I think a point that's being lost in all the emotional responses to this issue is that "the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

It seems to me that the Church's interest was far more weighted towards protecting itself from legal issues than harming the LGBT community. Certainly California already has a law guaranteeing civil unions the same right as heterosexual marriages.

Furthermore, Proposition 8 was already overwhelmingly passed in 2000, but since it wasn't at that time a constitutional amendment, judges overturned it. Mormons make up a small percentage of the California population, and the numbers are fuzzy, so depending on who you believe, more money was spent by opponents of Prop 8 than supporters. Scapegoating the Mormon Church for Prop 8 seems a little bit silly to me; they were hardly the only organization to support the proposition, they just happen to be the best organized.
 

"For the good of..." rarely turns out to be for the good of the mentioned party. But it's apparently against human nature to just live and let live, no, too many of us have to go shoving our ideas and moralities down everyone else's throats.

The anti-gay marriage amendment passed in Arizona, too. The people here went straight to the amendment form after stating that if they just made it a law, the court could overturn it like they did in CA.

When did the government gain the power to legislate morality and life choices?
 

"Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
H. L. Mencken
 

I'm not certain what Curtis' point is with regards to Mr. Modesitt's. The response that opponents of Prop 8 had as much or more money to spend then supporters seems particularly out of place in a moral argument.

Nowhere in America is there a law requiring any religious institution to perform or recognize any marriage it does not wish to. The only areas where religious institutions run into conflicts with these laws is when they extend into secular areas such as hospitals or EOE, and if the statement Curtis quoted is an accurate representation of the LDS Church's position, then there's no issue.

Yet still, members spend millions (completely on their own and without any direction from their clergymen, no doubt) to defeat such laws, and the always trot out the "traditional family" argument, which is patently absurd. Explain to me how any couple's rights are infringed upon by the existence of the same rights for other couples.
 

Apparently I need training in debate.

Perhaps I'm not directly addressing Mr. Modesitt's point of people doing things "for the good of x;" I sort of zeroed in on his attack on the Mormon Church. If you are interested in verifying my quote, you can find it here: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/

I find two things wrong with the arguments about prop 8. Under California law, no legal rights were terminated other than being able to call a civil union a "marriage." Because of this, I have difficulty seeing this as a civil rights issue. Certainly Martin Luther King Jr. marched for more important things than a piece of paper. There was serious oppression of black people in the 60s, and I just don't see the parallels today. No one is out putting burning crosses in the front lawns of gay or lesbian couples. Quite the opposite if anything, as people have been vandalizing property of the LDS church.

Second, it's silly to say that the government can't legislate morality. What is the basis of our laws if not morality? Laws are nothing but the reflection of the morals a society holds dear. For supporters of prop 8, a moral held very dearly is that sexual relations should be confined within a legal, heterosexual marriage. Over the last 50 years, society has deemed that many laws related to this no longer reflect the majority's values. In this instance, the majority of people in California still believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Some of the ads in support of Prop 8 may have used the phrase "For the good of the traditional family," but the proposition really came down to a majority of Californians saying they have different values than the LGBT community. This was never about using the anthem "for the good. . ." to oppress.

The LDS church isn't being " hypocritical, devious, misleading, and unethical," they have clearly stated that they "believe something to be wrong" and have stated why they need to "destroy, restrict, or otherwise infringe on the liberties of others." In 1998, the late Gordon B. Hinckley (then president of the Church) said,

"In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families. "
 

Yes... I was pointing out a problem with the Mormon Church's position. I have real problems when an institution benefiting from a tax-exempt status uses its position in a political issue to affect laws that impact on people who do not share its views as to what "marriage" is. As others have pointed out, a less "traditional" view of marriage does not harm the Mormon Church. The LDS faithful are perfectly able to retain their view and practice of marriage, but using the religious power of the church, any church, for political aims in order to affirm the "sanctity" of that faith's dogma while denying others similar rights is something I find objectionable. Even more objectionable is the "holier than thou" attitude that goes with it.
 

