[Rian]

Oh, and KT, as a hypothetical, I'm curious...does denying someone with Down's syndrome the ability to obtain a driver's license and operate a motor vehicle also count as not treating them as an equal citizen?  Or denying a convicted felon the right to vote?  Or making any of the other numerous distinctions between citizens that the government does on a daily basis, for a variety of reasons?  I'm dying to know.

You realize that these analogies are absurd, right?

In the first case, the person with Down Syndrome would be denied a license for the sole reason that his or her operation of a motor vehicle would pose a threat to other drivers. Like it or not, a gay person's marriage poses no threat to anyone else's safety or rights. Your marriage is no less valid if your neighbor gets married too, whether he marries a man or a woman.

In the second case, the felon has violated the social contract and in that way forfeit some of his or her rights as a citizen. Gay people, in general, have not done anything wrong, and if they have it generally has nothing to do with their choice of partners.

A marriage between two men or two women will not affect your life in any way. It does not infringe on your rights. They have not done anything to deserve your infringing on theirs.

[Mongoose]

Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).

As incredulous as some might be at me saying this, I honestly think I'd be all for an initiative to get government out of the "marriage" business completely.  Call them "civil unions," call them "legal partnerships," call them what have you, but create some arrangement where any two people, no matter what relationship they share, could enjoy the legal benefits that married couples enjoy today, such as inheriting property and carrying power of attorney.  Leave the designation of "marriage" to whatever any individual religious institution decides to limit it to.  That way, everyone gets a fair playing field in the legal sense, individual faiths are able to practice their beliefs without angering a certain segment of the population, and society as a whole doesn't get alternative conventions thrust into its face by force of law.

Like NGTM-1R said, and it's a point I sorely should have made instead of responding to insults with sarcasm, the institution known as "marriage" isn't some legal construct that sprang into being with the authorship of the constitution of any particular country.  It's a societal construct founded primarily on religious ceremony that's been practiced for thousands of years across almost every human society, and even when it extended to polygamy, its driving purpose was generally the establishment of family units and rearing of children.  What particularly incenses myself, and I'm sure many others, about the recent gay marriage movement is that it completely turns a blind eye to those millennia of history, willing to brush it aside as inconsequential, even as they attempt to fundamentally alter the avenue which gives it meaning.  If members of the movement are honestly surprised at the hostility generated against it, perhaps they'd do well to take a look at that history and understand why the institution in its current form is so important to so many.

Edit: Gah, rapid-fire posting.

You realize that these analogies are absurd, right?

...

A marriage between two men or two women will not affect your life in any way. It does not infringe on your rights. They have not done anything to deserve your infringing on theirs.

I know that my examples didn't apply to gay marriage in terms of why those specific restrictions are applied, but my point to KT was that double standards between how two different people are treated do exist in the legal sense, which he seemed to be denying with his "equal citizens" speech.  In fact, the judicial review principle of "strict scrutiny" usually applies in such cases, determining what compelling interests are served by applying said restrictions and ensuring that they are as narrow as possible.

And while the principle of same-sex marriage does not harm me personally or affect my ability to marry someone of the opposite gender, I do view it as harming those thousands of years of societal precedence, if for no other reason than its complete disregard for said precedence.  When someone gets in my face and screams, "We're doing it this way now, just because," while ignoring why it has been done a certain way for so long, my reaction tends to be to yell, "No," just as loudly back at them.

[General Battuta]

Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*

Aside from that absurdity, though, I'm impressed by your levelheadedness.

EDIT: Just read this choice bit.

These people are not defective, and, unfortunately, it's still hateful and homophobic to say that they are. It would be even if scientific evidence didn't point to something much more complicated and interesting that may even favor homosexuality.

Y'know, this is what I love about this whole debate.  I state an opinion, and I get called a bigot.  I provide my reasoning for said opinion, and I get called a bigot.  I could do twenty hours of research on human sexuality, social structures, psychology, whatever, come back and write a ten-page dissertation on my opinion...and I'd be called a bigot.  Clearly, if I am not entirely in lock-step with your own opinions, I'm the very definition of evil, someone who loathes his fellow human beings based on a single condition.

You know what, **** it.  I'm out.  Y'all enjoy your circle-jerk here, but I'll be jerking it somewhere else.

Don't be an absolutist. No one called you the very definition of evil. You're promoting a martyrdom complex as a defensive affect reaction. I simply told you were bigoted. As KT pointed out, 'bigot' is a descriptor, not a deprecation. Everyone's bigoted to some degree. Opinions can be more bigoted than the people who spout them.

