Church Response To Supreme Court Marriage Rulings

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I love this statement by the LDS Church. I am glad that the LDS Church, as an institution, is recognizing publicly that the way government is heading is troubling, instead of the "the government is good, we must obey" traditional approach.

[The Nehor]

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

There is no precedent to compel a member of a clergy to perform an ordinance of any kind or a marriage. This is certainly NOT such a precedent.

The only time a member of the clergy could be compelled to perform a marriage would be if they worked in that capacity for the government and their job was to sign and witness marriage agreements. Even then they would not act in any religious capacity and would certainly not have to go to a building owned by their faith to perform the marriage nor could they be compelled to.

[cdowis]

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 ...

We wish you all the best. You might check out the COC (Community of Christ).

[The Nehor]

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.

There is a massive difference between denying someone the ability to do something that violates the law and compelling a religious leader to do something that is legal and can easily be done by a representative of the government. The two cases are not comparable at all.

[cdowis]

There is no precedent to compel a member of a clergy to perform an ordinance of any kind or a marriage. This is certainly NOT such a precedent.

The only time a member of the clergy could be compelled to perform a marriage would be if they worked in that capacity for the government and their job was to sign and witness marriage agreements. Even then they would not act in any religious capacity and would certainly not have to go to a building owned by their faith to perform the marriage nor could they be compelled to.

1. There is no precedence for SSM -- thousands of years, in any culture. Precedence is not an issue for those who are determined to achieve their aims.

That is very naive.

2. The issue is not "forcing someone to do something", but to take away their legal right to do something, if they discriminate in the functioning of that duty. If you discriminate against performing SSM, they simply take away your ability to perform marriages, which is something granted under law by the state.

When you perform a marriage, you represent the state, and the state can decide whether you are allowed to continue that function.

To this point, the state of NY specifically exempted churches/clergy from the law when SSM became legalized.

[Stone holm]

There is a massive difference between denying someone the ability to do something that violates the law and compelling a religious leader to do something that is legal and can easily be done by a representative of the government. The two cases are not comparable at all.

Agree. I have no problem with the Church having stated its position regarding SSM, I do have a problem with the political jab that was at the beginning of the release, it was unnecessary and divisive. I agree with Reid on this one: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13546968

[The Nehor]

1. There is no precedence for SSM -- thousands of years, in any culture. Precedence is not an issue for those who are determined to achieve their aims.

That is very naive.

2. The issue is not "forcing someone to do something", but to take away their legal right to do something, if they discriminate in the functioning of that duty. If you discriminate against performing SSM, they simply take away your ability to perform marriages, which is something granted under law by the state.

When you perform a marriage, you represent the state, and the state can decide whether you are allowed to continue that function.

1 is factually wrong. Off the top of my head I know of two African tribes that had and equivalent of gay marriage.

2 is technically correct but there have never been any real steps taken to take away the clergy's power to marry. There has been noise about it but nothing has happened.

You seem to be denying something others go on about. I can never tell if I am arguing that the state is unlikely to force us to marry people in the temple or whether they will take away our ability to perform marriages at all. You seem to favor the latter view. While this would be annoying we already operate under that restriction in other nations and get along well enough.

As to being forced to perform marriages we are never forced to perform heterosexual marriages in the temple and we do reject people at our own discretion. Under what precedent could a homosexual couple demand entrance? Nothing passed in law lately.

[Stone holm]

1. There is no precedence for SSM -- thousands of years, in any culture. Precedence is not an issue for those who are determined to achieve their aims.

2. The issue is not "forcing someone to do something", but to take away their legal right to do something, if they discriminate in the functioning of that duty. If you discriminate against performing SSM, they simply take away your ability to perform marriages, which is something granted under law by the state.

Did you actually read the opinion? The DOMA opinion was based primarily on States Rights. Had the SCOTUS not dismissed the Prop 8 case based on lack of standing, it is very likely that we would have had a ruling that held a Constitutional right for gays to marry existed, because they dismissed it for lack of standing, there was no such ruling. So at least for awhile, conservative States can continue to discriminate. The results that came down were predicted by numerous legal scholars and should not have come as a big surprise. It was expected by many that the Prop 8 case would get dismissed for lack of standing and that the DOMA case would be decided on relatively narrow grounds based primarily on a States rights rationale. The DOMA decision followed the States rights rationale, but given the wording used by Kennedy, it seems somewhat clear that had he been forced to concur with the liberals in order to decide the Prop 8 case he probably would have. The jab in the release was not thought out very clearly. I don't remember the liberals complaining and criticizing our system of government when a non-custodial father's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance got dismissed for lack of standing.

