LDS Freedom Forum

This is breaking news on KSL.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=14 ... featured-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is obvious this Utah Judge does not have any morals or understand what it means when he places his hand on the Bible to confirm his oath to God and Country!

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

(New Testament | Romans 1:31 - 32)

The Utah judge was an Obama appointee. Go figure.

Now the prosecution didn't really help out their case at all. I thought it was a poor job that they did.

samizdat wrote:The Utah judge was an Obama appointee. Go figure.

Now the prosecution didn't really help out their case at all. I thought it was a poor job that they did.

He was also endorsed by Mike Lee (I believe Hatch, too, but I could be mistaken). I read the 4 hour transcript of the summary judgment hearing. Tomsic made a compelling case, the state did not. It didn't help that the state (essentially said), "We agree we harm same-sex couples, but that's been a right we've always had." And "Your question's aren't relevant (to the Judge), they're good questions, but I don't want to talk about them, so I'll talk about something else." It was embarrassing to say the least.

The judge followed legal precedent and made a "good" (with regard to legality) ruling based upon what was presented before him. The state's "defense" was a joke.

Oh, and had he not struck it down under due process (The 14th Amendment), it would have been struck down on the Full Faith and Credit Clause eventually anyway. But this case is likely to grease the wheels of other lawsuits around the country.

jdawg1012 wrote:

samizdat wrote:The Utah judge was an Obama appointee. Go figure.

Now the prosecution didn't really help out their case at all. I thought it was a poor job that they did.

He was also endorsed by Mike Lee (I believe Hatch, too, but I could be mistaken). I read the 4 hour transcript of the summary judgment hearing. Tomsic made a compelling case, the state did not. It didn't help that the state (essentially said), "We agree we harm same-sex couples, but that's been a right we've always had." And "Your question's aren't relevant (to the Judge), they're good questions, but I don't want to talk about them, so I'll talk about something else." It was embarrassing to say the least.

The judge followed legal precedent and made a "good" (with regard to legality) ruling based upon what was presented before him. The state's "defense" was a joke.

It doesn't matter how the state's defense was handled... it is a matter of taking the "oath" over the "Bible" ... which is about standing upon principles of morality according to "righteousness" and moral integrity... the backbone of the American constitution... or should be "foundation" of this country. Which is sadly being eroded by week minded lawyers and judges, who are in it for money and self pride.

SkyBird wrote:

jdawg1012 wrote:

samizdat wrote:The Utah judge was an Obama appointee. Go figure.

Now the prosecution didn't really help out their case at all. I thought it was a poor job that they did.

He was also endorsed by Mike Lee (I believe Hatch, too, but I could be mistaken). I read the 4 hour transcript of the summary judgment hearing. Tomsic made a compelling case, the state did not. It didn't help that the state (essentially said), "We agree we harm same-sex couples, but that's been a right we've always had." And "Your question's aren't relevant (to the Judge), they're good questions, but I don't want to talk about them, so I'll talk about something else." It was embarrassing to say the least.

The judge followed legal precedent and made a "good" (with regard to legality) ruling based upon what was presented before him. The state's "defense" was a joke.

It doesn't matter how the state's defense was handled... it is a matter of taking the "oath" over the "Bible" ... which is about standing upon principles of morality according to "righteousness" and moral integrity... the backbone of the American constitution... or should be "foundation" of this country. Which is sadly being eroded by week minded lawyers and judges, who are in it for money and self pride.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The backbone of the Constitution is to have liberty and justice FOR ALL. There's only two ways to have justice for all, and only one way to have liberty. Justice comes with equality. You can let people be free, or you can micromanage everyone the same way. Liberty only comes when people are free choose. My own personal feelings on sex, billboards (brought up on another thread), what color of house looks good (homeowners associations and zoning laws), how many dogs you have (kennel laws), and about 100,000 other issues, aside. I don't have the right from God to make you obey what I want. God doesn't even have that right. Because those who don't want to be part of God's kingdom, can't be forced to be (ala Sons of Perdition).

I'm sorry for whatever circumstances led you to believe it's your job to get other people to comply with what you want. "Vengeance is mine, and I will repay," says the Lord. I'll leave it up to him. But I will advocate for liberty and justice FOR ALL, even if they do something I don't like. And while most people vary greatly in their interpretation of that, I'm a strict Constitution and freedom lover.

