Scotus Denies Cert; Stay In Utah Lifted

[Stone holm]

There's no question in my mind that Oaks saw this coming. I think his remarks Saturday were preparatory for this very outcome.

I tend to agree with this, he realized he needed to have people play nice when it was clear that the Church had joined the losing side of this legal fight.

[The Nehor]

But what if this Bishop were a Justice-of-the-Peace or a Judge?

 

Then he might have to sign a marriage certificate as part of his job.

[guerreiro9]

Well for that, I am afraid you will need therapy.

Do you honestly think the lawsuits will end with legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

While the LDS Church will not be forced to allow same-sex marriages in the temple there are a number of steps that can be taken to make life more difficult for the saints.

The ability to perform legally binding marriages could be revoked from the church if they will not provide them according to the law. Temple and time only marriages could still be performed (freedom of religion), but would have no legal standing (nothing to do with religion).

Certain tax exemptions could also be disallowed from the church. Tax exemptions are given on the basis that charitable organizations provide a net positive to society and it is therefore beneficial to subsidize them financially.

If it is deemed that opposing same-sex marriage is not beneficial to society these benefits may be revoked. The church's stance on same-sex marriage can still be taught (freedom of religion), but government subsidies would not be received (nothing to do with religion).

LDS counselors and others in ecclesiastical authority may become subject to litigation and criminal prosecution for counseling and teaching that same-sex attractions can be overcome and controlled. There are many proposed laws and I believe some are already in place that ban any type of therapy whose goal is to overcome same-sex attraction.

Unless the laws are clearly written with religious exemptions anyone in violation is committing a crime. You cannot get religious exemptions to commit crimes even if it is a strongly held belief.

You may believe that the lawsuits won't come, but you are wrong.

-guerreiro9

[Stargazer]

That's what I expected they'd do.

Me, too.

[Stargazer]

Do States require that persons authorized to perform marriages to actually perform marriages? 

 

Perhaps religious leaders should now in earnest, use the Hobby Lobby ruling, to create laws specifically exempting performance of same sex marriages.

In my state (Washington) and Oregon the state government has come down hard on a baker and a florist shop that refused service to gay weddings. Specifically, that they would not, in one case, make a wedding cake, and in the other a floral arrangement for gay weddings.

Now, when you consider that Obamacare will try to force paying for birth control (including abortion) on the Catholic Church, can you imagine that these state governments (backed by gay rights advocates) will NOT go after a LDS bishop who refuses to perform a wedding for a gay couple? And don't argue that the Mormon bishop isn't supposed to wed non-members -- the couple in question will either include a gay Mormon, or two gay Mormons.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Do you honestly think the lawsuits will end with legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

 

I think the lawsuits will end when the potential litigants are finally at peace.

 

We're in for a long ride.

[Stargazer]

You do realize that the first legal gay marriage was performed over a quarter of a century ago.  So far nothing.

First of all, when and where did this happen? And secondly, so what?

And that the church was never forced to marry a black couple in it's 150 years of discriminating against blacks.  Just putting things in perspective for you hand wringers.

Now there's a non-sequitor if I ever heard one. How could the church be *forced* to marry a black couple when it did in fact did marry them? Are you trying to say that there was some kind of church policy that forbade LDS bishops from performing marriages for black people? Or was this some kind of typo on your part?

Now, if this was a typo, and you're saying that LDS bishops were not permitted to perform marriages for interracial couples, especially interracial couples where one of the members was black, then dude: CFR.

Ever heard of Joseph Freeman? The first black of African descent to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood after the 1978 declaration? He married his sweetheard, a South Seas islander, in 1974, and they were married by the LDS bishop of the Hauula Second Ward in Hawaii. And amazingly enough, that bishop wasn't excommunicated afterwards! Is that what you were expecting -- in hindsight, at least?

[Thinking]

It's alright though. Christ will come soon.

 

How soon is soon?

[Stargazer]

How soon is soon?

Well, I'm tempted to say, "Not soon enough."

But I won't.