Help me understand your position then. Are you criticizing the Church for standing up for what they honestly believe in, i.e., that the sanctity of marriage is affected by giving public approval to that which is deemed (doctrinally) immoral. Or are you criticizing them for using their wealth to affect laws when they have tax-exempt status?
 

First, the belief that civil unions = marriage minus the religious aspect is inaccurate. While California's domestic partnership law is stronger than most of the other 10 states which have civil union or domestic partnership laws on the books, even here it is not equal. The General Accounting Office lists over a thousand benefits and protections under the law. In no state does civil union/domestic partnership laws cover even a third of them, even Massachusetts and Connecticut which have actual same-sex marriage on the books.

Part of the reason, of course, is that the federal government has yet to recognize such, and states have no control over federal taxes, naturalization, et cetera. It's why I am thoroughly baffled when someone claims that "separate but equal" isn't anything but. There is a legal status called marriage in this country which is not allowed to same-sex couples, not in any state in the union. They do not have equal rights anywhere.

Your difficulty in seeing this as a civil rights issue because crosses aren't being burned suggests you need to look harder. In 2006, 910 incidents classified as anti-homosexual hate crimes were reported to the FBI. This was not the number of such crimes committed, firstly because reporting hate crime statistics to the FBI is not mandatory, secondly because twenty-seven states either don't include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws or simply don't have hate crime laws in the first place. And of course this doesn't cover crimes which aren't recognized as hate crimes, or simply aren't discovered or reported at all.

In other words, just because today's violent bigots lack the theatricality of the burning crosses and white sheets of yesteryear, doesn't mean they don't exist.
 

According to the FBI's statistics, there were more hate crimes against people for their religion than their sexual orientation in 2007. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm

It seems that if civil unions don't currently have the exact same rights, then that's where the LGBT community should start. Certainly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is on record saying it does not oppose that.
 

First, the issue isn't confined to the LDS faith. I'm opposed to any act of any faith that attempts to use its members and resources to push a political agenda designed to restrict the non-intrusive rights of others. I have no problem with the Mormon Church declaring that it believes a sanctified marriage, within the LDS faith, consists of one between a man and a woman. I have considerable problems with the LDS church declaring that its faith-based definition of marriage is and should be the only legal definition of marriage. The fact that other groups supported Proposition 8 has no particular moral value. All the southern states of the USA supported slavery before 1860, and the majority of Germans either acquiesced in or supported Hitler's genocide. Finally, anyone who sincerely defends the "morality" of a stand, simply because it is an article of faith, tends to forget history and may be in fact living in a glass house. Just remember that the Mormon Church espoused polygamy, marshaled resources against the Equal Rights Amendment for Women, and, until the 1970s, effectively declared blacks second class citizens and barred them from the higher priesthood within the church. This isn't exactly the most sterling record with regard to the rights of others, all the rhetoric being marshaled support of the LDS stand on Proposition 8 notwithstanding.
 

"According to the FBI's statistics, there were more hate crimes against people for their religion than their sexual orientation in 2007."

And if adults who happened to be members of a particular religion were denied equal access to marriage rights, I presume that neither of us would disagree that the fight to obtain equality was a civil rights issue, regardless of the presence or lack thereof of burning crosses, correct?

Assuming that we're in agreement on that hypothetical, how is it again that you don't consider equal rights for same-sex couples (which will not exist until every level of government recognizes such and every legal benefit and protection that is afforded to opposite-sex couples is available to same-sex couples) to be a civil rights issue?
 

Mr. Modesitt:

That's fine. If you're not confined to just the LDS Church, I wanted to know why you singled them out. Comparing them to Fascist Germany and the Spanish Inquisition is a strong statement. Again, the Mormon Church did not put Prop 8 on the ballot, they merely supported those who did. A diverse coalition of people took the trouble to make a stand on a moral issue and the people of California had a democratic vote. If you want to lump everyone who voted for 8 and every organization that supported it into a group with the Holocaust, that's your moral decision.

