How Goes Same Sex Marriage in California?

I really enjoyed this editorial entitled “Arnold Schwarzenegger Hates Gay People.” Like the prophets of God, I believe that legalizing same sex marriage is a serious threat to the institution of marriage and public morality. Apparently, an overwhelming majority of Californians agree, notwithstanding the disgusting performance of their state legislators and judges. I am especially pleased to learn the information in this column because I have never had much respect of Governor Schwarzenegger. I consider him a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and he is far too liberal to suit me. But he has gained some stature in my eyes for using his veto in this case. Three cheers for the Terminator! Maybe we should send some missionaries to preach the gospel to him.


23 Responses to How Goes Same Sex Marriage in California?

  1. John said:

    ********Our society will break down into total anarchy. It has been moving in that direction throughout my life. When anarchy becomes too big a problem, I’m sure that someone will be more than willing to step in and establish a dictatorship, if that has not already happened.

    John, what Will and others are getting at is “who are those” poised to begin this dictatorship? The fear of many LDS is that the best poised group to take on the turmoil brought about by declining morals is the Religious Repulican Right. If anarchy happens, they are more than poised to step in and solve all the problems with more micromanaged, moralistic laws.

    If they do step in (and they are more and more gaining entry – Judge Roberts, the new FDA leader and more), their way is to purge non-Christians – as you mentioned, the secular and the depraved. You may be in favor of purging this evil to elevate morality. There is a HUGE caveat for the LDS community in following the thinking of this group – you need to realize that as an LDS, YOU would also be included in this purge as you would be viewed a member of a cult in their eyes. You choice then would be become Born-Again or lose your property rights, religious rights, and citizenship.

    In the following paragraph, you are nearing what Will and others are afraid of – you

    *****We are certainly moving in that [anarchy] direction judging from recent behavior in New Orleans. They are even talking about revoking the Posse Comitatus Act so that our military can perform internal police functions. Great! That is just what we need, a police state.

    In the above statement, you are beginning to realize that our government IS able to exert pressure to force people to abide by the laws. You now need to look further into the doxology of our leaders – and the long term platform they have for a Christian America.

    You are soooo close to understanding those of us on “the other side”. The other side is NOT secular and depraved, rather many if not the overwhelming majority of LDS members in this faction highly desire to keep the family sacred and intact, and we have highly conservative stances on moral issues. The “other side” however, does not want to forward these moral issues by helping out the Evangelical Right with easy votes. Those votes put people in power that are for an agenda that is against the survival of the LDS faith.

  2. Anonymous says:


    The separation of church and state as it is understood today is a very good thing whether it was intended in the original Bill of Rights or not. I highly recommend reading this link in order to get a perspective on how effective these men were at separating church and state:

    Consider this government document from 1797 which was drafted by the President and later ratified unanimously by the senate:

    “As the Government of the United States…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen–and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    It should also be noted that the phrase “separation between church and state” was Thomas Jefferson’s, the deist (not Christian).

    Anyways, there are a lot of really juicy quotes worth reading in that link.

  3. will says:

    John, you’re right. I’m secular and depraved like the rest of society.

    You yourself made a brief detour into rationalism as you started to construct a platform independent of religion. But most of your arguments are based on your concept of God, so it’s a little disingenuous to claim that your proposed legislation doesn’t force your religious ideas on others.

  4. Like other freedoms, freedom of religion is not unconditional. We revere freedom of speech, but one cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater unless there is a fire. And freedom of religion doesn’t mean that a person should be able to practice human sacrifice even if that is what his religion calls for.

    Keeping this in mind, freedom of religion isn’t really absolute. And the Lord uses such terms as “conscience” and “worship” when he speaks of freedom of religion:

    “We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.” (D&C 134:4)

    So a person can believe anything he wants. He can worship however he pleases. The government has the power and right to dictate how he acts, but not how he thinks.

    The true concept built into the Bill of Rights says nothing about the separation of church and state, rather it prohibits the establishment of a state religion or church with the attendant requirement that all citizens belong to a particular government sponsored or approved church.

