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

[teddyaware]

You do not post for discussion, do you?

Please explain why Denmark Government telling the Government run religion how to operate should be a concern? ESPECIALLY since Denmark did not tell all the NONGovernment religions how to operate.

You continue to monger fear.

Denmark HAS NOT mandated Same sex marriage be performed by the Church in Denmark.

Denmark HAS NOT mandated LDS Priesthood to perform same sex marriages.

Denmark HAS NOT mandated same sex sealing in the LDS Temple in Denmark.

DEnmark HAS NOT mandated any religion other than the Official State run religion to perform same sex marriages.

Since Denmark ONLY mandated THE STATE RUN religion, then you reliance on Denmark is terribly misguided if not a complete lack of comprehension of the situation.

When the time comes that the world has fully ripened in iniquity -- as it surely will according to prophecy --  all bets will be off insofar as what abominations will then reign. I suppose being compelled to perform compulsory gay marriage ceremonies will be the least of our worries in that day. By then it will probably be worth one's life to even admit he's a Latter-day Saint, as forced denunciations of one's faith and forced "conversions' will likely become the rule of the day.

 

Just because some are too progressive to be able to clearly see the ever expanding and encroaching ungodliness that's gaining in strength and influence all around us doesn't mean the tsunami of spiritual darkness isn't spreading itself abroad. In the day when the Constitution of the Unites States is hanging by a single thin thread, constitutional guarantees will surely be greatly eroded into near nonexistence. And just because that dread day is still twenty or thirty years down the road should give no follower of Christ comfort or solace. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear can see what's coming and they sorrow more and more for the blindness of men with each passing day. And just as it was in the days of Noah, men who have allowed themselves to be caught spiritually unaware will be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, totally oblivious to the truth of what has happened and is happening until it begins to "rain."

 

The Lord says the day is coming when the entire world will combine forces to fight against Christ and His people. I'll bet when that day comes there will be many members who still won't see the danger and will have a field day calling the saints with oil in their lamps kooks and overwrought alarmists.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.

16 And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—

17 And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel. (1Nephi 14)

Edited October 23, 2014 by teddyaware

[california boy]

I'm bumping this so the questions don't get lost in the heat and smoke... We're still wiggling away from the question in the OP, let me bring us back to it.

Given the thread that shows California requiring churches to pay for surgical abortions, could the same reasoning be brought by our representative government to require churches (LDS and otherwise) to solemnize gay marriages in the future, under the cover of civil rights?

1. Would you (those commenting here) support, oppose or remain neutral if that were to occur?

2. How would you justify this in light of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment?

3. What assurances can be given that the right of churches to define marriage as they see fit will not be countermanded by government regulation?

...and please don't deflect by calling this scare mongering. The U.S. government has made decisions from LDS polygamy to Catholics paying for abortion services, that have restricted the 1st amendment in a very real way. http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/california-orders-churches-to-fund-abortions-or-else/

 

Is California requiring the Catholic church to pay for abortions for members of their church or is it for the "for profit" business part of the Catholic Church?

 

Because if California is forcing the Catholic church to pay for abortions for their congregations, then I certainly would oppose that and would definitely protest it in the strongest terms.  If someone knows if this is the issue, could you please tell the whole group.  

 

If however it is the business arm of the Catholic church, then I am assuming as a business they have to comply with the same laws as everyone else in order to operate a business in California.  Just guessing.  I am not a lawyer.

 

If the government ever forces any church to perform a gay marriage, then I would fight that ruling along with the rest of you that think it is wrong.  I emphatically do not believe any church should be compelled by the government to do anything against it's teachings.  Any for profit businesses however, must comply with federal discrimination laws. I am not willing to go  back to a "your kind are not served here" kind of America.   I personally support nondiscrimination laws, though I know there are those of you who do not.

 

I have no idea what reassurances it would take to make churches feel safe in not being compelled to perform gay marriages.  Since the constitution of the United States seems to be not quite strong enough for some, and absolutely no history ever of compelling a church to perform any ordinances in the entire history of this country, what else can the government offer?  Perhaps those that feel uneasy about this happening could offer some kind of suggestion that would make them feel more secure.

