Buckeye Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 There is also the fact that most US catholics support same sex marriage. Sure. But they largely don't count. Just like LDS don't count much for BYU's scheduling decisions. What really matters is (i) does the people who schedules games with BYU care enough about the church's position to make this an issue and (ii) do those people feel they have the backing of their school superiors if they were to reject BYU for this reason. Note that there are many (and growing) reasons not to schedule BYU (and I say that as a worried BYU fan). The question posed here is whether some school(s) would want to make a public issue out of it. For Catholic schools, I don't see it. For Stanford, Cal, and some others, I actually could. Link to comment
california boy Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Do you honestly think the lawsuits will end with legal recognition of same-sex marriage? Probably not. I never said it would. There is always a possibility that someone will sue a church to try and force them to perform gay marriage. And given the fact that most gays consider the Mormon church the most bigoted church against gays because of the churches successful efforts to take away their right to marry, then the Mormon church is probably the most likely target. It doesn't mean that such a lawsuit would have any grounds or be successful which is what I stated. The federal government has never nor will it force a church to marry someone against it's will. Just as the constitution guarantees gays equal protection it also guarantees churches the right to practice their religion as they see fit. 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).While I doubt that because of the guarantees in the constitution, even worse case scenario and the government no longer recognizes temple marriages. So what? There are other countries that don't recognize temple marriages, hasn't made one bit of difference to the church or it's members. 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). Tax exemption of churches is not guaranteed in the Constitution as far as I know. So there is a possibility that some day the federal government may change that policy. I highly doubt the church exists because they get a tax exemption. So what difference will that make whether it is because of gay marriage or any other reason. I find the possibility remote, but also irrelevant. 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. It is already against the law in several states for licensed therapists to practice reparative therapy to minors under 18. I think those laws will become common since there is no evidence such therapy works and plenty of evidence that shows it is harmful to minors. And if such therapy is harmful, then I would agree, that more lawsuits are likely. If LDS counselors break the law, then yes they will be subject to criminal prosecution. While a religion can hold such a belief and teach it to it's members, there are no such guarantees to those who are in the business of providing therapy. This of course, has nothing to do with gay marriage. You may believe that the lawsuits won't come, but you are wrong.-guerreiro9 I didn't state this would end all lawsuits, I only stated that the federal government will not force any church to marry a gay couple. I have lots of history, law and evidence to support such a statement. Those who claim otherwise have NOTHING except unfounded fear to base such a claim. Link to comment
mormonnewb Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) Sure. But they largely don't count. Just like LDS don't count much for BYU's scheduling decisions. What really matters is (i) does the people who schedules games with BYU care enough about the church's position to make this an issue and (ii) do those people feel they have the backing of their school superiors if they were to reject BYU for this reason. Note that there are many (and growing) reasons not to schedule BYU (and I say that as a worried BYU fan). The question posed here is whether some school(s) would want to make a public issue out of it. For Catholic schools, I don't see it. For Stanford, Cal, and some others, I actually could. I agree that the Catholic Church has somehow avoided being so closely tied to opposing SSM. Even more, schools like Notre Dame are not as closely tied to the Catholic Church itself. My guess is that most people don't even know that, say, Duquesne is a Catholic school (in fact, I just looked it up on Wikipedia for the purpose of this post). On the other hand, our Church is heavily-tied to the issue of SSM and BYU is even closer tied to the Church. There is no way that BYU will avoid an anti-anti-SSM backlash, if one ever arises. That being said, some of our other Christian brothers might provide some cover from a collegiate boycott. For example, Baylor and TCU are both Christian schools with big-time sports programs (they are both currently ranked in the top 10). A school that boycotted BYU, but still played, say, TCU or SMU or even Notre Dame in a bowl game would seem awfully hypocritical (and even possibly anti-Mormon). Therefore, so long as there are other major Christian churches still opposed to SSM, we'll probably avoid a boycott. However, when we are the last denomination holding firm to this position (and we likely will be), all bets will be off. Edited October 7, 2014 by mormonnewb Link to comment
Popular Post stemelbow Posted October 7, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 7, 2014 However, when we are the last denomination holding firm to this position (and we likely will be), all bets will be off. Oops on the priesthood ban. 1978 proved to be quite a hold out, huh? Did members back then tell each other that it's good we're persecuted for our ban. It proves we are doing God's will? eh...the similarities get a little too obvious for me. 5 Link to comment
mormonnewb Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Oops on the priesthood ban. 1978 proved to be quite a hold out, huh?Did members back then tell each other that it's good we're persecuted for our ban. It proves we are doing God's will?eh...the similarities get a little too obvious for me.You and I seem to be the only ones who see it, my friend. 3 Link to comment
rockpond Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Oops on the priesthood ban. 1978 proved to be quite a hold out, huh?Did members back then tell each other that it's good we're persecuted for our ban. It proves we are doing God's will?eh...the similarities get a little too obvious for me. You and I seem to be the only ones who see it, my friend.I see the similarities as well. Link to comment
