This article is right on the money. Having been a debater in high school I have always felt that we need to use more logic in our support for traditional marriage. The institution of marriage will not survive if we can't show those who aren't religious a reason to preserve it that isn't based on belief in God. I look forward to Bro. Card's future articles on this.

So does that mean we as LDS should go against our 11th Article of Faith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. (Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:11)

As I read this, it is obvious to me that homosexuals worship according to the dictates of THEIR own conscience, worshipping how, where or what they may. Refusing to "allow all men the same privilege" that we have by denying same-sex marriage seems immoral and contrary to this fundamental Article of LDS Faith. By contrast, amending a Constitution so that it forbids equal rights to marry based on OUR worship and faith that homosexuality is sinful clearly violates this Article of Faith.

To illustrate, the Church teaches that drinking alcohol is a sin. Many people have a genetic propensity to become addicted to alcohol, but we tell them to control their passions and behaviors and don't drink alcohol. But we don't support legislation forbidding other U.S. citizens from drinking alcohol! We don't force our standards of morality down their throats!

Being gay is not "worshiping Almighty God," it's a choice of sexual preference. It has nothing to do with AoF 11. In my opinion, AoF 11 has nothing to do with this.

More fiction from Orson Scott Card. Next time write an article with some non-fiction in it.

The Church teaches that adultery is a sin. But we don't support legislation outlawing adultery. In fact, there are very few anti-adultery laws on the books across the nation.

The Church teaches that smoking is a sin, but we don't pass legislation outlawing smoking, except where second-hand-smoke hurts others.

Just because a behavior is a sin is no reason for supporting the passage of legislation forcing non-members to abide by our moral standards.

We DO support standards that control the impact of people's behavior on others -- such as smoking. But same-sex-marriage does NOT have a negative impact on other people. The California Supreme Court acknowledges this: "The exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.”

But denying equal rights to marry DOES hurt others: “… may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise—now emphatically rejected by this Court—that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.”

Not worshiping God? Who are you to say that a homosexual person who believes he or she was CREATED BY GOD as a homosexual is NOT "worshiping" God? You only reveal your own homophobia and prejudice.

As a lesbian, I can assure you that my sexual orientation is ABSOLUTELY part of my worship of God. It is part of who I am as a person, and I worship God with every fiber of my being!

Quit using your own bigotry to try to discriminate against me. If you want to believe I am a sinner, knock yourself out! But don't continue to discriminate against me by denying me the right to worship my God in my way and to share my life with someone I love and to whom I am committed.

Well said FRAN and Kathy J.

Fran - Last I checked, adulterers didn't want to be called chaste, alcoholics didn't want to be called teetotalers, and smokers didn't want to be called non-smokers. However, this is what is happening with same-sex couples trying to call their relationships marriages. While all of these would be considered sins, only same-sex couples are trying to call their actions something that has traditionaly been the opposite of what their relationships are. As California voters made clear with proposition 22 in the year 2000, marriage is between a man and a woman. I found it interesting when I read about the song 'defying gravity' from Wicked being used as the anthem for a gay pride parade. It seemed to me even those pushing for a new definition of marriage were admitting that their relationships are un-natural, just as defying gravity is against the laws of nature.

Thank you KathyJ for your letter....I am glad you said what you said and I agree with you 100% in what you said and how you said it. Now, can we get back to the institution of marriage as to how it has been acknowledged historically in this country and under the laws of this land for over 200 years? It has been considered between a man and a woman. Therein lies "the rub". I have no problem, for example, with homosexuals adopting children and am in favor of Mayor Becker's program in SLC. I just have a difficult time with the concept of "marriage" between people of the same sex.

EdM and CB

People had a difficult time with blacks holding the priesthood when it was finally given.

People had a difficult time with women voting when that right was finally given.

People had a difficult time accepting polygamy in the LDS Church when Joseph Smith proposed it, and even more people had a difficult time with doing away with polygamy when that happened.

People have a difficult time with change.

But that doesn't make status quo right.

Continuing to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation (or religion, or race) and continuing to deny them equality under the law is wrong. It is as simple as that.

Go ahead and continue to dislike gays and lesbians and blacks and hispanics and Baptists and whomever you want to dislike. Just don't make your personal biases and hangups into laws or constitutional amendments that are unethical.

