Jump to content

The Board Needs Another Marriage Thread


Mark Beesley

Recommended Posts

The opinion of the 9th Circuit in the Prop 8 case is very narrowly written, and applies only to the situation in California. Basically, it comes down to this. Married couples in California enjoy the following rights: A, B, C, and D. Domestic Partners in California enjoy identical rights: A, B, C, and D. However, Domestic Partners are denied the privilege of calling their relationship a marriage. There is no secular reason for such a denial. It really is a rather clear violation of the equal protection clause. But, as Justice Smith says, it is a state issue, not a federal issue. That is likely the point on which this case will ultimately be decide IF the SCOTUS even takes it for review. (And that is a big IF.)

When the issue began to heat up as Prop 8 was put on the ballot, the Church made a point of stating that it had not opposed the extension of rights to same sex couples through domestic partnership laws. I wondered at the time if that was a good idea. Apparently it wasn't. But could the Church have done othewise? Not without appearing to be engaged in rather invidious discrimination against a segment of God's children.

It's a mess now, and has become such because of the State becoming involved in a religious sacrament. Who was the Einstein who thought it was a good idea to require a state license to participate in a religious rite in the first place? The only real solution, and one which the Church should embrace and lobby, is to remove the term marriage from all law books, replace it with civil union, and return marriage to the churches where it belongs. Whenever I am approach be folks outside of Target, or Trader Joe's asking me to sign a petition to allow gay marriage, I politely tell them to present me with a petition removing marriage from state licensing and I will gladly sign it.

What do you think: Does the Church's practice of opposing gay marriage without opposing civil unions of gays make good sense, in a legal sense?

Link to comment

It's a mess now, and has become such because of the State becoming involved in a religious sacrament

I don't know. It seems like it should go without saying, that if there was no opposition to same sex marriage, because, let's be real its not a threat to traditional marriage, then it wouldn't be a mess now. Everyone can easily see the distinction. We don't need to fret about the word that is not something we deserve (considering the heterosexual disrespect for the institution) to adopt (reminds me, ironically, of the LDS complaint that other Christians don't get to co-op the word).

Link to comment
What do you think: Does the Church's practice of opposing gay marriage without opposing civil unions of gays make good sense, in a legal sense?

No. The reason gay marriage should not be recognized by the state is the same reason why there should be no civil unions. That is, if the state is going to benefit something, it should be the ideal and not some improper or half measure.

Link to comment

Does the church support domestic partnerships?

The church supports insurance benefits, hopital vistation, and things of that nature but I do not believe the church supports civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The 9th panel limited itself to there once was a right popular vote took away the right. I think the court should develop a new test for rights taken away situation equal protection is the right ball park but the analysis is not geared towards rights once possessed and now dispossessed.

Link to comment

When I read the title of the OP, I thought this was a thread where we all get to chide Nehor about how it's time for him to finally get serious about marriage. :acute:

I was talking to a friend in my ward after Stake Conference. He asked how it was dating the girl I was dating. He didn't know we'd decided it wouldn't work a few weeks back. After telling him this I added:

"After about a dozen real relationships and dating about 50 women I'm beginning to wonder if I might be the problem." :)

Link to comment

Not at all. Marriage isn't about God to everyone. Don't project.

I think Cinepro was being facetious. :)

Link to comment

When I read the title of the OP, I thought this was a thread where we all get to chide Nehor about how it's time for him to finally get serious about marriage. :acute:

I remember when we were taking up a collection to throw emeliza and Nehor together for a wedding in LV. :friends: Emeliza had an awesome Temple marriage but Nehor slipped through the cracks.

Link to comment

My whole concern with this topic is the overreaching results of defining marriage by law for the future of our religious autonomy and freedom...

Let me explain - I am all for civil union fairness. If a heterosexual couple can reap benefits as a couple after shacking up for X amount of years, then I think it is fair to offer the same to everyone. My fear is that if 'marriage" were to be legally defined to include same-gender unions, then how does the church in the future observe it's right to decline such "marriages" to homosexuals without facing lawsuits, claims of bigotry and threats to take away tax exempt status etc...? If it could be guaranteed that we would be granted our religious right to observe marriage as we see fit, I would be relived.

I could even see this causing legal action when a gay member is disciplined within the church. They could cry foul and sue and raise a media stink because the church disciplined them for having sex "within the bounds of marriage".

How could we be sure that wouldn't happen? I see the wisdom in other poster's suggestions that we leave 'unions' and all that goes with them to the state, and let marriage be defined by each individual. I'm sure it is much more complex than that though! :sorry:

Link to comment
I hope I am not derailing here, but it also occurs to me often- isn't the same argument used to defend gay marriage also a direct and perfect defense for polygamy? Yet many I speak to who cheer the cause of gay marriage deplore polygamists...

