Prop 8 unconstiutional

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

The issue of traditional marriage vs same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the consenting adults.

Yes, you can argue that the law should not get in the way of consenting adults to enter into contracts with one another. But does this mean selling drugs and prostitution should be legal?

However, raditional marriage has nothing

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

Traditional marriage has nothing to do with contracts between consenting adults. Same-sex couples can already have tax benefits, inheritance benefits, etc etc.

The issue with traditional marriage has to do with the definition and purpose of marriage that creates a social institution with the right to produce and raise biological children.

Traditional marriage is about the rights of children to be raised by a father and a mother. We can debate adoption. But the law should support the biologically production of children by the traditional family.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

I'm pretty sure the 10th Amendment reserves all rights not specifically enumerated to the states and the people... "Every" right.

You can argue that it doesn't belong at the state level, but as Prop. 8 did not violate any part of the Bill of Rights or any other article of the Constitution, it is not "unconstitutional". I don't buy into the idea that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment- unless we buy into the progressive view that the law is constantly evolving.

If I'm wrong, please show me where. I read your argument- but it rings hollow. According to the law of the federal government, Prop. 8 was legal. The real issue the judges had was that it hurt the feelings of gay people that their abominable practices aren't wholly accepted by the majority yet- and they twisted their reasoning to justify that feeling.

Our destruction has been laid by our lawyers and judges and politicians... Now we reap the whirlwind.

I'm not american, but I believe the paper says whatever rights are not in the hands of the feds are in the hands of the state, and whatever are not there are in the hands of the people themselves -- a point which should be obvious. Whatever the judges said, I believe P8 is not constitutional because it infringes on the religious liberty of the couple whether gay, or singular, or even plural. Marriage is a religious institution first, and even if wharped or different than the model bequeathed to us by the hoity toity British royalty and other Europeans, it is still just a formal agreement for two individuals to enter into a binding sexual relationship. We see the state today usurping so many things the church used to do for the convenience of the people, and if that is what the people want then so be it, but only so long as it does not infringe on the religious liberty of the people.

In the case of the gays, it's not the marriage that is deviant, it is the gayness of it that distorts the marriage. Same as a man-child marriage would be a distortion, and as such, you prohibit and punish the man-child sex, not the marriage it is distorting. You prohibit and punish the sodomy, or whatever else the state deems is distorting the marriage, but you don't directly prohibit the marriage itself, because that is where any unconstitutionality enters in.

Good laws do not promote what is good, they restrain what is evil. If you restrain what is evil (or what you perceive to be evil) in a gay marriage (the gay sex), you don't need to worry about the rest. For example, guns kill people only when someone uses them for that, but the correct method is not to restrict guns, but to prohibit and punish murder. Cars can crash and kill people, but you don't restrict the use of cars above instruction and licensing, and you don't even define what a car is as anyone could build a car and put it on the road. When you do this you leave the rest of the population to the responsible use of whatever their pet vehicle is.

But that being said, does anyone really care what adults do with their units when the doors are closed and nobody is looking? Frankly, I could care less to tell them what I think about their fun and games until they ask me, at which time I will give my opinion, but it is just that -- my opinion, and should not be codified in any law.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

Traditional marriage .... traditional marriage ... Traditional marriage ... traditional family.

What is traditional marriage? Would that not be polygamy?

[medvedcaptain of 10]

Also, Animals and BBQs do not = entities that possess the ability to contract. Which is important because marriage = contract.

Unfortunately this is incorrect....they (NATO and UN) are trying to redefine this via treaty (which is a back door way to get laws passed via Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution). A SC case in regards to a boy abusing his dog was the precedent for this one. It had something to do with the dog having feelings, therefore should be protected under the law. It will allow bestiality and other sickness to become protected under hate crime laws.
We have been warned that this is the goal...read the planks...they have been talking about it for over 100 years.

uglypitbull--Are you saying that there is a case out there that stands for the proposition that BBQs and/or animals can contract? If so, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, I believe you just fail to grasp the legal meaning behind the SC case (which, BTW, is followed in most states). These cases stand for the proposition that it is illegal to abuse animals. The case (unless you are thinking of another one, and in such circumstances please share the case) involved a dog being chained up and left to die. Now, I am not going to debate the merits of that case, but I simply wanted to point out that you, my friend, are wrong if you are asserting that the SC case somehow establishes that BBQs and/or animals have the right to contract.

