Of course some “tax-paying” citizens have “more rights” than others. My teenagers pay taxes, but aren’t afforded all the accoutrements that other taxpayers are. (Even the adult teenager.) My blind friend isn’t allowed to drive. Those imprisoned can’t hang out at the local pool hall.

As for whether disallowing gay marriage denies you rights others have, I am unsure. Generally speaking, I don’t think the “right” you are referring to has ever been “marry anyone you love.” Nor do I think it has been “marry anyone you love as long as they consent” or “marry anyone you love as long as they are a consenting adult.” It seems to me that the “right” you speak of has always been understood to be between men and women. Not same genders, not adult/child, not cross species, etc.

It’s obvious that we, as American citizens, make decisions about what is good for society as a whole and that people are impacted by those decisions. We do it all the time by determining driving/drinking/voting ages, by determining what behavior is abusive and criminal, by declaring certain substances illegal, be requiring mandatory education and/or military service. And in all those cases you can say that some “right” is being imposed upon – if indeed you believe you have the right to do anything you want.

It’s also interesting that you have decided that I am opposed to gay marriage. I’ve actually been quite vocal about the fact that I’d actually welcome a change in church policy (given that this is an LDS website) on the matter. I simply disagree with the ideas presented by some who support gay marriage. Horrors.

Lastly, you erroneously state that I don’t think marriage matters. The fact is, I think marriage matters a great deal and impacts our culture and environment tremendously. But Tim stated that it only impacts the two adults involved. Given his own opinion on the matter (with which I disagree), I wonder why he cares and what he thinks he’s being denied.

How about Alison Moore Smith for Mormon of the Year? She so perfectly represents/personifies the unfortunate narrow-mindedness of still far too many Mormons with regards to this admittedly sensitive subject of legalizing personal relationships.

Ms. Smith, no one wants to spank you for believing that gays shouldn’t marry (each other) or even for believing — as you do — that a member of the tax-paying majority deserves more rights than any one tax-payer of a particular minority. (1950, anyone?) Believe what you may.

But consider yourself at least virtually spanked (violently) for the simple attitude that your Jesus is better than my Jesus.

Granted, you do propose one intelligent idea: Since “you can have a ceremony, exchange rings, live together, call each other (husband or wife) and have sex, why does the legal status matter?”.

I agree with Alison, let’s ban marriage all together. For everyone. It just doesn’t matter!

Are you sure that someone that has disavowed membership in the Church can’t have the most impact during the year? I’d submit that regardless of whether someone has left the Church or not, their impact can be extremely large. That is what this recognition is about.

Defining “Mormon of the Year” as merely someone who IMPACTS Mormons — but then requiring the nominees to be Mormons/ex-Mormons/disaffected Mormons — doesn’t make a lot of sense. IMO it should either be:

Mormon of the Year someone who is LDS technically and who identifies as one, and who has had a notable impact on the church

or

Mormon Influencer of the Year (or something way more clever) someone of any (or no) affiliation who has strongly impacted church members

Like it or not (and Time Magazine notwithstanding) Mormon of the Year gives the impression that voters see him/her as a positive contributor. Unless the title is Jerk of the Year or something similar, people will assume you think the honoree is grand. And I’d be willing to bet Time took a beating for calling Hitler “Man of the Year,” no matter how many times they explained it. So, I’d also go with the idea that the impact should be seen as positive. But I probably won’t get very far with that suggestion. Given how contrary we are, and all that.

kate, I agree it’s a bit odd to have a vote that can be disregarded. But think of it like the American Idol judges yammering on about who has star-power and who stunk and who was pitchy. Even though the tweens texting in 200 times would really decide the winner, the judges could try to influence them. So, influence away.

And I respect people for believing whatever they choose to believe.

Unless they choose to believe that gays shouldn’t marry. Then they get a good smack on the backside.

But I also feel it is 100% wrong to force ones beliefs on the rest of the people of this free country.

Every law enacted “forces” beliefs on the citizens.

Same sex marriage ONLY effects the two consenting adults that are involved.

If this is so, then why do you need to get married at all? If being denied the legal status of “marriage” is the issue — since you can have a ceremony, exchange rings, live together, call each other husband, and have sex, why does the legal status (apparently according to some whacked out homophobes (being the only people on the planet you don’t “respect”)) matter? I mean, since it ONLY effects those two people and those two people are acting married anyway.

Reportedly, those who viewed advance screenings of the film were impressed by the film’s power. The Church and some of its members are threatening to boycott Sundance because of the film. That indicates how powerful this film is, and will continue to be long after Sundance.

In my view, the Church’s reaction is to the film’s brutal honesty. The fact that the Church, it appears, refuses to accept some or most of the facts documented in the film contributes to the significant impact the film will continue to have on the Mormon faith for years to come, unless the Church recants soon & acknowledges the mistakes & transgressions it has made.

For these reasons, Cowan is most deserving of the title Mormon of the Year. Respectfully, I think it would be wise for the editors & bloggers of this site to accept the undisputed facts and the clear plurality of the voters. To ignore that would only further contribute to the scandal of the Church’s involvement in the politics of Prop 8. More importantly, the editors & bloggers would be condoning Prop 8′s denial of the free exercise of other religions that recognize the sanctity of marriage between same sex couples. To deny this free exercise of other religions in favor of, in the context of civil law, imposing the Mormon view on all people of other faiths is a violation of freedom of religion and equal protection under the law.

For these & other reasons, Cowan’s win in this pole needs to be accepted by those who make the final decision on Mormon of the Year. That decision, in my mind, has already been made by the public and undisputed facts.

I have updated them about the raw numbers of votes that each nominee has received from time to time, and we will look at those numbers again after the vote finishes at midnight tonight. In addition, I’m sure that many of my fellow bloggers have also followed the conversation on this post.

So, opinions expressed here and votes cast still could influence us!

sincerely,

jael
St. Augustine, Florida (originally from Utah)