What Comes Next Now Ssm Is Legal In Utah....

[Calm]

I decided to start a new thread because I am fascinated in how different people are viewing the future of gay marriage, both independently and as it relates to Utah and to the LDS faith in general in the US and other countries.

 

Let us assume that the current ruling that SSM is now legally recognized in Utah now stands.

 

Let us assume that it will not be that long until it is legal throughout the US and at least those countries with a European heritage primarily.

 

Will the political activism now stop as having gained the ultimate prize?  Or is gay marriage not seen as the ultimate prize, is this just an item to be checked off the list on the way to another more ambitious goal?

 

Pure speculation is allowed and please don't demand CFRs for opinions or attack someone as being high on whatever as I am curious about what people think...not what they can prove or even if it is connected much to reality (though I want everyone to give what their opinion is on what is going to happen realistically and not turn it into a parody to mock, etc), but please keep it civil and address only the activities of gay activists and those who have been pushing for gay marriage for gay marriage itself and not to as a wedge to open up other forms of marriage.

 

If you need help in getting started, this topic grew out of a question I was asking of Daniel 2 at

 

>

 

 

This is incorrect. Much of the fearful predictions in this thread that LDS clergy will be "forced" to marry same-sex couples haven't made a clear distinction between "receiving a marriage licence" vs. "Being licensed by the state to marry couples (that is, to officiate over a wedding ceremony)." The failure to draw/understand the difference is probably contributing to these irrational fears.

So your nonfearful prediction is that gays won't attempt to seek to be married or sealed in the temple once their marriage is recognized legally or that it will happen, but the laws protecting religious practice will cause such attempts to be dismissed so there should be no concern?  Or something else?  Do you think that now those who are desirous for whatever reason of a temple sealing that they will just wait until the Church accepts them using only nonlegal avenues of persuasion or what, anticipating that attitude change will be enough?

 

I would assume that the gay community who are seeking recognition for marriage probably has relatively small core of activists and a larger group that are somewhat involved and a much larger group that are mainly interested observers just as most groups vary over their involvement in a mutual goal.  If I am right (and even if I am wrong and the setup is very different, are you aware of any discussions going on with those in the core as well as extended?

 

I would assume there is a lot of celebration going on now, but am wondering if there is any talk of 'what comes next'....if there is even anything 'next' for Utah.

 

PS:  this would actually be a good new topic "What comes next" if you are interested enough in that kind of discussion...I would love to see everyone's prediction...we could offer a prize to be given in ten years for the one closest.  Some official board title like "Ultimate Cosmic MDDB Prognosticator".

 

PS:  I would like to hear of any current discussion going on in the various gay communities before making my own prediction....but since I have no clue what are the respected forums and what are seen as cranks by other gays, at the moment I am relying on those who are more tuned in to provide the information.

[Calm]

The link to the original post didn't go in for some reason:

 

And it didn't here either....very, very weird...sorry.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Gays have already admited (not all of them but some have) that they plan on trying to get the church to change. That this is but the first step. I really don't care what Daniel2 has to say on the matter. I think he is wrong.

 

Anyway what really is next is getting this judgment reversed. I just don't understand the joy that some have in seeing the voice of the people being over turned by a liberal activist judge. That is the real story here that no one is talking about.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe SSM will ever be more than a small minority proposition. As far as the Church is concerned those that practice it will always be subject to Church discipline.

[thesometimesaint]

Gays have already admited (not all of them but some have) that they plan on trying to get the church to change. That this is but the first step. I really don't care what Daniel2 has to say on the matter. I think he is wrong.

 

Anyway what really is next is getting this judgment reversed. I just don't understand the joy that some have in seeing the voice of the people being over turned by a liberal activist judge. That is the real story here that no one is talking about.

 

The Church has shown no inclination to change just for the sake of public perception. Heck we even still have polygamy as doctrine.

 

Come up with a legally supportable way to prohibit, by law, SSM. No state so far has been able to do that. Who knows maybe one will someday.

