LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[painted wolf]

That is because your is not a same sex marriage, it it? your mate is legaly a person with a different sex than your, so this had nothing to do with this discussion.

My wife wanted a few words on this issue. Normally she doesn't bother with such debates on forums like this but who am I to deny her a few words.

While I can respect your religious and spiritual views on the subject of same-sex marriage, and in particular the marriage that Painted Wolf and I share (or "filthy pit" as you have called it), I would like to shed some light on precisely why discussion of our marriage IS germane to discussion of same-sex marriage.

Yes, it is true that we were legally wed as "man" and woman. While I treasure the legal bond my wife and I have shared, I am insulted that in order to protect our ability to marry from being taken away or denied we had to marry before I transitioned as "man" and wife. We are two women, happily married, regardless of draconian laws in New Hampshire that demand I must get surgery (which may or may not be needed/wanted/feasible for a host of reasons) to be considered a woman when I have clearly been recognized by trained and acclaimed medical professionals as a woman who happened to be born in a male body.

We are two women married, but you're right - as far as the State is concerned we're a man and woman. This means we also get Federal benefits, which although NH now permits same-sex civil unions by law that have all state-level benefits of marriage, the federal government refuses to afford the same recognition. If there should be a repeal of same-sex civil unions in this state then it would be unclear where any civil union we would have as two women would stand. Would it be nullified? Would it be grandfathered? Then again, until I have surgery (assuming I have surgery) we wouldn't be allowed civil union as two women because the state thinks I'm a man. As we're married now, after I transition the state will officially recognize us as two women and we will still keep our legal marriage. It won't become a civil union. We will still be married with full benefits. That's key and was part of our planning to get married now while I'm still legally a "man."

I respect your religious views and your church's sovereignty to deny same-sex marriage conducted in their church. If your church doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, it shouldn't be forced to perform it. That's separation of church and state's benefit to the church. Likewise, your church should not be able to dictate it's doctrine as law that applies to a whole nation. Separation of church and state in this nation also benefits those who do not subscribe to your faith in that we should not be forced to follow your faith's dogma as law. Law should be as neutral as possible to benefit the common good of the public at large. That means the government doesn't tell your church how to run itself and your church doesn't tell the government or any other church how to run themselves.

Marriage as a spiritual institution within your church should be carried out only as your church sees fit. But that's the spiritual side. Any couple married by your church would then also have the ability to as usual seek the legal recognition of that marriage. Your church might say no to a same-sex couple, but government, being a legal and not religious entity sworn to uphold all citizens as equal (those in the minority as well as the majority) and not place any one class of people subordinate to another, should not be in the business of telling same-sex couples they cannot participate in the civil partnership that is called marriage by law. If another church separate of your church or a Justice of the Peace (being a public official I feel should be mandated to perform ANY union, not just those with which she/he agrees) performs a ceremony of union for any couple, that union should be considered a legal marriage. Your church wasn't forced to perform the ceremony but the couple still has the legal recognition that they rightfully should have.

Now, draconian laws that define crudely whether I am a man or a woman by way of genitals aside, my wife and I, as her wife, are two women wed. My minister performed the ceremony for us. My UU fellowship is a Welcoming Congregation, meaning we are accepting of all domestic partnerships, and neither government nor your church or any other church vicariously through government, has the right to deny my church its right to carry out its spiritual mission.

Respectfully,
Mandy (Painted Wolf's wife)

Have I mentioned lately how much I love and respect her?!

wa:do

 

[darkendless]

And that the problem, there is no interest in this issue at the moment soooo?
To call for a referendund there must be an interest in the subject. Do you want me to send you the money so you can call someone the cares about your opinion?

Oh there is interest, you're just to blind to see it. Why were there protests during world youth day? Exactly.

 

[Watchmen]

Hang on to your pink hot pants mate! I have no problem in continuing this discussion and admitting that I don’t like militant queers, but GID is a mental disorder and the surgical solution allows them to legally apply for marriage to a person of the different sex, it isn’t the same case as a same sex marriages.

And you called them "filthy."

Shameful.

 

[Green Gaia]

My wife wanted a few words on this issue. Normally she doesn't bother with such debates on forums like this but who am I to deny her a few words.