I'd be careful about throwing around stones of "self pride" when what you're advocating (ignorantly or intentionally), is that some people should work and slave away to pay taxes (for example), and not have the same government protections as their neighbors who make differing choices. We don't live in a theocracy, and when Christ comes, don't think you'll have any more leniency or mercy than you're extending now. "ALL [people] have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." You've probably done 100 things (or, more likely, many, many more), that could have gotten you stoned to death under the law of Moses. I'd be careful about how you throw around condemnation.

"liberty and justice" comes "only" by righteousness! Any other path is "bondage."

jdawg1012... if you want to water down the truth its certainly your right. I call a spade a spade!

"Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness."
(Book of Mormon | Alma 41:10)

I am not saying I don't throw a "spade" out once in a while as a natural man... I am only human but I do understand corruption, when it comes to politics, and religion. Our constitution in its original form holds spiritual truths and principles that have been forgotten. I know the devils clocking devices... they are all over the place. The very "word" "politician" means "professional liar" and so we have lots of them today! How things have changed... they use to be called "statesman."

SkyBird wrote:"liberty and justice" comes "only" by righteousness! Any other path is "bondage."

God doesn't use force to make people do "righteousness." And it's ABSOLUTELY unrighteous to force your fellowman (straight or gay) to subsidize someone else's marriage and legal benefits, and not have the same access to those same benefits. No one has the right to force their fellowman to do something because it's "the right thing to do," (remember I'm not for anti-discrimination laws either, because unlike most people, I'm an actual Constitutional Conservative).

Otherwise we can all be forced to do anything that the majority or politically powerful want us to do. Like buy healthcare subsidies ( incorrectly labelled "insurance")That's exactly what has happened since about the time of Lincoln. The problem is that now the pendulum is swinging the other way, and the people who have had historical political license to abuse their neighbor are scared the tables will be turned. Right now the pendulum has swung back to the middle, right onto equality (in marriage laws between two people, and in certain states). I'm sure it will continue to swing the other way with momentum, since it was swung so far the other way before. Which is why I prefer we stop it from swinging entirely. But I'm sure someone will argue as to why they get to take away their neighbor's freedom to choose, and instead make them do as they see fit. It's always the case.

jdawg1012 wrote:

SkyBird wrote:"liberty and justice" comes "only" by righteousness! Any other path is "bondage."

God doesn't use force to make people do "righteousness." And it's ABSOLUTELY unrighteous to force your fellowman (straight or gay) to subsidize someone else's marriage and legal benefits, and not have the same access to those same benefits. No one has the right to force their fellowman to do something because it's "the right thing to do," (remember I'm not for anti-discrimination laws either, because unlike most people, I'm an actual Constitutional Conservative).

Otherwise we can all be forced to do anything that the majority or politically powerful want us to do. Like buy healthcare subsidies ( incorrectly labelled "insurance")That's exactly what has happened since about the time of Lincoln. The problem is that now the pendulum is swinging the other way, and the people who have had historical political license to abuse their neighbor are scared the tables will be turned. Right now the pendulum has swung back to the middle, right onto equality (in marriage laws between two people, and in certain states). I'm sure it will continue to swing the other way with momentum, since it was swung so far the other way before. Which is why I prefer we stop it from swinging entirely. But I'm sure someone will argue as to why they get to take away their neighbor's freedom to choose, and instead make them do as they see fit. It's always the case.

I'm not talking about "force" and you know it! I am talking about "choice" or "free agency." You know the little word "free" does not mean to "do what you want" ... the very entomology from a spiritual perspective means you have already made a "choice" to "obey" those laws which govern a moral, godly, divine, attitude and perspective. A choice which truly brings "freedom" to the soul! and not bondage!

SkyBird wrote:jdawg1012... if you want to water down the truth its certainly your right. I call a spade a spade!

"Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness."
(Book of Mormon | Alma 41:10)

I am not saying I don't throw a "spade" out once in a while as a natural man... I am only human but I do understand corruption, when it comes to politics, and religion. Our constitution in its original form holds spiritual truths and principles that have been forgotten. I know the devils clocking devices... they are all over the place. The very "word" "politician" means "professional liar" and so we have lots of them today! How things have changed... they use to be called "statesman."

I've heard many arguments for taking away agency and forcing someone to do the "right thing." (Heck, I even heard them in the grand council). I didn't agree with them then, and I certainly don't now. I believe in advocating for people to choose the truth, and righteousness. What I don't advocate is giving you the ungodly authority to make people bend to your will, legally or through vigilantism. Sorry. The government (in this regard) has ruled in agreement, and the majority of people, too. God gave agency to man so he could grow, and learn from his mistakes. Not so that a select few people (currently living majority or not), could turn their neighbor into serfs to do as their masters please. Live your life the way you want, and let others do the same. The way God intended:

Matthew 7:

1 aJudge not, that ye be not bjudged.