Nathaniel, I was merely supporting my assertion that the opposition to blacks in the '60s cannot be compared to what the LGBT community is facing today. There will always be hate crimes as long as humans exist, no matter what we legislate.
 

And that's the reason we shouldn't attempt to remove inequality from our laws, because hate crimes will always exist? Explain to me the fundamental difference between racism in the '60s and homophobia today, because it sounds like you're quibbling over degree.
 

I said, "No one is out putting burning crosses in the front lawns of gay or lesbian couples. Quite the opposite if anything, as people have been vandalizing property of the LDS church." Then you tried to refute my point by showing numbers displaying hate crimes against gays, and then I replied with a link showing that there are more hate crimes against people for their religion than their sexual orientation.

You're also making the leap that "gay marriage" is the only way to remove inequality from our laws. I've said several times that patching up the civil union laws would take religion out of the equation.
 

And I replied that I was against anti-religious bigotry as well, and would oppose institutionalizing any such bigotry in our laws. That's rather beside the point though, because their aren't any laws which deny religious institutions or adherents rights and benefits denied other citizens and organizations. In point of fact, religious organizations enjoy a great many benefits such as tax-exempt status which aren't afforded to others.

If there were a ballot initiative proposing to amend the constitution to deny equal rights to religious people, I would have opposed that as fervently as I did Prop 8.

The belief that we can provide equality in marriage laws by taking 'marriage' out of the equation in reference to same-sex couples is as misguided as the belief that banning guns would solve the gun problem in a country with over a hundred million guns. There exists in our society a status known as 'marriage', one with many codified legal rights and benefits, almost all of them having nothing whatsoever to do with one's religious beliefs and organization.

Marriage is not solely a religious institution, regardless of the attempts by churches to claim dominion over them. Marriage benefits are conferred upon couples regardless of their ability or intent to have children, so the claim that same-sex couples aren't marriages because they can't reproduce is simply ridiculous. To attempt to deny a portion of our society access to marriage is institutionalized bigotry. To attempt to create a separate but equal status for same-sex couples is as misguided, and as doomed to failure in creating equal status, as Jim Crow.
 

Although the LDS church asked individual people to give money and support to proposition 8, I don't think they donated 'church funds'. I didn't give time or money to proposition 8 for my own reasons. If I had supported it, would my position have been any less valid for being a member of the church? Does a church in our current society control its members any more than the educational system, television and other entertainment, family or friends? Isn't your gripe, Mr. Modesitt, with the the individual voter being 'wrong', rather than the stance of an organization?
 

Nathaniel, you're correct. There is an institution in our society known as "marriage", and to the best of my knowledge, even in ancient Rome - where homosexuality was embraced, marriage was still between a man and a woman. If a portion of our society has deemed a heterosexual union unfit for them, an institution known as a "civil union" has been proposed to meet their legal needs.
 

No... my problem is when institutions use their influence over their members to affect public policies and laws that affect the rights of others. When a religious institution has a strong hold over many of its members,as does the LDS faith, a church "suggestion" is far more than a suggestion, and the church hides behind the supposed "individual" actions of its members. That's certainly the rationale behind the legal presumption that churches and pastors are not supposed to endorse political candidates. That's also why, as I've observed for more than 15 years first hand, although Utah has a state constitution with strong language on the separation of church and state government, that language becomes essentially meaningless when issues of concern to the church arise. That's also one of the major reasons why a number of practices currently exist in Utah that have been declared unconstitutional in any other state, but which have never been litigated in Utah.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This is the fallback position, Curtis? Homosexuals will be second-class citizens, unable to avail themselves of all the rights of marriage, because that's how it was done in Rome?

