124 Comments »

1. You are way out there on many claims here. First for #1 the schools do not teach sex ed or marriage to small children. They do teach acceptance of all families (defined loosely as any group the child lives with) as a diversity measure and to be honest they should. Can you imagine telling one kid in the class their parent or head of household is a sinner or is unacceptable while telling another child theirs is acceptable? Really that is all that the schools are doing. They do this regardless of SSM so your first claim is not only misleading it is somewhat irrelevant to the whole issue. This is happening regardless of whether the state has gay marriage. We should look at this as a teaching moment.

   I do support the passage of limiting marriage to 1 man and 1 woman. I am against polygamy and this would beneficial. Also the same sex couples should have legislation that supports their relationship for what it is. Child custody, separation of assets, legal rights in health care should all be dealt with. They could clean up the laws for all couples and include protections for all couples who decide toraise kids together regardless of marital status. The children should be protedted regardless of what the people who brought them into this word do.

   Other points here are similar, the intent and your heart may be in the right place but why link things in that not expicitly linked to the issue.

   The truth today at BYU and throughout the church homosexuals are there living in the dorms going on missions and serving in the church. Many are struggling with being married to opposite sex partners. They are allowed and welcomed as long as they are not sexually active outside of marriage as the church has defined. Much that you are afraid of has been with us for 20+ years and the only ones that I can see that were hurt are the poor women stuck married to these guys.

   Comment by Bob W — October 20, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

2. Blake, it appears your post has cleared moderation and appears on that site now.

   Comment by Phouchg — October 20, 2008 @ 6:26 pm

3. How interesting. I completely agree with your conclusion, that the government has no place in the marriage business and should solely be involved in civil unions. Let the religious folk, ourselves included, dole out “marriage” certificates as we deem fit.

   But since we’re not there yet, I see CA’s SSM as a step in the right direction. Here we obviously diverge.

   Comment by peetie — October 20, 2008 @ 6:57 pm

4. Phouchg,
   Could you post the link to the article as posted on the Mormons for Marriage site? I’d like to see how people respond on there.

   Blake,
   Very good article! I am very much in need of material like this being at law school. The church members here stand alone, and are quite frightened to even speak.

   Comment by Craig Atkinson — October 20, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

5. Blake,

   Well written. Thank you. The only other point I would add is that in addition creating a new fundamental right to gay marriage the CA supreme court has created a new constitutionally protected suspect class: sexual orientation. This is very problematic in that, as you point out, sexual orientation is much different than race or gender. There is a continuum.

   Armed with a new fundamental right, and the newly created suspect class of sexual orientation, the CA Education Code statutes allowing parents to opt their kids out, will likely fall to constitutional challenges. I don’t see the litigation stopping with marriage.

   This debate has never been about marriage, rights or the like. It is about societal acceptance.

   Thanks again for a great post.

   Comment by Guy Murray — October 20, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

6. Here’s the link to the comment at mormonsformarriage
   http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=45#comment-622

   Comment by Paula — October 20, 2008 @ 7:38 pm

7. Blake,
   I totally agree that the State should only offer civil unions for all, and marriage should be out of their jurisdiction. With that, doesn’t it set a horrible precedent to define marriage AT ALL in our constitutions? That means Prop 8 in CA and 102 in AZ (and the one in FL) are steps in the *wrong* direction. Regardless of the moral position, they represent using the law for social engineering. That seems like a dangerous precedent to set for a people with a history of government-inflicted persecution. If prop 8 passes, let’s hope the FRC doesn’t turn its teeth on proxy work for the dead in limited-access temples next. After all, if you can get a majority to agree that something is unnatural and immoral, you apparently can use the law to teach them the error of their ways.

   Comment by Clay Whipkey — October 20, 2008 @ 8:06 pm

8. Bob W. I admit that you just lost me because your comment seems to distort what I say so badly. Where did I claim that schools teach sex ed to “small children.”? Certainly you agree that schools teach sex ed don’t you? In Utah it is contrary to law to teach a homosexual lifestyle. I know that I don’t want my children in public schools of any age being taught that homosexual relationships are just as valuable as traditional marriages. I don’t want them taught that any configuration of humans where children are present is a family as you suggest. I don’t want room-mates to be family members.

   I’m certainly not advocating that anyone teach that another child’s parents are sinners. I never stated anything to suggest that I did. However, I don’t want my children to be taught that there are no immoral kinds of relationships or that anything at all goes as long as two mature people consent.

   Since I support civil unions, I would agree that homosexual couples ought to have all of the intestate and contractual protections of others.

   Let me also state that I view homosexuals as a very vulnerable group and that we ought to go out of our way to love and accept them and see them as infinitely valuable children of our Father in Heaven. It serves us to avoid judgment and to simply accept. That doesn’t mean that homosexual conduct is no sinful — it just means we’ve all got enough of our own sins to deal with before we can judge.

   I certainly abhor any suggestion that I am suggesting that we should not fully accept homosexual couples among us and give extra support to those who choose to remain celibate — just like the faithful single people throughout the Church. However, I have never seen anyone come close to elucidating a coherent standard of sexual conduct where it is fine for homosexuals to engage in sexual relations but not for heterosexuals. I recognize that for heterosexuals there is at least the theoretical possibility of marriage. However, it doesn’t make any pragmatic difference for those singles who would love to marry but for whatever reason just haven’t. There is not one standard of moral conduct for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals.

   Interesting issues are raised for homosexual couples who enter into civil unions. I’m not quite sure how to address all of these issue. I believe that perhaps the Church ought to accept those who enter into civil unions into fellowship in the sense that they are welcome as members and their civil union ought to be viewed as superior to rampant promiscuity that generally prevails in the gay community. If homosexual couples have entered a civil union, then I can see perhaps allowing them to remain in fellowship and to partake of the sacrament though not attend the temple. Perhaps we could give them calling with the recognition that we’re all afflicted by sin and we are no better in this respect than anyone else. I’m still unsure how to address such issues.

   Comment by Blake — October 20, 2008 @ 8:30 pm

9. “It is easy to see how Bob Jones could be extended in California to deny tax exempt status to the Church in many respects (education, social services,etc.) in California if Proposition 8 fails. Here is how: the Ca. Supreme Court held that the right to SSM is a “basic and fundamental right” that is on par in every respect with traditional marriage. Those who deny “fundamental rights” to others can be denied tax exempt status.”

   a) The CA Supreme Court did *not* rule that SSM is a “basic and fundamental right.” It ruled that equal protection under the law is a basic and fundamental right as guaranteed by the California State Constitution, and that any rights extended to certain Californians had to be extended to all Californians, absent a compelling reason not to. The CA Supreme Court ruled that there was no compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the marriage rights currently enjoyed by heterosexuals. And so the CA Supreme Court ruled that, for California to be in compliance with its own state Constitution, California needed to offer marriage to all consenting, of-age couples, or to none of them. That’s not the same as ruling that SSM is a “basic and fundamental right”

   b) As to tax-exemption: the LDS Church currently refuses to conduct marriages between, say, Jews, in its temples, despite the fact that it’s illegal to discriminate against Jews in our nation. Has the LDS Church lost its tax-exempt status as a result? Of course not. Neither has the Catholic Church in our nation lost its tax-exempt status for refusing to conduct marriages between divorcees. Neither have Orthodox Jewish churches in our nation lost their tax-exempt statuses for refusing to conduct interfaith marriages. And neither, for that matter, has a single church in Massachusetts lost its tax-exempt status for refusing to conduct a same-sex marriage in the 5 years that it’s been legal there.

   Churches always have enjoyed 1st Amendment protections of a level surpassing those of other institutions in this nation, and that’ll continue regardless of the outcome of Prop 8. Your church’s tax-exempt status is not threatened.

   Now then, when it comes to faith-based institutions which receive public funding… yep, generally-speaking, if they’re gonna take government money (like Bob Jones University) they gotta adhere to the government’s non-discrimination rules. Those non-discrimination rules exist regardless of the legality or illegality of same-sex marriage. If you pass Prop 8, it won’t make discrimination against homosexuals suddenly more legal than it was before November 4th. All faith-based institutions have to do, if they wanna discriminate with impunity, is do like the Boy Scouts of America and refuse public funding.

   Patrick Meighan
   Culver City, CA

   Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 20, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

10. Parick Meigham: You are wrong about the California holding. The first issue addressed by the California court was labeled: “the nature of the right to marry” (beginning on page 5 of the decision. Based on this unfounded assumption of “a right to marry,” the court went on to hold that the right is substantive. The court states: “we conclude that, under the state’s constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.” (p. 6)

    So I believe that you have failed to read the case carefully. Indeed, it was only the finding of a basic substantive right to marry (created for the first time by any state in this decision) that allowed the California court to override a legislative process and democratic initiative process. That is the most disturbing aspect of this decision to me. For the first time, instead of marriage being a privilege that the legislature can define and decide which relationships the State has an interest in protecting, the right to marry is now a substantive right that cannot be redefined by either the people or the legislature. So you have just missed the most trenchant and salient feature of the court’s “rationale” and holding.

