Gay Marriage Support And Church Membership

[Damien the Leper]

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).

The state should not recognize a temple marriage since the temple does not serve the state. Furthermore, the church is not a valid entity where the state is concerned and the state has no political, economical or moral obligation to any religious entity other than they are rightfully allowed to exist, have their opinions and have their religious practices that do no harm to American citizens or the members of religious insitutions. Nor is the state expected, and rightfully so, to uphold religious morality as a sufficient standard.

Keep in mind that religion doesn't own the insitution of marriage nor the title of it. Citing scripture and modern revelation is not a valid argument because it is asserting its truth claims as 'self evident' which does more harm to the camp that opposes SSM. Religion also does not own the 'copyrights' to determine the definition of marriage of any majority of U.S. citizenship. They may do so for their own religious institutions but not 'exceed their mandate' (as Obiwan said in "Attack of the Clones") by imposing their brand of morality on anyone else.

[Damien the Leper]

I can't speak for others, but I don't operate on that assumption.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Neither do I.

[CV75]

Arranging for her security after his death is an example of a male "taking care of" a fragile woman, so that plays into the patriarchy. His accounting to her his business with his father, that was portrayed by the author as rather dismissive. His mother's concern was unimportant, because he was with the Men, doing Man business. The story of the wine at the marriage comes across as Mary asking Jesus to intervene, which is actually a submissive act by Mary. It was not a portrayal of Mary directing Jesus to help out with the marriage in a subordinate role.

in each case, He submitted to His mother's requirements and gave accountability to her accordingly--you simply have a jaundiced view of the mother-Son relationship.

[Damien the Leper]

In observing my parents relationship, they equally preside and equally nurture. There is no submission by either to the other. It is, in essence, a real partnership. I accept this model an no other.

I'm also proud of my mother for having a career and working through each of her pregancies. There is nothing wrong with a man wanting to provide for his wife and kids just as there is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to provide for her husband and kids.

[altersteve]

Arranging for her security after his death is an example of a male "taking care of" a fragile woman, so that plays into the patriarchy.

I am unaware of any verse in the Bible which describes Mary as "fragile." But I do see a lot which implies the exact opposite.

[Cobalt-70]

But, that isn't a valid argument, let alone a rational basis argument (which is what I spoke to). It falsely presumes that state sanctioned marriage is a human right. It isn't. Rather, it is a limited right granted by the state. Were it a human right, then the state would be obliged to sanction marriages of under-age children, non-citizens, incestuous relations, human/animal relations, and polygamists, and marriages performed by any human, since they all involve humans. Because it is a right granted by the state, then the state has the right to grant marital sanctions to whomever, and reason would suggest that the state ought to make that decision based on state interest--i.e. where the costs are outweighed by the benefits.

You don't seem to understand the legal nature of "fundamental rights." A fundamental right means that the government cannot take infringe that right without a "compelling interest." For example, free speech is a fundamental right. That does not mean that the government can never limit or restrict speech. It just means that the government has to show a compelling interest--for example, some speech incites riots, or is fraudulent.

Marriage has already been ruled, by the U.S. Supreme Court, to be a fundamental right, in Loving v. Virginia. That's why states cannot take away the right to interracial marriage, even though interracial marriage was seen by many states as a radical affront to "traditional marriage." The justifications used to prohibit a black man from marrying a white woman were deemed not "compelling" because they were mainly racist, and in any event, scientifically unsupported. But there are legally-compelling reasons for government to restrict marriage, such as preventing the genetic problems relating to incest, and protecting people who are incapable of consent, such as children, from abuse.

Back in the late 1800s, Mormons used to think that marriage was a fundamental human right, and that government should not be allowed to restrict the right of a people to marry without a compelling reason. It's a little strange that Mormons today have done a 180 on this issue. It is even stranger, given how much emphasis Mormons place on marriage, that any Mormon would consider marriage not to be a fundamental right. Indeed, from the Mormon perspective, what could be more fundamental than the right to marry? But if it is a fundamental right, it is a right (subject to any compelling state interests) shared by all citizens, not just straight Mormons.

[wenglund]

The state should not recognize a temple marriage since the temple does not serve the state.

Many states recognize temple marriages.

Nor is the state expected, and rightfully so, to uphold religious morality as a sufficient standard.

Though, it may rightly do so if it so chooses.

Citing scripture and modern revelation is not a valid argument because it is asserting its truth claims as 'self evident' which does more harm to the camp that opposes SSM.

Scriptures are a valid argument among those who hold its claims to be true. That there may be those who don't hold its claims to be true, doesn't invalidate the argument for those who do.

Religion also does not own the 'copyrights' to determine the definition of marriage of any majority of U.S. citizenship. They may do so for their own religious institutions but not 'exceed their mandate' (as Obiwan said in "Attack of the Clones") by imposing their brand of morality on anyone else.