2 For with what ajudgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what bmeasure ye mete, it shall be cmeasured to you again.

3 aAnd why beholdest thou the bmote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the cbeam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou ahypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

6 ¶Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7 ¶Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

In the same sermon God says to not judge, he says to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

I believe in the freedom to choose what they will do and make of themselves. I give that same God-given right to others, even if I disagree with that choice, and I expect the same granted to me. If you feel you have the right to force people to do what you would have them do, then expect the same force compelling you to do something against your will as the pendulum swings back (what you're getting now, I might add). If compulsion is so noble, then you should have no problem submitting to being forced to their will when they're in power. That is, after all, the Golden Rule. Choose wisely.

As for me and my house, we'll choose freedom.

You better read my last post... because I believe in "freedom" too!

SkyBird wrote: I'm not talking about "force" and you know it! I am talking about "choice" or "free agency." You know the little word "free" does not mean to "do what you want" ... the very entomology from a spiritual perspective means you have already made a "choice" to "obey" those laws which govern a moral, godly, divine, attitude and perspective. A choice which truly brings "freedom" to the soul! and not bondage!

No, I don't know it. If you're not talking about force, then you must support allowing two people to enter into a civil contract, called marriage. If you're arguing that some people are going to have the ability to do that, and others cannot, then you're literally forcing a disparity between classes of people. If, for example a civilly contracted, married same sex couple died (pre-Windsor), then they would have been forced to pay extra taxes, vs a man and woman couple. I don't really care if you use the term "force" or not. I don't play word games for long.

You either believe in the right of people to choose, even among good and bad choices (Like God), or you believe in forcing people to do something, even if it's purportedly the "right" thing (Like the Devil). Sorry, I choose agency and liberty. Your argument seemed to denote that you wanted inequality. I didn't realize that you were pro-government endorsed gay marriage (which I'm not), or pro-Government nonintervention in marriage (which I am). My mistake.

SkyBird wrote:You better read my last post... because I believe in "freedom" too!

I did read your post. I didn't realize you were trying to advocate what a great thing it would be that people were free to choose with whom they wanted to enter into a marriage contract with, whether your personally agree with it or not. My mistake.

Agreed... if people want to make a bad or sinful choice that is their "agency." They will in this life or the next pay the price for their choice. My intent is this discussion is when it comes to politics and religion it is again a choice... how do we legislate it?.. like it was in the council in heaven as you pointed out... What happened there was that the devil and his won over angels were cast out! If the leaders of our country and lawyers and judges were truly following "righteous" principles we would "cast out" (figuratively speaking) the rebellious and this land would become a holy land where a "Zion" would be prepared for the return of Christ.

Actually this is what will happen when Christ does come... He will "cast out" the "fence sitters" and "hypocrites," the politicians (professional liars) and the morally straight will remain.

SkyBird wrote:Agreed... if people want to make a bad or sinful choice that is their "agency." They will in this life or the next pay the price for their choice. My intent is this discussion is when it comes to politics and religion it is again a choice... how do we legislate it?.. like it was in the council in heaven as you pointed out... What happened there was that the devil and his won over angels were cast out! If the leaders of our country and lawyers and judges were truly following "righteous" principles we would "cast out" (figuratively speaking) the rebellious and this land would become a holy land where a "Zion" would be prepared for the return of Christ.

Actually this is what will happen when Christ does come... He will "cast out" the "fence sitters" and "hypocrites," the politicians (professional liars) and the morally straight will remain.

This post seems to show a lack of understand about the Grand Council (Satan's position of opposition, and the natural consequences to that choice, in particular), and I'm happy to explain why I believe that. Satan and his angels were not cast out for "sinning." They were cast out because Satan sought to usurp God, and take away man's agency (the only way man can become Gods), essentially to bring down the entire purpose of creation and all of God's kingdom. He wanted to DETHRONE God and instead, get to take His place, himself. I find it odd that you think you're attempting to make a case for taking away agency, using "justification" based upon the war in heaven, which was fought over the very principle of God ALLOWING agency. But now it's certainly more clear your position.

You're right that Jesus Christ will indeed use His righteous and merciful judgement to decide the paths of those who do not desire to overcome sin (the wicked), the chiefest of whom try and take His place, and assume His role (like Satan did), when it is a position in which "He employeth no servant."

