Thursday, November 13, 2008

Marriage vs. Civil Union and the Church

Alright my fellows, I am glad that once again the state of Ca. went about something in the democratic way and what- we feel- is the Lord's way. That said, I have seen it noted a few times that the Church is not against a civil union even including property rights, visitation rights and insurance. Can anyone quote me where we (LDS) make the distinction? Is it just the name that is important, is it the millenia that stand behind the term or what?
Part of my objection to even civil unions was that I knew it would never be enough. Tolerance no longer means tolerance. It means accept it or have your church unlawfully and violently protested against.
Society, i. e. country, nation state, etc., has a right to protect that which is best to perpetuate itself and the continuation of its way of life. Marriage is one of these things. Prop. 8 defined and encouraged that. A man and a woman get married have children- generally-teach their children how to live in that society and promote what it is good about it. This can perpetuate itself. Same gender unions/marriage cannot perpetuate w/o adoption, science or indoctrination. If we were animals, it would die out in a generation. In animals, it does die out.
Help a brother out. :)


lizS said...

why don't they all just move to the one state that has gay marriage? i think it's massechusetts (sp?)? what i don't get is why they are so very upset. the last i checked it was an inalienable right to vote in this country, and the majority has spoken. if they don't like it, MOVE.

Bruce said...

you left out forinication for the lezies. they can have a pinch hitter, so to speek.

Dana Cheryl said...

The ulitmate objective is to take it to the Supreme Court which is the only way to make it a federal law. They'll keep taking this to court in CA until the move through all the circuits and ultimately reach the highest bench. Currently only Massachusetts and Connecticut recognize same sex marriage as legal. I'm actually blogging about this subject today.

Eyepoke said...

Thing is... its not really about the expansion of the definition of marriage, it's about the elimination of marriage. If gender isnt part of marriage (hard to believe I have to explain this!) what's left? It's a much smaller logical step to allow polygamy, then where does it stop?

Bruce said...

it will be very dificult to get to the federal level with this. congresmen wont touch it with a 10 foot pole. they all say it should be a states rights thing. i dont know how the cort can even be a factor though, the people of the state voted on amending the constitution. the cort should be bound by that decition. their job is to interpit the law. and the people have spoken(several times).