    Governments have the right and responsibility to legislate and execute such laws as will promote the public welfare. That is the whole purpose of government. Some human behaviors are highly destructive of public welfare. Heroine addiction is an example. The transmission of HIV by the practice of homosexual sodomy is another example. Breaking quarantine when one is contagious with tuberculosis is yet another. It is within the proper scope of government to proscribe such behaviors even if doing so violates some overly broad definitions of relgious freedom. Remember, freedoms are not absolute and no man has a right to hurt another or to hurt all others by engaging in behaviors that are socially destructive such as those mentioned.

    This idea that homosexual sodomy, fornication, adultery, and other perversions don’t hurt anyone but the “consenting adults” involved is patent nonsense. These behaviors destroy families, leave children without fathers or mothers, produce generations of alcoholics, drug addicts and criminals of every sort because such are the natural result of children growing up in dysfunctional homes, homes that are dysfunctional because husbands are not true to wives, parents are not true to their children, and children are disobedience to their parents. Nothing so effectively prevents individuals from establishing happy, successful homes like sexual depravity. And yet happy, successful homes are the foundation of a stable society. Without them, whole nations and civilizations collapse.

    The idea that a law against sexual depravity is forcing ones religious ideas on others is wrong. Such laws do no such thing. No one has a right to destroy the community in which he lives, and that is what the fornicators, adulterers, homosexual sodomists, pedophiles and other perverts are doing.

    Besides, virtually all of the major world religions teach some form of chastity even if their adherents don’t always practice what their nominal religion teaches. A law against adultery, for instance, is not establishing a state church. It isn’t even preferring one religious belief over another. Hindu husbands are true to their wives. So are Buddhist husbands as well as those who practice Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In what sense is a law against adultery violating someone’s freedom of religion? It isn’t. It is a law protecting the community against anti-social behavior, behavior that has far reaching, deleterious effects on the welfare of the community.

    I know that what I am saying here is not going to convince you. You are probably like the rest of our depraved, secular society. The majority of Americans don’t think this way anymore. But our grandparents did. We have fallen from a state of relative righteousness in the USA into a state of debauchery and depravity. Behaviors such as abortion and open homosexuality that would have been unthinkable in previous generations have become commonplace in our day.

    Well, the nation needs to repent of its wickedness. If it doesn’t, it will be destroyed by its enemies. The Lord has promised it in the Book of Mormon, and he always keeps his promises. I don’t care what perverts do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but I do care about the survival of the nation. And the nation won’t survive if it becomes ripe in wickedness. It would be far better for perverts to lose some of their freedom to commit abominations, something they have no “right” to commit, than for the best and freest nation on earth or throughout history to become evil and ultimately reap the wrath of God.

  5. will says:

    John, how do you reconcile your position on freedom of religion with your desire to impose your understanding of God’s will on those with different views?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Oops! I meant “guilt” not “quilt.”

  7. Anonymous says:

    I should also point out John’s equivocation on the term “freedom.” Free Agency, synonymous with some form of free will in the Mormon context, is not the same thing as political freedom. Thus when Will asked if he could distinguish between “promoting depravity” or promoting freedom of expression John entirely missed the point. Allowing people to freely exercise any form of free will that they want is obviously not an issue here for either side and should not even be mentioned in this context. It is quite separate and distinct from what I will call “tolerating pluralism” which is the political freedom which is worth fighting for.

    Allowing hate speech, a rather disappointing form of pluralism, does not “encourage” it in any way. Take for instance John’s bordering on hate speech toward homosexual relations in putting their relationships on par with incestual relationships. You don’t see any homosexuals rallying to keep such “iniquity” under wraps. Instead they are simply trying to show why and how such speech is flat out wrong. Why can’t we return them the favor by simply pointing out what is intrinsically wrong with their life styles rather than attempting some form of quilt by association?

  8. Of course not. I believe in freedom of religion as one of my articles of faith.

  9. will says:

    John, you addressed only one of my points, and did so with a blatantly false counterpoint. Laws, to the degree that they’re enforced, most certainly force people to refrain from proscribed behavior.

