Gay Marriage And What It Could Mean The Lds Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wanna disclose your age?  

 

I'm 43 and I expect marriage equality for gay couples in every state within my lifetime.

I'll just predict that 35 years from now, the definition of marriage in Utah will be what it is today.

 

That would put you within the average life expectancy.

[rockpond]

I'm guessing such lack of agreement would stem from your personal rejection of the definition given by prophets and apostles of marriage as being between a man and a woman (see "The Family: a Proclamation to the World."

 

I learned a long time ago, on the high school debate team, that definition of terms makes a crucial difference.

 

Nah... I accept that definition as the one currently being used by our prophets & apostles and I believe, as the Proclamation says that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman.  I'm just not personally convinced of it as God's exclusive definition.  And it is not the universally accepted legal definition which is why I was really surprised that the temple-given definition of the Law of Chastity was not altered in the latest film (since that definition hinges on the terminology of legal/lawful spouse).

 

And, before you ask, no -- I am not saying that this suggests in any way the Brethren are waffling on the issue of gay marriage WRT the L of C.  I know where they stand.  Well, at least where some of them stand.  Some never really mention it.

[california boy]

I don't expect to see it in Utah within my lifetime.

 

Of course, the term "relatively short time" is, um, relative, and I don't know how you define it.

Is all it would take is for the courts to follow constitutional law rather than religious beliefs and gay marriage would become legal in Utah.  Granted that is a long shot for Utah judges to base their opinions on law rather than their religious beliefs, but who knows, it could happen.  

 

There is currently a lawsuit against the state of Utah

 

This is what the state is basing its defense on.

 

Attorneys for the state of Utah are defending a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and woman, saying it promotes the state's interest in "responsible procreation" and the "optimal mode of child-rearing."

 

 

Now if someone can give me a rational reason why "responsible procreation" is a factor in denying gay couples the right to marry, I would love to hear it.  After all, gay couples can not procreate irresponsibly.  It is physically impossible.  And how does gay marriage affect "optional mode of child-rearing"?  Are straight couples all the sudden not going to raise children?  Is it optional for gay couples to raise their children outside the bonds of marriage?  This is a defense that has proven to fail in the court rooms throughout the country time and time again.  The only reason it would work in Utah is because judges have the latitude to base their court decisions based on their religion rather than constitutional law.

[CV75]

Nah... I accept that definition as the one currently being used by our prophets & apostles and I believe, as the Proclamation says that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman.  I'm just not personally convinced of it as God's exclusive definition.  And it is not the universally accepted legal definition which is why I was really surprised that the temple-given definition of the Law of Chastity was not altered in the latest film (since that definition hinges on the terminology of legal/lawful spouse).

 

And, before you ask, no -- I am not saying that this suggests in any way the Brethren are waffling on the issue of gay marriage WRT the L of C.  I know where they stand.  Well, at least where some of them stand.  Some never really mention it.

 

(…jumping/butting in late…again!)

 

Of course it is not the "universally accepted legal definition" of marriage because here are how the words are used: “Legal” as used in Latter-day Scripture parlance (D&C 68: 16, 18, 20; D&C 107: 16, 76). “Lawful” as in ecclesiastically lawful per the many OT, NT, Book of Mormon references, and with specific regard to marriage, D&C 49:15-17 and D&C 132.

 

As long as the Brethren sustain the others in their quorums that do mention where the Church (the Lord) stands, they are as good as mentioning where they too stand. Now just because they represent the Lord's will in this matter, will you suggest that some might harbor doubts and might have an agenda to move the Church toward that which is not construed as legal/lawful in the D&C?

 

What alternate definitions vis-à-vis “a man and a woman” has God used for marriage?

[rockpond]

(…jumping/butting in late…again!)

 

Of course it is not the "universally accepted legal definition" of marriage because here are how the words are used: “Legal” as used in Latter-day Scripture parlance (D&C 68: 16, 18, 20; D&C 107: 16, 76). “Lawful” as in ecclesiastically lawful per the many OT, NT, Book of Mormon references, and with specific regard to marriage, D&C 49:15-17 and D&C 132.

