Mormon Leader Aligns Gay Fight With Afterlife

The proverbial puss has been let out of the bag!

Mormon elder M. Russell Ballard, a man the “faithful” regard as a prophet, admitted in a church message this week that his church’s schemes against gay marriage are more than just policy – it’s personal. And part of some post-life, VIP theocracy.

Said Ballard:

We know that it is not without controversy, yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the central doctrine of eternal marriage and it’s place in our Father’s plan.

Many of you are probably scratching your pretty heads and wondering, “Hey, what’s this ‘eternal marriage’? I thought death did us part!” Not according to the Mormon faith.

Box Turtle Bulletin explains that an eternal marriage – which is “sealed” by super secret ceremony and can also be performed by proxy after death – guarantees a sacred union in heaven, or the “celestial kingdom.” This kingdom has three levels and only the eternally married can get into the top tier, which sounds pretty snobby to us.

In fighting gay marriage, says Ballard, devout Mormon’s are doing “the word of the Lord.” Well, if that’s the case, why doesn’t this Lord guy come down and cast his own vote. Then and only then would be convinced by such a theoretical argument.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #gay #m.russellballard stories and more


  • Willie Hewes

    “and ITS place in our…” no apostrophe.

    I still don’t think this is any kind of explanation. Surely only people married in a Mormon ceremony are eternally married. Why don’t the Mormons just decide not to marry gays, and leave the normal people alone? SRSLY.

  • emb

    Willie, you are totally right. Unfortunately they suffer from the same syndrome that possesses others infected with religiosity: They think they’re in on the One And Only Universal Truth–so (in the mormon “mind” at least) episcopalians and baptists and hindus and muslims are all gonna be surprised to find that they too are married for all eternity to whatever they settled for in this life. Of course, they’ll also be surprised that they were baptized in absentia into the Church Of Sacred Underwear, too.

    So if states permit us homos to get married, then the mormon afterlife gets all cluttered with sodomites joined forever. And how icky would that be? That’s why they’ve got their special undies in a twist. Among other things.


  • Vague

    Most things Jesus said left room for interpretation, but not this one. THERE IS NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN.

    Anybody is free to believe otherwise. But if they don’t, they’re saying Jesus was wrong. And that’s what Mormons and the Proposition 8 people are saying.

    You don’t want to disagree with Jesus now do you? NO on Prop 8!

  • Taylor

    It is kind of funny. I have been reading a lot about this Prop 8. It seems everyone that is against Prop 8 ridicules and belittles the other side with little insults. I have not yet read one comment for those for Prop 8 call anyone a bigoted name. Yet the ones against Prop 8 are continually calling the other side bigotes. Can those against Prop 8 start making their arguments without insults and maybe I’ll vote with you.

  • John K.

    Taylor: We’re talking about our rights here. Excuse us for being incredulous to the point of insult that this is even something that gets to be voted on in the first place. Trust me, you’d insult people too.

  • RS

    Taylor, if you haven’t seen Yes on Prop 8 people call opponents bigots, you haven’t been reading the same things I have.

    First of all, it doesn’t make sense to call people who want to incrase people’s rights “bigots.” That makes more for people who want to take away or suppress other people’s rights. But even so, I’ve heard Yes on 8 accuse opponents of religious bigotry — not for names they’re calling but because they are taking away their religious freedom to define marriage for everyone.

    That just doesn’t make sense. But I’ve heard it ad nauseum.

  • Trenton

    Looks like somebody’s been watching those awful Yes on 8 commercials. Taylor, doll…not everyone who votes Yes on Prop 8 is a bigtot, but just about everyone who speaks up about it is, and they provie it by insisting that we are something much worse than bigots: they suggest that we are deviant, morally inferior, or just plain deformed. They deflect it by saying it is TO PROTECT THE FUTURE AND THE CHILDREN. This implies that giving us the right to marriage is dangerous and vile, and that we therefore are dangerous and vile. They don’t use the words, but the implicit message is clear…and we are not afraid to be clear about what that message is informed by: plain an simple bigotry.

  • Carsen T.


