Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[sjdawg]

No need to worry about whether or not gay marriage is legalized across the country or not.  Even if it is not legalized homosexuals should just ignore the law and get married anway.    Gay couples should just follow that great american tradition of civil disobedience to a law that is offensive to their fundamental values.   Just take a spiritual gay spouse

Edited April 27, 2015 by sjdawg

[thesometimesaint]

No need to worry about whether or not gay marriage is legalized across the country or not.  Even if it is not legalized homosexuals should just ignore the law and get married anway.    Gay couples should just follow that great american tradition of civil disobedience to a law that is offensive to their fundamental values.   Just take a spiritual gay spouse

 

Sure it is, but the problem comes in when you get arrested for your civil disobedience. Dr. Martin Luther King went willingly to jail for his beliefs. The problem with not getting state recognition of SSM is they're not entitled to the full protection of the law. 

[rockpond]

Based upon the fact that a little under 50% of Church members are active, this would appear to mean that about half of the inactives don't respect the sanctity of marriage.

Meh.

 

This is an incorrect conclusion, Pahoran... two things 1) There are active faithful church members who support gay marriage and 2) it's likely that many of those inactive church members wouldn't even identify themselves as Mormon in a survey (I know quite a few in my ward boundaries).

 

1 in 4 and trending toward even more acceptance.

[Gray]

This is an incorrect conclusion, Pahoran... two things 1) There are active faithful church members who support gay marriage and 2) it's likely that many of those inactive church members wouldn't even identify themselves as Mormon in a survey (I know quite a few in my ward boundaries).

 

1 in 4 and trending toward even more acceptance.

 

I know quite a few people in my own ward who at least favor the legalization of gay marriage. Some of them do so because they're libertarians, others because they're liberal. 

[Buckeye]

This is an incorrect conclusion, Pahoran... two things 1) There are active faithful church members who support gay marriage and 2) it's likely that many of those inactive church members wouldn't even identify themselves as Mormon in a survey (I know quite a few in my ward boundaries).

 

1 in 4 and trending toward even more acceptance.

 

It'll be interesting to see the next few years. The church's recent statements - both in the amicus brief and DN - have focused on carving out a ground so that people who oppose SSM can be seen as something other than bigots. If such a ground can be carved out, I expect most members will fall in the view of "I personally oppose but accept the law and really don't want to talk about it anymore." But if not, then we'll see a lot of pressure on members to accept it personally.

 

On the other side of the coin, we see the church recently opening ground whereby members can support civil SSM and still be seen in good upstanding members. See the comments by Elder Christofferson and DN article about the baptism of the former congressman by Harry Reid (both SSM supporters; both lauded as good church members). To the degree that this position becomes widely acceptable, I expect many more members to embrace it.

[rockpond]

On the other side of the coin, we see the church recently opening ground whereby members can support civil SSM and still be seen in good upstanding members. See the comments by Elder Christofferson and DN article about the baptism of the former congressman by Harry Reid (both SSM supporters; both lauded as good church members). To the degree that this position becomes widely acceptable, I expect many more members to embrace it.

 

That position (that members in full fellowship can support legal gay marriage) was recently reiterated by our Stake Presidency in Bishops training.  Some bishops were shocked by the announcement... it'll take time.

 

My bishop is such a wonderful man but how he was raised makes him struggle with some of these recent policy developments:  disavowal of prior teachings regarding race and the priesthood, acceptance of medicinal marijuana use, and now allowing for members to support legal gay marriage.

Edited April 27, 2015 by rockpond

[Buckeye]

That position (that members in full fellowship can support legal gay marriage) was recently reiterated by our Stake Presidency in Bishops training.  Some bishops were shocked by the announcement... it'll take time.

 

My bishop is such a wonderful man but how he was raised makes him struggle with some of these recent policy developments:  disavowal of prior teachings regarding race and the priesthood, acceptance of medicinal marijuana use, and now allowing for members to support legal gay marriage.