You're being called a bigot because you're being bigoted. You came back with incomplete and misunderstood scientific support, which was also bigoted. You haven't done anything to not be bigoted yet.

If you went and did research as thoroughly as you say, you'd probably start coming around to our view (though it'd likely take twenty months or years instead of hours.)

[iamzack]

Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*

Nobody needs a contract to be in love.

[General Battuta]

Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*

Nobody needs a contract to be in love.

What? I was poking fun at Mongoose's assertion that gay people are ignoring the history of marriage as a way to create and protect families.

[Mongoose]

Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*

The issue of starting families opens up a whole other can of worms, given what research shows on the presence of both male and female role models impacting childhood development, but I think the marriage topic in and of itself is far more than enough for one thread.

[NGTM-1R]

Okay, well, first of all, here in America, majority does not get to do whatever the **** it wants to the minorities. What if a racist majority decided interracial marriage should "be called something else" because it's "just not natural" and "majority rules."

Here in California, because of the way we've constructed our governmental system, the majority does get to do whatever the **** it wants to minorities. Now I'm pretty sure you don't live here, or just slept through your government classes, so you should probably do some research on how the proposition system works before continuing this argument.

The state budget crisis is a broader example of this in action; we've voted in via the same system used for Prop 8 too many things whose funds are earmarked regardless of surplus or which present extra drain on the treasury that cannot be controlled that we're now going to end up screwing many, many minorities because we have to cut their services.

This is the system. These are the rules. They were not well-concieved.

Marriage absolutely is a legal contract. It doesn't matter even a little bit how we "used" to think. We used to think it was a good idea to forcibly sterilize people we deemed unworthy of reproducing. Just because we are now realising that marriage is a legal contract doesn't mean it wasn't always, as far as marriage in relation to the government is concerned. The religious aspect has never been necessary in registering a marriage with the state.

Foolishness. In an ideal world you might have a point, but you don't here. Marriage has always been a religious institution recognized by the state until British Common Law adopted the common-law marriage in the 1700s. Even then, it was not until later that marriages were licensed by the state. Even now a majority of marriages continue to fall under the religious union being regulated by the state. Legal precedent mocks you.

Also, nobody gives a damn what it is called. Legally call it all "civil unions" if you want. People will still refer to it as "marriage" in the way that we still say "roll up the window" even though most cars now have a button.

The Judicial Branch and a government composed of lawyers care. So do the people who managed to pass civil union laws but not marriage ones.

The point is that marriage as it is has *thousands* of legal benefits which are only given to man/woman couples entering the contract, which is wholly unfair. Why can't two men or two women file taxes together, obtain next-of-kin status, have the right to hospital visitation and prison conjugal visits, etc, etc?

Unfortunately, this is irrevelant to what I am discussing. I do not oppose this; I merely explain unto you how what happened happened.

[General Battuta]

Oh, that's right, because gay people don't want to get married and start families, they just went benefits. *sigh*

The issue of starting families opens up a whole other can of worms, given what research shows on the presence of both male and female role models impacting childhood development, but I think the marriage topic in and of itself is far more than enough for one thread.

No study has yet established that having 'two mommies' or 'two daddies' leads to negative life outcomes. It may lead to different opinions or values, however.

Saying that a male and a female parent must be present a) ignores that non-parental role models are available and b) suggests that the problem lies with having two mommies or two daddies, rather than the societal pressures placed on a child raised by a same-sex couple, since s/he is unusual.

[Scooby_Doo]

Oh ya.... Briteny can have her 55 hour marrage, but if da-gays get da-marrage OMGWTFIGO!!!!!!!!!111111oneoneone!!

[Knight Templar]

Mongoose, I thought you'd left to go masturbate?

Oh, and KT, as a hypothetical, I'm curious...does denying someone with Down's syndrome the ability to obtain a driver's license and operate a motor vehicle also count as not treating them as an equal citizen?  Or denying a convicted felon the right to vote?  Or making any of the other numerous distinctions between citizens that the government does on a daily basis, for a variety of reasons?  I'm dying to know.

Your examples are as ridiculous as your theory of marriage and "gay biology." Rian pointed out why. Contrary to what you'd like to think, Gays are not retarded and/or a danger to others because of their sexual orientation, and they're also not criminals by virtue of being gay. We live in a nation where every citizen gets all the freedoms and rights they're entitled to until they impede the freedoms or rights of others. Sexual orientation and marriage in no way affects anyone else. Stop failing.

