Utah Polygamy Law Declared Unconstitutional

[rockpond]

I did not say that. I only said that it would make for an interesting though(t) process.

Fair enough. So in terms of the proposed thought process, I don't consider it to be religious freedom if the government is trying to parse out what each of us believes is commanded from God vs affirmed by God vs not condemned by God.

[bluebell]

No, they aren't, even in states that grant civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Which rights would be gain thru marriage that are in the benefit of the child that are not available thru a civil union?

[california boy]

The ruling literally says that co-habitation is OK but marriage to more than one person is not.  I find this perplexing and disturbing.  It kind of reminds me of "take home tests" given by professors.  These often only penalize those who are honest as the vast majority will cheat.  As the ruling stands now, it would mean that co-habitation is fine but our church's emphasis on "legal and lawful marriage" would preclude them from the practice.

 

No word games here.  Straight up - this ruling states that co-habitation is OK, legal marriage to more than one person is not.  Unless the church is willing to go back to playing in the "gray area" - they may, ironically, find themselves being one of the few defenders of monogamous marriage.

This is the same position we find those that are against gay marriage.  They are basicially saying to gay couples "we would rather you cohabitate than marry."  I too find that odd and even more strange that the church pushes such a belief.

[rockpond]

I'm relatively familiar with the history of polygamy in the intermountain west. I understand what you are saying, but I think I see the ruling differently than you do. The practice of "spiritual marriages" was made necessary by government prosecution (and persecution). I do not believe the church ever intended polygamy to be little more than "church sanctioned co-habitation."

The ruling literally says that co-habitation is OK but marriage to more than one person is not. I find this perplexing and disturbing. It kind of reminds me of "take home tests" given by professors. These often only penalize those who are honest as the vast majority will cheat. As the ruling stands now, it would mean that co-habitation is fine but our church's emphasis on "legal and lawful marriage" would preclude them from the practice.

No word games here. Straight up - this ruling states that co-habitation is OK, legal marriage to more than one person is not. Unless the church is willing to go back to playing in the "gray area" - they may, ironically, find themselves being one of the few defenders of monogamous marriage.

Cohabitation was already legal. The court struck down the law that made plural spiritual marriages illegal. In essence it said that these spiritual marriages could not be prosecuted. A religious freedom issue that we should celebrate.

This "gray area" you refer to is where we, as a church, existed well into the 20th century. President George Albert Smith in 1945 was our first prophet who didn't practice polygamy. Do you consider the previous seven as having been guilty of cohabitation since they weren't legally married in the eyes of the state to all of their wives?

[bluebell]

This is the same position we find those that are against gay marriage. They are basicially saying to gay couples "we would rather you cohabitate than marry." I too find that odd and even more strange that the church pushes such a belief.

Where do you get the idea that the church would rather have people in unmarried gay relationships than married ones?

As I understand the teachings, the church is equally against both.

[Stargazer]

This is the same position we find those that are against gay marriage.  They are basicially saying to gay couples "we would rather you cohabitate than marry."  I too find that odd and even more strange that the church pushes such a belief.

 

I find it strange that you would use such a blatant false dichotomy.  Or is that a straw man?  Hmmm.

 

The Church has not said "we would rather you cohabitate than marry"; you have simply put those words in its mouth.  What the Church has said is this: "Marriage is the union between persons of the opposite sex..  All sexual relations outside of marriage, so defined, is sinful.  We would rather you did not engage in sinful behavior."  Of course you disagree with this, but odd and strange it is not; it is a logical position given Church doctrine, and internally consistent, regardless.

 

And it is not some kind of game-changer that some people believe in and some governments legislate something called "gay marriage".  It is said that King Canute sat his throne by the seashore and commanded that the tide not wet his royal person.  When the tide rose anyway and splashed his feet and robes, Canute proclaimed 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.' 

[blooit]

Cohabitation was already legal. The court struck down the law that made plural spiritual marriages illegal. In essence it said that these spiritual marriages could not be prosecuted. A religious freedom issue that we should celebrate.