 

Change the US Constitution. It gives the courts the responsibility to overturn the voice of the people when it conflicts with the Constitution.

 

Are you fine with conservative activist judges?

[rockpond]

I think that the SSM ruling in Utah will stand and that marriage equality for homosexual couples will, eventually, be the law of the land throughout the country.

 

I'm not concerned about gay marriage being forced upon the church.  I think that there are enough religious protections to prevent that.  I think that Judge Shelby's ruling does, in fact, support of religious freedom - rather than diminish it.

 

Since we first began performing legally recognized marriages in our churches and temples, we have restricted who has access to those.  The restrictions we've placed on weddings performed by our clergy/sealers are very arbitrary (as viewed by the world) and based upon things that are widely accepted outside of LDS circles.

 

Long-term... Within the church I see a divide forming between active faithful members who are opposed to SSM and active faithful members who support SSM.  As the divide grows and becomes a bigger problem within the church, I think that the prophet and apostles will take the matter to the Lord.

[Calm]

I don't believe SSM will ever be more than a small minority proposition. As far as the Church is concerned those that practice it will always be subject to Church discipline.

Do you believe any legal attempts to change the Church's policy will be undertaken?

[Calm]

 

I'm not concerned about gay marriage being forced upon the church.  I think that there are enough religious protections to prevent that.  I think that Judge Shelby's ruling does, in fact, support of religious freedom - rather than diminish it.

Do you think any attempts will be made though?  After all one could view it as since we've been successful at getting gay marriage legal recognition by challenging the law, maybe there will be some who look at past history with the Church stopping plural marriage due to threats from the US government (general outsider perception, LDS would generally describe it imo as the Lord instructing the Church to adapt to the pressure in order that it could continue to function) and seeing other things that they interpret the Church as giving into public pressure and so think that such might be successful especially if enough do it so that it starts costing a hefty bit to defend against.

[thesometimesaint]

I can't say that no attempts will be made. We strictly control whom goes to the Temple(s), and under what conditions they must fulfill. Just none will be successful at changing it. IE; I don't foresee a time when public pressure will force a LDS Bishop to perform a SSM, or even allowed in the Temple.

[Avatar4321]

What is going to happen is we will see enemies of the Church use these laws to attack us on all fronts.

 

History repeats itself. We will see them using the laws in a similiar fashion to how they used the anti polygamy laws.

[Avatar4321]

I think it's also important to remember we aren't fighting gays or lesbians or anyone else who supports same sex marriage. We are fighting the Adversary. Those he uses are our lost brothers and sisters. They are a means to an end for him. And His goal is to destroy the Church. Period.

 

He will use whatever means he can to accomplish his goal of making us all miserable.

[rockpond]

Do you think any attempts will be made though?  After all one could view it as since we've been successful at getting gay marriage legal recognition by challenging the law, maybe there will be some who look at past history with the Church stopping plural marriage due to threats from the US government (general outsider perception, LDS would generally describe it imo as the Lord instructing the Church to adapt to the pressure in order that it could continue to function) and seeing other things that they interpret the Church as giving into public pressure and so think that such might be successful especially if enough do it so that it starts costing a hefty bit to defend against.

 

I just don't see anyone from outside the church trying to get married in the temple by some kind of force of law.

 

I do, however, envision members from within the church making themselves heard and petitioning the church leadership for change (similar to what we see with women and the priesthood right now).

[Buzzard]

For SSM activists, the ultimate goal is that anyone who holds gay relationships to be different in any way different than straight ones will be viewed with disdain and disgust by society, unable to hold a decent job, much like a open member of the KKK is today. Appeals to scripture as a moral argument against homosexual relationships are to bullied and shamed into silence. The strawman of gay youth suicide will make a very effective club.

