Mormon Paradox

It it possible, viewing the same event, whereby the perpetrator can suddenly look like the victim? That is what Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a high-ranking official in the Mormon church, apparently wants us to believe.

Citing an anti-Mormon backlash after Proposition 8, which overturned gay marriage last fall in California, Oaks compared it to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the Civil Rights Movement in a recent speech.

"The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing," said Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a church governing body. "The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom."

The question raised by Oaks' comments is, does the private morality rooted the nation's religious devotion trump the public morality rooted in the Constitution?

When Prop. 8 passed, the Mormons became targets from opponents, including organizing boycotts of businesses and protests at Mormon worship places. Some demonstrations turned to vandalism and church windows were shattered, and even the church's founding fathers came under verbal attack.

Oaks also stated that though the vandalism connected to Prop. 8 was primarily directed at religious people and symbols, "it was not anti-religious as such." He called the incidents "expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest."

"As such, these incidents of violence and intimidation are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic," he said. "In their effect they are like well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation."

The certainty that Oaks holds to his religious beliefs is what allows him to engage in historical malfeasance.

Equating the 1960s struggle for justice with the plight of a church that has been a vocal proponent of injustice is deeply offensive. The Mormon church poured millions into a campaign to ensure that some California families are granted second-class citizenship.

I am always troubled by the use of cheap historical analogies in order to make a self-serving point in the moment. I view it as "cheap." If it were simply about intimidation tactics against the Mormon church, that would be a profoundly American story that practically everyone shares who immigrated to this country by way of Ellis Island or in the bowels of a slave ship.

I certainly do not condone the reported acts of vandalism. No group can have right so firmly rooted on its side that it can receive a moral pass for otherwise egregious behavior. These acts of vandalism are also acts of hubris that ultimately serve the interest of Oaks far more than the cause they claim to represent.

Though the movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr., was based on nonviolent civil disobedience, there were moments when the frustration of violence rose to the surface. King, to his credit, was quick to reject such actions.

By comparing the treatment of the Mormon church after Prop. 8 to the violence faced by anti-segregation activists, not only does Oaks diminish the bravery and sacrifice of those willing to risk bodily harm so that America could come closer it's the notion of Jeffersonian democracy, he is unwittingly making another historical comparison.

In this context, Oaks speaks as a member of the dominant culture who already has the privilege that others are trying to secure.

The Civil Rights Movement taught this nation many things, and it reminded it of others. The mere fact that something is legal does not make it just. Most of what the South did under Jim Crow was "legal." Ironically, most of what the civil rights workers did to combat injustice was illegal.

In that limited terrain, we must conclude that Prop. 8 is legal. But it is a law, in my opinion, that prohibits the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause from achieving its stated purpose.

Based on the millions of dollars spent in support of Prop. 8, if we were making cheap historical comparisons, wouldn't the side Oaks champions align closer with those who hid behind legality in order to deny the constitutional rights of another group?

It is a tragic paradox when one group proactively spends millions to deny rights already granted to others based on their religious beliefs, bemoan there is an assault on their religious freedom, and then use the greatest grass-roots movement in the history of the nation -- one which offers very little documentation they supported at the time -- to position themselves as the underdogs in this battle for equality.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him [e-mail] or visit his Web site:byronspeaks.com

Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks

Comments

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

LDS

KNOW if we put your beliefs on initiative in every state, and subject them to a democratic vote....you'd lose in EVERY state except Utah.

and the theocracy you made inside Utah, if you attempt to make this a National theocracy....they wouldn't use the Book of Mormon.

[roald]

Your point is? They do not represent a majority? We have our Constitution to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

[Skye8i8]

They sure want to be in the majority, though, evidenced by how hard they courted bushncheney during the Dark Years.

This movie trailer is excellent, hopefully the rest of the movie is too. This movie is all about the Mormon church's extensive efforts to pass Prop H8. http://www.mormonproposition.com/

[Skye8i8]

Why is it wrong to link to an investigative documentary about the Mormon church's lengthy fight against gay marriage, esp on this particular discussion! http://www.mormonproposition.com/

''We only delete those comments that are abusive, off-topic, use excessive foul language, or include ad hominem attacks."

