Church Response To Supreme Court Marriage Rulings

[BCSpace]

Salt Lake City — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement today regarding the decisions announced by the United States Supreme Court on cases involving marriage:

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings

The Church has not given up the fight. It merely picks it's battles and I'd say it picks well.

[The Nehor]

I have given up this fight. I think the church will too and. Move onto something more productive. You can argue we should continue to fight on principle but by that logic we should still be actively advocating for Prohibition.

[EllenMaksoud]

I am a constitutionalist. People get these ideas that this country stands for certain ideas that they don't. Some of these people that try to make blanket laws regulating the actions of others need to read some early American and English History. For example we have guns mentioned in our Constitution and Bill of rights because of the excesses of the English government of the time. Ideas about separation of church and state went into those documents for good reason, not because some old guys sat in a pub drinking ale and thought they were a good idea.

Look back and think about Constantine, the Bizantines, Martin Luther, and many more instances where clerics got themselves in control of the government and then committed crimes like burning at the stake, beheadings, and the inquisition. Look how they bullied Copernicus and Galeleo. The separation of church and state is in those documents for good reason.

I personally think that the idea that the Mormon church would be required to perform gay marriages is paranoid. The separation of church and state is well documented, so they can not make laws requiring that. And sometimes it takes leaders a while to get it right.

There is a group trying to use me as a stalking horse in spite of the fact that I am not part of that group. Ignorant people sometimes believe terrible, wounding things about some of us that are not true. Some people are still fixed on the idea that I am trans-gendered when I am actually inter-sex and they do not know the difference. These ideas are so wounding and hurtful that they have driven me to distraction.

So, if you are going to fight for right in this country at least know what our founding documents say and what the hell they are there for!

[Kenngo1969]

... I personally think that the idea that the Mormon church would be required to perform gay marriages is paranoid. ...

Count me paranoid, then. http://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/lds-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/

The separation of church and state is well documented, so they can not make laws requiring that. And sometimes it takes leaders a while to get it right. … So, if you are going to fight for right in this country at least know what our founding documents say and what the hell they are there for!

Begging your pardon, Ma’am, but where in any of the founding documents of the United States is the concept of separation of church and state located? (Yes, the Constitution does have Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, respectively, and while these concepts might be related to the concept of separation of church and state, they are not the same thing.)

[EllenMaksoud]

Count me paranoid, then. http://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/lds-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/

Begging your pardon, Ma’am, but where in any of the founding documents of the United States is the concept of separation of church and state located? (Yes, the Constitution does have Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, respectively, and while these concepts might be related to the concept of separation of church and state, they are not the same thing.)

This has gotten to bizarre for me. http://archive.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/separation_cs_primer.asp

I spent over 30 years in a denomination that preached hate. If the Mormons are going to do it now, I am so out of here ...

[EllenMaksoud]

Count me paranoid, then. http://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/lds-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/

Begging your pardon, Ma’am, but where in any of the founding documents of the United States is the concept of separation of church and state located? (Yes, the Constitution does have Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, respectively, and while these concepts might be related to the concept of separation of church and state, they are not the same thing.)

Um, I'm sorry, could I back up and re-state that?

I love the church. I'm really vulnerable to extreme thought right now; heard so much of it before. People are telling me the Muslims are going to kill me. They are all over the College. I don't see any evidence that anyone is going to try it.

We need to not be carried away by the heat of the moment is all.

[Kenngo1969]

Um, I'm sorry, could I back up and re-state that?

I love the church. I'm really vulnerable to extreme thought right now; heard so much of it before. People are telling me the Muslims are going to kill me. They are all over the College. I don't see any evidence that anyone is going to try it.

We need to not be carried away by the heat of the moment is all.

As I stated in the blog post linked above, my only consolation is that it will be some time before gay marriage achieves the level of sociopolitical acceptance at which someone then will attempt to use legal means in an effort to change the sealing practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But neither the Church of Jesus Christ nor the vast majority of its members condone hate: only a tiny fraction of the Church's membership can be said to "hate" gays. Conversely, those who hold the views that (1) marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and (2) sex outside of marriage is wrong, are hated by a much, much larger proportion of the gay community. While I do not support gay marriage, my views on what rights gay couples ought to be afforded actually are quite moderate and reasonable, as I think this blog post illustrates. http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/telling-managers-what-to-say-at-the-doj/. But that's not good enough for militant gay-marriage backers. With due respect, the vast majority of those who accuse the Church of Jesus Christ of fostering hate against gays need to look in the mirror.