For ex-LDS gay activists, you bet the goal is to be sealed in the temple, to be called as bishops, to be viewed as members in full fellowship, even while practicing their chosen lifestyle. Theological concerns are brushed aside with the simple aphormism-"God loves me as much as he loves you". Well, of course he does, but he also cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. I doubt that the pressure will come from legal avenues, perhaps with the exception of going after the churches tax exempt status, as well as other churches that don't toe their line. The main pressure will come from family members of unrepentant gays within the church who think they have to come down either with their family members or the church and see getting acceptance of gay relationships within the church as a way to resolve their own internal conflict. 

One final thought on why the church has and will be so opposed to recognition of gay marriage, legally and in the future morally. It's that being in a long term gay relationship is an especially damning act. If  the missionaries find a couple living in an unmarried living arrangement who desires baptism, they call in the bishop to marry them and problem solved, the baptism can proceed. And if you find an ancestor who never legally tied the knot, you can still have them sealed to their common law wife by proxy. 

Well, what happens when a same sex couple wants to be baptized? Short of them divorcing, there is no way for that to go forward. Any children they have adopted have no way to be sealed to them, they are literally tearing a hole in the fabric of the eternal family. And in generations to come, there will be no way to seal them in the temple vicariously. 

I realize that gays and their supporters don't subscribe to this doctrine, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. 

[Calm]

I can't say that no attempts will be made. We strictly control whom goes to the Temple(s), and under what conditions they must fulfill. Just none will be successful at changing it. IE; I don't foresee a time when public pressure will force a LDS Bishop to perform a SSM, or even allowed in the Temple.

Do you think the government will continue to license LDS Bishops and temple sealers to marry people or do you think that privilege  will be removed and we will only be allowed to seal in our temples...if we don't agree to marry anyone who can under state law?

[rockpond]

For SSM activists, the ultimate goal is that anyone who holds gay relationships to be different in any way different than straight ones will be viewed with disdain and disgust by society, unable to hold a decent job, much like a open member of the KKK is today. Appeals to scripture as a moral argument against homosexual relationships are to bullied and shamed into silence. The strawman of gay youth suicide will make a very effective club.

For ex-LDS gay activists, you bet the goal is to be sealed in the temple, to be called as bishops, to be viewed as members in full fellowship, even while practicing their chosen lifestyle. Theological concerns are brushed aside with the simple aphormism-"God loves me as much as he loves you". Well, of course he does, but he also cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. I doubt that the pressure will come from legal avenues, perhaps with the exception of going after the churches tax exempt status, as well as other churches that don't toe their line. The main pressure will come from family members of unrepentant gays within the church who think they have to come down either with their family members or the church and see getting acceptance of gay relationships within the church as a way to resolve their own internal conflict. 

One final thought on why the church has and will be so opposed to recognition of gay marriage, legally and in the future morally. It's that being in a long term gay relationship is an especially damning act. If  the missionaries find a couple living in an unmarried living arrangement who desires baptism, they call in the bishop to marry them and problem solved, the baptism can proceed. And if you find an ancestor who never legally tied the knot, you can still have them sealed to their common law wife by proxy. 

Well, what happens when a same sex couple wants to be baptized? Short of them divorcing, there is no way for that to go forward. Any children they have adopted have no way to be sealed to them, they are literally tearing a hole in the fabric of the eternal family. And in generations to come, there will be no way to seal them in the temple vicariously. 

I realize that gays and their supporters don't subscribe to this doctrine, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. 

 

That's quite a broad brush.  I don't think that SSM activists are a single organized group with one defined goal as you seem to be implying.  I know people who you would probably consider to be SSM activists who are quite comfortable with religions teaching that God does not approve of gay marriage.  None of them would want for those who hold a different opinion to be "unable to hold a decent job".

 

It's interesting that you are apparently proud of the fact that an unmarried couple who lives together can be sealed posthumously but a gay couple who spends their lives together and raises children together is "literally tearing a hole in the fabric of the eternal family."

 

Gee... I wonder why I hope for the day when all loving couples and their children can be sealed together.

[Traela]

That's quite a broad brush.  I don't think that SSM activists are a single organized group with one defined goal as you seem to be implying.  I know people who you would probably consider to be SSM activists who are quite comfortable with religions teaching that God does not approve of gay marriage.  None of them would want for those who hold a different opinion to be "unable to hold a decent job".