[california boy]

When the time comes that the world has fully ripened in iniquity -- as it surely will according to prophecy --  all bets will be off insofar as what abominations will then reign. I suppose being compelled to perform compulsory gay marriage ceremonies will be the least of our worries in that day. By then it will probably be worth one's life to even admit he's a Latter-day Saint, as forced denunciations of one's faith and forced "conversions' will likely become the rule of the day.

 

Just because some are too progressive to be able to clearly see the ever expanding and encroaching ungodliness that's gaining in strength and influence all around us doesn't mean the tsunami of spiritual darkness isn't spreading itself abroad. In the day when the Constitution of the Unites States is hanging by a single thin thread, constitutional guarantees will surely be greatly eroded into near nonexistence. And just because that dread day is still twenty or thirty years down the road should give no follower of Christ comfort or solace. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear can see what's coming and they sorrow more and more for the blindness of men with each passing day. And just as it was in the days of Noah, men who have allowed themselves to be caught spiritually unaware will be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, totally oblivious to the truth of what has happened and is happening until it begins to "rain."

 

The Lord says the day is coming when the entire world will combine forces to fight against Christ and His people. I'll bet when that day comes there will be many who still won't see the danger and will have a field day calling the saints with oil in their lamps kooks and overwrought alarmists.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.

16 And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—

17 And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel. (1Nephi 14)

 

Just curious.  Do you think that homosexuality is more accepted during our time or during the Roman times when Christ was on the earth?  

[KevinG]

Thank you California Boy. I can only hope and be diligent against those who believe my freedom of religion is something to be legislated away.

The exchange of capital, goods and services negating a Churches right to choose which services to provide is the only thing currently under assault, but it is troubling to me.

Thankfully the LDS church has distance between their commercial investments and the ecclesiastical functions of our congregations, but could church headquarters be required to hire people who demanded abortion services in their benefits?

[california boy]

Thank you California Boy. I can only hope and be diligent against those who believe my freedom of religion is something to be legislated away.

The exchange of capital, goods and services negating a Churches right to choose which services to provide is the only thing currently under assault, but it is troubling to me.

Thankfully the LDS church has distance between their commercial investments and the ecclesiastical functions of our congregations, but could church headquarters be required to hire people who demanded abortion services in their benefits?

 

I don't think so.  It is not a for profit business offering services to the public.  But I am not a lawyer.

[Analytics]

For the record:

 

P: Given the thread that shows California requiring churches to pay for surgical abortions, could the same reasoning be brought by our representative government to require churches (LDS and otherwise) to solemnize gay marriages in the future, under the cover of civil rights?

 

A: California does not require churches to pay for surgical abortions, so the question is invalid.  But for the record, no, there is no valid reasoning that could be used for the government to require a Church to solemnize a marriage--gay or straight.

 

1- Would you (those commenting here) support, oppose or remain neutral if that were to occur?

 

A: I would oppose it.  But the question is in and of itself offensive--it's like asking Mormons, "Given how the Mormon prophet ordered the Mormons killed those folks in the Meadows, it could happen again.  If the Prophet ordered you to kill a group of people traveling through Utah, would you Mormons oppose, support, or remain neutral on it?"  From my viewpoint, your question is that irrelevant, illfounded, and offensive.

 

2. How would you justify this in light of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment?

 

A: Nobody would attempt to justify it, because nobody wants the government to force the Mormon Church to do such a thing.

 

3. What assurances can be given that the right of churches to define marriage as they see fit will not be countermanded by government regulation?

 

A: The U.S. Constitution.  But again, the question is like asking, "What assurances can you Mormons give me that you won't send the dannites to murder me the next time I visit Utah?"

 

The fact of the matter is that same-sex marriage really isn't about Mormons.  The only reason the Church got targeted is because it decided to use its political muscle to oppose the civil rights of gays (given how many federal judges have ruled that it is in fact a civil right, it is totally fair and accurate to describe the Church's opposition to Prop 8 as opposing their civil rights).