 

As long as the Brethren sustain the others in their quorums that do mention where the Church (the Lord) stands, they are as good as mentioning where they too stand. Now just because they represent the Lord's will in this matter, will you suggest that some might harbor doubts and might have an agenda to move the Church toward that which is not construed as legal/lawful in the D&C?

 

What alternate definitions vis-à-vis “a man and a woman” has God used for marriage?

 

That's a great explanation of legal & lawful as used in the temple definition of the LoC.  It still surprises me that they didn't further clarify it in the latest temple film but clearly those scriptures provide an adequate backing for the terminology used.

 

I don't think that sustaining each other means full agreement with everything that they say.  I think that historically we've seen disagreements among the Fifteen without considering them as no longer sustaining each other.

 

I think the only agenda harbored by Brethren is a desire to lead the Church in the way that is pleasing to the Lord.

 

As I said, I believe that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman.  I don't think we really have much more from Him beyond that.  I don't see that we've been given enough from Him to decisively conclude that gay couples should be excluded.

[thesometimesaint]

Wanna disclose your age?  

 

I'm 43 and I expect marriage equality for gay couples in every state within my lifetime.

 

I'm 62, and can find no legal way to prevent it. That is entirely different than promoting it, or requiring any church to officate at a ceremony.

[blooit]

This. The head of the Church (the queen) endorsed the idea. It seems logical the church should follow. Non governmental churches will not face this weird grey area.

 

I respectfully disagree.  This fight still has very far to go.  If they can put an end to religious marriage (plural marriages), they can institute "marriages of equality."  I predict they will begin by simply not acknowledging temple marriages, much like in Europe, but eventually remove the church's tax exempt status because the church is a "discriminatory organization."  They could even label them a hate group.  Believe me, this has many directions it can go other than just a judge ruling against the church.

[thesometimesaint]

Such moves would be impossible to enforce in this country. Churches are not common carriers, or public institutions.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The title of this thread should say "Gay Marriage And What It Could Mean for the LDS Church."So I Saw this story over on the Blaze.http://www.theblaze....e-sex-nuptials/I find it interesting that now that it is legal to marry of in England that that is not enough. This guy is wanting force the church into accpeting or performing thier marriage. I am telling you now that this is a type of thing that will happen in this nation when and if gay marriage is made legal er put on the same platform as traditional marriage.

Our Church is also and employer, which could force Gay marriage or marriage equality, along with health can that would required us to fun abortion.

[blooit]

Such moves would be impossible to enforce in this country. Churches are not common carriers, or public institutions.

 

I don't mean to be dismissive, but I just don't think history supports this stand.  There is very little that is impossible to enforce, even in our nation.  I'm old enough to remember the general public saying that gay marriage could never fly in this nation.  I believe you will see this battle in your lifetime.  In fact, I'd be surprised if we make it out of this decade before you see strong pressure on the church to perform gay marriages.  Again, we can agree to disagree, but I think history shows that governments go much further than people expect and in this case we are moving so fast I feel like I can see it coming a mile away.  

 

If I could add one example.  If I am a landlord, in most areas I cannot deny someone to rent from me because they are gay.  This despite the fact that I might own the property am not a common carrier or public institution. Religion will only be sheltered for so long. 

[thesometimesaint]

I don't mean to be dismissive, but I just don't think history supports this stand.  There is very little that is impossible to enforce, even in our nation.  I'm old enough to remember the general public saying that gay marriage could never fly in this nation.  I believe you will see this battle in your lifetime.  In fact, I'd be surprised if we make it out of this decade before you see strong pressure on the church to perform gay marriages.  Again, we can agree to disagree, but I think history shows that governments go much further than people expect and in this case we are moving so fast I feel like I can see it coming a mile away.  

 

If I could add one example.  If I am a landlord, in most areas I cannot deny someone to rent from me because they are gay.  This despite the fact that I might own the property am not a common carrier or public institution. Religion will only be sheltered for so long. 

 

I'm old enough to remember Loving v Texas, but then I'm older than dirt.