In a democratic republic, religion and religious people, if a majority, may rightly determine the definition of marriage and with some constitutional limits, enact their morality on everyone else.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tyler90az]

This doesn't make sense. Humans by their very nature are unequal, and they don't have a right to be otherwise. Some people are tall and others or short, some people are thin and others fat, some people are smart and others or not, some people are rich and others are poor. Short people don't have a human right to be tall. Fat people don't have a human right to be thin. Etc., etc. Certainly, it isn't the government's responsibility to ensure the right of short people to be tall.

A reasonable case can also be made that gay marriage can be harmful--physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

However, whether you realized it or not, you just underscored my argument. You just rightly abandoned the unfettered notions of human equality and human rights in favor of discrimination on the rational basis of preventing "harm." This is a giant step in the right direction. Now, if we can just get you to rightly consider the benefit side of the equation as well. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tyler90az]

In a democratic republic, religion and religious people, if a majority, may rightly determine the definition of marriage and with some constitutional limits, enact their morality on everyone else.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You will not be singing the same tune when we are not the majority.

[Cobalt-70]

In a democratic republic, religion and religious people, if a majority, may rightly determine the definition of marriage and with some constitutional limits, enact their morality on everyone else.

Not in a democratic republic that has the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which, despite the will of any majority, protects Due Process and Equal Protection--and therefore prohibits states from taking away fundamental rights without a compelling interest, or from treating people unequally under the law.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is none of the forum's business.

You know this is correct. The issue is between the person and the bishop.

[wenglund]

You don't seem to understand the legal nature of "fundamental rights."

I have no idea how you may have come to this false impression, but doing such things seems to come natural to you.

A fundamental right means that the government cannot take infringe that right without a "compelling interest." For example, free speech is a fundamental right. That does not mean that the government can never limit or restrict speech. It just means that the government has to show a compelling interest--for example, some speech incites riots, or is fraudulent.

Marriage has already been ruled, by the U.S. Supreme Court, to be a fundamental right, in Loving v. Virginia. That's why states cannot take away the right to interracial marriage, even though interracial marriage was seen by many states as a radical affront to "traditional marriage." The justifications used to prohibit a black man from marrying a white woman were deemed not "compelling" because they were mainly racist, and in any event, scientifically unsupported. But there are legally-compelling reasons for government to restrict marriage, such as preventing the genetic problems relating to incest, and protecting people who are incapable of consent, such as children, from abuse.

I am quite familiar with Loving, and while I have grave reservation about that court calling marriage a "'basic civil right of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival," which some have interpreted to mean "fundamental right," I accept the court's argument for so doing--i.e. in their opinion it met the Due Process test as being "deeply rooted in the Nations history and tradition."

This tells us how "marriage" became a so-called "fundamental right," whereas I have been primarily speaking to why it was instituted to begin with--i.e. the rational basis behind the state sanctioning certain "marriages".

Now, if you want to talk about marriage as a "fundamental right", I am happy to do so, though it won't be of any help to the gay activists. Why? Because this so-called "fundamental right", by definition or according to the DP test, only pertains to those marriages that are "deeply rooted in the Nations history and tradition" and which are "fundamental to our very existence and survival." In other words, this "fundamental right" is limited to marriages between a man and a woman. This means that state laws restricting in any way marriages between a man and women, must have a compelling state interest--which is why laws against inter-racial marriages were struck down.

This "fundamental right," by definition, does not apply to same-sex couples. Same-sex relationships or marriages are not "deeply rooted in the Nations history and tradition" nor "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

As such, if gay activist wish to have state sanctioned marriage selectively extended to them, or in other words, if they wish the state to selectively grant them this right, then, as was the case with marriage between a man and a woman, they need to make a convincing case that it is in the states interest to do so. If they are successful, then perhaps after suh marriages become deeply rooted in our Nations history and tradition, it may become a fundamental right for them as well, though they will be hard pressed to claim that such marriages are fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You will not be singing the same tune when we are not the majority.

Why wouldn't I? The tune I am singing is called "democracy."

By the way, in many demographic, political, and moral respects, I am far outside the majority.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

I am quite familiar with Loving, and while I have grave reservation about that court calling marriage a "'basic civil right of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival," which some have interpreted to mean "fundamental right," I accept the court's argument for so doing--i.e. in their opinion it met the Due Process test as being "deeply rooted in the Nations history and tradition."

This tells us how "marriage" became a so-called "fundamental right," whereas I have been primarily speaking to why it was instituted to begin with--i.e. the rational basis behind the state sanctioning certain "marriages".

Now, if you want to talk about marriage as a "fundamental right", I am happy to do so, though it won't be of any help to the gay activists. Why? Because this so-called "fundamental right", by definition or according to the DP test, only pertains to those marriages that are "deeply rooted in the Nations history and tradition" and which are "fundamental to our very existence and survival." In other words, this "fundamental right" is limited to marriages between a man and a woman. This means that state laws restricting in any way marriages between a man and women, must have a compelling state interest--which is why laws against inter-racial marriages were struck down.

No, you are wrong. Loving said that marriage is a fundamental right because marriage is deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions. It did not say there is only a fundamental right to marriages that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions. Otherwise, interracial marriage would not be a fundamental right, because such marriages were absolutely not, at the time, deeply rooted in American history.

This thread has turned political.