Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[altersteve]

Oh so the church is fighting gay marriage to save the gays. So if gays are not allowed to marry, then that will save them? Or is it if gays are not allowed to marry then they will turn straight?? You gotta let me in on this game plan on how if gays are not allowed to marry they will be saved..

I never said anyone will be saved by the Church's fight against gay marriage. I said that gay marriage gets in the way of one's salvation, as it completely changes the definition of a family, as God has defined it. If one does not marry and be sealed to a person (of the opposite gender) for time and all eternity, he or she will not gain eternal life. That's not to say, however, that they absolutely will gain eternal life otherwise.

And no, the Church does not believe that gay people can just "turn straight."

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until ajudicated in a court of law for violations of the law.

[Mansquatch]

Marriage is a religious rite not a civil right. Is baptism a civil right? Can we redefine baptism to mean being buried in the sand at the beach with no water involved at all?

The church must be of the position that marriage is not a right at all, otherwise it infringes on the "rights" of others in it's religious practice. (D&C 134:4) Clearly marriage is not a right since to claim it someone else must agree to it and anything that must be agreed to is not a right but falls under a person's right to contract actions. An extremely rude or ugly person that cannot get anyone to marry them is then denied a right by everyone who refuses to marry them if it is a right.

The Church's ultimate hope is a very libertarian one in which everyone can perform religious rites as they see fit. However since the government is involved in marriage now and legal action could be taken if the church were to be seen as denying the rights of others, if gay marriage was legally declared a right, the church has had to take a stand against such a legal declaration.

[wenglund]

For the first question, marriage itself was not recognized as a fundamental secular right until the mid-20th century, but Mormons argued that marriage was a fundamental religious right in the 1800s. Back then, they had to approach it through the 1st Amendment. See the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. United States, which was a test case for Mormon polygamy in which the church lawyers lost. See also Smith's statements in Ohio regarding what he believed was his absolute religious right to perform marriages even in defiance of civil law. https://ojs.lib.byu....wFile/6710/6359

I will take this as a tacit admission that you were incorrect in asserting that the Church argued marriage as a civil right in polygamy cases in which it was personally involved way back when.

In 2011, Dallin Oaks pitted the "freedom to marry," which he spoke dismissively of, against the Free Exercise clause, arguing in essence that religious freedom gives society the "freedom" to legislate in the name of God, and thereby impose that "freedom" upon others. http://newsroom.lds....pman-University.

I will take this as a tacit admission that you were incorrect to assert that the Church argued against marriage as a civil right in the Prop 8 case(s) in which it was personally involved.

In short, your catty attempt to paint the church as applying a double standard, failed, and simply reflected poorly on you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 29, 2011 by wenglund

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I've been studying the topic of gay marriage in the United States and the controversy surrounding it, and, naturally, I've read some conflicting opinions about whether marriage is a civil right or not. Generally, those for gay marriage say it is, and those against it say it is not, but I'm sure it's a bit more complex than that. Something as controversial as this is clearly a subject that isn't clear in the Constitution.

What do you think? Does the Church have an official stance on this?

There are many restrictions on marriage, no bother, sister; no 1st cousins in most states. Father cannot marry a child of his or Mother and son...even if they are only adopted. I am with you I don't think it can be called a civil right.

[Mark Beesley]

Oh I see. I didn't realize your salvation was based on what you allow other people to do.

Wait. If unlicensed sin and licensed sin is equally abohorrent to God, how does not allowing gays to marry going to help your salvation?

Since you want to read what you want into what people actually say, and don't really seek to understand, I see no point in sharing thoughts with you on this topic. Consider Mosiah 29:26-27. Maybe it will help you understand why we oppose the legitimization of sin.

[california boy]

California Boy:

The Church is fighting to save all sinners including the homosexual ones. The state has a vested interest in its own long term survival. SSM is antithetical to the long term survival of the state.

Yeah I get that the church is trying to say everyone. But you still have to explain how passing laws to prevent gays from marrying saves anyone. What difference does not allowing gays to marry make?

[Bob Crockett]

Marriage is a religious rite not a civil right.

Let's see if I can wade in with some presumptuous statements.

Conservatives, who are not libertarians, say that marriage is not a civil right.

Mormons, in the Reynolds case, said that marriage is a civil right, although they used the language of the day to make that argument.

Libertarians, who can be either conservative or liberals, say that marriage should not be a civil right but that it apparently is a civil right and as such all consenting adults should have that right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that marriage is a civil (fundamental) right, but didn't say it in the context of gay marriage.

The California Supreme Court has said that marriage is a civil right and that the protections given gays should be held to a standard of strict scrutiny if they aren't permitted to marry each other.

So, is it a civil right or not?