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. When the arguments against same-sex marriage are stripped of other pretenses and fallacies, (slippery slope arguments, irrelevant references to reproduction,) but there's still the avoidance of admitting to overt bigotry, the final effort is typically 'because it's always been that way'.

Invoking the legal principles of the era of Justinian is a bit more colorful than this usually gets, possibly because the more experienced debaters will recognize the pitfalls in holding up a centuries-dead oligarchical society which in its latter years was a hereditary autocracy with a slave-based economy as the pinnacle of enlightenment and the apparent model for which our society should be based.
 

Haha, I only mentioned Rome, because of their well documented views on homosexuality. Clearly they found nothing wrong with it, and yet didn't feel compelled to change the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Certainly I agree with your point that we don't need to base our society on how Rome ran theirs.

My original reason for entering this fray was to understand Mr. Modesitt's reasons for singling out the LDS church. His most recent comment illustrated that quite clearly for me.

I never made references to "slippery slope" or "reproduction." Since you brought those up, I believe that's what's called a "straw man" argument. I have contended time and again that a homosexual couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple, but if they want the same legal rights under the law, I won't oppose legislation for a civil union. You are certainly entitled to feel differently.
 

Is it really so surprising that people seek to justify their actions? Why choose to criticize this particular phrase? Your blog aside, it's acquired negative connotations anyway, perhaps as bad as "the ends justify the means" and others of that ilk. It seems to me that with those connotations in mind, he who would use the phrase as part of an argument must generally provide good reasons as to why his proposal actually is "for the good of" others, perhaps above and beyond what would've been necessary originally in light of the negative reaction the phrase might trigger.

It's also especially true now that when someone uses those words; when someone says "it's good for you" and initiates some process that affects an individual's life, that individual is at least partly to blame for taking the justification at face value and letting it happen without even trying to look beyond what may be no more than a simple platitude.

Anyway, as you often point out in your novels, there are nearly as many perspectives in the world as there are people; a number of those who claim they are acting "for the good of" others probably do believe it. In some cases it's doubtless true. Even at its worst, though, when an individual knowingly uses the phrase as part of a message of subjective "good" to promote an agenda of subjective "evil," it is nothing more than a justification, and only one among a countless number of such. It's unfortunate, but everyone who has lived or will live for the foreseeable future will falsely justify their actions at some point in life, whether it's for their own peace of mind or because "the ends justify the means."

It's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid; you rail out against false justification, but it cannot be eliminated. The damage those unethical individuals do who utilize such in the public domain can be mitigated, of course, via ethics and oversight committees, information campaigns, and other methods of which you are doubtless more aware than I, but the crime itself is endemic to our people and is here to stay. The world is learning to be wary of proposals advanced in the name of its own good, but there will always be other phrases and those who will make use of them to deceive.

I suppose it's possible that because of your ideals (and I do identify with those), you find the phrase especially revolting on an emotional level. When I think of Native Americans receiving as gifts blankets contaminated with smallpox, it arouses much the same sentiment I imagine you feel, an especially strong sense of revulsion and foul play at those who conceal something malignant in a gesture of good will. Emotion aside, though, phrases like the one you're talking about are all justifications; they are all the same phrase. They advance an agenda, whether that agenda is for subjective good or ill.

It is, of course, the duty of those interested in the proceedings to scrutinize the facts and illuminate any errors, deception, or potential results that may be adverse to their way of thinking; otherwise, they give control of part of their lives - they give a portion of their lifetimes - to another who may not be acting in accordance with their interests. The upside of all of this is that as people, we're already used to looking for deception and potential adversity, and in the public domain, whether it's as part of a proposal or a review - in any forum, really, that requires one justify one's self - what is being justified is, in one way or another, already in question, and under examination by professionals on the subject. Deceit and adversity still happen, of course, but experience with such along with other measures at least generally keep the damage to a minimum.


As an aside, those who - like the academics in your first example - appeal to authority to resolve their petty differences give up responsibility; they deserve the precedent of interference in their affairs they have thus set.