Gay Marriage Support And Church Membership

[wenglund]

Is all I can tell you Wade, is that I am confident that DOMA and Prop 8 will both be overturned by the US Supreme Court precisely because there have been no strong legal argument supporting either one. And it doesn't really matter to me what basis the ruling takes. I am not a lawyer. But I am familiar enough with the laws of this country that I can see discrimination when it is staring me in the face. The majority of Americans both gay and straight also see that discrimination in these two laws. I just think the Supreme Court justices will also see discrimination and rule against both of them.

Of course there is discrimination. Such is the nature of most every law and public policy. Laws discriminate as to who is legally a citizen and who isn't, who can legally vote and who can't, who can be a legally licensed doctor or lawyer or teacher or financial advisor, etc., who can legally drive or not, who can legally drink or the conditions under which people can legally take certain drugs, what speed you can legally drive, who has right-of-way, who does or doesn't own certain property, who can or can't run for public offices, who is or isn't authorized to make legally biding judgments, who can or can't own guns, who is taxible or not and at what rate, and on and on.

With rare exception, the issue isn't whether laws discriminate or not (they do), but whether the discrimination makes sense and is in the state's interest.

In the case of state sanctioning of marriage, legislatures and judiciaries have determined that it is in the state's interest to discriminate FOR opposite-sex couples of majority age. They have not extended that discrimination to children, non-citizens, incestual relations, same-sex couples, human/animal relations, etc., because it isn't in the states interest, and may even be contrary to the states interest.

But, again, this doesn't matter to gay advocates. They don't care about the health and welfare of society. They only care about getting what they want.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund

[Buzzard]

Society forced the LDS church to give up their marriage beliefs under threat of taking all their property just over 100 years ago. Changing the meaning of marriage as a potential step towards denying churches tax exempt status for disagreeing isn't that slippery of a slope.

I heartiliy agree. As I listen to gay activists, the goal is not marriage, the goal is not legal "equality", whatever the heck that means, the goal is societal and religous acceptance of their actions. They may say that no church will be forced to marry gays, but there are lots of ways of "forcing". Taking away tax-exempt status for any instistution that does no toe the homosexuality-is-just-as-moral-as-traditional-marriage line is a good start.

I have already heard comparisons between defenders of traditional marriage and the KKK, with confident predictions that conservative religions will be destroyed if they don't accept practicing gays.

And if you object in the least farthing, you are causing the suicides of gay teens. It's the ultimate trump card, like when you got in an argument on the playground, and Suzie said "You're mean!".

[Tacenda]

I just had an epiphany of sorts. What if you wake up and look around you and see same sex couples everywhere. Then you are told to lose your partner who is the opposite sex as you. And if you're married, well that sucks for you. Now you better get a move on because what you are doing is immoral.

Maybe if we put ourselves in the gays shoes we may well see what they might feel. I think those that want to get married want to because it's a promise and a commitment of their love for each other. Just like heterosexuals that want that commitment under the law and God, if that's their choice. And as far as gays adopting a child, the birth mother usually gets to choose who she wants the parents of her child to go to.

I understand that I'll get flak for making this comment because in the bible it's a sin to lie with the same sex, etc. But it's also wrong to have short hair for women and wrong for women to pray in public as well in the bible. Also, there are more bible refs condemning certain heterosexual behaviors than homosexual behaviors.

But, I don't believe any religious institution needs to oblige them in any form in their ceremonies etc. For example I don't believe the LDS church must allow gays to marry in the temple. If it comes to that in the future, no problem.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Tacenda

[Jaybear]

Of course there is discrimination. Such is the nature of most every law and public policy. Laws discriminate as to who is legally a citizen and who isn't, who can legally vote and who can't, who can be a legally licensed doctor or lawyer or teacher or financial advisor, etc., who can legally drive or not, who can legally drink or the conditions under which people can legally take certain drugs, what speed you can legally drive, who has right-of-way, who does or doesn't own certain property, who can or can't run for public offices, who is or isn't authorized to make legally biding judgments, who can or can't own guns, who is taxible or not and at what rate, and on and on.

