1 Million Members Have Left Over Gay Marriage????

[Daniel2]

I think there is good resolution here. Make them all legally recognized civil contracts, and let churches, mosques, kingdom halls, synagogues, temples, shrines. what have you, do any religious ceremony they want. It gets the government out of a religious ceremony, and lets the religious have any ceremony they want.

The way that it's currently set up, all civil marriages are merely that--civil contracts. Civil marriage does not require the blessing of any religion at all. Some people choose to have their marriages performed by religious clergy, and the state has granted religious clergy of any stripe to perform marriages.

I don't really understand the need to have "government get out of the marriage business." Civil marriage is a civil contract, and no government official is forcing any clergy members to exercise their religious authority to authorize civil marriages against their will. If any religion wants to withdraw from performing civil marriages and only authorize religious ceremonies, they are free to do so. For those churches that wish to continue to perform religious rites while simultaneously performing the civil right of marriage, they are likewise free to do so.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

The logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd would dictate that 3 heterosexual couples who get together for orgies should be able to be married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men. It is about group sex couples having “rights as humans to be able to equally marry” as single partner couples do, and “it’s about benefits and adoption rights.” They just “want equal rights” and “equal protection.” This is the same logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd, and those quotes are the words they use.

...

The logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd would dictate that 3 heterosexual couples should be able to be married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men.

To use the same language and reasoning of the pro-gay marriage crowd, it is about group marriage couples having “rights as humans to be able to equally marry” as single partner couples do, and “it’s about benefits and adoption rights.”

They just “want equal rights and privileges.” It is “about family.”

This is the same logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd, and those quotes are the words that pro-gay marriage people have used in their public discourse.

If 3 heterosexual couples consider themselves married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men (with all the ‘benefits’ of marriage), and they go around proclaiming their orientation/preference for group sex, then people have every right to discriminate against them. People should have a “right” to discriminate against someone who openly touts their immoral behavior.

You are mistaken that the legal reasoning and constitutional rationale employed to advance marriage equality for same-sex couples can equally employed to authorize group or plural marriages.

It is also an error to characterize the legal reasoning and constitutional rationale as merely "rights as humans to be able to equally marry"; or that same-sex marriage was legalized merely because "gays just 'want equal rights' and 'equal protection'"; or that "this is the same logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd, and those quotes are the words they use."

Here's what your mischaracterization misses:

In order to lay claim to "equality" to our civilly-married, straight-couple counterparts, we (gay couples) asserted that we're "similarly situated" to married straight couples.

After reviewing all the evidence and expert testimony, the courts overwhelmingly agreed that two gay people are "similarly situated" as two straight people. In fact, if you blocked out the names and genders, the government, places of public accommodation, and even businesses that provide benefits to their employees and their families would literally be unable to tell whether a married couple consists of a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple--because the number of individuals is the same. No "treatment" had to change, at all. For example:

• employers offering health care benefits would pay equally for two people, regardless of the gender/s of the married couple;
• courts assigning parental responsibility for children of two parents, albeit in the form of responsibilities related to child support, adoption, or divorce-related custody, would be equally assigned, regardless of the genders of their two parents;
• laws related to inheritance-rights or taxation benefits/responsibilities of a married couple are equal, regardless of the genders of the citizens subject to inheritance or taxation law.

The reason all of the above equally apply to gay couples, just as they do for straight couples, is because the gender of the married pairs doesn't change the way that law is applied.

However, group or polygamous marriages inherently ask for a different kind of consideration--laws no longer can be equally applied, because our laws currently don't have any means or mechanisms on how to divide rights and responsibilities between more than two people in a marital or divorced relationship.

As such, NEW law would have to be written; law that would require employers inherently to pay more for health insurance premiums for group marriages; for courts to contemplate custodial rights and responsibilities in the case of divorce or death between multiple parents; and laws to come up with new applications of inheritance and taxation law for more than two people, because three-or-more people are already dis-similarly situated by virtue of the quantity involved.