 

To me laws must have at least some very persuasive secular purpose, and the miscegenation laws really did not even come close to that minimal standard. 

 

I see medium pressure right now, but not from any law or proposed law. There really isn't an overriding secular purpose to enforcing anti-discrimination laws concerning SSM on nonpublic institutions. IE; I could if I wanted to form a club, church, social group that excludes everyone not named Fred(Not sure how popular it would be), but I could do it. There is nothing in law or any proposed law that says I can't.

 

Assuming for a moment any church can make any rule they want concerning whom can or can't be a member. I don't see any huge demand from our members asking for rules to allow SSM within the Church.

 

Rentals are covered by the Common Carrier provisions of the law.

[altersteve]

Gay marriage is now legal in Hawaii. I predict this will result in the Church making headlines regarding BYU Hawaii somehow.

[california boy]

Same Sex Marriage ruled legal by New Mexico Supreme Court  That makes 17 and counting.  Every single time gay marriage comes before the state supreme courts, they rule in favor of gay marriage.  The arguments against it have no legal standing.  This time the court ruled unaminously.  Part of the ruling stated this:

 

We conclude that the purpose of New Mexico marriage laws is to bring stability and order to the legal relationship of committed couples by defining their rights and responsibilities as to one another, their children if they choose to raise children together, and their property.

Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution.

 

 

It seems like a disconnect when the church is fighting marriage laws that bring stability and order to legal relationship of committed couples given their stance on sex outside of marriage.  I know that the church regards all gay sex as being against the law of chastity, but there is really no scriptural or doctrinal backing for that position.  Do you think that the church at some point will reconsider this policy given the direction gay marriage is headed?  Perhaps a statement disavowing of this policy as being the position of the leaders of "their times"

[Stargazer]

Same Sex Marriage ruled legal by New Mexico Supreme Court  That makes 17 and counting.  Every single time gay marriage comes before the state supreme courts, they rule in favor of gay marriage.  The arguments against it have no legal standing.  This time the court ruled unaminously.  Part of the ruling stated this:

 

 

It seems like a disconnect when the church is fighting marriage laws that bring stability and order to legal relationship of committed couples given their stance on sex outside of marriage.  I know that the church regards all gay sex as being against the law of chastity, but there is really no scriptural or doctrinal backing for that position.  Do you think that the church at some point will reconsider this policy given the direction gay marriage is headed?  Perhaps a statement disavowing of this policy as being the position of the leaders of "their times"

 

I am having a hard time figuring how you can say there is "there is really no scriptural or doctrinal backing for that position".  It's a feature of the Ten Commandments seen in the light of the Law of Moses against same-sexual-relations, and I don't think you can claim that it was only the Law of Moses that forbade homosexual relations, and now that it is fulfilled, it's OK.  Given that Paul made some rather cogent pronouncements about it, it appears that the prohibition continues post-Christ.

 

I don't think that it is suddenly going to be revealed by some future collegium of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve that God was actually kidding when He said marriage was only between opposite sexes, as found in the Proclamation on the Family.  Or that the FP & Q12 back in those benighted days were wrong and marriage is between any two people regardless of anything at all -- which is where we appear to be heading.

 

For all of human history, with some very exceptional occasions, marriage has been a matter of opposites.  The fact that there is only a smidgeon of scriptural verses about it seems more along the line of "everybody knows all about it, so we don't need to go into this in detail over and over".  Once it is said, it seems that it is said.  Vain repetitions and all that. 

[strappinglad]

I would like to find some documentation for the existence of or petitioning for SSM in any time in recorded history other than the present. Had it been a relatively common occurrence during his day , it is probable that Paul would have had something to say about it. Homosexual alliances were quite common with the Greeks, particularly older men with younger men. Did this lead to legal marriage contracts?  Those on the board with extensive knowledge of past civilizations might want to fill in the voids I  and others have .