With rare exception, the issue isn't whether laws discriminate or not (they do), but whether the discrimination makes sense and is in the state's interest.

Very well said. That is a good start to a rational discussion of this very important issue.

In the case of state sanctioning of marriage, legislatures and judiciaries have determined that it is in the state's interest to discriminate FOR opposite-sex couples of majority age.

That's a good way to approach the issue. I think its fair and reasonable to say that when the legislatures originally created marriage laws they were not intending to discriminate against gays. Discrimination is merely incidental to creating marriage rights.

Its one thing to create and grant a benefit to one group that you single out to further the state interest, its quite another to pass a law to stick it to a group that you dislike.

Your analysis of motives does not fit in California and in DOMA, where they were not creating marriage rights, which incidentally discriminated against gays, but expressly (1)taking away an existing right; or (2) preventing gays them from acquiring rights (Doma).

Since you have pointed this out, do you understand the difference? Or does your opposition to gay marriage, hinder your ability to see the distinction, as a matter of principle?

The have not extended that discrimination to children, non-citizens, incestual relations, same-sex couples, human/animal relations, etc., because it isn't in the states interest, and may even be contrary to the states interest.

Now, you are simply resorting making up facts. People and legislators vote for legislation for a variety of reason, and sometimes no reason. I have heard Mormons acknowledge that they supported prop 8, because the LDS Church supported prop 8.

But, again, this doesn't matter to gay advocates. They don't care about the health and welfare of society. They only care about getting what they want.

This comment is inflammatory, unproductive and unnecessary. Its a shame that a post that started out with such promise of civil dialogue, degraded so quickly.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Jaybear

[KevinG]

Wade may be inflammatory in the way he states things but I don't believe any group should have to change their practices or positions because of my personal predilections, nature, habits, desires or any other characteristic. This includes the church I am a member of. I said before I would not insist my gay friend invite me to his gay men's band even though I am a good musician.

If the internal battle is between having full fellowship in a group that you believe is authorized by God to assist us in coming unto Christ for our salvation -or- clinging to our carnal nature... many people have made that difficult choice outside of homosexuality. Me included.

[wenglund]

Your analysis of motives does not fit in California and in DOMA, where they were not creating marriage rights, which incidentally discriminated against gays, but expressly (1)taking away an existing right; or (2) preventing gays them from acquiring rights (Doma)

Agreed. There are two sides of the "rational discrimination" and "state interest" coin--on one side of the coin, laws have been created to promote (rationally discriminate FOR) things that are in or promote the state's interest, whereas on the other side of the coin, laws have been created to prevent (rationally discriminate AGAINST) things that aren't in or may be against the states interest. Most marriage and families laws over the last two millennia have been a mixture of both, though primarily motivated by the former--which is what I was generally speaking to. The exceptions being laws discriminating against child, incestual, inter-racial and polygamous marriages.

However, because gay activist have in more recent times and in certain locals been somewhat successful through judicial fiat in foisting on the respective states things that were viewed as not in the state's interest, then for those of us concerned with states interest, we were prompted to work to protect against what we believe wasn't in or was against the state's interest. Prop 8 and DOMA are cases in point. These legislative actions would not have occurred and were necessitated because of actions that were perceived to be against the state's interest.

Since you have pointed this out, do you understand the difference? Or does your opposition to gay marriage, hinder your ability to see the distinction, as a matter of principle?

I have long understood it quite well.

Now, you are simply resorting making up facts. People and legislators vote for legislation for a variety of reason, and sometimes no reason. I have heard Mormons acknowledge that they supported prop 8, because the LDS Church supported prop 8.

Were I stating facts rather than opinion, and were I speaking in absolutes rather than as a general rule, and were I to have been speaking about public support rather than legislative argumentation, then you may have a point. However, I wasn't, and so you don'tt. Sorry.

This comment is inflammatory, unproductive and unnecessary. Its a shame that a post that started out with such promise of civil dialogue, degraded so quickly.