    My parents are chairpeople for yes on 8 (We live in San Francisco…so I am going through a lot of shit for my parents actions). They call us a ton of things: Unholy, unnatural, warriors against family, and godless people who will burn in hell (I know this because my parents forced me to go to a Yes on 8 fundraiser dinner last night, they know I am gay too). I am pretty sure calling them bigots is only fair because I can think of a lot more worse things I would like to those really outspoken on being for prop 8. Not exactly taking the high road, but can anyone really take the high road in a battle as emotional as this one.

  • gay as life

    This Mormon argument falls apart on its face. If only “eternally married” Mormons should be allowed a civil marriage, then isn’t he saying that we should make marriage illegal for Jews, Catholics, Lutherans, Buddhists, Atheists, and everyone else gay or straight? What about civil marriages that are never “validated” in a church? What about divorce – will that be made illegal?

    The idiots really don’t understand separation of Church and State.

  • Brian

    Below are some quotes from the early elders of the one true church here on earth: The Mormons!

    George Q. Cannon – (Monogamy responsible for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire:)
    “It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome…was a MONOGAMIC NATION AND THE NUMEROUS EVILS ATTENDING THAT SYSTEM EARLY LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR THAT RUIN WHICH EVENTUALLY OVERTOOK HER.”
    (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202)

    Brigham Young – (Monogamy is the source of prostitution and whoredom:)
    “Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this MONOGAMIC SYSTEM which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of PROSTITUTION AND WHOREDOM throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”
    (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128)

  • paul

    Oh what do the false religion mormons know. they are not even christians.

  • fredo777

    Jesus was a liberal.

  • osocubano

    There’s a class system in heaven?

  • Jacob Brown

    Make no mistake about it, the Mormon church still firmly believes in polygamy. They no longer practice it in this life. But they believe that a man whose wife has died may take a second wife in a temple ceremony and then have two wives in the life to come.

    The Mormon church, the single largest bankroller of Prop 8, claims that, if Prop 8 doesn’t pass, the government could ignore the first amendment and force them to change their religious practices.

    I think we should take the Mormon church at its word. The government should take this newly created ability to dictate religious beliefs and amend the constitution to ban polygamy in both this life and the next.

    It is a morally reprehensible practice that violates the traditional definition of marriage: one man and ONE woman.

  • ggreen

    That awful Mormon moron in the picture above is smiling because he just peed in his magic underwear but because he’s also wearing a dark suit no one can tell!! Wheeee I think I saw him sniffing bicycle seats at a SLC playground!

  • Tara

    Taylor, example of a good level headed discussion, questions I posed, their responses and my rebuttals.

    Ok, here is my challenge, I honestly doubt there will be any direct response to this but it is worth a try.

    This is directed at people voting yes on Prop 8.

    1) Can you, without resorting to hyperbole, “slippery slope” or making things up tell me any way gay marriage would effect your marriage.

    2) Please explain to me why it is you believe that to take away rights does not equal bigotry.

    3) Tell me how you rationalize that Civil Unions are not clearly “separate but equal”

    4) Specifically people voting on religious grounds, and this is a two parter. Firstly do you understand that religious freedom is freedom for ALL religions, including ones that do not have problem with gays. Second, do you realize that not everyone in America is Christian and to make us a theocracy is wrong?

    I really would love answers to those questions. I will keep checking back in hopes that someone can answer them cogently.

    Then the response and rebuttals.

    In the hopes of furthering dialog I would like to respond to each of diana’s statements. I again would be hopeful that I will receive a response.

    1.My grandchildren would be taught about gay marriage in spite of my wishes or the wishes of her mother and without parental notification. This has happened many times in Massachusetts. A teacher takes it upon himself or herself to enlighten the students feeling that no harm is done. Because of the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts that gay marriage is legal and normal, the courts of Massachusetts have ruled that parents need not be notified by the teacher of the school if the subject is gay relationships. What recourse then do parents who desire to reserve the right to teach their own children on this subject have? None under the Massachusetts law except to move out of the state or give up that parental right to the whim of all the teachers. The teacher cannot and will not be disciplined for teaching children contrary to the what the parents believe.

    Ok, this is one I hear a lot. So here are my thoughts on it. Every parent has things like this, for instance, Creationist children hear about evolution. The parent has to teach their children that science is wrong. It is the parents responsibility to instill values to the child, not the school. The schools job is to teach children about the world, that means all of it. More to the point. When I was in school they mentioned Christmas. I am not a Christian and if I do not want my child to be indoctrinated by that should I censure any teacher who says it is ok to celebrate Christmas? Could a Jahova’s Witness censor a teacher for for mentioning birthdays? See what I am saying? Thoughts?

