Time For Same-Sex Lds Marriages--Sl Tribune

[Buzzard]

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.

Ah, but to seperate marriage from the state, isn't that the goal? Go to city hall to register as domestic partners, go to the church to get married. If your an athiest and want the ceremony, hire a judge to pronounce you partners. You can still have a reception and get a bunch of gifts.

Why won't gays/athiest/??? go along with this? Because it's not civil rights they want, it's the approbation of their relationship. If there is any inkling of moral judgement against their choice-and getting married is undeniable a choice-then it is taken as de facto proof of hateful bigotry.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Buzzard

[Bob Crockett]

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

I would not deny atheists anything.

When I mean abolish marriage, I mean that the state does not recognize it for any purpose. So, if voluntary organizations want to solemnize marriage as a contract, then that's fine and good. Do that. If atheists want a marriage, then go to a non-religious notary or other private official and get one.

The government has no business (but it does, and has) licensing pastors to do anything state-related.

Marriage has performed the following governmental functions: 1. Presumption of paternity. 2. Presumptions of property disposition upon an intestate death. 3. Death benefits for government entitlements. $. Non-working spouse protections.

Abolish marriage and replace it with a domestic partnership, and give that partnership the trappings of the above.

Is this just semantics? No. Religions believe it is a religious function. As long as they believe that, you're going to have religions taking positions on what marriage should and should not be. The LDS Church takes no position on domestic partnerships. There is simply no other analogue where the government licenses pastors to perform a government function. See Ron Paul's views on this --- exactly mine -- although I do not support him.

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

That is the gay community's position on legal marriage. The community wishes to both enshrine marriage and make it available to gays. But, as a pending article of mine notes, only 14,000 or so gay marriages in California were performed when the window was open,and that includes out-of-state residents coming to California; compare to 200,000 California gay couples. Approximately 90% of cohabiting California hetero couples are married; the rate is less than 10 percent for gay couples. This suggests, at least to me, that gays want the availability of the civil right but don't really want it. As Elton John stated in the press during the Prop 8 fights, we should leave marriage to religion. It should have no effect upon how gay partners love each other or cohabit.

But the severance between state marriage and church marriage already exists, so the gay marriage activists argue for something inconsequential.. There are plenty of examples of churches who do not believe in government regulation who marry without a marriage license. For example, polygamists do this. The Mormons did this in Ohio when the state denied Mormon elders the right to marry.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[LDSToronto]

It's not the Church that's moving. And it will always be relevant to those who respond to the light of Christ.

Your remark reminds me of those who exert peer pressure ("Everybody else is doing it") on others to try to get them to forsake their standards.

The church can keep it's standards, absolutely. It just has to learn to deal with the obscurity and social irrelevance in a few years when it still espouses a definition of marriage that looks completely different from anything it's potential converts understand.

H.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So if gay married couples are eventually allowed to be baptized, does that mean you would you be avoiding Temple Square?

I would. God does not change his standard. I would not stop going because they are gay, but because we would be endorsing sin. This is coming from the father of a gay child.

[Jaybear]

I would not deny atheists anything.

When I mean abolish marriage, I mean that the state does not recognize it for any purpose. So, if voluntary organizations want to solemnize marriage as a contract, then that's fine and good. Do that. If atheists want a marriage, then go to a non-religious notary or other private official and get one.

The government has no business (but it does, and has) licensing pastors to do anything state-related.

Marriage has performed the following governmental functions: 1. Presumption of paternity. 2. Presumptions of property disposition upon an intestate death. 3. Death benefits for government entitlements. $. Non-working spouse protections.

Abolish marriage and replace it with a domestic partnership, and give that partnership the trappings of the above.

Is this just semantics? No. Religions believe it is a religious function. As long as they believe that, you're going to have religions taking positions on what marriage should and should not be. The LDS Church takes no position on domestic partnerships. There is simply no other analogue where the government licenses pastors to perform a government function.

If you religous folks feel compelled to separate the religous marriage from civil marriage, the simple thing to do is for the churches to come up with thier own special name.

Just spitballing here, but perhaps the LDS Church could call their weddings ... celestial marriages, or temple marriages.