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

not if you are GAY

[MikeHTown]

exactly roald... unless they put your beliefs and liberty on a ballot initiative. That's the beauty of the 14th amendment... it can over ride the majority when its invoked. If it applies to the LDS, it also applies to the LGBT community. Ya can't have it both ways.

[farnie]

You're right, and it already happened. The LGBT community is making the claim that this is the first time that a minority has ever been stopped in the free practice of the constitutional right of marriage. However if marriage is a constitutional right then the first group was the Mormons. The temples were threatened, church leaders imprisoned, and laws changed in order to stop the practice, which is not only a violation of that right but of the freedom of religion. The Mormons have been officially EXTERMINATED before. Think about that before you start making such comments.

[yukoner1]

So tell me exactly how historical discrimination against one group justifies current discrimination against another group? With that kind of logic it's a wonder that we're not all still living in caves.

[MikeHTown]

farnie, further down I have made a comment that reminds us that homosexuals have been officially exterminated before, by the nazis.

[YORKIEQUILL]

@ Boyinboycott:

Sadly, you make the same error as all uninformed critics of Mormonism. I will point you towards them and then you can go off and search for light and better information - that is, if truth is important to you.

1. Utah is NOT a theocracy.

2. What is the data on which you base your prognostication? I am not saying that I believe differently, but if you are making forecasts you need to acknowledge the source of the data you have collected, and show the methodologies you have employed to support your primary premise. You supply a premise, somewhat loosely worded, but then you leave it as an unsupported opinion as if it means something.

3. Do you mean they wouldn't use the Book of Mormons because they are not using the Holy Bible? I guess one goes with the other.

[dfranz]

The real paradox is that Mormons were discriminated to the point that they had to migrate to Utah by wagon train for some religious freedoms.

I guess since they feel like they're mainstream now and it's time for some payback.

[JimMan35]

Ahem. That wasn't discrimination. That was opposition to LDS polygamy and things like destroying a printing press that printed criticism of "The Church". Those things didn't go over well with the local populations. Laws of the Land and all that.

[Skye8i8]

Exactly. In fact, their own Joe Smith wasn't murdered like they claim, but died in a shoot-out - Real martyrs don't fire back:

"Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six-shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, 'Would any of you like to have this?' Brother Joseph [Smith] immediately replied, 'Yes, give it to me,' whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket. ... [Smith]... approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed, died."

"The firing of Brother Joseph [Smith] made our assailants pause for a moment; very soon after, however, they pushed the door some distance open, and protruded and discharged their guns into the room," - Official History of the Church, Vol. 7, p.100-103

[YORKIEQUILL]

Your argument is nonsense. Most world faiths have positions on some matter or another that do not please everyone. How could they?

Mormonism is concerned with practicing Christianity and with leavening the world they live in as taught by Jesus Christ.

Let us not go overboard and present childish and incorrect 'reasons' why you find yourself across the aisle from some Mormon members.

[redsongia]

I grew up in Vegas were there are many Mormons who don't give a care about things like gay marriage.

As in everything, there are extremist, right wing Mormons and then moderate people who aren't raging ideologs.

[JimMan35]

As I was thinking back over my posts (now pulled, I don't know why) in which I sited a couple of former mormon prophet and president Ezra Taft Benson's assertions that the civil rights movement was a "communist fact" (his words) and not a mere conspiracy, and since it was communist it must be opposed, I got to wondering about mormons and the expansion of rights in America. When have they EVER supported expanding rights except when they wanted to practice polygamy in states and in a country where it was illegal and destroy printing the presses of people who printed stuff they didn't want them to (google "why was joseph smith jailed in carthage missouri)?

They opposed civil rights, they opposed the equal rights amendment, they discriminated against blacks until the federal government was looking into pulling the church's and BYU's tax exempt status, athletic teams were boycotting BYU because of the discrimination, and a few other reasons, and lo, and behold in 1978 (finally!), Spencer Kimball, the church's leader at that time, decided it was time that blacks (males only, of course) could hold the priesthood. When their own status is threatened they will back off their previously strongly held convictions and give in, but never a moment sooner. When have they ever been on the bandwagon of supporting additional rights for anyone except white heterosexual males? Anyone?

Will they be one of the last to the for gays, too?

