Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[KevinG]

Celibacy is a fine practice for a tired middle aged man with a large family. Why should we be the only one's to practice it?

(Did I reveal too much?)

[california boy]

My reason for supporting the Church's opposition to same-sex civil marriage is that I believe it's simply a back-door through which those who want universal gay marriage will try to get what they want when they can't get past the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" obstacle which is blocking the front door to the LDS Church ... or the LDS Temple. I've been accused of being a Chicken-Little alarmist on that score, and I hope I'm wrong, but I do believe that eventually, the gay-rights "tail" is going to try to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman" "dog" (bad metaphor, I know). "Oh, Ken! That's impossible! It would never happen in a country with a First Amendment!" I've been told. That's nice ... I would be reassured by that, if it weren't for one thing: it already has. Ever hear of polygyny and the Church being forced to abandon the practice? I rest my case. Yes, the sociopolitical conditions which led to the Church's abandonment of polygyny are different than the ones which are implicated in the debate over gay marriage, but those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

<p>When the Mormon church uses the government to tell another church that they can not legally perform gay marriage, isn't the church doing exactly what you find so worrisome on someone else's religion? There are mainstream religions that feel God wants gay couples to be able to marry, yet the Mormon church actively pushes the government to prevent those churches from practicing their religious beliefs.

I am really interested in hearing how you justify your position and the churches position in controlling another religions beliefs through the laws of the land. Or is it simply a case of I want my religion to be able to practice its beliefs and I am willing to prohibit by law another church from practicing it's beliefs?</p>

Edited April 9, 2012 by california boy

[Messenger]

<p>When the Mormon church uses the government to tell another church that they can not legally perform gay marriage, isn't the church doing exactly what you find so worrisome on someone else's religion? There are mainstream religions that feel God wants gay couples to be able to marry, yet the Mormon church actively pushes the government to prevent those churches from practicing their religious beliefs.

I am really interested in hearing how you justify your position and the churches position in controlling another religions beliefs through the laws of the land. Or is it simply a case of I want my religion to be able to practice its beliefs and I am willing to prohibit by law another church from practicing it's beliefs?</p>

There is nothing new about a group of people wanting to keep a law or change a law that affects everyone. And this is nothing new in the church either when it comes to laws on morality. And, while there are Mormons that scratch their head wondering why we are doing what we are doing, the answer is simple: The best family is made up of a father and a mother and whose roles influence their children for good. Does everyone have a perfect family. Nope. But if we are choosing laws that help it to become such, wouldn’t we want them to reflect the best case scenario for children? Wouldn't that be best for society? I didn’t grow up in the church, and I certainly didn’t have an ideal family, but I certainly have experience being with an LDS family when I was growing up; Simply from experience I can tell you what I liked the best. Now, I'm not sure if you cut and pasted your last answer from another forum or not, but I would hope that you could answer my question yourself. Why would you insist on changing a family structure that is best for a child growing up, and provides the best chance for the happiest up-bringing? One thing I have noticed in all of these posts, is a pattern. The pattern is simple: That many of the Gay couples out there that are fighting the church, simply don’t understand that we don’t sacrifice the happiness of our children over our own perceived happiness. Further, we wouldn't do that for other families either, even non-member families. Further, what Gay people are striving for in gaining legal marriage is acceptance. They aren’t seeking the spirit, or trying to make society better for their children. They want everyone else, through the changing of laws, to accept their way of life. Even if the laws were to change, I think you'll find that people in the church still wouldn't see your decisions as the right decision because its based on a premise that is not Christ-like. Ultimate acceptance of right and wrong for our decisions comes from God. And no amount of legal changes will change that. Who is really trying to control who?

Edited April 9, 2012 by Messenger

[Kenngo1969]

Celibacy is a fine practice for a tired middle aged man with a large family. Why should we be the only one's to practice it?

(Did I reveal too much?)

P.S.: I'm not sure why I found that so funny, since I've never been married and I'm still my only child, but ... Aaaaaaaaaanyway ...

Edited April 9, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

<p>When the Mormon church uses the government to tell another church that they can not legally perform gay marriage, isn't the church doing exactly what you find so worrisome on someone else's religion? There are mainstream religions that feel God wants gay couples to be able to marry, yet the Mormon church actively pushes the government to prevent those churches from practicing their religious beliefs.

I am really interested in hearing how you justify your position and the churches position in controlling another religions beliefs through the laws of the land. Or is it simply a case of I want my religion to be able to practice its beliefs and I am willing to prohibit by law another church from practicing it's beliefs?</p>

Perhaps the government should simply get out of the marriage business entirely.