 

It isn't a fight of liberals being in an endless fight to destroy your Church and your right to believe what you want and to live your religion.  It's a fight of gays trying to secure their civil liberties.  Their civil liberties include the right to marry the consenting adults of their choice without regard to their sex, and their civil liberties include the right to fully participate in America's secular economy. It is in fact true that this can entail compromises when a business owner doesn't approve of a patron to his business for religious reasons.  But we all have to make compromises.  If somebody sees baking wedding cases as a sacred life calling only to be reserved for weddings that meet her religious beliefs, what she really ought to do is call her business a "ministry" and make it clear that when she is baking cakes she is practicing her religion--not participating in the secular economy.

 

Your assurance that gays aren't going to somehow force you to marry them in your temple is the U. S. Constitution.  As Martin Luther King said, the arc of moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.  You worry that the government is going to disincorporate your church because of its beliefs regarding same-sex marriage, and refer it doing that over polygamy as evidence that it could happen again.  That's like worrying that the government is going to reverse the anti-slavery laws and put the blacks back into the cotton fields.  The arc of the moral universe just isn't going in that direction--it's bending towards justice.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Analytics

[KevinG]

Communism and the history of destroying churches is real and a real concern for those of us who see the country and some in it using collectivist ideals to restrict rights that were taken for granted a generation ago. There are plenty of powerful and motivated political operatives today that would love to undermine freedom of assembly and property rights.

Therefore the discussion, if done politely is neither offensive or unwarranted. The franking out and accusations of my questions being offensive, quite frankly startle me.

If someone were to ask me what assurances we have of mountain meadows massacre never happening again I would point them to the teachings of modern prophets and the long history of peaceful Mormonism in the 20th and 21st century. But I would not fond the question offensive from someone who was new to church history.

Can you point me to assurances that political movements in the US are currently dedicated to drawing the line at equal access and not tipping over into positive enforcement of behavior? That is a legitimate question and the one asked by the OP.

I've ridden the slippery slope too far with the Boy Scouts to think it would not or could not happen here. Those who assured us that no further demands would be made if the scouts admitted homosexual youth have now begun to demand openly homosexual adults be able to serve as leaders. That was an assurance that was quickly forgotten.

I suspect equal access to public accommodations can just as easily be interpreted as unfettered access to any church that holds a bIngo game or contains a cafe. Arguing that such questions are offensive does not engender confidence.

The arc of justice was rather short when it came to the Saints practicing their religion in the 1800s, risking the confiscation of their property. I certainly hope we have grown beyond that today and that people can respect my rights even if they disagree with how I use them.

Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG

[KevinG]

My iPad keyboard is making me look like an illiterate moron. Please excuse the typos.

[Calm]

I have a laptop that keeps changing sealings to dealings no matter how many times I tell it not to…just did it again…urgh….

[Analytics]

Communism and the history of destroying churches is real and a real concern for those of us who see the country and some in it using collectivist ideals to restrict rights that were taken for granted a generation ago. There are plenty of powerful and motivated political operatives today that would love to undermine freedom of assembly and property rights.

Therefore the discussion, if done politely is neither offensive or unwarranted. The franking out and accusations of my questions being offensive, quite frankly startle me.

If someone were to ask me what assurances we have of mountain meadows massacre never happening again I would point them to the teachings of modern prophets and the long history of peaceful Mormonism in the 20th and 21st century. But I would not fond the question offensive from someone who was new to church history.

Can you point me to assurances that political movements in the US are currently dedicated to drawing the line at equal access and not tipping over into positive enforcement of behavior? That is a legitimate question and the one asked by the OP.

I've ridden the slippery slope too far with the Boy Scouts to think it would not or could not happen here. Those who assured us that no further demands would be made if the scouts admitted homosexual youth have now begun to demand openly homosexual adults be able to serve as leaders. That was an assurance that was quickly forgotten.