[rainey]

Someone who purports to have real information about the deliberations at the highest level of the LDS says that they already recognize that the time will come when same sex marriages will be the law of the land (remember, the Boies/Olsen federal challenge to DOMA is proceeding through federal courts even as we type here). They expect, once that precedent is established, that the FLDS will sue for their right to polygamous marriages.

When that happens the LDS will be in the perilous position of having their polygamous past and their preservation of Joseph Smith's enabling "revelation" (D&C 132). They will have to defend the FLDS claim or denounce Smith's scripture. They have left themselves no middle ground. IF the FLDS prevails, the next step would be for the FLDS to make a claim on the authority and wealth of the LDS. Reason enough, perhaps, to defer all of this as long as possible.

This person may or may not have the access that they claim. But the uncomfortable sequence of events seems plausible whether or not it's probable.

[farnie]

Look up the first states that allowed women to vote. Then look at their Mormon population.

[confusticated]

So as a curious outsider I am wondering when it is okay to be intolerant? It seems from reading posts in this thread that each side is convinced that their intolerance is justified.

[Uncle Bob]

who is being intolerant to mormons?

I think they are delusional cult followers. I haven't legislated for their rights to be taken away from them.

Maybe you should define "intolerant" for us?

[cinesimon]

I'm not intolerant of them doing what they do - as long as they don';t affect others with their beliefs. And that is exactly what they have been trying to do.
I believe our intolerance over their attempts at destroying the separation between church and state is entirely justified - but they believe that that opinion in itself is hatred and persecuted aimed at them.
In other words: they believ it's their divine right to lay down certain laws that we all must follow, even if we are not a part of their religion. And if we try to fight that: then we're persecuting them.

So ask yourself 0 is our taking exception to their view persecution?
Or are their attempts at imposing their religious beliefs onto all Americans out of order - not to mention completely unconstitutional?

[confusticated]

So if voting against gay marriage is forcing a belief system on someone, wouldn't voting for gay marriage be doing the same thing?

[farnie]

Mormons are different in their theology that makes homosexuality more wrong then in other religions. My understanding of our position is that while we feel that it is a sin by them breaking the law of chastity, that is not entirely significant because others who break this law, adultery etc, can repent. The significance is in the idea of the family. Families are forever in the church. The point of families is eternal progression in a celestial kingdom. This requires the continuation of the family state, having children, after this life. This is impossible for homosexual couples. To make homosexual couples capable of marriage, besides allowing a sinful relationship, would not make sense with this theology. It also then brings the worry that if we refuse to grant these marriage we will be persecuted against. Doesn't seem that unlikely considering some of the posts on here. When we refused to stop polygamy we were arrested. When it was allowing blacks the priesthood, it was looking at our exempt status. We just wonder what it will be this time.

[Uncle Bob]

Of course you will be persecuted against. Any time a cult encourages its followers to break the law, there will be repercussions.

This is the price you pay for living in a secular society. As much as cult followers whine about it, I doubt you'd enjoy living in a theocracy. In the USA, mormonism would surely be labeled heretical if it became a theocracy tomorrow and be outlawed.

THEN, you'd have a reason to claim persecution.

[VeryFairMOR]

You overstate you case when you say:
"Equating the 1960s struggle for justice with the plight of a church that has been a vocal proponent of injustice is deeply offensive."
The injustice here is in some dispute. Good people can disagree on that.
No one in the mormon church is trying to take any rights away from anyone. They are objecting the the extension of a right, the right to marriage, being extended to gays.
That "injustice" has been the law of all civilations in the history of the world until the last 50 years.
The removal of gender as a consideration for marriage is not an automatic injustice. Provisions can be made so that gay couples can enjoy rates of inheritance, rights of healthcare decisions, etc., without changing the complete idea of marriage.
Also, race and choice are not the same. Because someone chooses to hold a certain belief, this does not make a group of such choosers the same as a race of peoople determined by genetics.
Why shouldn't a group of people that believe in bestiality be granted the same privileges of marriage that heterosexuals have?
If all that is required to create an "injustice" is for anyone to oppose any behavior chosen by a group of people, the "injustice bar" is set far too low.

[Uncle Bob]

how is your comparing homosexual marriage to bestiality any different than comparing interracial marriage to bestiality?

That was one of many arguments against interracial arguments, in case you missed it.

Creating a slippery slope out of thin air, with a dose of "its not traditional" is not a rational argument.

