If you are not mormon, why are you quoting the d&c?

If you are that familiar with mormonism I would suspect that you have considerable sympathies for mormonism and mormon doctrine.

Your post strikes me as odd indeed.

I normally capitalize the word “mormon” but just for you …

Lastly, why doesn’t he capitalize “Mormon”. Are we sure this person really was a Mormon? If so, then he should recall that:

“Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power–

They are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

For they are the vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the Devil and his angels in eternity;

Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come–

Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone with the devil and his angels–

And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.”

Doctrine and Covenants 76: 31-38 (February 16, 1832).

There are still folks in the US who disapprove of many social advances: interracial marriages for example. That doesn’t make it right to deny people who should have them. No one is forcing any “belief” on anyone. Anyone can still believe what they like about gay marriage, that doesn’t mean it’s right for the government to condone that belief or be forced to condone it by the voting majority.

Re the adoption thing. Many adoption groups receive government money of some sort and therefore need to comply with anti discrimination laws. This has always been the case and hasn’t changed. If a church group runs totally private adoptions without government assistance, it’s like any private adoption. You can decide not to give to gays, blacks, interracial couples, whatever. The second any church group takes tax dollars to help run the organization it should be required to comply with all laws, correct? Just like you may want your money you give to your religious organization to be used for religious purposes, I want the taxes that I pay to go to organizations that follow the law. Many people don’t seem to realize that religious organizations are only too willing to accept public financing for some of their activities and have a hard time separating the religious organization from requirements imposed by its acceptance of these funds.

The case for gay “marriage” — including the use of the term — is a matter of due process and equal protection. Everyone is free to their own beliefs, but the government and law are forbidden from anything less than fundamental fairness, unless there is a rational basis for the government to single out a group of people.

I think that case law to date is pretty clear in showing that there is no rational basis for treating gays and lesbians differently. Laws that unfairly single out a group based on unpopularity have continually been thrown out. There has to be more substance.

So the burden isn’t on gays and lesbians here (aside from having to stand up for ourselves). The burden is on people who want gays and lesbians to be treated differently to enact laws that rationally have a basis for doing so. A review of the California Supreme court ruling, the recent Florida gay adoption ruling, and the United States Supreme Court ruling overturning sodomy laws all say the same thing in this regard.

Individuals will always have the right to not accept gays and lesbians. The government and our laws do not have that luxury.

But what the gay/lesbian community don’t get is that changing the definition of marriage is more than that to Mormons, Blacks, and others holding traditional BELIEFS. It is a word. But it is important to them. And as of now, they are the majority.

So having the traditional definition of the word marriage upheld by a popular vote is certainly NOT a civil rights injustice. It’s a protection of a belief that the MAJORITY hold at this time. That’s democracy.

The gay/lesbian community should be focused on obtaining equal rights by pursuing the rights currently not allowed (listed above) for domestic partnerships…one by one.

American civil rights refer to actual rights, not the right to acceptace on a moral level. Claiming that the word ‘marriage’ is a right and enforcable over the majority of the voting people is silly and oppressive. All Americans deserve to shape government, not just the gay/lesbian community. They need to remember at this time that they are not the only ones who live here.

But, once again, I believe a majority of the people would support assuring that domestic partnerships have the remaining few rights missing awarded to them if given a vote.

The only one that might need to be worded with care is the right to adoption. Private religious organizations need to have the right to refuse adoption to gay/lesbian couples based upon a difference in beliefs. However, public adoption should be allowed. This makes sense as it again is not lawful to impose one’s beliefs on another person’s private organization because it imposes on freedom of religion.

a. the right to merge assets
b. the right to visit a partner in the hospital ill
c. the right to execute the will of their partner
d. the right to buy property where a married couple is treated differently than two non-married individuals (e.g., buying a house)
e. the care of children in the even of the death of one partner
f. the right to divorce and divide up the assets

I find it ironic that the Mormon church is against a proposition that is pro-family, as shown by points b,c, and e. points a,d, and f are essentially legal issues that the legalization of gay marriage would ensure. By the Mormon church moving against such tenents, and funding the voter drive against such a proposition, they are inherently violating the separation of church and state as defined in the Constitution. If they have a problem following what the Constitution lays out, then they can leave this country.

But I don’t think you treated the gay and lesbian community with much love and kindness when you ganged up on us to strip us of the right to marry.

Wouldn’t you be upset if someone stripped your church of its right to hold services, or your right to marry? Would you ever stop fighting the good fight for freedom and equality? I think not. Nor will we.