Have I mentioned lately how much I love and respect her?!

wa:do

:bow:

 

[Autodidact]

Once more time Auto, proposition 8 prohibit the issuing of marriage certificates to persons of same sex and it because the majority of people defines it as the union between a man and a woman. It does not ban homosexuality.

I know what it does, emiliano. It restricts the group of people who are eligible to get married. It does nothing to change the definition of marriage, which is a legally recognized relationship between two people, just as it was, is, and always has been.

 

[emiliano]

To Mandy (Painted Wolf's wife),
I am sure that I posted a reply to this post before I went to work, God know where I sent it to, I was in a hurry. Maybe it was for the best. So let see what I can do now that I have tomorrow off work.

While I can respect your religious and spiritual views on the subject of same-sex marriage, and in particular the marriage that Painted Wolf and I share (or "filthy pit" as you have called it), I would like to shed some light on precisely why discussion of our marriage IS germane to discussion of same-sex marriage.

May I direct you to the fact that when I first used this expression, it was in relation to my own past life, my youth of which I repented and am ashamed of.

Yes, it is true that we were legally wed as "man" and woman. While I treasure the legal bond my wife and I have shared, I am insulted that in order to protect our ability to marry from being taken away or denied we had to marry before I transitioned as "man" and wife. We are two women, happily married, regardless of draconian laws in New Hampshire that demand I must get surgery (which may or may not be needed/wanted/feasible for a host of reasons) to be considered a woman when I have clearly been recognized by trained and acclaimed medical professionals as a woman who happened to be born in a male body.

This is GID and this experts are not certifying that you are a woman in a male body at all, Gender Identity Disorder is: Diagnostic Features
There are two components of Gender Identity Disorder, both of which must be present to make the diagnosis. Thee must be evidence of a strong and persistent gross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is of the other sex (Criteria A). This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex. there must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (Criteria B). The diagnosis is not made if the individual has a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia) (Criteria C). To make the diagnosis, there must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criteria D).
This is not saying that there are people born in the wrong body, just that they strongly desire to be of the other sex.Gender Identity Disorder DSM IV Criteria

We are two women married, but you're right - as far as the State is concerned we're a man and woman. This means we also get Federal benefits, which although NH now permits same-sex civil unions by law that have all state-level benefits of marriage, the federal government refuses to afford the same recognition.

I don’t know how much of this debate have you read, but the main objection to this is to the definition of same sex union as marriages, the article in the OP reports that the Mormons are calling their people to "We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman" my position is that you can have your union defined, named and legislate on, but don’t called marriages and consider them on par with marriage.

If there should be a repeal of same-sex civil unions in this state then it would be unclear where any civil union we would have as two women would stand. Would it be nullified? Would it be grandfathered? Then again, until I have surgery (assuming I have surgery) we wouldn't be allowed civil union as two women because the state thinks I'm a man. As we're married now, after I transition the state will officially recognize us as two women and we will still keep our legal marriage. It won't become a civil union. We will still be married with full benefits. That's key and was part of our planning to get married now while I'm still legally a "man."

I have said this before Civil unions sound good to me, most of our discussion has been in relation to proposition 8 in California. What’s the case in New Hampshire ?

I respect your religious views and your church's sovereignty to deny same-sex marriage conducted in their church. If your church doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, it shouldn't be forced to perform it. That's separation of church and state's benefit to the church. Likewise, your church should not be able to dictate it's doctrine as law that applies to a whole nation. Separation of church and state in this nation also benefits those who do not subscribe to your faith in that we should not be forced to follow your faith's dogma as law. Law should be as neutral as possible to benefit the common good of the public at large. That means the government doesn't tell your church how to run itself and your church doesn't tell the government or any other church how to run themselves.

What you fail to understand is that a popular consultation was called for and the majority of people in California want the restoration of proposition 22 that was passed by 61% of voters defining marriage as been the union of a man to a woman, when people cast their vote they do it in accordance to their belief, that the way it it, you cannot force your belief on them, the only way to resolve the impasse was a referendum, it means that the government consult the people.

Marriage as a spiritual institution within your church should be carried out only as your church sees fit. But that's the spiritual side. Any couple married by your church would then also have the ability to as usual seek the legal recognition of that marriage.

That is not the problem the problem is that the majority of people does not want these unions to be considered same as marriage, they don’t want them to be called marriage.