    I agree that the Church hasn’t lost tax protection though it doesn’t extend the right to a temple marriage to Jews — of course. But since marriage is now a fundamental right, the ability to make distinctions is problematic. BYU students receive government grants. Church members receive tax breaks for donations. These kinds of entanglements have been construed to be receipt by the institution of tax funds in Title IX cases and it isn’t hard to see that such reasoning could reach the Church to disqualify LDSFS. So your argument misses the point. I am saying that failure to pass Prop. 9 could result in such extensions, not that it inevitably must as you seem to want to pin on me. Refusing public funding is a lot more difficult than you seem to think in a world where any receipt that may in some way benefit the institution, no matter how tenuous, can be read as receipt by the institution.

    Comment by Blake — October 20, 2008 @ 9:09 pm

11. BJU - a notorious case.

    Hey Blake, when I have the government hammering on me as a pastor in S.E. Idaho, may I hire you? ;)

    Comment by Todd Wood — October 20, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

12. that allowed the California court to override a legislative process and democratic initiative process.

    This is not necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact, that’s what supreme courts do for a living. Reasonable minds can debate the merits of a particular decision, but the sky is not falling when the California Supreme Court does its job.

    Comment by Peter LLC — October 20, 2008 @ 11:40 pm

13. Peter: What we have is simply the California Supreme Court creating a right ex nihilo without precedent and without any language in the document these judges pretend to be reading. In one move that has far reaching legal consequences, the California court made itself the legislature to determine the scope of “the right to marry” that had never before existed. There is nothing in the language of the California Constitution to suggest such a right. It is essentially a coup of the legislative and democratic process. You may not regard that as “all that bad,” but those of us who prefer judges to actually read the documents they interpret, to cite the cases they say provides a precedent, and to acknowledge the legislative branch of government have grave concerns.

    You may not see that as a bad thing — but what are the restraints on such unfettered power? It means that four judges think their opinions large social issues matter more than the electorate of the state of California. Such judicial arrogance vitiates the democratic nature of the American system of government. Their action is not only judicial activism at its most extreme, but flies in the face of longstanding jurisprudence regarding marriage as a state (legislative) defined privilege rather than a right. The courts of New York and Ohio demonstrated appropriate restraint by finding that marriage is not a right but a grant of protection to certain kinds of relationships that the State has an interest in protecting.

    Indeed, the California court went even further than finding a substantive right to marry. It also found a fundamental right to define a family as anything that one wants: “As past cases establish (here asserted without any citation to cases), the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to form an officially recognized family of their own — and if the couple choose, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.” (p. 7)

    That sounds good, except it is nonsense. It just isn’t true that any two adults who love each other can marry and form a family — California is about to have a lot of kissing cousins having children if this language means what it clearly says. Persons who have certain DNA and communicable diseases can be denied such a “fundamental right” under California law despite the Court’s political rhetoric masquerading as judicial reasoning. Further, there is no prior precedent for such a far reaching conclusion.

    So the California court wasn’t doing the job of a court, it has become a super legislature that usurps the democratic process. Proposition 8 is the proper response to such judicial arrogance.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 6:04 am

14. The fundamental right to marry was established in many previous US S.Ct. decisions. The CA S.Ct. used this well-understood federal mandate to decide that the Federal Fundamental Right exists in the CA constitution, and that it extends to all consenting adult couples under the CA Constitution in light of the legislature providing near equality with everything but the name. In other words, if the M word matters to you, then it should get to be used by others.

    The CA S.Ct. didn’t override the legislative process, the governor did! The CA legislature twice passed gender neutral marriage in three years, but the governator vetoed it. Now Arnold is against prop 8.[He has such high principles--NOT!] So the educated and considered will of the people through their legislative representatives was thwarted! I trust the legislature to protect rights more than a plebiscite. And while that’s technically un-democratic, America has always recognized the need for the minority to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. LDS should certainly embrace this, as the mob’s vote might take away your rights next, especially when a bigger international organization pours millions of dollars and scary lies into the mix. The weak argument defaults to the scare tactic of “Won’t someone please think of the children!” == Anita Bryant, Helen Lovejoy. That says something about what the pro-8 hierarchy thinks about it’s own arguments.

    Comment by Marc Luxe — October 21, 2008 @ 6:44 am

15. Marc: Perhaps you could actually cite one or two of these supposed cases that establish marriage as a fundamental right for which legislatures cannot define the scope? You’re long on assertion and very, very short on anything to back your fallacious statement. Read the New York and Ohio cases for a lengthy discussion of these issues.

    Perhaps you missed the fact that the California legislature established an initiative referendum process and the people of California voted by a fairly large margin to establish a statute that defined marriage as consisting only between a man and a woman? It was that process that the court ignored — and it is a process fundamental to democracy as we know it.

    I recognize that truly fundamental rights enjoy protection no matter what the popular vote is (and that is how it ought to be). However, that is not what happened here. The California court created a new “fundamental right” out of nothing but its strongly held opinions that had never been recognized before so that it could hijack the public discussion of this very important social and moral issue.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 7:09 am

16. The reason why government involves itself in marriage, and not just in civil unions, is because traditional marriage has demonstrated itself to be useful to society. It has ensured permanence, continuity, and the ability to create the next generation and then transmit society’s mores to that generation successfully.

    Here with SSM, we have people insisting in giving equal recognition to a union that neither offers nor affords any quantifiable benefit to society. It only benefits those individuals involved in the relationship. Where is the benefit for society to equate SSM with traditional marriage? It isn’t there.

    As for sex education in schools at any age, the problem with it is it instructs in sex, but not in intimacy nor enduring relationships. Suddenly, we have a sex-crazed society, with groups that want to be equally recognized with traditional marriage. Whether it is SSM or other more extreme groups, like NAMBLA, we could choose to draw the line almost anywhere, and still there would be people screaming for “their rights.” But what value would there be for society to accept NAMBLA-like relationships? And so, given such an extreme, how far do we wish to move away from the standard that has worked for generations to promote and benefit society, and has scriptural foundation?
    I’m amazed that we live in such a society today that insists on having so many individual “rights” that do not benefit society as a whole. Medical prescriptions, medical insurance, social security, welfare, entitlements, etc., are all part and parcel of this same dread disease, which will lead us away from being principled people seeking to better the next generation, and only focus on “me.”

    Comment by Gerald Smith — October 21, 2008 @ 7:32 am

17. Gerald: If gay couples are allowed to adopt, then it seems to me that the State has an interest in protecting and stabilizing such relationships. The purpose of recognizing marriage has always been fundamentally to protect spouses who may have relied for support on the other spouse and the children of such a union. While the state has a much greater interest in promoting heterosexual relations to insure the perpetuation of society, it seems to me that it has sufficient interest to want to protect gay relationships to the extent adoptions or children from previous heterosexual marriages are involved.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 7:36 am

18. I have looked into the background of Mr. Thurston. Either he or his supporters among the anti-8 lobby have misrepresented his credentials. He is not a professor at the BYU law school, only an adjunct professor, which means he may teach one class. This is a big difference, and should be borne in mind when considering his credibility.
    Mr. Thurston retired as a lawyer who specialized in intelectual property law with the law firm of Latham and Watkins in their Orange County Office.
    He does not have a background in family law, education law or any other subject along these lines that would make him qualified to comment on this debate.
    More importatntly in many ways he lacks a background in religious litigation law.
    Mr. Thurston has made major conclusions that are clearly colored by his experience as a corporate attorney and have no place when we are talking about non-profit religious organizations. Catholic Charities in Boston did not have the reserve to go after appeals on the issue of keeping up their adoption services. Mr. Thurston might as well compare the defense of OJ Simpson to that of your averge Joe and argue that OJ’s aquittal shows the system is fair for everyone.
    Mr. Thurston has also ignored the overwhelming anti-religious bias in the courts. He fails to understnad what Employment Division v. Smith has done to religious freedom, since he was not in that field and recieved his JD 20 years before the horrible decision was handed down.
    Mr. Thurston and his supporters try to present him as an expert on this subject, but he has no credentials.
    He does not understand how the law is a teacher, nor does he factor in what the opposition to proposition 8 by the California Teachers Association means.
    He also ignores the fact that most parents do not have law firms on their sides, they are not rich like his clients have normally been. To stop the use of the schools for direct propaganda in favor of same-gender marriage would require some recognized basis of objection. Since the California Supreme Court has unanimously held that a doctor can not refuse to perform artificial insemination to an unmarried women, and could not even when marrital status was not a undistinguishable category in California law, what will parents use to at least claim they should be notified before their children are taught about same-gender marriage.
    If Mr. Thurston was really aiming at getting balance and truth he would attack the unfounded claims about equal rights being at stake if Proposition 8 passes. Instead he has chosen to attack the Pro-proposition 8 campaign.
    I for one support the freedom of religioun of all groups. Just because Latter-day Saint activities may not be curtailed by Prop 8 initially, does not mean that I will sit back and let the government of California deney rights to Lutherans and other religious groups that run schools in California.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 21, 2008 @ 9:13 am