 

It's interesting that you are apparently proud of the fact that an unmarried couple who lives together can be sealed posthumously but a gay couple who spends their lives together and raises children together is "literally tearing a hole in the fabric of the eternal family."

 

Gee... I wonder why I hope for the day when all loving couples and their children can be sealed together.

Gay couples raising children together have sefishly (and sometimes sexistly) decided that the opposite sex parent is unnecessary. That is bad enough for physical children, but to extend this to spiritual children as well speaks of a arrogant disdain for the the opposite sex.

Yes, I treasure the doctrine that I have a Heavenly Mother. And I resent anyone who would deny that to anyone's future spirit children.

[Buckeye]

From a civil standpoint, it will be a long time before we see the case Smith v. LDS Church demanding gay sealings.  But it may not be so long before we see legal challenges in areas where the church crosses into non-religious actions.  I would not be surprised to see some universities boycott BYU sports.  I would not be surprised to see legal actions against BYU's tax exemptions.  I would not be surprised to see legal actions against the church's tax preferences for land holdings and other assets. 

 

Another quasi-civil point of contention will be the church's relationship with BSA.  It is only a matter of time until the BSA allows for gay adults to serve.  IMO, the only reasonable solution is for BSA national to pass the buck down on this issue to the local chartering organizations.

 

From a religious standpoint, the big issue is what Rockpond already pointed out: what to do with the growing body of members who support civil SSM and even envision a way to include SSM in the plan of salvation?  Can those members serve missions?  Hold temple recommends?  Hold callings?  Wear a rainbow square knot on their BSA uniform?  What do you do when members start having "wear rainbow tie to church day"?  Those things, and others like it, will all happen in the near future.  When they do, we will face the stark delimma of either (i) kicking many good friends and family out of the church who choose to support SSM, (ii) losing many good friends and family who cannot abide a reveral of doctrine on this issue, or (iii) opening a divide by allowing members to disagree with the church on a fundamental issue - the nature of the family - with possible huge ramifications for church unity.

 

As I've said before, the real end game depends on gay families themselves.  Wickedness never was happiness.  Either gay families will be shown to be fundamentally unhappy or we will be forced to judge them as not evil.  Time will tell.  The good news is that we are seeing the fruit of this seed.  As we gain real and substantial experience with gay families, we will get to the point where we can judge, first individually and then as a people, whether gay families are also ordained of God. 

[Buckeye]

Gay couples raising children together have sefishly (and sometimes sexistly) decided that the opposite sex parent is unnecessary. That is bad enough for physical children, but to extend this to spiritual children as well speaks of a arrogant disdain for the the opposite sex.

Yes, I treasure the doctrine that I have a Heavenly Mother. And I resent anyone who would deny that to anyone's future spirit children.

 

Parenthood is much more than just providing sperm or egg. I have a biological mother, but she is just one of the many mothers I follow. I am unsure if I have a biological spirit mother. But I do believe I have many spirit mothers who nurture me before, during, and after this life. Their "motherhood" in no wise depends on their providing "spiritual DNA," if such a thing even exists. Likewise, the fact that Christ is not my biological Father in no wise limits my ability to look to him as a Father in every meaningful sense of the word. As Sister Dew famously taught, you don't need to give birth to be a mother or father.

[rockpond]

Gay couples raising children together have sefishly (and sometimes sexistly) decided that the opposite sex parent is unnecessary. That is bad enough for physical children, but to extend this to spiritual children as well speaks of a arrogant disdain for the the opposite sex.

 

Again, that is a broad brush approach and not applicable to every set of gay parents raising children.

[rockpond]

From a civil standpoint, it will be a long time before we see the case Smith v. LDS Church demanding gay sealings.  But it may not be so long before we see legal challenges in areas where the church crosses into non-religious actions.  I would not be surprised to see some universities boycott BYU sports.  I would not be surprised to see legal actions against BYU's tax exemptions.  I would not be surprised to see legal actions against the church's tax preferences for land holdings and other assets. 