Your church might say no to a same-sex couple, but government, being a legal and not religious entity sworn to uphold all citizens as equal (those in the minority as well as the majority) and not place any one class of people subordinate to another, should not be in the business of telling same-sex couples they cannot participate in the civil partnership that is called marriage by law.

I see government as a body of people who have received authority to govern the whole community by the majority of it member, and uphold the will of the majority.

If another church separate of your church or a Justice of the Peace (being a public official I feel should be mandated to perform ANY union, not just those with which she/he agrees) performs a ceremony of union for any couple, that union should be considered a legal marriage. Your church wasn't forced to perform the ceremony but the couple still has the legal recognition that they rightfully should have.

Now, draconian laws that define crudely whether I am a man or a woman by way of genitals aside, my wife and I, as her wife, are two women wed. My minister performed the ceremony for us. My UU fellowship is a Welcoming Congregation, meaning we are accepting of all domestic partnerships, and neither government nor your church or any other church vicariously through government, has the right to deny my church its right to carry out its spiritual mission.

I have no problem in recognising that Christianity is not a welcoming religion, it has a duty to call people to repentance and changes in accordance to its tenets. The people of California answered the call to a referendum and voted, the will of the majority is that proposition 22 be restored.

 

[emiliano]

I know what it does, emiliano. It restricts the group of people who are eligible to get married. It does nothing to change the definition of marriage, which is a legally recognized relationship between two people, just as it was, is, and always has been.

Two people, nothing is said about genders, right? Why would the founders feel the need to specify? In those day there was no doubts that people are either males of females.

 

[emiliano]

Oh there is interest, you're just to blind to see it. Why were there protests during world youth day? Exactly.

Oh yes? Then all you have to do is to rally your people and demand a referendum, isn’t it? You keep on bringing the Youth day’s protest, there was hardly any problems and the Papal visit was a resounding success. So what's your point?

 

[painted wolf]

From Mandy:

This is GID and this experts are not certifying that you are a woman in a male body at all, Gender Identity Disorder is: Diagnostic Features
There are two components of Gender Identity Disorder, both of which must be present to make the diagnosis. Thee must be evidence of a strong and persistent gross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is of the other sex (Criteria A). This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex. there must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (Criteria B). The diagnosis is not made if the individual has a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia) (Criteria C). To make the diagnosis, there must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criteria D).
This is not saying that there are people born in the wrong body, just that they strongly desire to be of the other sex.Gender Identity Disorder DSM IV Criteria

Again, with all due respect, I find it very presumptuous of you to lecture me on the definition of Gender Identity Disorder by copying and pasting the DSM IV definition. I am someone who is diagnosed with and has been living with GID for over twenty years of my life! I am very much familiar with my "condition," as well as the WPATH Standards of Care (formerly known as the Harry Benjamin SOC) and all of the nuances, implications, and realities of living with GID, which is termed a "mental disorder." Thank you for the definition, but I have read it already.

As for the rest, I may or may not debate, which may or may not mean I get an account on here again (though I'm not sure I really want that). Right now, we're running late for work and have to go.

 

[darkendless]

Oh yes? Then all you have to do is to rally your people and demand a referendum, isn’t it? You keep on bringing the Youth day’s protest, there was hardly any problems and the Papal visit was a resounding success. So what's your point?

No, because our country is backward and pandering to your flock of sheep. There is not point when justice will get crushed by the cancer that is religion.

 

[Luminous]

Well that is where we disagree, I think that gay people are been abandoned and exploited by society, if you are referring to some hormonal imbalance, I can’t understand why is it that they are not been help by science, after all when women start getting into menopause there is hormone replacement therapies available, if it's psychological there are psychotherapies, if it is behavioural (that is what I think) there is behavioural therapies. I think that is just that there is more money to be made by the other alternatives, encouragement of unnatural behaviours is too profitable to activists, politicians, sex toy manufactyres and lawyers for them to let go of it.

Because you have a hormonal inbalance aswell, should good scientist help you become agnostic? yours is the unnatural behavior(even your bible tells it so).

 

[Autodidact]

Two people, nothing is said about genders, right?

Right.

Why would the founders feel the need to specify? In those day there was no doubts that people are either males of females.