[cinesimon]

Disgusting, isn't it.
It's as if they stopped developing culturally after the 1960s.

[roald]

Let me add a note to the bestiality comparison­...Marriag­e is a contract. Animals, children, and impaired - temporarily or permanently - people who are unable to enter a contract should be the only ones not allowed to marry.

A church can decline to officiate at a religious union if it deems that marriage to be contrary to its beliefs.

[jennyrebecca]

FAIL. Animals can't sign contracts.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Mormons chose to attack the families of gays and lesbians who had the right to marry and thousands of couples rush to marry.
Religious beliefs are chosen and can be changed at any time and are Constitutionaly protected, so stop the need for genetic proof being LGBt is a choice or not. scientists say ALL sexual orientation is set in a child at three years old, and is immutable. NO three year old decides their attraction, it just IS.

[MikeHTown]

About the slippery slope argument VeryFairMOR: If YOU want to marry a farm animal, I wouldn't stop you. The US Constitution protects YOUR privacy just as much as it protects mine. I, on the other hand, would also say that the right to same sex marriage was always there if we take the constitution's guarantees of equal protection under the law literally. Racism was also justified religiously and legally up until 50 years ago when Brown vs Board of Education finally enforced our constitution. Just because injustice was socially acceptable, doesn't make it right. I believe Jesus when he said "Faith, Love, and Hope. But the greatest of these is LOVE." It's hard to love someone and treat them unjustly at the same time.

And I say bravo to the person who spoke about the oppression that the LDS church faced, and in response they also oppress. Read Paolo Friere Pedagogy of the Oppressed. There's alot of truth to this phenomenon.

[cinesimon]

Apparently if I strongly disagree with azindy about Mormons, I'm a hater and
"not really a progressive". Apparently the only way to disagree is to hate and be whatever you say I am, AZ.
NICE.
AZ: maybe you should look in the mirror.
You can only be talking about yourself when you say such things, as I was concentrating on the issue - not on hating you, nor representing my progressive credentials. You see, progressives generally repect that on a number if issues, we may disagree - and we will not turn around and act chiuldishly like you have with your silly accusations.
I find that such accusations generally come from people who cannot themselves differentiate from a strong argument versus talking hate. Classic projection for those who cannot see things another way, because that is how they themselves view the issue.
Classic projection - and whilst it certainly comes from the right by and large, we have quite a few amongst us, also.

[JimMan35]

I noticed that hater comment, too, and took another look at your post. I saw passion and conviction, but no hate. If I remember my mormon experience correctly (and I certainly do) there was a saying that "Contention is of the adversary", which basically means "If you disagree with us, Satan has control of you." I doubt that some mormon is going to come on huffington post and be that forthright, but the mindset on disagreement is there. Hence, the mormon's ever-present persecution complex and Dallin H. O. saying HIS rights are threatened. The world is against mormons...according to them.

[cinesimon]

Indeed.
I realize I can sometimes be abrasive, but that generally happens when I know I'm being lied to - and that poster is undoubtedly a mormon defending her religion - and pretending to be a 'progressive'. Or course her righteous zealotry, her VERY bizarre 'you're not a real progressive' and her 'you're just a hater" charges and inability to accept any fault with her church whatsoever quite obviously betrays her attempted deception.
it's a shame they - along with conservatives - feel that they have to be dishonest from the get go if they're going to have a chance at 'winning' their argument, or get their point across - whatever her motivation is.

But you're correct - that persecution complex is extremely strong within the mormon church.
In that respect, I'm beginning to feel that they're worse than scientology.

[JIzin]

Tax all religious organizations!

[cinesimon]

Yep: and conservatives are primarily to blame for this inevitability - the republican party and religious right have encouraged organized religion to abuse their tax privileges on a massive scale.
A PAC - which is how many religions operate now - should never, ever be allowed to behave like they have, whilst being seen as a righteous charity doing the lords work. It's one or the other - they cannot be both and not pay tax, nor be anyone's back door to paying less taxes through charitable donations. It's sick, the prejudice the preach, and dare to call it 'the lords word'.
Of course - along with every other issue they have a political problem with: during the debating period of revisiting their tax status and the laws/enforcement issues that currently stand, predictably they'll curse us as the disciples of satan, blah blah.
How anyone thinks mixing their religion and government - essentially dictating to all that their religious beliefs will be imposed on everyone, regardless of their belief system is a good thing, is just beyond me.
Do they really believe that because it's a religion, it be dictate the law for all? That is absolutely sick.