[california boy]

I am having a hard time figuring how you can say there is "there is really no scriptural or doctrinal backing for that position".  It's a feature of the Ten Commandments seen in the light of the Law of Moses against same-sexual-relations, and I don't think you can claim that it was only the Law of Moses that forbade homosexual relations, and now that it is fulfilled, it's OK.  Given that Paul made some rather cogent pronouncements about it, it appears that the prohibition continues post-Christ.

 

I don't think that it is suddenly going to be revealed by some future collegium of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve that God was actually kidding when He said marriage was only between opposite sexes, as found in the Proclamation on the Family.  Or that the FP & Q12 back in those benighted days were wrong and marriage is between any two people regardless of anything at all -- which is where we appear to be heading.

 

For all of human history, with some very exceptional occasions, marriage has been a matter of opposites.  The fact that there is only a smidgeon of scriptural verses about it seems more along the line of "everybody knows all about it, so we don't need to go into this in detail over and over".  Once it is said, it seems that it is said.  Vain repetitions and all that. 

Well you are skipping over a lot of the facts on this subject.  And I guess you have to in order to justify denying gay couples from  marriage.  Yes there are a handful of scriptures talking about homosexual sex outside of marriage in the Old Testament.  There are even more about heterosexual sex outside of marriage.  How does that support the idea of discriminating against gay couples from receiving the blessings of temple marriage?  If anything, the 10 commandments support the idea that sex should be within the confines of marriage.  Paul is not talking about homosexual sex within the confines of marriage.  So you have no scriptural basis for condemning homosexual relations within the confines of marriage.  God does not seem to be so hung up on homosexuality as is currently the policy.  Christ never mentioned it the whole time He was on the earth.  Nor is it mentioned in the entire Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price.

 

The only thing you could possibly say is that current church leaders are using the scriptures against homosexuality out of the confines of marriage to project that God must be against ALL homosexual relationships.  It is a total assumption on your part and their part.  I realize it is current policy.  But that policy was not directed by modern day revelation.

 

What is more in keeping with scripture is encouraging all of God's children to only have sexual relations within the confines of marriage.  What is more in keeping with scripture is to not discriminate against anyone even if they are gay.  What is more in keeping with the scriptures is to find a spouse and be married rather than be celibate.  Church leaders have in the past had harsh words for young men who avoid marriage. What is MORE in keeping with the scriptures is that the plan of salvation is a path leading back to God for all of His children. These are principles repeated over and over again in all of the scriptures. One has to disregard all of these eternal principles in order to justify not encouraging gay people to marry.

[california boy]

I would like to find some documentation for the existence of or petitioning for SSM in any time in recorded history other than the present. Had it been a relatively common occurrence during his day , it is probable that Paul would have had something to say about it. Homosexual alliances were quite common with the Greeks, particularly older men with younger men. Did this lead to legal marriage contracts?  Those on the board with extensive knowledge of past civilizations might want to fill in the voids I  and others have .

Same sex marriage has been going on long before the time of Christ and continued for centuries around the world, including Greece, Rome, Egypt, China etc.  It was even practiced in the early Christian church until "christian" emperors started to burn gays alive in front of the public and made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences.  This persecution of gays happened 300-500 years after Christ.  Persecution and discrimination continued until present times and still continues today in many parts of this country and the world.

 

From Wikipedia

[strappinglad]

Thanks CB, it seems there were incidents of SS unions even though legal marriages were not accepted in many societies. The 'celebrity class' appear to be the ones who practiced the unions but that is probably because our knowledge of the doings of the mass of society is pretty thin.

[rockpond]

I don't think that it is suddenly going to be revealed by some future collegium of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve that God was actually kidding when He said marriage was only between opposite sexes, as found in the Proclamation on the Family.  Or that the FP & Q12 back in those benighted days were wrong and marriage is between any two people regardless of anything at all -- which is where we appear to be heading.

 

A)  God did not author the proclamation on the family.  It is not claimed to be a revelation.

 

B)  The Proclamation does not say that "marriage was only between opposite sexes".  It says that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.  It does not exclude the possibility of God ordaining other types of marriage.

 

C)  The FP & Q12 teachings, even things taught over many decades, can apparently be disavowed and written off as incorrect.  So, I agree, we may be headed that direction.