Nobody forces you to LIKE alcoholics, but leave them the liberty to drink. Nobody forces you to LIKE smokers, but leave them the liberty to smoke. Nobody is forcing you to like people who are different than you, but leave them to enjoy the blessings of liberty (in marriage) that you enjoy.

CB,

To those who commit what YOU call "adultery," the concept of being chaste is an obsolete, prudish idea. They don't care if YOU think they are sinners or not. But we still don't pass laws punishing them for adultery or prohibiting it.

Those who drink alcohol are not all alcoholics. Those who drink responsibly do not care that YOU think they are sinners. They are not. To them the idea of being a “teetotaler” is more religious nonsense.

Your judgmentalism is YOUR problem, not ours.

Same-sex couples (and others who believe in liberty) are trying to call their actions exactly and equally what heterosexual couples call it. A loving, exclusive commitment between two people to love, honor, and care for one another. The majority of California voters passed proposition 22 in 2000 based on mobilization of bigoted religious leaders.

And finally, please refrain from flying ever again because that is defying the “natural law” of gravity! Contrary to your bigoted nonsense, there is nothing “against the laws of nature” in two people caring for and committing to one another.

I sure get tired of the rhetoric used by bigots such as Card.

"How to defend marriage"??

Marriage is not under attack. It is not being changed in any way. The right to marry is simply being extended to those from whom it was previously denied.

Marriage is still a sacred institution. But now more devoted, loving people can participate in it than before. That is a good thing. That strengthens the institution of marriage, it doesn't weaken it.

Bro. Card is one of the most well-respected writers of our time. However, sometimes he would do things like that that I don't understand.

Why would you write an article title "Why and how to defend marriage" and not even remotely touching on the subject?

(I am aware of his note on future articles but he should at least touch very lightly on the subject. None whatsoever was mentioned on the subject of the article.)

Fran - I am not proposing we limit anyone's liberty. You are free to have relationships of any type with anyone you wish. I am even fine with granting the same insurance benefits and tax breaks to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples. I just don't believe it should be called a marriage. I believe one of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world. This is a major difference between heterosexual and same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot naturally have children. This is science, not bigotry. If we define marriage as a relationship between any two people today, what will prevent individuals from wanting to call relationships with pets or computers a "marriage" in the future?

CB,

Well then lets go all the way and create a separate word to use for the relationships of those heterosexual people who are unable or who do not want to procreate! Then we can really maintain the absolute purity of [your] definition of marriage, preserving this essential element that YOU think is the defining feature of marriage: the ability to "naturally" have children.

But let's be careful, because many women have children in an UN-natural way through cesarean delivery. And many other women have to take special un-natural fertility medication so they can have children. And many couples adopt children, but we need to preserve the absolute purity of the concept of "marriage" by giving THEM a different name to call their relationships...

How absurd can you possibly be?

The California Supreme Court was exactly right. This is about YOU preserving YOUR place as a First Class Citizen, while trying to force a different and lesser classification on same-sex couples! That is exactly what you are admitting! Why don't you go read the Cal. Supreme Court Decision and see for yourself!

I am the person who normally posts under the name "John Lambert". However there is someone else posting under that name these days. I am trying to convince myself that that is the person's real name, but I still find it odd since so few people post under full names.

Be that as it may, I thought this was a good article. However It is going to be hard not to overract to the opponants of traditional marriage when they spew so much hate and vitriol at those of us who stand up to be couinted.

Last of all, I have to repeat for the who knows how manyith time that this is not about rights but public policy. Will the state give a pro-active endorsement to what many people rightly feel is an inmoral relationsip?

No one would go to jail or even be fined if the admaendment passes. If it fails, people may loose their jobs for standing up against the attack of evil. No matter how much people protest in favor of homosexual behavior it still is condemned by the Lord, even Jesus Christ.

I have to take issue with one thing Card said. He claims that "no one can help having desires most of us do not suffer". This is not fully true.

As A. Dean Byrd points out studies have shown that gender affirmation therapy does affect peoples basic sexual orientation. It is not clear it can work at all with those who have no desire to change, and it is not 100% effective. It is clear that these are deep seated attractions that can not be chaged quickly or without true desire and effort, and it is also probable that some people will always have feelings of same-gender attraction.

However to write as Card does and say that "no one can help" implies that there is no way out. It implies that the choice is between celibacy or giving into homosexual urges. Although there may be some people who will never come to the point of being able to feel sexual attaction to those of the other gender, it is by no means most people.