[dfranz]

That's the most sensible idea I've heard today.
Fanned

[farnie]

To tax religious organizations would probably be a violation against the first amendment. Do you really want to go there when your whole basis for equal rights in marriage is based on the Constitution?

Religious organizations are among the most charitable organizations in the entire world. Think about the Catholic Charities and how much money they spend a year. If this is taxed then need organizations are the only ones to lose. Most churches don't need more money for anything else. Plus the Mormon Church would probably be the least hurt by this out of all religions.

[JIzin]

If all religious organizations were taxed the same, there would be no violation of the first amendment.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

I think your next column might be Mormon NEXUS

When Mormons, Blacks,and Gays collide

[Uncle Bob]

apparently, my post was too contraversial, and was rejected.

So maybe a more direct comment will make it past the moderators.

The last person that should claim moral high ground would be people with a "holy" book filled with stuff that we find repugnant today. Simply dismissing such text because it is often ignored by your peers doesn't make it any less factual, let alone easily noted by people that don't believe you have the moral high ground

And this goes for all religions. The secular world does not operate on imaginary moral absolutes. We operate on what works.

That being said, most religions will be embracing homosexual normalcy soon. They have to, if they don't want to be left behind in the dynamic social conversation. The inevitability of it is so obvious to anyone paying attention. Such actions by the Mormon church, trying to slow the progression of it, is not helping their cause. They will regret it eventually, just like they've regretted all other social issues they used to be against, which turned against them.

[Angsty]

Amen.

[martinfrosa]

Pastor Williams,

The Mormon church does not spend "millions" on any political activity. To do so would jeopardize the church's tax-exempt status. What the church does is to encourage its members to donate their time and money and that is exactly what it did with regard to Prop. 8.

[gaydm]

So church members are not considered a part of the church? How does a "church" donate or contribute unless the members that make up the church do the donating? Does church membership end at it's leaders? or do it's followers not count in some mysterious way?

[MormonsRock]

The church did not use tithing money collected. It would be illegal. But it is not illegal for them to encourage their members to vote, speak up and donate to sources that are a moral issue. Thus, "the members" donated. No tithing money was used.

[rainey]

The LDS also supplied, thru National Organization for Marriage an arm staffed almost entirely by church appointed administration, the script for frightening voters into believing that their children would be recruited into homosexuality and that the law would intrude into their homes.

This the same modus operandi that they used to submarine the ERA. This business of the LDS operating as a political agent is NOT new. They just used to be able to do it sub rosa until they started offending their own membership with their ham handed efforts that are now leaking like a sieve.

[Skye8i8]

Spot-on, gaydm! Mormons use church-generated membership lists to solicit for various elections, the latest Momron-run Ponzi scam (How many Mormons in Utah have been convicted of scamming their fellow Mormons of how many million$... Lots!)

Mormons LIED to Calif officials about just how much money the Mormon ''church'' donated to the Prop H8 campaign. Has that OFFICIAL investigation been resolved yet?

Finally, during the prop H8 campaign, some of the higher-up Mormons set up TELECONFERENCES with various wealthy Mormons to solicit donations of $25,000++. How do the higher-ups know which Mormons are rich? Because they make Mormons tell their religion exactly how much money each Mormon makes every single year. Of course, now that the recession is hitting all sorts of people big time, those wealthy Mormons are *not* being helped if they need financial assistance to keep their homes.

Watch out, world. The Mormons want to remake the entire world in their elitist good-ole-boys-club image. They are primary backers of National Org for Marriage, hell-bent on making sure gays can never marry while misogynistically supporting polygamy.

Anyone have the link to the internal Mormon memo where top Mormons planned how to trick Hawaii and a few other states at first into shooting down gay marriage under the guise of ''protecting'' hetero marriage. Which begs the questions - are hetero marriages so WEAK they need that much protection?? Haven't heteros figured out how to strong marriages yet??

[cinesimon]

Do you honestly believe that? REALLY? With a straight face?
Wow.
Did your church tell you that? Did you look for any other source than that of the Mormon church?

They pumped over 25 million dollars into their prop 8 campaign DIRECTLY FROM THEIR UTAH ACCOUNTS.
That financing was not as a result of individual contributions.

