How Credible Are Assurances Of Non-Compulsory Homosexual Weddings By Lds Priesthood?

[USU78]

We keep hearing assurances that the Coeur d'Alene Hitching Post case means only that, if you run a wedding mill as a for-profit enterprise, that then and only then will you be compelled by government to perform homosexual "weddings" against your will.

 

As recently as earlier this year, fully 1/3 of the US thinks ministers of religion should be compelled by government to perform homosexual "weddings."

 

As recently as a year ago June a terrifying SCOTUS decision stated that the only reason for opposing homosexual "weddings" was bigotry, and that, in that august body's opinion, no one could have a cognizable free-exercise right to oppose them.

 

Just what is the legal basis for relying upon the government not to compel LDS priesthood authorities, be they local or general, to conduct homosexual weddings and/or sealings against their will?

[cinepro]

How exactly would that work?  Two (presumably LDS) guys go in to a Bishop, and ask him to marry them.  The Bishop says that it is against Church doctrine and he can't.

 

Then what?  Do the guys sue the Bishop (and the Church)?  Would they just ask for money, or is there some way to sue so the court would decide that the Bishop has to perform the wedding?

 

So the Bishop has some government entity say that he has to perform the wedding?  Then what?  He could say something like "By the power invested in me by the government, but separate from any religious authority or priesthood and only because I do so under the threat of imprisonment, I pronounce you husband and husband in spite of it being an affront to God and my understanding of decent society."

 

He only has to do it, right?  He doesn't have to be nice about it, or pretend it's something it isn't.

 

A better example.  I used to run a DJ business (and now I still do it for friend's weddings and the church dances).  If I didn't want to DJ for a gay wedding, and a court ordered me to, I would just play terrible music and make the reception awful. I would explain to the guests that I didn't want to be there and was only there because I had to be.  But why would someone want me to DJ for their wedding when I didn't want to?  Likewise, why would someone want to get married by someone who didn't want to marry them?

 

So explain it to me.  Before I worry about whether or not something is going to happen, I need to believe that it actually could happen.  In this case, I just don't see how it is possible.

Edited October 20, 2014 by cinepro

[JAHS]

Should be that the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion would apply here should anyone ever try to bring a lawsuit against the LDS church or any other church or non-profit organization over this. I don't believe that any non-profit organization would be included in such a ruling; there would be too many who would oppose it.

And even if it should come to that the church could simply refuse to comply, even if it causes it to lose its tax exempt status.

Why would anyone even insist on having an LDS Bishop perform such a ceremony? There are so many other options.

[6EQUJ5]

We keep hearing assurances that the Coeur d'Alene Hitching Post case means only that, if you run a wedding mill as a for-profit enterprise, that then and only then will you be compelled by government to perform homosexual "weddings" against your will.

 

Yes.  Because those assurances are based in fact, history, and the US constitution.

 

 

 

 

As recently as earlier this year, fully 1/3 of the US thinks ministers of religion should be compelled by government to perform homosexual "weddings."

 

It's a good thing that popular opinion doesn't impact the constitution.  Let's get concerned when a constitutional amendment to eliminate the first gains steam.

 

 

 

As recently as a year ago June a terrifying SCOTUS decision stated that the only reason for opposing homosexual "weddings" was bigotry, and that, in that august body's opinion, no one could have a cognizable free-exercise right to oppose them.

 

Hmmm..... how do all those white-only Churches in the south get away with it?  What about golf clubs that don't allow women members?  Simple.  The government has no right or authority to interfere with these private institutions because their activities are protected by the US constitution -- explicitly protected.

 

 

 

Just what is the legal basis for relying upon the government not to compel LDS priesthood authorities, be they local or general, to conduct homosexual weddings and/or sealings against their will?

 

Um.... the US Constitution for starters.

 

How about you fear-mongerers seeking to stir up the fears of the Saints bring this issue up if/when you can provide an example of the government compelling a religion to perform one of its rites against its will.  Just one example would be great.  Until then, let's stay grounded in reality and stop trying to get people worked up over fantastical falsehoods.

[The Nehor]

To put this in perspective no one I know off has successfully forced a minister of any faith to perform a heterosexual wedding.

Polls like that probably mean something more along the lines that people want ministers to perform gay marriages not that. They want them forced to do so under threat of legal consequences. If they can force us to seal someone in the temple then they can force us to baptize or perform any other ordinance and gay marriage would be the least of our problems.