    2.Laws take away rights all the time. Do you have the right to drive your car as fast as you want? Prop 8 is not bigotry or prejudice. It is a law to protect others rights.

    Ok, fine, what rights is it protecting. More to the point. It is bigotry, here is why. The law does not allow some people to speed and others not to. That would be like saying that men can drive over 50 MPH but women can not. See that protects mens rights. Or something? Again, Thoughts?

    3.The equal rights that you request under the law should be gained through laws that grant these rights to you. Slaves gained freedom through a law. Woman gained the right to vote through a law. If you want hospital visitation or you want pensions or you want insurance than the laws need to be put into place to grant you these rights if you have a civil union. Taking away the law that protects the rights of people who enter into a traditional marriage is not the correct path. There are at this time 50 laws to protect gay rights in California. Name one law that protects marriage in California. Is this equality?

    Traditionally laws are about protecting the weak from the strong, or the minority from the majority. Slaves gained freedom because it was decided, not by the people, but by an enlightened few. Same with women etc. The majority almost never votes to protect the minority. You say again that by granting same sex couple marriage it is taking something from you. Are you still married? Did you lose some marriage in May? The reason there are laws to protect gays is that they need protection. Just look at the number of people killed because it. There is no law that protects marriage because no one is trying to get rid of marriage. Rebuttal?


    a)Yes, you can believe what you want and you can live how you please that is religious freedom. However, when Boston Catholic Charities had to close down in the state of Massachusetts rather than be forced to adopt to gay couples or lose tax exemption, where is their religious freedom? (This is true. Call them.) Before their Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage their rights were protected. When churches in Canada were sued for “hate speech” for preaching over the pulpit their doctrine concerning gay relationships, where is their freedom?

    Here is where I am going to get a bit sticky. Firstly, the BCC issue was with the church and funding. This is an old one that comes up all the time. “Eight members of Catholic Charities’ board stepped down in protest of the bishops’ stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.” They had been doing it for years. Secondly and this is important. We are not Canada. Canada does not have First Amendment protections. This could not happen here.

    b) The problem faced here has nothing to do with an attempt to form a theocracy. The problem is that marriage grants certain rights in our society and under the laws of our nation to the individuals who enter into that relationship. Gays and lesbians who live in a cohabital relationship desire these same rights and admit that our society has not at any time in the past recognized their relationship as a marriage. In an attempt to gain these rights gay and lesbian couples have come to the conclusion that they can circumvent the lawful steps necessary to ensure these rights by merely changing the definition of marriage – a definition that has stood for thousands of years and has had not only a religious connotation but a legal connotation. That is why the attempt to change the definition of marriage has opened up a Pandora’s Box of legal problems every where it is tried. In fact, to legally change the definition of marriage actually places the government in a position of handling the ensuing lawsuits of this action and steps across the line that separates church and state (A line that our federal constitution insures the citizens of this country will never be crossed – a line that definitely was crossed in order to shut down a church run adoption agency in Massachusetts.) No, this cannot be the answer. The definition of marriage has to stand. If gays and lesbians desire to form relationships and desire rights for that relationship, they must petition legally to be granted the rights they desire. But for the life of me, I cannot understand how 50 new laws in our state did not give them these rights.

    Wow, you said a mouthful here, let me touch on that. Your are absolutely right up until “circumvent the lawful steps necessary to ensure these rights by merely changing the definition of marriage” The heterosexual and largely conservative Supreme Court came to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional to deny rights to same sex couples due to the tricky line about equality. Furthermore the definition of marriage has no more stood for thousands of years than Stonehenge, sure it is there and we can get an idea of what it looked like, but marriage has changed over and over again. Many religions of The Book allow for multiple wives, we do not any more, in the past wives were property, not any more. Things change, and usually it ends up being for the better, as we become more and more a society of equals. You mention the separation of Church and State, funny I am not asking your church to do anything, I am asking the State to recognize me as equal, you on the other hand want the State to recognize your Church’s view as superior to my equality. Can you see why that does not jive. Try this. Read the paragraph above but insert your Race, Creed or Religion in place of gay. Suddenly it does not seem so ok does it.

