Reaction To The LDS First Presidency's SCOTUS Marriage Letter From The Airport Heights Ward

The pastoral letter on the SCOTUS gay marriage decision from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was read at my local ward, the Airport Heights Ward of the Anchorage Alaska North Stake today (July 5th), and there was little to no reaction from Church members.

Adult males (Melchizedek Priesthood) and females (Relief Society) met together, where the bishop personally read the letter. Young Men and Young Women met separately in a combined group and heard the letter from the first counselor. After the bishop read the letter, there was only one question posed. A ward member wanted to know where he could get his own copy of the letter. He was steered to the LDS website (LDS.org). The bishop emphasized that we were not to mistreat any ward members who support secular same-sex marriage. The letter was not referred to in either Sunday School or in Sacrament Meeting. What was interesting is that during Sacrament Meeting, we went out of our way to show that the SCOTUS decision did not weaken our patriotism to the federal government by singing The Star-Spangled Banner (everyone in the chapel stood up for this) and America The Beautiful.

Other LDS members posting on LDS Freedom Forum reported similar reactions at their respective congregations, with one exception:

gkearney » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:48 pm
Bishop read it to the Priesthood YW/RS in their respective meetings. HE offered to let the quorums/classes discuss it following. None of them did. Very uneventful.

davedan » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:55 pm
We had our 5-min combined meeting with Relief Society, and Priesthood. The Bishop read the First Presidency Message and asked for questions. There were no questions. We separated for our usual lessons.

Bpalmer » Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:06 pm
Ours was read today in priesthood opening exercises and the RS had it read to them during their meeting. No response from anyone. The Bishop did say that if anyone had any issue they were invited to meet with him privately.

WikiUp » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:58 pm
Letter read today.

Bishop requested all in attendance (children, youth, adults, visitors) at Sacrament Meeting remain in the chapel at the close of Sacrament meeting.

After close of Sacrament Meeting, the 1st Councilor read the letter to all. Nobody departed from the Chapel before or during the reading. All were offered to come up to the front of the chapel and discuss any questions or concerns with the bishopric.

No questions or responses. Dismissed for Sunday School classes. Didn't hear any informal discussion afterwards.

Youth had discussion meetings with Bishopric during YM/YW time.

idahommie » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:32 pm
Bishop read the letter in priesthood meeting, RS and Sunday school with the youth, so the Aaronic Priesthood got a double dose. No questions were raised.

Indy » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:52 pm (this was the exception)
The adults were requested to meet today during the last 15 minutes of SS when the letter would be read. After reading the letter then Bishop gave a personal talk and followed up with Q&A. The questions were well thought out and the meeting went about 15 minutes longer then the allotted 15 minutes and ranged from BSA to not allowing the facilities in any way for receptions etc. for gay couples. There were several statements by members as to how this is not over, the Scotus had overstepped their bounds, and there were several legal steps that will be tried. I was impressed by the questions and responses. I did notice that the most liberal members declined to attend the meeting. The bishop said anyone that had personal issues that they did not want to express could meet with him in private.

The letter or the Bishop said that we still have freedom of religion, and the family proclamation is still the Churches stance on the subject. I am was grateful for the reassurances, but still feel this is going to be a fight in the near future -- gays wanting to be sealed, etc.

LDS Church's First Presidency Issues Pastoral Letter On SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Affirms And Explains Present Doctrine On Marriage

On June 26th, 2015, after the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, invalidated all restrictions against secular same-sex marriages nationwide, the Church of Jesus Christ promptly issued the following statement to inform the world that the church will not change its doctrinal position on marriage:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

However, the LDS Church has followed up on June 29th by issuing a pastoral letter under the signature of the First Presidency that will be communicated to LDS congregations throughout the United States beginning on Sunday July 5th. Because the subject is considered unsuitable for children younger than 12 years old, the letter will not be read at Sacrament Meeting as is usually done with other pastoral letters, but will be read to adults, Young Men and Young Women in their various quorum meetings. The three parts of the letter are reproduced below:

Part 1: Introduction:

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY
47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200

June 29, 2015

TO: General Authorities; General Auxiliary Presidencies; and the following leaders in the United States and Canada: Area Seventies; Temple, Stake Mission and District Presidencies; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

Enclosed is a statement by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in response to the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. The statement also pertains to the situation in Canada. Local leaders are asked to meet with all adults, young men, and young women on either July 5 or July 12 in a setting other than sacrament meeting and read to them the entire statement.

Also included is background material which may be helpful in answering questions that arise.

Stake presidents are asked to see that bishops receive copies of this letter and the enclosures.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas S. Monson

Henry B. Eyring

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

What normally happens in my ward is that the High Priests Group and the Elders Quorum will meet together, during which time the pastoral letter will be read by a member of the Bishopric/Branch Presidency. Because Young Men are mentioned separately, the Aaronic Priesthood Quorums may assemble separately to hear it.

Part 2: Response:

RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION LEGALIZING SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES

June 29, 2015

Because of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and similar legal proceedings and legislative actions in a number of countries that have given civil recognition to same‐sex marriage relationships, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality, marriage, and the family. As we do, we encourage all to consider these teachings in the context of the Plan of Salvation and our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children.

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27‐28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and vital to eternal salvation.

A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility -- even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same-sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite all to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths God established in the beginning, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.


THE COUNCIL OF
THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND
QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER‐DAY SAINTS

The three italicized paragraphs are the most important takeaways. First, the Church states that its officers will not perform same-sex marriages, and its facilities will not be used for any ceremonies or gatherings related to a same-sex wedding. Second, the Church reminds us that the gospel of Jesus Christ requires us to treat ALL people with kindness and civility, and that guaranteeing constitutional protection for gays in other areas is appropriate. Finally, the Church insists on its right to set membership standards and on the right of members to express religious convictions on marriage.

Part 3: Background Q & A:

Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents
On the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex Marriage

The Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise.

For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1, 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world, but the physical and social toll for doing so is a painful matter of record. So, too, with issues of unchaste sexual behavior, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation. As the First Presidency has previously said and as this current response affirms, “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society” (First Presidency letter on “Same‐ Sex Marriage,” January 9, 2014).