=@

The people defending traditional marriage were the same.people defending that polygamy is traditional marriage.

Link to comment

The people defending traditional marriage were the same.people defending that polygamy is traditional marriage.

Which it is, since marriage is, was and should be about establishing families in which there will be children. Homosexuals cannot have children with their erstwhile lovers, so "marriage" does not and cannot apply to them. A man with Plural Families can, and will (under the LDS adaptation of polygyny), have children by each (fertile) wife: that's the point, by doctrine.

Lehi

Link to comment

The people defending traditional marriage were the same.people defending that polygamy is traditional marriage.

Exactly. it is funny to me that the traditional marriage needs to be defined by certain groups - yet you have the LDS view that would (at least doctrinally) support acceptance of polygamy yet wince at gay marriage. And you have gay marriage activists who are insisting that people should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult - yet who decry polygamy.

Seems kind of messy to me.

Link to comment

Who said that marriage belongs to religion? Atheists get married to other atheists. This is worthless.

Val, Cinepro was being facetious, yes... but also... in the same way, clever.

It's the same sort of counter-argument that you reply to when some people say 'People are religions because they fear dying'. The response is something along the lines of 'People aren't religious because they fear living after death.' Both are statements which fail to consider something; people have different reasons for doing different things. Similarly, Valentinus, people are going to have different definitions of what 'marriage' is. Thus, there might be people disagree with your statement.

Link to comment
Children are one very important aspect of marriage, but the ability to have them biologically isn't a prerequisite.

Speaking from a historical perspective, it is the reason for marriage, and no other.

The 99% (yes, I made that statistic up, but you find what the real number is, I don't have time) of couples who, eh, couple can have children unless the woman is "of a certain age". The reason Rome, the first state to require marriage of its elites, did so to protect the children's inheritances. A child born to a married woman was presumed to be her husband's child. If she was not married, there was no way to ascertain whose child he was, and, thus, no way to assign him an inheritance. But, along with dmarriage came divorce. ...

Gotta go. I'll try to complete this later.

Lehi

Link to comment

Speaking from a historical perspective, it is the reason for marriage, and no other.

The 99% (yes, I made that statistic up, but you find what the real number is, I don't have time) of couples who, eh, couple can have children unless the woman is "of a certain age". The reason Rome, the first state to require marriage of its elites, did so to protect the children's inheritances. A child born to a married woman was presumed to be her husband's child. If she was not married, there was no way to ascertain whose child he was, and, thus, no way to assign him an inheritance. But, along with dmarriage came divorce. ...

Gotta go. I'll try to complete this later.

Lehi

In Ireland, any union which could result in a child was considered a marriage for the same reason--to protect the rights of the child.

Yours under the Brehon oaks,

Nathair /|\

Link to comment

Which it is, since marriage is, was and should be about establishing families in which there will be children. Homosexuals cannot have children with their erstwhile lovers, so "marriage" does not and cannot apply to them. A man with Plural Families can, and will (under the LDS adaptation of polygyny), have children by each (fertile) wife: that's the point, by doctrine.

Lehi

I'm good with polygamy...even if it is a married guy taking another man's wife to be his own wife as well. JS had it right.

Now that I'm done being facetious...

I'm actually okay with polygamy so long as it is practiced correctly (whatever that may be).

Link to comment

Val, Cinepro was being facetious, yes... but also... in the same way, clever.

It's the same sort of counter-argument that you reply to when some people say 'People are religions because they fear dying'. The response is something along the lines of 'People aren't religious because they fear living after death.' Both are statements which fail to consider something; people have different reasons for doing different things. Similarly, Valentinus, people are going to have different definitions of what 'marriage' is. Thus, there might be people disagree with your statement.

If people disagree with each other on what the definition of marriage is then so be it. Perhaps we should enforce a strict division between state marriage and religious marriage. The State would not have to recognize a religious marriage and the Religion would not have to recognize the state. Therefore, no homosexuals who have a state marriage will be trodding off to the nearest temple for a sealing. Furthermore, no LDS have to go trodding off to the county or state clerks office to pay for a marriage license. In the end...the State isn't the Religion and the Religion isn't the State.

Link to comment

Does the church support domestic partnerships?

The church supports insurance benefits, hopital vistation, and things of that nature but I do not believe the church supports civil unions or domestic partnerships.

These individual rights are addressed within the context of domestic partnerships, so it would be disingenuous to say that the Church objects to domestic partnerships but does not object to the rights attendant thereto.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...