You're missing the point. The point is that the definition of marriage is not the same as who gets to participate in it. Marriage is a relationship. Prop 8 does not change this; it only changes who gets to enter into it.

 

[painted wolf]

This is GID and this experts are not certifying that you are a woman in a male body at all, Gender Identity Disorder is:

The only reason this is listed this way in the DSM IV is because this is the only way to protect the rights of Transgendered individuals.
Without this definition it would be legal to deny them health care, treatment and a host of other ills.
With this definition at least they have some sort of legal recourse. This is the only reason it has yet to be changed. Because the law otherwise refuses to protect their rights in any way.

Kind of sick isn't it... to have to be labeled in such a way, just to try to live a happy normal life.

I have said this before Civil unions sound good to me, most of our discussion has been in relation to proposition 8 in California. What’s the case in New Hampshire ?

Gay couples have all the rights and protections as hetero couples. New Hampshire passed the law with no Judicial ruling over our heads. The only flaw is that it is called Civil Union rather than Marriage.
While my mate and I will remain Married despite her legal gender status.

I have no problem in recognising that Christianity is not a welcoming religion, it has a duty to call people to repentance and changes in accordance to its tenets.

Actually things are quite a bit different here in New Hampshire. The Episcopal Church is lead in New Hampshire by an openly gay Bishop. His congregation never considered his sexuality an issue, they just respected him as a man of God.
Perhaps us old yankees just aren't bothered with judging other people and focus on improving ourselves?

I know the fuss over Gene Robinson took just about all of us in New Hampshire by surprise. While I'm not an Episcopalian I've met Bishop Robinson and he is a wonderful person that any religion should be glad to have as a representative.

He was also married under the Civil Union law here in NH. He and his husband have been together since the 1980's.

wa:do

 

[misanthropic_clown]

This is where I get a little confused.

What is it that the gay community actually want?

I feel like a bit of an idiot, but it seems like in the mess of the aftermath, I fail to find a coherent set of demands, or at least what the gay community would be happy with.

For example, painted wolf points to NH and says that the system is perfect, except that it runs under the name of civil union instead of marriage (as is the case in the UK). Whereas I can understand the line of logic that would suggest that for hetero and homosexual couples to be truly equal they should share the exact same institution, right down to the name, I can't help but think that even if prop 8 blocks marriage, surely it is still possible to work constructively towards building a definition of civil union that includes all the rights and privileges of marriage, but with something of a rider to support the idea that religious institutions should be able to decide who they are going to marry without fear of consequence, which would appease a lot of religious groups. I would add Mormons included, but I can't say I can postulate on behalf of the church.

Is that idea really so terrible? What rights would it realistically deny homosexual couples? Is this fight not really about pedantry rather than practicality?

 

[Storm]

This is where I get a little confused.

What is it that the gay community actually want?

You realize that's like asking what the "straight community" wants, don't you?

I'll answer for myself, though: Ideally I want a world where nobody cares if you're queer, anymore than if you're left-handed, a world without bigotry. But I'll settle for equal protection under the law.

For example, painted wolf points to NH and says that the system is perfect, except that it runs under the name of civil union instead of marriage (as is the case in the UK). Whereas I can understand the line of logic that would suggest that for hetero and homosexual couples to be truly equal they should share the exact same institution, right down to the name, I can't help but think that even if prop 8 blocks marriage, surely it is still possible to work constructively towards building a definition of civil union that includes all the rights and privileges of marriage, but with something of a rider to support the idea that religious institutions should be able to decide who they are going to marry without fear of consequence, which would appease a lot of religious groups. I would add Mormons included, but I can't say I can postulate on behalf of the church.

I don't want churches to be forced to marry us.

As for working towards equality, yes, we're still working on it. However, I recently learned that the states aren't able to give it to us. Sooner or later, we'll have to take it to the federal level.

Is that idea really so terrible? What rights would it realistically deny homosexual couples? Is this fight not really about pedantry rather than practicality?

How is fighting for equality pedantry?

 

[Autodidact]

This is where I get a little confused.

What is it that the gay community actually want?

The same rights you have. What's confusing about that?

I feel like a bit of an idiot, but it seems like in the mess of the aftermath, I fail to find a coherent set of demands, or at least what the gay community would be happy with.

