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

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

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.

 

Change  “Mormon prophet” in the first line to “Mormon religious leaders” and I would have no problem with asking a Mormon Sunday School or Priesthood/Relief Society class the question.  In fact, a number of years ago, I began a lesson with essentially your question. 

 

IMO, occasionally asking “what if” questions -- even those about things I consider extremely unlikely to occur -- is an integral part of learning to “think outside the box.” 

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

 

But would they want the government to coerce/penalize or otherwise treat the church any differently than it treats those churches which will perform SSM?  

[Sleeper Cell]

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?"

 

Unfortunately, as a practical matter, the US Constitution is whatever 5 unelected and unaccountable people say it is.  Equally qualified judges strongly disagree with each other. IIRC, the Hobby Lobby case was a 5-4 decision.  And political events that occurred years before -- events that have absolutely to do with the meaning of the constitution -- often  determine what the court says the constitution means.  If, or example, 20 years ago, a presidential candidate flubs a debate question on foreign policy, he loses and Hobby Lobby goes the other way.

[Sleeper Cell]

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).

 In other words, the only reason the church got targeted was that it exercised its civil rights. Why isn’t it fair to describe those who target the church for exercising its civil rights, as people who oppose the church’s  civil rights?  

 

BTW, since at the time the Church supported Prop 8, “many federal judges” had not yet ruled SSM was  a civil right, why is it  fair to accuse it of violating a “civil right” that even “many federal judges” had not yet said was a “civil right?”   

 

Incidentally, the primary argument against “gay marriage” was that “gay marriage” wasn’t’ marriage, and had never been considered marriage by any culture in history, even those which recognized and encouraged “committed gay relationships.” .Many opponents of gay marriage supported “domestic partnerships.”    

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

We all have to make compromises?  What compromises do you believe gay couples should make?  

 

An obvious compromise would be: if comparable goods and services are readily available  elsewhere, do not attempt to coerce a person to participate directly or indirectly in an event which violates their deeply held religious beliefs.  IIRC, the cake maker and the photographer were quite willing to serve gay people; per se.  They just didn’t’ want to be involved in a particular event.  And none of the gay plaintiffs even alleged that they couldn’t have easily obtained comparable goods and services elsewhere. 

 

You explicitly state that the civil liberties of gays “include the right to fully participate in America’s secular economy.”  But when it comes to religious people, if providing goods and personal services to an event which violates your deeply held religious convictions --  “compromise” (i.e., violate your religious beliefs) or  you can’t “fully participate in America’s secular economy.”   

[Sleeper Cell]

 

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.

Sort of has a “Candide” flavor.  But even assuming that the universe is a moral universe, and that the moral arc will bend toward justice,  all too often, the moral arc “backslides.” 

 

The 19th century anti-Mormon persecutions, generations after the 18th century enshrinement of religious freedom in the Bill of Rights is just one example.  The history of 20th century Europe is replete with much more horrific examples.  Facilitated, in some instances, by the belief that  “it can’t happen here.”  

Edited October 23, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[KevinG]

Put simply the assurance that it hasn't happened yet, does not answer the question, could it happen?

Screaming discrimination or calling this a straw man is not a valid answer. Especially in light of other cases where 1st amendment rights have been eroded by the federal government using the justification of civil rights.

[Analytics]

 

 

We all have to make compromises?  What compromises do you believe gay couples should make?  

 

An obvious compromise would be: if comparable goods and services are readily available  elsewhere, do not attempt to coerce a person to participate directly or indirectly in an event which violates their deeply held religious beliefs.  IIRC, the cake maker and the photographer were quite willing to serve gay people; per se.  They just didn’t’ want to be involved in a particular event.....

 

On a national scale with millions of gays and many tens of millions of fundamental Christians, there are exactly two cases over the last few years where a professional was forced to violate their religious beliefs by offering professional services to gays against their will. That should tell you that at least 99.99% of gays do in fact compromise in the way you suggest.

 

But since you asked, here is a real-life example of how America forces a specific gay man I know to compromise his religious beliefs. This gay man is a pacifist. He believes that in all cases, war is not the answer. His passionate, sincere, religious beliefs are that the American military-industrial complex does tremendous harm in the world, and leads to war, death, and hatred. Please don't argue with me about the validity of these beliefs, just please accept the fact that they are his sincere, well-thought out religious convictions.

 

This man happens to make a pretty good income, and estimates that of the $3,000 in federal taxes he pays every month, about $800 goes directly to fund the military industrial complex.

 

So tell me this. How would you feel if the government forced to you pay $800 every month to fund something that violates your religious convictions? My gay friend does that every single month of his life. He makes a huge, real, payment every month to financially support something that is in intense violation of his religious convictions.

[The Nehor]

Unfortunately, as a practical matter, the US Constitution is whatever 5 unelected and unaccountable people say it is.  Equally qualified judges strongly disagree with each other. IIRC, the Hobby Lobby case was a 5-4 decision.  And political events that occurred years before -- events that have absolutely to do with the meaning of the constitution -- often  determine what the court says the constitution means.  If, or example, 20 years ago, a presidential candidate flubs a debate question on foreign policy, he loses and Hobby Lobby goes the other way.

So that part of the Constitution was not inspired by God?

[USU78]

So that part of the Constitution was not inspired by God?

 

Smart@$$ery quite beneath you.

 

Please return to the topic.