 

Another quasi-civil point of contention will be the church's relationship with BSA.  It is only a matter of time until the BSA allows for gay adults to serve.  IMO, the only reasonable solution is for BSA national to pass the buck down on this issue to the local chartering organizations.

 

From a religious standpoint, the big issue is what Rockpond already pointed out: what to do with the growing body of members who support civil SSM and even envision a way to include SSM in the plan of salvation?  Can those members serve missions?  Hold temple recommends?  Hold callings?  Wear a rainbow square knot on their BSA uniform?  What do you do when members start having "wear rainbow tie to church day"?  Those things, and others like it, will all happen in the near future.  When they do, we will face the stark delimma of either (i) kicking many good friends and family out of the church who choose to support SSM, (ii) losing many good friends and family who cannot abide a reveral of doctrine on this issue, or (iii) opening a divide by allowing members to disagree with the church on a fundamental issue - the nature of the family - with possible huge ramifications for church unity.

 

As I've said before, the real end game depends on gay families themselves.  Wickedness never was happiness.  Either gay families will be shown to be fundamentally unhappy or we will be forced to judge them as not evil.  Time will tell.  The good news is that we are seeing the fruit of this seed.  As we gain real and substantial experience with gay families, we will get to the point where we can judge, first individually and then as a people, whether gay families are also ordained of God. 

 

Good post.  I agree.

 

A couple responses:  As a church, we already do allow celibate or heterosexually married homosexuals to serve in our scout organizations (though I tend to agree with your assessment that ultimately the BSA will push the decision to local charter groups -- makes the most sense to me).  And in your third paragraph you ask a series of good questions... the first few have already been answered:  Missions?  Callings?  Recommends?  Yes to all.

[Buckeye]

Good post. I agree.

 

A couple responses: As a church, we already do allow celibate or heterosexually married homosexuals to serve in our scout organizations (though I tend to agree with your assessment that ultimately the BSA will push the decision to local charter groups -- makes the most sense to me). And in your third paragraph you ask a series of good questions... the first few have already been answered: Missions? Callings? Recommends? Yes to all.

 

I wasn't entirely clear. I agree that members can now serve missions, callings, and in the temple, even if they support civil SSM. For awhile there it depended on your local leadership, but I think this is now past.

 

What I was getting as is members who cannot bring themselves to participate in the church's teaching against SSM. Take a 19-year old who says, "I want to serve a mission, but I have a gay brother and I will not teach people that homosexuality is a sin." Can she serve? Take a HP who is invited by the SP to serve as a bishop. He says, "I will make the sacrifice, but I won't hold any disciplinary counsels for married lesbians in my ward as I believe they are abiding the law of chastity." Can he serve? Or what about the primary teacher who asks her children to draw family trees. One child includes his brother and his husband in his tree. The teacher says holds up the picture and tells the class "what a lovely family." Is she released?

 

Now that I think of it, does anyone know how the church's family history software addresses SSM? Is it possible to create SS marriages in the church's database?

[Calm]

Either gay families will be shown to be fundamentally unhappy or we will be forced to judge them as not evil.

 

It hasn't been demonstrated that unmarried heterosexual families are fundamentally unhappy and yet the Church still judges them as sinful.  I don't see the need to paint homosexual relationships as either "not evil" or "fundamentally unhappy".  It seems an extremely black and white approach that the Church, imo, as an institution does not demonstrate it has.  For example while it does not allow polygynous families to be baptized, neither does it condemn them or demand the parents get divorced to be judged righteous.

 

Not living certain standards of the Church does not equate to being evil in our doctrine as far as I've seen.

[Buckeye]

It hasn't been demonstrated that unmarried heterosexual families are fundamentally unhappy and yet the Church still judges them as sinful.  I don't see the need to paint homosexual relationships as either "not evil" or "fundamentally unhappy".  It seems an extremely black and white approach that the Church, imo, as an institution does not demonstrate it has.  For example while it does not allow polygynous families to be baptized, neither does it condemn them or demand the parents get divorced to be judged righteous.