    If you want to legislate religious beliefs, what do you do with the fact that many people consider Mormonism to be anti-Christian? If these people constitute a majority, should they be allowed to outlaw our church?

  10. Not what I consider depravity, but what God considers depravity as taught by all his holy prophets since Adam as recorded in the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon and modern scriptures. Laws do not “force” anyone because they cannot force anyone to keep the law. Do laws against recreational drug use “force” anyone to avoid drugs? Obviously not judging from how much drug use exists in our society.

    If God’s covenant people in a democracy won’t stand up for good laws, who will? If we are going to legalize all manner of depravity, we might as well legalize murder, kidnapping, rape, child molestation, and everything else while we are at it. After all, we wouldn’t want to “force” anyone to be righteous. If present trends continue, that is what will eventually happen. Our society will break down into total anarchy. It has been moving in that direction throughout my life. When anarchy becomes too big a problem, I’m sure that someone will be more than willing to step in and establish a dictatorship, if that has not already happened. We are certainly moving in that direction judging from recent behavior in New Orleans. They are even talking about revoking the Posse Comitatus Act so that our military can perform internal police functions. Great! That is just what we need, a police state.

  11. will says:


    Outlawing what you consider depravity does not promote righteousness — it forces righteousness, or at least your definition of it.

    You realize that most Christian churches have a negative view of Mormonism. Should our church be outlawed if the majority doesn’t like it?

    Since Christ lobbied for a plan based on free agency, would you include him in your latter category?

  12. Obviously depravity is the result of individuals freely deciding to be depraved. What is your point? The Book of Mormon makes it clear that when a nation is “ripe” in wickedness, it will be destroyed. How else could a nation become wicked except by most of the people freely choosing depravity? In a democracy, the people make the laws. A righteous people will make laws that promote righteousness. A wicked people will make laws that promote wickedness. Or am I missing something here?

    The question for me is, will the saints of God democratically lobby for laws that promote righteousness, or will they work for laws that promote wickedness using “free agency” as a rationalization. The latter is a form of wickedness in my view, a form of wickedness that seems to be quite prevalent among online Mormons.

  13. will says:

    John said: I firmly believe that those Americans who advocate moral depravity are a serious threat to the survival of the nation.

    John, can you see a difference between advocating depravity and advocating the freedom to decide for oneself what is acceptable?

  14. I think that was a big mistake too, Kim. It is all part of the same downward spiral in our society. If nothing happens to reverse current trends, our nation will be “swept off” in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Mormon that is repeated in several different places. I fear for my nation, the land and people that I fervently love. I firmly believe that those Americans who advocate moral depravity are a serious threat to the survival of the nation.

  15. Kim Siever says:

    “Laws permitting same sex marriage will encourage the proliferation in our society of…every imaginable variety of group sex.”

    I hate to break the news to you John, but it’s already too late. These have proliferated already. Not because the state legalised SSM, but because the state legalised fornication and adultery.

  16. If this nation is so incredibly stupid as to legalize gay marriage, I guess we will all find out whether it was a good idea or not. And if it turns out to be a Bad Idea, as I suspect it will, it will be too late to correct the mistake. –sigh

    In the days of Noah the whole world was engaged in committing abominations to the point where the Lord had to wipe out the whole human race in the Great Flood. Jesus Christ taught that a similar situation would exist at the time of his Second Coming when he would destroy all the wicked by fire. And since this is the last days, I expect that homosexual marriage and every other sort of filthy behavior will be legalized or at least humored before the end comes.

    I just hope and pray that my extended family and our descendents aren’t savaged by the social conditions that will surely ensue after such satanic folly.

    Perhaps the Lord will be able to miraculously shield us in some way. In the meanwhile, I think that legalizing gay marriage makes about as much sense as legalizing sex with animals or pedophilia. I am greatly encouraged that the vast majority of Americans feel more or less the same way. That is why the advocates of gay marriage have had to try and gain their political objectives through the courts rather than the various state legislatures and referendums.

  17. J Bright says:

    I guess that my only response is to think harder. Why shouldn’t father’s be able to marry their daughters? “It’s gross” or “It’s unnatural” isn’t really an answer I’m sure you will agree. When you do have an answer for this, see if it applies to SSM’s as well. I imagine that it won’t.