My point is that people can change. With the help of the Lord, with prayer, fasting, with the turning to a bishop and quite probably then with the help of trained psychologists change can occur.

The studies that Byrd refers to seem to involve people who did not even seek aid from the Lord in making the change. It can be done. I am not saying it is easy, or that everyone will make as much progress as they wish they could. I am not saying it is a walk in the park. However it is possible. Sexual orientation is not an inmutable condition, but is changeable and alterable.

John,

Try a thought experiment on the Golden Rule. Imagine if your Mormon Temple weddings were not recognized by the State or Nation. Imagine a majority of Christians in America (Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc.) believed that because Mormons are a cult and not Christian, their Temple marriages are not legally or lawfully recognized. Imagine how you would feel if, according to the law, you were not legally married to your wife. You could not legally file joint tax returns; you could not make decisions on behalf of your wife if she was disabled; you could not extend spousal or family benefits to her through your employer or insurance provider; and everyone all around you treated you like you were a second-class citizen with an illegitimate relationship with the one you love most, all because you believed differently than these other religions.

How would you like that?

You need to keep your religious fanaticism out of other people's lives. Trying to manipulate the courts and the constitution to force your religious radicalism onto others who do not share your beliefs is immoral and unChristian. The only reason you cannot see that is because you are blinded by religious fervor.

John,

The point is that not everyone believes the same thing you do. Not everyone SHOULD believe the same thing you do. Your bigotry is not so much in that you believe homosexuals SHOULD change (although that is part of it); it is in your believing that YOU have the right and duty to try to FORCE them to change through the laws and constitutional amendments!

Don't make yourself such a foolish hypocrite.

John, we are familiar with your tendency to dominate the comments by posting long-winded, opinionated, preachy nonsense until everyone gets sick of it and goes away. This gives the illusion that you have somehow won the debate, but you have not.

Your arguments are ALWAYS based on your own, personal beliefs in religion. You do NOT have the right to force your personal religious beliefs onto others!

Allow all men the same privilege to worship how, where or what they may. Follow your own articles of faith!

John,

The debate is not about whether homosexuality is or is not genetic or biological (inborn).

Your religion is a choice, yet we do not uphold laws that discriminate against you because of your religion.

Whether or not homosexuality/same-gender attraction is inborn or a choice does not matter. People should have equal rights to marry the person they love and to whom they are committed regardless.

Thanks for saying what I have been thinking. My secular argument against gay marriage is based on the economic Law of Unintended Consequences. Any time a government tries to impose speculative regulations on society, it is a dangerous thing. We don't know what the consequences of messing with long held social/traditional laws could possibly be, anymore than the Chinese did when they instituted One Child Laws. Thank you; I look forward to your columns.

I, too, thought Card should have briefly itemized his secular arguments. I look forward to his future columns where he lays them out. I have yet to see a cogent secular argument from gay marriage opponents. Most arguments take either an "it offends morality" or a nebulous "it harms traditional marriage" approach, with neither being substantiated with data.

The reason for gay marriage as exactly the same as that for heterosexual marriage: to create a social infrastructure that encourages long-term pair bond formation (or more succinctly, to incentivize the male to stick around after the fun is over). This provides a better environment for child rearing and reduces promiscuity.

Gay marriage opponents rightly say that marriage is for children. I have heard (but not independently corroborated) that 30% of gay households have children. If 3-5% of the population is gay, then 1-3% of all children-- millions of kids in the US-- are denied the benefits of living with married parents. Is that a good thing? Gay marriage opponents say that homosexuality is unhealthy because gays have multiple partners and high rates of STD's. Yet by opposing gay marriage they deny them any reason to settle down. It's illogical.

JAS,

So let me get this straight. IF same-sex marriages were shown to be economically and civilly beneficial, you would support them. IF they are economically and civilly detrimental, then you would not support them.

In other words, you are a strict economist (perhaps a Benthamist) whose morality and political philosophy can be distilled down to whatever makes the most business sense?

What if extending marital benefits to same-sex couples is just plain right and good from an ETHICAL standpoint, regardless of how much it may cost (in dollars) to society?

Imagine if we continued to restrict land ownership and the right to vote from blacks and women because IT WAS NATURAL that lesser persons did not exercise these rights, and the industrial and pre-industrial economies in this country were BETTER OFF!