I suspect equal access to public accommodations can just as easily be interpreted as unfettered access to any church that holds a bIngo game or contains a cafe. Arguing that such questions are offensive does not engender confidence.

The arc of justice was rather short when it came to the Saints practicing their religion in the 1800s, risking the confiscation of their property. I certainly hope we have grown beyond that today and that people can respect my rights even if they disagree with how I use them.

 

 

I guess I just don't get the point of asking for an "assurance."  I just don't see the history of society's changing values as a matter of broken promises.  It's like saying, "first they asked us to treat our slaves nicely.  But they assured us that we could keep them.  Then they freed them, but assured us that we wouldn't have to allow them into our schools.  What assurance can you give me that if we allow them into our schools that we can keep making them sit in the back of the bus?"

 

People argue for what they believe is right. The Boy Scouts changed because they decided to change was the right thing to do.  The gays didn't make them change, and the government didn't either. 

[KevinG]

Equating a stance on homosexual scout leaders with slavery aside...

(Did I really just read that?)

A few Scout Leaders forced the choice on the broader organization due to financial and political pressures brought to bear on the national Organization. The schizm and backlash that followed still negatively affects boys who want a good program in their area, gay and straight. I don't side with the Baptist churches who dumped the Scouts but the decision was hardly an organizational consensus on doing the right thing.

But about the church and the 1st amendment.

I was assured by California Boy he would oppose any efforts to compel a service from a religious institution that did not want to provide it. I trust him, but at the same time feel he is likely much more moderate than some in other political circles.

This is the same discussion I've had with gay employees and friends who ask me what I believe about them as a Mormon, and their rather libertarian stance is refreshing and very close to mine. In the meat world I advocate for equal protection under the law for LGBTIQ people. I am currently seeking same sex partner benefits from my employer, which is a hard fight in a state agency led by social conservatives.

So be careful not to assume my intent when I ask others to clarify their views or try to determine the depth of their commitment to my religious freedoms. Hopefully it is deeper than tolerating only those beliefs they agree with.

Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG

[Analytics]

Equating a stance on homosexual scout leaders with slavery aside...

(Did I really just read that?)

A few Scout Leaders forced the choice on the broader organization due to financial and political pressures brought to bear on the national Organization. The schizm and backlash that followed still negatively affects boys who want a good program in their area, gay and straight. I don't side with the Baptist churches who dumped the Scouts but the decision was hardly an organizational consensus on doing the right thing.

But about the church and the 1st amendment.

I was assured by California Boy he would oppose any efforts to compel a service from a religious institution that did not want to provide it. I trust him, but at the same time feel he is likely much more moderate than some in other political circles.

This is the same discussion I've had with gay employees and friends who ask me what I believe about them as a Mormon, and their rather libertarian stance is refreshing and very close to mine. In the meat world I advocate for equal protection under the law for LGBTIQ people. I am currently seeking same sex partner benefits from my employer, which is a hard fight in a state agency led by social conservatives.

So be careful not to assume my intent when I ask others to clarify their views or try to determine the depth of their commitment to my religious freedoms. Hopefully it is deeper than tolerating only those beliefs they agree with.

 

Scout masters are more like Hitler than slave owners... <jk>

 

Thanks for the olive branch.  You do come across as being open-minded, willing to listen, and quite capable of living peacefully in a pluralistic society.  I've just tried to be clear, but I haven't judged you personally.

 

Several of the other messages in this thread do seem quite over the top, and seem to be coming from a paradigm that people who disagree with the Church on this issue are the spawn of Satan who don't care the least about the civil rights of gays, but rather are using it as a tool to bring to pass religious slavery (or whatever the opposite of "religious freedom" is called).  It's hard to have a good-faith conversation when the entire premise of the thread is that the advocates of gay rights have a secret slippery slope agenda that is very different from what they claim is their agenda.

[KevinG]

Scout masters are more like Hitler than slave owners... <jk>

 

There is that. :-D

It is hard to respond to one opinion without conflating many posts. I understand and have done the same more often than I'd like to admit. Probably with you.