This "gray area" you refer to is where we, as a church, existed well into the 20th century. President George Albert Smith in 1945 was our first prophet who didn't practice polygamy. Do you consider the previous seven as having been guilty of cohabitation since they weren't legally married in the eyes of the state to all of their wives?

 

I have not read the whole ruling.  Did the court mention "spiritual marriage"?  If not, we are talking again about the effect, not the actual ruling.  I only read the summaries which talked about cohabitation but made no mention of spiritual marriages.

[rockpond]

I have not read the whole ruling. Did the court mention "spiritual marriage"? If not, we are talking again about the effect, not the actual ruling. I only read the summaries which talked about cohabitation but made no mention of spiritual marriages.

I can't recall if it specifically mentioned spiritual marriage. But consider that the law that was struck down was put in place because anti-bigamy laws were useless in prosecuting polygamists. Why? Because polygamists didn't have (and still don't have) more than one legal marriage. So Utah put in place a law that made it illegal to cohabit with more than one person and husband and wife. The ruling did not legalize cohabitation as that was already legal. What the ruling did was remove the law that was used to prosecute polygamists.

So what do you think is the effect of the ruling vs the actual ruling?

[california boy]

Where do you get the idea that the church would rather have people in unmarried gay relationships than married ones?

As I understand the teachings, the church is equally against both.

 

 

I find it strange that you would use such a blatant false dichotomy.  Or is that a straw man?  Hmmm.

 

The Church has not said "we would rather you cohabitate than marry"; you have simply put those words in its mouth.  What the Church has said is this: "Marriage is the union between persons of the opposite sex..  All sexual relations outside of marriage, so defined, is sinful.  We would rather you did not engage in sinful behavior."  Of course you disagree with this, but odd and strange it is not; it is a logical position given Church doctrine, and internally consistent, regardless.

 

 

Just what does the church expect gay couples to do that are not members of the church?

[bluebell]

Just what does the church expect gay couples to do that are not members of the church?

The church believes that homosexual relations are sinful for everyone, not just those who are members of the church.

Given their beliefs, is there anyway they can support SSM for non members without it meaning they are supporting sin?

[california boy]

The church believes that homosexual relations are sinful for everyone, not just those who are members of the church.

Given their beliefs, is there anyway they can support SSM for non members without it meaning they are supporting sin?

You still did not answer the question.  Just what does the church expect non member gay couples to do?

[thesometimesaint]

You still did not answer the question.  Just what does the church expect non member gay couples to do?

 

Legally they can do whatever they like. My position is one of morality not legality. IE; The Church expects all people to act in its definition of moral ways. What it can't do is legally require it.

[bluebell]

You still did not answer the question.  Just what does the church expect non member gay couples to do?

 

I thought it was obvious, sorry.

 

They expect them not to sin.

[california boy]

I thought it was obvious, sorry.

 

They expect them not to sin.

The church expects all of us not to sin.  What I am specifically asking you is what does the church expect non member gay couples to do. 

1. If they are going to be in a relationship, they should get married.

2. If they are in a relationship they should not get married, but live together anyway.

3. Gay couples should NEVER be in a relationship, but should remain single live by themselves and be celibate their whole lives.

 

Is there another option that I am not seeing?

[bluebell]

The church expects all of us not to sin. What I am specifically asking you is what does the church expect non member gay couples to do.

1. If they are going to be in a relationship, they should get married.

2. If they are in a relationship they should not get married, but live together anyway.

3. Gay couples should NEVER be in a relationship, but should remain single live by themselves and be celibate their whole lives.

Is there another option that I am not seeing?

#3.

Did you really not know that's what the church teaches? I figured, since you spend so much time lamenting the churches teachings on this subject that you would already know this.

[california boy]

#3.

Did you really not know that's what the church teaches? I figured, since you spend so much time lamenting the churches teachings on this subject that you would already know this.