19. Blake,
    Your point about the schools interpreting what is not required by the law is well founded.
    We just need to turn to some of the cases of teachers suppressing religious expresion at schools in New Jersey to see how this happens. I am indeted to the Becket Fund for learning of this. At one point there was a gift exchange in a kindergarten or first grade class in New Jersey. One student was handing out candy canes that had messages along the lines of “Jesus loves you”. When the teacher realized this she proactively intervened to stop the handing out of messages.
    Thus, it is the view at least of some teachers that the schools have a duty to forcibly repress religious expression. This is a clear violation of the first admendment, however many teachers have misguided notions on what is and is not acceptable on the part of students.
    The pernicious doctrine that what students communicate in school is somehow endorsed by the school and thus the school had the right and duty to censor it is alive and well in this country. Despite the suprme court having stated that “students do not check their rights at the school house door”, this is not really believed in on the part of most teachers and administrators and instead they advocate a view that they should force all students to reflect the values and goals of the school in their in school speech.
    This is a situation that would easily lead to condemnation of a students saying “God only supports marriage between a man and a woman” as hate speech.
    What Blake understands but Mr. Thurston fails to grasp is that the implication of laws goes far beyound the words involved.
    The theories used to overturn Proposition 22 and the rhetoric of the pro-same-sex marriage movement in San Francisco indicate no halt to attacks on traditional morals until they have been classed as hate speech.
    If Mr. Thurston truly believed in truth, he would attack the anti-8 crowd for their representing the supporters of 8 as bigots.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 21, 2008 @ 9:25 am

20. It was that process that the court ignored — and it is a process fundamental to democracy as we know it.

    I disagree. With only 16 states having an initiative process by which to propose constitutional amendments, one can hardly speak of a process fundamental to democracy as we know it.

    Besides, the supreme court judges did not ignore the process–they responded to it. It’s not like your arrogant judges are trying to alter natural law or something. It just takes a token refundable deposit, some signatures and a “reasonable probability [that] the initiative measure will eventually be submitted to the voters” to put a measure on the ballot to change the California constitution. I won’t argue that Californians didn’t approve Prop. 22, but neither am I going to underestimate the power of the agenda-setter in influencing the outcome of a legislative process.

    Comment by Peter LLC — October 21, 2008 @ 9:30 am

21. What Blake understands but Mr. Thurston fails to grasp is that the implication of laws goes far beyound the words involved.

    Unintended consequences cut both ways.

    Comment by Peter LLC — October 21, 2008 @ 9:31 am

22. One argument that, frankly, mystifies me is the argument about teaching gay marriage in the schools. Years and years (and years) ago when I was a public schoolchild in California, I don’t recall marriage really ever coming up, especially not in any normative manner. But frankly, I don’t remember any descriptive uses of marriage, either. (I know, I know: my friends had parents. Some were together, some were divorced, presumably some were cohabitating unmarried. But my friends’ family situations weren’t relevant in my classes, unless one of them was having a birthday and a parent brought in cupcakes, in which case, that parent was definitely cool.) But seriously, in my 13 years in California public schools, no teacher ever commented positively or negatively on the fact that I had two opposite-sex married parents, and none encouraged me to or discouraged me from dating some of the opposite or same sex.

    At least, not until we started reading Shakespeare. And if rejecting Prop 8 is going to force schools to edit the Bard, well, there’s probably something more fundamentally wrong in the world than the definition of marriage.

    Comment by Sam B. — October 21, 2008 @ 9:38 am

23. Blake, Thanks for this post. I am a bit confused on one point, however, and hope you will help me.

    Suppose you get your wish: the state refuses to recognize marriage at all and instead recognizes only civil unions (of all sorts). How does that not put religious adoption agencies in the same bind as Catholic Charities in Mass? I’m picturing an agency that currently only allows married couples to adopt; how would the state/courts view such a rule once the state is blind to the term “marriage”?

    Comment by BrianJ — October 21, 2008 @ 9:55 am

24. Blake, I think I understand your point that because the California court fully articulated marriage as a substantive, fundamental right, Jewish, Catholic and Wiccan couples may now sue the LDS church with abandon, and that by passing Prop 8, we might at least stop gays and lesbians from doing so. What I don’t understand is how you see the court making that decision out of whole cloth. Beginning on page 49 and going at least 20 pages the court cites numerous past cases going back as far as 1948. I thought that the court provided a thoughtful, well reasoned case and provided substantial precedent for holding marriage as a fundamental right. So I’m interested in why you say that the California court created a new “fundamental right” out of nothing.

    Comment by Steven B — October 21, 2008 @ 10:12 am

25. One student was handing out candy canes that had messages along the lines of “Jesus loves you”. When the teacher realized this she proactively intervened to stop the handing out of messages.

    If I had been that teacher, I probably would have intervened, too, especially if I had been aware that not all of the families with children in that class were Christian. This could be seen as an attempt to indoctrinate or proselytize, and might very well have been objected to by some of the parents when the candy canes reached the childrens’ homes.

    This is a situation that would easily lead to condemnation of a students saying “God only supports marriage between a man and a woman” as hate speech.

    Well, let’s think about this. In a taxpayer funded school, should there be an assumption made that A) there really is a Supreme Being who can be referred to as “God”, and B) Christian beliefs about God (which even differ between Christian denominations) are correct, while non-Christian concepts of a Supreme Being are not, and C) all of the childrens’ families who might be exposed to this idea subscribe to these Christian beliefs. This surely isn’t hate speech, but it sure contains a bunch of unstated assumptions. At the very least, the statement should be qualified by prefacing the statement with “Some religious believers are taught and believe that…”.

    Now, if you want to create a school not funded or supported by the taxpayers where teachings like “God only supports marriage between a man and a woman” would find complete support from all of the families whose children attend that school, that is your right. But you don’t have the right to insist that your religious viewpoint be taught in public schools.

    Comment by Mark N. — October 21, 2008 @ 10:20 am

26. Now, if you want to create a school not funded or supported by the taxpayers where teachings like “God only supports marriage between a man and a woman” would find complete support from all of the families whose children attend that school, that is your right. But you don’t have the right to insist that your religious viewpoint be taught in public schools.

    Nor, apparently, would you have the right to withdraw your own tax contributions from those public schools in order to educate your own child as you saw fit.

    Comment by JimD — October 21, 2008 @ 10:34 am

27. Blake, please forgive the snarky tone of my comment above, I really do value your opinion.

    Comment by Steven B — October 21, 2008 @ 10:44 am

28. Dang, I meant to say “insight” rather than “opinion.” (I hate being “writing challenged.”)

    Comment by Steven B — October 21, 2008 @ 10:45 am

29. Blake writes,

    Nevertheless, the claim made on this site that no homosexuals have a choice about their orientation is just dead-wrong. The scientific evidence established quite conclusively that there is in fact a continuum and many who have such tendencies can swing either way.

    Yes, and if you just ignore the contradictory scientific evidence, the claims are very conclusive. I suppose the question is, which studies do you favor?

    This is not a helpful argument to those like me who are already confused about “scientific” claims. When scientific results are coopted by society to support one claim or another, then the science that might legitimately have had some significance becomes just as meaningless as the roar of the crowd. My science cancels out your science.

    Blake:
    

    However, there are likely some who have no choice about whether they have tendencies. However, they do have choice about their actions — such a distinction is fundamental to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the failure of this site to even acknowledge that fact is deplorable in my view.

    That kind of argument is truly incontrovertible, and helpful to confused people like me who are trying to make up our minds on these issues.

    Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 21, 2008 @ 10:52 am

30. Full disclosure: I am related to Morris Thurston.

    #18, said: “I have looked into the background of Mr. Thurston. Either he or his supporters among the anti-8 lobby have misrepresented his credentials. He is not a professor at the BYU law school, only an adjunct professor, which means he may teach one class. This is a big difference, and should be borne in mind when considering his credibility.”

    In Morris Thurston’s original “Response to Six Consequences” memo he represented himself as follows:

    “Morris Thurston received his undergraduate degree in political science from BYU and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He recently retired as a senior partner with a global law firm where he specialized in litigation and intellectual property law. He is a legal consultant to the Joseph Smith Papers Project and an adjunct professor at BYU Law School and co-author (with his wife) of the recently-published book “Breath Life into Your Life Story: How to Write a Story People Will Want to Read.” He is an active member of the LDS Church.”

    Morris has never represented himself as a “BYU Professor”. Unfortunately, both the pro-8 and anti-8 lobby has misrepresented him in various ways. He has worked diligently to correct the record on both sides, but once misinformation is “out there” it is difficult to reign in.

    To avoid further confusion, more than 10 days ago Morris had the sentance referencing his involvement with BYU as an adjunct professor and his work with the JSPP removed from the “Response to Six Consequences” memo (and websites that have published the memo) so it would not be used erroneously by either side.

    Politics is dirty business, and both sides are not immune to twisting information and “using” people to score points against the other. Some on the anti-8 side seem to want to position Morris as an “LDS Gay Marriage Crusader”, and some on the pro-8 side are attempting to write him off as a disgruntled apostate. Neither caricature is true.

    His goal from the beginning has been to address the legal arguments for and against Gay Marriage. He has never argued that there aren’t reasons to oppose Gay Marriage, nor has he lobbied for or against the amendment itself. And, contrary to the current press release making the rounds, Morris has never commented on the “Yes on 8 ads”. His public statements since the beginning have almost exclusively been directed towards the misleading legal arguments in the “Six Consequences” memo.

