Listen to this articleLeaders of the so-called Celebration of Marriage are holding a rally in the Utah State Capitol Building rotunda on Thursday, Sept. 18 at 7 p.m. Saying that 31 states in America are “relying on Utah to defend their marriage law at this defining moment,” the group quotes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia as saying, “I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”
“From a sweeping majority of heartland voters and legislators to the elite Supreme Court Judges, the nation is watching Utah as we make our debut as a swing state this month,” CoM president Mary Summerhays said in an announcemnt. “The cultural question has unavoidably become: Will Mormon’s [sic] challenge the court’s ‘sense of what it can get away with’? Or will they silently acquiesce to the judicial tyranny that overrode 66% of Utah voters.”
Speaking at the rally will be National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown, who has been traveling to countries around the world to spread the group’s anti-gay message; special assistant attorney general Gene Schaer, who was hired by the Utah Attorney General’s office to spearhead Utah’s same-sex marriage case; Robert Oscar Lopez, who was raised by two mothers and now compares the gay rights movement to slavery and cultural genocide; Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute — a group designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group; and LaVar Christensen, author of Utah’s Amendment 3.
“The nation waits for our response,” Summerhays said. “Just as the court deliberates on our appeal. We are forced to deliberate the same question. Our response will be recognized easily. As one resistance leader said in a different perilous hour, ‘Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.'”
At least one commenter broached religious prophecy as why people should attend the rally.
“I remember reading a prophecy from Joseph Smith that there would come a time when the constitution would hang by a thread and Mormons would have a chance to save it. I think this is one of the battles that will be decisive of wether [sic] or not the constitution is saved. We need to stand up for this. If we can’t be at rallies in person then use social media to do it. But raise your voice,” Tee Rador of Orem, Utah wrote.
I wonder how this respects the religious views of other faiths (Episcopal, Unitarian, Quaker, etc) who honor or perform same gender marriages? I'm reminded of the words from Judge Heyburn:
“Many believe in “traditional marriage.” Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused —even angry—when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer. Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it.”.
I don't understand the need for certain religions to butt into everyone else's business. If you don't agree with same sex marriage, then fine–don't get into one. These groups seem to think they "own" the definition of marriage. Despite the fact that marriage existed eons before Christianity ever existed. You do not "own" marriage–define it for yourself any way you want–do not force your definition on others.
I'm Episcopalian (now), and my faith blesses my marriage. So, by telling me I can't get married in a church that blesses my union is oppressing my freedom of religion. It's a valid argument, considering it's the exact same argument these "Christians" are making.