Sometimes things are just right regardless of their economic costs. Having said that, there are NO valid studies or arguments that show that same-sex marriages will destroy our economy, nor our civil society, nor even hurt your own heterosexual marriage.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE WILL HURT NOBODY!

Why are people always trying to force their ideas - and their morality - on me? I am tired of it! They tell me that consuming animal products is wrong, that driving SUVs is wrong, that using incandescent light bulbs is wrong, that watering my lawn is wrong, that having more than two children is wrong, and even that microwaving in plastic containers is wrong. So many people seems intent on pushing their own morality while deneying others the right to push theirs.

Lagomorph,

You make some good points.

I must disagree with your statement "Gay marriage opponents rightly say that marriage is for children."

Marriage is not ONLY for the benefit of children. Yes, marriage is good for children, but it is also good for the two partners involved, as well as the larger society (as you rightly point out).

Opponents of same-sex marriage need to realize the nonsensical nature of their arguments that marriage is for children. If that were the case, then infertile couples should not be given marriage licenses, and neither should couples that choose not to have children. If that were so, then we should have no concerns about maintaining the integrity and stability of marriages for people who are beyond child-bearing/rearing age: empty nesters, retired couples, etc. Are we saying their marriages are meaningless because they have served their child-benefiting purposes? I say baloney!

Whether or not one believes in traditional marriage or gay marriage....there are consequences in both. Good or bad the laws of God will be initiated. The only way one can get around not believing in the Godly consequence of marrying one of the same sex, is to believe that God does not exist or he has not stated His laws concerning marriage. You can debate all you want but in the end there will be a judgement. If you are disloyal in traditional marriage, expect a consequence. If you find yourself in a same sex situation, expect a consequence. If not repented of in either expect a Godly consequence. As one person said it plainly, God loves the sinner but condemns the sin and the Law of Justice will prevail because God would cease to be God if He did not abide by His own laws.!!

I can think of a couple reasons why same-sex marriage (SSM) is not good for children. (1) While the gender of the partners is essential to their own relationship (after all, men and women are NOT the same), they think that it cannot be important to their children. Yes, men and women are different and they do have different characteristics. They bring different perspectives to life. It is essential for well-balanced children, and ultimately well-balanced adults, to benefit from those perspectives. And is is essential to function well in society to understand both men and women and to know how to interact with them. (This is sort of along the lines of yin-yang.)

Whomever said that the Church does not regulate and legislate alcohol obviously does not live in Utah. The Church has a big say on how and when to regulate the current ridiculous liquor laws. As for the same sex marriage issue, I feel that by the Church taking a stand on this, just like the did with the Equal Rights mobvement, is against the basic principle of Free Agency. If God had wanted us to all follow a straight and narrow path here on earth he would have selected Satan's plan. He did not and neither should we.

I think that one of the points of Card's column was that this issue can be, and should be, debated in non-theological terms. I agree with that. Your point of view could be more effective if you framed them to the non-theologically-inclined audience. (My comment is meant to be constructive.)

To Fran,

The analogy has huge flaws. To began with, Temple Marriages are not identifiably different than other marriages. They do not involve differences that are inherent to marriage, so it is not similar to the differences between same-gender marriage and traditional marriage.

Secondly, if the government decided to ban state recognition of temple marriages we would do what they do in Brazil and most other Latin American countries. We would have a civil marriage and then go to the temple and have a sealing performed there.

Should anyone be able to marry anyone (or any thing) and have the marriage legally recognized? How about polygamy? There's nothing wrong with having a majority vote on a legal definition of a word. So-called gay people in this country have politicized this issue to the point of craziness.

The debate is about many things.

However these laws are not about forcing anyone to change. As I have said before, no one is going to go to jail if the admendment passes. The laws are about what the government will proactively endorse.

Why do we want a government to endorse a set of circumstances where if children are raised by these "parents" they will not have a chance of recieving balanced upbringing.

Now what I have said is somewho bigoted. I have tried my hardest to make sure I only spoke against homosexual behavior and actions. Homosexuality is a condition, not a state of being.

I have also tried to convey as much of a sense of understanding that overcoming these desires and tendencies is a struggle. If you want to attack a bigot go and chastise the person who denounced someone as a hypocrite because they admitted they had suffered from, dealt with and over come homosexual tendencies in the past but still wanted to preserve traditional marriage. That is the ultimate of the ad hominem logical falacy, but it does not even properly fit into the normal framework of that false position.

