I was quite intrigued to see Kenneth Starr as the leading attorney.

The Church News Room has posted the Amicus Brief that was filed by the coalition in California. It actually gave me some great insights into the legal side of this question. I know it still employs some religion, but it also argued the societal consequences. Anyway, just my two cents.

As much as this is an issue that affects the nation, the prophet’s involvement makes this an issue of our own spiritual progression: will we put down the natural person (which, for various reasons and by various ways convinces us to refute the prophet if not oppose him) and become a saint and follow God’s prophet?

No matter how this issue pans out in the end, being tested and tried in following the prophet will bear fruit for our own spiritual progression. If we obey, to our benefit; if we disobey, to our demerit.

At least that’s how I see it, in large measure.

But the blog is a good one and so are the comments.

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard Chairman of the Sociology Department, Pitirim Sorokin, found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

While religion may be one of the motivations for our position, we need to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. In other words we need to have a cohesive Constitutional/public policy reason to oppose SSM; scriptural passages are not the most convincing vehicle for political change in a pluralistic society.

I would suggest that the message should be along the lines that the state does not have an interested in promulgating SSM any more than the state has an interest in promoting relationships between best friends or other social relationships. The state has a compelling interest in promoting commitment between men and women. The state has an interested in encouraging families where children are loved and supported. The state may not discriminate against couples for reasons of race, religion, or nationality.

While its true that marriage does not entail children, that doesn’t erase the fact that traditional marriage makes planned child birth much more likely. All the state can do in a free society is encourage family creation each step along the path.

Looks like they’re not handing out the number. They want people to go to one of the 43+ locations they’ve set up. Darn – I’d love to listen in.

After Utah’s dismal participation in yesterday’s primary, I think we have learned once again that the issues are decided by a minority. Granted, hot topics such as this one will certainly attract more people to the polls, but getting people off their duffs is the first step.

My mom was heavily involved in Prop. 22, and will likely be in the thick of this amendment stuff. (I’m from San Diego.) So, I’ll likely be finding out from her ways that I can support her efforts remotely, whether by donating money to various organizations (as noted in some comments above), talking to people who live there, or whatever.

Another thing to consider (and one I promoted w/ the FLDS issue) was to put your local reps’ feet to the fire and make sure they know that you never want that happening in your state. Living in Utah now, that’s still an unlikely occurrence (though one never knows), but I think it is important that we make our elected leaders aware of what’s going on elsewhere, and why we don’t want it happening here.

This initiative is just getting started, so as yet, I’m not entirely sure of the best way for us “foreigners” to jump in. I’m sure that opportunities will present themselves, though.

http://www.protectmarriage.com/newsdetail.php?newsId=322

Some interesting points:

–Christian and secular leaders statewide are organizing.
–There is a conf call today as part of that effort.
–A 40-day fast will be held from Sept. to early November. It will be interesting to see if the Church urges members to participate.