There's still a lot left to happen before that occurs. At 63 I may or may not live to see it. It's kind of odd that I have recently felt a certain unexplainable urgency to start learning some more languages.

[Stone holm]

Do you honestly think the lawsuits will end with legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

While the LDS Church will not be forced to allow same-sex marriages in the temple there are a number of steps that can be taken to make life more difficult for the saints.

The ability to perform legally binding marriages could be revoked from the church if they will not provide them according to the law. Temple and time only marriages could still be performed (freedom of religion), but would have no legal standing (nothing to do with religion).

Certain tax exemptions could also be disallowed from the church. Tax exemptions are given on the basis that charitable organizations provide a net positive to society and it is therefore beneficial to subsidize them financially.

If it is deemed that opposing same-sex marriage is not beneficial to society these benefits may be revoked. The church's stance on same-sex marriage can still be taught (freedom of religion), but government subsidies would not be received (nothing to do with religion).

LDS counselors and others in ecclesiastical authority may become subject to litigation and criminal prosecution for counseling and teaching that same-sex attractions can be overcome and controlled. There are many proposed laws and I believe some are already in place that ban any type of therapy whose goal is to overcome same-sex attraction.

Unless the laws are clearly written with religious exemptions anyone in violation is committing a crime. You cannot get religious exemptions to commit crimes even if it is a strongly held belief.

You may believe that the lawsuits won't come, but you are wrong.

-guerreiro9

The Church, although it authorized Bishops to perform marriages outside the Temple, never encouraged the practice and frowned on the use of chapels for that purpose. In some countries the Church already follows prescribed rules whereby the couple is married by a civil authority outside the Temple, and then sealed inside the Temple. The important religious ritual is the sealing. The purpose of the tax exemptions for places of worship is to avoid having the government get entangled in religion, until Hobby Lobby there has always been a distinction between strictly religious activity and business activity. The area of concern is not our chapels, or our Temples, or Bishops being forced to do this or that, but rather BYU. Historically, the collision of Bob Jones Univ. with the IRS over the formers policies on race relations was what caused the historically Democratic South to heed Reagan's beckoning call to switch. We have had minor skirmishes in the past over BYU policies. An example being the push by the Feds for coeducational dorms in order to achieve gender equity which caused Pres. Kimball to announce "We will not comply", and the Feds backed down. Exactly where this particular feud may end is unclear. By having been politically aggressive in the past, we have set the tone for similar action by the other side. I suspect that is why the Church has called for a ceasefire in the political fight and Elder Oaks was instructed to dial back the rhetoric.

[Buckeye]

At the risk of derailing my own thread, may I propose that the most immediate "next issues" once marriage is settled will relate not so much to government action but to societal views and actions.  Government tends to lag behind society.  Long before there is any legal action, I would expect to first see societal actions against BYU's sports programs, against LDS politicians, and especially a risk of discord within the church.

 

I would not be at all surprised to see universities citing the church's position as reason not to schedule BYU for football games. We saw that happening in the 1970s because of the priesthood ban. Considering that BYU is independent in football and thus cannot rely on a conference to schedule most of its games, this could lead to a very difficult situation if many/most schools follow suit.  In retrospect, Taysom Hill's broken leg may not be the worst news from this weekend. 

 

I can also see the issue complicating Mitt Romney's decision to run in 2016. While Romney has publicly said he is out, he has also left the door cracked open in the event the Republican Party cannot produce a strong candidate. If by some chance Mitt were to enter the race, he would certainly want SSM to be as much of a non-issue as possible (as will most all republican candidates). But if the issue is still alive, a Romney candidacy could be seen as a liability within the party because his faith is strongly identified with the issue. In other words, Romney would be viewed as having more exposure on this issue than other candidates because of his faith.

 

Finally, and most critically IMO, the rising acceptable of SSM will present a large challenge to maintaining unity between the church and its youth. I heard a news report this morning which cited a poll that 60% of Republicans under the age of 30 support SSM.  Our youth may trail the world, but not by much.  It will be a serious challenge for the church to go silent as to SSM on the public side, but still convince the youth and young adults that SSM is wrong. 