Speaking of civil dialogue degrading quickly, your hyper-sensative, misguided, and ironically unproductive and unnecessary knee-jerk reaction is duly noted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund

[Jaybear]

Wade may be inflammatory in the way he states things but I don't believe any group should have to change their practices or positions because of my personal predilections, nature, habits, desires or any other characteristic. This includes the church I am a member of. I said before I would not insist my gay friend invite me to his gay men's band even though I am a good musician.

I seem to recall quite a stink being made over here a few months about a Christian softball league that would not let the LDS Church field a team.

As for you supposed gay friend, you are free to ask, beg, plead to be invited to be invited, and complain loudly if they say no. Its a free country.

If people want to make a stink about how the LDS Church treats gays, its a free country. They have the right to make a stink.

If the internal battle is between having full fellowship in a group that you believe is authorized by God to assist us in coming unto Christ for our salvation -or- clinging to our carnal nature... many people have made that difficult choice outside of homosexuality. Me included.

I don't know what carnal desires you have given up to remain a member in good standing, but I am pretty sure it can't compare to the sacrifice demanded of homosexuals. You would ask gays to give up what most people treasure above all others. The lifelong love and affection of a spouse and children.

So what is this sacrifice that you feel give you ability to empathize with gay mormons?

[Jaybear]

Society forced the LDS church to give up their marriage beliefs under threat of taking all their property just over 100 years ago. Changing the meaning of marriage as a potential step towards denying churches tax exempt status for disagreeing isn't that slippery of a slope.

Church's rely on roads, fire protection, police, municipal utility services, and benefit from the protection of the army.

Tax exemption is a privilege not a right. Tax exemption means your church benefits from public generosity. Why should the public not have the right to put strings on these benefits.

At some in the future, I hope that tax exemption is denied to any organization that discriminates based on race, sex, national original, or sexual orientation.

[KevinG]

Church's rely on roads, fire protection, police, municipal utility services, and benefit from the protection of the army.

Tax exemption is a privilege not a right. Tax exemption means your church benefits from public generosity. Why should the public not have the right to put strings on these benefits.

At some in the future, I hope that tax exemption is denied to any organization that discriminates based on race, sex, national original, or sexual orientation.

Churches are non profit and benefit the community. That is why they are given exemption like any other non-profit charitable entity.

[Jaybear]

Churches are non profit and benefit the community. That is why they are given exemption like any other non-profit charitable entity.

The operative term is "given". What is given today, can be taken away tomorrow. Like i said, tax exempt status is a privileged, not a right.

[wenglund]

I don't know what carnal desires you have given up to remain a member in good standing, but I am pretty sure it can't compare to the sacrifice demanded of homosexuals. You would ask gays to give up what most people treasure above all others. The lifelong love and affection of a spouse and children.

So what is this sacrifice that you feel give you ability to empathize with gay mormons?

As with the issue of SSM, the question isn't about the degree to which individuals or groups may "sacrifice," but whether the costs, individually and collectively, are off-set by the benefits.

To believers, the benefits of exaltation far outweigh the cost of oft destructive immoral and/or aberrant sexual behaviors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

I seem to recall quite a stink being made over here a few months about a Christian softball league that would not let the LDS Church field a team.

And I was one of many who reaffirmed their right to make silly distinctions between "real Christians™ and Mormons.

As for you supposed gay friend,

Hes not supposedly gay, he's really gay. Life partner and all. You may recall the letter I wrote to him reaffirming his right to freedom of association and his response that he appreciated my note but since he wasn't religious the "marriage" issue wasn't a big deal for him.

you are free to ask, beg, plead to be invited to be invited, and complain loudly if they say no. Its a free country. If people want to make a stink about how the LDS Church treats gays, its a free country. They have the right to make a stink.

...and yet I choose to respect his choices and the laws that protect them. I do not make a stink about it. i do wish I had airfare to see one of his performances. I am proud of my friends accomplishments.

I don't know what carnal desires you have given up to remain a member in good standing, but I am pretty sure it can't compare to the sacrifice demanded of homosexuals. You would ask gays to give up what most people treasure above all others. The lifelong love and affection of a spouse and children.

So what is this sacrifice that you feel give you ability to empathize with gay mormons?

My struggles are none of your business unless of course you are called to me my Bishop and listen to my confessions. Suffice it to say:

1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

More important than if I can adequately empathize with homosexuals is can the Savior...