[Kenngo1969]

I understand and empathize with your concerns. But let me asure you, from my position, I don't want nor do I ask for the LDS church to open its church buildings or Temples to my eventual less than orthodox marriage. I hope there are more out there who are willing to take this position with me to keep our marriages separate from LDS property and practices.

Which, with all due respect, doesn't mean that others similarly situated as you never will. Again, it's not as if this sort of thing completely lacks precedent. The government once told the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (damn the First Amendment) to cease a practice the Church engaged in on religious grounds ... at the threat of disincorporating it, disenfranchising its members, and seizing all of its property. You tell me, if the First Amendment couldn't stop that from happening the first time, what's to stop it from happening when a critical mass of like-minded folks decide they aren't happy with civil marriage and they want the government to start dictating the religious practice of the Church of Jesus Christ on their behalf ... again?

Edited April 9, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Buzzard]

Which, with all due respect, doesn't mean that others similarly situated as you never will. Again, it's not as if this sort of thing completely lacks precedent. The government once told the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (damn the First Amendment) to cease a practice the Church engaged in on religious grounds ... at the threat of disincorporating it, disenfranchising its members, and seizing all of its property. You tell me, if the First Amendment couldn't stop that from happening the first time, what's to stop it from happening when a critical mass of like-minded folks decide they aren't happy with civil marriage and they want the government to start dictating the religious practice of the Church of Jesus Christ on their behalf ... again?

Of course, it's ironic that the stated reason for the SCOTUS's polygamy decision was that marriage was such a foundation of American society that congress and the courts could and should make it their business.

[california boy]

There is nothing new about a group of people wanting to keep a law or change a law that affects everyone. And this is nothing new in the church either when it comes to laws on morality. And, while there are Mormons that scratch their head wondering why we are doing what we are doing, the answer is simple: The best family is made up of a father and a mother and whose roles influence their children for good. Does everyone have a perfect family. Nope. But if we are choosing laws that help it to become such, wouldn’t we want them to reflect the best case scenario for children? Wouldn't that be best for society? I didn’t grow up in the church, and I certainly didn’t have an ideal family, but I certainly have experience being with an LDS family when I was growing up; Simply from experience I can tell you what I liked the best. Now, I'm not sure if you cut and pasted your last answer from another forum or not, but I would hope that you could answer my question yourself. Why would you insist on changing a family structure that is best for a child growing up, and provides the best chance for the happiest up-bringing? One thing I have noticed in all of these posts, is a pattern. The pattern is simple: That many of the Gay couples out there that are fighting the church, simply don’t understand that we don’t sacrifice the happiness of our children over our own perceived happiness. Further, we wouldn't do that for other families either, even non-member families. Further, what Gay people are striving for in gaining legal marriage is acceptance. They aren’t seeking the spirit, or trying to make society better for their children. They want everyone else, through the changing of laws, to accept their way of life. Even if the laws were to change, I think you'll find that people in the church still wouldn't see your decisions as the right decision because its based on a premise that is not Christ-like. Ultimate acceptance of right and wrong for our decisions comes from God. And no amount of legal changes will change that. Who is really trying to control who?

I understand that your views are commonly held views within the Mormon church, but it doesn't address or answer my question that you are responding to. And while it is tempting to dispute some of the assumptions you are stating, I will resist. I would prefer you answer the question I asked. So here again is my question.

When the Mormon church uses the government to tell another church that they can not legally perform gay marriage, isn't the church doing exactly what you find so worrisome on someone else's religion? There are mainstream religions that feel God wants gay couples to be able to marry, yet the Mormon church actively pushes the government to prevent those churches from practicing their religious beliefs.

I am really interested in hearing how you justify your position and the churches position in controlling another religions beliefs through the laws of the land. Or is it simply a case of I want my religion to be able to practice its beliefs and I am willing to prohibit by law another church from practicing it's beliefs?

It is a question I would also like to have answered by Kennego since he also seems to think it is a bad idea for the government to dictate what beliefs and practices a church should engage in.

[David T]

Perhaps the government should simply get out of the marriage business entirely.

Or rather, Churches should stop considering State Marriage to somehow be the same as Church Marriage, and attempting to legislate as if that were the case.We are not going to see a removal of Government civil Contracts that are at the very least able to give at least a pair of individuals joint legal custody over children, rights over joint ownership, medical access, etc, etc. It's not going to happen.