The mormon church DOES spend millions on political activity.
You cannot have been paying any attention if you did not know that.
Or was it that darned liberal media and their bias again?

I know: if it puts the church in a bad light: then it cannot be true. Like Scientology. And like Fox and the republicans.

[AZIndependant]

You're full of it. There was an investigation by the state of CA. They found the exact OPPOSITE of what you propose. Quit being a hater and lying to get your point across. It's exhausting.

[hippynanainblingland]

"It is a tragic paradox when one group proactively spends millions to deny rights already granted to others based on their religious beliefs, bemoan there is an assault on their religious freedom, and then use the greatest grass-roots movement in the history of the nation -- one which offers very little documentation they supported at the time -- to position themselves as the underdogs in this battle for equality. "

No paradox there, just business as usual for bullies of all stripes and religious persuation: turn the sin around so the others' actions are the most objectionable. . . like the schoolyard bully running to the teacher crying about the a bloody nose that the fed up victim finally dispensed!

[cinesimon]

The mormon church has proven well beyond any reasonable doubt they they are now a political force intent on putting loads of money into political issues. Even issues well outside of their usual sphere of influence - and issues that don't even affect them.
Their tax status needs to be revoked.

[Willow207]

Agreed!

[ReesieKitty]

Agreed!!

[AZIndependant]

Their tax status needs to be revoked the moment they break the rules with respect to tax exempt status. Investigations into the Prop-8 funding have found that they have not. We don't hide behind the "law" to persecute people we disagree with or who's opinion we don't like.

[cinesimon]

Yeah that's a laugh and a half!.
You really don't even realize you just contradicted yourself to rather a humorous extent?
You say that because technically no laws were broken you're in the right, yet you then say you don't hide behind laws?
Pulease.
The laws need to be strengthened, and properly enforced. It's just another issue that the Bush Admin willfully destructed for their own political interests - trying to close the gap between church and state.
Please, ms Mormon - get out of our lives.
You're welcome yto your religion - but in California you completely abused the privileged position organized religion has in America, by pumping tens of millions of dollars to campaign to impose your religious beliefs onto everyone - regardless of their own belief system.
That's completely un-American - Jefferson would have had a heart attack if he knew that christian are now behaving this way.
In America, it's right wing christianity and mormonism.
In the Islamic world, it's the likes of the Taliban.
A matter of degrees, certainly - but the end goal is no different.
If you believed otherwise, you'd not be supporting this religious imposition on others.

But apparently I'm not worthy of having a discussion with, because in your words: my "opinion is biased".
That really is the best line I've seen in a while from the right wing Ameriban.
A classic Michael Steele moment if ever there was one!

[MormonsRock]

No that I agree with!

[farnie]

Agreed.

[davism97]

A perfect solution to the gay marriage problem: Give civil unions the same legal status (at the federal level) as marriage. Leave marriage to the religions. Leave civil unions to the government. Everybody gets what they want.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

Civil Unions for all couples might have been a solution before states granted marriage to same sex couples, now that 6 states either grant or recognise SSM, that ship has sailed no married gays/lesbians will settle for Civil Unions, and shouldn't. State courts have repeatedly ruled setting up civil unions or domestic partnership sets up a second class group of citizens, which is unconstitutional.

[gaydm]

No actually we need to strip Religious groups of the privilege of performing an Government legal contractual matter. We do not go to church for a drivers license, I see no need, or good from allowing religion to be involved. After you have been legally married, get your drivers, or other legal public contract from the appropriate agency. Then you may have all the church after party you wish to engage in to celebrate the LEGAL state contracts you manage to obtain, and invite only those people you wish to attend that party. Shut religion out of the civil marriage issue in it's entirety. Grant no legal standing at all to religion to perform civil functions. PERIOD.

[davism97]

"No actually we need to strip Religious groups of the privilege of performing an Government legal contractual matter"

If you read my comment again you might see that you and I completely agree here. What I proposed was eliminating the term "marriage" from the government vocabulary entirely. The government should only have the power to grant civil unions (regardless of sex, race, religion). ALL civil unions (hetero or homo sexual) would be granted the same rights. The religions can do what they want as long as they don't try to stick their noses into government business. I see this as a church state issue.

[jennyrebecca]

AMEN!