For Those Who Are Worried - Protection For Churches Against Ssm

[Daniel2]

I will always refuse to accept SSM or acknowledge that two gay people are married.

That's ok. We gays will refuse to accept your ability to have any protection from the constitution, so your resistance is futile.

Your biological distinctiveness will be added to our perfection, and you WILL be assimilated.

We gays will RULE as gods on our barren, secular, totally non-procreative wasteland of a planet. At least, until we ourselves die and the world returns to its lifeless state!!!!

BWwwwwaaahhhahahhhahhahaaaa....

(Happy Halloween.)

[Calm]

Already happening. 

 

http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364

http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/10/25/update-on-the-hitching-post-the-for-profit-chapel-being-required-to-hold-same-sex-weddings/

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/how_many_lies_is_the_religious_right_willing_to_tell_in_the_idaho_for_profit_wedding_chapel_story

Don't know about accuracy...

[Silhouette]

That's ok. We gays will refuse to accept your ability to have any protection from the constitution, so your resistance is futile.

Your biological distinctiveness will be added to our perfection, and you WILL be assimilated.

We gays will RULE as gods on our barren, secular, totally non-procreative wasteland of a planet. At least, until we ourselves die and the world returns to its lifeless state!!!!

BWwwwwaaahhhahahhhahhahaaaa....

(Happy Halloween.)

LOL

[stemelbow]

I say "For Those Who Are Worried - Protection For Churches Against Ssm"

Stop worrying. There are more important things to worry about in this world.

[USU78]

It's been more than 5 decades since state officers across the nation were required to perform marriages for interracial couples ... and yet still no drive to force purely religious officials to do so. If you can point to a reason why SSM will be different than interracial marriage please do. Otherwise, I'm on very safe ground.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

I could conceive that in the future, anyone who undertakes to perform a marriage might be regarded as an agent of the state in that capacity and thus under statutory edict to perform a marriage for any and everyone who wants it.

And if two people wish to establish a union between themselves, that add the obvious advantages of commitment, such as the mental, if not social, commitment of being steadfast in a relationship? The idea that people who have made such a commitment to each other, will look beyond the problems of the humdrum daily routines and stick together....through thick and thin.....so to say, and not "jump ship" when a storm arises?? Is that not a stabalizing force in society?

Are such relationships solely the propiety of heterosexual relationships?

[Scott Lloyd]

I could conceive that in the future, anyone who undertakes to perform a marriage might be regarded as an agent of the state in that capacity and thus under statutory edict to perform a marriage for any and everyone who wants it.

 

 

And if two people wish to establish a union between themselves, that add the obvious advantages of commitment, such as the mental, if not social, commitment of being steadfast in a relationship? The idea that people who have made such a commitment to each other, will look beyond the problems of the humdrum daily routines and stick together....through thick and thin.....so to say, and not "jump ship" when a storm arises?? Is that not a stabalizing force in society?

Are such relationships solely the propiety of heterosexual relationships?

So are you saying here that you are in favor of having the state force people of faith to perform "marriage" ceremonies that violate their own religious principles?

 

Otherwise, I don't see a connection between my post and your response.

[california boy]

For those who would like to frame what I believe will happen for some time capsule in the next ten years, this is my strong belief.

 

1.  No religion will be forced by the government to marry any gay couple against their will.  However, the majority of religions in the U.S. will choose to do so voluntairily on their own believing that the gospel of Christ is open to all and that the law of chastity is no sex outside the bonds of marriage.

 

2.  If you are appointed by the state to perform marriages and you are not a religion, you will be forced to uphold the law and duty that you swore to defend.   As an officer of the court, you will be forced to perform gay marriages as part of your job description.  Those who do not will be relieved of their jobs.  Priests, ministers and Mormon officials are not part of the government but rather representatives of different religions and will not be forced to marry anyone against their will for any reason including gay marriage.

 

3. A small minority will think that they can discriminate against gays in their busines because they don't believe in gay marriage.  Perhaps countless lawsuites will be filed against these businesses based on the civli rights laws passed in the 1960's.  These businesses will loose every court case and be required to pay fines as a result of the violation of those civli rights laws.  It will keep gay rights in the headlines for the next couple of years as gay marriage fades from the headlines because it is a done deal.