The best thing would be for Churches to stop trying to wed (no pun intended) themselves with a government contract. I see this having been helpful in countries where there is no separation of Church and State, but we can't have it both ways.

I'm all for separation of Church Marriage and State Marriage.

Edited April 9, 2012 by David T

[Kenngo1969]

Of course, it's ironic that the stated reason for the SCOTUS's polygamy decision was that marriage was such a foundation of American society that congress and the courts could and should make it their business.

As with so many things, it's as if we never even had a Tenth Amendment. (Of course, nobody's ever getting that genie back into its bottle again. )

Edited April 9, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

It is a question I would also like to have answered by Kennego since he also seems to think it is a bad idea for the government to dictate what beliefs and practices a church should engage in.

If you don't think that's a bad idea, you're always welcome to start a movement to attempt to repeal the First Amendment (or at least its religion clauses). Good luck with that.

[Kenngo1969]

The best thing would be for Churches to stop trying to wed (no pun intended) themselves with what a government contract.[ I see this having been helpful in countries where there is no separation of Church and State, but we can't have it both ways.

Your first sentence is a fragment. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I welcome clarification.

I'm all for separation of Church Marriage and State Marriage.

The Court which decided Reynolds (the decision striking down polygynous unions) didn't do a very good job of separating them. Since we no longer seem to have a Tenth Amendment that means anything, I'm cockeyedly optimistic enough to take it on faith that such a thing will never happen again.

[Jaybear]

The Court which decided Reynolds (the decision striking down polygynous unions) didn't do a very good job of separating them. Since we no longer seem to have a Tenth Amendment that means anything, I'm cockeyedly optimistic enough to take it on faith that such a thing will never happen again.

Reynolds was decided when Utah was a federal territory, not a state.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Jaybear

[california boy]

If you don't think that's a bad idea, you're always welcome to start a movement to attempt to repeal the First Amendment (or at least its religion clauses). Good luck with that.

I think you should reread my post. I am the one saying that the government does not have the right to tell another religion how to practice its beliefs. Yet the Mormon church is using the government by supporting laws that prevent other churches to marry gay couples. Those "other" churches feel that God loves all of his children the same and that God thinks "it is not good for man to be alone". Their religious belief is that gay people should be allowed to marry.

By pushing laws preventing gay couples from being able to marry, the Mornon church is using the government to prevent another church from practicing its religious beliefs. So contrary to your statement, it is the church that is ignoring the 10th amendment, something I don't think the church would like the government doing to Mormon beliefs.

[Scott Lloyd]

Posted in error

Edited April 9, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeff K.]

Some people will want to shut Mormons up. Members of the church are not allowed to advocate, congregate or say anything against the prevailing whims of society. How dare Mormons and their leadership advocate for moral principals. How dare they encourage advocacy of the vote to uphold moral laws. They are obviously a blight on society and should be dealt with accordingly. Everyone uses to government to support the laws they believe in, everyone. As such the idea is ridiculous that such a stance held by ALL institution (not just the ones favored by some on this board) are an advocacy for laws which they feel to be both moral and just (who in their right mind that is no evil believes in unjust laws).

Everyone has their pet projects that they advocate for. The danger is when such projects become so overwhelming that one is willing to damage and even destroy the church in order to keep the advocacy of church membership limited by forcing those members to silence their voices. Would it make sense to tell someone because they or their organization is gay that they cannot and must not advocate for their view on gay marriage? Then why tell those adherents of marriage for morality's sake that they must be forcibly silenced? Such double standards are de rigeur I know, but they should be avoided.

[Damien the Leper]

Celibacy is a fine practice for a tired middle aged man with a large family. Why should we be the only one's to practice it?

(Did I reveal too much?)

You made me laugh.

[Damien the Leper]

Which, with all due respect, doesn't mean that others similarly situated as you never will. Again, it's not as if this sort of thing completely lacks precedent. The government once told the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (damn the First Amendment) to cease a practice the Church engaged in on religious grounds ... at the threat of disincorporating it, disenfranchising its members, and seizing all of its property. You tell me, if the First Amendment couldn't stop that from happening the first time, what's to stop it from happening when a critical mass of like-minded folks decide they aren't happy with civil marriage and they want the government to start dictating the religious practice of the Church of Jesus Christ on their behalf ... again?

It is a situation that does worry me. I don't know how to answer your concerns. I can only hope and pray for the best that the LDS church and its beliefs will be respected.

[Bob Crockett]

Or rather, Churches should stop considering State Marriage to somehow be the same as Church Marriage, and attempting to legislate as if that were the case.