    I credit Blake for having the class to respond to Thurston’s arguments, and not attacking the person.

    Comment by Matt Thurston — October 21, 2008 @ 11:21 am

31. Mark,
    The state does not have the right to intervene to proactively stop religious expression.
    This is a violation of both the free exercise and the free speech statutes of the First Admendment.
    By intervening and making a statement that expressions of Christian views are not allowed the state has set itself up as the enemy of religion, which is not allowed.
    The state can not take the right to ban expressions based on their nature in a public forum. That is a violation of the basic principals of the first admendment.
    To quote Justice Rehnquist “you do not have a right against being bothered in a public forum”. If you dislike the statements and expressions of others that is your problem, but if they are being done by private individuals your disliking them can not be used as grounds to suppress them.
    Your views convince me more than ever that Blake is right and we do not want to see what will happen if Proposition 8 fails.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 21, 2008 @ 11:49 am

32. Matt,
    As I have said from the beganning, if Mr. Thurston does not in fact want to be an opponanent of Proposition 8 and to see it defeated than why has he solely attacked the logic and issues brought up by the Pro-8 lobby?
    He has definantly not put his full effort and resources behind the pro-8 campaign, and despite his insistence that there are legitimate resasons to support 8, and legal consequences to its failure to pass, I have yet to see him explain such.
    If he wants to be percieved as more than a destructive critic who is a close ally of Gavin Newsom he will have to actually put out a piece that explains what he views are the pluses to Proposition 8 and why the church supports it instead of spending his time attacking those who are trying to support it.
    I still stand by my view that he does not understand the situation that religious institutions are in.
    I will state some ideas more forcefully. If the state disbands your activity then they disband your activity. You do not have to appeal it to any court, let alone to every court for the state to have done so. The fact that you were able to carry on an activity with state support for decades and now have the state banning you from doing so means that things are changing, and when it is the end of an adoption service, it means things are changing for the bad.
    I also think it is disengenous of Mr. Thurston to fail to consider that the reason Catholic Charities did not appeal is that their lawyers knew the judicial attitudes in Massachusetts enough to know they had almost no chance of winning.
    I have yet to see any evidence that Mr. Thurston understand the effects of Employment Division v. Smith on all aspects of law dealing with religious issues, or even that he understands that while businesses have an ok record of winning when they take government agencies to court, religious organizations almost always loose, and attempts to invoke religious freedom have a long history of being defeated.
    Pornographic businesses have fared far better in the courts than have religious organizations, and this fact should cause people to pause and consider what types of litigation an action will lead to before they do it.
    Although it is true that the case of the doctor in California did not directly flow from the California Supreme Court’s ruling on same-gender marriage, it did indicate that the court has no judicial restraint.
    It is time for the people of California to reassert their power and pass Proposition 8.
    On the court’s precedents citied, they erred because all the precepdents really dealt with equal treatment based on race. This is a doctrine that was enshrined in the United States constitution by the 14th admendment.
    The problem with interracial marriage is not that it limits a persons ability to marry but that it makes governmental treatement decisions based on race, which is not allowed under the 14th ademendment.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 21, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

33. Blake, can you explain more precisely what you mean by the right to marry being “created ex nihilo” in In Re Marriage Cases? In Perez v. Sharp, a case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws (this was many years before SCTOUS’ Loving), the CA Sup Court also held that marriage was a fundamental right. In fact, In Re Marriage was explicitly based heavily on Perez. Here is a quote from Perez:

    Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means.

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding precisely what you are claiming when you say they newly declared marriage to be a fundamental right.

    Comment by sister blah 2 — October 21, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

34. John #32, I really can’t speak for Morris. I was surprised and saddened by your presumptuous attempt to professionally discredit him in #18, so I tried to set the record straight on at least one of your assertions. Responding point-by-point to your other assumptions in #18 would just legitimize them. Instead, I’ll simply point out the obvious: You cannot possibly know anything about Morris’s legal background, legal areas of expertise, or career at Latham & Watkins, nor can you know how much research and peer review (by both LDS and non-LDS lawyers and scholars) went into the writing of his “Response to Six Consequences”. The document, as well as his two published responses to critiques of his Response (i.e. the Kearl and Duncan critiques) must stand on their own merit. Morris Thurston is not on trial, the legal arguments for and against Prop 8 are on trial. Blake has engaged the arguments, you have engaged the person.

    Comment by Matt Thurston — October 21, 2008 @ 4:44 pm

35. Steven B. “So I’m interested in why you say that the California court created a new “fundamental right” out of nothing.”

    I didn’t take your comment as snarky, but as a legitimate question. None of the precedents cited by the California court treat marriage as a fundamental substantive right that the legislature cannot define. The prior cases, without exception, recognized that the legislature could choose which relationships the State wants to protect and then on equal protection grounds held that similar protections could not be denied. In the In Re Marriage Cases, however, the Court for the first time recognized a substantive right that the legislature could not modify or define otherwise. Moreover, there is nothing in the language of the California Constitution itself to suggest such a substantive and fundamental right. Thus, it was created ex nihilo without textual support and without any real precedent. Interracial marriage cases (that are cited by the court) are not a legitimate precedent because the scope of marriage always remained up to the legislature and protected traditional purposes for marriage to protect children, a supported spouse and to reject a denial of equal protection under the Federal Constitution.

    Brian J. “Suppose you get your wish: the state refuses to recognize marriage at all and instead recognizes only civil unions (of all sorts). How does that not put religious adoption agencies in the same bind as Catholic Charities in Mass?”

    Another really good question. In my view the State can only recognize religious rites for the pragmatic benefit to the state as a civil union. Thus, the religious marriages will be enforced and recognized only as civil unions by the State. In reality, how could the State do anything more? Thus, religious marriages will simply be equivalent to civil unions for the State and will be treated equally.

    I would add that such a view brings civil marriage into alignment with Joseph Smith’s views. Neither the civil government nor other religious bodies can perform a marriage ceremony that is binding. They have no real force as far as the kingdom of God is concerned. They are mere ceremonies — a mere form of godliness.

    That brings up another issue. What do homosexual couples really gain by going thru a marriage ceremony that they didn’t already have with civil unions? Answer: absolutely nothing except the blessing and approval of the State of California. But they “enjoyed” all of the benefits of a sexual relationship(s) without marriage and also without civil unions because they don’t care what the state thinks. The sole purpose of this “marriage” designation is psychological and sociological. They want their unions to be blessed by the State as being morally equivalent in the eyes of the State to heterosexual marriages. I just don’t see that as a legitimate role for government. I also don’t see it as true. The State clearly has a much greater interest in fostering and protecting heterosexual relationships than homosexual relations.

    Frankly, the touting of Mr. Thurston’s bona fides as a Latter-day Saint simply engages in the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. If he actually had experience in Constitutional litigation and how courts interpret statutes in relation to constitutional language I would assess this issue differently because his experience would count for something. However, his presentation seems to me to be thoughtful, informed and presented to engage in good faith dialogue. To that extent, Mr. Thurston’s response ought to be credited.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

36. One more thought…

    John #32 said, “If he wants to be percieved as more than a destructive critic who is a close ally of Gavin Newsom he will have to actually put out a piece that explains what he views are the pluses to Proposition 8 and why the church supports it instead of spending his time attacking those who are trying to support it.”

    You seem eager to push people into good and evil camps — either you are on Thomas Monson’s side, or you are on Gavin Newsom’s side, and you must make your views and allegiances patently clear. For many people (and many Mormons), the arguments for and against Gay Marriage are not so clear cut. The same can be said about both the LDS and non-LDS legal community.

    The church has been unambiguous about its position on Prop 8, but it has also been careful to frame this as a political issue, not an obedience, statement-of-faith, or loyalty-to-the-Church issue.

    Many loyal Mormons are greatly conflicted about Prop 8. Same with Mormon Lawyers. That more have not spoken publicly about their feelings of conflict or opposition to Prop 8 says more about their fear of Scarlet-Letter-like stigmatization from family, friends, and community than their lack of feeling or confidence in their personal, professional, or spiritual views.

    Comment by Matt Thurston — October 21, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

37. Matt Thurston: “That more have not spoken publicly about their feelings of conflict or opposition to Prop 8 says more about their fear of Scarlet-Letter-like stigmatization from family, friends, and community than their lack of feeling or confidence in their personal, professional, or spiritual views.”

    How do you know that?

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

38. Sister Blah: See # 35. Perez v.Sharp was an equal protection case. The legislature had already defined the scope of marriage and the court held that equal protection (the real fundamental right that was discussed) barred different treatment for different races. The traditional purposes of marriages and the State’s ability to recognize which relationships were in the interest of the state to protect remained in the legislative arena.

    In In Re Marriage cases, in contrast, the fundamental right is to marry any other adult that one loves. That clearly was not the holding of Perez v. Sharp. Of course the holding of In Re Marriage Cases is also nonsense since I clearly cannot marry my sister even if I love her and want to marry her. Or can I in California now? I suppose Caligula would have loved such laws.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

39. #37, Personal experience. Most Mormons I’ve spoken to in person and online (numbering in the hundreds) who oppose or are conflicted about Prop 8 self-report such fear. But, hey, maybe its just a coincendence, and all other Mormons who oppose and/or are conflicted about Prop 8 feel no such fear.