Even better, you can up with a entirely new name for an LDS wedding and trademark the word.

Then you will have no problem distinquishing your "marriages" from the "marriages" of the unworthy.

[LDSToronto]

I don't think I divorced this statement from its context as much as you might like people to think I did. Where does this sense of entitlement come from, Toronto? Don't I first have to accept the premise that if someone else has [x] and I don't, that must mean I'm somehow less of a human being, or, according to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that I'm somehow worth less in God's eyes in order for that sense of entitlement to take root? I'll grant you that refusing to accept that premise is easier said than done, Toronto, and it's a constant struggle (even for many of us who are straight-but-single in a family church).

The suggestion that homosexuals should practice celibacy (assuming they don't marry someone of the opposite sex) presumes inequality and displays a limited understanding of the importance of sexual relationships and committed relationships.

But what if, instead of demanding that the Church change in a way that might make life "easier" for me in the short run (such as by removing any potential mate's choice in the matter by arranging a marriage for me, as many of the Church's polygynous offshoots do), I simply refuse to accept the premise that God must love me less because someone else has [x] and I don't? Don't I have the free will to do that? Don't I have the power to choose how I respond to my circumstances, however difficult that choice may be? That's the problem I have with gays who want the Church of Jesus Christ to change to suit them.

If there is a god, I doubt he loves anyone less because someone else has something that another possesses. You bring up an interesting perspective, but I really wasn't looking at this from a "who does god love more" point of view.

You know what? Maybe the choice to live the Church's standards in spite of their circumstances is uniquely difficult for them, and maybe any choices I have to make in order to do the same as a single heterosexual are easy by comparison. But doesn't that put us back to, "Life is easier for someone else because they don't have to deal with [x], and I do, so I'm entitled?" Aren't we really saying that once life's "difficulty meter" passes a certain threshold, that fact removes our free will and ourr power to choose how to respond to ourr circumstances? Wasn't removing our power to choose a part of someone else's plan? And if he can convince someone that their only choice, given their circumstances, is to sin (from the Church's perspective) doesn't that accomplish the same objective?

This is your presumption, I argued a simpler point - Sexual relationships are important to human beings; suggesting one remain celibate ignores this important part of being human.

H.

Edited April 9, 2012 by LDSToronto

[Kenngo1969]

The suggestion that homosexuals should practice celibacy (assuming they don't marry someone of the opposite sex) presumes inequality and displays a limited understanding of the importance of sexual relationships and committed relationships.

You may be right on the first count (that I have a limited understanding of sexual relationships), but you're wrong on the second (that I have a limited understanding of committed relationships). Thanks fer playin'!

If there is a god, I doubt he loves anyone less because someone else has something that another possesses. You bring up an interesting perspective, but I really wasn't looking at this from a "who does god love more" point of view.

And therein lies part of the problem. If someone doesn't believe there is a God, I can certainly understand one doing all one can to imbue this life with meaning, even if (indeed, because) one believes adherence to a moral code which involves extreme sacrifices which will not, eventually, be rewarded.

This is your presumption, I argued a simpler point - Sexual relationships are important to human beings; suggesting one remain celibate ignores this important part of being human.

I'm a spiritual being on the earth to have a mortal experience, I'm not a mortal being on the earth to whom any life which comes after this is meaningless. And I intend to remain celibate unless and until I marry ... if, indeed, I ever do, and that's a big "If" at this point. If that makes me less of a human being according to some anonymous Internet poster's calculus, so be it. (No offense ...)

Edited April 9, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Sky]

I would not deny atheists anything.

When I mean abolish marriage, I mean that the state does not recognize it for any purpose. So, if voluntary organizations want to solemnize marriage as a contract, then that's fine and good. Do that. If atheists want a marriage, then go to a non-religious notary or other private official and get one.

The government has no business (but it does, and has) licensing pastors to do anything state-related.

Marriage has performed the following governmental functions: 1. Presumption of paternity. 2. Presumptions of property disposition upon an intestate death. 3. Death benefits for government entitlements. $. Non-working spouse protections.

Abolish marriage and replace it with a domestic partnership, and give that partnership the trappings of the above.

