Thursday, June 22, 2006

Gay Marriage -- Some of my thoughts after the debate.

Its been a few weeks since the Marriage amendment was struck down in the Senate. I've participated in a lot of lively debates regarding this issue. I've come to some conclusions about the issue that are important and need to be considered.

1.) This issue cannot be totally in the states individual hands. There is one major all-encompassing reason that the Fed will have to define marriage. Every American has to file income tax returns and marital status can make a large difference in what the outcome will be on an individual income tax return.

2.)A full ban on gay marriage will never pass. Although the evidence is weak and sill far from full wide acceptance that gay behavior is fully genetic and natural, the rhetoric that gays are a oppressed minority has successfully become engrained in much of the American psyche. As such, there is no way I see a broad enough majority of lawmakers voting for something that might label them as homophobic bigot to amend the law of the land.

3.) A Charley Foster-esque compromise unfortunately will not be fool proof. Tax cases are some of the most frequent and heavily contested issues. Because of the tax issues alone, gay marriage legal in some states and banned in others is assured to see a major Federal Court decision.

4.) Federal court presidence (from what i understand) leans toward gay marriage legalization. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to quotes cases, but it seems like a majority of federal court cases strike down laws pertaining to bedroom activities between consenting adults.

Personally, while I am wholly opposed to gay marriage becoming an institution in our nation, I don't believe the battle to ban it will be a successful endeavor. Irritating as legalized abortion, this issue is one, I fear, that morality and wholesomeness will likely take a backseat.

Stenar has been writing about the BYU professor's firing. The professor was fired because he questioned the leaders of the Mormon church, an Stenar was miffed that his questioning leaders of the church that he is member of, and the church that operates the University where he teaches, led to his termination. Problem for that professor is LDS doctrine is expicit about supporting the leaders of the church, it is one of the major interview questions for temple recommends. Church doctrine has often stated that a lack of support for church leaders is a first step to apostasy from the LDS church. So as and American he is okay protesting LDS church official proclamations and doctrine, but as a Mormon he is definitely endangering his LDS membership.

However, because of a hypothetical issue, (a coworker brought this point up) it is surprising that the LDS supported the Amendment with one man one woman. The LDS church believes that polygamy is a law that God requires to be practiced in a place and manner he deems necessary, so hypothetically Mormons could some day be polygamists. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman might have been a hypothetical bullet through their foot.

6 comments:

Forever Canadian said...

Why is it even a debate? Where I come from it doesn't make sense to tell individuals that they cannot be married because they want to marry someone of the same sex. Why should the state have that kind of authority? I think that too many people are full of hate and fear in the United States. If any American homosexuals end up reading this, my advice would be for you to move to Canada. Aside from people who hurt others, we like everybody.

pramahaphil said...

The whole thing really seems to come down to semantics. I wonder if gay marriage was refered to as a lifelong contractual agreement between two men or two women would there be any issues at all. It really comes down to two people that are monogomous to each other should enjoy some legality to their relationship.

Stenar said...

Phil- I didn't quote Jeffrey Nielsen as being miffed that he was fired in my blog, as you state. My impression is that he understands full well why he was fired. If anyone was miffed on my blog it was me. However, Nielsen did argue that Mormons should be able to question some policy decisions (not doctrine) of LDS church leaders.

opinionman- Actually, the issue of gay marriage has been debated extensively in Canada and the Conservatives recently came to power there riding on the issue, saying they would try and overturn the recently passed gay marriage laws in Canada.

pramahaphil said...

I stand corrected Stenar.

pramahaphil said...

However, the church has said marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and that governments should take steps to preserve the sanctity of marriage. That is doctrine!

That is why the church, under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), can lobby for an Amendment like the one just debated because it has established it as doctrine.

Cameron said...

There is no ambiguity to the Church's stance on gay marriage. Our prophets have consistently and plainly put forth the doctrine pertaining to this issue.

Furthermore, the doctrine states that the family is central to the plan of salvation. It is central. A defining aspect. Integral to man's eternal progression.

When a moral issue becomes a political one, it becomes our duty as citizens to be involved in the political process. That is why the Church urged members to contact their Senators.