    This is largely being framed in many local Calif wards like the “War in Heaven” — either you are on the Lord’s side or you are on Lucifer’s side. In such an environment most Mormons with opposing views on Gay Marriage will remain quiet or mute.

    The same could be said of any minority or unorthodox position.

    Comment by Matt Thurston — October 21, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

40. Matt: I agree that one can disagree with the Church’s stand on Proposition 8 and ought not fear regarding their fellowship. Undoubtedly, issues of trust and loyalty will be defined inter-personally.

    I would add that the kind of hate speech that I see being addressed to loyal members who support the Church in its stand on Prop. 8 is truly deplorable to me. The Church is being called dishonest and those who support and contribute are being called liars, bigots, homophobes and so forth. I suppose it goes both ways. However, I believe that it is imperative to focus on the issues and not the person.

    I do want to say something about the argument that the church ought not impose its views on others. The Church has a vital interest at stake. The issues unquestionably involves issues of morality and particular interests of families and religious organizations in general. When arguments are made that the church ought not be allowed to advocate for such matters, what I believe is really being said is: I want to silence those who disagree with me. The Church has every right and even an obligation to critique society and social mores and prevailing norms and attitudes. Its members have every right to have their voices heard and to have direction and guidance from the church on such issues. The efforts at Mormons for Marriage seem to me to fall beyond the bounds of the kingdom because they call the Church leaders liars, homophobes and disingenuous. They demand that the Church stay our of public life and public issues. Of course they don’t complain when the Church opposes the MX missile or speaks out to protect the environment. I conclude that there is a real concern that the real god of many such folks may well be their own liberal political views.

    One last thing: I haven’t seen any of those who oppose the church’s push on Prop. 8 to actually be willing to say or agree that homosexual conduct is a sin — within a civil union or marriage or not. Yet it seems to me to be the particular role of the Prophet and Church to say what is displeasing to God and will lead to unhappiness and ultimately death and captivity. Perhaps my exposure to such opponents of Prop. 8 is limited. Where do you stand on that particular issue?

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

41. Blake –

    First, with respect to tax exempt status, can you point to any precedent or legal authority that challenged the LDS Church’s tax exempt status during the decades after the enactment of the laws against racial discrimination and Loving v. Virginia when the LDS Church continued to refuse to extend full membership to blacks and barred them from marrying in LDS temples? If you could point to any case law on this issue, it would certainly lend credence to your argument that the Church’s tax exemption would be jeopardized if the Church refused to marry same-sex couples.

    Second, did you know that Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had already placed over a dozen children with gay couples before Catholic Charities declined to renew their contract with the state Department of Social Services in 2006? If Catholic Charities refused to place children with gay couples as part of their contract with DSS, Catholic Charities would have violated state anti-discrimination laws regardless of the 2003 Goodridge decision. The news reports and interviews with people affiliated with Catholic Charities clearly indicate that Catholic Charities refused to participate in Massachusetts adoptions as a political statement against gay marriage.

    Turning to Proposition 8 – Prop 8. will not change the reality that state actors in California cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. Thus, Prop 8 supporters should be attacking these anti-discrimination laws, not whether couples of the same gender can share the same language to describe their committed relationships as heterosexual couples.

    Although the effects of Prop 8 may be uncertain, the events occuring after the the enactment of the civil rights laws and interracial marriage, however, indicate that fears of the “mongrelization” of the races soon blew over and were revealed to be racist propaganda. Likewise, it might take some of us longer than others to accept gay marriage, but considering the U.S. Supreme Court protects the marriage rights of convicted murderers while incarcerated for their crimes and deadbeat parents who divorce and remarry every couple of years and refuse to take care of children they already have, it’s difficult to effectively argue that two consenting adults who happen to share the same gender should be forbidden from making a marriage commitment.

    Comment by ECS — October 21, 2008 @ 6:43 pm

42. I am not opposed to prop 8 but I certainly do not feel nearly as passionate as most LDS that it is necessary. I have a problem telling children that their family “In not as good” which is the message that will be sent if we require teachers to distinguish between types of families. Currently I do not believe schools have any such mandate and this should be reason enough to get parents to volunteer in their kids classrooms. Currently most of the argument for prohibiting same sex marriages are focused on kids in schools. I do think this is a bit of a stretch. This prop does nothing to change the way the kids are taught. There are a lot more arguments on this posting but exposure of children to homosexuality is the key focus of the opposition of SSM. Is there any other issue the church actually speaks out on at this level? Even abortion doesn’t bring out this level of panic in church leadership. Of course there is also no other issue that they have handled as poorly over the last couple of decades either.

    Comment by Bob W — October 21, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

43. ECS — I don’t have to point to anything regarding tax status since holding the LDS priesthood is not deemed to be a fundamental and substantive constitutional right in California and this could not be deemed a basis for denying tax exempt status. However, I have explained how the Bob Jones case could easily be extended in light of SSM which is deemed to be a fundamental constitutional right in California. If you don’t grasp that distinction, then you’ll miss my argument. Really, it isn’t at all far fetched.

    2. The Catholic Charities was not merely protesting gay marriage. That is just so much political rhetoric on your part and those who spout it. Catholic Charities had previously placed children by placing them with other agencies who placed them with gay couples. It ceased to operate in Mass. because it had to follow the dictates of the Mass. Sup. Court about placing children with gay couples — which it deemed to be inconsistent with its religious mission. Opponents of Prop. 8 consistently downplay the serious consequences of a State dictating to a religious agency what kinds of relationships it must deem to be equivalent to heterosexual marriage and who they can and cannot place children with. It is a very serious issue and it is clear that because having children is also deemed to be a fundamental right for any two people who love each other in California that denial of this so called “right” is a basis for denying licensing just as California did in the North Coast Womens’ Care case. The case is very troubling because the writing is more or less on the wall with respect to this issue — I deem it to be quite likely that California will deny licensing to any adoption agency or service that denies adoptions to same sex couples — and that includes LDSFS.

    You are simply misinformed about the effect of Proposition 8. If it passes, the very broad California anti-discrimination laws will have to be read in a light that makes them consistent with Prop. 8 and not the other way around as you assume. Thus, it will have a profound effect.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

44. Blake,
    I appreciate the thoughtful analysis that you have given this issue, and I hope that we can resume the fruitful conversation we had back at FPR (http://faithpromotingrumor.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/children-and-ssm-an-analysis-of-the-divine-institution-of-marriage/). I have read the Thurston piece as well as yours. The summary of my comments below is that you don’t seem to grapple with the fundamental claim that Thurston is making, namely, that the legal consequences described are actually the result of status quo non-discrimination laws, and SSM does nothing to change that. Additionally, Thurston’s piece suggests the extreme unlikelihood of these sorts of consequences. Your analysis only ever points to such things as lie within a realm of possibility, but not probability. Yes, these arguments could be made, but you don’t analyze the counter-arguments, such as free-exercize and other historical protections given to religious groups. Without this analysis, your scenarios remain in the same place that Thurston left them, as improbable.
    I emphasize that I really am willing to understand this issue, and I hope that we can have a productive discussion as your time permits.

    1. “Any student who expressed opinions regarding the distinction, for instance that that homosexual conduct is sinful, could possibly be regarded by a school district as engaging in hate speech. What is to stop that kind of inference? Does the law mandate that it be so treated? Of course not — but it leaves such responses as an open possibility.”

    Again, it seems that since homosexual conduct is legal in the status quo, the expression of opinions about its moral value are already subject to the kind of legal scrutiny that you have described. Personally, I have a problem with teachers being given the latitude to make moral judgments about any kind of marital or sexual relationship, and I don’t believe that this is permitted in the status quo anyway. For instance, even abstinence education is based on secular arguments about STDs and pregnancy, not because it is morally superior. It is not clear to me from your analysis that when teachers are “prohibited” from making moral distinctions between the different kinds of sexual and marital relationships of their students’ parents would be decided on the basis of SSM legalization. Rather, it seems to follow from status quo hate-speech laws, as you yourself suggest. Why do you see SSM as altering existing hate speech laws that are designed protect homosexual students or the children of homosexuals in high schools? Finally, why would this be uniquely the case under SSM as opposed to the domestic partnerships that would continue to exist in CA if Prop 8 passed?

    2. You cite Bob Jones as evidence that if the church doesn’t perform SSM they may lose their tax status. I have two questions that carry over from our previous discussion. First, why should I value my church’s tax status over the happiness of homosexual couples? What is the moral calculus here that should make me decide that the tax status of my church is more important than the legal and social benefits of marriage for homosexual couples and their families? Second, even if your analysis is correct on the possibility of such a case being made, I wonder if you think it is likely? That is, given that such a case would have to be leveled against most of the religious denominations, including the Catholic Church, do you really see such a case a realistically passing? Third, why isn’t the church subject to these laws in the status quo? We are allowed to deny marriage to anyone who doesn’t meet the moral requirements that we have established now, including people who have engaged in the perfectly legal behavior of pre-marital groping. Why isn’t this considered a denial of a “fundamental right”? Shouldn’t these heterosexuals be able to sue under the Bob Jones logic for discrimination? What about Catholics who won’t marry divorced people? It seems to me that the long standing freedom of religions has been to set the standards for what kind of marriages it performs in its private religious spaces and ceremonies. You suggest that denying marriage to someone is a denial of a fundamental right, but we get to deny heterosexual marriages, as do all religious groups, all the time.