 

I see the same thing in my ward and family. I have great respect for each generation's struggle to be a welding link to the past and future (to paraphrase D/C's discussion of the work for the dead). When change comes quickly, it can be very hard to hold on to both sides of your 'link', particularly when one side is mostly departed from this life and so you can't discuss things with them anymore.

 

As to SSM, if it really becomes acceptable to support in church circles (socially, not just recommend-wise), then I see many youth taking that view. But there will still be challenges when those youth have to teach differently (as missionaries) or when adult leaders have to do so. What happens when a bishop or RS president supports gay marriage? This new opening will not remove the tension, just move it along. In some ways, I wish I had a gay brother or sister, as I find many members "understand" acceptable of SSM better if it is for family reasons.

[Daniel2]

I see the same thing in my ward and family. I have great respect for each generation's struggle to be a welding link to the past and future (to paraphrase D/C's discussion of the work for the dead). When change comes quickly, it can be very hard to hold on to both sides of your 'link', particularly when one side is mostly departed from this life and so you can't discuss things with them anymore.

As to SSM, if it really becomes acceptable to support in church circles (socially, not just recommend-wise), then I see many youth taking that view. But there will still be challenges when those youth have to teach differently (as missionaries) or when adult leaders have to do so. What happens when a bishop or RS president supports gay marriage? This new opening will not remove the tension, just move it along. In some ways, I wish I had a gay brother or sister, as I find many members "understand" acceptable of SSM better if it is for family reasons.

I volunteer to be your brother, Buckeye.

Our next family reunion is over July 4th. How many in your family should I add to our headcount?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Daniel2

[Gray]

This editorial has me scratching my head:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765672612/Marriage-definition-on-Supreme-Court-docket-2-dont-turn-believers-into-bigots.html

 

In summary, don't extend marriage rights to gay people because it will make us look bad. Huh? 

[Buckeye]

I volunteer to be your brother, Buckeye.

Our next family reunion is over July 4th. How many in your family should I add to our headcount?

 

My extended family does a reunion most years, but not this one. But my wife and kids have already made plans to do a Nauvoo-Independence trip that week.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

This editorial has me scratching my head:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765672612/Marriage-definition-on-Supreme-Court-docket-2-dont-turn-believers-into-bigots.html

 

In summary, don't extend marriage rights to gay people because it will make us look bad. Huh? 

 

I try to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but I can't find anything here. The church's view is "Court, if you let the gays marry then people will think badly of us. So you have to prevent their marriages in order to save our face." Seriously. That is worse than laughable. It would be so much better to say nothing than this. Unfortunately, the view was not only expressed in the DN, but in the church's amicus brief. So don't be surprised if the left wing of the court pulls this out just to beat it up.

[Gray]

I try to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but I can't find anything here. The church's view is "Court, if you let the gays marry then people will think badly of us. So you have to prevent their marriages in order to save our face." Seriously. That is worse than laughable. It would be so much better to say nothing than this. Unfortunately, the view was not only expressed in the DN, but in the church's amicus brief. So don't be surprised if the left wing of the court pulls this out just to beat it up.

 

Yes, I agree - it would have been better for them to say nothing than to make this astonishingly weak argument. 

[Russell C McGregor]

This is an incorrect conclusion, Pahoran... two things 1) There are active faithful church members who support gay marriage

Well, maybe they're active.

In the meantime, the number of faithful Latter-day Saints who think "same sex temple marriage" is even doctrinally possible, let alone desirable, stands at 0.

 

and 2) it's likely that many of those inactive church members wouldn't even identify themselves as Mormon in a survey (I know quite a few in my ward boundaries).

Or maybe they would. We'd need to see how the survey questions were worded.

 

1 in 4 and trending toward even more acceptance.

The LORD will never accept it.

And in the end, His is the only acceptance that counts.

[Russell C McGregor]

How does the phrase go - "40 million Catholics can't be wrong".  Oh, wait....

