This is a great argument. Duwayne_Anderson, in response to Kirby's latest article, notes:

But the Mormon church is *not* pro traditional marriage.

A "traditional marriage" is held in a church, and open to all. "Traditional marriages" are not held in secret, and/or limited to those who sustain church leaders and paying money to a church.

Traditional marriages are a family/community affair where *everyone* (not just church members) can enjoy and participate.

Mormon marriages, by contrast, are held in the temple where only a few people can attend and where attendance is limited to those who pay money to the Mormon Church, and who sustain the Mormon Church as the "only true church."

Temple weddings are non-traditional because they are exclusionary and designed to coerce subservience to the Mormon Church.

Traditional marriage is about celebrating the new couple. Temple marriage is about celebrating the Mormon Church.

Amen and amen!

I second your amen and amen!

I wish to join the chorus of Amens!

Exactly.....there are no vows between the couple.only vows to the church.

Yes, this is the truth!!

Is there a link please?

Oh, uh... Here it is:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/57368442-80/mormon-commercials-lives-kirby.html.csp

Well, in all fairness, he's talking about Mormon weddings, not mormon marriages.

Hey-hey-hey! Don't be letting the air out of my tires.

In my experience, mormons think of the Temple ceremony as the real marriage ceremony, and they think of any other paperwork (civic) requirements as a necessary but ultimately unimportant part of getting married.

For mormons, the wedding in the temple IS the marriage license. And Duwayne is right, many people are kept from attending what the mormon couple themselves considers the most important aspect of their wedding. It's all about money and LDS Corporation for the Powers that Be.

On another subject, socially conservative Utahan's will be on the latest bandwagon to restrict marriage rights for gays. See excerpt below:


Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) and 27 other Republicans have proposed legislation that would prevent the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages for couples who live in states that do not permit these unions.

Weber’s State Marriage Defense Act, H.R. 3829, is a reaction to last year’s Supreme Court decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law required the federal government to only recognize “marriage” between heterosexual couples.[…]

The bill is supported by the Family Research Council and other groups who have argued that the federal government is currently recognizing same-sex marriages that take place in states where those marriages are legal, regardless of whether the married couple resides in a state that allows same-sex unions. […]

The legislation is also supported by the National Organization for Marriage, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, Concerned Women for America, and Heritage Action.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/government-oversight/195056-gop-looks-to-limit-federal-recognition-of-same-sex
--------

Note the inclusion of NOM (National Organization for Marriage), which, despite the Catholic sauce added on after the Prop 8 debacle, is still heavily seasoned with mormons.

Full faith and credence,my dear. Therein lies the rub and the eventual triumph of same sex marriage or fair marriage laws as I would think of them. Actually it would be best if marriage were taken out of the hands of government and returned to the churches. Then each cult could make marriage whatever they want it to be and government would keep its nose out.
This would lead to no penalties imposed and no benfits provided by government based on "marital status." Wow, that sounds like treating all Americans equally. What a concept!

"Actually it would be best if marriage were taken out of the hands of government and returned to the churches."

I don't think you understand the real purpose of marriage... It has little to do with religion. The rights, privileges and contracts granted by marriage are all legal in nature. Where you get married makes little if no difference.

After all, taxes, inheritance, death rights, visitations, childcare, and the rest of the book of rights that are granted when you get your marriage license from the government are not controlled by any religion. You seem OK with throwing all that out of the window and nullifying all of it... or advocating that people spend thousands of dollars to get each of those rights granted individually, which would be a legal and financial nightmare for anyone.

That is what people fighting for marriage equality are fighting for, they couldn't care less if church x won't let them get married, they want and deserve the legal right to be married.

You have it backwards, leave religion out of it. If you want to hold the ceremony in a church, good for you, but no religion should dictate if someone can or can't get married somewhere else.

Exactly. Everyone can have civil unions instead. Churches can do whatever kind of ceremony they want, the gov't can bestow the benefits and responsibilities of unified couples without all the baggage. Several European countries do it this way.

Excellent points, cludgie. Temple weddings are a far cry from mainstream or traditional.

By that criteria my marriage ceremony was exclusionary. We got married on my parents patio, with just the wedding party and parents and immediate family there. But that was because I married a Catholic and doing it in either church just wasn't going to happen.

Ron Burr