D&C 122:8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

Edited July 25, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

The operative term is "given". What is given today, can be taken away tomorrow. Like i said, tax exempt status is a privileged, not a right.

And the LDS Church is operating charitably and well within its rights, paying full taxes on commercial investments.

Are you advocating punishing those who you disagree with through tax warfare again?

I'm advocating the democratic ideal that anyone be allowed to exercise their rights according to the dictates of their own conscience. The LDS Church cannot make laws restricting your freedom of association and gays cannot make laws restricting the LDS Church, Boy Scouts or anyone else from freedom of association. (at least that's what the constitution tells me).

Edited July 25, 2012 by KevinG

[wenglund]

Church's rely on roads, fire protection, police, municipal utility services, and benefit from the protection of the army.

Tax exemption is a privilege not a right. Tax exemption means your church benefits from public generosity. Why should the public not have the right to put strings on these benefits.

At some in the future, I hope that tax exemption is denied to any organization that discriminates based on race, sex, national original, or sexual orientation.

Wrong--not that this is on-topic or any of your business. It is a right granted by the First Amendment and further clarified by the courts in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Waltz v. Tax Commission.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

The problem is not unrighteous dominion. It is dominion, period. The idea that Adam has dominion over Eve is offensive, as is the idea that Mormon men have dominion over their wives. Whether that dominion is righteous or unrighteous, the fact that men think they have such dominion is still offensive to anyone younger than 65 who is not already drinking the patriarchal cool-aid.

Yuck! Patriarchal cool-aid? I wonder if it tastes as bad as the Tea Party cool-aid I had at a party a few months ago...

[KevinG]

This whole thread seems to have gotten off topic.

There may be an apparent paradox in my support of gays and LDS to define domestic partnerships differently. However the common principle in my position for both is agency. I have repeatedly said if we took the financial benefit for marriage out of tax laws there would be no more incentive for anyone to have to define marriage for anyone else.

I contend that we are all subject to temptation and frustrations in this life and that obedience to Christ is the ultimate delivery from bondage. I don't enjoy denying the carnal man but I derive joy (the peace that surpasseth understanding) from following Christ. Stamping my feet and demanding the laws of God and the Universe change for my preferences will not benefit me or anyone else in the eternities.

So when you ask a Latter-day Saint to support homosexuals the will rightly do it in the same way they would support anyone else with a sin of any kind. Strengthen them to come into alignment with Christ's laws and obey the Gospel plan.

My friend has no design on becoming Mormon and so we are free to disagree on a fundamental point about morality. Yet we love and respect each other and support the others right to live according to the dictates their own conscience without demanding the others associations and beliefs accommodate our own desires.

Edited July 25, 2012 by KevinG

[Jaybear]

...and yet I choose to respect his choices and the laws that protect them. I do not make a stink about it. i do wish I had airfare to see one of his performances. I am proud of my friends accomplishments.

That is your choice.

My struggles are none of your business unless of course you are called to me my Bishop and listen to my confessions. Suffice it to say:

That's fine, but you are the one that made the comparison.

And the LDS Church is operating charitably and well within its rights, paying full taxes on commercial investments.

Didn't say otherwise.

Are you advocating punishing those who you disagree with through tax warfare again?

Punishment?: Lots of companies lose tax exempt status for not following the rules, or are simply not eligible.

I'm advocating the democratic ideal that anyone be allowed to exercise their rights according to the dictates of their own conscience. The LDS Church cannot make laws restricting your freedom of association and gays cannot make laws restricting the LDS Church, Boy Scouts or anyone else from freedom of association. (at least that's what the constitution tells me).

No one here, not even me, has suggested that the LDS Church be forced to stop kicking gays out of their organization. That right is sacrosanct.

I am simply suggesting what you already realize, that society may change in the future and that subsidizing organization who discriminate against gays may no longer be acceptable tax policy.

In a democracy, its the public that has the final say on who is and who is not worthy of the subsidy known as tax exempt status.

BTW, do your really think your God would change His doctrine to preserve US tax exempt status for His church? If so, that is pretty startling.

