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

[Analytics]

It has been my chief concern for 20 years.  The forces arrayed against the Boy Scouts and the Church have been and continue to be vicious.  I see no evidence they will stop at anything short of disincorporation, seizure of Church and Church members' assets, and proscriptions.

 

If you are going to fantasize about how evil people are who disagree with you about whether organizations that discriminate against gays should receive tax subsidies, why stop at thinking they'll be satisfied after they send the army to the temple to perform same-sex weddings, disincorporate the Church and seize the assets of the Church and its members?  It seems to me that people that evil won't be satisfied until they enslave your women, castrate your men, murder your daughters, and gang-rape your sons.

[Analytics]

CFR please if this is not speculation.

 

Of course it is speculation.

 

The truth is that there will never be a lawsuit that would have any chance of being supported by mainstream groups the ACLU, much less of winning, until one thing happens: an authorized bishop and stake president sign a temple recommend for a same-sex marriage, but the temple presidency then doesn't let them in.  If the power in the church were ever to somehow become that decentralized, then I could see the ward and stake suing the temple.  But until something like that happens, suing the Church to allow same-sex marriages will be as uncommon and unsuccessful as suing the Church to allow non-members to attend temple sealings. 

[KevinG]

Nice to see everyone is still engaged in the Mormon Dialogue's favorite activity: reductio ad absurdum.

 

Every time someone says I'm guilty of slippery slope thinking, I pause for a few months, only to find myself further down that slope.  I was given assurances by bloggers and posters on this very site, that marriage rights for homosexuals would never extend to coercing others to have to compromise their personal beliefs, yet here we are watching it happen in Idaho.  Of course its happening to a commercial enterprise, and I have my own issues with "selling" religious ordinances.  But it does hit close to home, and I'm not as convinced by those who tell me that there is no slippery slope, when I'm struggling to find purchase or a plateau in the efforts to compel people who believe like me to act against my beliefs.

 

I support my homosexual friends and acquaintances right to engage in ordinances they believe in and style as marriage.  I support their right to equal protection under the law when it comes to government benefits and recognition.  I am completely cur-flummoxed as to why someone feels the need to compel another to perform said ordinances and sacraments in a manner that violates their beliefs.  

[sheilauk]

May I point out that the Church is operating in many more countries than the USA and most of them have a different set of laws, a different constitution and a different culture.  Whilst the USA constitution may protect the Church from SSM being forced on us, this may not be the case in other countries, especially in Europe.  In the UK, when the act of parliament was passed allowing SSM, the act had to specifically exclude religions to protect them, because we don't have a written constitution or an inherent protection to freedom of religion.  It would not be difficult to change that law some time in the future.  Immediately the act was passed, a wealthy individual told the papers that he was considering bringing legal action to change it because he wants to marry his male partner in a church and the act was not giving him what he wanted.  I don't think he went further, but a few years from now and another campaign later...

 

It may not affect Temple sealings in the UK, as they have to be done separately to the marriage but LDS bishops can and do marry people in LDS chapels. 

 

It may never happen in the USA, but will it happen (first?) somewhere else? 

 

Does our refusal to carry out SSM cause harm?  There will be those who say so and they may end up being very persuasive.  Already there are a number who complain of the harm caused in the USA by temple weddings!  Maybe the OP is fear mongering.  Others have been accused of that in the past and some are proven right.  Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst.  We may have to stop marrying people and seal only, but I think that is the Lord's decision, via the President of the Church.

[Vance]

We need to bring back that 3/5ths of a person statute to please God?

WOW!!!!

You OBVIOUSLY do not understand the positive implications of the "3/5ths of a person" when calculating representation in congress.

Do you think that it would have been less pro-slavery if each slave would have counted as a whole person, thus giving slave owning states (and slave owners) 67% more representatives/representation in congress?

Oh, the "benefits" of a liberal public education.

[KevinG]

WOW!!!!

You OBVIOUSLY do not understand the positive implications of the "3/5ths of a person" when calculating representation in congress.

Do you think that it would have been less pro-slavery if each slave would have counted as a whole person, thus giving slave owning states (and slave owners) 67% more representatives/representation in congress?

Oh, the "benefits" of a liberal public education.

 

Somehow I doubt the sincerity and depth of Nehor's response.  He is trolling in the classic sense and you just jumped at the chum in the water.  I do admire his ability to get a rise out of others.

[The Nehor]

WOW!!!!You OBVIOUSLY do not understand the positive implications of the "3/5ths of a person" when calculating representation in congress.Do you think that it would have been less pro-slavery if each slave would have counted as a whole person, thus giving slave owning states (and slave owners) 67% more representatives/representation in congress?Oh, the "benefits" of a liberal public education.

Your math is off. It would give slave owning states 40% more representation for each one.

I do see reducing the voting rights of slave states as a positive. I also see a much larger more overwhelming negative in the practice of slavery. I was mocking the idea that many LDS have that the Constitution as written is some kind of "God-breathed" document that is inviolate and perfect. If that is the case you have to accept that God is in favor of limiting the power of slave states and also in favor of having slave states.