[6EQUJ5]

 

 

So explain it to me.  Before I worry about whether or not something is going to happen, I need to believe that it actually could happen.  In this case, I just don't see how it is possible.

 

It is only possible in the minds of those seeking to stir up contention and anxiety.

[Buckeye]

At least in the US, at the end of the day the legal basis is "We the People." So is it possible that the people could approve of a situation where LDS authorities are required to perform gay weddings? Sure, just like anything is 'possible.'

 

To judge whether it is probable, however, I suggest you look at other religious views which were once widely-accepted but which now are nearly-uniformly disgraced by the American public, and see if practitioners of those views have been compelled to act against their conscience. The prime example is inter-racial marriages, which should give you some solace.

 

That said, I found this chart from xkcd very enlightening: (http://xkcd.com/1431/). I would have guessed that current acceptable of interracial marriage was above 85%, and that majority acceptance of it happened prior to 1995.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, as indicated by an earlier thread on this board, one that is now closed, (and even this very thread) if you even dare to suggest vigilance on this matter, you are apt to be shouted down.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Well, as indicated by a an earlier thread on this board, one that is now closed, (and even this very thread) if you even dare to suggest vigilance on this matter, you are apt to be shouted down.

 

Ummm, excluding your response, there have only been 6 responses to the OP. Could you point out where even one poster has "shouted down" "vigilance" - which I assume you mean to be continued opposition to SSM. From my reading, I can't find a single statement against opposition to SSM in this thread, much less "shouting down."

[Scott Lloyd]

Ummm, excluding your response, there have only been 6 responses to the OP. Could you point out where even one poster has "shouted down" "vigilance" - which I assume you mean to be continued opposition to SSM. From my reading, I can't find a single statement against opposition to SSM in this thread, much less "shouting down."

By "vigilance," I mean endeavoring to safeguard the constitutional guarantee against governmental interference in the free exercise of one's religious faith, specifically as it pertains in this instance to the expression of one's religious belief that marriage is only proper between a man and a woman.

 

In the earlier thread I spoke of, Smac was treated rather poorly, and one participant was even thread-banned for his behavior.

 

I see an echo of that in the last post here by 6EQUJ5.

[WysteriaBlue]

I do not believe that ordained ministers of any faith can be forced to perform marriages that are in direct defiance of their faith, church doctrine or religious beliefs...both would be against the priest's freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

 

I think Cinepro is exactly right that priests, musicians and bakers that do not want to service weddings of same sex couples, but free market standards would just not be chosen to do so out of the hostility, lack of service or poor service offered....

 

The LDS church's 12th Article of Faith DOES say that "12 We believe in being ^asubject to ^bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in ^cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the ^dlaw."

but i do not think that they or any other faith whose articles prohibit religious sacraments under certain circumstances could within moral conscience allow their priests/ministers to do so...

 

There are those that legally perform marriages that do not include church doctrine that would oppose such marriages.  Judges or Justices of the peace and even boat captains and Elvis's.....why should there be any need or force issued to religious leaders of any faith that opposes them.  There is just no need for it.  Adaptations by other secular or religious leaders that are in agreement with the practice will happily do so and meet the needs of the community.

 

I see no reason for fear that church leaders would be forced to do something not of their conscious.  The issue is more often church leaders doing things that are illegal in their state/country....

[6EQUJ5]

Well, as indicated by a an earlier thread on this board, one that is now closed, (and even this very thread) if you even dare to suggest vigilance on this matter, you are apt to be shouted down.

 

Strong disagreement and spirited defense of a position is hardly "shouting down."  It's called conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

I see no reason for fear that church leaders would be forced to do something not of their conscious. 

 

But that very thing is already happening, as referenced in the OP. What had been unthinkable is now before us.

[6EQUJ5]

By "vigilance," I mean endeavoring to safeguard the constitutional guarantee against governmental interference in the free exercise of one's religious faith, specifically as it pertains in this instance to the expression of one's religious belief that marriage is only proper between a man and a woman.

 

In the earlier thread I spoke of, Smac was treated rather poorly, and one participant was even thread-banned for his behavior.

 

I see an echo of that in the last post here by 6EQUJ5.

 

First off, smac was not treated badly.  A couple of us strongly disagreed with his assertions.  