To Lagomorph,

The reason for marriage is to unite two innately unequal beings, a male and a female. Only a female can get pregnant. Marriage is to prevent the man from just up and leaving when this happens, and to create a link so that the man will provide sustenance when the woman is nursing.

There are other benefits to marriage. It creates bonds of respect. The law forcing opposite gender marriages was not made to discriminate against anyone or deny right, but because only marriage between a man and a woman can fulfill the full purpose of marriage.

At least seven courts have upheld such laws. If you want a well thought out defense of traditional marriage go and read the opinions from courts, such as the New York or Maryland Court of Appeals.

John,

The analogy is not flawed as you like to believe. If temple marriages are no different than other marriages, why are you so passionate that your children get married in the Temple? Why not just let them have a "civil" marriage, because, according to you, they are no different!

Next, you claim that there is something "inherent to marriage" by which you must be insinuating that marriage is "by definition" between a man and a woman. Says who? Who has authority and rights to say that marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman?

That is what the courts are for. The California-Supreme-Court agreed, having a different word for same-sex marriage: "may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise—now emphatically rejected by this Court—that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.”

Finally, just do the same thing as in Brazil. Have your own Temple marriages between your men and your women. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not change that! What's the problem?

Debating in a non-theological way is taking out all consequences good and bad. One has to believe in both in order to state the pro's and con's of marriage in either situation. While Card may find that easy to do, I find it rather difficult. If there are no absolutes, no consequences, no laws, no right or wrong, then indeed we are living the life Satan proposed in the beginning. I guess my point is....have fun trying to resolve the issue, but as for me, the Laws of Justice and Mercy are two main factors that determine my way of life. There are many more but these two laws are pivotal in determiming how we stand before our Maker.

John,

Your comments are now sexist! Women are inherently UNEQUAL to men? Wow! How do you function in today's world? How do you reconcile that sexist nonsense with what the LDS Prophets have said for many decades, that women ARE equal to men! Equal in rights; equal in value; equal in respect and dignity. Where have YOU been hiding your head?!

And what kind of sick and twisted image do you have of men to insist that "Marriage is to prevent the man from just up and leaving..."? You have a very obsolete and prehistoric, sexist view of men: "so that the man will provide sustenance when the woman is nursing."??? You MUST be joking! Come back into this millennium! The men don't go out on the hunt while the women nurse in the caves anymore!

And once again, you err in your assertion that "only marriage between a man and a woman can fulfill the full purpose of marriage." Marriage is not JUST for procreation! If it was, then we should legally refuse marriage licenses to infertile couples etc., ad nauseam.

You are stubbornly clinging to irrational prejudices. Poor thing. Change is hard.

To Fran,

You attack me with the words of the prophets, yet you refuse to show even the slightest amount of loyalty and follow their directives.

My use of the term "inherently unequal" was clearly unwise. What I should have said was "inherently different". The contributions of men and women in a marriage are different, if anyone contributes more and is stronger it would be the woman.

I will come out and say it clearly, the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Nothing else is or every can be or ever will be truly marriage.

One more thing, my point was not that spiritually or even psychologically temple marriage is the same as same gender marriage. My point is that physically it is the same. Also, there is no legal way to ban it short of outright and total religious discrimination.

Same gender marriage is physically a distinct institution. It is also an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Homosexual behavior has always been an abomination and always will remain such.

By the way......thanks for the "constructive comment".

John,

I am glad you believe God has revealed that to you (somehow).

God has revealed to me that He created me as I am. God has also revealed to me that my love for my partner is equal to the love a man and woman share--equal but different. And God has revealed to me that it is unethical and immoral for anyone (me or you) to pass laws that discriminate against others who DO NOT share my beliefs, especially when my beliefs DO NOT HURT YOU.

But as your religious beliefs are activated in codified laws that HURT me and my partner, YOUR religious beliefs are unethical and politically fascist and wrong! Sorry to have to break the news to you. You are so absolutely sure of your religious bigotry that you sound considerably like those Nazis who were so absolutely sure that Jews were an inferior race! Hmmm...

I agree with FRAN. This "all mens" stuff is getting boring!

Marriage is good, because I have a loyal and good man. I will also always be his ONLY wife.

I have read many of JOHN LAMBERTS posts and they are all sexiest.