 

4.  The Mormon church will be pressured to change its policy against gay marriage by outside social foces but not by the government..  This pressure may very well include other schools refusing to play BYU in sporting contests and other interactions. Mormons will continue to be called out as being bigots (whether true or not) by those opposing the churches belief in denying ssm.  There will be a clear split between the membership.  Some believing that all of God's children deserve the blessings of temple marriage, and those that want to keep those blessings from gay members.  Many will leave the church over this issue and missionary work will struggle because of this issue.  How the church handles such social pressure is anyone's guess.

 

5.  Some Mormons will continue to believe that they can distort the laws of this country and make up unfounded fears concerning the lost of religious liberty in order to justify their religious belief against ssm.  They will try and use fear as a weapon against gay Americans.  It will largely fail both within the membership of the church and society in general.

 

6.  Gay marriage will fade from the headlines of the newspapers and be accepted much the same way "black power" faded from the headlines once discrimination laws were in force.

 

That is my belief.  You can frame it and see how I do in the next 10 years.

Edited October 31, 2014 by california boy

[california boy]

I could conceive that in the future, anyone who undertakes to perform a marriage might be regarded as an agent of the state in that capacity and thus under statutory edict to perform a marriage for any and everyone who wants it.

NO.  There has always been a clear destinction between someone working for the state and someone performing religious marriages.  There is no basis for that changing except unfounded fear.  Never happened before in our entire history of a country.

[danielwoods]

They key point there is that they run a business. I'm not saying I support the state action against the business, but it's quite a different story from the State of Idaho telling the Rexburg 7th Ward Bishop he has to comply.

 

It's a small step. Once discrimination of this type is outlawed, and churches are officials of the state (with reference to marriage), the path is cleared. Similar to what is happening in Houston. 

Edited October 31, 2014 by danielwoods

[USU78]

NO.  There has always been a clear destinction between someone working for the state and someone performing religious marriages.  There is no basis for that changing except unfounded fear.  Never happened before in our entire history of a country.

 

Yes.  Note your tense there.

 

Moreover, there has always been, until very recently, a clear and unmistakeable definition of marriage, both in its purposes, its participants and its parameters.

 

Mindless kneejerkiness changed that [prolly].

[Buckeye]

All good points California Boy. For the 10-25 year range, I would add the possibility that governments could remove some significant benefits to churches and church institutions if they refuse to cease discrimination. All of this would depend primarily on whether the current trend to accept SSM continues to the point that those who oppose are a small minority (meaning many religious faiths would have to switch too) and secondarily on whether the governments are experiencing financial constraints that make it more palatable to stop helping such religious groups. If those two things happened, though, I could envision consequences such as (i) federal student loans being denied to BYU and other such institutions, and (ii) federal tax exemption status being revoked for the LDS and other churches. Again, this is only in the 10-25 year range. I would be very sad, but I could see it happening.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I say "For Those Who Are Worried - Protection For Churches Against Ssm"

Stop worrying. There are more important things to worry about in this world.

You mean like, is the generals women's relief society session really part of GC?

[Scott Lloyd]

4.  The Mormon church will be pressured to change its policy against gay marriage by outside social foces but not by the government..  This pressure may very well include other schools refusing to play BYU in sporting contests and other interactions. Mormons will continue to be called out as being bigots (whether true or not) by those opposing the churches belief in denying ssm.  There will be a clear split between the membership.  Some believing that all of God's children deserve the blessings of temple marriage, and those that want to keep those blessings from gay members.  Many will leave the church over this issue and missionary work will struggle because of this issue.  How the church handles such social pressure is anyone's guess.

 

How the Church will -- and should -- handle such social pressure was outlined very well in Elder Dallin H. Oaks's last general conference address:

 

 

Like the Savior, His followers are sometimes confronted by sinful behavior, and today when they hold out for right and wrong as they understand it, they are sometimes called “bigots” or “fanatics.” Many worldly values and practices pose such challenges to Latter-day Saints. Prominent among these today is the strong tide that is legalizing same-sex marriage in many states and provinces in the United States and Canada and many other countries in the world. We also live among some who don’t believe in marriage at all. Some don’t believe in having children. Some oppose any restrictions on pornography or dangerous drugs. Another example—familiar to most believers—is the challenge of living with a nonbelieving spouse or family member or associating with nonbelieving fellow workers.

In dedicated spaces, like temples, houses of worship, and our own homes, we should teach the truth and the commandments plainly and thoroughly as we understand them from the plan of salvation revealed in the restored gospel. Our right to do so is protected by constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and religion, as well as by the privacy that is honored even in countries without formal constitutional guarantees.