Daniel2 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) I see the similarities as well.As do I.And likely many more. In fact, the church's responsive statement on the newsroom website already sounded.... hmmm.... hard to describe, exactly.... shades of antiquation.... irrelevance... desperation.... trying to assert a position it already knows is not going to last....? Edited October 7, 2014 by Daniel2 2 Link to comment
WysteriaBlue Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Wouldn't some of the real legal liability come from the denial of health/life/disability type or other benefits offered to spouses or partners of employees of LDS institutions, subsidiaries, or corporations owned by Mormons? I didn't see that mentioned in your discussion. That has been a main point of contention against SSM legislation, the cost of providing benefits for possible partners of future SS unions (should they occur)... Link to comment
EllenMaksoud Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 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.Personally, I hope that they will see civil unions as sufficient. That they would assume to have Temple Marriages seems excessive to me. Link to comment
halconero Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Both on topic and off: I've been seeing a lot of posts on my social media outlets (mostly facebook, but twitter as well) saying that the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States is going to cause its downfall just as homosexuality caused the fall of the Romans. This offends me as a historian. If you want to go by some morality measuring stick, the Roman Empire was becoming more moral by a Christian definition as the Western portion of it fell. Christianity had been adopted as the official religion of the state, bishops and theologians were receiving imperial patronage, and laws were being passed outlawing everything from the gladiatorial games to homosexuality. Ironically, same-sex marriage, an uncommon but not unheard of practice in Rome, was outlawed in the Theodosian code. Ironically, President Benson, addressing the fall of Rome in one of his addresses before he passed away, quotes Edward Gibbon who partially blames Christianity for the fall of the Western Empire. (As an aside, the fall of the Western Empire can be more attributed to multiple economic depressions, several plagues, the feudalization of its provinces, and the migrations of Germanic tribes ironically trained by Rome in the legions) Now, if you want to blame gay marriage for the future fall of the United States, that's your prerogative, go and preach it. Just don't make a comparison to Rome, 'cus I'll come after you with books, articles, and peer-reviewed journals. That is all. 4 Link to comment
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Both on topic and off: I've been seeing a lot of posts on my social media outlets (mostly facebook, but twitter as well) saying that the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States is going to cause its downfall just as homosexuality caused the fall of the Romans. This offends me as a historian. If you want to go by some morality measuring stick, the Roman Empire was becoming more moral by a Christian definition as the Western portion of it fell. Christianity had been adopted as the official religion of the state, bishops and theologians were receiving imperial patronage, and laws were being passed outlawing everything from the gladiatorial games to homosexuality. Ironically, same-sex marriage, an uncommon but not unheard of practice in Rome, was outlawed in the Theodosian code. Ironically, President Benson, addressing the fall of Rome in one of his addresses before he passed away, quotes Edward Gibbon who partially blames Christianity for the fall of the Western Empire. (As an aside, the fall of the Western Empire can be more attributed to multiple economic depressions, several plagues, the feudalization of its provinces, and the migrations of Germanic tribes ironically trained by Rome in the legions) Now, if you want to blame gay marriage for the future fall of the United States, that's your prerogative, go and preach it. Just don't make a comparison to Rome, 'cus I'll come after you with books, articles, and peer-reviewed journals. That is all.Actually, monogamy caused the fall of Rome. George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 202“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.” Link to comment
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Wouldn't some of the real legal liability come from the denial of health/life/disability type or other benefits offered to spouses or partners of employees of LDS institutions, subsidiaries, or corporations owned by Mormons? I didn't see that mentioned in your discussion. That has been a main point of contention against SSM legislation, the cost of providing benefits for possible partners of future SS unions (should they occur)...If we're going to live by our teachings and pronouncements, our businesses ought to be providing the same benefits to gay married couples. 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 First of all, when and where did this happen? And secondly, so what? Well i guess since it doesn't matter to you, I won't provide the answer. If it ever would make a difference that gay marriage has been going on for 25 years and the world hasn't ended, then I will provide the reference. 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? Sorry I met temple marriage which the church did refuse to marry blacks. But in any event, civil or temple marriage, the government never forced Mormons or any other church to even integrate let alone force them to marry anyone they didn't want to. . .EVER. And ever is a very long time. People can claim the sky is falling because of this decision, but there is actually very little proof to support such hysteria. The world is not going to end. Gay marriage is hardly the worst immoral thing happening on this earth. I can think of a heck of a lot more important reasons for Christ to return other than gay marriage. Quite frankly I find it more immoral to NOT allow someone to marry. That is all I am saying. Link to comment