Fran - Let me clarify some of my earlier comments. A child can only be formed from an egg and a sperm. Whether this occurs naturally or artificially, a man and a woman are required in order to create offspring. Whether a married couple is unable to conceive or chooses not to have children, marriage implies that the capabalitiy of reproducing exists. This capability does not exist for same-sex couples. Sure, there are artifial means for one member of a same-sex couple to contribute, but it is impossible for them to have a child that is biologically both of theirs. An egg or sperm from a third party is required. This was my point concerning laws of nature and my point was about the creation of life not its preservation through scientific advancements such as Caesarians. Adoption is a wonderful thing for those unable to have children, but I'm pretty sure adopted children have both a biological mother and father. Individuals may find other relationships with members of their same sex, a pet, or inanimate object may be just as emotionally fulfilling as a marriage, but is fundamentally different since it cannot produce offspring.

CD,

No need to act as if I didn't understand you, CD. No need to clarify. Your weak and irrelevant arguments are CLEARLY weak and irrelevant.

OK, so what you are telling me is basic biology. Eggs and sperm are required to create human life. Yeah, we all knew that already. So what? That does not mean that gay relationships are evil or bad anymore than the fact that birds law eggs means that their relationships are evil and bad because they are different than mammalian reproduction. More importantly, that is not a reason for discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation by laws that do not allow them to commit to one another and have the advantages of "marriage".

You are straining to try to justify your bigotry. It is not working.

1. The LDS statement mentioned that the California court "reversed the will of the people". Does that mean the church recognizes the "will of the people" in states like Massachusetts or countries like Canada in regard to same sex marriage?

2. Has the LDS church encouraged legislation that would strengthen marriage with tighter divorce laws (especially if children are part of the marriage)? Does the LDS church provide severe church penalties for members who weaken the sanctity of marriage with their own divorce or divorces?

3. Even though the LDS church has every right to have and promote their own policies and doctrines they seem shy about admitting their policies can be and, in the past have been, racist and homophobic and anti-women, etc. Are they not proud of their doctrines?

Be careful when you say God revealed those things to you. If He did, He would be going against what He has already stated. Homosexuality is sin and not to be practiced! Perhaps someone else a bit more interested in your life choices who wants you to go against God's laws revealed those things to you. Just a thought.

To To Fran,

I need not be careful in what I believe God has revealed to me. I will state it boldly and from the housetops if it would do any good.

Just a little FYI, according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, God supposedly said a great number of things that later He contradicted. The Bible (as well as the Book of Mormon and other scriptures) are absolutely filled with them!

Besides, I thought LDS believed in continuing and personal revelation?

Oh, most assuredly personal revelation...but not personal destruction. If you are so certain that the Bible and Book of Mormon are wrong in so many ways...why profess in a God at all. Modern day revelation dictates what is true as it is current and God given and He has not recinded His law concerning marriage between a man and woman. In fact He has stated that it is essential to mankind.

John P. Lambert,

I get the biological complementarity of the sexes and its role in reproduction.

Since 1996, Utah, with arguably the country’s reddest, most conservative, most Republican, most pro-traditional family values legislature, allows first cousins to marry— if, and ONLY if, they are NONreproductive (viz. postmenopausal). This rebuts the premise that the primary public policy interest of governments in establishing marriage is to encourage procreation. Procreation is an important social value, but clearly, civil marriage as an institution is bigger than that; it is within the legitimate scope of government simply to support relationships based on love and affection as a means of promoting social stability and individual happiness. The law also shows that even pro-family cultural and religious conservatives can expand the concepts of marriage and family to include stigmatized behaviors, in this case, incest (relations between reproductive-aged first cousins are still illegal and, presumably, considered sinful). Interestingly, the arguments first-cousin couples lobbying for the right to marry used then mirror those of the gay community now: we are in love and ought to have the privileges of marriage, it is a logistical burden for us to travel to another state that recognizes first cousin marriages.

Fran,

I'm undecided on the gay marriage issue because at this point I don't think I have enough information to make an informed decision. I have a few gay acquaintences, but I haven't been able to ask them my crucial question for fear of hurting their feelings--despite the fact that I am not intending any offense but honestly need an answer. I would like to ask you this question, since you obviously can handle yourself in such a discussion.

How are you able to reconcile the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality with your revelation from God that your behavior has His approval? Do you reject the Bible? Do you espouse a particular religion?

Thank you.

Thank you for your response