[rodheadlee]

8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the ^aend of these things?

  9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and ^asealed till the time of the end.

  10 Many shall be ^apurified, and made white, and ^btried; but the ^cwicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall ^dunderstand.

  11 And from the time that the daily ^asacrifice shall be taken away, and the ^babomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

  12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

  13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt ^arest, and ^bstand in thy lot at the end of the days. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Do you honestly think the lawsuits will end with legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

While the LDS Church will not be forced to allow same-sex marriages in the temple there are a number of steps that can be taken to make life more difficult for the saints.

The ability to perform legally binding marriages could be revoked from the church if they will not provide them according to the law. Temple and time only marriages could still be performed (freedom of religion), but would have no legal standing (nothing to do with religion).

Certain tax exemptions could also be disallowed from the church. Tax exemptions are given on the basis that charitable organizations provide a net positive to society and it is therefore beneficial to subsidize them financially.

If it is deemed that opposing same-sex marriage is not beneficial to society these benefits may be revoked. The church's stance on same-sex marriage can still be taught (freedom of religion), but government subsidies would not be received (nothing to do with religion).

LDS counselors and others in ecclesiastical authority may become subject to litigation and criminal prosecution for counseling and teaching that same-sex attractions can be overcome and controlled. There are many proposed laws and I believe some are already in place that ban any type of therapy whose goal is to overcome same-sex attraction.

Unless the laws are clearly written with religious exemptions anyone in violation is committing a crime. You cannot get religious exemptions to commit crimes even if it is a strongly held belief.

You may believe that the lawsuits won't come, but you are wrong.

-guerreiro9

I think this is a good summary of the pressure that will be brought to bear on the church in the coming decades. How some of these play out the courts is unclear. I think most at risk are the subsidies / exemptions provided to BYU.

[thesometimesaint]

In my state (Washington) and Oregon the state government has come down hard on a baker and a florist shop that refused service to gay weddings. Specifically, that they would not, in one case, make a wedding cake, and in the other a floral arrangement for gay weddings.

Now, when you consider that Obamacare will try to force paying for birth control (including abortion) on the Catholic Church, can you imagine that these state governments (backed by gay rights advocates) will NOT go after a LDS bishop who refuses to perform a wedding for a gay couple? And don't argue that the Mormon bishop isn't supposed to wed non-members -- the couple in question will either include a gay Mormon, or two gay Mormons.

 

The ACA does no such thing.

 

Churches are not subject to the Public Accommodations Laws. 

[tonie]

Do you honestly think the lawsuits will end with legal recognition of same-sex marriage?

While the LDS Church will not be forced to allow same-sex marriages in the temple there are a number of steps that can be taken to make life more difficult for the saints.

The ability to perform legally binding marriages could be revoked from the church if they will not provide them according to the law. Temple and time only marriages could still be performed (freedom of religion), but would have no legal standing (nothing to do with religion).

Certain tax exemptions could also be disallowed from the church. Tax exemptions are given on the basis that charitable organizations provide a net positive to society and it is therefore beneficial to subsidize them financially.

If it is deemed that opposing same-sex marriage is not beneficial to society these benefits may be revoked. The church's stance on same-sex marriage can still be taught (freedom of religion), but government subsidies would not be received (nothing to do with religion).

LDS counselors and others in ecclesiastical authority may become subject to litigation and criminal prosecution for counseling and teaching that same-sex attractions can be overcome and controlled. There are many proposed laws and I believe some are already in place that ban any type of therapy whose goal is to overcome same-sex attraction.

Unless the laws are clearly written with religious exemptions anyone in violation is committing a crime. You cannot get religious exemptions to commit crimes even if it is a strongly held belief.

You may believe that the lawsuits won't come, but you are wrong.

-guerreiro9

 

This appears to me to be unfounded (lacking a documented basis in the historical record) and thus, paranoid.  If there were case of Churchs (specifically Churchs and not "religious institutions" like BYU or other Religious schools) being sued, then there would be cause for concern.