[jwhitlock]

SCOTUS basically chose a cowardly way out of the situation, with the effect of saying that the will of the people doesn't matter. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the decision.

I fully agree with the church's statement. It is also clear that it is very possible in the future that action will be taken against the church because of its stand in support of marriage. That's become steadily more apparent for quite a while now.

[jwhitlock]

As I stated in the blog post linked above, my only consolation is that it will be some time before gay marriage achieves the level of sociopolitical acceptance at which someone then will attempt to use legal means in an effort to change the sealing practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But neither the Church of Jesus Christ nor the vast majority of its members condone hate: only a tiny fraction of the Church's membership can be said to "hate" gays. Conversely, those who hold the views that (1) marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and (2) sex outside of marriage is wrong, are hated by a much, much larger proportion of the gay community. While I do not support gay marriage, my views on what rights gay couples ought to be afforded actually are quite moderate and reasonable, as I think this blog post illustrates. http://greatgourdini...say-at-the-doj/. But that's not good enough for militant gay-marriage backers. With due respect, the vast majority of those who accuse the Church of Jesus Christ of fostering hate against gays need to look in the mirror.

Absolutely, totally correct.

[EllenMaksoud]

SCOTUS basically chose a cowardly way out of the situation, with the effect of saying that the will of the people doesn't matter. I'm thoroughly disgusted with the decision.

I fully agree with the church's statement. It is also clear that it is very possible in the future that action will be taken against the church because of its stand in support of marriage. That's become steadily more apparent for quite a while now.

I hope not to live to see it.

[Mark Beesley]

Count me paranoid, then. http://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/lds-polygamy-and-gay-marriage/

No need for paranoia. It is an easy fix for the Church. It goes like this: Temples are no longer used for marriages, only sealing. Any member seeking to have their marriage sealed in a temple, must first provide proof of civil marriage, performed by civil authorities.

It is the same thing that is done in many countries, but then it is at the instigation of the civil authorities who require a civil ceremony. We'll just turn it around and make the civil ceremony a requirement of the Church rather than (or in addition to) the government. (If the Church has good legal counsel, it may already be looking at implementing such a change.)

Gay sealings will never occur in LDS temples.

[Avatar4321]

No need for paranoia. It is an easy fix for the Church. It goes like this: Temples are no longer used for marriages, only sealing. Any member seeking to have their marriage sealed in a temple, must first provide proof of civil marriage, performed by civil authorities.

It is the same thing that is done in many countries, but then it is at the instigation of the civil authorities who require a civil ceremony. We'll just turn it around and make the civil ceremony a requirement of the Church rather than (or in addition to) the government. (If the Church has good legal counsel, it may already be looking at implementing such a change.)

Gay sealings will never occur in LDS temples.

We shouldn't have to "fix" anything.

Nor should we have to destroy marriage to create fixes.

[jwhitlock]

No need for paranoia. It is an easy fix for the Church. It goes like this: Temples are no longer used for marriages, only sealing. Any member seeking to have their marriage sealed in a temple, must first provide proof of civil marriage, performed by civil authorities.

It is the same thing that is done in many countries, but then it is at the instigation of the civil authorities who require a civil ceremony. We'll just turn it around and make the civil ceremony a requirement of the Church rather than (or in addition to) the government. (If the Church has good legal counsel, it may already be looking at implementing such a change.)

Gay sealings will never occur in LDS temples.

While I also hope that gay sealings will never occur in LDS temples, I don't think the church restructuring its requirements like this would stop groups like Affirmation from posing legal challenges anyway. Purely subjective terms such as "rights": and "discrimination" are being so broadly misapplied in the case of SSM that I think there is a good chance that there will be at least a legal attempt to force the church to provide "equality" in administering the ordinances.

Of course, time will tell. But the distinct possibility is there.

[Mark Beesley]

While I also hope that gay sealings will never occur in LDS temples, I don't think the church restructuring its requirements like this would stop groups like Affirmation from posing legal challenges anyway. Purely subjective terms such as "rights": and "discrimination" are being so broadly misapplied in the case of SSM that I think there is a good chance that there will be at least a legal attempt to force the church to provide "equality" in administering the ordinances.

Of course, time will tell. But the distinct possibility is there.

I'm not worried.

[jwhitlock]

I'm not worried.

Yet there could be a bit of an ugly time before the full division of Zion and the world gets settled out.

[Kenngo1969]

No need for paranoia. It is an easy fix for the Church. It goes like this: Temples are no longer used for marriages, only sealing. Any member seeking to have their marriage sealed in a temple, must first provide proof of civil marriage, performed by civil authorities.