I do know what the church expects of their members.  And the church is free to have such policies as a condition of membership in the church.  But do you really think that it is realistic for the church to expect nonmembers to choose that option?  Do you even grasp the kind of loneliness, and despare sentencing somone to celibacy for their entire life brings?  It is no wonder that the church ALWAYS taught that it was better for young men to marry as soon as possible until just recently of course.  Then somehow it became a good idea for gay members to live this life that the church always taught against because of this policy of not allowing gays to marry.

 

This church is the most pro family church in the world.  There is not a meeting that takes place that is not centered on strengthening the family through living the gospel.  It is the family unit that is divinely created to help God's children back into his presence.  Yet for some reason simply because you are gay, none of that applies?  And what does the church base this belief on other than a handful of scriptures that talk about homosexual relations OUTSIDE of marriage?  That and of course the leaders being a product of their time where treatment towards homosexuals was looked down upon as being inferrior relationships.  And so history repeats itself.

[bluebell]

I do know what the church expects of their members.  And the church is free to have such policies as a condition of membership in the church.  But do you really think that it is realistic for the church to expect nonmembers to choose that option?  Do you even grasp the kind of loneliness, and despare sentencing somone to celibacy for their entire life brings?  It is no wonder that the church ALWAYS taught that it was better for young men to marry as soon as possible until just recently of course.  Then somehow it became a good idea for gay members to live this life that the church always taught against because of this policy of not allowing gays to marry.

 

This church is the most pro family church in the world.  There is not a meeting that takes place that is not centered on strengthening the family through living the gospel.  It is the family unit that is divinely created to help God's children back into his presence.  Yet for some reason simply because you are gay, none of that applies?  And what does the church base this belief on other than a handful of scriptures that talk about homosexual relations OUTSIDE of marriage?  That and of course the leaders being a product of their time where treatment towards homosexuals was looked down upon as being inferrior relationships.  And so history repeats itself.

 

Do you honestly expect the church to NOT expect and desire what it considers godly behavior from all people, and not just members?  As i said before, what else do you expect from a church who believes it is doing the will of God?  

 

Do you want them to behave contrary to what they believe just because you don't agree with it, while at the same time being upset that they want YOU to behave contrary to YOUR beliefs because they don't agree with it?  Isn't that a little bit hypocritical?

[california boy]

Do you honestly expect the church to NOT expect and desire what it considers godly behavior from all people, and not just members?  As i said before, what else do you expect from a church who believes it is doing the will of God?  

 

Do you want them to behave contrary to what they believe just because you don't agree with it, while at the same time being upset that they want YOU to behave contrary to YOUR beliefs because they don't agree with it?  Isn't that a little bit hypocritical?

Not at all.  Nor am I upset about what the church teaches.  I am only going by the actual actions of the church.  Members of the church spent millions on a campaign to prevent gays from marrying.  If the church believes that all gay couples should be celibate, then where are the millions on that campaign? It seems like a total waste of precious money and resources on an issue that had nothing to do with what the church actually teaches.  In the eyes of the church, there is no difference between a gay couple that is living together and a couple that is married.  If it makes no difference whether they are married or not, why does the church even care if gay couples can marry.

 

The church message should be "We are all for families EXCEPT gay families.  If you are gay you should be celibate.  You are not allowed to be in a family unit.  You are not allowed to date other gay men.  And if you do marry, then you will not be able to get into heaven.  If however you remain celibate, then God will give you a female wife for all eternity.  That leads no confusion to the nonmember and the world.  I will even help draw up the posters and put them on a stick for the church.

 

Gay Families Are Not Families

 

Gays that Marry Will Not Go to Heaven

 

Gays dating Gays is Against God

 

Celibate Gays Get a Wife in Eternity

 

If this is the goal of the church, then these placards put the teachings very clearly for all to understand.  Are you in?

[bluebell]

Not at all.  Nor am I upset about what the church teaches.  I am only going by the actual actions of the church.  Members of the church spent millions on a campaign to prevent gays from marrying.  If the church believes that all gay couples should be celibate, then where are the millions on that campaign? It seems like a total waste of precious money and resources on an issue that had nothing to do with what the church actually teaches.

I admit you've lost me.

Spending money and resources on trying to prevent marriages that are not condoned of God has nothing to do with what the church actually teaches??

