I don’t think the LDS people ever viewed marriage as anything but a union of a man and a woman. Under LDS polygamy, a man could enter into several of these unions, but each union was distinct from all others.

Maybe I’m being a little too nitpicky in response to an apparently facetious/cynical post, but hey, I’m a nerd.

Would it be wrong to wonder whether God’s law will change yet again?

As an LDS, I understand all the reasons for our involvement and support of Prop 8.
My question is this: If you take the doctrinal foundation out of the discussion (since it would be irrelevant to a nonbeliever), how would you reason with someone who raises the issue of “equal rights”?
Forget the usual – “traditional families”, “re-defining marriage for everyone”, “domestic partners have same legal rights under California Family Code” -these are cliches from “Prop 8 for Dummies” and have no real substance in a fair discussion.

Some of the arguments for Prop 8 out there are:

“A church could face legal action for refusing to perform same-sex marriage”. I don’t like this argument because it seems too far-fetched. That’s why we have separation of church and state.

“School teachers will be able to teach about homosexual marriage without parents’ advance notice”. Well, if it’s legal in the state, what exactly is the point of this argument? What about evolution? It’s OK to teach our children that they are evolved primates!? If the parents wish to indoctrinate their children differently, that’s what they are for.

“Adoption agencies would be required to place children in same-sex homes”. Are there studies indicating that children of homosexual couples are at greater risk of abuse, delinquency, issues in adulthood, etc? Nothing that I have ever heard.

Again, I am a firm supporter of Prop 8. I just want to get some practical ideas for a constructive response to accusations of bigotry and refusing a minority their constitutional rights. But while I know it’s right for me because of personal religious convictions, how does it make it right in a secular society?

Not all group blogs take stands, Sarah. FMH’s bloggers are somewhat more homogeneous in their outlook on this issue, which may have misled you.

your position on the 18,000 existing marriages seems at odds with the arguments promoted by Yes On 8 during the campaign.

for example, from the official Yes on 8 website:
“…because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners.”

by that same logic, won’t schools now still be required to teach kindergartners about these 18,000 gay married couples?

during the campaign Yes on 8 certainly argued persuasively about the impact these marriages would have on “the role of marriage in society.” surely kindergarten teachers will now face lawsuits if they, as a matter of religious conscience, refuse to teach about this momentus, unprecedented development in the instituion of marriage, no?

I hear a lot of smart people here, and a lot of intellectual knowledge – but I thought this was a ‘progressive’ site – and I’m not sure how you’re handling this same sex marriage issue – I hear some fairly ‘liberal” voices here – but not sure where the blog itself stands – not enough to comment on your stance – but only on my own.

I am always completely confused by how any religion – how any close connection to God, no matter what the rules, dogma, story, laws (I have many, many orthodox Jewish friends, also) – can, at bottom, chose an interpretation of traditional thought, even if written in a holy book – over the obvious message (to me) that if God created something – it is holy – and that, as humans, there is no way we could presume to understand what God means by something. That would apply to any creature on this earth. I cannot understand the idea that any person could think they are better than any other person, because that would seem the antithesis of any concept of God at all. (I apologize in advance – not sure if I can use the word God here…please feel free to edit if need be). I would be interested in your deeper answer to this, as opposed to any answer based on laws or what is written or traditional….Thank you for this site…Sarah

That’s an excellent question, and gets to why marriage law is a somewhat complex issue. The short answer is no–because recognition of foreign marriages doesn’t create a vested right in the same way that the state’s solemnizing a marriage itself does. In the former case, the state is not the right-granting entity as it is in the latter case–it is just recognizing those marriages that others performed out of comity with other states. In other words, you have a property right in your marriage status only in the state in which it was granted. Other states may ignore it at will, subject to the rules of comity and to the extent that full faith and credit binds the states.

As to your second post, when, as in this case, the judiciary is given a scenario in which there is no clear answer prescribed by law, they take law, logic, experience, prudence, policy concerns and tradition into account in crafting judicial rules about what the law dictates in particular cases. That’s why we have judges and especially why we have state and federal supreme courts. If all human situations fit into a law created by the legislature ex ante we wouldn’t need a judiciary at all. However, life is messy, and that’s why we have a third branch of government.