    I look forward to hearing back. Thank you for the calm discussion I hope it can continue.

  • Edmond

    Tara, please outline your system of moral standards. Tell us what you believe a good person should do, and what sort of actions, even done in the privacy of one’s own home, would make you put your foot down. Then tell us on what basis you think others should believe the same things as you. Remember, you’ve already taken a side in this debate.

  • Tara


    Quite simple really. Everyone has a line, I draw the line in a very similar way to criminal law. When one persons will, overrides another’s choice for themselves, it is wrong. When one takes away another’s right to choose something for themselves, when one hurts and innocent.

    Now please explain how that is relevant.

  • Edmond

    >Now please explain how that is relevant.

    It’s relevant because you do not seem to believe there are any limits in sexual relationships as long as the two parties in question are consenting.

    That would seem to indicate that you’re OK with everything from incest to polygamy to underage marriage, as long as those things occur within the bounds of consent. Would you say that’s correct?


    Mormons, african Americans and the serapes will come together in an orgasmic show of unity on November the 4th to institute back anti-gay discrimination in CA constitution. Just wait and see.

  • Edmond

    >to institute back anti-gay discrimination

    I think you mean “keep their right to practice their religion as they see fit?” I’m OK with that, especially if a majority vote that way. And double especially if it’s a long-held constitutional right. And triple-especially if it means that many religious people will lose their jobs over this without any legal recourse.

    This issue pits religious groups and gay-rights groups against each other in the same arena. No matter how it turns out, somebody will get their feelings hurt. The discrimination card can be played both ways.

  • fredo777

    If anyone is getting their “feelings hurt” over whether or not I can marry another consenting adult of my choosing, I’d much rather it be the religious groups.

    And I make no apologies for that.

  • Edmond

    >I’d much rather it be the religious groups.

    >And I make no apologies for that.

    And I think that’s pretty much the anti-Prop 8 argument, in a nutshell. “We are the ones who can decide what discrimination is.” Too bad public discourse has become such a feedback loop.

  • fredo777

    Give me a break.

    Noone’s discriminating against religious groups by upholding the Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriage.

    Your argument is flawed, at best.

  • Peter Smith

    Hmmm… Gay is okay, but polygamy is not? Wait a minute wait a minute. I personally don’t support either, but rights are rights. Do NOT for one minute suggest that one is okay while the other is not. If it is okay for two women to hook up, then it should be okay for one woman to have five husbands – or vice versa. If we are going for equal rights, then let’s let them be equal!!

  • fredo777

    Peter, if you’re not “for” gays, why are you posting on a gay-themed blog?

  • crazylove

    Why are people trying to convince Taylor? Are you honestly so stupid as to not know he’s a Prop 8 supporter who found this site?

  • seitan-on-a-stick

    Religion always attracts the crazies, straight or gay! Bloggers who think that they can force their will on others are seriously delusional. God is made up and it’s a personal choice whether you want to believe in a made up concept. That’s why it’s called the Leap of Faith!

  • Conservative Stan

    I am a rather conservative person here and I always wonder how the most liberal people in our country hate it when someone else uses their ability to choose to stop or influence political or social agendas. But, on the other hand the liberal screams all day about having the right to choose. This is America. If you cant get the majority to agree with you on the vote you loose. Its not restraining your rights its an exercise in Democracy. What is outrageous is that this was voted on before and 4 judges changed the will of the people. Thats what most liberals fail to understand about conservatives. We want the vote. We will concede the winner on the vote. When you have to have judges step in and disqualify everything they disallow the will of the people. This can change over time, mind you. There is no bigotry, hate or fear. Its America. if you have your right to speak so do we conservatives. To rail against that is very very hateful and are small minded.

  • JJ

    One important role of the judiciary always has been to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The majority can make big mistakes that hurt and kill innocent people.

    Democracy isn’t perfect and we need a judiciary to protect the rights of minorities.

  • crazylove

    You should realize that if you go to some of the larger sites like daily kos you will find that orgs like the Mormon’s monitor sites (including probbly this one) to find out what is being said. Indeed, their defense of their recent attempted extortion of anti-prop 8 donors was to site a daily kos diarist. This is why I don’t get why people respond to obvious sock pupets like say Conservative Stan here. Do you think they come here to be convinced?