[The Nehor]

Somehow I doubt the sincerity and depth of Nehor's response.  He is trolling in the classic sense and you just jumped at the chum in the water.  I do admire his ability to get a rise out of others.

I am a sincere troll.

[KevinG]

I am a sincere troll.

 

I admire your snark.  Rudis Intelligentia Superior Insulsus.

[The Nehor]

I admire your snark.  Rudis Intelligentia Superior Insulsus.

That was not snark though. I sincerely believe what I say but I post it in a snarky way.

[WysteriaBlue]

I am a sincere troll.

 

and of the very highest order of trolls, sir.

[jbarm]

I'm going to repeat something I mentioned in January of this year on this board:

(quote)

1. The LDS Church runs a number of businesses near Temple Square that cater to wedding receptions.  Namely in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building and the Lion and Beehive houses.

 

I would assume that these businesses would be targeted by gay rights advocates in future litigation once the gay marriage battle is won (update: now the decision has been made, I expect this to come into play soon -- mark my words). Bookings will be made for receptions in Church-owned facilities that will not be honored once the purpose (edit: gay marriage reception) is discovered.  The battle will continue until opponents of gay marriage are bludgeoned into silence (see: Boy Scouts).

 

2. Another goal of the gay rights movement, at least in Utah, is to take away the right of churches to marry people in a combined civil and religious ceremony.  Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis (Democrat) who was the head of the Utah Democratic Party and who married his partner in December said this about an amendment protecting religious liberty with regard to homosexual marriage:

 

"Even Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, who is gay and was married after the ban was struck down, does not oppose the idea. "I don’t think anybody wants to be married by somebody that doesn’t want to marry them," he said, adding it could help end worries and fighting.

However, Dabakis says he would support the amendment only if it were changed to require a civil marriage first for everyone, followed by a possible religious ceremony to help make clear that "civil marriage is a constitutional right." (Salt Lake Tribune, December 30, 2013)

 

The clear goal stated by Dabakis is to take away the rights of religious people to be married in one ceremony and reduce it to a civil ceremony only.  And yes, I know this is how it is done in Europe, but that does not make it a good thing necessarily.

(unquote)

 

If you think the battle is over on this topic, you must be dreaming.

 

jb

[KevinG]

I personally think the Church should give the nicest, best, customer service to any gay couple that wants to rent their public accommodations.   There is a huge difference between supporting someone in celebrating their beliefs, and compromising on our own.

 

I see it like helping to build a Hindu Temple, or rebuild a Baptist church after a disaster.  We don't have to agree on everything to be good servants and love one another.

[tonie]

 

I'm going to repeat something I mentioned in January of this year on this board:

(quote)

1. The LDS Church runs a number of businesses near Temple Square that cater to wedding receptions.  Namely in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building and the Lion and Beehive houses.

 

I would assume that these businesses would be targeted by gay rights advocates in future litigation once the gay marriage battle is won (update: now the decision has been made, I expect this to come into play soon -- mark my words). Bookings will be made for receptions in Church-owned facilities that will not be honored once the purpose (edit: gay marriage reception) is discovered.  The battle will continue until opponents of gay marriage are bludgeoned into silence (see: Boy Scouts).

 

 

 

Unitl Utah regards sexual orientation as a protect class, there will not be a basis for a lawsuit.  I really do not think the Church - with its many attorneys - was so short sighted to place itself in a situation where property on Temple Square would become subject lawsuits over same sex marriage; considering the experience of other religiouis groups and their property .

 

2. Another goal of the gay rights movement, at least in Utah, is to take away the right of churches to marry people in a combined civil and religious ceremony.  Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis (Democrat) who was the head of the Utah Democratic Party and who married his partner in December said this about an amendment protecting religious liberty with regard to homosexual marriage:

 

"Even Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, who is gay and was married after the ban was struck down, does not oppose the idea. "I don’t think anybody wants to be married by somebody that doesn’t want to marry them," he said, adding it could help end worries and fighting.

However, Dabakis says he would support the amendment only if it were changed to require a civil marriage first for everyone, followed by a possible religious ceremony to help make clear that "civil marriage is a constitutional right." (Salt Lake Tribune, December 30, 2013)

 

The clear goal stated by Dabakis is to take away the rights of religious people to be married in one ceremony and reduce it to a civil ceremony only.  And yes, I know this is how it is done in Europe, but that does not make it a good thing necessarily.

(unquote)

 

If you think the battle is over on this topic, you must be dreaming.

 

To quote Calmoriah from another thread:

 

There are over 7billion people in the world. Assuming 1% (which is low for most data I've seen) for those with homosexual attraction, that makes for 70 million.

Do you believe this one individual represents the agenda of 70 million others just because [he] and they may share a same sex attraction?

Or say one out of a hundred with SSA is something of an activist, do you believe 700,000 share [his] ideals?

[Bob Crockett]

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?

Let's start with any example where a minister in the US was compelled by the government to perform a marriage he didn't want to do. Have any?

[USU78]

CFR please if this is not speculation.