Also, if you can point to the clause in the Constitution where it states verbatim that states' recognition of marriage must include any and all combinations of persons, or indeed where the term "marriage" comes up at all, I'd love to be informed of that as well.

I pointed out some great ones earlier on page one. Go back and check them out. Better yet, go buy a copy of the Constitution. It sounds like you need to re-read it.

Once again, it's hilarious how, when one side says the other is wrong, they're right, but when the other says the first is wrong, they're dead wrong.  And it's all determined by those within the debate.

You're wrong when you're wrong. Stop trying to be a martyr.

lolz

You know, it's amusing to me that your whole argument can be summed up right there, because the rest of it is based on inferences not present in your opponent's, extaggeration, and general ****wittery.

Inferences not present in my opponent's [arguments] ? Which ones were those? The part where Mongoose is afraid to give Gays equal rights? The part where he thinks they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have children together? The part where he's being a bigot? I'm confused by your accusation.

I don't know what extaggeration is.

And if you're going to act like a clown, I'm going to call you one.

And now you start arguing about the "spirit of the Constitution" like it has some kind of relevance, when oh**** the "spirit of the Constitution" is the spirit of a group of dead white people who would have voted against Prop 8. When was the last time we passed an amendment, or even tried to? 70's? Yeah, you see what I mean.

No, I don't see what you mean.

Don't presume to think you know what the forefathers  would have done. That never works, and only makes you look like a fool. And you're right. Spirit was a poor choice of words. I should have used "word of the Constitution" because it clearly states that all citizens have equal rights. Nobody has to prove or earn their Rights. They're given to you by virtue of being an American. Nowhere does it say "equal rights unless you're a queer." Gays pay the same taxes, work the same jobs, speak the same language, live in the same communities, have the same ambitions, and love the same, as all the other citizens of the United States. Except for some reason, bigots (yes) and homophobes (yes) have deemed them unfit to marry. Or to serve in the Military. Don't even get me started  on that one.

Also, this whole tossing around of "homophobe" is, as Mongoose states, bull****. (KT has now moved on to "bigot" preemptively, which is better.) This word implies fear, and Mongoose has already suitably demonstrated (inasmuch as this is possible in this form of communication) that such is not the case dealing with him. Now I know somebody will hop in here with some "oppression equals fear" sociological argument or something, but that's not the case. Oppression is mostly a crime of opportunity.

You already answered your own question. But just to humor you, let's check out fear, courtesy of dictionary.com

Fear –noun

1.    a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
2.    a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.
3.    concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.
4.    reverential awe, esp. toward God.
5.    that which causes a feeling of being afraid; that of which a person is afraid: Cancer is a common fear.

1 - Mongoose seems to be pretty distressed about gays potentially being married (apparently because they have biological conditions) - so much so, he's willing to legislate against them doing so, violating his own Constitution. Talk about trading liberty for security. I guess its chill if its not your liberty. Check.
2- Mongoose appears to have a specific propensity of said fear toward Gays - Gay marriage is harmless to him, yet he still wants to legislate against it. Note, even if Gays can't have kids, I still fail to see how them being married hurts Mongoose. Check.
3 - Mongoose very much appears to fear for the safety of... well.. I'm not sure. The "Marriage Institution?" Biology? Underpopulation? Check.
4 - lol
5 - Gay marriage is almost as bad as cancer, amirite? Check.

So that's 4.5/5 out of five definitions of fear, which then fits into a fear of homos - homophobia. Where was I wrong again?

We live in a country of religious plurality, mainly run by Abrahamic religions.

And it is a valid reason to vote against it. Oh****, yes, I just went there.

Welcome to the flaw inherent in a democratic system, folks. People vote their beliefs, religious or otherwise. You can't seperate church and state at the ballot box (one of many reasons why California's system is terribly flawed), only once in office.

Marriage is also, manifestly, not a legal contract exclusively or even at all. Before there was government regulation, there was religious regulation. Marriage was/is regulated religiously in a social sense far more than it is regulated by the state. The gay marriage movement is, in fact, the first major movement in the history of marriage in this country to see things in these terms of being primarily a legal contract.

Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).

What. We live in a country... run by abrahmic religions? Are you sure? Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way) This ain't Israel. This ain't Saudi Arabia. This ain't Afghanistan. There ain't no Sharia law governing me, or any of the other 299,999,999 people who've come from all over the world to live here.