Is this just semantics? No. Religions believe it is a religious function. As long as they believe that, you're going to have religions taking positions on what marriage should and should not be. The LDS Church takes no position on domestic partnerships. There is simply no other analogue where the government licenses pastors to perform a government function.

So under your scenario, would divorce lawyers get to keep their jobs? What would a couple do if they were married according to the church, but not in a “domestic partnership” according to the state, but they decided to part ways? Who would decide custody of the children and the dividing up of assets? Who would keep track of the ex-husband to make sure he pays his child support?

[LDSToronto]

Well, I intend to remain celibate unless and until I marry ... if, indeed, I ever do, and that's a big "If" at this point. If that makes me less of a human being according to some anonymous Internet poster's calculus, so be it. (No offense ...)

We can play logic games if you'd like. For instance, I can now move one of my pieces on the chess board and show that you must think sexual relationships are unimportant. But I won't do that....

What I will point out is that the LDS Church has told you to remain celibate and, because there is a possibility of marriage in your future, you know that there is a Church-sanctioned end to your celibacy.

Your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have no such reprieve.

H.

[David T]

Ah, but to seperate marriage from the state, isn't that the goal? Go to city hall to register as domestic partners, go to the church to get married. If your an athiest and want the ceremony, hire a judge to pronounce you partners. You can still have a reception and get a bunch of gifts.

Why won't gays/athiest/??? go along with this? Because it's not civil rights they want, it's the approbation of their relationship. If there is any inkling of moral judgement against their choice-and getting married is undeniable a choice-then it is taken as de facto proof of hateful bigotry.

Why should we get butthurt over what the government institution is called if we recognize that it's different from our religious practice?

If the government decided to call granting of citizenship to their nation 'Baptism', would we be legislating against the government giving people Baptisms without Priesthood authority, or without going by God's Definition? Or could we just sit back and realize that there's no connection between a government legal action giving United States legal rights, and a spiritual belief concerning citizenship in the Kingdom of God?

Edited April 9, 2012 by David T

[Kenngo1969]

We can play logic games if you'd like. For instance, I can now move one of my pieces on the chess board and show that you must think sexual relationships are unimportant. But I won't do that....

Thanks.

What I will point out is that the LDS Church has told you to remain celibate and, because there is a possibility of marriage in your future, you know that there is a Church-sanctioned end to your celibacy.

I'd rate that chance as somewhere toward the "None" side between "Slim" and "None."

Your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have no such reprieve.

I don't think life is that simple. From what I understand, at least one of the people who participated in the panel at BYU chose something different from either complete celibacy or being sexually active in a homosexual relationship. And again, if I thought what happened in this life was the sole determinant of my happiness, I would feel unending sorrow at the lack of such a "reprieve." But I don't.

[Damien the Leper]

Ah, but to seperate marriage from the state, isn't that the goal? Go to city hall to register as domestic partners, go to the church to get married. If your an athiest and want the ceremony, hire a judge to pronounce you partners. You can still have a reception and get a bunch of gifts.

Why won't gays/athiest/??? go along with this? Because it's not civil rights they want, it's the approbation of their relationship. If there is any inkling of moral judgement against their choice-and getting married is undeniable a choice-then it is taken as de facto proof of hateful bigotry.

You assume that the title of marriage belongs to the conservatively moraled religious practitioners. Simply put...it does not.

Edit: poor word choice

Edited April 9, 2012 by Valentinus

[checkerman]

I find it interesting how those who view homosexuality as immoral are thrown the titles ignorant, stupid, incorrect, not understanding, or misinformed, etc. Sign of the times. Sign of the times.

You ignorantly assume that the title of marriage belongs to the conservatively moraled religious practitioners. Simply put...it does not.

[Jeff K.]

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.

Which petition has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made to the government, (aside from alleviation of persecution in the past, which I presume you do advocate, but now do not advocate or rather you advocate what you find acceptable to you, but then advocate against what is unacceptable and allow the church the same leeway?, chuckle, situational ethics; not just for breakfast anymore)

Any advocacy can be seen as as "force upon others" since one person's advocacy is another's persecution. What you are stating really is that if you are religious then you cannot advocate for moral things. That the church should not stand and speak out against what they see as moral issues. I find that to be not so much a slippery slope as I do the actual accomplishment of having fallen down the hill. "Shut up religious people" it is not your place nor the place of your organization to advocate morality in any sense of the word.

