Google Webmaster Tools
 
Picture
Recently homosexual activists have succeeded in gaining medical, employment, and insurance benefits for same-sex partnerships (e.g., granted to federal government workers in June 2009). In California they have succeeded in getting the gay lifestyle into elementary school curriculum with the proviso that kids cannot opt out (passed May, 2009). And in Montana they have succeeded in getting a school district to consider sex education for young children that includes instruction on same-sex intercourse.

It may surprise you to learn that none of these accomplishments is the ultimate objective of homosexual activists. Their grand prize is to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. DOMA states that the federal government recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, and that no state can be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The activists are working hard on getting DOMA repealed. One of their covert operatives, an activist judge named Joseph Tauro from NY, recently ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional. 

Don’t be misled about activists’ reasons for repealing DOMA. Repealing DOMA is not about allowing gay couples to marry for the sake of being married. It is about normalizing homosexuality. Even some activists who read this post will be surprised to learn this fact. It is not about marriage; it is about getting society to approve of the homosexual lifestyle.  

If DOMA is repealed, I predict that our fundamental understanding of marriage will gradually be transformed. Indeed, transforming marriage may very well be an objective of some activists. According to the words of one gay activist, after winning the “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, . . . [we’ll] redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution” (Michelangelo Signorile, OUT Magazine, December, 1994).

If our society allows a radical altering of the divinely appointed institution of marriage, this will, as stated in the Proclamation on the Family, “bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

As Latter-day Saints we have a moral obligation to support Judaeo-Christian values and, in particular, traditional marriage. Find out what’s going on in your schools and communities and get involved.
 


Comments

symphonyofdissent link
07/15/2010 09:06

Where to start! First of all, Judge Joseph Tauro is a republican Nixon appointee has every judge that has struck down gay marriage bans has been. Hardly a judicial activist. It is telling that there has not been a single court where challenges to marriage bans have failed. This is true in more conservative states such as Iowa as well as liberal MA. It seems that this is the case because those fighting against gay marriage have been unable to deliver coherent legal as opposed to religious arguments. This was especially visible in the Prop 8 court that is pending decision. The legal arguments against gay marriage are incredibly weak.

Secondly, the specific cases brought to the court are all about denied rights. Gill V. Office of Personnel Management Seven was brought by seven officially married gay couples and three widowers alleging that they have been subject to higher taxes and a lack of health and survivor benefits compared to heterosexual married couples. One of the plaintiffs in the case is the legal husband of a deceased member of congress who was denied basic rights that had never before been denied the family of a member of congress. These couples are recognized as married in their state. They have all of the state benefits and the state desires to grant them federal marriage benefits but is unable to do so because of DOMA. In this case DOMA is NOT about titles. The title has already been given to gay couples in MA for over 7 years.

The second lawsuit was NOT brought by gay activists at all but by the state of MA. The state is not suing on behalf of its citizens but as an aggrieved party because it is loosing taxes and other revenue due to the inability to give benefits to those that it recognizes as married. In this case, the federal government is opposing the state's ability to define its own institution of marriage and is creating an unequal category within the umbrella of Marriage. Moreover DOMA is a disturbing bill in several ways. It likely violates the full faith in credit clause. This creates animosity between states because the marriage decisions of one have been traditionally recognized as binding when people have moved. The full faith in credit challenge is not contained in this current lawsuit but will likely be the next one to be brought forward.

Thirdly, it sounds like you oppose the granting of "medical, employment, and insurance benefits for same-sex partnerships," even though the church has come out in favor of these rights for individuals in Salt Lake City. I'd suggest that the granting of these rights is completely consistent with the defense of marriage and I wonder if and why you disagree.

Reply
Dave C.
07/15/2010 09:54

SOD,

I am pleased to see that you did not oppose my main thesis that legal challenges to DOMA are an attempt to normalize homosexuality.

If Tauro and others who rule against DOMA are not activist judges, then why wait so long before challenging DOMA? It sounds to me like the suits are more about the way the political winds of change are blowing. If DOMA is truly unconstitutional and a disturbing bill, then why wasn't it challenged years ago? My guess is that homosexual activists had not yet ratcheted up their campaign. In other words, it was not politically expedient to do so years ago; now it is. All this leaves one to question whether the motive is really constitutionality or something else.

Regarding medical, employment, and insurance benefits for same-sex partnerships, as I understand it, the LDS Church simply did not oppose consideration of these benefits in the state of Utah. I think it would be wrong to say that it favored said benefits. On the other hand, the Church actively supported SLC’s non discrimination legislation. In a way the matter of medical, employment, and insurance benefits for same-sex partnerships is a moot issue right now because Utah (with the exception of SLC) does not recognize same-sex partnerships.

I oppose recognizing same-sex partnerships for practical, not religious reasons. Definitions of same-sex partnerships seem so fickle. What defines a same-sex partnership? Being together for 2 or more years? What does it mean to ‘be together’? Can someone walk into a state office and ask for benefits for a gay partner he or she had a one night stand with? There is plenty of research from groups on both sides of the debate showing that, generally speaking, homosexual partnerships are very unstable.