Really? I think they've been pretty clear.

For example, painted wolf points to NH and says that the system is perfect, except that it runs under the name of civil union instead of marriage (as is the case in the UK).

Sometimes you have to compromise.

Whereas I can understand the line of logic that would suggest that for hetero and homosexual couples to be truly equal they should share the exact same institution, right down to the name, I can't help but think that even if prop 8 blocks marriage, surely it is still possible to work constructively towards building a definition of civil union that includes all the rights and privileges of marriage, but with something of a rider to support the idea that religious institutions should be able to decide who they are going to marry without fear of consequence, which would appease a lot of religious groups. I would add Mormons included, but I can't say I can postulate on behalf of the church.

No rider is needed. No Church would ever be required to marry anyone they don't want to. Your Church doesn't have to marry Jews, Sikhs or gay people now, nor would they if the marriages performed every day by Churches that do want to marry gay people were recognized by the state.

Is that idea really so terrible? What rights would it realistically deny homosexual couples? Is this fight not really about pedantry rather than practicality?

Compromise might be necessary, and wouldn't be a disaster. But let me ask you, if the shoe were on the other foot, what would you want? If your marriage was not legally recognized, what would you be asking for?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

You realize that's like asking what the "straight community" wants, don't you?

I'll answer for myself, though: Ideally I want a world where nobody cares if you're queer, anymore than if you're left-handed, a world without bigotry. But I'll settle for equal protection under the law.


I don't want churches to be forced to marry us.

As for working towards equality, yes, we're still working on it. However, I recently learned that the states aren't able to give it to us. Sooner or later, we'll have to take it to the federal level.


How is fighting for equality pedantry?

I realise that 'gay community' was a blanket statement, but I couldn't think of a more specific or useful term. If you could provide me with one, I would be grateful.

This seems to be what it boils down to: Churches fear a faction of the gay community will, at some point in the future, attack their freedom to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The majority (if not all) of the gay community today have no desire to push the issue of freedom of religious practice. Thus, the fastest route to the 'equal protection under the law' that you seek is to simply recede on this point which you do not seem to care about, and work to construct an institution (ie civil unions) which will give same sex couples all the rights of marriage, but agree to allow religious institutions to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

What proposition 8 has done, to my understanding, has taken the name 'marriage' off the table, indicating that the pro 8 voters feel that a different name for homosexual unions will provide sufficient legal protection for religious groups to distinguish them. I can understand that accepting this and agreeing to work under a different name is not equality, but given that having civil unions seems to have done the job of protecting the rights of homosexual couples in the UK and other places, is giving up the name such a huge issue, and has it really created the catastrophic blow to equality that is often claimed?

 

[painted wolf]

the problem is that while NH recognizes Gay couples as equal to hetero couples... the Federal Government doesn't.
So leave the state and you loose everything. And don't expect any federal rights either.
So if you work for any federal agency, even if you are in a legal NH Civil Union you don't get any benefits. No healthcare, no surviorship and so on. (there are 1,100 federal laws on married couples that do not apply to civil unions from tax status to health care to legal powers.)

This makes the very nature of "Civil Unions" over "Marriages" unfair.
(not that NH calling it marriage would change the federal issues.)

What is unfair in California, is you have a group of people who were married... and now are being told that they are no longer considered married anymore. They have had that stripped from them utterly... no Civil Union to replace it, its just gone.

Where once they had the rights and responsibilities, the joys and hopes that the union brings... now they don't. They have essentially been forced to divorce for the sake of a word.

That is beyond cruel... its sick.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

What is unfair in California, is you have a group of people who were married... and now are being told that they are no longer considered married anymore. They have had that stripped from them utterly... no Civil Union to replace it, its just gone.

Where once they had the rights and responsibilities, the joys and hopes that the union brings... now they don't. They have essentially been forced to divorce for the sake of a word.

That is beyond cruel... its sick.

wa:do

Sick is right.

 

[painted wolf]

Ps... the church thing is way over used.
Are Catholics forced to marry Athiests?
Are Mormons forced to let non-mormons into the temple to be married?
Are Jews forced to marry Muslims and so on?

NO.... This is a State function, a state contract... no church will be forced to marry anyone it deems unworthy of marriage in its church for religious reasons.

wa:do