[california boy]

Since you want to read what you want into what people actually say, and don't really seek to understand, I see no point in sharing thoughts with you on this topic. Consider Mosiah 29:26-27. Maybe it will help you understand why we oppose the legitimization of sin.

lol. Now that is a good answer. If you have no answer to the question, blame it on me.

[Mark Beesley]

Yeah I get that the church is trying to say everyone. But you still have to explain how passing laws to prevent gays from marrying saves anyone. What difference does not allowing gays to marry make?

Who argued that passing laws to prevent gays from marrying would save anyone?

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy:

The Church didn't pass any laws. We're too small(about 1% of population of California is LDS) to have much of any influence. In an open society such as ours where people and groups are free to petition the governmen for a redress of grievences members of the Church were simply exercizing their constitutional rights. The black churches, the Catholic church, the many EV/Protestant chuches also participated for the passage of Prop 8. Are you now suggesting that people of faith should be barred from petitioning the government/voting?

[california boy]

Who argued that passing laws to prevent gays from marrying would save anyone?

The church clearly argued that gay marriage is a MORAL issue. It is in fact the very basis of the churches reasoning for getting involved in prop 8. So what is the moral issue? How does not allowing gays to marry make anyone more moral? If gays are not allowed to marry, does that make them more moral? Does it make straight people more moral?

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy:

Yes it is a moral issue. It is also one with society changing implications. Prostitution is illegal in California, but giving it away for free is not. The Church is opposed to both.

[california boy]

California Boy: The Church didn't pass any laws. We're too small(about 1% of population of California is LDS) to have much of any influence. In an open society such as ours where people and groups are free to petition the governmen for a redress of grievences members of the Church were simply exercizing their constitutional rights. The black churches, the Catholic church, the many EV/Protestant chuches also participated for the passage of Prop 8. Are you now suggesting that people of faith should be barred from petitioning the government/voting?

I never said the church passed a law. I will say however that the church supported and encouraged its members to give their time and money to pass prop 8. I am sure you are aware that church members provided over half of the money and 70% of the work force to lobby for prop 8. For some reason, members don't like to acknowledge the significant role the church and its members played in the passage of prop 8. Why is that???

And WHERE in any of my posts am I suggesting at all that people of faith should be barred from petitioning the government. What the church did was completely legal. I am only asking why they did it. The stated reason from the church was that gay marriage is a moral issue. I am just trying to figure out how does preventing gay marriage makes anyone more moral.

[ERayR]

I never said the church passed a law. I will say however that the church supported and encouraged its members to give their time and money to pass prop 8. I am sure you are aware that church members provided over half of the money and 70% of the work force to lobby for prop 8. For some reason, members don't like to acknowledge the significant role the church and its members played in the passage of prop 8. Why is that???

And WHERE in any of my posts am I suggesting at all that people of faith should be barred from petitioning the government. What the church did was completely legal. I am only asking why they did it. The stated reason from the church was that gay marriage is a moral issue. I am just trying to figure out how does preventing gay marriage makes anyone more moral.

Question: Do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have the right(or even an obligation) to be involved in the political process or do they not have that right?

[Pahoran]

When were mixed-race marriages ever the "natural" state of marriage? From the perspective of your counterparts from the 50's, they represent a new type of liberal marriage that never exited in the history of the world until it was invented in the 20th century. It was these degenerate multi-race couples who came along and sought to destroy the time-honored institution of marriage.

I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense. You are living in a US-centric bubble that is utterly unaware that there even is a rest of the world, let alone that anything has happened in it. The reality is that whenever people have moved from one place to another, they have immediately intermarried without much regard for the "race" of the people they found there. This was true of Jews in Russia, Crusaders in the Levant, whalers in the Pacific and slave traders in Africa, long before your arbitrary "50's." Even the Virginia anti-miscegenation statute defied by the Lovings had the so-called "Pocahontas clause" specifically allowing whites and Native Americans to marry.

Next time, try facts. They are far more meaningful than ideology.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mansquatch]

Let's see if I can wade in with some presumptuous statements.

Mission Accomplished

Conservatives, who are not libertarians, say that marriage is not a civil right.

I am a conservative and a libertarian and also say that it is not a right.

Mormons, in the Reynolds case, said that marriage is a civil right, although they used the language of the day to make that argument.

CFR that they said marriage was a right. Since they said that the free exercise of religion was the violated right.

Libertarians, who can be either conservative or liberals, say that marriage should not be a civil right but that it apparently is a civil right and as such all consenting adults should have that right.

Some mathematicians say that jello molds are bone saws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that marriage is a civil (fundamental) right, but didn't say it in the context of gay marriage.

CFR

Also I believe "gay marriage" to be an oxymoron. Like saying "homosexual heterosexuality". Perhaps this is what many people don't grasp in the definition of marriage debate.