halconero Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Actually, monogamy caused the fall of Rome. George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 202“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.” The Roman Empire only fell around 400 years before Elder Cannon said that. Seriously, if you lump the Kingdom, Republican, Imperial and Byzantine periods together Rome lasted for around 2200 years. Link to comment
Stone holm Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 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.The reason the general population does not tie Catholics to opposition to same sex marriage as they do Mormons is Catholics aren't known for following their Clergy when it comes to political matters. It goes back to that old saw which goes, the Catholic doctrine is the Pope is infallible, but Catholics don't believe it. Mormon doctrine is that the Prophet is human and therefore fallible, but Mormons don't believe it. That's the way the world views us as lemmings who have abdicated there decision making on certain subjects. 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 The Roman Empire only fell around 400 years before Elder Cannon said that. Seriously, if you lump the Kingdom, Republican, Imperial and Byzantine periods together Rome lasted for around 2200 years. yeah but after 2200 years, it was the gays that caused the Roman Empire falling-, , , right? Link to comment
SmileyMcGee Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I'm hopeful that a full tasting of the fruit will let us pass sound judgment as to whether SSM is good or evil. If nothing else, today's ruling should help us get to that point sooner.My thoughts: in stark contrast to the great hype and attention that SSM has received, the fruits will probably be quite underwhelming. The church has likely figured out a way to side step any issues and remain mostly unaffected by any new legislation. The LGBT community will marry, raise children, and life will go on. After noting that SSM didn't usher in the second coming, the hyperbole will cease and that will be that. 1 Link to comment
sunstoned Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 You know, you are right. It is only a matter of time. And that will open doors to other things that are to come such as the force to perform same sex marriage in the temple. All the SSM supporters say that it wont happen. Well I am sorry but I simply don't believe them. Not that it matters. It is coming and things are only going to get worse.Your persecution hype is unfounded. The church went for almost 150 years discriminating against a whole race of people with regards to temple marriage, and the government, nor anyone else forced them to change. Link to comment
sunstoned Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I see the similarities as well.It is very clear. I also see it. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 The reason the general population does not tie Catholics to opposition to same sex marriage as they do Mormons is Catholics aren't known for following their Clergy when it comes to political matters. It goes back to that old saw which goes, the Catholic doctrine is the Pope is infallible, but Catholics don't believe it. Mormon doctrine is that the Prophet is human and therefore fallible, but Mormons don't believe it. That's the way the world views us as lemmings who have abdicated there decision making on certain subjects. That's a funny quote. I've even used it myself. However we shouldn't draw it too far. Politically the American LDS are a diverse lot, and not all that different from the American Catholics. Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Your persecution hype is unfounded. The church went for almost 150 years discriminating against a whole race of people with regards to temple marriage, and the government, nor anyone else forced them to change. The Church also went 50 years trying to practice a form of marriage that went against the laws of the time, and ended up with leaders in hiding, people in prison and the Church virtually disincorporated. The state will absolutely interfere if it suits their purposes. Oh, if they go against what is legal, there will be repercussions eventually. Especially if other Churches (Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic or whomever decide to change their policies). 1 Link to comment
DJBrown Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 My thoughts: in stark contrast to the great hype and attention that SSM has received, the fruits will probably be quite underwhelming. The church has likely figured out a way to side step any issues and remain mostly unaffected by any new legislation. The LGBT community will marry, raise children, and life will go on. After noting that SSM didn't usher in the second coming, the hyperbole will cease and that will be that. I am honestly amazed at how common this view is becoming in the church. It really seems to me like the frog in the pan of water scenario. Do people really think this (same sex marriage) is not a very big deal? 1 Link to comment
rockpond Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Do people really think this (same sex marriage) is not a very big deal? Well, it's a very big deal for gay people and their loved ones. But I don't think that's what you were asking. Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Your persecution hype is unfounded. The church went for almost 150 years discriminating against a whole race of people with regards to temple marriage, and the government, nor anyone else forced them to change. I am sure you will be saying that in the near future when it does happen. Link to comment
Analytics Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) It all goes back to the zeitgeist—the spirit of the times. The fact of the matter is that as time rolls forward, a greater and greater percentage of the population--both inside and outside the church--will see same-sex marriage as a good, virtuous thing. Sure, this will cause some tension between the Church, its members, and society at large. Some of the Mormons who are with the zeitgeist will leave the church over this issue. Others will stay and be gadflies. Still others will be quiet and faithful. People in that third group will include people at all ranks in the Church, many of whom will be moving up the hierarchy. Then there will be an announcement that God has heard the Mormons’ prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long promised day has come when the blessings of temple marriage will be extended to all… Edited October 8, 2014 by Analytics Link to comment
Recommended Posts