Q: What is the Church’s Policy on Homosexual Relations?

A: “Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance. “If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

“While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. “If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2, 21.4.6).

Q: Does the authorization of same‐sex marriage affect my right to religious freedom?

A: Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we exercise that right, we must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God. “While we strive for the virtue of tolerance, other commendable qualities need not be lost. Tolerance does not require the surrender of noble purpose or of individual identity. The Lord gave instruction to leaders of His restored Church to establish and maintain institutional integrity—‘that the Church may stand independent’ (D&C 78:14)” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Teach Us Tolerance and Love,” April 1994 general conference). How do I respond respectfully to those who consider the Church’s position on this matter unchristian? Our objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable. “On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference).

Q: What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject?

“Members who...have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities.

“If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. “...Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).

LDS Member Condemns 4th Circuit Court Of Appeals Decision To Overturn Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban

On Monday July 28th, 2014, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional by a 2-1 vote. Judge Henry Floyd, appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, was joined by Judge Roger Gregory (appointed by Bill Clinton) in the majority, while Judge Paul Niemeyer (appointed by George H.W. Bush) dissented. Not surprisingly, Judge Floyd played the 14th Amendment card, and cited the landmark 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which overturned the state’s law against interracial marriage, implied a fundamental right to marry that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms. In contrast, Judge Niemeyer noted that because there exist deep, fundamental differences between traditional and same-sex marriage, the plaintiffs and the majority erred by conflating the two relationships under the loosely drawn rubric of "the right to marriage".

The case resulted from a homosexual Norfolk couple’s lawsuit against the clerk of Norfolk Circuit Court after he refused to issue them a marriage license. The ruling upheld a federal judge’s earlier ruling that the clerk’s decision in accordance with a state constitutional ban against same-sex matrimonial unions violated the men’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, the court affirmed that the U.S. Constitution trumps the state constitution’s proscription against gay marriage.

-- Read the 98-page opinion issued in Case No. 14-1167, Bostic v. Schaefer (PDF format)

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Attorney General Mark Herring, and U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, all Democrats, acclaimed the court's decision. The Virginia clerks were expected to seek a stay of the decision, pending either a rehearing by the full circuit court, or consideration of same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court. Byron Babione, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that represented one of the clerks, said they were considering their next steps. Among other media outlets reporting reaction was the Suffolk News-Herald, and the response of 48-year-old Annette Lewis, identified as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was included. Here's the excerpt:

Annette Lewis, 48, referred to marriage between two individuals of the same gender as an “abomination.”

“I don’t have anything against gay people,” she said, “but the Bible that I read says that it’s wrong.”

Lewis said she reads the King James Version of the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“The court made a wrong decision, because it’s supposed to be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Paul, and you can quote me on that,” she said.

The LDS Church officially defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, but has disavowed any intent to take disciplinary action against Church members who support legalizing gay marriage.

According to the Washington Post, as of July 28th, 20 states allow gay marriage, and bans against same-sex marriage have been ruled unconstitutional in 11 other states, including Virginia. Court challenges against gay marriage bans have been mounted in all other states.

Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) Survey Indicates Catholics, Mormons, And Evangelicals Perceived As "Unfriendly" Towards LGBT People

Despite increased outreach by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints towards gays reassuring them that same-sex orientation alone is not a sin and that they are welcome to become members of the Church if they abstain from sex, Mormons are still perceived by a plurality of the general public as being "unfriendly" towards LGBT people. That's part of the findings reported by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) on their report entitled "A Shifting Landscape: A Decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues", released on February 26th, 2014.

Screenshot from page 21 of the report

In fact, Mormons were perceived to be one of the three most unfriendly religious groups towards gays. Catholics lead the way with 58 percent perceived as unfriendly, while Mormons checked in at 53 percent and Evangelicals at 51 percent. Interestingly, on the flip side, while 27 percent characterized Catholics as gay-friendly and 24 percent thought Evangelicals as gay-friendly, only 13 percent of respondents characterized Mormons as gay-friendly. This was the only part of the survey in which Mormons were highlighted.

-- Read the full 60-page report HERE.

-- Read the 23-page description of the survey methodology and the questions HERE.

Other issues examined in the survey include gay marriage, parenting and adopting by gay and lesbian couples, employment nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBT people, and perceptions of discrimination and bullying in society. A few factoids of interest:

-- The survey estimates that only five percent of the U.S. population identify as LGBT. PRRI found that most respondents tended to significantly overestimate the percentage of LGBT people, with only 14 percent correctly estimating five percent. This can be attributable to media infatuation and oversaturation, a problem identified by Kathryn Skaggs in her post about Disney's Frozen movie.

-- Support for gay marriage has jumped from 21 percent in 2003 to 53 percent in 2013.

-- Support for gay adoptions has jumped from 38 percent in 1999 to 58 percent in 2013.

-- 72 percent of respondents support extending antidiscrimination protection to gays.

-- Democratic support for gay marriage increased from 39 percent in 2003 to 64 percent in 2013.

-- Independent support for gay marriage increased from 39 percent in 2003 to 57 percent in 2013.

-- Republican support for gay marriage increased from 18 percent in 2003 to 34 percent in 2013.

The remarkable success of the Gay Mafia's sustained propaganda campaign must be turning Joseph Goebbels green with envy. The Salt Lake Tribune noted that only the issue of marijuana legalization looks anything like this in terms of rapid reversal in favorability.

The survey was designed and conducted by PRRI; they sampled 4,509 adults 18 years of age or older in the U.S. from November 12th through December 18th, 2013. Margin of error estimated to be +/- 1.7 percent. Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research at the intersection of religion, values, and public life. Their mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting public opinion surveys and qualitative research. As members of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the American Political Science Association (APSA), and the American Academy of Religion (AAR), their research team strives to follow the highest research standards of independence and academic excellence.

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Stay Of Utah Gay Marriage Order; Trestin Meacham Ends Fast After 15 Days

On January 6th, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court put same-sex marriages in Utah on hold, granting the state’s request for a stay while it appeals a U.S. District Court ruling that Utah's constitutional prohibition against such marriages are unconstitutional. The court said the stay would be in place until the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver makes a decision on Utah’s appeal. The first briefs will be filed by the state on January 27th, a response from attorneys for the three gay couples who challenged the law is due by February 18th, and any subsequent reply from the state must be filed by February 25th. The state's fight is still projected to cost at least $2 million. The appeal was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who referred it to the full court. Justice Sotomayor has designated oversight over the 10th Circuit.

According to the Supreme Court's SCOTUS blog, the order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents. The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman. Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have left at least the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the thirty-three states where they are still not permitted by state law. But they caution that the order cannot be interpreted as a dependable indication of how the Court will rule on the issue when it finally decides to do so directly.

-- Read the one-page decision HERE.

In response, Trestin Meacham, an ordinary LDS member who previously ran for the Utah state legislature as a Constitution Party candidate, chose to end his 15-day fast. Meacham pledged to fast, consuming only water and vitamins, until Utah stopped performing same-sex marriages; since the Supreme Court ruling prohibits further same-sex marriages, his fast accomplished its advertise purpose. On his Twitter site, Meacham proclaimed initial victory, but said it's only a first step and still wants Utah to exercise nullification. Meacham also added that while he is opposed to same-sex marriage in principle, the reason for the fast was the unconstitutional nature of the ruling. He also said that another purpose of the fast was to "expose the hatred of the supposedly tolerant homosexual movement", which was expressed in spades. The Daily Mail reports that Meacham will give up football next time.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court stay leaves same-sex marriages already performed in limbo. For example, can newly-minted gay couples file state taxes jointly, or must they continue to file individually? In response to this dilemma, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said "We don’t know the answer yet as to marriages already performed. Utah’s Office of the Attorney General is carefully evaluating the legal status of the marriages that were performed since the District Court’s decision and will not rush to a decision that impacts Utah citizens so profoundly. There is not clear legal precedent for this particular situation." Since California experienced the same problem during their Proposition 8 debate, Reyes should probably examine how they handled it as additional guidance.

Nevertheless, Utah Governor Gary Herbert was pleased with the Supreme Court decision, saying "Clearly, the stay should have been granted with the original District Court decision in order to have avoided the uncertainty created by this unprecedented change. As I have said all along, all Utahns deserve to have this issue resolved through a fair and complete judicial process. I firmly believe this is a state-rights issue, and I will work to defend the position of the people of Utah and our State Constitution".

The Salt Lake Tribune documented reaction from the ACLU and an assortment of gay rights lobbies. Of greatest interest is the reaction of the three same-sex couples who started this legal conundrum. Their attorney, James E. Magleby, merely stated "Every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally". Yada, yada, yada. Just 24 hours earlier, the Tribune published an editorial basically advising the state to let it go, marginalizing the freely-expressed will of 66 percent of Utah voters in 2003 by suggesting that Amendment Three would not pass today. The Tribune also noted that the LDS Church has gone from actively participating in the marriage wars to simply explaining its own beliefs and practices, and on that basis, the Tribune proclaims that "the tide has turned".

Interesting that the Tribune doesn't propose a new election to see if voters really have changed their minds. But that's how progressives operate -- they like democracy when the vote goes their way, but prefer oligarchy when the vote doesn't go their way.

Positive response came from Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, who also called for the estimated 900 homosexual marriages that were performed in the state before the stay to be summarily invalidated. The National Organization for Marriage was also pleased, characterizing Judge Shelby's original decision as "lawless", and adding that the Supreme Court's decision will allow the state to appeal in an orderly fashion. The LDS Church has not issued a new statement on this development; their previous statement on December 20th remains operative.

LDS Member Trestin Meacham Emulates Mahatma Gandhi, Launches Fast To Stop Gay Marriage In Utah

Update January 6th: After the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of Judge Shelby's order to allow same-sex marriages, Trestin Meacham ended his fast after 15 days. On his Twitter site, he proclaimed initial victory, but said it's only a first step and still wants Utah to exercise nullification. Meacham also added that while he is opposed to same-sex marriage in principle, the reason for the fast was the unconstitutional nature of the ruling. He also said that another purpose of the fast was to "expose the hatred of the supposedly tolerant homosexual movement".

A devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has torn a page out of Mahatma Gandhi's book in an effort to stop the onset of same-sex marriage in Utah. Trestin Meacham, identified as a devout LDS member, has launched a fast which he says will remain in effect until all Utah counties stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. KTVX Channel 4 was the first Utah media outlet with the story, but now the New York Daily News has picked it up and adds to it. The Daily Mail has given this story an international push.

But his personal blog and his Twitter site offer even more information. Meacham begun his fast on December 21st, 2013, and as of January 2nd, 2014, has lost 25 pounds. He only consumes water and an occasional vitamin. Meacham told KTVX he's fasting to convince Utah to exercise the option of nullification. According to his interpretation of states’ rights, Utah can nullify the recent federal court ruling by simply choosing not to follow it, and he cites the example of a number of states which are seeking to nullify Obamacare to support his case. Meacham says that if Utah simply nullifies Judge Shelby's decision, the state won't have to spend money challenging it; KSL Channel 5 estimates the price tag for challenging could be at least $2 million. Regarding the Supremacy Clause, Meacham acknowledges that while it gives power to the Federal Government to act within the confines of the Constitution, when they act outside of the limits placed by the Constitution, the states have the power to nullify. Read his full blog post entitled "Utah Must Nullify" for the full explanation. Meacham also recommends a tutorial about state nullification posted on LibertyClassroom.

But attorney Greg Skordas, who ran unsuccessfully for Salt Lake County District Attorney in 2010, doesn't agree with Meacham's definition of nullification. Skordas said nullification doesn't work with Utah’s case; when the federal government grants someone a constitutional right, states must recognize it. He added that when individual personal liberties are at stake, the state can't infringe on that, even if it's the will of the people. Of course, Skordas is assuming that marriage is a civil right, even though we ban siblings and polygamists from contracting marriages.

Already one hatemonger has published a post disagreeing with Meacham. But like most progressives, The Blerg can't resist the personal insult, referring to Meacham as having "cold, freakishly empty eyes". Why progressives insist on indulging in childish name-calling is beyond me; they will not persuade normal, stable human beings of their point of view. Progressives are nothing more than a cancer growing on the body politic of America, but unfortunately many conservatives fail to distinguish between responsible classical liberals like Jim Matheson whose patriotism to this country and love of the Lord are beyond question, vs. progressive extremists who are agents of Satan upon planet Earth.

To counter the progressive smears, Meacham wrote "This has nothing to do with hatred of a group of people. I have friends and relatives who practice a homosexual lifestyle and I treat them with the same respect and kindness that I would anyone. This is about religious freedom, and an out of control federal government."

RightWingWatch publishes more background on Trestin Meacham. They say he is a libertarian-leaning Navy veteran who ran for the Utah State Senate in 2012 as a Conservative Party candidate. The Cultural Hall Podcast has a 15-minute audio interview with him posted HERE.

As for the continuing court fight, on Tuesday December 31st, lawyers for the state of Utah filed an emergency application for a stay to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saying same-sex marriages being performed in Utah are an affront to the will of the state and its residents. Sotomayor is the justice who oversees the 10th Circuit. It's unknown how soon she will make a decision or whether she'll decide to refer the matter to the full court. However, we need to remember that Sotomayor joined the 5-4 majority in striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and ruling against the proponents of California's Proposition 8 in 2012, so I would be surprised if she grants the stay.

LDS Church Reaffirms Support For Traditional Marriage After Unelected Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah's Voter-Approved Constitutional Prohibition Against Gay Marriage

Despite the fact that 66 percent of Utah voters voted in favor of Amendment Three in 2004, which led to Utah constitutionally defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman, an unelected Federal judge decided on December 20th, 2013 to disregard the will of the people and invalidate Utah's definition of marriage. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that its definition of marriage violates rights to due process and equal protection as set forth in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In response, Gov. Gary Herbert instructed the Attorney General to file an emergency appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, while the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement reaffirming its continued support for traditional marriage. On the other hand, Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill confirmed that, in light of the ruling, he saw no reason to prohibit the county clerk's office from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and as many as 120 gay couples swarmed upon the county clerk's office to obtain licenses, with many staying to marry on the spot. Clerks in Utah, Weber and Davis counties initially said they were not issuing licenses pending instruction from county attorneys, but Davis County Attorney Troy S. Rawlings later told his clerks to abide by the ruling. While Washington County issued marriage licenses to two gay couples, Utah County turned away several same-sex couples.

-- Read the 53-page Kitchen et al v Herbert court decision HERE.

Update December 22nd: On this date, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Gov. Herbert's Emergency Motion for Temporary Stay of Judge Shelby's decision because it neither addressed nor satisfied the factors that must be established to be entitled to a stay pending an appeal. The Salt Lake Tribune reports that the 10th Circuit Court couldn’t rule on a stay since Judge Shelby hadn’t acted on the same motion also before him. However, the denial is without prejudice, meaning the defendants-appellants can still file another motion for stay pending appeal if it complies with regulations. The state has now filed another motion for a stay to be heard by the full Circuit Court, and the full court is not expected to make that decision for at least a few months. Read the two-page court document HERE.

Update December 23rd: On this date, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby denied Utah's request for a stay, saying that the state had only regurgitated the arguments he had already thrown out. Assistant attorney general Phil Lott said the lack of stay leaves Utah in chaos, and Acting Attorney General Brian Tarbet said the state would seek an emergency motion for a stay from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver forthwith, adding that the state would consider going to the U.S. Supreme Court if the 10th Circuit doesn't grant a stay.

After Utahns approved Amendment 3 in 2004, their verdict was incorporated as Article 1, Section 29 of the state constitution:

(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

The Litigants: Gay couple Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity and lesbian couple Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge filed a lawsuit challenging the amendment in March 2013 after Salt Lake County denied them marriage licenses. Karen Archer and Kate Call, who were legally married in Iowa, joined the suit because Utah does not recognize their marriage as valid. Citing U.S. Supreme Court civil rights cases Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools in the South, and Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated laws banning interracial marriage, as well as the Supreme Court decision gutting the Defense of Marriage ACT (DOMA), the plaintiffs contended that for the same reasons the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state governments from making this distinction. The State of Utah, with Gov. Gary Herbert, then-Attorney General John Swallow, and Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen, argued that that the federal government cannot intrude upon a state’s decision not to recognize same-sex marriage, meaning that it is up to each individual state to decide whether two persons of the same sex may occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage.

Summary of Initial Ruling: Judge Robert Shelby, who was appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, swallowed the plaintiffs arguments and said that the state of Utah provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage would be adversely affected in any way by same-sex marriage, concluding that in the absence of such evidence, the state’s speculations are insufficient to justify the state’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens. He added that the U.S. Constitution protects the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government. Furthermore, Judge Shelby noted that any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States, and so he decided the issue was not who should define marriage, but the more narrow question of whether Utah’s current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution. Since Judge Shelby concluded that Utah's current law deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason, he ruled the law unconstitutional. By the way, the unofficial word is that Judge Shelby is not LDS.

The Upshot: Because of Judge Shelby's ruling, Utah is now, as of this post, officially the 18th state to have legal gay marriage. However, if the ruling is stayed, the ban will be reinstituted while the legal fight continues and no more marriage licenses will be issued. A plaintiff’s attorney said marriage licenses issued to that point will be valid, but the state said marriages would be declared invalid if its appeal succeeds.

Governor Gary Herbert issued the following statement:

“I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah. I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah”.

And the LDS Church weighed in with the following statement issued through spokesman Cody Craynor:

"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court."

Although there's no indication that any pastor, priest or bishop would be forced to solemnize gay marriages as a result of this ruling, Utah House Majority Leader Brad Dee (R-Ogden) said he has served in positions as a mayor and LDS Church bishop where he had the authority to marry people and wondered if refusing to marry someone based on his deeply held religious beliefs would be considered discrimination. Undoubtedly that's coming next, but the Gay Mafia is smart enough to feed the sheep only spoonfuls of political correctness at a time.

Additional Reaction: Strong disapproval expressed on LDS Freedom Forum. But jdawg1012 read the four-hour transcript of the summary judgment hearing, and characterized the state's defense as a "joke". Denver Snuffer merely posted Alma 10:27, which states "And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges."

LDS Church Criticizes Supreme Court Rulings On Proposition 8 And DOMA, Remains Committed To Strengthening Traditional Marriage

Those who were concerned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was caving in to political correctness when they supported the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to admit gay Scouts need to disabuse themselves of that notion right now. On June 26th, 2013, in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California Proposition 8, the LDS Church explicitly reaffirmed its commitment to defending traditional marriage as well as democratic expression through the ballot box. Here's the official reaction by the LDS Church:

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

According to Joanna Brooks, local Mormon action independent of Church headquarters is also expected. In one Washington, D.C., area stake, LDS Church leaders sent an email message to members requesting their attendance at a National Day of Prayer on religious freedom convened by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this Thursday (June 27th) in Arlington, Virginia. At least Brooks is intellectually honest enough to admit that only a minority of Mormons have expressed support for the Supreme Court decisions. Other Christians joining the LDS Church in opposition include the Most Reverend John C. Wester, Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, Southern Evangelical Seminary President Richard Land, and American Family Association President Tim Wildmon.

The two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are available online:

-- Hollingsworth v. Perry: This is the 35-page decision over Proposition 8. From the SCOTUSBlog, a short explanation in plain English. After two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court ruled that they could do so under state law. But the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case. Majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Minority opinion by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.

-- United States v. Windsor: This is the 77-page decision over DOMA. From the SCOTUSBlog, a short explanation in plain English. In ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, the Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples. Majority opinion by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Dissenting was Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito.

Additional legal analysis from a multitude of sources is available on this separate page of SCOTUS.

Unofficial LDS Reaction: LDS Freedom Forum has opened up a discussion on how these decisions may ultimately affect temple marriage. The LDS Bloggernacle, which tends to be left-of-center politically, has exploded with reaction (after the jump):

Bucket Of Worms: If Gay Marriage Can Be Legally And Morally Justified, Then Why Not Plural Marriage (Polygamy)?

As you can see in the Wikipedia graphic published above, gay marriage will be legal in 12 U.S. states effective August 1st, 2013. They are Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Yet despite this, some gay marriage advocates don't believe plural marriages can be justified.

Back on March 23rd, 2006, Slate published an article by William Saletan in which he justifies gay marriage but opposes plural marriage. Saletan writes "Here's the answer. The number isn't two. It's one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn't arbitrary. It's based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy". However, this explanation in and of itself is arbitrary. Who empowered Saletan to define human nature for the rest of us? In fact, many make the case that a considerable number of men are, by their very nature, polygamous. And women, too, which explains why adultery is so commonplace in contemporary society. In fact, some religions, particularly Islam and the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints, insist that plural marriage is ordained of God, although the Quran imposes a limit of four wives upon Muslim men. Worse yet, Andrew Sullivan, a gay man himself, wants legal gay marriage for himself but would selfishly deny legal marriage to polyamorous groups, writing in 2006 “Legalizing [polygamy] is a bad idea for a society in general for all the usual reasons (abuse of women, the dangers of leaving a pool of unmarried straight men in the population at large, etc.)”.

The bottom line -- if gay marriage is morally and legally justified, so is plural marriage. To claim that gay marriage is O.K. but plural marriage is wrong is intellectually dishonest. It is selfish for gay marriage advocates to get their brand of marriage legalized but freeze out those who believe someone should be allowed to marry more than one spouse. In contrast, bestial marriage could never be justified because only one party, the human, is capable of knowingly consenting to the arrangement. Animals are not capable of giving informed consent.

If the federal government was to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and declare gay marriage to be legal nationwide, they would be opening themselves up to lawsuits to be filed by plural marriage advocates. Both the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints and Muslims would have grounds to sue to get plural marriage recognized, at least for religious purposes. While it is possible that such lawsuits would be rejected since neither religious group recognizes the right of women to have more than one husband, this may not stop them from suing. And although the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has indefinitely suspended the solemnization of plural marriages, there would be a demand for Congress to formally repeal the Edmunds-Tucker Act and other anti-polygamy legislation used by the federal government to oppress Mormons during the latter half of the 19th century.

If you think gay marriage is complicated, think about the additional complexities of plural marriage. How would the law mandate property rights and responsibilities in partial poly divorces? What about the rights and responsibilities of marriage that merge into preexisting marriages? And how about setting default laws for multiple inheritance in the absence of a will, allocating Social Security benefits, etc.

This is just another reason why gay marriage should be rejected. It opens up a big bucket of worms.

Community Of Christ Concludes 2013 World Conference, Conditionally Approves Gay Marriage At Separate USA National Conference

The Community of Christ concluded its 2013 World Conference which took place from April 13-18, and the most significant legislative development of this conference was the decision to rescind General Conference Resolution (GCR) 297, which made the issue of whether or not a person drinks intoxicating beverages a test of fellowship. If it was enforced, it would mean that a church member who drinks an alcoholic beverage could be excommunicated from the church. By rescinding GCR 297, the Conference decided that excommunicating someone merely because they drink alcohol is not a requirement. Rescinding GCR 297 does NOT repeal the Word of Wisdom. In another decision, there is no change to the Community of Christ's baptism policy, only a call for a study about the issue of infant baptism with a report back to the church by the next World Conference.

Visit the 2013 World Conference page and review the official business minutes for each day for more information on other discussions and decisions.

But the more momentous decision actually occurred at the separate 2013 USA National Conference, which convened from April 19-21. This Conference essentially approved gay marriage to be performed wherever it is legal, and commitment services for gay couples where gay marriage is not legal. The decision, if approved by the senior church leadership, would apply only in the United States. Kendra Friend, a member of the church’s communications and media relations team, believes the First Presidency and Council of The Twelve will follow the recommendations of the National Conference. Apostle Linda Booth provided an explanation to KSHB Channel 41: “We believe this is where God is directing Community of Christ, to be an inclusive body where everyone is welcome...We will be able to provide covenant commitment ceremonies in this state, where it's not legal, for anyone who wants to make a long-term life commitment to one another", said Booth. News video embedded below:



The Blue Springs Examiner has some good media coverage, publishing the following stories:

-- "Veazey counsels followers to shape communities", April 16th 2013: Discusses President Stephen M. Veazey's Words Of Counsel to the church. President Veazey urged church members to continue to shape communities that live Christ’s love and mission, and to shape their actions to end people’s suffering and abolish poverty. Read the full text of President Veazey's address HERE.

-- "Service to host community part of World Conference", April 18th 2013: Discusses Jessica Ralston's tasking to lead one of the community service projects during the 2013 World Conference. Ralston headed up a group of volunteers who put together more than 250 necessity bags for the Independence School District’s Family Services Department. In 2012, the Family Services Department helped about 900 homeless children and their families, so this is significant.

-- "Community of Christ celebrates ordinations", April 18th 2013: Reports on the ordination of three new members of the Council of Twelve Apostles: Arthur E. Smith of Independence, Barbara L. Carter of Newark, Del., and Mareva M. Arnaud Tchong of Tahiti, French Polynesia. Adam R. Wade, a native of Melbourne, Australia, was also set apart as a president of Seventy and member of the Council of Presidents of Seventy.

-- "Woman elected to serve as president of Council of Twelve Apostles", April 20th 2013: Linda Booth, already a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles, was set apart to serve as president of the Council of Twelve Apostles April 17th. She is the first woman to serve as president of the Council.

And here are two stories from the Examiner about the separate USA National Conference that took place from April 19-21 after the conclusion of the World Conference on April 18th:

-- "Community of Christ U.S. delegates address same sex marriage", April 20th 2013: Reports on the efforts of delegates to address two issues – same-sex/gender marriage where legal, and covenant commitment services where marriage is not legal and the ordination of people regardless of sexual orientation. A 67 percent majority would be required to make recommendations to the First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles for the final decision.

-- "Community of Christ delegates recommend dropping sexual orientation barriers", April 21st 2013: Delegates decided that the Community of Christ should recognize same-sex marriage where legal in the U.S., offer commitment services for same-sex couples where marriage is not legal, and open the door to priesthood regardless of sexual orientation. The policy changes would apply only to the U.S. churches; current policy will still apply in other nations. Read the full proposal HERE. The First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles would have to approve the proposal before it takes effect.

Update April 27th: A member of the Community of Christ has provided a good personal analysis of the decision-making at the Conference. FireTag says there is some strong anecdotal evidence to support the interpretation that the CofChrist is following other mainline American churches into a future where denominationally-affiliated Americans sort into “red” and “blue” versions of the same religious tradition, but the “blue” denominations will be increasingly checked in areas of personal morality by the ethics of the developing world members. FireTag also opines that the leadership of the CofChrist has now established the precedent, in two successive conferences at minimum, that their view of their pastoral, presiding, and/or prophetic roles will not countenance allowing statements of moral principles by subordinate jurisdictions or the World Conference to endanger church members or leaders in individual jurisdictions of the church. They reserve the right to inject morality into politically charged issues to themselves or to those who they choose to delegate with the task. They did, for example, rule out of order, a resolution asking for restraint on a First Presidency statement on United States (and solely United States) immigration policy. They permitted and the conference passed, with a single word change, a resolution directing the church to advocate the abolition of nuclear weapons, although the church has significant presence in only one nuclear weapons state where advocacy regarding aspects of security policy is tolerated.

In FireTag's opinion, the American membership of the Community of Christ is more progressive, or "blue", than the foreign membership.

Osmond Family Split On Civil Gay Marriage; Marie Osmond Supports It, And Alan Osmond Opposes It

The orchestrated surge of interest in gay marriage which has caused the greater society to take sides has also caused members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to pick sides as well. And that battle has even split Mormon families, to include the famous Osmonds. While Marie Osmond has come out in favor of civil gay marriage, her brother Alan Osmond has come out in opposition.

Of course, the media is all ga-ga over the fact that in an ABC News profile that aired over this past weekend, Marie Osmond, in the course of talking about her lesbian daughter Jessica Blosil, came out in support of civil gay marriage. She said the God she worships is a God of love, not of fear, which is absolutely true. HuffPo then quotes her as saying "I believe in [my daughter's] civil rights, as a mother. I think that my daughter deserves everything that she desires in life. She's a good girl. She's a wonderful child...I don't think God made one color flower. I think He made many."

Of course, Marie Osmond is hinting that she considers marriage a "civil right", a contention which is sharply disputed. The U.S. Constitution does not enumerate marriage as a civil right. And for those who point to Loving v. Virginia, that decision was not intended to transform marriage into a "civil right", but merely to rule that a state could not refuse to sanction a marriage simply because of race. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One reason why some people desire to apply the decision to gay marriage was because in Loving v. Virginia, Earl Warren referred to marriage as a "basic civil right" in his written opinion, but that's only one opinion. Comments appended to the WorldNetDaily post on the story indicate the largely-conservative readership did not receive Marie Osmond's announcement well.

Alan Osmond has taken the opposite point of view on gay marriage, going so far as to emcee a pro-family rally in favor of traditional marriage at the Utah State Capitol Rotunda on March 26th, 2013. The rally, entitled “A Celebration of Marriage – Every Child Deserves A Mom and Dad”, was intended to coincide with the national March for Marriage in Washington D.C. in response to Supreme Court arguments over Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Although the Utah media virtually ignored this event, Kathryn Skaggs provides more details. Alan, who currently serves on the high council of the Orem Suncrest Stake in Orem, Utah, previously penned an article in which he opined that being gay is not necessarily genetic and that reparative therapy can work under certain circumstances. Regarding reparative therapy, Alan Osmond wrote the following:

“The fact that not all methods of treating those who struggle with homosexual attraction are successful, and that no method is successful for everyone, has been distorted by activists into the claim that no method is helpful for anyone. … The simple truth is that, like most methods in psychiatry and psychotherapy, the treatment of homosexuality has evolved out of eighty years of clinical experience, demonstrating approximately the same degree of success as, for example, the psychotherapy of depression.” Other researchers note treatment success rates that exceed 50 percent, which is similar to the success rates for treating other difficulties.

Three major LDS-friendly resources for ministering unto gay Mormons include Evergreen, North Star, and the Center for Gender Wholeness.

Of course, reparative therapy has its problems; ill-informed people have misused it in the past and made life more difficult for gays. Human Rights Campaign has condemned reparative therapy, but there is actually disagreement amongst gays about its value. Unfortunately, those few gays who are open-minded enough to try reparative therapy are often bullied into silence by the gay rights activists. A 50 percent success rate indicates that properly-managed reparative therapy can be helpful.

If reparative therapy for gays should be abandoned because it doesn't always work, then should we also ban air travel simply because a plane crashes once in a while? Perhaps the real reason why gay activists oppose reparative therapy is because it would reduce their numbers -- and corresponding leverage upon the rest of the society.

LDS Man Rejected For Missionary Service After Telling Stake President He Would Defend Gay Equality In The Church, To Include Gay Temple Marriage

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been rejected for missionary service after telling his stake president that he would defend gay equality within the Church, to include temple marriage for gays. The Salt Lake Tribune has a condensed account, but the value is also in the 250 comments appended to their story.

The original story was published by Joanna Brooks in the form of an interview on Religion Dispatches, where the man is simply identified as Emmett C., a 20-year-old community college student somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. Emmett comes from a family of 11 siblings, including one gay brother and one gay sister, so he's personally affected by proximity (his gay brother actually expressed himself on this subject on No More Strangers). The two gay siblings are still active Mormons, and the parents have come around to the idea of supporting them. In summary, as he prepared to go on a mission, Emmett was afraid that the issue of gay marriage would come up during his mission and he didn't think he could tell people that it was wrong, because he had come to believe in marriage equality. Because he didn't want to be sent home early from his mission for cause, he wanted to get it sorted out before he left.

So he went to his bishop, who was sympathetic, but didn’t know what to do and asked for time to talk with the stake president. A week later, Emmett talked to the stake president, who wasn't particularly sympathetic after Emmett told him he believed that gay Mormon couples who meet all other criteria for temple marriage be gays be permitted to get married in a temple. This, of course, directly conflicts with core LDS doctrine. Since Emmett refused to back down, the stake president not only refused to accept his mission application, but said he would also refuse to give Emmett a temple recommend if he didn't recant. The latter decision hit Emmett even harder, and he says he "died inside" and suffered depression for a month until he could get control of his anger and restart. Nevertheless, Emmett remains a member of the Church at this time, so he may be accepting this as a test of faith.

I hope he does choose to remain with the Church. As a matter of fact, he's still young enough to be reconsidered for missionary service should he come around on the issue. But he must understand that missionary service is the most exacting and rigorous form of service in the Church -- the idea is to serve as a microphone for Jesus Christ for two years. A missionary can privately favor civil gay marriage, but he or she cannot preach that gay Mormons should have temple marriage without a revelation and expect to be allowed to continue serving on a mission. After all, how long would one last if one went to work for a Ford dealer and started pushing Toyotas on the job?

One person published a strong defense of the Church on Religion Dispatches:

Rodney Spuddie • a day ago
The leaders of the church, the first presidency and apostles, discuss and pray for guidance among themselves and then when they receive revelation and guidance, it is relayed to the rest of us via conference talks, scripture, letters to wards and branches, etc. That is how revelation worked in Biblical times and in Book of Mormon times. This is still how it works. It isn't a democracy. It is a Kingdom. God's Kingdom. His truths ARE NOT open for debate. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he didn't first poll the populace to decide on what the commandments should be. That should be abundantly clear if you studied LDS doctrine at all. I respect that you may not agree with that process. You may feel that all religions should behave like a democracy in setting doctrinal standards. That may be how many churches do it, but not this one. We know this is Christ's restored church on the earth. The issue here for all mankind is whether or not they want to investigate those claims seriously, pray about them and then upon receiving an answer, adjust their attitudes, beliefs and behaviors accordingly.

To clarify slightly what was published above, the Church leadership receives revelation and guidance applicable to the entire church and transmits it down. However, individual members are free to get confirmation from the Lord through prayer at any time, and are entitled to separate and personal inspiration and revelation affecting themselves and their families and callings. LDS members are not automatons incapable of original thought; in fact, in January 2013, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf counseled LDS members not to blindly accept everything they hear, but encouraged people to think and discover truth for themselves -— expecting that they ponder, search, evaluate, and come to a personal knowledge of truth.

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. Comes Out In Favor Of Gay Marriage, But Supports Religious Exemption

On February 21st, 2013, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., still a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, published an article entitled "Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause" on The American Conservative website. But at least he maintains that religious groups should not be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience, which means the LDS Church won't be pressured into performing gay temple marriages.

This represents a departure from his previous position when he served as governor. At that time, he merely favored civil unions and opposed full-blown marriage for gays. Here's the most pertinent part of Huntsman's article:

While serving as governor of Utah, I pushed for civil unions and expanded reciprocal benefits for gay citizens. I did so not because of political pressure—indeed, at the time 70 percent of Utahns were opposed—but because as governor my role was to work for everybody, even those who didn’t have access to a powerful lobby. Civil unions, I believed, were a practical step that would bring all citizens more fully into the fabric of a state they already were—and always had been—a part of.

That was four years ago. Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.

By advocating a religious exemption, Huntsman will avoid running afoul of the LDS hierarchy and having his worthiness questioned by his priesthood chain of command. The LDS Church does not sanction individual members who support gay civil marriage, so long as they don't also advocate that the Church recognize or perform such marriages.

However, it is debatable whether or not gay marriage can be considered a conservative principle. There are those within Republican ranks who are trying to redefine conservatism -- and transform it into feudalism. People like Huntsman believe conservatism is merely about the right to make money without restriction, which is actually objectivism. Objectivism basically holds that anything that impairs the right to make money is considered an obstruction, denigrating and criminalizing those who, through no fault of their own, have only limited economic clout. The fact is, conservatism is also about preserving and strengthening those time-tested social and cultural values that hold a society together. Opening up marriage to just any Ton, Dick, or Harry weakens the institution, and will generate a demand for plural marriage. Indeed, how could we refuse to allow sibling marriage, banned for consanguinary reasons, if we permit gay marriage? Furthermore, there is disagreement about whether or not marriage should be considered a specified civil right; Loving v. Virginia merely invalidated laws against interracial marriage because they discriminated solely on the basis of race, and did not necessary enshrine marriage itself as a civil right.

Reaction: Huntsman’s daughter, Abby Huntsman Livingston, said Thursday that her father felt the need to make a persuasive argument connecting Republican values with marriage equality. "I couldn’t be more proud of my dad," she said, "for taking a stand on one of the most important issues we face today." His other two daughters, Liddy and Mary Anne, also praised him. Some good comments were appended to the American Conservative article, and not merely about Huntsman's revised position on marriage. Some criticize his cold-blooded, cutthroat economic vision, since it is easy for a multimillionaire who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth to rhapsodize with messianic fervor about the "wonders of the free market working their magic" (after the jump):

Disfellowshipped Gay Mormon Andrew Markle To Launch Origins Website To Enable Gay Mormons To Hook Up For Sex

A disfellowshipped gay member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is launching a new website that not only will allow gay Mormons to link up with other gays and allies, but also to hook up for sex. On January 8th, 2013, WBEZ 91.5 reports that Andrew Markle will be launching the "Origins" website sometime during the second quarter of the 2013 calendar year.

One of the purposes of the website is fine. One of the missions of Origins will be to connect gay Mormons with allies and help them reconcile their religious beliefs with their orientation. This can be quite useful and therapeutic, because sometimes a gay person needs to cry on the shoulder of another gay person in order to deal with the challenges of homosexuality. But it's the other mission that's disturbing -- to give gay Mormons an online social network to meet others like them for marriage or long-term commitment. That means hooking up for sex -- and that's a big NO-NO!

Further eroding Markle's credibility is the fact that he is currently disfellowshipped for getting involved in a relationship, although he still attends services weekly and his fellow ward members behave supportively towards him in accordance with the "love the sinner but not the sin" routine. Markle recognizes that launching this website, with its intended mission, incurs a risk of excommunication, since advocating homosexual relationships by Mormons may be considered grounds for expulsion from the church, depending upon how his stake president decides to interpret his actions. This could happen notwithstanding his obvious loyalty towards the Church in other matters. And it would be a shame if someone who is basically supportive of the Church would get excommunicated over this.

But how could the LDS Church allow a member who wants to openly hook up gay Mormons for sex to remain a member? We didn't allow David Twede to remain a member when he transformed MormonThink into an openly anti-Mormon website, so to be consistent, we would have to excommunicate Markle. We cannot allow apostates to remain enrolled members of the LDS Church.

Markle has a personal website, a Twitter page, and an Instagram page. On December 12th, 2012, he published a post on Doves and Serprents entitled "The Church and Homosexuality" in which plainly states that he expects the LDS Church to support LGBT members with every ounce of its being and it will stop requiring members to seek counseling for their same-sex attractions. Specifically, he also states "I hope that one day, we will all be able to set ourselves in temple and seal our children and our marriages before God". This, of course, will not happen except by a revelation given to the Church through the priesthood chain of command, which starts at the First Presidency, and not through some ordinary Hoosier from Indiana. We don't need some self-endowed "One Mighty And Strong" calling the leadership to repentance, particularly when it is the leadership that is still in harmony with Gospel principles.

Did Glenn Beck Really Defend Gay Marriage, Or Does He Merely Want To Make It Irrelevant? Depends On How You Define "Defend"

The headline is screaming pillar to post throughout the Web -- "Glenn Beck Defends Gay Marriage". At least that's the way countless pundits are calling it. Making this even more newsworthy is the fact that Glenn Beck is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the LDS Church just recently launched a website entitled "Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction", which, although it reiterates the Church's doctrinal position against gay marriage, is designed to offer a place where the people whose lives are impacted by attraction to the same sex can find inspiration to work through difficult challenges while remaining faithful to Church teachings.

This question actually first surfaced in August 2010 during an interview with Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News Channel. In response to O'Reilly's concern about the impact of redefining marriage, Beck downplayed the concern, noting that there were many more serious issues, and saying "I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?"

In January 2012, Beck reiterated that position, saying that he had exactly the same opinion on gay marriage that President Barack Obama expressed at the time, which was that although he didn't believe in same-sex marriage, he did believe in civil unions for gay couples. Specifically, Beck said "I don't care. If you want to sleep with your boyfriend and you're a guy, you want to sleep with your girlfriend, that's up to you. You don't destroy marriage to do it."

And now Beck has done it again. During an on-air discussion with Penn Gillette, Beck made a case for getting the government out of the marriage business, saying "Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people — I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that's the Constitution...The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?" Later, Beck went on to say "What we need to do, I think, as people who believe in the Constitution, is to start looking for allies who believe in the Constitution and expand our own horizon. We would have the ultimate big tent." The full details of the discussion are summarized on GlennBeck.com.

Whether one believes Glenn Beck is defending gay marriage will depend upon one's definition of "defend". If one defines "defend" as "failure to oppose", then one will believe that Beck is defending gay marriage. However, if one defines "defend" as "actively promote", then there is no sign that Glenn beck is defending gay marriage. At no time has Glenn Beck actively promoted gay marriage. All Beck is doing is saying that maybe the issue should go on the back burner in order to keep the Republican Party competitive and prevent America from becoming a de facto one-party dictatorship ruled by the Democratic Party. In fact, there's a good chance Beck wants to make the marriage issue irrelevant by getting government out of the marriage business.

How many gay couples would really want to get officially married if there were no attendant tax benefits?

Nevertheless, social conservatives on Free Republic are fiercely denouncing Beck, implying that he's a sellout. Some commenters are linking Beck's position with the LDS Church's new outreach towards gays. One commenter predicted that the LDS Church will permit gay marriage within 20 years, citing the Church's polygamous history to imply that its commitment to the present definition of marriage is fluid. What they are beginning to realize is that Glenn Beck has always been more a libertarian than a conservative. Discussion has also broken out on Millennial Star, where several people contend that getting government out of the marriage business would actually complicate marriage.

I disagree with Glenn Beck -- we should continue to hold out against gay marriage for as long as possible, and make gay marriage advocates fight for every inch of ground and shed as much political blood as possible; make it a Pyrrhic victory for them. But let's not put words in Beck's mouth. Beck is clearly not a promoter of gay marriage.