I doubt we are far apart, and I suspect California Boy and I are closer in our thought process than most would suspect.

Where your rights and my rights can bump into each other is always potentially contentious territory. I was somewhat uncomfortable with the church providing political guidance and a bit of material support on Prop 8. Yet I think some groups have inflated the amount of influence the Mormons had in that fight.

I will remain stubbornly on the side of allowing others to believe any stupid thing they want! I've got revolutionary blood in my veins and strong government influence gives me the hives.

[mbh26]

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

 

Why did these two gay men insist the hitching post marry them?  They had a lot of other options as well.  

[USU78]

Why did these two gay men insist the hitching post marry them?  They had a lot of other options as well.  

 

Because, dear friend, it isn't about anything else but the drama and the bullying, as confirmed here:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/22/couer-dalene-city-attorney-confirms-conservative-christian-ministers-wedding-chapel-business-must-provide-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies/

 

Excerpt:

 

 

 

The letter, signed by the City Attorney, is here. It notes that, while nonprofits are exempted from the ordinance, for-profit wedding chapels are not: “if they are providing services primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.”

 

Under the same logic, a minister who officiated at weddings on the side, for a fee [and they all do -- '78], could also be required to conduct same-sex ceremonies. The particular Coeur d’Alene ordinance might not apply to such an itinerant officiant, since it covers only “place,” and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any “establishment,” and if a wedding photography service is an “establishment” then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well.

Edited October 23, 2014 by USU78

[USU78]

 

 

I guess I just don't get the point of asking for an "assurance."  I just don't see the history of society's changing values as a matter of broken promises.  It's like saying, "first they asked us to treat our slaves nicely.  But they assured us that we could keep them.  Then they freed them, but assured us that we wouldn't have to allow them into our schools.  What assurance can you give me that if we allow them into our schools that we can keep making them sit in the back of the bus?"

 

People argue for what they believe is right. The Boy Scouts changed because they decided to change was the right thing to do.  The gays didn't make them change, and the government didn't either. 

 

You don't understand the desire for peaceful lives, free from bullying and governmental impositions?

 

OK

[USU78]

Scout masters are more like Hitler than slave owners... <jk>

 

Thanks for the olive branch.  You do come across as being open-minded, willing to listen, and quite capable of living peacefully in a pluralistic society.  I've just tried to be clear, but I haven't judged you personally.

 

Several of the other messages in this thread do seem quite over the top, and seem to be coming from a paradigm that people who disagree with the Church on this issue are the spawn of Satan who don't care the least about the civil rights of gays, but rather are using it as a tool to bring to pass religious slavery (or whatever the opposite of "religious freedom" is called).  It's hard to have a good-faith conversation when the entire premise of the thread is that the advocates of gay rights have a secret slippery slope agenda that is very different from what they claim is their agenda.

 

This is where you and I part company.

 

If I had any indication that there were a point at which one could be satisfied that "it is finished," and that point stood outside the churches and schools, then I could agree with your point of view that this is no war and there will be no body count.

 

All I see and have seen, however, confirms again and yet again that there is no such place outside the Holy of Holies itself.

[Daniel2]

Why did these two gay men insist the hitching post marry them? They had a lot of other options as well.

CFR on ANY gay couples that have insisted that Hitching Post marry them.

[tonie]

When the time comes that the world has fully ripened in iniquity -- as it surely will according to prophecy --  all bets will be off insofar as what abominations will then reign. I suppose being compelled to perform compulsory gay marriage ceremonies will be the least of our worries in that day. By then it will probably be worth one's life to even admit he's a Latter-day Saint, as forced denunciations of one's faith and forced "conversions' will likely become the rule of the day.

 

Just because some are too progressive to be able to clearly see the ever expanding and encroaching ungodliness that's gaining in strength and influence all around us doesn't mean the tsunami of spiritual darkness isn't spreading itself abroad. In the day when the Constitution of the Unites States is hanging by a single thin thread, constitutional guarantees will surely be greatly eroded into near nonexistence. And just because that dread day is still twenty or thirty years down the road should give no follower of Christ comfort or solace. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear can see what's coming and they sorrow more and more for the blindness of men with each passing day. And just as it was in the days of Noah, men who have allowed themselves to be caught spiritually unaware will be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, totally oblivious to the truth of what has happened and is happening until it begins to "rain."