The California Supreme Court has said that marriage is a civil right and that the protections given gays should be held to a standard of strict scrutiny if they aren't permitted to marry each other.

So, is it a civil right or not?

No it is not a right.

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy;

"Yeah I get that the church is trying to say everyone. But you still have to explain how passing laws to prevent gays from marrying saves anyone. What difference does not allowing gays to marry make?"

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I've never denied church member involvement in its passage, or even Church encouragement of member involvement. However it is disingenous to the max for you not to point out that the opponents of pop 8 raised far more money, and used that money to target a small church for exclusion from the democratic process.

I sure didn't see your side rioting in South Central in front of the black churches.

[california boy]

California Boy: Yes it is a moral issue. It is also one with society changing implications. Prostitution is illegal in California, but giving it away for free is not. The Church is opposed to both.

The church clearly says sex outside of marriage is a moral issue. That is why prostitution is a moral issue. The problem is the church is implying by its opposition to gay marriage that some how sex INSIDE of marriage for gays is is a moral issue. You gotta admit, that is kinda strange. The church has a position that gay sex is immoral whether gays are married or not. So why prevent them from getting married? Why ask church members to devote so much of their money and time to a cause that does nothing to make gay relations mor or less moral.

[california boy]

Question: Do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have the right(or even an obligation) to be involved in the political process or do they not have that right?

Of couse they have a legal right and even an obligation to be involved in the political process. I clearly stated that in the post you quoted. How much more clear can I be??

[california boy]

California Boy; "Yeah I get that the church is trying to say everyone. But you still have to explain how passing laws to prevent gays from marrying saves anyone. What difference does not allowing gays to marry make?" Sorry if I misunderstood you. I've never denied church member involvement in its passage, or even Church encouragement of member involvement. However it is disingenous to the max for you not to point out that the opponents of pop 8 raised far more money, and used that money to target a small church for exclusion from the democratic process. I sure didn't see your side rioting in South Central in front of the black churches.

No problem. If you need me to acknowledge that the other side raised more money I will. If you need me to acknowledge that a handful of protesters crossed the line in expressing their political view I will. So what does this have to do with the moral issue??

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy:

It is still a moral issue. To the Church marriage is defined as between men and women. Since OD 1 it has been defined as between one man and one woman.

Is being a little less immoral like being a little less pregnant?

[california boy]

California Boy:

It is still a moral issue. To the Church marriage is defined as between men and women. Since OD 1 it has been defined as between one man and one woman.

Is being a little less immoral like being a little less pregnant?

Of course I understand that the church defines marriage as between men and women. And if the government required the Mormon church to change THEIR deffinition of marriage, then I would be fighting right along side you saying that the government has no right to dictate what Mormon doctrine is. But that is not what the church was fighting for.

[LeSellers]

The church clearly says sex outside of marriage is a moral issue. That is why prostitution is a moral issue.

Right so far.

Prostitution is a moral question because it involves sexual relations outside of marriage, all of which, not just prostitution, are immoral.

The problem is the church is implying by its opposition to gay marriage that some how sex INSIDE of marriage for gays is is a moral issue.

All homosex is immoral. There is no "implication", it's explicit.

The church has a position that gay sex is immoral whether gays are married or not. So why prevent them from getting married?

Because, whether you like or not, whether you admit it or not, whether you accept it or not, same-sex "marriage" is a direct assault on The Family. We can take the religious side or the secular side, or both, and the result is always the same: The Family (not a specific, existing, family) will suffer from the implementation of homosexual "marriage". The Family (not necessarily the nuclear family, but it is included in the concept) is the basis for all functioning cultures and societies, destroy (or even seriously weaken) it and the culture and society with that weakened Family is doomed.

Strong families do not need much government, weak ones do. That is why governments the world around seek to weaken them, but not to the point of insufficiency. It's the same as with taxes: How can they pluck the goose and get the most feathers without an unbearable amount of hissing? A fine line they must walk. I believe, and history bears it out, that homosexuality is the most detrimental worm of societies. Whether it is the homosexuality itself, or the moral environment that accepts it remains an open question, but there is a direct and harsh relationship between the two.

Why ask church members to devote so much of their money and time to a cause that does nothing to make gay relations mor or less moral.

For both reasons I explained above: The Church is focused on the Family because it is God's foundational institution, more important than the Church herself. It is also the basis for all societies. Weaken The Family and society collapses.

Whether homosexuals are more or less moral with or without same-sex "marriage" is immaterial: homosex is immoral, ipso facto. The co-option of the word "marriage" by an inherently immoral subclass leads inexorably to the overthrow of the society that permits it.

Lehi

[Calm]

The California Supreme Court has said that marriage is a civil right and that the protections given gays should be held to a standard of strict scrutiny if they aren't permitted to marry.

Would you be kind enough to explain what this means/implies.

Thank you.