In no legal world is your definition of advocacy a violation of other peoples rights. Differences of opinion by their definitoin DO NOT mean one side is being persecuted and the other side is not being persecuted. Situational ethics as to what can and cannot be advocated based on what you do or do not like is a good philosophy to follow.

[Jeff K.]

You assume that the title of marriage belongs to the conservatively moraled religious practitioners. Simply put...it does not.

Edit: poor word choice

In fact marriage as an institution has always been religious, the state is the late comer in stating it is within the purview of the government.

[Damien the Leper]

I find it interesting how those who view homosexuality as immoral are thrown the titles ignorant, stupid, incorrect, not understanding, or misinformed, etc. Sign of the times. Sign of the times.

I edited my post to disinclude the word ignorant because of the very reason you chose to post this response. Playing the victim card does not help your cause. It is very much NOT a sign of the times. Your mischaracterization is disingenuous. I do not think the opponents of homosexuality to be stupid nor incorrect. Heterosexuals who cry immoral only do so from a conservative interpretation of scripture and conservative church policy. They lack the understanding of what it is like to be a homosexual with real emotion, desires, loves, etc. inside a human shell. They are limited to knowledge of their own heterosexuality and experience.

Likewise, it is also disingenuous to label those who see no problem with homosexuality as anti-family, anti-Mormon or anti-God. Therein lies ungodly ignorance.

[Damien the Leper]

Which petition has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made to the government, (aside from alleviation of persecution in the past, which I presume you do advocate, but now do not advocate or rather you advocate what you find acceptable to you, but then advocate against what is unacceptable and allow the church the same leeway?, chuckle, situational ethics; not just for breakfast anymore)

I disagree with the gov't forcing the LDS church to stop polygamy in the 19th century. That was a religious practice. Likewise, if a church wants to perform gay marriages because they believe it to be part of their religious practice then the gov't should not threaten disenfranchisement, or confiscation of property, etc. I am sorry for the injustice done against the LDS church prior to the 1890 Manifesto.

Any advocacy can be seen as as "force upon others" since one person's advocacy is another's persecution. What you are stating really is that if you are religious then you cannot advocate for moral things. That the church should not stand and speak out against what they see as moral issues. I find that to be not so much a slippery slope as I do the actual accomplishment of having fallen down the hill. "Shut up religious people" it is not your place nor the place of your organization to advocate morality in any sense of the word.

And it is yours? Or the LDS church's?

The church has every right to say what it THINKS or TEACHES to be moral but that is only binding on the church and no one else. As I said before, I don't think religious people should shut up but they do need to remember that their morals are theirs alone and are not necessarily relevant to the rest of society.

In no legal world is your definition of advocacy a violation of other peoples rights. Differences of opinion by their definitoin DO NOT mean one side is being persecuted and the other side is not being persecuted. Situational ethics as to what can and cannot be advocated based on what you do or do not like is a good philosophy to follow.

Then lets make sure a Federal Marriage Amendment doesn't happen.

[Jeff K.]

No victim should play the victim card, we should let the ignorant sleights of others that reveal their true feelings to go without acknowledging their bigotry against us. After all, if we even mention such we are tossing out the victim card. When is it allowable I wonder?

Lets ask Governor Boggs, oh darn there I go again, playing the victim card.

[Damien the Leper]

In fact marriage as an institution has always been religious, the state is the late comer in stating it is within the purview of the government.

Does this mean you also assume that non-religious practitioners 3500 years ago adhered to a religious practice? I'm not sure I know of a history professor who would agree with such a notion. Atheism is not a new concept that developed somewhere in the last 600 years.

[Damien the Leper]

No victim should play the victim card, we should let the ignorant sleights of others that reveal their true feelings to go without acknowledging their bigotry against us. After all, if we even mention such we are tossing out the victim card. When is it allowable I wonder?

Lets ask Governor Boggs, oh darn there I go again, playing the victim card.

Are you assuming that I have something against the LDS church? I do not. Because I disagree with some of its positions does not give reason to conclude such.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Which petition has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made to the government, (aside from alleviation of persecution in the past, which I presume you do advocate, but now do not advocate or rather you advocate what you find acceptable to you, but then advocate against what is unacceptable and allow the church the same leeway?, chuckle, situational ethics; not just for breakfast anymore)

I disagree with the gov't forcing the LDS church to stop polygamy in the 19th century. That was a religious practice. Likewise, if a church wants to perform gay marriages because they believe it to be part of their religious practice then the gov't should not threaten disenfranchisement, or confiscation of property, etc. I am sorry for the injustice done against the LDS church prior to the 1890 Manifesto.

I do not recall the church requiring the government to recognize marriage as official during those times.

Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Any advocacy can be seen as as "force upon others" since one person's advocacy is another's persecution. What you are stating really is that if you are religious then you cannot advocate for moral things. That the church should not stand and speak out against what they see as moral issues. I find that to be not so much a slippery slope as I do the actual accomplishment of having fallen down the hill. "Shut up religious people" it is not your place nor the place of your organization to advocate morality in any sense of the word.

And it is yours? Or the LDS church's?

The church has every right to say what it THINKS or TEACHES to be moral but that is only binding on the church and no one else. As I said before, I don't think religious people should shut up but they do need to remember that their morals are theirs alone and are not necessarily relevant to the rest of society.

It is binding on the church and those who belong to the church. The association is there, and the vast majority of opinion regarding God and the moral parameters are shared by both members and the church. The differences are nuanced at best. So I would say your question is an attempt to separate the people from their God or rather God's representative upon the earth and that simply doesn't work.

Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

In no legal world is your definition of advocacy a violation of other peoples rights. Differences of opinion by their definitoin DO NOT mean one side is being persecuted and the other side is not being persecuted. Situational ethics as to what can and cannot be advocated based on what you do or do not like is a good philosophy to follow.

Then lets make sure a Federal Marriage Amendment doesn't happen.

It only became an issue when groups chose to 1- curtail the law, and 2- ignore the legislature, and 3- attempt to make it nation wide.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

In fact marriage as an institution has always been religious, the state is the late comer in stating it is within the purview of the government.

Does this mean you also assume that non-religious practitioners 3500 years ago adhered to a religious practice? I'm not sure I know of a history professor who would agree with such a notion. Atheism is not a new concept that developed somewhere in the last 600 years.

Which non religious practioners would that be?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 09 April 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

No victim should play the victim card, we should let the ignorant sleights of others that reveal their true feelings to go without acknowledging their bigotry against us. After all, if we even mention such we are tossing out the victim card. When is it allowable I wonder?

Lets ask Governor Boggs, oh darn there I go again, playing the victim card.

Are you assuming that I have something against the LDS church? I do not. Because I disagree with some of its positions does not give reason to conclude such.

I am not assuming you have anything against the church, I am merely pointing out that sometimes people and groups really are victims, and sometimes they are not.

[Scott Lloyd]

The church can keep it's standards, absolutely. It just has to learn to deal with the obscurity and social irrelevance in a few years when it still espouses a definition of marriage that looks completely different from anything it's potential converts understand.

H.

I disagree that adherence to standards of morality makes the Church socially irrelevant. If anything, it becomes more socially relevant as moral standards at large slide downward, due to the contrast it offers.

In the past 50 years of my lifetime, I have observed a dramatically growing and widespread acceptance of extra-marital sex in society. Throughout that time period the Church has resolutely continued to condemn it as an abhorrent sin. Despite doomsday prophecies about slowing growth trends and such, the Church shows no signs of withering on the vine and, in fact, does continue to grow. It will continue to do so even if the SSA pressure groups get their way.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

Just spitballing here, but perhaps the LDS Church could call their weddings ... celestial marriages, or temple marriages.

Even better, you can up with a entirely new name for an LDS wedding and trademark the word.

Then you will have no problem distinquishing your "marriages" from the "marriages" of the unworthy.

How about government just abolish it altogether. What's so difficult about that?