 

The Lord says the day is coming when the entire world will combine forces to fight against Christ and His people. I'll bet when that day comes there will be many members who still won't see the danger and will have a field day calling the saints with oil in their lamps kooks and overwrought alarmists.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.

16 And as there began to be wars and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things—

17 And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel. (1Nephi 14)

 

I do not doubt the world will separate into "righteous" and "wicked", but then if what you say is correct that things have been Prophesied and warned of aceintly, wouldn't that make the origin of this thread simply "kicking against the pricks". 

Edited October 23, 2014 by tonie

[tonie]

You don't understand the desire for peaceful lives, free from bullying and governmental impositions?

 

OK

 

 

You still have not explain why you are comparing the apples of Denmark telling the State run religion how to operate, to the oranges of EVERY OTHER religion in Denmark NOT BEING told what to do.

 

You also, have not explained why the apples of Denmark, are any cause for concern of the oranges of the United States?

 

You also, have not explained why the LDS Priesthood being FREE OF COMPULSION in Denmark, is a reason to FEAR COMPULSION of the LDS Priesthood in the United States. 

 

Now, I have what probably is a very difficult request for you, will you address any of those question WITHOUT calling me socialist, without suggesting I am an enemy of the Church or to righteousness. Will actually discuss the merits and cause for concern of why Denmark (telling the State sponosored State run religion what to do) is a rational cause for concern for free of religion in the United States.

[USU78]

You still have not explain why you are comparing the apples of Denmark telling the State run religion how to operate, to the oranges of EVERY OTHER religion in Denmark NOT BEING told what to do.

 

You also, have not explained why the apples of Denmark, are any cause for concern of the oranges of the United States?

 

You also, have not explained why the LDS Priesthood being FREE OF COMPULSION in Denmark, is a reason to FEAR COMPULSION of the LDS Priesthood in the United States. 

 

Now, I have what probably is a very difficult request for you, will you address any of those question WITHOUT calling me socialist, without suggesting I am an enemy of the Church or to righteousness. Will actually discuss the merits and cause for concern of why Denmark (telling the State sponosored State run religion what to do) is a rational cause for concern for free of religion in the United States.

 

Perhaps I should explain.

 

I used to do a whole lot of eviction work, and, depending upon funding, I did business with Legal Services, which represented indigent tenants, on a weekly, sometimes semi-weekly basis.  There came a time when the head of LS came to me with a problem with how I was doing the paperwork.  I listened and agreed to make the requested changes.  He promised that it was great from that point on, and we would not have any problems.

 

He broke the promise a week later by filing objections in all my cases.

 

I made the additional changes he demanded in those objections.

 

He then promised it was great from that point on, and we would not have any problems.

 

A few months later he filed yet further objections in all my cases.

 

I got fed up, went to war, won, and he then left me alone.  I discovered, to my pain, that when one is an advocate, there is no such thing as a deal:  trucebreakers gravitate to those industries.

 

Of course, I never trusted him or anybody else working in that industry again.  I work on the assumption that they are always lying, and I am rarely disappointed when my assumption is proven to be spot on.

 

This is but one example in one advocacy industry.  I have watched carefully over the last 30 years:  you can never trust advocacy lawyers and groups, as there is never an end to advocacy, they just go looking for somebody else to be p!$$ed off at.

 

Drama addiction is a terrible thing.  There doesn't seem to be a cure.

[california boy]

Perhaps I should explain.

 

I used to do a whole lot of eviction work, and, depending upon funding, I did business with Legal Services, which represented indigent tenants, on a weekly, sometimes semi-weekly basis.  There came a time when the head of LS came to me with a problem with how I was doing the paperwork.  I listened and agreed to make the requested changes.  He promised that it was great from that point on, and we would not have any problems.