Everyone is a sinner. People who wish to improve are "righteous," people who do not, are "wicked." God's commandment for you is to "Judge not," (people). You can judge works, and get a general feeling for actions, but God alone gets to decide the final resting place place of PEOPLE, because He alone knows the circumstances behind all of their decisions. And those decisions were given to them to make, not you, or anyone else, to make for them. Christ alone judges people's final state. I wouldn't dare dream of being the self-righteous zealot who would attempt to tell Jesus Christ at the Judgement bar, "Look! I made sure they did the right thing, and took it upon myself to punish them whenever they did something 'wrong'." Let God be God, it's difficult, especially among certain cultures that have been mistakenly thinking they have the right to take His place, for a long, long time. But really it's the only right choice (which is why I ADVOCATE for it, not FORCE you to do it). Protect others from harm to life, liberty and property and you'll be happier. Would to God that instead of wasting one's days trying to take away choices from people, that people would seek to enable their brethren to make more choices, and lift them up, rather than trying to oppress them into conformity.

Just look at the Blacks and the Priesthood history. People on both sides used divine wrath and judgement to make their cases, and in the end it didn't matter a hill of beans. Whatever the rationale for that decision (that flip flopped), agency ALWAYS is better than oppression. That's why God doesn't use it. That's exactly why your Grand Council understanding is fallacious. Satan didn't want to be a part of God's kingdom, so God didn't force him to be. He didn't just make bad choices. He wanted there to not BE a choice to do something wrong. Therefore, being committed against the entire plan and kingdom, Satan had no choice to leave the kingdom, and that is why it is called "Perdition" (loss). God could no more force him to be good than you can force your neighbor. If you're contention is that you don't believe in that force, then I suggest you stop trying (or implying that its right) to get the "Government" to force people into conformity with legal disparity. You don't have the authority to shut someone out of the Kingdom of God, Zion, or the United States. Don't think that God would ever justify you in so doing, whether by physically casting them out, or imposing legal consequences that effectually are doing the same. If you believe in there being a choice (freedom), then people necessarily have to be free to choose to enter into the contract you don't like.

Besides, your whole argument seems to be predicated on the fornication that could potentially take place in a same sex marriage, and not upon the oppression of rights and legal benefits. It's entirely possible for same-sex couples to engage in no sexual contact whatsoever, and instead get married for the legal benefits. I know MANY opposite sex couples that have married for property reasons, citizenship and other various reasons, and never had any type of sexual contact. All the more reason why the religious argument has no bearing on the secular law. It's not mutually exclusive. All arguments are based on animus, many of them are outright lies, and even more of them are just an affront to agency.

SkyBird wrote:jdawg1012... if you want to water down the truth its certainly your right. I call a spade a spade!

"Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness."
(Book of Mormon | Alma 41:10)

I am not saying I don't throw a "spade" out once in a while as a natural man... I am only human but I do understand corruption, when it comes to politics, and religion. Our constitution in its original form holds spiritual truths and principles that have been forgotten. I know the devils clocking devices... they are all over the place. The very "word" "politician" means "professional liar" and so we have lots of them today! How things have changed... they use to be called "statesman."

IIRC, didn't Ammonihah have a nice time in the name of tolerance, didn't their lawyers and judges conspire to make it a right to exterminate Christianity? Didn't they do it after the teachings of a perverse religion, Nehorism?

SkyBird wrote:Agreed... if people want to make a bad or sinful choice that is their "agency." They will in this life or the next pay the price for their choice. My intent is this discussion is when it comes to politics and religion it is again a choice... how do we legislate it?.. like it was in the council in heaven as you pointed out... What happened there was that the devil and his won over angels were cast out! If the leaders of our country and lawyers and judges were truly following "righteous" principles we would "cast out" (figuratively speaking) the rebellious and this land would become a holy land where a "Zion" would be prepared for the return of Christ.

Actually this is what will happen when Christ does come... He will "cast out" the "fence sitters" and "hypocrites," the politicians (professional liars) and the morally straight will remain.

More along the lines of those who persist, and I mean persist, in seeking to destroy the church of God, the man who died on the stormy night in Zion's Camp did so because he persistently tried crossing the river rather than flee for some kind of shelter in the middle of a flood and storm. In the last days there remains that real test of who will persist in the extreme hatred and obsession to destroy the church, even when it's dangerous or insane to do so, and those who won't.

Benjamin_LK wrote: IIRC, didn't Ammonihah have a nice time in the name of tolerance, didn't their lawyers and judges conspire to make it a right to exterminate Christianity? Didn't they do it after the teachings of a perverse religion, Nehorism?