  • fredo777

    “There is no bigotry, hate, or fear”

    Yeah. Right.

    “If you have your right to speak, so do we…”

    Noone denied that conservatives have the right to speak freely. We also have the right to think that some of you are full of shit. I personally choose to exercise that right.

  • AZgaybe

    go to the LDS website for a laugh…they have pictures and their “history” for all to see and then you can scratch your head thinking what the fuck!

  • Steve

    Funny how equality works out. The constitution guarantees “equal protection”. Every protection that the state grants to anyone must be granted to everyone. And, every protection that the state denies to anyone must be denied to everyone.

    Amendment 8 does not repeal “equal protection”. All it does is deny the protection called “marriage” to gay people. If it passes, the Constitution will require that the protection called “marraige” must be denied to everyone.

    Talk about unintended consequences.


    As everyone knows, the Mormon church is the leading proponent of Prop 8 in CA. and have been saying hateful things about gay people in their churches every Sunday.
    What you probably don’t know is that Mormons have a thing called “Fast & Testimony” meeting every 1st Sunday of the month.
    At this meeting, anyone can get up and bear their “testimony.’

    I challenge you folks in CA to go to your nearest LDS (Mormon) church on Sunday, Nov. 2nd and “bear your testimony” that gay people are okay and how Prop 8 would negatively affect you.
    When you go, wear a white shirt, tie and slacks (or a dress for the ladies) if you can, that way you’ll blend in a bit and they won’t be suspicious of you until you get up and bear your “testimony.”
    Just watch the first few people and see how they go up to the podium and speak and then do likewise.

    Here’s an interesting article from today’s Salt Lake Tribune about how Prop. 8 is dividing Mormons, that not all are typical sheep and following the church’s guidance on this issue:


    Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate claims that 59,000 Mormons have contributed more than $19.15 million, which is 77 percent of the $24.89 million raised by the entire Yes on 8 campaign.
    “It is a staggering amount of money and an even more staggering percentage of the overall campaign receipts,” Karger said, adding it dwarfs the efforts of the other partners in the Coalition to Protect Marriage.
    Pam and Rick Patterson, a middle class Mormon couple in Folsom, Calif., with five sons between 3 and 12, recently raided their savings account to donate $50,000 to the cause, The Sacramento Bee reported.

  • Conservative Stan

    Conservative response, I must reiterate that there is no hatred or fear on our side. We see things different than you do. I will continue to contend that to deny one sides view and rights to express and influence laws is small minded and oppressive. We do think that homosexual behavior is wrong, and yes I will say behavior NOT the person. So what we object to is the spill over that gay marriage can cause. Meaning, our children exposed to gay is OK themes in school. Or the potential for the next group to step forward and say we want equality too like polygamists or adults who feel that young children can be married to them. Whatever it may be. The slope will continue to be slippery. How can you say one group that differs from the norm, gay, must be protected but nor another, polygamists. You may think that to be directed by the God you believe in is OK until it infringes on your rights. Then you say our God is full of hatred. That’s just the shocking hypocrisy of your arguments. You need to curse and belittle and degrade in a manor that fits all the ways you describe us; intolerant, small minded, hateful, angry. You need to look in the mirror and realize that most of the country is conservative towards the middle. If you want to win let the people decide on the vote. What is dangerous is when the minority uses a few judges to swing opinions. Beware what happens if the door swings the other way. 30 years ago no one would entertain the idea of openly gay marriages. What if 30 years from now, this is hypothetical to an extreme, a small group can persuade a few conservative judges that gay rights have diminished their rights as heterosexuals (in whatever way they perceive. What if a judge agrees? Do you want say 4 judges in Texas to overturn a majority who in the future want gay marriage approved?

    The logic to dictate society through the courts in a way that is contrary to the majority vote is a dangerous dangerous thing.

  • Gabe

    First off in the bible it says:

    Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

    Any Christian, if they believe the bible, should assume they are that “one faith” or I would ask them why they are there.

    Secondly, I’m all for equality and that is why I’m ok with, as it is stated in California Law, that same sex partners get all the same benefits of traditional marriage partners.