In public, what religious persons say and do involves other considerations. The free exercise of religion covers most public actions, but it is subject to qualifications necessary to accommodate the beliefs and practices of others. Laws can prohibit behavior that is generally recognized as wrong or unacceptable, like sexual exploitation, violence, or terrorist behavior, even when done by extremists in the name of religion. Less grievous behaviors, even though unacceptable to some believers, may simply need to be endured if legalized by what a Book of Mormon prophet called “the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29:26).

On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious. We should be wise in explaining and pursuing our positions and in exercising our influence. In doing so, we ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion. We encourage all of us to practice the Savior’s Golden Rule: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12).

When our positions do not prevail, we should accept unfavorable results graciously and practice civility with our adversaries. In any event, we should be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation.

Whether others -- government or private entities -- will let the Church and its members alone to pursue such a reasonable course is anyone's guess.

 

For one thing, state-sponsored colleges and universities ought not be curtailing athletic contests against a school based on religious beliefs. That is bigotry in itself.

 

And the Church is not going to change its doctrine on homosexual behavior being sinful and unacceptable to God. Those who think it will should relinquish such vain expectation.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

I think that eventually any religion that refuses to perform same-sex marriages will lose its power to perform civil marriages. LDS couples will then have to be married in a civil ceremony by a state official, then get sealed in the temple.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that eventually any religion that refuses to perform same-sex marriages will lose its power to perform civil marriages. LDS couples will then have to be married in a civil ceremony by a state official, then get sealed in the temple.

Hence, legislative measures such as that referenced in the OP are intended to fend off such tyranny.

[Buckeye]

 

And the Church is not going to change its doctrine on homosexual behavior being sinful and unacceptable to God. Those who think it will should relinquish such vain expectation.

 

I'm not saying it will, but didn't you also say that SSM would not come to Utah in your lifetime?

[sethpayne]

nevermind

Edited October 31, 2014 by sethpayne

[bcuzbcuz]

So are you saying here that you are in favor of having the state force people of faith to perform "marriage" ceremonies that violate their own religious principles?

 

Otherwise, I don't see a connection between my post and your response.

"State forcing people of faith"??? Since you obviously live in the US, I'm not surprised that you formulate your thoughts with such a pattern..

No, I was talking about how peoples desires to find commitment leads to society giving them access to the ceremonies that confirm those commitments. Organizations that forbid such ceremonies will be sidelined.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm sure there are plenty who would love to poke faith groups in the eye in this and other ways, just as Utah became one of the first states in the nation to be judicially compelled to accept same-sex marriage in contravention of local community standards.

 

Yes; curious, that, innit?

 

Yet we are assured again and again that it was never about poking, it was about justice!  Dang it!!  Why don't you believe them???!!!

Judge Shelby didn't have an agenda!  He didn't, he didn't, he didn't!  Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah!  I can't hear you! I can't hear you!

[Daniel2]

I'm not saying it will, but didn't you also say that SSM would not come to Utah in your lifetime?

Ba-dum-bum!

Excellent post. ;-)

[Buzzard]

I'm not saying it will, but didn't you also say that SSM would not come to Utah in your lifetime?

If left to the citizens of Utah (and most states), it would not have. SSM was invented and enforced almost entirely by judicial fiat. 

If it was such a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment, why didn't it come into being in the 1870's, or at least the 1960's? Some would dare say that the world is ripening in iniquity. Others would call those who say that bigots.  Funny, we weren't bigots a decade or so ago.  

[cinepro]

Yeah... This is probably a good idea. As a mere document, the Constitution doesn't offer enough protection in and of itself.

You guys totally called us out... All of us gays actually really want to force every religion and every minister to marry us. In fact, at our midweek Gay Agenda Conference Call this week, we all decided to clarify that our mission is to completely eradicate any religion that disagrees with us, and to try to destroy the very Constitutional guaranteed and freedoms that granted us equality in the first place.

Plus, it was announced that our TRUE goal really is to destroy every family, and convert every man, woman, child, dog, and toaster to the gay lifestyle so all forms of procreation (and every slice of crunchy warm bread) cease to exist, entirely, and life on earth is actually obliterated.

Better pass a law protecting religions from marrying us, or you'll be the first to go.

 

Was the subject of getting better dance music brought up during the conference call?

Edited October 31, 2014 by cinepro

[california boy]

If left to the citizens of Utah (and most states), it would not have. SSM was invented and enforced almost entirely by judicial fiat. 