[rongo]

A)  God did not author the proclamation on the family.  It is not claimed to be a revelation.

 

It's interesting. It seems to me that those who want the maximum amount of authority to be contained in the anonymous "Newsroom/Gospel Topics" article on lds.org "with historian input" seek the most to minimize the PoF in authority and importance (specific clauses and sections of it).

 

Isn't this a selective double standard? 

[rockpond]

It's interesting. It seems to me that those who want the maximum amount of authority to be contained in the anonymous "Newsroom/Gospel Topics" article on lds.org "with historian input" seek the most to minimize the PoF in authority and importance (specific clauses and sections of it).

 

Isn't this a selective double standard? 

 

Well, first the Gospel Topics section is not a newsroom site, it's part of the main LDS.org website which appears to be where we publish all of our doctrine.

 

And if there are different levels of authority & importance to these documents, I'd say the proclamation has more authority given that it was presented, in person, by the prophet.  The proclamation sits, mounted on a plaque in a prominent place in my home.  But I'm not sure that there are different levels of authority/importance in this regard.

 

I don't see the double standard that you are referring to.  I wanted to clarify that the proclamation was not authored by God as that seems like an important distinction to make.  It was also a false claim by Stargazer and don't we want to try to move away from false claims?

[thesometimesaint]

Same sex marriage has been going on long before the time of Christ and continued for centuries around the world, including Greece, Rome, Egypt, China etc.  It was even practiced in the early Christian church until "christian" emperors started to burn gays alive in front of the public and made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences.  This persecution of gays happened 300-500 years after Christ.  Persecution and discrimination continued until present times and still continues today in many parts of this country and the world.

 

From Wikipedia

 

We get our marriage laws from the ancient Romans, by way of the English. The ancient Romans were far more tolerant of homosexuality than we are. Yet they did not allow for SSM.

[webbles]

Same sex marriage has been going on long before the time of Christ and continued for centuries around the world, including Greece, Rome, Egypt, China etc.  It was even practiced in the early Christian church until "christian" emperors started to burn gays alive in front of the public and made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences.  This persecution of gays happened 300-500 years after Christ.  Persecution and discrimination continued until present times and still continues today in many parts of this country and the world.

 

From Wikipedia

From your wikipedia link:

While it is relatively new to modern history that same-sex couples are widely being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions and marriages around the world.

 

And then when you read through the link, you find pretty much all instances of any form of same-sex marriage as being a rare occurence.  And much of the instances that the link talked about were short lived instances that either occurred simultaneously with a traditional marriage or would be later suplanted by a traditional marriage.

 

Even the Romans didn't have same-sex marriages as what is currently being requested today (again, from your link):

...a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law...

[california boy]

I think if you read thorough the entire article, you get a better idea how same sex marriage has been handled for centuries.  What is clear that at different times SSM has met different things.  You are welcome to pick the parts from the article that you want to use to support your own agenda.  I am simply providing the link for those that are interested in the history of SSM.  What is clear and undeniable is that SSM is not a new idea.  It has been around in one form or another since well before the time of Christ and continued long after His death.  At times it was more legally binding than at other times and met different things in different societies.  

 

Is SSM exactly like what we have today?  Probably not.  But either is opposite sex marriage the same as what we have today.  Straight marriage also varies even today among different cultures.  Not much has changed.  There has never been a world wide consensus of either.

 

Here is the link to how different straight marriage has been and is currently defined in the world.

 

Marriage

[california boy]

From your wikipedia link:

 

 

And then when you read through the link, you find pretty much all instances of any form of same-sex marriage as being a rare occurence.  And much of the instances that the link talked about were short lived instances that either occurred simultaneously with a traditional marriage or would be later suplanted by a traditional marriage.

 

Even the Romans didn't have same-sex marriages as what is currently being requested today (again, from your link):

Well I understand your need to cherry pick certain lines.  But let's be clear.  The article says many things about SSM.  The article on marriage also states.

 

Republican Rome accorded same-sex marriages legal status.^[43]