[Stone holm]

1 is factually wrong. Off the top of my head I know of two African tribes that had and equivalent of gay marriage.

2 is technically correct but there have never been any real steps taken to take away the clergy's power to marry. There has been noise about it but nothing has happened.

You seem to be denying something others go on about. I can never tell if I am arguing that the state is unlikely to force us to marry people in the temple or whether they will take away our ability to perform marriages at all. You seem to favor the latter view. While this would be annoying we already operate under that restriction in other nations and get along well enough.

As to being forced to perform marriages we are never forced to perform heterosexual marriages in the temple and we do reject people at our own discretion. Under what precedent could a homosexual couple demand entrance? Nothing passed in law lately.

The viciousness of the anti-gay attacks by various religions has done much to provoke retaliation in kind by the LGBT community. High profile harping on this divisive issue by religious leaders is compounding the problem, not to mention alienating people who were either ambivalent or moderates on the issue. It has been argued that no organization has done more to ensure the success of the SSM movement than the Mormon Church, there is some truth to that statement -- especially when we issue press releases which contain pointless political jabs.

[Tacenda]

I saw a graph of this, but couldn't c/p. Interesting to read about the several unions that were allowed in the bible.

What is traditional marriage? In the bible there are several kinds. We have rapist + victim marriage, Dueteronomy 22:28-29. Man + brother's widow, Levirate marriage, Genesis 38:6-10. Man + Woman, Genesis 2:24, usually arranged. Man + wives + concubines. Man + woman + woman's property, including slaves, Genesis 16. Male slave + female slave, Exodus 21:4. Male Soldier + prisoner of war, Numbers 31:1-18. Dueteronomy 21:11-14. Man + woman + woman + woman (polygany).

I know these are male with female unions, but seems they weren't your traditional marriages. I'm sure there were LGBT unions that went underwraps. But surely they would have been stoned if found out. Maybe it takes a more civilized world to finally accept differences. God made these children, our children, other's children. Do they not deserve the respect we ourselves want. I want to post a video my daughter put on FB yestereday. It is showing how it would be if the gay person was the norm and the heterosexual not the norm. Puts you in their shoes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzFnV3vwqD0

[Damien the Leper]

I think the US gov't should stay out of religious unions and just as equally, the religious right should stay out of civil unions. Plain and simple. No harm, no foul.

[Stone holm]

I think the US gov't should stay out of religious unions and just as equally, the religious right should stay out of civil unions. Plain and simple. No harm, no foul.

Agreed.

[Damien the Leper]

That video was so sad, Tacenda. Some people who are consumed in their own ignorance will only see it as having an "agenda" to backwardly promote sin. The message is clear and those who scoff at the message do so in their own bigoted bed.

Thank you for sharing it.

[thesometimesaint]

1 is factually wrong. Off the top of my head I know of two African tribes that had and equivalent of gay marriage.

2 is technically correct but there have never been any real steps taken to take away the clergy's power to marry. There has been noise about it but nothing has happened.

You seem to be denying something others go on about. I can never tell if I am arguing that the state is unlikely to force us to marry people in the temple or whether they will take away our ability to perform marriages at all. You seem to favor the latter view. While this would be annoying we already operate under that restriction in other nations and get along well enough.

As to being forced to perform marriages we are never forced to perform heterosexual marriages in the temple and we do reject people at our own discretion. Under what precedent could a homosexual couple demand entrance? Nothing passed in law lately.

1. Technically true, but irrelevant to US. We don't get our marriage laws from Africa but from Roman law by way of England.

[The Nehor]

1. Technically true, but irrelevant to US. We don't get our marriage laws from Africa but from Roman law by way of England.

And the Romans got most of their ideas from the Greeks.............oh no...........

[thesometimesaint]

And the Romans got most of their ideas from the Greeks.............oh no...........

The Romans were positively prudes compared to the Greeks.

[Stone holm]

The Romans were positively prudes compared to the Greeks.

The Romans had some very peculiar attitudes towards family and heirship, etc. I don't think they were all that prudish, but it is clear that their obsession with heirship pushed them towards monogamy. Their extracurricular activities were another matter. The latter engrafting of Roman Culture onto Christianity created a slightly bizarre hybrid culture.

[Kenngo1969]

There is no precedent to compel a member of a clergy to perform an ordinance of any kind or a marriage. This is certainly NOT such a precedent.

The only time a member of the clergy could be compelled to perform a marriage would be if they worked in that capacity for the government and their job was to sign and witness marriage agreements. Even then they would not act in any religious capacity and would certainly not have to go to a building owned by their faith to perform the marriage nor could they be compelled to.

But there is precedent for government interference in rites practiced as a matter of religious faith. You may say that comparing the two is like comparing apples and Buicks; I say that comparing them is more like comparing apples and oranges.

[Stone holm]

But there is precedent for government interference in rites practiced as a matter of religious faith. You may say that comparing the two is like comparing apples and Buicks; I say that comparing them is more like comparing apples and oranges.

Nevertheless, I believe Nehor is absolutely dead on legally correct.

[Kenngo1969]

... As to being forced to perform marriages we are never forced to perform heterosexual marriages in the temple and we do reject people at our own discretion. Under what precedent could a homosexual couple demand entrance? Nothing passed in law lately.

Right. And we all know that the idea of law ever changing is simply ridiculous! If there's no precedent for such a thing happening now, there never will be any precedent for such a thing happening in the future! Anyone who says otherwise is simply a shrill, slippery-slope alarmist! It's not like there's any possibility that a future court will base a decision about how to rule in a lawsuit by an otherwise-devout gay couple demanding the right to be sealed in a temple on the following premise: "Most jurisdictions [all jurisdictions but one, perhaps?] and even most churches [all but one, perhaps?] now permit or perform gay marriages." That of course, is absolutely no reason to not allow Utah or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to continue on their marry ... Oops! I mean, merry ... way, while the rest of the world also does so ... in the opposite direction! The Court's decision in Reynolds was based, not on any legal considerations, but rather entirely on social disapproval ... not unlike several recent decisions of the current court.

[Kenngo1969]

Nevertheless, I believe Nehor is absolutely dead on legally correct.

Well, if that's your belief, that settles the entire issue for me! I have several mundane, day-to-day decisions I need to make, as well as several more weighty, life-impacting ones, and I could use your advice. Would you mind PM-ing me with some IRL contact info? Nehor's argument runs like this: (P1) There's no precedent for government, via the courts, dictating the religious practice of a church; (P2) Because there's no precedent for government dictating the religious practice of a church now, there's no reason to believe that the government will attempt to do so in the future; ( C) Ergo, there's no possibility that the government, via the courts, ever will attempt to dictate the sealing practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But in my view he's wrong about ( C) because he's wrong about (P1): There is precedent for government, via the courts, dictating the religious practice of a church in Reynolds v. United States. Granted, our First Amendment and Free Exercise jurisprudence is better developed now than it was then, but given the direction in which the Court (and in which religion and society in general, for that matter) has been moving of late, I don't see it suddenly slamming on the brakes after picking up so much downhill speed.

[The Nehor]

But there is precedent for government interference in rites practiced as a matter of religious faith. You may say that comparing the two is like comparing apples and Buicks; I say that comparing them is more like comparing apples and oranges.

There is precedent of them refusing to allow religious rites that are illegal or create situations that are against the law. That is still hardly comparable to compelling someone to performing a rite simply because it is technically legal.

Well, if that's your belief, that settles the entire issue for me! I have several mundane, day-to-day decisions I need to make, as well as several more weighty, life-impacting ones, and I could use your advice. Would you mind PM-ing me with some IRL contact info? Nehor's argument runs like this: (P1) There's no precedent for government, via the courts, dictating the religious practice of a church; (P2) Because there's no precedent for government dictating the religious practice of a church now, there's no reason to believe that the government will attempt to do so in the future; ( C) Ergo, there's no possibility that the government, via the courts, ever will attempt to dictate the sealing practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But in my view he's wrong about ( C) because he's wrong about (P1): There is precedent for government, via the courts, dictating the religious practice of a church in Reynolds v. United States. Granted, our First Amendment and Free Exercise jurisprudence is better developed now than it was then, but given the direction in which the Court (and in which religion and society in general, for that matter) has been moving of late, I don't see it suddenly slamming on the brakes after picking up so much downhill speed.

That precedent was for disallowing religious activity that is itself illegal, a very different situation. If Reynold v. United States had gone the other way then any act could be excused based on claiming it to be a religious practice. Drug use, suicide, self-mutilation. If you state it as an absolute and since we are being liberal with slippery slopes you can add theft, rape, and murder too.

Right. And we all know that the idea of law ever changing is simply ridiculous! If there's no precedent for such a thing happening now, there never will be any precedent for such a thing happening in the future! Anyone who says otherwise is simply a shrill, slippery-slope alarmist! It's not like there's any possibility that a future court will base a decision about how to rule in a lawsuit by an otherwise-devout gay couple demanding the right to be sealed in a temple on the following premise: "Most jurisdictions [all jurisdictions but one, perhaps?] and even most churches [all but one, perhaps?] now permit or perform gay marriages." That of course, is absolutely no reason to not allow Utah or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to continue on their marry ... Oops! I mean, merry ... way, while the rest of the world also does so ... in the opposite direction! The Court's decision in Reynolds was based, not on any legal considerations, but rather entirely on social disapproval ... not unlike several recent decisions of the current court.

I disagree. I find the court's answer in the recent case a soft-pedalling non reply based on a correct interpretation of standing laws. I also believe the Reynold's decision was in conformity with law. Establishing that religious activity is free to violate the law is a scary precedent. I personally dislike the decision because it had a negative influence people I care about (ancestors) but I would be more afraid of a court that legalized all religious precepts.

As to the Court one day ordering us to perform marriages, yes, it could happen. This is not a step towards it. If it were to happen it is more likely we should be worried about being lined up and shot or put in camps rather then then sanctity of the temple. It would be flee into the wilderness time long before that. As I have stated before if the courts wanted to force people into the temple and are likely to favor the idea surely they would already be forcing it through with heterosexual couples we exclude due to worthiness issues.

[The Nehor]

The Romans were positively prudes compared to the Greeks.

And that is not saying much. Sulla is probably one of the more interesting examples here. Retires to a permanent orgy.

[Avatar4321]

There is no precedent to compel a member of a clergy to perform an ordinance of any kind or a marriage. This is certainly NOT such a precedent.

The only time a member of the clergy could be compelled to perform a marriage would be if they worked in that capacity for the government and their job was to sign and witness marriage agreements. Even then they would not act in any religious capacity and would certainly not have to go to a building owned by their faith to perform the marriage nor could they be compelled to.

The Precedent is to use marriage laws to persecute the Church

[Stone holm]

There is precedent of them refusing to allow religious rites that are illegal or create situations that are against the law. That is still hardly comparable to compelling someone to performing a rite simply because it is technically legal.

That precedent was for disallowing religious activity that is itself illegal, a very different situation. If Reynold v. United States had gone the other way then any act could be excused based on claiming it to be a religious practice. Drug use, suicide, self-mutilation. If you state it as an absolute and since we are being liberal with slippery slopes you can add theft, rape, and murder too.

I disagree. I find the court's answer in the recent case a soft-pedalling non reply based on a correct interpretation of standing laws. I also believe the Reynold's decision was in conformity with law. Establishing that religious activity is free to violate the law is a scary precedent. I personally dislike the decision because it had a negative influence people I care about (ancestors) but I would be more afraid of a court that legalized all religious precepts.

As to the Court one day ordering us to perform marriages, yes, it could happen. This is not a step towards it. If it were to happen it is more likely we should be worried about being lined up and shot or put in camps rather then then sanctity of the temple. It would be flee into the wilderness time long before that. As I have stated before if the courts wanted to force people into the temple and are likely to favor the idea surely they would already be forcing it through with heterosexual couples we exclude due to worthiness issues.

Interestingly, the Church in its Supreme Court brief made cultural arguments that you could just about have swapped with arguments made in U.S. v. Reynolds. The peyote and the Native American Church cases are kind of interesting in that the Feds prosecuted members of the Native American Church for the use of peyote as a sacrament. Sen. Orrin Hatch tried to create an exception for them with the Native American Religious Restoration Act, but it got declared illegal as violating the Establishment Clause. I think that it is basically paranoia speaking as to the government requiring the Church to perform a religious ritual. It is possible that eventually the power to perform secular marriages may be taken away from religious officials in general -- that really wouldn't affect us that much, it would just mean that we simply did sealings in the Temple instead of marriages. Sealings do not confer any legally enforceable obligations and so they would not be the subject of government action.