tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post1838618077491124013..comments2023-12-26T10:22:04.630-05:00Comments on Things of My Soul: Same-Sex Marraige and the Recent US Supreme Court RulingPapa Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-14882262646728993202015-11-12T12:01:06.105-05:002015-11-12T12:01:06.105-05:00Papa D: I would love to hear any comments from yo...Papa D: I would love to hear any comments from you regarding the recent policy change. I read your posts as if hearing it from a wise grandpa. :)<br /><br />-b.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-61797610168081889792015-07-23T21:34:36.067-04:002015-07-23T21:34:36.067-04:00Tiger, I ask how for a very specific reason:
Whe...Tiger, I ask how for a very specific reason: <br /><br />When I ask, most people can't articulate why - and the ones who can give me something specific generally say things that have no basis in historical precedence. I ask because I truly am interested, but all I get, almost always, is evasion.<br /><br />I promise I am paying attention, and I am not being willfully ignorant. Please give me Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-56057590162420589102015-07-23T12:33:31.314-04:002015-07-23T12:33:31.314-04:00Papa, I hadn't checked back on this site in a...Papa, I hadn't checked back on this site in a while. But all I will say is that if you need to ask how, then you are not paying attention or you are being willfully ignorant, or both. SSM advocates are not going to stop with a marriage equality victory, and there will be many unintended negative consequences playing out as a result. Tigernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-48484585142455024232015-07-20T19:32:29.582-04:002015-07-20T19:32:29.582-04:00Tiger, how, exactly? As I said in the post, inter-...Tiger, how, exactly? As I said in the post, inter-racial marriages have been legal for a long time now, and no religion is being forced to perform them against their will. Other forms of discrimination (meaning nothing negative I that word choice) also are and have been allowed in religious ceremony decisions. <br /><br />Anonymous, I was using short-hand that I thought everyone would understand.Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-30936542593251192742015-07-20T15:44:34.129-04:002015-07-20T15:44:34.129-04:00"the central issue to me is that religions ar..."the central issue to me is that religions are performing marriages that provide civil benefits." That actually isn't true. Religions are not performing marriages. Judges and Justices of the Peace do marriage ceremonies all the time. Marriage is a civil contract. If a religious performs a marriage ceremony, it is only because state law gives him the authority to act on behalf Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-55802499174916448472015-07-20T11:21:24.567-04:002015-07-20T11:21:24.567-04:00Ironically, the SC decision actually paves the way...Ironically, the SC decision actually paves the way for decreases in religious freedoms, which our prophets and apostles have long been warning us. Tigernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-27911637661414526422015-07-19T21:44:49.568-04:002015-07-19T21:44:49.568-04:00Finally, Mormons in the Deep South, especially, ou...Finally, Mormons in the Deep South, especially, ought to run screaming from the thought that state legislators could refuse to recognize their marriages. That idea would be abhorrent and damnable to each and every one of them. One way or the other, legislatively or judicially, this had to be a federal decision - and, for the same reason as I just mentioned at the state level, I believe it had to Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-24156258596969109062015-07-19T21:26:04.161-04:002015-07-19T21:26:04.161-04:00Also, I didn't say this was only due to a reli...Also, I didn't say this was only due to a religious majority. Seriously, that is nowhere in what I wrote. It would be stupid to say same-sex marriage advocates weren't involved. I said the religious majority opposed civil unions and fought any kind of equal civil benefit legislation - and that is 100% accurate. Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-70971752336967506862015-07-19T21:20:45.819-04:002015-07-19T21:20:45.819-04:00Marriage cannot be left to states to sanction or n...Marriage cannot be left to states to sanction or not sanction individually. No heterosexual couple I know would accept that their marriage was not valid in another state. This has to be a federal decision - either through the legislative or judicial branch. Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-67548638162867943442015-07-19T20:23:37.822-04:002015-07-19T20:23:37.822-04:00Gay marriage advocates were not going to stop unti...Gay marriage advocates were not going to stop until nationwide legal marriage was obtained. Sure there were those who disagreed, but to say this was only by a religious majority is a mischaracterization. Anyway, that is the way these laws should play themselves out - legislatively and not declared by the supreme court.<br /><br />Courts have not privileged marriages in the past, it was state Eric Nielsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00530011180028252442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-27063442863836548852015-07-19T13:35:14.255-04:002015-07-19T13:35:14.255-04:00Eric, I think you have misunderstood what I wrote,...Eric, I think you have misunderstood what I wrote, since I didn't say some of the things you reject. I said civil unions would have been the best solution, but the religious majority rejected and fought that arrangement, so the solution then centered on civil marriages. <br /><br />Also, the courts have NOT privileged child-bearing relationships; they have privileged heterosexual Papa Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06704974609266088416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3199387660357003170.post-74359785007076508862015-07-19T09:02:58.508-04:002015-07-19T09:02:58.508-04:00I think you argument is wrong-headed. I will atte...I think you argument is wrong-headed. I will attempt to explain why:<br /><br />Religions have been able to do this sort of thing all along. Take polygamists for example, they will have one civil marriage, and then typically have religious marriages that are not recognized by the state. To paint some picture that religions lack freedom in this regard is not correct. It is the government Eric Nielsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00530011180028252442noreply@blogger.com