 

Conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Strong disagreement and spirited defense of a position is hardly "shouting down."  It's called conversation.

I guess what happened in that prior thread was still fresh in my mind. Your post seemed like more of the same.

[6EQUJ5]

Ummm, excluding your response, there have only been 6 responses to the OP. Could you point out where even one poster has "shouted down" "vigilance" - which I assume you mean to be continued opposition to SSM. From my reading, I can't find a single statement against opposition to SSM in this thread, much less "shouting down."

 

Smac started a similarly-themed fear-mongering thread this weekend.  His assertions were meant with strong opposition.  He wasn't "shouted down."  The thread was closed.

[Scott Lloyd]

First off, smac was not treated badly.  A couple of us strongly disagreed with his assertions.  

 

Conversation.

Smac was ridiculed and derided to the point a moderator had to step in to keep order.

 

And your post went beyond strong disagreement to an accusation of "seeking to stir up contention and anxiety."

[Scott Lloyd]

Smac started a similarly-themed fear-mongering thread this weekend.  His assertions were meant with strong opposition.  He wasn't "shouted down."  The thread was closed.

More accusation. Again, going beyond mere "strong disagreement."

[6EQUJ5]

I guess what happened in that prior thread was still fresh in my mind. Your post seemed like more of the same.

 

I'll admit to taking a very strong position on this question and I will defend that position.  

 

Given that those who propose the absurd notion that the US government will compell the LDS Church to perform gay weddings, can't point to a single instance where a Church has ever been compelled to perform one of its own rites against its will, I think it is clear that these proposals only serve to stir up anxiety and contention.

 

STOP the accusations and nagging. As of now you are being taken out of any thread that you hijack.

[6EQUJ5]

Smac was ridiculed and derided to the point a moderator had to step in to keep order.

 

And your post went beyond strong disagreement to an accusation of "seeking to stir up contention and anxiety."

 

Smac wasn't ridiculed.  His ideas were.  There is a key difference. 

 

And I stand behind the assertion that Smac's ideas are meant to stir up contention and anxiety.  Given that they are not based in fact, history, or the US Constitution, what other purpose could they serve?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll admit to taking a very strong position on this question and I will defend that position.  

 

Given that those who propose the absurd notion that the US government will compell the LDS Church to perform gay weddings, can't point to a single instance where a Church has ever been compelled to perform one of its own rites against its will, I think it is clear that these proposals only serve to stir up anxiety and contention.

There are already attempts to do so (see the instance cited in the OP) and there is already a sentiment to do so (see the polls cited in the OP). The time to halt it is before it actually happens, not afterward.

[6EQUJ5]

More accusation. Again, going beyond mere "strong disagreement."

 

No.  It is patently obvious that Smac and USU's fantastical assertions have no basis in reality.  As such they only serve to stir up undue fear and suspicion.  Pointing this out is part of demonstrating that these ideas are not only hallucinations, but that they produce contention and undue anxiety.

 

Poster removed.

[Scott Lloyd]

Smac wasn't ridiculed.  His ideas were.  There is a key difference. 

 

And I stand behind the assertion that Smac's ideas are meant to stir up contention and anxiety.  Given that they are not based in fact, history, or the US Constitution, what other purpose could they serve?

The First Amendment prohibits government from impeding the free exercise of religion. On what premise to you baldly assert that Smac's arguments have no constitutional basis?

Edited October 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[6EQUJ5]

There are already attempts to do so (see the instance cited in the OP) and there is already a sentiment to do so (see the polls cited in the OP). 

 

Judicial sentiment isn't the constitution.

 

The time to halt it is before it actually happens, not afterward.

 

 

That's all well and good but don't you think our fears should be based in reality?  In what is actually possible/likely?  

 

There are no examples of the US government ever doing this nor is there any evidence that the 1st amd. has been erased.  Otherwise this claim is on par with the suggestion that communists have infiltrated the White House and are planning a takeover by next March.  Both ideas have equal footing in reality.

[Scott Lloyd]

No.  It is patently obvious that Smac and USU's fantastical assertions have no basis in reality.  As such they only serve to stir up undue fear and suspicion.  Pointing this out is part of demonstrating that these ideas are not only hallucinations, but that they produce contention and undue anxiety.

If their fears are not credible, why are you so angrily and frantically trying to shout them down? Methinks thou "doth protest too much" (Skakespeare, "Hamlet").