Now, on to the 10th Amendment. And, I want to preface this by saying that I don't believe that the following analysis is right or wrong from a moral standpoint, but simply that it's the law. The purpose of this debate is to not argue the moral/ethical merits of prop 8, it is to argue the legality of the same.

So, that being said, let's start with the 1oth amendment. It reads, in its entirety, as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Ok," you may be saying, "nowwhere does it say that the issue of 'marriage' is delegated to the to the United States. Therefore, the States and people have the right to dictate what 'marriage' is about."

On the surface that sounds great. But we haven't yet looked at the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment is too large to set out in full here, but we will cite to the relevant portion: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " "Ok," you may say, "but Prop 8 did not abridge any privilege or immunity of citizens, be they straight, gay or otherwise. It also did not deny any one due process of law or equal protection. I mean, why not let people have 'civil unions' and just straight people can engage in 'marriage'? Then everyone is the same."

On the surface, that sounds great. But we haven't yet looked at the case of Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Supreme Court held that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

So, in other words, "marriage," not "civil unions," is a "fundemental right" that, per the Supreme Court, triggers the 14th amendment protections, thus trumping any reliance on the 10th amendment in support of Prop 8.

Again, I am not commenting on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of Prop 8. I am simply saying that under the current state of the law, it is unconstitutional.

And despite uglypitbull dismissing my position as "incorrect," I still hold to the position that BBQs and/or animals cannot contract. At least under the current law.

[braingruntcaptain of 100]

for heavens sake marriage is not just a contract between consenting adults; it's a contract between those adults and society. Society is perfectly within it's rights to decide what fulfills this contract. Alas, it is deciding. If only it would have decided to do the right thing!!!

[Matthew.Bcaptain of 100]

ithink-

I can agree with most of what you said re: the morality of the issue, and in the case of the legal issue at hand, I think medved makes a strong case for your proposition- which I will respond to.

So, that being said, let's start with the 1oth amendment. It reads, in its entirety, as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Ok," you may be saying, "nowwhere does it say that the issue of 'marriage' is delegated to the to the United States. Therefore, the States and people have the right to dictate what 'marriage' is about."

Agreed- that is what I believe.

On the surface that sounds great. But we haven't yet looked at the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment is too large to set out in full here, but we will cite to the relevant portion: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " "Ok," you may say, "but Prop 8 did not abridge any privilege or immunity of citizens, be they straight, gay or otherwise. It also did not deny any one due process of law or equal protection. I mean, why not let people have 'civil unions' and just straight people can engage in 'marriage'? Then everyone is the same."

Again, this is what I believe.

On the surface, that sounds great. But we haven't yet looked at the case of Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Supreme Court held that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

So, to find how Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, we have to turn to a case that arises out of the (according to Pres. Benson) Communist-driven Civil Rights Movement. Yes, it's still binding law, but binding to what? Binding down to our destruction, based on the precedents it set...

Ironically, the Supreme Court declared Marriage to be fundamental to our very existence and survival. I wonder if those same Justices would have declared homosexual marriage- which removes the "survival" part out of marriage by removing a married couple's ability to procreate- fundamental to our existence? Modern progressive judges seeking to be popular definitely do.

According to your argument, I could see how more progressive judges could declare Prop. 8 unconstitutional. In the meantime, I'll be working on getting myself out of Babylon, because the ending is drawing near...

And despite uglypitbull dismissing my position as "incorrect," I still hold to the position that BBQs and/or animals cannot contract. At least under the current law.

Under our current law, no. But I think the idea that we're heading in that direction (at least, where animals can contract) has merit- especially in light of the Earth being given fundamental human rights (I think the U.N. recently declared this, or that proposal is on the table), and the recent marriage in Australia of a man to his dog.

Currently, I think law is based more on the moral sentiments of the people, and less and less upon logical precedent. And the moral sentiments of the people are in the final stages of degradation before wholesale rebellion against true principles and doctrine.

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

Contracts, contracts, contracts

Civil unions/Domestic partnership involve a contract between consenting adults. Civil Unions can do what they want. Civil Unions can have all the tax benifits/penalties, death benifits/penalties, inheritance, medical decision making that they want.

Marriage is not just about a contract between 2 consenting adults. Marriage involves the potential biological children that could be produced and whose rights must be considered, represented, and respected.


Civil Union/Domestic Partnership = contract between adults
Marriage = includes rights of potential future biological children.

Unless we define marriage in terms of its potential purpose to produce and raise biological children, and frame the same-sex marriage/civil union debate in these terms, then traditional marriage will die. You cannot defend what you cannot define.

Same-Sex Couples already have Civil Unions/Donestic Partnership. Let them have all the benifits. This is not the issue. Same-sex civil unions are already permitted and recognized. If same-sex couples already have all the legal benifits of a domestic partnership, what more do they want?

Traditional Marriage is about the civil rights of potential biological children that have the right to be raised by a mother and a father. Ours laws should support the ideal, without necessarily criminalizing alternatives.

Understanding that marriage vs civil union hinges on producing and raising biological children, I also of the opinion that non-married couples should not use advanced fertility, sperm doners, surrogate mothers ect to produce biogical offspring. Adoption and foster care is another issue that is debatable.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

Also, Animals and BBQs do not = entities that possess the ability to contract. Which is important because marriage = contract.

Unfortunately this is incorrect....they (NATO and UN) are trying to redefine this via treaty (which is a back door way to get laws passed via Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution). A SC case in regards to a boy abusing his dog was the precedent for this one. It had something to do with the dog having feelings, therefore should be protected under the law. It will allow bestiality and other sickness to become protected under hate crime laws.
We have been warned that this is the goal...read the planks...they have been talking about it for over 100 years.

uglypitbull--Are you saying that there is a case out there that stands for the proposition that BBQs and/or animals can contract? If so, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, I believe you just fail to grasp the legal meaning behind the SC case (which, BTW, is followed in most states). These cases stand for the proposition that it is illegal to abuse animals. The case (unless you are thinking of another one, and in such circumstances please share the case) involved a dog being chained up and left to die. Now, I am not going to debate the merits of that case, but I simply wanted to point out that you, my friend, are wrong if you are asserting that the SC case somehow establishes that BBQs and/or animals have the right to contract.

On the surface, that sounds great. But we haven't yet looked at the case of Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Supreme Court held that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

So, in other words, "marriage," not "civil unions," is a "fundemental right" that, per the Supreme Court, triggers the 14th amendment protections, thus trumping any reliance on the 10th amendment in support of Prop 8.

And despite uglypitbull dismissing my position as "incorrect," I still hold to the position that BBQs and/or animals cannot contract. At least under the current law.

You missed my point completely, so let me clear it up for you.
Marriage will/has become a civil right (you even admit this above with the VA case)....animals will have civil rights (SC dog beating case/Shamu being a slave)....hence people will be marrying animals (man in Australia) and other sodomites because it will be a civil right. If its a civil right, they will pass a law or treaty, then turn to the churches and force them to recognize the validity...when the churches do not, they will be charged with hate crimes. Pay attention to the trending...where are they headed with these precedents? How many of our laws have been influenced by International law via treaties or otherwise? Ginsburg and others have admitted they use International law when issuing rulings in the past. Have you looked at the codes we use when building new homes lately? They are International building codes....can you see the trend? Its already happening, and has been for a while now.

Shamu is in court right now....they are determining if he is a slave or not: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Excellent discussion here, I have enjoyed it very much!

Ugly, I'm wondering, how do Shamu's lawyers get him to testify? What's the legal word--uh, dispose? How does a lawyer speak for a whale, how does a lawyer know what a whale is thinking? Shamu might be perfectly happy!

I'm reminded of a letter I sent to PETA after I viewed a sign in Spanish Fork canyon years ago, it showed a dog with a fishing lure in it's mouth, and a message that stated "You wouldn't treat your dog like this, why would you treat a fish this way?"

I thanked them for reminding me to get fishing licenses for myself and my grandkids.

Bob

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

Ugly, I'm wondering, how do Shamu's lawyers get him to testify? What's the legal word--uh, dispose? How does a lawyer speak for a whale, how does a lawyer know what a whale is thinking? Shamu might be perfectly happy!

My guess is that they will hire the actors from the television show Flipper to be interpreters as they seemed to speak the fishy mammal language without missing a beat.

[Stella Solariscaptain of 1,000]

BrentL - massive thanks to you for what you posted above!

[gkearneycaptain of 100]

I was speaking to a member of our stake the other day about this issue which comes up in public debat here from time to time. I told him that I was opposed to state sanction of same sex marriage. When I related this to my wife sgroovy on me about being less than truthful as I had failed to mention that I am opposed to the state sanction of any marriage as it is an intrusion of the government into the matter of religion. So was my wife right, as she generally is, was I being less than truthful with this brother?

[AGalagaChiasmuscaptain of 100]

Also, Animals and BBQs do not = entities that possess the ability to contract. Which is important because marriage = contract.

Unfortunately this is incorrect....they (NATO and UN) are trying to redefine this via treaty (which is a back door way to get laws passed via Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution). A SC case in regards to a boy abusing his dog was the precedent for this one. It had something to do with the dog having feelings, therefore should be protected under the law. It will allow bestiality and other sickness to become protected under hate crime laws.
We have been warned that this is the goal...read the planks...they have been talking about it for over 100 years.

uglypitbull--Are you saying that there is a case out there that stands for the proposition that BBQs and/or animals can contract? If so, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, I believe you just fail to grasp the legal meaning behind the SC case (which, BTW, is followed in most states). These cases stand for the proposition that it is illegal to abuse animals. The case (unless you are thinking of another one, and in such circumstances please share the case) involved a dog being chained up and left to die. Now, I am not going to debate the merits of that case, but I simply wanted to point out that you, my friend, are wrong if you are asserting that the SC case somehow establishes that BBQs and/or animals have the right to contract.

Now, on to the 10th Amendment. And, I want to preface this by saying that I don't believe that the following analysis is right or wrong from a moral standpoint, but simply that it's the law. The purpose of this debate is to not argue the moral/ethical merits of prop 8, it is to argue the legality of the same.

So, that being said, let's start with the 1oth amendment. It reads, in its entirety, as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Ok," you may be saying, "nowwhere does it say that the issue of 'marriage' is delegated to the to the United States. Therefore, the States and people have the right to dictate what 'marriage' is about."

On the surface that sounds great. But we haven't yet looked at the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment is too large to set out in full here, but we will cite to the relevant portion: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " "Ok," you may say, "but Prop 8 did not abridge any privilege or immunity of citizens, be they straight, gay or otherwise. It also did not deny any one due process of law or equal protection. I mean, why not let people have 'civil unions' and just straight people can engage in 'marriage'? Then everyone is the same."

On the surface, that sounds great. But we haven't yet looked at the case of Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Supreme Court held that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

So, in other words, "marriage," not "civil unions," is a "fundemental right" that, per the Supreme Court, triggers the 14th amendment protections, thus trumping any reliance on the 10th amendment in support of Prop 8.

Again, I am not commenting on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of Prop 8. I am simply saying that under the current state of the law, it is unconstitutional.

And despite uglypitbull dismissing my position as "incorrect," I still hold to the position that BBQs and/or animals cannot contract. At least under the current law.

Careful...

100 years ago in the United States, blacks and women could not contract either, according to law. The whole argument Judge Walker used to originally flip the voter-approved measure upside down is a series of arguments stating that as women gained more and more legal rights, the legal power given to men in marriage began to erode. And if women are now on equal legal footing as men, what does it matter the gender of the spouse? (In terms of government.) Marriage, in the eyes of the government, was used to grant power to entities with no rights, but contractual power rested only with white men.

Now, that's what Judge Walker said, and I submit that he's shooting his own foot with that statement. As mentioned in this thread before, using Walker's logic, the "civil right" to marry begins to erode the legal tax havens and privileges government can grant. A bisexual man can argue to marry a gay man and a straight woman because it's his civil right. Polygamy has new legal life breathed into it. And by Judge Walker's own prognostication, being in love with a video game, Root Beer can, or BBQ (as previously given), CAN be submitted as a legal civil right. (It is, BTW, in South Korea).

Then where are we? The very argument homosexuals give to claim the right to marry under the law, will erode the very meaning of that arrangement. If I want to be a polygamous BBQ marrying man, then you see, *under the law* I have all sorts of heirs and assigns and tax deductions, etc, etc, without having to contract with a sentient being.

Law, by definition, is discriminatory. We have laws that are age discriminatory (voting age, driving age, Social Security age), gender discriminatory (military law, indecency laws, etc) and so on. And for good reasons, IMO. The slippery slope opened by the Prop 8, is trying to simply move where that discrimination line is. The logic, carried out to it's conclusion, is the termination of recognition of any type of marriage by the Feds or State, by virtue of being able to grant anyone marital haven to anything they want (when everyone's married, no one is).

Let me be clear. I reject a homosexual relationship as immoral and against revealed Truth. This, in my mind makes the case for homosexual marriage moot. Therefore the legal stance I consciously take is one of legal discrimination (or discretion). I advocate for laws that knowingly discriminate, but shelter marriage as a unit of society that creates more society. Yeah, there are hetero couples that can't or don't want to have children, but we don't have a luxury in a country of 330 million to carve out case-by-case exceptions, therefore, based on statistical and biological facts, the government must enshrine marriage between a man and a woman for that end.

[AGalagaChiasmuscaptain of 100]

Also:

I don't care if the measure was banning wearing orange shoes on Thursdays. The judges' methodologies here are absolutely, in and of themselves, unconstitutional.

[gothapotamusHi, I'm new.]

"And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land." Mosiah 29:27

While I accept that the "voice of the people" at least speaking of those who voted for Proposition 8 (I chuckle every time I hear it referred to as Prop H8), I think the overriding tenor nationally is that it should be allowed, in that we shouldn't legislate against two consenting persons loving one another.

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Agreed, why should we expect anything different than what we are promised!

Bob

[AGStackercaptain of 100]

braingrunt - I have to disagree. All people under the Constitution have the legal right to enter into legal contracts. Marriage is simply the traditional term to a man and woman being wed and the law makes it a legal contract. Gays have the right, under the Constitution, to live how they please. God was very in support of individual rights. Now, it is foolish for gays to try to steal the traditional definition of marriage. Why would they want that? Why don't they call it something else? It makes them look very foolish.

God doesn't destroy nations solely because more people become gay but because homosexuality is a sign of the times or rather an indication of how bad things have gotten. There are many good natured gay people but they have fallen far off of their holy and anointed path to Godhood.

[AGStackercaptain of 100]

BrentL - I liked the information that you posted and am going to dig deeper into it. I know homosexuality is wrong and do not believe that they should have marriage. I do however believe that government should not be involved in religious affairs and that they should honor contracts.

The information you provided is new to me and I will enjoy reading it.

[jskcaptain of 100]

BrentL...loved your post...thank you! This rings true to me....

[Matthew.Bcaptain of 100]

Its not about law, or the right to contract, or any other philosophies of men...

+1

Why seest thou this man, and hearest him revile against this people and against our law?

And now it came to pass that the people were more angry with Amulek, and they cried out, saying: This man doth revile against our laws which are just, and our wise lawyers whom we have selected.

But the more part of them were desirous that they might destroy Alma and Amulek; for they were angry with Alma, because of the plainness of his words unto Zeezrom; and they also said that Amulek had lied unto them, and had reviled against their law and also against their lawyers and judges.

And the people went forth and witnessed against them—testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land; … ….. Now this was done before the chief judge of the land.

http://www.youtube.com/user/davidkat99# ... plBQGogYEk

This...

The law has become corrupt. The Ammonihahites of our day succeeded in changing the law and its precedents.

[believercaptain of 100]

We need to remember the purposes for coming to earth:

1. To gain a body
2. As a test to see if we will be obedient to God.

TO GAIN A BODY
Two men cannot produce a body for Heavenly Father's spirit children to come to earth. Two women cannot produce a body for Heavenly Father's spirit children to come to earth. Only a man and a woman can do that. Marriage is the way the Lord has sanctioned for us to provide bodies for Heavenly Father's spirit children. That is the way you and I got here.

Ancient civilizations have been destroyed because they went against the purposes of God. It is one thing for individuals to do that. It is quite another thing for a nation to give it the stamp of approval. That is what happens when laws are passed that sanction wickedness that goes against the purposes of God. We are setting ourselves up for destruction.

Sodom was destroyed because of it. Gomorah was destroyed because of it. The people of Noah's day were destroyed because of it. Many others have been destroyed because of it. ARE WE GOING TO CONSENT TO THE DESTRUCTION?

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

... I am opposed to the state sanction of any marriage as it is an intrusion of the government into the matter of religion...

I agree, this is my whole point. And marriage is not a right, we get married because we have a right to choose to get married. Big big difference there. So that court that called marriage "a right" is right out of line....

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

Its not about law, or the right to contract, or any other philosophies of men.

Right, it's not. We're not discussing (I think), the rightness of the gay marriage, but the rightness of them being allowed to choose that course.

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

...and the recent marriage in Australia of a man to his dog.

Currently, I think law is based more on the moral sentiments of the people, and less and less upon logical precedent. And the moral sentiments of the people are in the final stages of degradation before wholesale rebellion against true principles and doctrine.

I agree, but the role of government is not to enforce the good, but prevent evil. If society thinks bestiality is wrong, and it does, then charge the man with that. Above that, an animal cannot enter into a two way binding contract, so that is a total joke. But two men can, and two women can. And they "can"! We can't stop them because we haven't said, legally, that homosexuality is not acceptable in our society, therefore we cannot say that marriage (approved) + homosexuality (tacitly approved) = unapproved! We can't do that! See, the real problem isn't the cohabitation, it's the homosexuality!


On second thought, I do wonder, wouldn't it be better to have these gays get married than to have them continue living in sin?

[AshleyBcaptain of 1,000]

ithink, I was with you on the root of the problem but then you went and seemed to be suggesting that by gays getting married they are not living in sin anymore? Is this what you meant to say? Because "married or not" Homosexuality is still a son and no earthly contract is gonna change that. And their marriage is certainly not going to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

And Col Flagg...what you say about the pole shifts are pretty frightening. I never put much weight into those theorys but then I had a dream where HF said " I will turn all things on their heads." In speaking of the last days. I couldn't remember the rest of what I was told before for that but that last sentence really stuck with me.

[LukeAir2008captain of 1,000]

Its got nothing to do with Temple marriage. Is it acceptable for Bishops to marry unrepentant deviants in LDS chapels? That's what is coming. The Church wont have any choice but to defy the government and go underground. This has been coming since 1890. The Church cannot be friends with Babylon. It just doesn't work. Ever. We've bent over backwards to accomodate the world but time is running out. The true Church and the true saints and the true gospel are always hated and despised by the world. We're going to have to face the music eventually.

[gkearneycaptain of 100]

recent marriage in Australia of a man to his dog.

That was not a legal marriage in Australia. That is to say you can have any sort of ceremony you like with your dog, cat toaster, what have you but you will not get a marriage certificate or have it recorded here unless you are being married to a consenting adult of (for the time being anyway) the other gender to yourself. The Marriage Act here makes that quite clear. So while the man marries his dog in Australia story was great fun for the media one should not go about presenting it as a real lawful marriage it was more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

[Called to Servecaptain of 1,000]

Brent, what you said is true. I'd like to summarize it into one sentence to make it easier to understand:

It is essential for us to prohibit homosexual unions because it will bring the judgments of God upon us.

This is the missing element that is causing so much confusion on this topic among church members. We have the right to protect ourselves. We must never accept immoral behavior of any kind or sanction it by government or we invite the judgments of God to come upon us.

[believercaptain of 100]

Called to Serve----You said that very well. And that is so true.