Sorry you seem to be drawing some parallels that don't have anything to do with a limited government in relation to marital benefits. I must of missed the relevancy of a limited, constitutional government, and your ridiculous leap to the extermination of Christians.

Don't worry though, Pennsylvania's trial is slated for June 2014, within just a matter of about 22 weeks! (Should we start a countdown thread for PA?). The Judge, Hon. John E. Jones III, on Tuesday (Dec 18th) denied Corbett's appeal for dismissal based on Baker. So, feel free to join me, and take the opportunity to advocate a limited, constitutionally-bound government. It's never too late.

But, I guess if not, that's ok. If people don't want to get government out of marriage, rest assured that the governmental rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities that are currently unrighteously attached to marriage, will again be available for all, and very soon in PA. Since PA is the lone state without same-sex marriage in the 3rd district circuit, it's ticking ever closer for them, daily. Considering there are several challenges to the state's ban, as we speak, it maybe be a mere matter of weeks before your have same-sex marriage there, too.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if people don't stop the pendulum from swinging, it'll keep on swinging the direction they don't like. Now's your time to stand. Personally I don't care if you are personally willing to step up to the plate or not. Plenty of us, who are true Constitutional Conservatives, are fighting for the rights of everyone, not just those who have self serving interests. Some for the right reasons, some for the wrong ones. The right way, or the wrong way, people are going to have the access to those governmental rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities, and they are going to be given to all consenting adult couples in the United States. Sadly, if people do it the wrong way, they lose their say in morality (they, themselves being immoral).

Sorry if you think secular, civil marriage and it's accompanying governmental rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities is an extermination order on Christians. I certainly don't believe that nonsensical assertion, and it's not even logical enough to be considered a step UP to, a reducto ad absurdum logical fallacy.

I wish you all the best, fight the good fight! Now, you have a blessed day. The Winter Solstice is just 4 hours away! For the next six months, everyday will be brighter! What a wonderful thing to look forward to!

Will this federal judge's decision force the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to prevent bishops the authority to unite couples in matrimony? Bishops have always been in the marrying business. If a same-sex couple asks a bishop to marry them, is he allowed the agency to turn down that service without paying consequences in any form by the state/federal government. I know that in other states, businesses have lost court cases after refusing to provide services to a same-sex couples.

Does not providing equal rights to one person create loss of rights to the other?

seer stone wrote: ... Does not providing equal rights to one person create loss of rights to the other?

Yes, it most certainly does

seer stone wrote:Will this federal judge's decision force the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to prevent bishops the authority to unite couples in matrimony? Bishops have always been in the marrying business. If a same-sex couple asks a bishop to marry them, is he allowed the agency to turn down that service without paying consequences in any form by the state/federal government. I know that in other states, businesses have lost court cases after refusing to provide services to a same-sex couples.

Does not providing equal rights to one person create loss of rights to the other?

I'll take them one at a time.

Will this federal judge's decision force the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to prevent bishops the authority to unite couples in matrimony?

Nope. No clergy in the U.S. (to my knowledge) has ever been forced officiate in a marriage ceremony they didn't want to. I do believe that some state officials in other countries have, based on their laws (they don't have a 1st amendment like we do). But in those other countries (lacking the protections of the 1st amendment), they're also free to choose a different line of work.

Bishops have always been in the marrying business.

Bishops (IIRC) have been told not to marry outside of their congregations, and it's also extraordinarily rare for them to perform a wedding (but it does sometimes happen if a couple is excluded from getting a temple marriage). That's not particularly insightful to this topic of civil/governmental recognition of marriage, though.

If a same-sex couple asks a bishop to marry them, is he allowed the agency to turn down that service without paying consequences in any form by the state/federal government.

In this country, he sure is allowed to deny them. That may not be the case in the future, but the First Amendment guarantees that right. If it's abolished, then it may happen, but I doubt it will be.

I know that in other states, businesses have lost court cases after refusing to provide services to a same-sex couples.

This is a false dichotomy, but I'll address it. Businesses (not clergy), in other states have lost discrimination cases in which they violated their OWN states laws concerning services to the public. (Contrary to popular belief, businesses DON'T have the right to refuse service to anyone). It's synonymous with someone in a commercial setting deciding not to serve Latter-Day saints because they don't agree with their religion. Those cases involving discrimination are few and rare, but admittedly they do happen. I'm not for anti-discrimination laws, and have never advocated them. I don't believe that the state should take away the rights of individuals to govern their private property. However, long ago the public decided that they would make anti-discrimination laws in order to accommodate women, minorities, age, marital status, religion and a host of other statuses. Some areas and jurisdictions have included sexual orientation to that list. Many have not. While I don't believe in forcing someone to sell you a cake (be you black, gay, female, old, or of a different faith), the public has willingly accepted that legal bondage. I fight against it too.