    With that said I think I think that when 61% of Californians in the year 2000 said they want marriage to be between a man a wife – they meant it. Only a corrupt government would overturn the voice of the people. This has already been voted on. Marriage is between a man and a wife. Equality is settled already in the California state law. End of argument.

    Let Mormons fight what they want to fight.

  • fredo777

    Fortunately, Gabe, that argument is far from over.

    And the Mormons are welcome to fight. Bring it on.

  • Monument

    Our society, for better or worse, has its foundation based on certain beliefs, principles, and ultimately laws, all for the common good. If we begin to chip away at those beliefs, no matter if it is free speech, racial equality or the freedom of religion, we begin to collectively topple our own society. Prop 8 does not fight against the rights currently enjoyed by the gay community. It simply stands, defines and punctuates the importance of family and seeks to protect that standard for future generations. I am a Mormon, I see your frustration, but please don’t demand preferential treatment or perverted acceptance at the expense of the society we all belong to.

  • fredo777

    Monument, when exactly did the Mormon church stop “perverting” the sacred view that marriage is between one man + one woman?

  • Monument

    I think we as a church, have already paid a heavy and severe price for the practice of polygamy. Many paid for this practice with their lives. Does the mainstream Mormon church practice this now? No, so your point of bringing it up here in this discussion is irrelevant. The Mormon church did not force their beliefs onto others or manipulate the court system to legalize plural marriage. To the contrary, the church tried to live by its belief and let others live by theirs. Your position of changing the boundary we have all accepted for generations (and we happen to believe is sacred) is forcing us and like minded people to take a stance. Please be thankful that you live a society that is more tolerant than that of our ancestors. You are safe to publish your view, we were not.

  • fredo777

    No, sweetheart, bringing it up was very much relevant.

    Ponder it for a while longer + I’m sure you’ll come to realize exactly why.

  • Blane

    If you are an environmentalist then you cant be gay because if you believe everything that was created by nature is pure than humans were created to have his male parts fit the female. If you disagree then you either don’t believe in keeping things the way nature intended or your brain just blew up with the circular logic.

  • fredo777

    Yes, we should only utilize things as nature intended.

    Like the organic, farm-grown computers that we are all typing on right now.

  • ggreen

    Once again the Lunatics at LDS (like the lunatics of Scientology and other cults) have sent their concern trolls out to defend the indefensible. They go from being indoctrinated into the cult as children to living thought controlled lives that are lived without question. Questioning their faith or not mindlessly parroting its dogma is a sin. Mormons need to mind their own business and stop trying to inflict their love of Joseph Smith and his insanity on the rest of the world. If you wish to waste your life believing in missing golden plates so be it. But do not try to waste my life for not believing what you do.

  • Skye

    I am stunned why the bible thumpers think for some reason they can post to a gay blog and change our minds. I am even more stunned with the fellow Friends of Dorothy who try to respond to these people with reason. Reason seems to be the last thing that would work. I think that perhaps we should respond with the absurd. “I will vote no on prop 8 because the rock in my garden spoke to me and said that god wants the gays to marry.”

    I think we should stop calling it “traditional marraige” and “gay marriage”. It is simply marriage. If we keep the separate names, it is the same separate but equal definition as “marriage” and “civil union”.

    Personally, I think the government should get out of the marraige business, and stick to the civil union business. Government should register the contractual arrangements between people, be they gay or straight. Marriage can be performed by the church if they want to, a marriage performed in a church would have no force of law behind it. A civil union would have to be registered with the state to get benefit of all the rights and privileges that are given to a couple from the state. That would be real separation of church and state.

    If these churches really want to protect the definition of marriage within their church, they would support this type of system. Their church can define marrage in any way they choose to.

    As for the education issue that is continually being raised. Gay people are a part of society, and as such a part of social studies, and should be a part of the curriculum. It is my belief that if students are pulled from school to halt learning any part of the curriculum, they should not pass that grade. That would be “no child left behind”. If a parent does not want their child to learn any part of the curriculum, they should home-school their child.

    My sister’s opposition of gay marriage is that marriage is only valid when it can produce a child. I pointed out that her father, when he got remarried at age 60 to a woman age 60 as well, that that was nice, but not a valid marraige since no child could be produced. I don’t know why she was offended.

Comments are closed.