 

In the eyes of the church, there is no difference between a gay couple that is living together and a couple that is married.  If it makes no difference whether they are married or not, why does the church even care if gay couples can marry.

 

 Could you clarify the bolded part?  I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

The church message should be "We are all for families EXCEPT gay families.  If you are gay you should be celibate.  You are not allowed to be in a family unit.  You are not allowed to date other gay men.  And if you do marry, then you will not be able to get into heaven.  If however you remain celibate, then God will give you a female wife for all eternity.  That leads no confusion to the nonmember and the world.  I will even help draw up the posters and put them on a stick for the church.

 

Gay Families Are Not Families

 

Gays that Marry Will Not Go to Heaven

 

Gays dating Gays is Against God

 

Celibate Gays Get a Wife in Eternity

 

If this is the goal of the church, then these placards put the teachings very clearly for all to understand.  Are you in?

 

Is it a secret that the church is for all families but gay families? You say the church's message should be exactly that. I say when hasn't the church's message been exactly that?

The main reason the church is all for families is because it believes the family (made up of a married man and woman) is ordained of God and that familial units (mothers, fathers, and children) are the organization of heaven.

 

Under that belief, a married man and man, or a married woman and woman is not a family-it may be a family as the secular world defines it, but it's not a family as heaven defines it and heaven's definition is what matters to the church.

 

Aside from that, I don't believe the church teaches that gays who marry will not go to heaven or that gays will get a wife in heaven.

[california boy]

I admit you've lost me.

Spending money and resources on trying to prevent marriages that are not condoned of God has nothing to do with what the church actually teaches??

 

 Could you clarify the bolded part?  I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

Is it a secret that the church is for all families but gay families? You say the church's message should be exactly that. I say when hasn't the church's message been exactly that?

The main reason the church is all for families is because it believes the family (made up of a married man and woman) is ordained of God and that familial units (mothers, fathers, and children) are the organization of heaven.

 

Under that belief, a married man and man, or a married woman and woman is not a family-it may be a family as the secular world defines it, but it's not a family as heaven defines it and heaven's definition is what matters to the church.

 

Aside from that, I don't believe the church teaches that gays who marry will not go to heaven or that gays will get a wife in heaven.

Sure I would be glad to explain.  The church claimed that supporting Prop 8 was a moral issue.  As I have posted in another thread, the question is, who is made more moral if gays are not allowed to marry?  Are gay couples more moral if they are not allowed to marry?  Are straight couples more moral if gays are not allowed to marry?  Is anyone's family stronger if gays are not allowed to marry?  If no one is more moral when gays are not allowed to marry, then what was 40 million dollars spent on other than oppressing the gay population?

 

Your quote in bold is basically the same point.  How does preventing gay couples from marrying make anyone more moral.  The only way to make gay couples more moral is to force them under the law to be celibate.  Should the church spend millions passing laws forcing gay couples to be celibate?  Should those law be enforced whether you are straight or gay?  Should this country start to put people in jail if they are not celibate?  If the ONLY way a person can be moral is celibacy, any other laws does not make them moral.  And if the church is going to use the legal system to enforce morality, then the church must actively try to institute celibacy laws.  Anything short of that does not change anyones moral behavior.

 

So just how should the church treat gay families?  What difference should it make to Christlike behavior if a family has two gay parents or one single parent or two straight parents?  If as members of the church we are to treat all families with respect and love, then what is the value of not calling gay families, families.  What should church members call a family consisting of two fathers and children?  What does the church call a family with a single mother and children?  

 

So just what is promised for a gay member who is celibate all of his life.  What happens to him in the eternities?

[bluebell]

Sure I would be glad to explain.  The church claimed that supporting Prop 8 was a moral issue.  As I have posted in another thread, the question is, who is made more moral if gays are not allowed to marry?  Are gay couples more moral if they are not allowed to marry?  Are straight couples more moral if gays are not allowed to marry?  Is anyone's family stronger if gays are not allowed to marry?  If no one is more moral when gays are not allowed to marry, then what was 40 million dollars spent on other than oppressing the gay population?

