A. Nobody knows.

Is it just me, or does it seem reasonable that any law to which the answer to the question “How will making this change in the law affect people?” is “Nobody knows” should never be passed in the first place?

Disagreement is not dissent. Suppose you and the presidency are in the Garden Of Eden having a discussion with Eve on whether or not she should eat the apple. The prez says eat the apple that man may be. You say, No, God commanded not to eat it and besides, that Lucifer guy creeps me out. It’s not a strict case of right and wrong.

The only way to solve a problem is to look at from a higher level of thinking than what created it. In tough problems like this one, I use the Beatitudes as that level of thinking.

Members are disagreeing whether the Church, or its membership, should be politically involved in preserving the traditional definition of marriage, or that of celestial marriage. I guess I am rambling, but there seems to be a few “camps” coming out of this issue:

-Homosexual behavior and gay marriage should be allowed a status of normalization

-We disagree with Church doctrine on the nature of homosexuality and its eternal place in the cosmos

-We actively seek to “fight,” “oppose,” “challenge,” the Church on the issue

-Homosexual behavior and gay marriage are not according the teachings of the scriptures or modern prophets therefore:

-We participate in political activity to maintain traditional marriage

-We allow it to normalize because it just will eventually, yet we maintain disagreement with this inevitability and homosexual behavior as God-ordained

-We just get confused and play some good ole American PlayStation to pass the time and hope our relationship with God gets better

-Or… nothing?

Just some scattered thoughts, maybe someone can put them together. I’m off to institute now, but really, does this extend or matter to our international membership, spread throughout the globe, or are we getting tunnel vision?

Remove ourselves (most of us on this blog) from the United States “battlefront” and where do you all see us (particularly members of the Church) in the political struggle to maintain the Church’s stance on morality? Do we stay out of the fray or do we get involved in future initiatives if they concern our locality?

DOMA has two main effects. First, it states that states do not need to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages. Second, it sets out that federal law does not recognize same-sex marriage. So, for instance, same-sex couples cannot file their federal taxes as married; nor do they get married social security benefits; and so on.

The first prong has been argued to be inconsistent with constitutional provisions (full faith and credit). So far, challenges to DOMA have not been successful. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear cases on DOMA thus far.

Major DOMA provisions can be found here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html

Not and expert (and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn last night), but I would think DOMA addresses not the marriage contract itself but rather how the Federal government treats things like filing status for Federal income tax and how spouses of Federal employees are treated.

When the lawsuits to overturn were reported, an article in the SF Chronicle (11/05) stated, “Some of the same legal organizations filing suit Wednesday offered similar arguments this summer to try to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot, but the court refused, while leaving room for a postelection challenge.”

Can you comment on how the court “left room” for the current lawsuit and how that action may affect your Question 2? Is it possible that the election results, included the relative closeness of the vote compared to the vote on Prop 22, would influence the court’s decision?