If it was such a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment, why didn't it come into being in the 1870's, or at least the 1960's? Some would dare say that the world is ripening in iniquity. Others would call those who say that bigots.  Funny, we weren't bigots a decade or so ago.  

Because the laws banning same sex marriage didn't start happening until the 1970's  You first have to have a law that is unconstitutional before you can rule such laws as denying due process.  The wheels of justice move slowly, but eventually they are enforced.

[carbon dioxide]

For those who would like to frame what I believe will happen for some time capsule in the next ten years, this is my strong belief.

 

1.  No religion will be forced by the government to marry any gay couple against their will.  However, the majority of religions in the U.S. will choose to do so voluntairily on their own believing that the gospel of Christ is open to all and that the law of chastity is no sex outside the bonds of marriage.

 

2.  If you are appointed by the state to perform marriages and you are not a religion, you will be forced to uphold the law and duty that you swore to defend.   As an officer of the court, you will be forced to perform gay marriages as part of your job description.  Those who do not will be relieved of their jobs.  Priests, ministers and Mormon officials are not part of the government but rather representatives of different religions and will not be forced to marry anyone against their will for any reason including gay marriage.

 

3. A small minority will think that they can discriminate against gays in their busines because they don't believe in gay marriage.  Perhaps countless lawsuites will be filed against these businesses based on the civli rights laws passed in the 1960's.  These businesses will loose every court case and be required to pay fines as a result of the violation of those civli rights laws.  It will keep gay rights in the headlines for the next couple of years as gay marriage fades from the headlines because it is a done deal.

 

4.  The Mormon church will be pressured to change its policy against gay marriage by outside social foces but not by the government..  This pressure may very well include other schools refusing to play BYU in sporting contests and other interactions. Mormons will continue to be called out as being bigots (whether true or not) by those opposing the churches belief in denying ssm.  There will be a clear split between the membership.  Some believing that all of God's children deserve the blessings of temple marriage, and those that want to keep those blessings from gay members.  Many will leave the church over this issue and missionary work will struggle because of this issue.  How the church handles such social pressure is anyone's guess.

 

5.  Some Mormons will continue to believe that they can distort the laws of this country and make up unfounded fears concerning the lost of religious liberty in order to justify their religious belief against ssm.  They will try and use fear as a weapon against gay Americans.  It will largely fail both within the membership of the church and society in general.

 

6.  Gay marriage will fade from the headlines of the newspapers and be accepted much the same way "black power" faded from the headlines once discrimination laws were in force.

 

That is my belief.  You can frame it and see how I do in the next 10 years.

I partially agree with point 1.  Though it will not be about the law of chasity.  Most people in the society do not even follow the sex outside marriage part.  More churches will accept the practice simply to draw in more people to their church.   Money is more important than standing for what is right.

 

Point 2 is spot on. 

 

Point 3 might be true. I think bakeries can work around the issue by offering genetic wedding cakes and require the wedding parties decorate the cake themselves or selling heterosexual marriage wedding cakes to gay couples.  It is not discrimination to only sell on kind of cake to all customers.   Photographers can easily get out of it by simply taking bad pictures at gay weddings. 

 

Point 4 in some parts maybe.  We may be called "bigots"and  some may pressue the Church to change but any LDS person worth their salt would see these simply as those mocking being from the great and spacious building.  Some members wll leave as they can't handle the mockery.  As Lehi dream clearly suggest will happen.  The membership on the whole will resist keeping their eyes on the fact that it is better to offend the world and please God than ofend God to please the world.  If affects missionary work than so be it.  Better to have fewer members if we are doing the right thing.

 

As to point 5, as long as the First Amendment is around, no person should be threatened that gay marriage will threaten their religious freedom.  If there is any legitimate chance that the First Amendment is under a serious threat, that is when all Americans will have a clear legitimacy to use the Second Amendment to uphold the First Amendment.

 

I completely agree with point 6.  Gay marriage for the most part will be gone in a few years as the next issue on the moral collapse of the country comes on the radar screen.  30 years ago the majority of people would laugh at the notion of gay marriage being accepted in society.  There are things today that people think would never be accepted in American society that will be accepted by 2040.  It is a race to the bottom and the speed will only get faster.   Gay marriage is a victory for Satan and Satan has many more issues he wants to get accepted.  I see no reason to think that Satan will take the victory on gay marriage and take a vacation.  I expect him to work even harder as he has more success.