 

Not living certain standards of the Church does not equate to being evil in our doctrine as far as I've seen.

 

Maybe we're talking about two different things.  I would agree that the church distinguishes between judging actions and judging people.  We are generally lothe to judge a person as "evil" even when we judge something they do as such.  My comments were meant to be directed more to behaviors than to people themselves.  I would agree the church currently takes a very kind approach to gays and lesbians.  See the new mormonsandgays website, for example.  But the church still strong condems homosexual actions, both in word (general conference) and in deed (excommunications).  As members become more exposed to gay families, that may have a significant affect on their view of the goodness or evilness of homosexual actions.

 

As to judgment of non-married heterosexual families, there are many studies showing significant differences between married and unmarried families in terms of wellbeing.  There is also a general belief among members that families fare better when they are bound by marriage.  I don't see that belief changing anytime soon.  As you point out, people are mixed bags.  Unmarried heterosexual families can have a lot of good things going on.  But most all members I know would still say the situation would be better with a marriage.  They judge the failure to marry, when that choice is available, as sin. 

 

Applying this to the SSM, the argument has been that children ideally need both a father and mother in the home.  If gay families are able to show that they are equally good at raising children, then opposition to the families will drop.  Yes, there can still be problems in a gay home, but we would gradually come to conclude those problems are due to reasons other than the lack of having both sexes as parents in the home. 

 

It's interesting you bring up polygamy.  That could also become a difficult issue in the near future.  The rationale for ending LDS practice of polygamy was government oppression.  Once the practices becomes legal, some members will understandably question why they cannot participate.   And the church does condemn and judge as unrighteous those who practice polygamy without sanction of the church.  If an LDS man in Utah takes a second wife he will be summarily excommunicated.  I can't see that as anything other than a condemnation and judgment that his choice to take a second wife is unrighteous.  Can you point to any polygamous families on the earth today which the church judges as "righteous?"

[Buzzard]

That's quite a broad brush.  I don't think that SSM activists are a single organized group with one defined goal as you seem to be implying.  I know people who you would probably consider to be SSM activists who are quite comfortable with religions teaching that God does not approve of gay marriage.  None of them would want for those who hold a different opinion to be "unable to hold a decent job".

 

It's interesting that you are apparently proud of the fact that an unmarried couple who lives together can be sealed posthumously but a gay couple who spends their lives together and raises children together is "literally tearing a hole in the fabric of the eternal family."

 

Gee... I wonder why I hope for the day when all loving couples and their children can be sealed together.

Broad brush, eh? The OP asked what we thought was coming, and yes, that is what I fear is coming for saints and the society. 

For the record, I'm not "proud" of the issue of homosexual couples and families being unable in this life or the next to participate fully in the covenant. More like sorry for them, but now willing to advise God on the Plan of Happiness that he set up. He set up the rules, not me-or you. 

[Calm]

 Can you point to any polygamous families on the earth today which the church judges as "righteous?"

I am talking about those who were married prior to encountering the gospel.  I have heard a report of how the Church is handling it in Africa where they are supportive of the families due to the prior commitment though they do not allow baptism due to not being able to meet the covenantal requirement.  The Church does not condemn as unrighteous acts where there is no knowledge of God's law, imo, they are transgressions, not sins in that sense, right? (please let us not get into a sin/transgression discussion but just use the current LDS standard definition for that, at least for this discussion ).

 

If it was a baptized member who then entered into a polygynous marriage it would be viewed differently even there.

 

PS:  I will have to check lds.org for its usage of "evil" but it seems to me that "evil" carries baggage/connotations that are not necessarily always present when using the term "sinful" or "unrighteous".  For one, there seems to me to be malice or intent to harm involved...which wouldn't be the case in homosexual relationships where they see themselves as a loving family imo.