 

Here is a brief article on how such things as constitutional challenges by advocates looking for plaintiffs happens:

 

http://www.davidgarrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DJG2014WLLRRoevWade.pdf

 

True, I am speculating that the radical homophile and homosexual plaintiff lobby already has the lawsuits ready, but given the words spoken both during and following the Prop 8 battles, and the fact that I tend to believe someone if he says he's coming after me and mine, makes me believe it is highly unlikely that the said suits are not already prepared, waiting on the plaintiff and the right poll numbers.

Edited October 21, 2014 by USU78

[USU78]

Let's start with any example where a minister in the US was compelled by the government to perform a marriage he didn't want to do. Have any?

 

A political subdivision of a constituent state has already threatened criminal action up in Couer d'Alene.

 

Perhaps you missed it.

[USU78]

Of course it is speculation.

 

The truth is that there will never be a lawsuit that would have any chance of being supported by mainstream groups the ACLU, much less of winning, until one thing happens: an authorized bishop and stake president sign a temple recommend for a same-sex marriage, but the temple presidency then doesn't let them in.  If the power in the church were ever to somehow become that decentralized, then I could see the ward and stake suing the temple.  But until something like that happens, suing the Church to allow same-sex marriages will be as uncommon and unsuccessful as suing the Church to allow non-members to attend temple sealings. 

 

I disagree:  being turned down by a Bishop for a wardhouse wedding is not all that different from the Couer d'Alene case.

[cinepro]

I disagree:  being turned down by a Bishop for a wardhouse wedding is not all that different from the Couer d'Alene case.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Coeur d'Alene case involves two ministers who run a for-profit business performing weddings for the general public. 

 

I don't know how the Bishops do it in your neck of the woods, but that sounds like a pretty big difference to me.

[USU78]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Coeur d'Alene case involves two ministers who run a for-profit business performing weddings for the general public. 

 

I don't know how the Bishops do it in your neck of the woods, but that sounds like a pretty big difference to me.

 

Yeah . . . like we've always been able to trust such distinctions in the past.

 

As used to be the quip concerning the SCOTUS' predeliction to find the tiniest of waterways navigable and, therefore, subject to the feds' jurisdiction:

 

"How big must the body of water be to be navigable?  Deep enough to float a Supreme Court opinion.

 

Same holds true for the definition of "commerce":  it's whatever they want it to be to do what they want to the people they want to do it to.

[KevinG]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Coeur d'Alene case involves two ministers who run a for-profit business performing weddings for the general public. 

 

I don't know how the Bishops do it in your neck of the woods, but that sounds like a pretty big difference to me.

 

Yeah . . . like we've always been able to trust such distinctions in the past.

 

As used to be the quip concerning the SCOTUS' predeliction to find the tiniest of waterways navigable and, therefore, subject to the feds' jurisdiction:

 

"How big must the body of water be to be navigable?  Deep enough to float a Supreme Court opinion.

 

Same holds true for the definition of "commerce":  it's whatever they want it to be to do what they want to the people they want to do it to.

 

...and therein lies the rub.  As I said before I've withheld judgement on many occasion when accused of slippery slope thinking, only to find out I had indeed been pushed further down the slope than I anticipated was possible in such an astonishingly short time.  Can the Coeur d'Alene case conceivable end with the courts saying the couple must accommodate the request for the facility, but not the demand for the ordinance?

[USU78]

...and therein lies the rub.  As I said before I've withheld judgement on many occasion when accused of slippery slope thinking, only to find out I had indeed been pushed further down the slope than I anticipated was possible in such an astonishingly short time.  Can the Coeur d'Alene case conceivable end with the courts saying the couple must accommodate the request for the facility, but not the demand for the ordinance?

 

Remember those shaking the fences and seeking to rush the gates of the LA Temple.

 

That is what haunts me.

 

That, unless someone can reasonably disabuse me of it, is my fear.

[KevinG]

Remember those shaking the fences and seeking to rush the gates of the LA Temple.

 

That is what haunts me.

 

That, unless someone can reasonably disabuse me of it, is my fear.

 

 I would love to tell you that this is conspiracy theorist, paranoia, stuff.  If my homosexual acquaintances are the representatives of their identity group, than we have nothing to worry about.  (We have our libertarian-ism in common).

 

However in the current political climate, I have seen things come to pass that I would have ascribed to kooks a short decade ago.  It does not embolden my confidence.  I do think there are a small but significant group of people who would rather see us lose our freedom of religion, than have to respectfully co-exist with our diverse beliefs.  It is happening with the BSA and I don't expect the LDS are a less attractive target for them.

Edited October 21, 2014 by KevinG

[Scott Lloyd]

Remember those shaking the fences and seeking to rush the gates of the LA Temple.

 

That is what haunts me.

 

That, unless someone can reasonably disabuse me of it, is my fear.

Few things are more unsettling than mob mentality unchecked.

 

Let's begin now to check it in a timely and judicious manner, say I.

[Scott Lloyd]

Remember those shaking the fences and seeking to rush the gates of the LA Temple.

 

That is what haunts me.

 

That, unless someone can reasonably disabuse me of it, is my fear.

The incident related in Genesis 19 bears some disturbing parallels to what you recall here.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd