Gay Marriage Support And Church Membership

[Cobalt-70]

Agreement with the church's political positions has never been a factor in temple recommend interviews or standing in the church. The church has a right to take political positions, but church members have a right to make up their own mind. It would be very disturbing if the church ever exercised its influence to compel votes on a particular issue. I couldn't think of a truer exercise of "unrighteous dominion," or a more disgraceful PR move for the church. But rightly, the church doesn't go there.

Political issues are a difficult issue for the church. When the church starts mucking in the filthy world of politics, it has to be willing to get itself stained by that filth. Politics is, by nature, half manipulation and half fearmongering. The church leadership has the stewardship to guide the church through temporal affairs, and has to make the decision in each instance whether mucking with politics is worth the cost. I believe they are left to their own intellectual devices in this process (and the advice from their lawyers), because frankly I don't think Jesus really cares much about politics, if his attitude during his lifetime was any indication. The church has made dire political mistakes in the past, and can easily do so again today. But sometimes, you can't see those mistakes for what they are until long after the fact.

[Sleeper Cell]

Agreement with the church's political positions has never been a factor in temple recommend interviews or standing in the church. The church has a right to take political positions, but church members have a right to make up their own mind. It would be very disturbing if the church ever exercised its influence to compel votes on a particular issue. I couldn't think of a truer exercise of "unrighteous dominion," or a more disgraceful PR move for the church. But rightly, the church doesn't go there.

Political issues are a difficult issue for the church. When the church starts mucking in the filthy world of politics, it has to be willing to get itself stained by that filth. Politics is, by nature, half manipulation and half fearmongering. The church leadership has the stewardship to guide the church through temporal affairs, and has to make the decision in each instance whether mucking with politics is worth the cost. I believe they are left to their own intellectual devices in this process (and the advice from their lawyers), because frankly I don't think Jesus really cares much about politics, if his attitude during his lifetime was any indication. The church has made dire political mistakes in the past, and can easily do so again today. But sometimes, you can't see those mistakes for what they are until long after the fact.

Perhaps the reason that the filthy world of politics is so filthy has something to do with the reluctance of good people to get involved.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Actually, what Burke really said is far more compelling:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

I do not see the reluctance of Jesus to get involved in the politics of the despotic regimes of his day as an indication he doesn’t really care much about the politics of the democracies of our day. He certainly was not reluctant to muck around in a filthy world, even to the extent of being willing to have his reputation stained by associating with disreputable people.

Your point about the Church making political mistakes in the past is well taken. I also believe that church leaders are often left to their own intellectual devices, even in purely religious matters. However, this does not mean that church leaders do not also receive revelation, even in political matters.

[Buzzard]

The line is perfectly clear. You have the ability to disagree with the churches stand on a particular issue. You can even go out and declare publicly that you disagree with the church's stand on a particular issue. And you will not have a problem with your membership, nor in most cases, with you TR, if you hold one. But if you declare that the leadership of the church is out to lunch, you will be having an uncomfortable discussion in your bishops office.

Exhibit A is Sonia Johnson. She ran around the country for months promoting "Mormons for ERA", and was left alone. But a few weeks after calling the brethren a "savage misogyny", she wasn't a Mormon any more.

[Buckeye]

The line is perfectly clear. You have the ability to disagree with the churches stand on a particular issue. You can even go out and declare publicly that you disagree with the church's stand on a particular issue. And you will not have a problem with your membership, nor in most cases, with you TR, if you hold one. But if you declare that the leadership of the church is out to lunch, you will be having an uncomfortable discussion in your bishops office.

Exhibit A is Sonia Johnson. She ran around the country for months promoting "Mormons for ERA", and was left alone. But a few weeks after calling the brethren a "savage misogyny", she wasn't a Mormon any more.

This is my understanding too. When the church takes a position on a political issue, even a moral one, that position is based on the church leader's own wisdom and judgment, but not on a revelation from God. The church's newsroom recently made this point clear in correcting a NY Times Article that erroneous stated the church's opposition to the ERA was based on revelation:

Neil J. Young, a Princeton professor, says the Church’s weighing in on the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s was “based on a revelation.” This is incorrect.

(emphasis added) See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news-getting-it-right-june-20

Thus, when Harry Reid, Joanna Brooks, or any other member takes a view contrary to the church's on the issue of civil SSM, they are not at odds with God, because the church's position is not based on revelation. Members have publicly disagreed with the church on its political positions for many years - from SSM, to the ERA, to the missle defense system, to Prohibition, and most recently to the church's desire to rezone parts of the MTC complex in Provo to build a seven-story tower. So long as members keep their disagreement to the politcal issue itself - as opposed to openly demagoging the brethren - they are on solid ground.

A good way to approach this topic is to consider a ballot initiative for a school levy (we have a lot of those here in Ohio). Citizen A has children in the school system and so naturally desires to have the levy pass. Citizen B is retired and on fixed income. She naturally does not want her taxes to increase. It is natural for Citizen A and B to vote differently on the issue because they have different desires. That does not make either of them "wrong."

Politics is about determining what is popular, not what is right. When I enter the voting booth, I have to obligation to vote my conscience - which is premised on my experiences and desires. On the issue of civil SSM, my experiences and desires differ from those of the church. That doesn't mean either of us is "wrong".

[wenglund]

I am not sold on gay marriage one way or the other. The only thing is I have never heard a good argument or even a reasonable argument against gay marriage. Could somebody enlighten me? I am all for getting a firm position on this issue if you would do that for me.

First of all, you have it exactly backwards. Reasonably, in order for the state to assume the additional costs of sanctioning so-called same-sex marriages, it needs to be demonstrated, via the legislature, as was the case with heterosexual marriages, that the benefit to the state outweighs the costs. In other words, those arguing for same-sex marriage have the burden of making their case, not those opposed to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

First of all, you have it exactly backwards. Reasonably, in order for the state to assume the additional costs of sanctioning so-called same-sex marriages, it needs to be demonstrated, via the legislature, as was the case with heterosexual marriages, that the benefit to the state outweighs the costs. In other words, those arguing for same-sex marriage have the burden of making their case, not those opposed to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Two questions:

1. What are these additional costs to the state for gay marriage? Last I heard, people had to pay a fee to get a marriage license issued?

2. Do you believe that society exists to serve the interests of the people, or that people exist to serve the interest of society?

[USU78]

Two questions:

1. What are these additional costs to the state for gay marriage? Last I heard, people had to pay a fee to get a marriage license issued?

2. Do you believe that society exists to serve the interests of the people, or that people exist to serve the interest of society?

It's all about the Benjamins . . .

Just two items, among many, many more:

If the homosexually bound-together get quasi-marriage rights to benefits when one or the other is employed by the state, the state pays more for the service performed.

[wenglund]

Two questions:

1. What are these additional costs to the state for gay marriage? Last I heard, people had to pay a fee to get a marriage license issued?

The costs include, among others, the cost of marital/family disputes--including litigating those disputes, tax credits, and various benefits often delineated in congressional hearings and judicial cases involving marriage law, which cost are far from being offset by marriage license fees (which typically only cover the cost of doing the paper work). Obviously.

2. Do you believe that society exists to serve the interests of the people, or that people exist to serve the interest of society?

Huh? Society is people.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It's all about the Benjamins . . .

Just two items, among many, many more:

If the homosexually bound-together get quasi-marriage rights to benefits when one or the other is employed by the state, the state pays more for the service performed.

And, since the state is also composed of tax-paying and government regulated business, the cost to those business for extension of family/marriage benefits will impact the economy of the state, and thus the state, itself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

The state should get out of the business of providing financial incentives for any kind of marital arrangement. Even though it would cost me $ to live under an equitable system (lots of dependents here) if the taxes were blind to marriage the issue of gay rights to marriage would dissipate greatly.

[Jaybear]

The costs include, among others, the cost of marital/family disputes--including litigating those disputes, tax credits, and various benefits often delineated in congressional hearings and judicial cases involving marriage law, which cost are far from being offset by marriage license fees (which typically only cover the cost of doing the paper work). Obviously.

Oh, the indirect costs.

Sorry, but if society is going to provide a tax break to married couples upon the death of the spouse, then its not kosher to deny the same benefits to same sex couples, just because it would save the government money. Gays pay taxes too my friend.

Huh? Society is people.

Sounds like something Mitt Romney would say.

[KevinG]

Mitt might very well say society is people since he was Harvard educated and knows the difference between "individual" and "people".

I think Jaybear meant to argue individual vs. society not people vs. society.

[Jaybear]

It's all about the Benjamins . . .

Just two items, among many, many more:

If the homosexually bound-together get quasi-marriage rights to benefits when one or the other is employed by the state, the state pays more for the service performed.

Oh come on. We all know know that opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Don't come here and say its all about the Benjamins. We both know that's not true.

[KevinG]

Oh come on. We all know know that opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Don't come here and say its all about the Benjamins. We both know that's not true.

I think it is opposition to having a group demand others redefine what they claim is moral or imposing through the law rules and associations the larger society had defined as immoral.

There is a long libertarian streak in the West and imposing minority policy on the majority never sits well.

The movement to re-define marriage has at least some of its basis in the Benjamins or the issue of benefits would never have come up.

[tyler90az]

First of all, you have it exactly backwards. Reasonably, in order for the state to assume the additional costs of sanctioning so-called same-sex marriages, it needs to be demonstrated, via the legislature, as was the case with heterosexual marriages, that the benefit to the state outweighs the costs. In other words, those arguing for same-sex marriage have the burden of making their case, not those opposed to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

America is a not Fascist country. Therefore, it is not only what impacts the state but also American citizens.

[USU78]

Oh come on. We all know know that opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Don't come here and say its all about the Benjamins. We both know that's not true.

I have found that, over the years, a cui bono analysis of a piece of proposed legislation or alleged "betterment" of society will nearly always reveal who is behind the proposition or the "betterment" and why it is being pursued.

Example from a few years back in Utah: Several MSWs started making the rounds making very loud noises about the dangers to children of unregulated (Attorney arranged) adoptions. The MSWs proposed that the then requirement that foreign jurisdiction adoptions be accompanied by a home study be extended to attorney arranged adoptions. They succeeded, and the requirement that a home study be included became universal in all non-stepparent adoptions in Utah.

Guess who gets to perform the home studies. That's right! The very MSWs who proposed the change in legislation. They produced no evidence to support the notion that adoptions w/o home studies were somehow more risky for children . . . just spouted pious platitudes about "protecting the helpless."

And now they make a very nice living doing home studies . . . that were never demonstrated to be necessary or even desirable.

"Gay marriage" advocacy, IMNSHO, is another of these: there is payola to somebody, and it's not just purchased votes.

[wenglund]

Oh, the indirect costs. Sorry, but if society is going to provide a tax break to married couples upon the death of the spouse, then its not kosher to deny the same benefits to same sex couples, just because it would save the government money.

I am sorry, but your emotive reactions fail to follow the logic very carefully. We aren't just talking about the government saving money. We are talking about the rational precept of benefits outweighing the costs, where the cost/benefits extend beyond money to include factors like population, quality of life, virtues, and other things that help sustain and enable the state/society to progress--things typically delineated during legislative hearings and judicial review. This is the rational basis for most, if not all public policy decisions, which means that for those who wish to change existing public policy (such selectively extend government marital sanctions to same-sex couples), the burden rests with them to make their cost/benefit case for doing so.

Gays pay taxes too my friend.

The payment of taxes, itself, is not justification for selectively extending state sanctions or against selectively offering tax incentives. Just because a gay person pays taxes doesn't mean the state should grant them medical licenses or vehicle licenses on the basis alone, and for good reason. Please, try a little harder to think these things through.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 23, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Oh come on. We all know know that opposition to gay marriage is rooted in the belief that homosexuality is immoral. Don't come here and say its all about the Benjamins. We both know that's not true.

This is the myth you continue to perpetuate against all of the authoritative evidence to the contrary. I suppose, though, you need to perpetuate this myth because your gay cause doesn't stand a chance on rational basis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

This is the myth you continue to perpetuate against all of the authoritative evidence to the contrary. I suppose, though, you need to perpetuate this myth because your gay cause doesn't stand a chance on rational basis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What evidence supports your assertion that opposition to gay marriage is rooted by the financial costs you cited.