I oppose SLC’s non-discrimination legislation for practical, not religious reasons. I have yet to see a legal case that successfully pinned down a landlord, business, or some other agency for sexual discrimination in the state of Utah. It seems SLC passed a law for a ghost problem. If discrimination were a clear and present danger for gays, then I would have supported SLC’s anti-discrimination law.

Reply
symphonyofdissent link
07/15/2010 10:39

Dave

In regard to the law suit timing, it takes quite a while to assemble a good group of plaintiffs. This challenge was only possible post 2003 and the legalization of gay marriage in MA. Seven years is really not that long of a time period for a group trying to bring a constitutional challenge to a federal law. Certainly you can't fault a group bringing a suit for looking for a group of sympathetic plaintiffs. Moreover, the gay rights community has nothing to do with the state lawsuit.

I do not disagree that the gay rights community is seeking acceptance as part of their actions. I do disagree with you that so doing will do much to hurt our conceptions of marriage and I think your response actually shows why in many ways.

You speak about fickle definitions of gay partnerships. I think there are two responses to this that must be stated. First, straight partnerships are equally fickle. When two people enter into civil union or even marriage, the state does not question their intentions or aims. Any two people can go to a judge and get a marriage license. There is no guarantee of long term stability. People can get an overnight vegas wedding during a one night stand. The fact that some people enter into such relationships does not change the fact that most marriages are entered into out of love and compassion.

Secondly, we live in a society where gay couples are a fact. Allowing them to enter into partnerships helps to bring stability and to normalize 'Judeo-Christian" values. We should be happy that same sex couples are seeking more stable partnerships. The Gay Community in the 80's and early 90's was one of revel and excess. This was in part as a response to sexual norms that were deemed repressive. This excess led to the spread of diseases and community impoverishment. Around the late 90's the aims of the gay community changed towards a more relationship focused one. This is something to be celebrated. Our "values" of monogamy, love and compassion have won out. Today, it is not uncommon to find same sex partners that have been together for over 20 years. Look at the testimonies during the prop 8 trial for instance. You have long term and committed couples that have been together for decades. Denying them the stability that partnerships or marriage bring impoverishes rather than protects our conception of marriage.

Reply
Paul
07/16/2010 20:17

I'm a newcomer. What does this have to do with science?

Reply
Dave C.
07/16/2010 22:34

Paul,

It's a little something I like to call 'political science'.

If you are a newcomer, please feel free to peruse my many other excellent posts on evolution, health science, quantum mechanics, philosophy of science, scientific history, and astronomy.

Thanks for dropping by.

Reply
Ah Q
07/18/2010 21:57

The recent DOMA rulings were based in part on federalism grounds--the federal statute infringed states' rights in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

I thought conservatives <i>favored</i> federalism. The Tenth Amendment was all the rage a few months ago when health care reform was on the brink of passage.

I'm not often persuaded by these arguments, but there are some areas that really are best left to the states. Marriage is one of those areas. It has traditionally been an exclusive domain of state legislation.

The provision in DOMA which provides that states need not recognize same-sex marriages solemnized outside their borders (Section 2) is not affected by the recent rulings. But in any case, the provision is basically unnecessary, as there is a well-recognized "public policy" exception to the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Conservatives need to stop throwing around the word "activist." It's utterly meaningless. It's simply a term they use to describe judicial decisions that they don't agree with.

Reply
Dave C
07/18/2010 23:40

Ah Q,

Are you from the Q-Continuum? Just wondering because that would be cool.

But seriously, thanks for sharing your ideas. Yes, both sides of political debates like to invoke whatever law or amendment suits them best. I agree that defining marriage should probably be left to the states, as should education. Unfortunately the chances of this sort of thing happening are small.

I like the word 'activist'. In my mind it refers to attempts to shift the nation away from traditional values. Anyone who uses the courts or Constitution to distort our traditional concept of the importance of God, Country, Judaeo-Christian values, and basic liberties is an activist IMHO.

Reply
Seldom
07/19/2010 15:24

The Helena School District is not proposing instruction on same-sex intercouse as you indicate. The health curriculum they are considering proposes teaching a definition of sexual intercourse that includes oral, vaginal, or anal penetration. Obviously, each component of this intercourse definition can apply to both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse. The primary purpose of teaching a definition of sexual intercourse is prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. It's a common misconception among teenagers that oral sex isn't intercourse and doesn't carry the risk of STDs. Helena School District's proposed sex education curriculm originated in the medical and public health community, not gay rights activists. You can argue when this information is age appropriate, but to give it as an example of some agenda that goes beyond public health is disingenuous.

Reply
Dave L
07/31/2010 21:27

I am new to this website and appreciate the forum. I have been of the same opinion for years - gays want to considered main steam. Don't ask, don't tell seems the best approach to me.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply

Google Analytics