 

Apparently 4,150,531 Mormons can be wrong too.

Actually it's 27% of a grand total of 688 respondents, or 186 Mormons who are that doctrinally obtuse.

[Cinnamon Bear Head]

Well, maybe they're active.

In the meantime, the number of faithful Latter-day Saints who think "same sex temple marriage" is even doctrinally possible, let alone desirable, stands at 0.

 

Or maybe they would. We'd need to see how the survey questions were worded.

 

The LORD will never accept it.

And in the end, His is the only acceptance that counts.

How do you know what god wants to do or not? God only knows what god knows. We can only guess and scry. 

[Cinnamon Bear Head]

Furthermore, the scriptures say precisely nothing about gay marriage. I does say a little bit against "homosexual behavior" but I don't see anyone trying to ban that. Why? Gay love is fine, but once you put a ring on it, it's an abomination? 

[sjdawg]

 

 

The LORD will never accept it.

And in the end, His is the only acceptance that counts.

 

 

It's probably not a great idea to make definitive statements about what God will or will not accept in the future. 

[Brian 2.0]

In the meantime, the number of faithful Latter-day Saints who think "same sex temple marriage" is even doctrinally possible, let alone desirable, stands at 0.

Back to the ol No True Scotsman argument now I see.

[rockpond]

Well, maybe they're active.

In the meantime, the number of faithful Latter-day Saints who think "same sex temple marriage" is even doctrinally possible, let alone desirable, stands at 0.

 

This is the same point you were trying to emphasize some days back when your other username was permanently banned from the boards.  This statement is demonstrably incorrect (I testify to you of my intimate knowledge that there is at least one faithful LDS who believes same sex temple marriage is both doctrinally possible and desirable -- me).

 

But we better let it rest lest we lose you completely from the boards.

[tonie]

This is the same point you were trying to emphasize some days back when your other username was permanently banned from the boards.  This statement is demonstrably incorrect (I testify to you of my intimate knowledge that there is at least one faithful LDS who believes same sex temple marriage is both doctrinally possible and desirable -- me).

 

But we better let it rest lest we lose you completely from the boards.

 

Yes it is. Identical in intent and deliberate offense. But with all the emotional blackmail lobbied against the board for banning Pahoran, it definately is a wait and see.

[tonie]

A Justice seems concerned about them over ruling States popular votes - a cop-out

 

Brown v. Board of Ed (over rulling State sponsored separate but equal)

Loving v. Virginia (over rulling State sponsored discrimination against inter-racial marriage)

Romer v. Evans (over rulling State sponsored discrimination against LGBT)

 

As an Attorney petitioning for SCOTUS for equality Stated, State have primacy over marriage, but State laws must abide by Constitutional standard.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, maybe they're active.

In the meantime, the number of faithful Latter-day Saints who think "same sex temple marriage" is even doctrinally possible, let alone desirable, stands at 0.

 

Or maybe they would. We'd need to see how the survey questions were worded.

 

The LORD will never accept it.

And in the end, His is the only acceptance that counts.

So people decry you that you are wrong. That gay marriage will happen in the temple.

 

The interesting thing is, were is the evidence that this is going to happen? All I have seen is the repeated "It is not going to change" form church leaders. It is no where in scripture. In fact the opposite is in scripture that homosexuality (the act) is an abomination.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Back to the ol No True Scotsman argument now I see.

Active is different from faithful. Those 2 words are not the same thing and you know it.

[Brian 2.0]

Active is different from faithful. Those 2 words are not the same thing and you know it.

 

I full well understand that active is different that faithful.  That's not the point.  His post essentially called people that believed it could be doctrinally possible "unfaithful".  It was  the definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

[Brian 2.0]

Arguments were heard today in the SCOTUS. I heard snippets on NPR. If anyone finds an audio recording or transcripts from them please post a link. What I did hear was pretty great.