Edited October 7, 2014 by tonie

[Daniel2]

The ACA does no such thing.

Churches are not subject to the Public Accommodations Laws.

Agreed.

The "Chicken Little" fear that the church will be forced to comply with public accommodation laws shows a lack of reason and understanding about the limits of such laws.

Yes: cake bakers and wedding venues will be held accountable for failing to comply with public accommodation laws, for as long as such laws remain in effect---and such businesses should be held accountable.

Churches and clergy are exempt, and have been, from a variety of classes of people with even the most immutable characteristics (i.e. gender and race), as well as classes based on characteristics that are less immutable (religious preference, failing to meet religious standards/codes of conduct, atheists, etc.) and there is no reason that sexual orientation would force any change in such laws absolving religions or clergy to decline to participate or serve same-sex weddings.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Daniel2

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well for that, I am afraid you will need therapy.

Rofl, I don't need therapy for seeing what is coming.

[rockpond]

At the risk of derailing my own thread, may I propose that the most immediate "next issues" once marriage is settled will relate not so much to government action but to societal views and actions.  Government tends to lag behind society.  Long before there is any legal action, I would expect to first see societal actions against BYU's sports programs, against LDS politicians, and especially a risk of discord within the church.

 

Finally, and most critically IMO, the rising acceptable of SSM will present a large challenge to maintaining unity between the church and its youth. I heard a news report this morning which cited a poll that 60% of Republicans under the age of 30 support SSM.  Our youth may trail the world, but not by much.  It will be a serious challenge for the church to go silent as to SSM on the public side, but still convince the youth and young adults that SSM is wrong. 

 

I think you nailed it with these points.  Many of the youth in my sphere do not see a problem with SSM.  And those youth are our next generation of church leaders.

 

As for discord within the church... it's already here with respect to all of the issues surrounding sexual orientation.

 

 

I can also see the issue complicating Mitt Romney's decision to run in 2016. While Romney has publicly said he is out, he has also left the door cracked open in the event the Republican Party cannot produce a strong candidate. If by some chance Mitt were to enter the race, he would certainly want SSM to be as much of a non-issue as possible (as will most all republican candidates). But if the issue is still alive, a Romney candidacy could be seen as a liability within the party because his faith is strongly identified with the issue. In other words, Romney would be viewed as having more exposure on this issue than other candidates because of his faith.

 

Gay marriage should be "dead" as a political issue.  It will soon be legal throughout the country as a matter of constitutional law with nothing that can be done legislatively.  The republicans need to stop talking about it if they ever want to have a majority again (or the oval office).

[stemelbow]

Finally, and most critically IMO, the rising acceptable of SSM will present a large challenge to maintaining unity between the church and its youth. I heard a news report this morning which cited a poll that 60% of Republicans under the age of 30 support SSM.  Our youth may trail the world, but not by much.  It will be a serious challenge for the church to go silent as to SSM on the public side, but still convince the youth and young adults that SSM is wrong.

Years to come the Church will be the youth. In my limited experience with the youth there is and will be a pretty opposition from within the ranks regarding this issue, if there is not already (because there is some...some members actually disagree with the Church on this issue).

[toon]

Religions, clergy, and non-humans which claim a religion, each get exemption from laws. 

 

In light of the hobby lobby ruling, the baker and all others so offended, need only file suits against their respective States for the States refusing to allow them to discriminate on the basis of protected status.

 

You've mentioned Hobby Lobby a number of times in this thread, but I think it's completely inacpplicable to the situation at hand.

 

Hobby Lobby did not deal with any First Amendment Constitional rights.  Rather, it was an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed by Congress in 1993 that was designed to limit the government's ability to pass legislation and regulations that could could conflict with certain religious practices and conduct, even though such limitations might still be constitutional.

 

The RFRA is only applicable to the federal government.  It doesn't not apply to state laws and regulations that have the effect of conflicting with religious practices.  While such state legislation might still pass constitutional muster, they still have to comply with state law.  Most states have passed legilsation similar to the RFRA, but in interpreting those state laws, the state courts are not bound by Hobby Lobby.  So the baker in California might file a lawsuit challenging some non-discrimination law that requires him to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but the outcome of that lawsuit will not be determined by Hobby Lobby.  Rather, it will be determined by the California court's interpretation of California law.