 

Can you provide assurances as requested?  If so, you'll be the first one in this thread to do so in more than 15 pages.

[USU78]

On a national scale with millions of gays and many tens of millions of fundamental Christians, there are exactly two cases over the last few years where a professional was forced to violate their religious beliefs by offering professional services to gays against their will. That should tell you that at least 99.99% of gays do in fact compromise in the way you suggest.

 

But since you asked, here is a real-life example of how America forces a specific gay man I know to compromise his religious beliefs. This gay man is a pacifist. He believes that in all cases, war is not the answer. His passionate, sincere, religious beliefs are that the American military-industrial complex does tremendous harm in the world, and leads to war, death, and hatred. Please don't argue with me about the validity of these beliefs, just please accept the fact that they are his sincere, well-thought out religious convictions.

 

This man happens to make a pretty good income, and estimates that of the $3,000 in federal taxes he pays every month, about $800 goes directly to fund the military industrial complex.

 

So tell me this. How would you feel if the government forced to you pay $800 every month to fund something that violates your religious convictions? My gay friend does that every single month of his life. He makes a huge, real, payment every month to financially support something that is in intense violation of his religious convictions.

 

Yes.

 

We all feel for the Amish and the Quakers.

 

Now:

 

Are you prepared to address the OP's question?  Can you give assurances?

[USU78]

Put simply the assurance that it hasn't happened yet, does not answer the question, could it happen?

Screaming discrimination or calling this a straw man is not a valid answer. Especially in light of other cases where 1st amendment rights have been eroded by the federal government using the justification of civil rights.

 

I would have phrased it:  "can it happen?"

[The Nehor]

Smart@$$ery quite beneath you.

 

Please return to the topic.

 

Can you provide assurances as requested?  If so, you'll be the first one in this thread to do so in more than 15 pages.

I assure you that it will not happen.

[tonie]

Can you provide assurances as requested?  If so, you'll be the first one in this thread to do so in more than 15 pages.

 

You ignore the many times it has been mentioned that the assurance is codified in the law. You ignore the religious exemptions codified in the laws.   You have to ignore this because it does not suit your irrational agenda. 

 

You have failed to demonstrate that what occurred the STATE RUN RELIGION of Denmark is any cause for concern for any other religion.  When did Denmark require LDS Priesthood to preform same sex weddings? Oh Denmark did not require the LDS Priesthood to perform same sex marriages, so why did you repeatedly bring up Denmark.

 

You have also not shown that any religion in the United States has been forced to conduct same sex marriages. 

 

You made a blanket statement to attack advocates, suggesting all advocates are liars; do you know who your advocate is?

Edited October 24, 2014 by tonie

[KevinG]

I would have phrased it:  "can it happen?"

 

Pendant!

[KevinG]

[USU78]

I assure you that it will not happen.

 

Must be chilly up there on Horeb.

[USU78]

Pendant!

 

Grocery Clerk!

[KevinG]

This could be a fun thread to refer back to after the next few supreme court sessions.

[The Nehor]

Must be chilly up there on Horeb.

The secret is to ride up in a chariot of fire. They have really good heaters.

[KevinG]

Grocery Clerk!

 

Mommmmmmmmm!  USU is being a polemicist again!

[USU78]

You ignore the many times it has been mentioned that the assurance is codified in the law. You ignore the religious exemptions codified in the laws.   You have to ignore this because it does not suit your irrational agenda. 

 

You have failed to demonstrate that what occurred the STATE RUN RELIGION of Denmark is any cause for concern for any other religion.  When did Denmark require LDS Priesthood to preform same sex weddings? Oh Denmark did not require the LDS Priesthood to perform same sex marriages, so why did you repeatedly bring up Denmark.

 

You have also not shown that any religion in the United States has been forced to conduct same sex marriages. 

 

You made a blanket statement to attack advocates, suggesting all advocates are liars; do you know who your advocate is?

 

To say that "they will never come beating on the doors of the Temples" is encoded in the Constitution is to lie.

 

To say that "religious exemptions" presently encoded in existing enactments will stay there is to lie.

 

To say the US (or any of its constituent states or their political subdivisions) will never compel anybody to perform an SSM is to lie.

 

How do I know this?

 

Because you are not G-d, and your assurances are worthless bits of electrical energy bouncing around the internet, without substance and without merit.

[The Nehor]

To say that "they will never come beating on the doors of the Temples" is encoded in the Constitution is to lie.

 

To say that "religious exemptions" presently encoded in existing enactments will stay there is to lie.

 

To say the US (or any of its constituent states or their political subdivisions) will never compel anybody to perform an SSM is to lie.

 

How do I know this?

 

Because you are not G-d, and your assurances are worthless bits of electrical energy bouncing around the internet, without substance and without merit.

To say that this post is rational is a lie.

[USU78]

Mommmmmmmmm!  USU is being a polemicist again!

 

Wally, your little brother is a twerp!

[KevinG]

Ask a rhetorical question...

 

Boy Scouts and California public parks comes to mind.

 

However I am very surprised that California Boy is the only one brave enough to speculate and admit he would not personally support moves to compel churches and church sponsored services, to perform services against their doctrines, through laws or more indirect measures like taking away tax free status, or limiting free association.

 

Kudos to him for his stance and willingness to share it.

 

Why when asked a simple question is there so much yelling about how unfair the question is?  It doesn't engender trust.

Edited October 24, 2014 by KevinG