    Thus we can allow SSM’s without allowing incest because our reasons for opposing them are not the same at all. Again I must repeat that saying “if we allow SSM’s we must also allow incest” is not an argument for or against SSM’s. It’s simply putting forth a propostion, one which happens to be quite wrong.

    If incest really is all that bad, and I think it is, then it never will be legalized come SSM’s or not. This is a clear cut case of an unwarranted slippery slope argument. I should also mention that most all homosexuals would be thoroughly disgusted with your morally equating their relationships with incestual ones.

    I understand the fear that legalizing SSM’s might be seen a condoning a decay in the traditional family, but this can hardly be considered a valid political argument. This is the same as saying that our allowing a freedom of religion is encouraging false religion and should therefore be done away with. Shouldn’t this “decay” in true religion have us even more worried? What about freedom of speech? Doesn’t this “encourage” lies and falsehoods? This is where the proponents of SSM’s are coming from. It might be seen as dangerous, but this is simply not a good enough reason for denying people a particular freedom. If all those other forms of marriage which people fear so much are wrong, it will be up to society to demonstrate why (which shouldn’t be all that difficult), just as it is society’s responsibility to demonstrate why certain ideologies and statements are wrong.

  18. I respectfully disagree. When we are considering a radical change in our culture, such as legalizing same sex marriage, it is not “scare tactics” to carefully consider all of the possible results of the change. On the contrary, to implement such a change based only upon a selective information set, and a highly promoted political bias, would be incredibly foolish. For myself, I cannot see what logic could possibly be used to legalize homosexual marriages without simultaneously legitimizing many other forms of deviant sexual behavior and many other forms of highly nontraditional marriage. Suppose a man wanted to marry his mother, or a teenaged daughter. If homosexuals were permitted to marry, by what logic could the law prohibit such a marriage? It is clear to me that legalizing same sex marriage would dramatically increase the rate at which our culture is abandoning traditional marriage. And I believe that such an increase would lead to the ultimate destruction of our civilization. It would be useful if homosexuals could point to historical examples of civilizations that have embraced same sex marriage successfully. But they cannot.

  19. J Bright says:

    If there really is something objectively wrong with SSM’s in and of themselves let’s deal with that instead of speculating on what else might happen and whether those things are really bad or not. If there is something objectively bad with those other forms which do not pertain to SSM’s then they will not pass. If what is bad about those other forms of marriage do apply to SSM’s as well then lets hear about those things.

    My point is that making appeals to other forms that might also be encouraged is completely changing the subject at hand, and this intentionally in order to scare people rather than reason with them.

  20. By what logic could the law be amended too permit homosexual deviance wthout also allowing every other form of marital deviance?

  21. J Bright says:

    It seems that all these bad things you refer to only happen when things go beyond SSM into other activities. I don’t understand how allowing homosexuals and homosexuals only the opportunity to further solidify their exclusive relationships will allow for, let alone “encourage”, any of those things. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic for what else could possibly happen. There is absolutely no reason to think that allowing SSM’s automatically allows for those other things as well. It is an attempt to change the subject from an area where people don’t have very good reasons to oppose to one where reasons come to mind quite easily.

  22. Laws permitting same sex marriage will encourage the proliferation in our society of polygamy, polygyny, polyamory, and every imaginable variety of group sex. The more that people are engaged in such nontraditional marriages, the fewer there will be who maintain the traditional forms. This will pose a big problem in the raising of children. Without a good example from hetersexual parents who are true and faithful to each other, they are far more likely to grow up promiscuous and lacking sexual self-discipline. As a result, the morals of the nation will plunge and all marriages will be weakened, not just the traditional ones.

    For an excellent commentary on the likely effect of legalizing same sex marriage see this essay called “Beyond Gay Marriage.” It is the best answer I’ve ever heard to why same sex marriage is destructive to society.

  23. J Bright says:

    I can kind of see how SSM’s might threaten marriage but how in the world can we claim that they threaten public morality in any way?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s