Perhaps you'd like to join with me in advocating for the abolishing of anti-discrimination laws. That way, no one would be legally forced to serve anyone else (be they black, gay, female, old, handicapped, etc.). You can manage your property as you see fit. So could everyone else. I would advise you to be prepared to not be served by some religions based upon your religion, and some establishments to discriminate because of your skin color, etc. I have no problem with that, because I believe in equal rights (thus, no one has to serve someone they choose not to), and the right to govern our own property (the other necessary component). Anyone could enter into any contract they saw fit, and you wouldn't have to service them. So nope, no one would be forced into making cakes for gay couples. But people could fire, turn you away, and evict you at their whim and pleasure (in accordance to any contracts they have with you), too. That's perfectly fine with me.

Shelby's ruling actually INCREASES religious freedom. There are currently many faiths that believe in/allow same-sex marriage. Their churches and their congregations support their religious freedom to get married. The state denied them that ability. Latter-Day Saints believe in allowing men and women the freedom to worship how, and what, and where they may. Therefore, people that believe in same-sex marriage are allowed to have them, and people that do not, don't have to get one. In a perfect world you wouldn't have to acknowledge them whatsoever. I in fact support that. but no one would have to acknowledge your marriage either (as a religious rite, not as an enforceable contract). Now, religious liberty is preserved. Private businesses may one day be unable to discriminate in more jurisdictions, but those anti-discrimination laws (which, again, I don't agree with) came long before same-sex marriage came to the U.S.

Does not providing equal rights to one person create loss of rights to the other?

Providing equal rights NEVER creates the loss of one person's rights to the other (hence the term "equal," right there in the name). EVER. If you live in one of the states with same-sex marriage (soon to be all), you have the right to get married to the person of your choosing, be they male or female. Ideally, you would have the right not to acknowledge their marriage in your business dealings, and they'd have the right to ignore yours, too. See how easy that is? The problem stems from when some people want to be able to have certain things (like getting the 1100+ benefits of marriage), but saying other people can't have that same freedom. That's why I don't advocate government being involved in marriage, since the current argument is a religious rite. Again, feel free to join me in being a Constitutional Conservative. People would think it's stupid to make hundreds and thousands of benefits contingent upon, oh say, religious circumcision, but they have no problem affixing it to marriage (which they erroneously refer to as a strictly religious rite). That's why this law was unconstitutional. It creates two classes of people (hence being struck down by the EQUAL protections clause).

And if you're referring to anti-discrimination laws (which I don't believe in), then they infringe on property rights of everyone equally. I repeat, they certainly do infringe on property rights, but not in favor of one group over another (your question). Under them, all people are excluded from being discriminated against for certain reasons. You enjoy those same "protections" under those laws (no one can fire you for your race, age, sex, religion, etc., either). So the answer to your question is a resounding "NO."

Janadele1 wrote:

seer stone wrote: ... Does not providing equal rights to one person create loss of rights to the other?

Yes, it most certainly does

Incorrect, it most certainly does NOT. Equal rights are just that, equal. However, anti-discrimination laws (what that posted alluded to) do hinder everyone's right to liberty, equally (not one over another). Don't confuse the two concepts.

seer stone wrote:Will this federal judge's decision force the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to prevent bishops the authority to unite couples in matrimony? Bishops have always been in the marrying business. If a same-sex couple asks a bishop to marry them, is he allowed the agency to turn down that service without paying consequences in any form by the state/federal government. I know that in other states, businesses have lost court cases after refusing to provide services to a same-sex couples.

Does not providing equal rights to one person create loss of rights to the other?

Eventually, it probably might. It all depends on what society as a whole views as rights. It's usually in fringe, or extreme cases, where the meaning of rights gets twisted, such as totalitarian regimes, which butcher millions of people as part of society having a "right" to not have those people as part of it. Again, this is fringe reasoning.

As far as law goes, the church has managed for a while in Europe, where SSM as been going on for a while in the mainland. The church hasn't been forced to do so yet, primarily because it is not a state church in whatever nation it has membership. It also separates the legal marriage from the temple marriage where neccessary.