Stone holm Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So Church of Christ has reputedly sued a State which bans SSM claiming that the ban infringes upon their free exercise of religion. So wondering whether the Church will intervene in that lawsuit given its potential to overturn U.S. v Reynolds. Any bets on that awkward ituation? Wonder how Elder Oaks will feel about that case? 2
sethpayne Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So Church of Christ has reputedly sued a State which bans SSM claiming that the ban infringes upon their free exercise of religion. So wondering whether the Church will intervene in that lawsuit given its potential to overturn U.S. v Reynolds. Any bets on that awkward ituation? Wonder how Elder Oaks will feel about that case? Do you think the Church would actively move to oppose modern polygamy? I'm not quite sure what the position would be, honestly. But this is an interesting strategy by the CoC. I'm surprised other liberal denominations haven't tried it before because it is pretty clear that to prevent liberal Protestants from performing a marriage is an infringement of their 1st amendment rights. Just like the LDS Church argued over 100 years ago. 3
Popular Post guerreiro9 Posted June 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Do you think the Church would actively move to oppose modern polygamy? I'm not quite sure what the position would be, honestly. But this is an interesting strategy by the CoC. I'm surprised other liberal denominations haven't tried it before because it is pretty clear that to prevent liberal Protestants from performing a marriage is an infringement of their 1st amendment rights. Just like the LDS Church argued over 100 years ago. No church is prevented from performing a same sex marriage. They may perform them as a religious ceremony, but in some states they are not legally binding. It is disingenuous to claim that they are prevented from performing them. This is similar to claiming that churches are prevented from performing baptisms because they are not legally recognized. -guerreiro9 Edited June 3, 2015 by guerreiro9 9
Darren10 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Sethpayne;I quickly thought of a great reply but guerreiro9 beat me to it. What he said.
thesometimesaint Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I see no effort by the Church to re-introduce the mortal practice of polygamy in the Church any time soon.
Buckeye Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So Church of Christ has reputedly sued a State which bans SSM claiming that the ban infringes upon their free exercise of religion. So wondering whether the Church will intervene in that lawsuit given its potential to overturn U.S. v Reynolds. Any bets on that awkward ituation? Wonder how Elder Oaks will feel about that case? Ironic that the LDS Church was first incorporated as the "Church of Christ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ_(Latter_Day_Saints)#cite_note-1834name-1
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Ironic that the LDS Church was first incorporated as the "Church of Christ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ_(Latter_Day_Saints)#cite_note-1834name-1Yeah, we should sue them for stealing our name.
Buckeye Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Yeah, we should sue them for stealing our name. Except that we gave it up ... and even if we didn't we'd have to prove a legal right to the title. The last time Christ was issued a subpoena he mysteriously did not show up. I doubt any court of law could get reliable testimony from Savior as to which church is his.
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Except that we gave it up ... and even if we didn't we'd have to prove a legal right to the title. The last time Christ was issued a subpoena he mysteriously did not show up. I doubt any court of law could get reliable testimony from Savior as to which church is his.If President Monson called down some Egypt-style plagues on them would that count as testimony?
Buckeye Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 If President Monson called down some Egypt-style plagues on them would that count as testimony? Count as testimony that this is Christ's church? Probably not.
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Count as testimony that this is Christ's church? Probably not.You are probably right. I say we still do it though but just for fun. 3
Buckeye Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 You are probably right. I say we still do it though but just for fun. Which explains why you're not prophet. ... Also, you can't wiggle your ears. 2
Gray Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Which explains why you're not prophet. ... Also, you can't wiggle your ears. I have a double jointed thumb, which is way less impressive. Which explains why I just take attendance.
bluebell Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Do you think the Church would actively move to oppose modern polygamy? I'm not quite sure what the position would be, honestly. But this is an interesting strategy by the CoC. I'm surprised other liberal denominations haven't tried it before because it is pretty clear that to prevent liberal Protestants from performing a marriage is an infringement of their 1st amendment rights. Just like the LDS Church argued over 100 years ago. Does the state actually prevent these people from performing marriages? Even before SSM was legal in any state i would still see SS couples getting married by clergy men and women on the news and stuff. The marriages weren't recognized by the state of course but they could still be performed. 1
Stone holm Posted June 3, 2015 Author Posted June 3, 2015 Hm...FLDS might well question the idea that the government isn't raising issues over the religious ceremony part. But on a more serious note, whether we want to recognize it or not -- this is the most clear recognition of the awkwardness associated with allowing religious arguments the same weight as secular arguments in legal discourse. I suspect that it is just a matter of time before some polygamous group somewhere in the United States files a similar lawsuit, and it is going to be interesting to see how the Church leadership deals with it after several have been so involved in advocating for the "religious voice" in politics. My suspicion is that we are going to see a real demonstration that ones position depends on whose ox is being gored at the moment, sort of like it often does as to whether the left or the right argues for either States Rights or limited government.