You can vote based on whatever you like. That's what makes voting awesome. It doesn't make whatever you like legal though, if what you like is illegal. Nor does getting 51% of your boys  to vote for whatever you like. That just makes you a majority of people who are wrong and unlawful. It does not make you right. That's the whole reason we have a Constitution to govern our actions. That's the whole reason we have the third branch, the Supreme Court, who is supposed to protect the minority from the majority in cases where the minority is wrong. That's Poli Sci 1, to borrow your phrase. Try it.

And again, the fourth branch of Californian Gov. ( the People) are essentially a watered down, direct version of the first one. (the Legislature) If the Legislature votes for something that's unconstitutional (they don't usually, because they're not complete idiots, and like to waste money elsewhere) then the Supreme Court has the authority and responsibility to strike it down, just as they should have hear. If the 4th branch legally allowed for mob rule, then we wouldn't really have need for any of the other ones. Which is precisely why it wasn't included in the national Constitution.

Marriage is also, manifestly, not a legal contract exclusively or even at all. Before there was government regulation, there was religious regulation. Marriage was/is regulated religiously in a social sense far more than it is regulated by the state. The gay marriage movement is, in fact, the first major movement in the history of marriage in this country to see things in these terms of being primarily a legal contract.

Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).

- Precedent is not justice. Blacks had been oppressed for centuries as slaves and subhumans. Are you going to say that things should never change, that the Emancipation Proclamation, that the 14th Amendment, that the Civil Rights movement were all wrong because they betrayed "the way things had been?" Seriously?

- I'm beating my own dead horse. Marriage is not owned by any church. Marriage predates any of your Abrahamic religions you touted earlier. Where do you come up with this ****? When your Mormons, or Christians, or Catholics go and get a trademark on Marriage, come back and talk to me.

Therein lies the problem. The government should not be involved in marriage as such. Civil unions for all is the only logical means for them to do so, rather than get wrapped up in many many thousands of years of religious marriage (more or less the only kind there was until the 1700s and common law marriage).

As incredulous as some might be at me saying this, I honestly think I'd be all for an initiative to get government out of the "marriage" business completely.  Call them "civil unions," call them "legal partnerships," call them what have you, but create some arrangement where any two people, no matter what relationship they share, could enjoy the legal benefits that married couples enjoy today, such as inheriting property and carrying power of attorney.  Leave the designation of "marriage" to whatever any individual religious institution decides to limit it to.  That way, everyone gets a fair playing field in the legal sense, individual faiths are able to practice their beliefs without angering a certain segment of the population, and society as a whole doesn't get alternative conventions thrust into its face by force of law.

This is wrong, see  above.

Like NGTM-1R said, and it's a point I sorely should have made instead of responding to insults with sarcasm, the institution known as "marriage" isn't some legal construct that sprang into being with the authorship of the constitution of any particular country.  It's a societal construct founded primarily on religious ceremony that's been practiced for thousands of years across almost every human society, and even when it extended to polygamy, its driving purpose was generally the establishment of family units and rearing of children.  What particularly incenses myself, and I'm sure many others, about the recent gay marriage movement is that it completely turns a blind eye to those millennia of history, willing to brush it aside as inconsequential, even as they attempt to fundamentally alter the avenue which gives it meaning.  If members of the movement are honestly surprised at the hostility generated against it, perhaps they'd do well to take a look at that history and understand why the institution in its current form is so important to so many.

Precedent is not justice. Your short sightedness is amazing. Do you live on a plantation somewhere in the South, untouched by the last 150 years of history?

I know that my examples didn't apply to gay marriage in terms of why those specific restrictions are applied, but my point to KT was that double standards between how two different people are treated do exist in the legal sense, which he seemed to be denying with his "equal citizens" speech.  In fact, the judicial review principle of "strict scrutiny" usually applies in such cases, determining what compelling interests are served by applying said restrictions and ensuring that they are as narrow as possible.

What double standards? Sufficiently Mentally handicapped people can't drive because they can't pass a driving test and /or because their being behind wheels of cars would be dangerous for other people. Just like how "drunk people" are "denied their privileged to drive." There is no double standard here. Your example is incredibly stupid and you know it.