    3. You suggest that religious groups might be “denied the right to originate adoptions.” On what basis is this a “right”? There is nothing at all in our scriptures that suggests that performing adoptions is necessary to our religion so that it would be considered a part of free exercise. Again, while I think that the scenario in which religious groups who want to discriminate against homosexuals is possible, I don’t find it likely, Catholic Charities notwithstanding. You say “there is a very real concern that California would interpret its law much like Mass. thus forcing a legal showdown,” but there is no Mass. interpretation since this case didn’t go to court, nor was a suit ever even filed. The truth is that no one really knows why they chose to leave MA. Perhaps there will be a legal case in the future, but as it stands there is only speculation about what the courts would decide, not facts. My suspicion is that there are lots of strong reasons why LDSFS would be allowed to continue to perform adoptions, not least because they don’t actual discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of Church membership. Further, I am not sure of the legal reasoning that you are offering. In cases where homosexual individuals are allowed to adopt, the basis for such a state of affairs is in fact equal protection. You assert that the equal protection case would be stronger under SSM. but I don’t see why. First of all, because the discrimination taking place is on the basis of sexual orientation, not marriage, so I don’t see why marriage changes that. Second, why doesn’t the domestic partnership laws before SSM was legalized in CA create the exact same equal protection problem?

    Nevertheless, I don’t see why you see this “right” to perform adoptions as being more fundamental that the “right” to marry. If you are going to suggest that marriage is not actually a “fundamental right,” I think you have a lot of theorizing to do to explain why performing adoptions is.

    In the midst of this discussion, you claim “the State has a much greater interest in fostering and protecting heterosexual relations and natural reproduction.” As per our previous discussion, can you please explain why these two kinds of marriage are in competition, such that when the state legalizes one kind of marriage that it necessarily constitutes a diminishing of another kind? Currently, it is legal for pedophiles, murderers, old people, and December-May couples to marry, but I don’t see the state’s legalization of such relationships to constitute a decreased interest in marriages such as my own. Of course the state has an interest in the kinds of marriages you describe, but these aren’t the only marriages it allows in the status quo, nor does its support of marriages that don’t meet this standard form a discouragement of marriages that do.

    4. Your fourth point about university housing suffers from the same weakness of analysis as the previous points. That is, while you demonstrate that it is not outside of the realm of possibility, you offer no evidence for its probability, and you fail to acknowledge evidence that counters your claim. Since BYU can deny housing to all kinds of law-abiding people who nevertheless do not meet certain religious requirements, it is not clear why that would change just because SSM is legal.

    5. Fine.

    6. You suggest that there will be a “tax-payer burden for benefits for room-mates.” Well, we all know that heterosexual “roommate” marriages do occur in the status quo, and I am not aware that they constitute a significant tax burden. Ultimately, I think this is a non-issue. SSM is legal in plenty of places and we can look to those places for empirical evidence to determine if roommates are abusing the system. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that such a problem is even a minimal concern in any place, and certainly not a financial burden on tax payers.

    Can you explain what your analysis of homosexual tendencies has to do with anything relevant to the legal or moral issues at stake here? Even if you are right that choice is at the heart of homosexual behavior, why should individuals who can legally chose to engage in homosexual relationships be denied the choice to marry those whom the choose?

    Finally, you offer a third alternative to the status quo choice between Prop 8 and SSM: “in a world where folks are properly informed the institution of marriage will be seen as solely a religious rite.” Since this isn’t actually real choice available to us, and isn’t likely to be a politically viable one any time soon, let’s focus the analysis on the actual options we have before us.

    Comment by TT — October 21, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

45. TT: “the legal consequences described are actually the result of status quo non-discrimination laws, and SSM does nothing to change that.”

    You must not have read carefully what I have explained. The fact that Prop. 8 passes has a profound effect because the anti-discrimination laws will have to be read to be consistent with Prop. 8 and not the other way around. Being a change to the State constitution, it is a more fundamental law than any of these statutes. In fact, this is just the most egregious mistake in Thurston’s analysis — and now in yours.

    TT: “First, why should I value my church’s tax status over the happiness of homosexual couples?”

    What makes you think that SSM makes homosexuals happy? More importantly, I don’t want my Church’s stance to become second class speech or regulated in any way by the State. Further, it furthers the kingdom to have agencies and congtributions that are tax exempt. The cost to the Church from losing tax exempt status would be enormous. Now you may believe that we are not taxed enough — to that I say I vehemently disagree.

    So let me ask: why should my Church have to give us tax exempt status so that homosexuals can have the state bless their union? Why should the state bless their union? Why would marriage even make a difference to them given the protections they already had under existing laws?

    TT: “but there is no Mass. interpretation since this case didn’t go to court, nor was a suit ever even filed.”

    You’re just mistaken about this. There was no case, but the state of Mass. interpreted its laws and applied them such that Catholic charities either had to grant adoptions equally to all gay couples or shut down. That is quite an interpretation and what ultimately forced the shut down.

    TT: “Nevertheless, I don’t see why you see this “right” to perform adoptions as being more fundamental that the “right” to marry.”

    Because there is no right to marry that wasn’t just made up by the CA court. Further, it is not merely the right to marry, but the right of homosexuals to marry one another that is at issue. Why should the state grant such a right? In my view, the CA court is asking the wrong question and addressing the wrong issue. The real issue is: Does the state have an interest in protecting and fostering these kinds of relationships in the same way that it has for heterosexual relationships. I say definitely not.

    TT: “our fourth point about university housing suffers from the same weakness of analysis as the previous points. That is, while you demonstrate that it is not outside of the realm of possibility, you offer no evidence for its probability, and you fail to acknowledge evidence that counters your claim. Since BYU can deny housing to all kinds of law-abiding people who nevertheless do not meet certain religious requirements, it is not clear why that would change just because SSM is legal.”

    Well, perhaps you missed that BYU isn’t in CA? Further, you must have missed my discussion. I stated that the issue isn’t religious schools but the kinds of relationships that students in housing at state sponsored university must agree to. Presently men and women and heterosexual and homosexuals are all housed together. Will Prop. 8 change that? I don’t know — but the fact is that universities cannot discriminate based on gender or orientation, including housing arrangements, in CA and that would likely change if Prop. 8 passes because these statutes will be read in light of Prop. 8.

    Finally, you just missed issue 6. The issue is the significant cost to litigants who must defend their practices if Prop. 8 doesn’t pass. That has nothing to do with phony same sex marriages — tho I add that there won’t be any phony same sex marriages if Prop. 8.

    TT: “an you explain what your analysis of homosexual tendencies has to do with anything relevant to the legal or moral issues at stake here? Even if you are right that choice is at the heart of homosexual behavior, why should individuals who can legally chose to engage in homosexual relationships be denied the choice to marry those whom the choose?”

    I’m of course responding to an argument: since homosexuals have no choice but to be homosexual, we should allow them to marry. That isn’t true for all who have same sex attraction issues and we cannot assume a one size fits all mentality with respect to such issues. So I’m ppointing out that such an argument made at the Mormons for Marriage web site is bogus. That is what it has to do with it.

    TT: “Finally, you offer a third alternative to the status quo choice between Prop 8 and SSM: “in a world where folks are properly informed the institution of marriage will be seen as solely a religious rite.” Since this isn’t actually real choice available to us, and isn’t likely to be a politically viable one any time soon, let’s focus the analysis on the actual options we have before us.”

    BS. Two wrongs don’t make one right. Let’s get the analysis correct now and we won’t get into deeper doo doo later when the issue gets addressed. It is an important alternative plan to solve the issue that actually resolves it fairly, avoids the obvious entanglement of government in mimicking religious rites and it just happens to neatly solve the problem altogether. I say let’s focus on it.

    So a few questions for you: what additional protections are given to homosexuals that they didn’t already have?

    Do you see it as a legitimate role of government to give its blessing to SSM as equivalent to heterosexual marriages?

    Do you believe that the state has as much interest in protecting and promoting SSM as it does heterosexual marriages?

    Do you believe that prophetic warnings just may point us to problems that we didn’t foresee?

    Do you believe that homosexual conduct is a sin or displeasing to God?

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 8:32 pm

46. Blake,

    What prophetic warning?

    Comment by Bob W — October 21, 2008 @ 8:51 pm

47. “We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

    Comment by Kent (MC) — October 21, 2008 @ 8:55 pm

48. Blake please do not just refer to the weak statement on LDS.org. The statement doesn’t even come close to saying anything of any value for what would happen if gay marriages occur.

    Comment by Bob W — October 21, 2008 @ 9:05 pm

49. Bob W. I didn’t write # 47. However, I disagree with you. It addresses it clearly. Let those who have ears listen with them.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 9:17 pm

50. Sorry Kent, but SSM has nothing to do with the disintegration of the family. I know that many people like to scapegoat gays and lesbians for the problems that modern society faces, but honestly, SSM strengthens families. It helps provide legal protections and stability to families.