Therein lies the problem. Church marriage is the same as state marriage. It has been that way since the Emperor Justinian. Pastors are licensed to perform a state function.

So long as that is the case, pastors should say whatever they want about what marriage should and should not be, and urge for legislation to support their views.

Now, the remedy here is to abolish marriage as a state institution and if you want to be married, go to your pastor.

One of the major reasons for marriage in the first place was to establish a presumption for paternity and the support of children; with science now the way it is such presumptions are not necessary.

[Jeff K.]

No one should be obligated to anyone, and the state is the only obligation that should be recognized by all.

Just a bit scary if you ask me.

[Jaybear]

Some people will want to shut Mormons up. Members of the church are not allowed to advocate, congregate or say anything against the prevailing whims of society. How dare Mormons and their leadership advocate for moral principals. How dare they encourage advocacy of the vote to uphold moral laws. They are obviously a blight on society and should be dealt with accordingly.

Hyperbole is a poor substitute for reasoned discussion.

Everyone uses to government to support the laws they believe in, everyone. As such the idea is ridiculous that such a stance held by ALL institution (not just the ones favored by some on this board) are an advocacy for laws which they feel to be both moral and just (who in their right mind that is no evil believes in unjust laws).

Technically, people and insitutiutions are free to advocate for or agaisnt any for law for any reason, or for no reason.

Don't confuse disagreement or criticism with denial of free speech.

Everyone has their pet projects that they advocate for. The danger is when such projects become so overwhelming that one is willing to damage and even destroy the church in order to keep the advocacy of church membership limited by forcing those members to silence their voices. Would it make sense to tell someone because they or their organization is gay that they cannot and must not advocate for their view on gay marriage? Then why tell those adherents of marriage for morality's sake that they must be forcibly silenced? Such double standards are de rigeur I know, but they should be avoided.

Please stop using this argument. No one is trying to force your silence.

BTW, I should point out that until this year, BYU students could be kicked out of school for advocating for homosexuality. Even that does to equate to forcing members to silence their voices. Conformity is simply the price that BYU students have to pay, if they wish to attend BYU.

[Damien the Leper]

Some people will want to shut Mormons up. Members of the church are not allowed to advocate, congregate or say anything against the prevailing whims of society. How dare Mormons and their leadership advocate for moral principals. How dare they encourage advocacy of the vote to uphold moral laws. They are obviously a blight on society and should be dealt with accordingly. Everyone uses to government to support the laws they believe in, everyone. As such the idea is ridiculous that such a stance held by ALL institution (not just the ones favored by some on this board) are an advocacy for laws which they feel to be both moral and just (who in their right mind that is no evil believes in unjust laws).

Everyone has their pet projects that they advocate for. The danger is when such projects become so overwhelming that one is willing to damage and even destroy the church in order to keep the advocacy of church membership limited by forcing those members to silence their voices. Would it make sense to tell someone because they or their organization is gay that they cannot and must not advocate for their view on gay marriage? Then why tell those adherents of marriage for morality's sake that they must be forcibly silenced? Such double standards are de rigeur I know, but they should be avoided.

I don't think Mormons should shut up. I do suggest as another has that the church should not petition government to limit the religious practices of other religions because of their own moral standards. As another stated that would be in violation of 2 amendments. What the LDS church considers to be moral is binding only on that institution. Trying to force it on others is a violation of rights. Let me clarify and reiterate...if a church believes in allowing gay marriage then no other church should be petitioning against that churches practices and beliefs. It would be the double standard considering the governments involvement in ending polygamy in Utah.

[Jaybear]

Now, the remedy here is to abolish marriage as a state institution and if you want to be married, go to your pastor.

So you would deny athiests the right to marry? Not cool.

[Damien the Leper]

Therein lies the problem. Church marriage is the same as state marriage. It has been that way since the Emperor Justinian. Pastors are licensed to perform a state function.

So long as that is the case, pastors should say whatever they want about what marriage should and should not be, and urge for legislation to support their views.

Now, the remedy here is to abolish marriage as a state institution and if you want to be married, go to your pastor.

One of the major reasons for marriage in the first place was to establish a presumption for paternity and the support of children; with science now the way it is such presumptions are not necessary.

No. I agree that the remedy would be to separate church marriage from state marriage.

[Damien the Leper]

So you would deny athiests the right to marry? Not cool.

This is where such a remedy is flawed. An atheist should NOT have to go to a religious official to get married. Such a notion could be offensive to atheists and rejected.