It is the same thing that is done in many countries, but then it is at the instigation of the civil authorities who require a civil ceremony. We'll just turn it around and make the civil ceremony a requirement of the Church rather than (or in addition to) the government. (If the Church has good legal counsel, it may already be looking at implementing such a change.)

Gay sealings will never occur in LDS temples.

I hope you're right. Time will tell.

[Kenngo1969]

While I also hope that gay sealings will never occur in LDS temples, I don't think the church restructuring its requirements like this would stop groups like Affirmation from posing legal challenges anyway. Purely subjective terms such as "rights": and "discrimination" are being so broadly misapplied in the case of SSM that I think there is a good chance that there will be at least a legal attempt to force the church to provide "equality" in administering the ordinances.

Of course, time will tell. But the distinct possibility is there.

What he said!

[Ron Beron]

Um, I'm sorry, could I back up and re-state that?

I love the church. I'm really vulnerable to extreme thought right now; heard so much of it before. People are telling me the Muslims are going to kill me. They are all over the College. I don't see any evidence that anyone is going to try it.

We need to not be carried away by the heat of the moment is all.

For a number of years I studied Buddhism and many well-meaning LDS told me to be careful. Buddhism is extremely peaceful as is all religions if practiced correctly. I agree with you, While the framers of the U.S. Constitution were religionists they were concerned that any particular faith would try and prevail over government. Their intent was to keep religion from influencing the mechanics of government, but understood the nature of religion and the positive input had on the citizenry so they forbade government interference with that. It has and will continue to fail in this.

[The Nehor]

While I also hope that gay sealings will never occur in LDS temples, I don't think the church restructuring its requirements like this would stop groups like Affirmation from posing legal challenges anyway. Purely subjective terms such as "rights": and "discrimination" are being so broadly misapplied in the case of SSM that I think there is a good chance that there will be at least a legal attempt to force the church to provide "equality" in administering the ordinances.

Of course, time will tell. But the distinct possibility is there.

If the day ever comes that someone attempts to compel church leaders to perform marriages then the government will be so far gone from the Constitution and reason that at that point we would be beyond legalities and reason. The idea that this slippery slope will take us there seems farfetched.

If they are willing to persecute and single out LDS to that degree they will probably be arresting or killing us not forcing us to perform marriage rites.

[Avatar4321]

If the day ever comes that someone attempts to compel church leaders to perform marriages then the government will be so far gone from the Constitution and reason that at that point we would be beyond legalities and reason. The idea that this slippery slope will take us there seems farfetched.

If they are willing to persecute and single out LDS to that degree they will probably be arresting or killing us not forcing us to perform marriage rites.

They have tried to force us not to perform marriage rites in the past. I don't see how unreasonable it is to think they might do the opposite now.

[thesometimesaint]

Begging your pardon, Ma’am, but where in any of the founding documents of the United States is the concept of separation of church and state located? (Yes, the Constitution does have Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, respectively, and while these concepts might be related to the concept of separation of church and state, they are not the same thing.)

Lets hear from the people whom actually had a hand in the writing of the US Constitution.

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

― Author of the Bill of Rights Thomas Jefferson

“Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself - that is my doctrine.”

― The author of the Age of Reason Thomas Paine

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

---James Madison Man author of US Constitution

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

---First Vice President and second President of US

“One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.”

---Thomas Paine

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

---George Washington Presided at 1st Constitutional Convention, and first President of US

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”

---Thomas Paine

[Avatar4321]

None of those are Founding Documents.

[thesometimesaint]

“The next time believers tell you that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word 'trinity.' The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Mormon, Latter-day Saint, Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural,Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible.”

--Dan Barker

Moreover The Treaty of Tripoli has the same legal status as the US Constitution.

To wit: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

PS; If we're going to go with "original intent" then I would think it imperative to know exactly what that original intent was.

[jwhitlock]

If the day ever comes that someone attempts to compel church leaders to perform marriages then the government will be so far gone from the Constitution and reason that at that point we would be beyond legalities and reason. The idea that this slippery slope will take us there seems farfetched.

If they are willing to persecute and single out LDS to that degree they will probably be arresting or killing us not forcing us to perform marriage rites.

History does repeat itself from time to time. The precedent is already out there.

[Stone holm]

The idea that the Framers of the Constitution were religionists is faux history. While most were Masons, they were not particularly noted for their religious views or faith. The key actors were guided by Enlightenment principles . Madison in particular, who drafted the Constitution was very concerned that church and state be kept separate and expressed regret about the tradition of having a Congressional chaplain having gotten started.