities of New York and San Fransisco. Once they became your friends, neighbours and most important your family members the issue took on a more direct and personal tone. It was at this point that there started to be a sudden and significant shift in the public mind. In 2001 57% of Americans opposed same sex marriage 15 years later in 2016 that number had fallen to 32%. [Pew Research Center, Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/chan ... -marriage/ ] I would argue that it was the efforts to humanize the issue to bring it home as it were more than legal or protests that created this sea change in the public mind. This effort alone, even without the political and legal actions, would have changed the matter just as it did with interracial marriage a century before.

So I will stand by my original point, the opponent permitted themselves to be taken for a ride in California. They mistakenly believed that California would serve as some kind of bellwether. They forgot that from a legal standpoint all the state count equally. Those supporting same sex marriage knew full well that if they could tied down the opponents in a costly and time consuming battle in California they would then have a free hand in the courts, legislatures and in a few cases public referendums to make their case while the opponents fought it out in California which ultimately meant nothing at all.

I am going to say no. Marriage is not the purview of the Federal Government or courts, there is no mention of sex, gender or marriage in the US Constitution. They should have turned it back to the states where it belonged. When the court steps in where it shouldn't they indeed are usurpers.

Politics ALWAYS plays a role in court decisions. This was always a political match, not a legal one.

I guess I can't understand a word you are saying, it would have been better for the Church to stay out of California? How so.