[Jaybear]

Wrong--not that this is on-topic or any of your business. It is a right granted by the First Amendment and further clarified by the courts in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Waltz v. Tax Commission.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I suggest that you keep you day job.

[wenglund]

I suggest that you keep you day job.

I suggest you stop pretending to be a lawyer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Stop twisting Jaybear. The LDS Church is not breaking any laws and you have no complaint against them for getting a tax exemption other than you don't like the way they operate.

The public has seen fit not to change exemption laws for charitable and religious organizations.

What is obvious here is that you are advocating or hoping in the future government will take a more substantial role in enforcing your beliefs while I am advocating government get out of the moral enforcement or encouragement business - even on those issues my personal beliefs support.

God would never change his doctrine but we have in the past been forced to change our practices due to the threat of having our property confiscated and the Saints jailed.

D&C 124:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their ^adiligence, and their enemies come upon them and ^bhinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to ^crequire that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

[tyler90az]

But, I don't think this is a trap. Rather, I think you just aren't getting it. The best argument against state sanctioned gay marriage is that their hasn't been a compelling case made that there is rational basis for it.

Be that as it may, if you are interested, here is a Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. Here is a Liberatrian Case Against Gay Marriage. Here is an Economic Case Against Gay Marriage. Here is a Gay Man's Case Against Gay Marriage. And, here is a Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Human rights.

What makes you any different then a gay? What if you were told you are a Latter-day Saint so you can not be married?

It is that simple.

That is the best argument I have heard for gay marriage. I have not heard one argument that matches that for the opposing side.

Edited July 25, 2012 by tyler90az

[KevinG]

Human rights.

What makes you any different then a gay? What if you were told you are a Latter-day Saint so you can not be married?

It is that simple.

That is the best argument I have heard for gay marriage. I have not heard one argument that matches that for the opposing side.

I had to get a separate marriage certificate issued by the state since they didn't accept my Temple marriage as a legally binding marriage.

Why not have the state deal in domestic partnerships and the church deal in whatever they want to call it (sealing, marriage, etc.) and the two leave each other alone?

I am not so much in opposition to gay partnerships no matter the name (semantics) I am opposed to any group dictating what a church can and cannot define their own sacraments as.

Jaybear's argument crosses the line from allowing freedom of expression and association (good) to wanting to use tax laws to dictate to private organizations what they can and cannot do (bad).

Edited July 25, 2012 by KevinG

[tyler90az]

I had to get a separate marriage certificate issued by the state since they didn't accept my Temple marriage as a legally binding marriage.

Why not have the state deal in domestic partnerships and the church deal in whatever they want to call it (sealing, marriage, etc.) and the two leave each other alone?

I am not so much in opposition to gay partnerships no matter the name (semantics) I am opposed to any group dictating what a church can and cannot define their own sacraments as.

Jaybear's argument crosses the line from allowing freedom of expression and association (good) to wanting to use tax laws to dictate to private organizations what they can and cannot do (bad).

I agree with you. It would be best if the government would "get out of the marriage business." Then marriage could be left up to the churchs where it belongs. For purpouses of finances, the government could handle civil unions.

I also agree that nobody should influence what a church does.

[altersteve]

Human rights.

What makes you any different then a gay? What if you were told your a Latter-day Saint so you can not be married?

It is that simple.

That is the best argument I have heard for gay marriage. I have not heard one argument that matches that for the opposing side.

You're misunderstanding the LDS position. It's not about us being "any different then [sic] a gay." We believe everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, was created equal and is loved by God unconditionally. But we also believe in marriage differently than other people do. To us it's not just a contract with the state, it's a contract with God. It's a sacred union between a man and a woman. That's it. If a man wants to be a legal partner with another man, then I say by all means go for it, and I don't give a flying flip what they want to call that partnership -- marriage, civil union, whatever. It's just terminology that really doesn't mean anything. But don't expect me to recognize that partnership as one God approves of.

Therefore, your hypothetical "you're LDS so you can't get married" argument is, as far as I'm concerned, meaningless and not at all persuasive.

[altersteve]

I agree as well that the state should have no place in marriage.