And while the principle of same-sex marriage does not harm me personally or affect my ability to marry someone of the opposite gender, I do view it as harming those thousands of years of societal precedence, if for no other reason than its complete disregard for said precedence.  When someone gets in my face and screams, "We're doing it this way now, just because," while ignoring why it has been done a certain way for so long, my reaction tends to be to yell, "No," just as loudly back at them.

Jim Crowe thinks negros looking white women in the eye violates hundreds of years of precedence and bad manners. Want to go start a lynch mob?

 

Okay, well, first of all, here in America, majority does not get to do whatever the **** it wants to the minorities. What if a racist majority decided interracial marriage should "be called something else" because it's "just not natural" and "majority rules."

Here in California, because of the way we've constructed our governmental system, the majority does get to do whatever the **** it wants to minorities. Now I'm pretty sure you don't live here, or just slept through your government classes, so you should probably do some research on how the proposition system works before continuing this argument.

No, you're wrong. See above. Pay attention in high school gov. class. I know its hard. Drink Red Bull.

The state budget crisis is a broader example of this in action; we've voted in via the same system used for Prop 8 too many things whose funds are earmarked regardless of surplus or which present extra drain on the treasury that cannot be controlled that we're now going to end up screwing many, many minorities because we have to cut their services.

This is the system. These are the rules. They were not well-concieved.

Entirely different problem, and the budget laws make sense - despite what kind of economic debt California is in, it's still our tax dollars that get debated on how to be spent, and in California, we have the opportunity to decide how to spend them, for better or worse of the budget. This in no way violates anyone's rights.

[Knight Templar]

Marriage is also, manifestly, not a legal contract exclusively or even at all. Before there was government regulation, there was religious regulation. Marriage was/is regulated religiously in a social sense far more than it is regulated by the state. The gay marriage movement is, in fact, the first major movement in the history of marriage in this country to see things in these terms of being primarily a legal contract.

Also, this bothered the **** out of me, because... it's not true.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/get_informed/marriage_basics/faq.php#4

In fact, take a gander at the entire faq and website. The both of you. It'll help clear a ton of misconceptions and false truths, as well as explain why its so important for nobody to be excluded from marriage.

[Ghostavo]

(...)the institution known as "marriage" isn't some legal construct that sprang into being with the authorship of the constitution of any particular country.  It's a societal construct founded primarily on religious ceremony

No, it isn't. Marriage predates religion.

that's been practiced for thousands of years across almost every human society, and even when it extended to polygamy, its driving purpose was generally the establishment of family units and rearing of children.

Not even sociologists know why marriage was created. It could very well be for a very different intent than what you propose, to lower the ammount of competition and activity surrounding the whole mating thing allowing us to do other things.

[Slasher]

It's almost like Michael Richards himself was advising the posting in this thread.  "I'm not a homophobe*, that's what's so insane about this..."
* replace this word with a lighter one if your sensibilities were offended.

To maybe actually add something to this thread: does anyone know why the Church of LDS threw so much money into Proposition 8?  I went to school with a lot of Mormons and they were all real chill, so it's hard for me to reconcile my memories of them with what I've heard about the Church's fundraising activities in regards to Prop 8.

[Knight Templar]

To maybe actually add something to this thread: does anyone know why the Church of LDS threw so much money into Proposition 8?  I went to school with a lot of Mormons and they were all real chill, so it's hard for me to reconcile my memories of them with what I've heard about the Church's fundraising activities in regards to Prop 8.

To be as objective as possible : I'd say for the same reason so many other conservative Christian right-wing organizations did. The Mormon's only stand out because of how wealthy they are, I'd assume. They're very strict and respectful of their tithing what they do to the Church.

The Mormon paradox is kind of hard to reconcile - I've known at least a dozen individual Mormons on a personal basis in my life. With the exception of one, they've all been some of the kindest, nicest people I know. All I can really say is that despite their staunch beliefs, they do their very best to represent themselves the best possible manner they can in their personal, professional, as well as religious lives. Seriously, they're some of the most well mannered people I know. As an additional note, I'd also point out that there's a large amount of cohesion within the LDS church, as opposed to Catholicism or whichever variety of Protestantism you look at.

[BlackDove]

Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)

That argument ends right there.

[NGTM-1R]

You can vote based on whatever you like. That's what makes voting awesome. It doesn't make whatever you like legal though, if what you like is illegal. Nor does getting 51% of your boys  to vote for whatever you like. That just makes you a majority of people who are wrong and unlawful. It does not make you right. That's the whole reason we have a Constitution to govern our actions. That's the whole reason we have the third branch, the Supreme Court, who is supposed to protect the minority from the majority in cases where the minority is wrong. That's Poli Sci 1, to borrow your phrase. Try it.