Google, and 30 seconds of effort leds me the following:

Moral Objections Cited Most

The most common reasons given for objecting to gay and lesbian marriage are moral and religious. Asked in an open-ended format their main reason for opposing gay marriage, more than a quarter of opponents (28%) explicitly cite the view that homosexuality is immoral, a sin, or inconsistent with biblical teaching, and another 17% say the idea simply is in conflict with their religious beliefs. One-in-five who oppose gay marriage explain their position in less moral, and more literal terms, saying that the definition of marriage involves a man and a woman (16%), or that the purpose of marriage is reproduction (4%).

Other issues that frequently come up in the debate over gay marriage are not the primary factors in the public's mind. Just 1% say they oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it undermines traditional families, and just 1% refer to possible legal or governmental problems, or the possibility of people taking advantage of such laws to get economic benefits. http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Where is the "CHURCH" going in this whole gay marriage issue as it relates to the support by members?

What do those here believe when it comes to membership and temple recommendations?

If a member "openly" supports  state and national amendments for gay marriage, are they following the teachings of the Prophet?  If not, should their TR be revoked and/or should they be excommunicated?  

Is the support of gay marriage a violation of the teachings of our Prophet or not?

Is this a question that is too controversial for this forum?

I don't think gay marriage (or the support thereof) is one of the questions. The Church however can never support it, nor will.

[wenglund]

America is a not Fascist country. Therefore, it is not only what impacts the state but also American citizens.

You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Regarding the U.S., the government, or rather the "state", is of the people, by the people, and for the people. When we speak of "state" interest, we are essentially speaking about the interests of the people comprising and governed by the "state." When we are talking about costs/benefits to the state, we are essentially talking about the costs/benefits to us as a people.

With that correction now out of the way, let's get back to my point about you having gotten exactly backwards who it is that has the burden for making their case in regards to selectively extending state marital sanctions to same-sex couples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

What evidence supports your assertion that opposition to gay marriage is rooted by the financial costs you cited. Google, and 30 seconds of effort leds me the following:

You could have saved yourself 30 seconds and simply recalled my prior posts--you know, the one's where I have argued exclusively cost/benefit analysis (state interest), and you asserted as you have here, sans evidence and contrary to authoritative evidence (me and what I had documented), that my argument was rooted in religious morals, which I authoritatively denied and went on to point to various legislative and judicial records where the issue was also settled on the basis of state interest rather than on morality.

This is not to say that there aren't people out there whose position on this issue is motivated by religious morals. There are--as the survey you quoted suggests. But, this is a separate from what I have been doing and what occurs in the legislature and judiciary--which is what I was speaking to. If you doubt what I am saying, I invite you again to read through the recent legislative and judicial records on the Defense of Marriage act or civil unions/same-sex marriage legislation). It is exactly as I claimed, it is about state interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tyler90az]

You speak as though the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Regarding the U.S., the government, or rather the "state", is of the people, by the people, and for the people. When we speak of "state" interest, we are essentially speaking about the interests of the people comprising and governed by the "state." When we are talking about costs/benefits to the state, we are essentially talking about the costs/benefits to us as a people.

With that correction now out of the way, let's get back to my point about you having gotten exactly backwards who it is that has the burden for making their case in regards to selectively extending state marital sanctions to same-sex couples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In your previous post you stated, "if the state should assume the cost." That made it look like you were strictly looking at rather it would make the state money or not. Thanks for the explanation.

I do not understand why you are talking about burden of proof. Even so, I put in my previous post I have not heard one good argument against gay marriage. That would then mean I have heard some good ones for it. Are you wanting me to tell you the arguments I have heard or what are you trying to pull from me?

[Damien the Leper]

When politics overlaps into issues of morality it becomes the business of church leadership. local ecclesiastical leaders and indeed all church members.

Not when it deals with my own voting matters. If the church has an opinion on a subject so be it. I support their ability to have an opinion but that is the extent of it. This, however, does not change my position on sexual behavior.

[Damien the Leper]

My Bishop does not enter the voting booth with me and my local state representative is not invited to my Temple recommend interview.

This is solid gold DOCTRINE!