 

If the church believes that SSM is immoral, then the world is a more moral place without SSM, and a less moral place with SSM.  

 

Even if you disagree with the premise, the argument itself is logical, isn't it?

 

So just what is promised for a gay member who is celibate all of his life.  What happens to him in the eternities?

 

 

Has the church said?  I'm not aware of anything the church has taught on the subject.

[rockpond]

If the church believes that SSM is immoral, then the world is a more moral place without SSM, and a less moral place with SSM.

Even if you disagree with the premise, the argument itself is logical, isn't it?

Nope, not logical. You have to then ask yourself what gay people will do if they are denied marriage equality and then evaluate if that, from the Mormon POV, makes the world a more moral place.

[EllenMaksoud]

Hi Tacenda.

There are lots of polygynous families living in the West, and their neighbors know who they are.  The police and prosecutors pretty much leave them alone, unless they cause trouble, or try to marry young girls.  With Judge Waddoups' ruling, polygyny as cohabitation becomes untouchable -- as long as the marriages are not sanctioned by government.  However, it is likely that even those restrictions will be overturned and polygyny will become officially legal, as it it in Muslim countries.

 

Muslims do polygamy right here in the US.

Muslims do polygamy right here in the US.

[bluebell]

Nope, not logical. You have to then ask yourself what gay people will do if they are denied marriage equality and then evaluate if that, from the Mormon POV, makes the world a more moral place.

 

I see what you are saying, and i think that's a valid argument, but i don't think it makes the other one invalid.   It's all in how you view legalized gay marriage and how you feel validating something you believe is immoral impacts the world.

[california boy]

 

If the church believes that SSM is immoral, then the world is a more moral place without SSM, and a less moral place with SSM.  

 

Even if you disagree with the premise, the argument itself is logical, isn't it?

 

 

Has the church said?  I'm not aware of anything the church has taught on the subject.

It seems odd to me that a church teaching sex outside of marriage is against the will of God but sex within the bounds of marriage is a beautiful thing encouraged by God.  Yet for gay couples, sex outside of marriage is preferable to sex within the bounds of marriage.  Something just doesn't ring true.

 

The church has hinted at the concept that faithful gay members, if they are faithful, will magically become straight and given a wife for eternity.  Yet there is no doctrinal revelation on any of this.  Personally, I think that the church leaders are men of their times.  For so many years society shunned gays and their relationships and pretended they didn't even exist.  Because of Stonewall, it started a movement among the gay members of society to say, "We have had enough.  We deserve just as much respect as any other member of society,"  This caught most people off guard.  The knee-jerk reaction is to demonize gay people strongly in public. (see Miracle of Forgiveness).  But as the movement progressed, many of the prejudices that had always existed against gays began to drop away.  People began to see that gay citizens were their neighbors, their doctors, their teachers and just like them except for their orientation.  Sure there are some that are more comfortable viewing gays in the same way gays were viewed 20 years ago, but those attitudes are few and far between.  The church leadership is very conservative.  You would have a hard time labeling any church leader as a "flaming liberal."  Even with that, church leadership has moved significantly in a more liberal and what I think is a more Christlike way on how how the church views gays.  While the behavior remains condemned, certainly there is a more Christlike attitude toward those with SSA.  

 

So the church is trying to figure out, like the rest of us, where gays fit into the plan of salvation and where they fit into the gospel in general.  If the church decides that there will be gay relationships in heaven, then why not gay relationships on earth?  If marriage is a critical part of the plan of salvation, then it must be critical for gays in heaven as well.  So currently a few leaders have suggested that magically gay members who are faithful must be turned straight and then given a wife.  If not, then what is the point of gay members being celibate or even staying in the church.

 

If one was to strip away the prejudice against gays completely, then the most logical doctrine would be "sex outside of marriage is against the law of chastity.  Sex within the bounds of marriage is what God wants."  Yet even you seem to think that can't be true.  SSM must be more immoral than couples living together.  Even though that position is directly opposed to what we have known about the law of chastity since the beginning of time.