See, now you're talking like you're opposing what I said and are in fact just repeating it. It's really pretty sad.

And again, the fourth branch of Californian Gov. ( the People) are essentially a watered down, direct version of the first one. (the Legislature) If the Legislature votes for something that's unconstitutional (they don't usually, because they're not complete idiots, and like to waste money elsewhere) then the Supreme Court has the authority and responsibility to strike it down, just as they should have hear. If the 4th branch legally allowed for mob rule, then we wouldn't really have need for any of the other ones. Which is precisely why it wasn't included in the national Constitution.

Except the Constitution recognizes no such explicit right. You don't even have an explicit right to marry at all, it's all in the interpretation. It's already gone to the US Supreme Court; they have refused to establish homosexuality as a "protected class" to use the legalese, unlike they did with race. They have also refused to hear the case on Prop 8, endorsing the upholding decision that it is a legal amendment legally passed. Your arguments are void. There is no constitutional precedent here. Discussion over. Go home and cry.

No, you're wrong. See above. Pay attention in high school gov. class. I know its hard. Drink Red Bull.

Likewise, likewise, likewise, likewise, and likewise.

[Turambar]

Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)

That argument ends right there.

It's funny because our currency has about as much backing it up as god does


Also, gotta interject here, any close association of religion (make-believe) and government (the real world) is part of the problem, not part of the solution, and should be viewed as a cancer to be removed.  Let the gays marry and then ignore that they have the ability to do so because it doesn't impact you in the slightest.

[StarSlayer]

Where do you live dude, because I live in America, where we separate the Churches (<--- that way) and the State. (----> that way)

That argument ends right there.

It's funny because our currency has about as much backing it up as god does

That was brilliant, I almost rolled out of my chair when I saw it.

[Sushi]

First... this thread is getting way too heated. Everybody relax. Click that link a few times (also try clicking in rapid succession ) and you'll feel better, I promise.

Now, on to business...

To maybe actually add something to this thread: does anyone know why the Church of LDS threw so much money into Proposition 8?  I went to school with a lot of Mormons and they were all real chill, so it's hard for me to reconcile my memories of them with what I've heard about the Church's fundraising activities in regards to Prop 8.

Since I'm LDS, I'll answer that the best I can. I don't live in California, so I'm not totally familiar with all of the campaigning that went on, but I do have a couple of points of perspective I'm willing to contribute. I'm really not interested in debate; I just want to offer my perspective.

1. The church itself didn't spend money on Prop 8. Individual members (including several very wealthy ones) decided to donate their money to the cause. This is a minor point, but IMO an important one.

2. Why do so many Mormons feel so strongly about gay marriage? Basically, because we believe that Marriage is, at its ultimate source, a divine institution that was designed specifically for man + woman. We also believe that marriage and the traditional nuclear family is the foundation of a healthy society. As a result, Mormons tend to view the legitimization of gay marriage as an attempt to essentially change the structure of society, and we tend to believe that it is a restructuring for the worse. So, they vote against it.

3. A lot of Mormons are very skeptical about the promises that churches won't ever be forced to recognize or solemnize marriages between homosexuals. What happens if 30 years from now, every major religion except for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints decides that gay marriage is OK? Do you really think that legal pressure wouldn't be applied? It's happened before: the church was practicing plural marriage in the 1880s, and the government made it illegal. For a while, most of the leadership of the the church was in hiding. This wikipedia section provides a fairly accurate summary. Given that in our history, it shouldn't be surprising that a lot of people in the church worry that something like it could happen again over gay marriage.

4. Would Mormons support the government getting out of the marriage business entirely? I don't know of any official church statement on the matter, but I know many who would support something like that (probably including me, depending on the details). I do know that the church has no problem playing along in other countries where civil marriage is entirely separate from religious marriage.

Here is an official statement from the church regarding the recent Prop 8 court decision (source):

Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.

Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.

And here is some info from the official church site summarizing our position on homosexuality in general (source):

"We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

"We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

I hope this helps. Someone asked a good question, and I figured I was more qualified to answer than most. I'll be happy to try to clarify anything that needs it. Again, I'm not interested in angry debate, so if that's your intention, please pretend this post never happened.

P.S. One more for good measure!

[iamzack]

We could have guessed all that. Of course LDS support for prop 8 falls under the heading of "God says no."