 

Finally, none of this seems to apply to a bona fide religious institution, like the Church, which would enjoy constitutional First Amendment protections above what a private business would.  In other words, Hobby Lobby was not necessary to protect a church's ability and right to discriminate.

[toon]

Definitely. A bishop who performed a same-sex marriage would be released pretty quickly and have his temple recommend withheld almost overnight.  

 

Formal discipline would probably follow as well.

 

I agree, assuming the bishop performed the marriage under his authority as a bidhop.

 

If the bishop performed the wedding under the authority as a justice of the peace or county clerk or something else, then I doubt the Church would do anything.  I could see the Chuich not calling people with such authority as bishops, and potentially releasing, or at least considering the ramifications, to avoid confusion.  But that would seem to be more of a practical or administrative matter than anything disciplinary.

[toon]

Now, when you consider that Obamacare will try to force paying for birth control (including abortion) on the Catholic Church, can you imagine that these state governments (backed by gay rights advocates) will NOT go after a LDS bishop who refuses to perform a wedding for a gay couple? And don't argue that the Mormon bishop isn't supposed to wed non-members -- the couple in question will either include a gay Mormon, or two gay Mormons.

 

Except that Obamacare does not require the Catholic Church to provide birth control or abortion services to its employees.  Perhaps you're confusing the church itself with church affiliated, albeit legally distinct, entities, like a Catholic hospital or college/university. 

[toon]

I would not be at all surprised to see universities citing the church's position as reason not to schedule BYU for football games. We saw that happening in the 1970s because of the priesthood ban. Considering that BYU is independent in football and thus cannot rely on a conference to schedule most of its games, this could lead to a very difficult situation if many/most schools follow suit.  In retrospect, Taysom Hill's broken leg may not be the worst news from this weekend. 

 

Doesn't this first assume that the Catholic Church reverses it's opinion on gay marriage?

 

It's one think to single out BYU over the blacks/priesthood issue, as there weren't many other prominent univesities or colleges with a similar position.

[Buckeye]

Doesn't this first assume that the Catholic Church reverses it's opinion on gay marriage?

 

It's one think to single out BYU over the blacks/priesthood issue, as there weren't many other prominent univesities or colleges with a similar position.

 

Valid point. Right or wrong, I think the general public ties the LDS church with opposition to SSM marriage more than Catholics or other faiths.  Perhaps that is because so many people have no other reference point for the LDS church.  Also, and IMO more importantly, I believe the LDS church has much more involvement of BYU than the Catholic church does over the Catholic universities with sports teams. So I could see some schools trying to craft a policy to exclude BYU but not exclude Notre Dame, Boston College, Gonzaga, Georgetown, etc. 

 

Whether they would be successful could largely turn on whether the Catholic schools comes to BYU's defense. That would be an interesting development to see. Another important consideration is that, for non-football sports, BYU is now part of conference of small Catholic schools - the West Coast Conference.  I could see them rallying about BYU, but at the end of the day none of them could schedule BYU football, as they don't have that sport. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Valid point. Right or wrong, I think the general public ties the LDS church with opposition to SSM marriage more than Catholics or other faiths.  Perhaps that is because so many people have no other reference point for the LDS church.  Also, and IMO more importantly, I believe the LDS church has much more involvement of BYU than the Catholic church does over the Catholic universities with sports teams. So I could see some schools trying to craft a policy to exclude BYU but not exclude Notre Dame, Boston College, Gonzaga, Georgetown, etc. 

 

Whether they would be successful could largely turn on whether the Catholic schools comes to BYU's defense. That would be an interesting development to see. Another important consideration is that, for non-football sports, BYU is now part of conference of small Catholic schools - the West Coast Conference.  I could see them rallying about BYU, but at the end of the day none of them could schedule BYU football, as they don't have that sport. 

 

There is also the fact that most US catholics support same sex marriage.