JLHPROF Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Hm...FLDS might well question the idea that the government isn't raising issues over the religious ceremony part. But on a more serious note, whether we want to recognize it or not -- this is the most clear recognition of the awkwardness associated with allowing religious arguments the same weight as secular arguments in legal discourse. I suspect that it is just a matter of time before some polygamous group somewhere in the United States files a similar lawsuit, and it is going to be interesting to see how the Church leadership deals with it after several have been so involved in advocating for the "religious voice" in politics. My suspicion is that we are going to see a real demonstration that ones position depends on whose ox is being gored at the moment, sort of like it often does as to whether the left or the right argues for either States Rights or limited government. Well, the SSM rights are one of the tools that Kody Brown and family argued to get the unlawful cohabitation clause overturned. And since most polygamous marriages are religious ceremonies only I don't think we'll ever again see a fundamentalist sent to jail for polygamy in our lifetimes. (Underage marriage, tax fraud, sure. But not polygamy). Spiritual polygamous marriages are basically completely legal now. If the Church really wanted they could resume polygamous sealings (not just posthumous ones) as long as they stuck to one legal marriage. And once SSM is fully legal there will be polygamists arguing for their rights too (and they'll probably get it eventually).
Buckeye Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Well, the SSM rights are one of the tools that Kody Brown and family argued to get the unlawful cohabitation clause overturned. And since most polygamous marriages are religious ceremonies only I don't think we'll ever again see a fundamentalist sent to jail for polygamy in our lifetimes. (Underage marriage, tax fraud, sure. But not polygamy). Spiritual polygamous marriages are basically completely legal now. If the Church really wanted they could resume polygamous sealings (not just posthumous ones) as long as they stuck to one legal marriage. And once SSM is fully legal there will be polygamists arguing for their rights too (and they'll probably get it eventually). If the story of polygamy bends towards the Browns rather than the FLDS I believe it will happen. While still very unpopular, acceptance of polygamy more than doubled since 2001: https://twitter.com/hunterschwarz/status/603627779926695938 1
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 If the story of polygamy bends towards the Browns rather than the FLDS I believe it will happen. While still very unpopular, acceptance of polygamy more than doubled since 2001: https://twitter.com/hunterschwarz/status/603627779926695938So I should have joined that group marriage back in college? 1
rockpond Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 No church is prevented from performing a same sex marriage. They may perform them as a religious ceremony, but in some states they are not legally binding. It is disingenuous to claim that they are prevented from performing them. This is similar to claiming that churches are prevented from performing baptisms because they are not legally recognized. -guerreiro9 Does the state actually prevent these people from performing marriages? Even before SSM was legal in any state i would still see SS couples getting married by clergy men and women on the news and stuff. The marriages weren't recognized by the state of course but they could still be performed. So, if at some point in the future when gay marriage is legal throughout the US, and some court decides that our Church can no longer perform legally-recognized marriages in our US temples (because we don't also perform gay marriages), can I assume that you will agree that it is NOT a violation of our religious freedoms under the same logic you espouse here? 1
bluebell Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So, if at some point in the future when gay marriage is legal throughout the US, and some court decides that our Church can no longer perform legally-recognized marriages in our US temples (because we don't also perform gay marriages), can I assume that you will agree that it is NOT a violation of our religious freedoms under the same logic you espouse here? I can't imagine that it would bother me too much. Church members deal with it in Europe already, and it would be a really simple thing to go get a legal marriage beforehand. I have repeatedly stated (many times) that i think the government should get completely out of the marriage business all together-grant civil unions instead-and that churches can do marriage ceremonies for whoever wants them. 1
sethpayne Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Does the state actually prevent these people from performing marriages? Even before SSM was legal in any state i would still see SS couples getting married by clergy men and women on the news and stuff. The marriages weren't recognized by the state of course but they could still be performed.Good point. The state couldn't prevent churches from performing marriages ..... Oh wait. Yes they could. I have family history to prove it. But all kidding aside this outcome isn't very likely IMO. But that still doesn't eliminate the 1st amendment issue. The government can't favor one religion over another. By recognizing marriages by conservative pastors while ignoring those done by liberals .... There is a problem. Edited June 3, 2015 by sethpayne
bluebell Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 The government can't favor one religion over another. By recognizing marriages by conservative pastors while ignoring those done by liberals .... There is a problem. Is that what the government does though by recognizing monogamous marriages but not polygamous? Is it really favoritism?
sethpayne Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Is that what the government does though by recognizing monogamous marriages but not polygamous? Is it really favoritism?IMO yes. I oppose what happened to my ancestors for precisely the same reason I support SSM. Keep the government out of the personal marriage choices of citizens. But do I think it is an explicit favoritism due to religion? No. But it is favoritism nonetheless. A big 1st amendment no no.ETA. I think that if the Church wanted to practice polygamy it would win in court today. Not that I think this will ever happen. Edited June 3, 2015 by sethpayne
JLHPROF Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 ETA. I think that if the Church wanted to practice polygamy it would win in court today. Not that I think this will ever happen. Agreed.But if it is no longer illegal, and the primary reason according to the manifesto that it was withdrawn was that it is illegal, it does make me wonder why it wouldn't be restored. "Oh, it was just a test/incident/we-don't-know-why thing" doesn't cut it for me. It was restored as a commandment. It was revoked to save the Church from prosecution/persecution. If the reason for the revocation is ever fully removed why wouldn't it be restored? Did something change about the practice in the eyes of God? 1
bluebell Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 IMO yes. I oppose what happened to my ancestors for precisely the same reason I support SSM. Keep the government out of the personal marriage choices of citizens.But do I think it is an explicit favoritism due to religion? No. But it is favoritism nonetheless. A big 1st amendment no no.ETA. I think that if the Church wanted to practice polygamy it would win in court today. Not that I think this will ever happen. The only favoritism that i can see is that the government favors those who follow the law above those that don't. Seems like a reasonable standard. I do agree though that if the church cared, they could get polygamy legal today, but only because SSM is now legal. Otherwise, i still don't think they could get it to go thru.
Recommended Posts