    Comment by Steven B — October 21, 2008 @ 9:21 pm

51. Blake, what activity is the “homosexual conduct” that you refer to as a sin within a marriage of a same sex pair in jurisdictions where they are legally married (e.g., California)?

    I’m asking you because you observed, “I haven’t seen any of those who oppose the church’s push on Prop. 8 to actually be willing to say or agree that homosexual conduct is a sin — within a civil union or marriage or not.” So, where do you come by your understanding of what homosexual activity is and that whatever homosexual conduct is, it is a sin?

    Can you conceive of a heterosexual marriage where the spouses do not engage in any of the “homosexual or heterosexual activity” you have in mind? How about a same-sex “marriage” between a couple that doesn’t engage in “homosexual conduct?” Would your position about the extension of marriage change in such an instance?

    Are you saying that marriage must be by definition heterosexual or is it somehow related to the notion of “activity”?

    Thanks.

    Comment by Walt — October 21, 2008 @ 10:04 pm

52. I served as a state trial judge for 22+ years. I have carefully read the statements of Thurston and Blake concerning the six consequences of the Prop. 8 question. If I was a client with a constitutional question or faced litigation on a case involving a constitution question of the law there is no doubt that I would go to Blake. Thurston is basically giving his personal prophecy of the future. Blake gives a very articulated risk assessment based on legal precedence.

    In reading the “comments” on this site and others that have addressed this controversy I am convinced that most do not understand what Blake says or choose not to understand because they don’t agree. If Thurston had not identified himself as counsel for a Mormon Church project, as an adjunct professor at BYU Law School and as an active member of the LDS Church, his statement would not have drawn the attention of the anti-Prop 8 crowd. There are others out there that have better legal scholarship on his side of the controversy. His “brief” tells me that he doesn’t agree with his Church leaders but he doesn’t announce that position. You know where Blake is coming from. From my stand point Blake has the better legal argument. But alas, this matter is primarily being decided on an emotion basis not necessarily on legal logic.

    Comment by Paul — October 21, 2008 @ 10:33 pm

53. Walt: I’m saying that I think the real difference between those LDS who oppose Prop. 8 and support SSM and those who support Prop. 8 and oppose SSM is twofold: (1) we see the risk of SSM differently. For example, I believe that it is very likely that LDSFS will not be licensed given the fundamental nature of the supposed right to have children and define a family any way two people want to in CA. It is a simple analysis that LDSFS will violate that right, that it depends on licensing from the State and any organization that will not treat gay marriage equally will not be licensed. (2) Those who oppose Prop. 8 and the Church’s stance also have a religious difference. They don’t believe that prophets when they say homosexual conduct (not mere orientation or tendencies) is sinful and contrary to God’s will. The fact that homosexual activity is sinful doesn’t change merely because the state sanctions it.

    Not once when I have asked those who oppose Prop. 8 whether they believe that homosexual conduct is a sin has anyone affirmed that it is. This consideration has no place in the legal analysis of whether Prop. 8 should be passed. However, it does have a great deal to do with why some members don’t support the church’s position on it. They don’t accept the Church’s position that homosexual conduct is sinful or contrary to God’s will.

    Having said that, I believe that stable gay relationships are morally superior to promiscuous ones. Will SSM stabilize such relationships more than they otherwise would be. I cannot see any reason to believe that. There is no evidence that I have seen to support — tho I would like to believe that a ceremony somehow makes a difference.

    Why do homosexual couples want the designation of marriage in addition to civil unions? I suggest once again that it is because they want the State to sanction and bless their relationship as being as valuable to the perpetuation of the state as heterosexual relationships and morally on par with them. I don’t believe that either is the case. I don’t see that being a legitimate role of government.

    Let me emphasize again, however, that we have a duty to go out of our way to accept and support those who have same sex attractions and who have chosen to live in homosexual relationships. We have a sacred duty to love them as we love ourselves, to accept them and recognize their inherent worth and dignity. They are just as much children of God, just as entitled to human dignity and respect as heterosexuals. That doesn’t entail that active homosexual relations are not sinful. Nevertheless, we all sin. It is not an excuse to judge.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 11:00 pm

54. Walt: “How about a same-sex “marriage” between a couple that doesn’t engage in “homosexual conduct?” Would your position about the extension of marriage change in such an instance?”

    If a same sex “couple” does not engage in sexual activity, but merely share a common dwelling, then I don’t see how they are different than room mates. Let’s say that they love and support each other. How are they still anything more than sharing a common dwelling and caring for each other? Are they then engaging in sinful conduct? Of course not. Engaging in homosexual sex is the conduct at issue. However, I don’t see any reason that my analysis of SSM would change. Marriage is a sacred religious rite performed by religions. The state has no authority to do anything more than a civil ceremony to create a civil union for either a heterosexual or homosexual couple in my view. The state may call such a civil union a “marriage,” but it ain’t. It remains merely a civil union because states can only perform civil ceremonies having a civil function and authority. Calling it marriage doesn’t change what it is given that the fact that the state simply doesn’t have the authority to do anything more than a civil ceremony. You can call a VW bug a Ferrari if you want — but it will not be a Ferrari. So what is gained if we insist that we have a VW bug but we want it to be called a Ferrari because we believe our car is as sexy and fast and powerful as a Ferrari? That is like what is happening here. SSM is just a civil union although the state of California will now insist on calling it a marriage. There are no additional rights, no additional protections — but we then open Pandora’s box with the downside of recognizing a fundamental right to count such unions as being a marriage in the eyes of the state.

    Comment by Blake — October 21, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

55. Blake: I think that your rhetorical slope is slick. Your argument is one of mostly wordsmithing semantics that ultimately leads to the detriment of a certain class of couples. If you support civil unions outside of marriage for any couple, but the term “marriage” should only be conferred by a house of worship, then it seems like the wrong proposition is on the ballot for you. There should be a proposition to end the state sponsorship of marriage while seperately retaining civil-union rights. However the way the proposition is written the rights of certain couples to marriage AND their civil-union rights (since there isnt an alternative establishment of civil-union rights in CA) are eradicated.

    The solution to ending the state’s right to grant a marriage (of any kind) is not to single out SSM for exclusion. In effect, this proposition only serves to limit the rights of homosexuals. It doesn’t make sense to punish SSM because the concept of state-sanctioned marriages is flawed in your eyes.

    While you seem to have a fairly enlightened view of homosexuals, it is clear that many of the proponents of Propostion 8 have an anti-gay agenda.

    Comment by Jeremy — October 22, 2008 @ 12:59 am

56. Blake, “Mr. Thurston: I have read your document responding to the Church’s 12 points.”

    Where is this document available?

    The only document of Mr. Thurston’s I am aware of is the 8 page “A Commentory on the Document ‘Six Consequences … if Proposition 8 Fails’”.

    In that document Mr. Thurston attacks ‘an anonymously authored document titled ‘Six Consequences…’ I am unaware of any document by Mr. Thurston where he attacks any document produced and distributed by the Church through the authorized channels. I would very much like to read this document you reference about the Church’s 12 points.

    Thanks.

    Comment by sunnankar — October 22, 2008 @ 3:00 am

57. Paul,
    If this is so, can we scrounge up a good counter argument to Blake? I kind of feel that we don’t have a solid argument against Prop 8 so we can see both sides equally. Even though Blake keeps more emotion out, it is clear where his ‘allegiance’ lies. There are a lot of faithful saints on both sides of the issue that don’t have all this stuff as clear as Paul seems to have it. I haven’t been only ankle deep in all of this and my head is spinning.
    I do feel that I have to thank everyone on both sides that attempt to understand and attempt to clarify.

    Comment by dallske — October 22, 2008 @ 4:15 am

58. Paul,

    In your “comment” you opine that “Thurston is basically giving his personal prophecy of the future” and then proceed to describe your own alternate reality:

    If Thurston had not identified himself as counsel for a Mormon Church project, as an adjunct professor at BYU Law School and as an active member of the LDS Church, his statement would not have drawn the attention of the anti-Prop 8 crowd.

    I wonder what I would have thought about your prophecies had you not identified yourself as a “a state trial judge for 22+ years.”