 

He broke the promise a week later by filing objections in all my cases.

 

I made the additional changes he demanded in those objections.

 

He then promised it was great from that point on, and we would not have any problems.

 

A few months later he filed yet further objections in all my cases.

 

I got fed up, went to war, won, and he then left me alone.  I discovered, to my pain, that when one is an advocate, there is no such thing as a deal:  trucebreakers gravitate to those industries.

 

Of course, I never trusted him or anybody else working in that industry again.  I work on the assumption that they are always lying, and I am rarely disappointed when my assumption is proven to be spot on.

 

This is but one example in one advocacy industry.  I have watched carefully over the last 30 years:  you can never trust advocacy lawyers and groups, as there is never an end to advocacy, they just go looking for somebody else to be p!$$ed off at.

 

Drama addiction is a terrible thing.  There doesn't seem to be a cure.

 

So who are you going to war against?  The government of Denmark?  The US Constitution that guarantees equal protection to all Americans?  The 1960 Civil Rights laws?  The gay community for demanding the protection guaranteed to them under the laws of the country?  I would like to know just who you think the enemy is.  Because is all you have pointed out so far is legally protected rights that have been around since the founding of the country and more recently 50 years of civil rights laws.  You have not provided one ounce of proof that any creep has occurred other than what has always been lawfully granted, but just recently been satisfied through either ballot measure, legislature and the courts.  As far as I know, these are all legal representatives of our government authiorized by the Constitution to perform these duties.

 

Now if you would like to say that gay marriage is a "new" right, well then I have not one, not three, not even nine, but over 40 federal judges that would disagree with you.   This is not some ruling made by a few "unelected" men.  It is a ruling made by both conservative judges and liberal judges appointed by presidents, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, George Bush, George W. Bush, and others.  Not what you would call a narrow select group.  

 

Unless you can point to some new law or new legislature that is threatening your liberties, then is all you are seeing is the arch of justice once again being satisfied.  

[Bob Crockett]

For the record:

 

P: Given the thread that shows California requiring churches to pay for surgical abortions, could the same reasoning be brought by our representative government to require churches (LDS and otherwise) to solemnize gay marriages in the future, under the cover of civil rights?

 

A: California does not require churches to pay for surgical abortions, so the question is invalid.  But for the record, no, there is no valid reasoning that could be used for the government to require a Church to solemnize a marriage--gay or straight.

 

California does require doctors to offer fertility services (i.e., surrogate or donor) to gay couples and will shut down your fertility business if you do not. 

 

California will not permit you to put your house in the rental market if you refuse to rent to unwed cohabitating couples. 

 

Seems close to your example.  

Edited October 23, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR on ANY gay couples that have insisted that Hitching Post marry them.

What gay couple said "leave them alone they have a right to refuse service"?

[Sleeper Cell]

For the record:

 

P: Given the thread that shows California requiring churches to pay for surgical abortions, could the same reasoning be brought by our representative government to require churches (LDS and otherwise) to solemnize gay marriages in the future, under the cover of civil rights?

 

A: California does not require churches to pay for surgical abortions, so the question is invalid.  But for the record, no, there is no valid reasoning that could be used for the government to require a Church to solemnize a marriage--gay or straight.

 

 

 

 I think it unlikely that the national guard is going to force a temple president at bayonet point to perform a temple marriage.  But that doesn’t mean that the state might not use other coercive measures.   

 

One possibility.  It may be argued that churches are acting in a duel role as agent for the state in performing a legal marriage and as well as performing a religious rite.  If a church wants to continue to perform legally binding marriages, it cannot “discriminate” on the basis of sexual orientation.  The result.  A de facto law respecting an establishment of religion, favoring some churches over others based on their religious doctrine. 

 

Other possibilities.  Revoke/limit  tax exemptions for non-compliant churches or perhaps just their “secular” institutions (schools. hospitals, social services outreaches, etc.), with the state deciding which aspects of a church’s ministry is and is not religious..