    Comment by Peter LLC — October 22, 2008 @ 4:49 am

59. To sister blah 2,
    You ignore the fact that Perez v. Sharp, the case you sight, relies on the 14th admendment. There is no equivalent admendment that bans distinctions based on gender, so there is no grounds for finding such distinctions in violation of the constitution.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 22, 2008 @ 5:11 am

60. To Matt,
    I can know what Mr. Thurston did in Orange County because it is posted that he dealt with property law.
    I am a firm believer in the usefulness and efficacy of intelectual history. People reflect their background and experiences in their writting, and so we seek to find out their background and experiences to better understand their writting.
    Mr. Thurston has been put forward as an expert witness against Proposition 8, so it is material if he has any experience in issues of education law, family law or religious freedom issues.
    In fact, you misidentify the burden. It is him and his supporters who have to prove that he has any background in these fields, and I have yet to see one shred of evidence that he has adequate experience in any of these fields or any understanding of what the effects of Employment Division v. Smith are.
    On the other hand Brother Ostler is a constitutional lawyer who has in fact done work for LDS Family Services, so he has credentials in related fields, something that I still have not seen any indication that Mr. Thurston has.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 22, 2008 @ 5:16 am

61. To ECS,
    Your Loving v. Virginia analogy is based on ill-reasoned allusions. Loving v. Virginia banned laws against inter-racial marriage, but since the church policies on people of African-descent marrying in the temple were not at all influenced by the race of their spouse, the issue was not brought to the fore.
    On the issue of “mongrelization of the races” I think you misinterpret the events of the last 40 years.
    If you view people having mixed African, Native American, Asian, Latin American, Pacific Islander and European ancestries as a bad thing, which I do not but some admitedly do, than the mongrelization of the races is a process happening.
    I served in a ward on my mission in Las Vegas where there were about five couples where the husband was of African descent and the wife was of European descent. Unfortunantly in only two of these cases was the husband a member of the church. In my stake here in Michigan one of the members of our high council is a man of African descent whose wife is of European descent. My favorite example is Sister Wozniak, who is of African descent but whose last name betrays her husband’s Polish ancestry. There are at least three more couples in my stake and was another one that moved to Tennessee, plus the case of our stake president’s daughter and her husband who is as yet not a member of the church. I can think of at least three people of such mixed heritage I knew at BYU.
    If we take racists at face value, we would also have to speak of the many marriages with people of Asians descent, and I probably could think of at least three times as many people I have known who illustrate that issue.
    To Matt,
    If you want to speak out against the teachings of the prophet do not expect us to sit by and say nothing. I will not apologize for speaking strongly on the issue. The First Presidency asked us to put forward our best efforts, and this in no way indicates to me that they feel this is an uninportant issue.
    Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. If we do not promote good values and follow the commandement we bring upon ourselves the judgements of God.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 22, 2008 @ 5:39 am

62. Blake –

    Bob Jones held that college and universities could not refuse admission to interracial couples. Under any reasonable (and most unreasonable) interpretation, Bob Jones is distinguishable from the case of _churches_ refusing admission to their sacred spaces based on sexual orientation. If Bob Jones provided such a slippery slope, why haven’t non-LDS plaintiffs successfully sued for the LDS Church to perform their marriages in the LDS temple?

    I think your interpretation of the Catholic Charities experience in Massachusetts is misleading and factually incorrect.

    But, most importantly, let’s turn to Zablocki and Turner. These are the U.S. Supreme Court cases I alluded to in my previous comment which struck down legislative prohibitions in Wisconsin and Missouri preventing deadbeat parents and incarcerated criminals from marrying. If you were sitting on the bench, how would you distinguish legislative restrictions on prisoners and deadbeat parents marrying from legislative restrictions on same-sex couples from marrying?

    In other words, why is sexual orientation a complete bar to marriage whereas being convicted of and incarcerated for a violent crime is not?

    Comment by ECS — October 22, 2008 @ 5:44 am

63. To TT,
    I think your argument about the happiness of homosexual couples needs to be placed in the context of the real situation in California.
    If Proposition 8 passes, homosexuals can still enter into civil unions. So there is no obvious reason that their happiness will decrease.
    However, if you are a Latter-day Saint, I think you need to spend more time reading the scriptures and less time elsewhere, for you do not understand them.
    Wickedness never was happiness, and homosexuals will not find happiness in either civil unions or same-sex marriage. Homosexual actions are wicked and will never lead to happiness.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 22, 2008 @ 5:47 am

64. To Walt,
    To any believing Latter-day Saint who understands the law of chastity, homosexual activity is sinful whether it has the cloak of law or not.
    Only sexual relitions between a man and a woman legally and lawfully wedded are allowed by the Lord. Anything else is a violation of the law of chastity.
    Unless you start from this premise, you are not discussing the issue from a Latter-day Saint prospective, and all protestations of being an active Latter-day Saint are meaningless, while those of being a temple recomend holder are even less wise.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 22, 2008 @ 5:59 am

65. ECS: I have explained how the Bob Jones precedent is easily extended to protect the fundamental right recognized in CA at present for homosexuals to marry each other. Further, you just refuse to engage my argument. I argued that Bob Jones would extended, not that it is square on with SSM cases. However, it is not at all difficult to see how the reasoning could be adopted, and in fact likely will urged, to deny tax exemption to LDSFS because it will not treat gay adoption the same as straight adoptions. Time to focus on the argument rather than merely state the obvious, i.e., Bob Jones hasn’t yet been extended.

    ECS: “In other words, why is sexual orientation a complete bar to marriage whereas being convicted of and incarcerated for a violent crime is not? ”

    For one thing, many violent criminals have already fostered children the good old fashioned way and we want to protect those children the best that we can. Moreover, our system doesn’t permanently sentence criminals but seeks to reform — yes, even for violent criminals (and especially for them) we are still aiming at changing behavior and making them productive members of society. However, SSM marriage is not the same at all. The question is the interest of the state in fostering and protecting such relationships. That can be done just as well thru civil unions.

    Now just one person explain to me what rights and privileges homosexuals will gain if they are allowed to marry that they didn’t have under the broad CA civil union statutes. Really, this is getting beyond ridiculous. I ask and ask and all of you supporters of SSM just ignore this most vital question. Come on ECS, explain it to me.

    Comment by Blake — October 22, 2008 @ 6:12 am

66. Now just one person explain to me what rights and privileges homosexuals will gain if they are allowed to marry that they didn’t have under the broad CA civil union statutes. Really, this is getting beyond ridiculous. I ask and ask and all of you supporters of SSM just ignore this most vital question.

    Unless you can identify anything concrete, I believe that we have a very strong argument that what is really at issue is an attempt to get the State to bless, promote and condone homosexual unions. That isn’t a proper role for the courts, for the government or for states as I see it. In fact, even suggesting that what is at issue is really just a change of name from “civil union” to “marriage” (as the CA Supreme Court seems to acknowledge!) shows that there is nothing real lost when Proposition 8 passes and a great deal to be gained because we can avoid the kinds of legal entanglements and problems that arise with recognizing same sex “marriage” as a fundamental constitutional right.

    Comment by Blake — October 22, 2008 @ 6:28 am

67. To ECS,
    Actually, a homosexual man has just as much right to marry as a man who is in prison on an armed robber charge.
    The law does not in any way deal with the sexual orientation or sexual activity of the person entering the marriage, it merely requires the two people getting married to be of different genders. No one is barred from marrying because of sexual orientation.
    You can argue this is hypothetical, and it will be hard for practicing homosexuals to find woman who will marry them. However, I suspect having a criminal record also decreases someones chances of marriage.
    Whatever marriage is, it is only recognized and not forced by the state, so anyone who is of age and mentally competent can marry. In fact, it is not entirely clear how strictly enforced the latter is, but that is not the issue.
    This debate is not about who can marry but about what a marriage is. As such it is about what the state will give its proactive approval to.

    Comment by John Pack Lambert — October 22, 2008 @ 6:40 am

68. Blake – I’m still not convinced that the legalization of gay marriage rather than anti-discrimination laws jeopardizes the tax exemption. Of course, parties may cite to Bob Jones in support of their arguments, but Bob Jones doesn’t do the work here that you think it does.

    I disagree with your analysis of Turner. First, the state’s interest in protecting children from repeat offenders who are child rapists should certainly outweigh the child rapist’s right to associate with his or her children. Should the child rapist be given the benefit of the doubt - and the opportunity to abuse his children - simply because his children were conceived within a marital relationship?

    Second, the U.S. Supreme Court, however, did not distinguish between child rapists and, say, carjackers, or between repeat offenders and prisoners who are fully rehabilitated. Perhaps child rapists should have been granted the right to form civil unions instead of the right to marry, but, thanks to Turner, that ship has already sailed, my friend.

    Your final question is a good one, and has been answered succinctly by a commentator on the recent Connecticut decision legalizing same-sex marriage:

    In order to argue that Connecticut’s civil union law did not discriminate against gays and lesbians, lawyers for the defendants were forced to contend that civil unions are basically the same as marriage. The majority opinion summarized their argument this way: “[T]hey asserted that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that they have suffered any harm as a result of the statutory bar against same sex marriage because, under the civil union law, gay persons are entitled to all of the rights that married couples enjoy.” Logic like this puts gay marriage opponents in the odd position of devaluing the institution of marriage. Marriage, they end up arguing, is nothing so special that it can’t be replicated by a parallel institution–in this case, civil unions. Yet the entire point of creating civil unions is to preserve what is allegedly special about the institution of marriage. There is a pretty blatant contradiction here. Either there is something special about the label “marriage” or there isn’t.

    Likewise, it make no sense to argue, on the one hand, that civil unions are indistinguishable from marriage, and then to argue, on the other hand, that the word “marriage” signifies a unique relationship from which homosexuals should be excluded.

    Comment by ECS — October 22, 2008 @ 7:14 am

69. Blake,
    I understand that you are agitated by perceived questions to your self-described authority on these issues, and I get why you are impatient. Personally, I only chose to engage you again because I saw you as a relatively reasonable interlocutor (with a few minor lapses). If my continued discussion with you brings out your rude side as it seems to have in your response to me in 45, then let’s both just drop it. In a good faith effort, I would like to continue the discussion, however.

    I think that we can perhaps agree to disagree on a few key issues. First, I just don’t think that there is any reason that religious organ