I'm not saying that new laws and regulations couldn't be written to allow for group or polygamous couples; but because the number of people in a marriage inherently changes how the law even could be applied, it would have to be on merits that are different than the claims of equality that applied to same-sex couples who already were and are similarly-situated to laws that govern our straight-couple counterparts.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Guest]

Another hit piece on the church at the Huffington post.  Basically attacking the Church because the Church went on a campaign against gay marriage.  Normal stuff but this particular claim I found interesting:

 

"Insiders have indicated that over the last seven years the Mormon Church may have lost up to 1 million members because of all it did to end gay marriage. These formerly loyal Church members decided to side with their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) family members and friends instead of their Church."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/mormon-church-bleeding-me_b_8299882.html

 

I don't know where they get this from but really 1 million over gay marriage?  I am sure a some members might decide to with the LGBT group over Christ but I can't think of one person that has left over gay marriage. If one million is true, I should be aware of at least 5 or 10 by myself.

Not a surprise that many leave the Church when the Church does not reflect "their view of values". They do not believe that God guides the Church, because they don't believe in God, unless God shares their view. They believe that this Cgurch is man made and that GA's can do whatever they like. They lack faith, they lack understanding, and "they seek out leaders and teachings that reflect what their "itching ears" desire.

[bluebell]

Our church requires the legality to validate marriage in this life.

 

 

Obviously.  However, if the government got out of the marriage business and instead issued civil unions, then the church would accept civil unions as legally valid.  The government labeling the legal union a "marriage" is not necessary.

 

If all governments ceased, there would either be no more marriage or marriage would be the basic kernal of remaining government.

Think about it: marriage basically says the spouses combine as one legal entity, that they are parents to one another's children and that they share home and property.

Do you see government in that? Because it's there.

 

 

I don't think you're following what i'm actually saying.  All of that would still be there if the government issued civil union licenses instead of marriage licenses.  A legal union would still exist and would still be legally binding in the same way it's always been, it just would not be called 'marriage' for government purposes.  

[Calm]

What's so sad about the hours of angst and dollars of campaigning spent on Mormons is that there are so many more worthy causes that would benefit from this passion, time and money.

One day soon I hope that someone in the leadership will wake up and realise that they are completely wasting their time on a matter that is none of their business and such greater needs in the world than stopping a gay couple getting married.

Move on, you've lost the battle. Meanwhile wars rage and children starve. Go and do something actual of merit and value.

So was it so important for gay marriage activists to spend the hours of angst and dollars of campaigning on the issue?  Or do you see that as a waste of money?

 

More money was spent to fight banning same sex marriage than to support the ban:

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-moneymap-htmlstory.html

Edited October 20, 2015 by Calm

[Daniel2]

So was it so important for gay marriage activists to spend the hours of angst and dollars of campaigning on the issue? Or do you see that as a waste of money?

More money was spent to fight banning same sex marriage than to support the ban:

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-moneymap-htmlstory.html

Yes, it definitely was important for gay activists and our supporters to spend time and money fighting bans on same-sex marriage.

Utah's ban on same-sex marriage was costing me, personally, $3,500 a year because I had to pay state taxes on the health insurance premiums for my "domestic partner" (another example of how 'civil unions' were not equal to marriage). Married couples don't pay those taxes on their spouses' insurance premiums. Now that I'm legally married to my husband, I don't have to pay that extra $3,500 - just like straight married couples.

And that's only one example of the financial impact. Besides the finances, there were many other ramifications as well, such as custody, adoption, inheritance, etc. You see, the bans on same-sex marriage were measurably hurting gay couples and our families. Fighting those bans saved us a lot of legal, emotional, and financial ways in the long run.

The money spent on supporting bans on same-sex marriage didn't financially or measurably benefit anyone. Nothing was taken away from straight couples or their families by prohibiting gay couples from Marion - but it's very much affected us and negative and financially measurable ways.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Daniel2

[jkwilliams]

I am just glad this whole fight is over. The only way to ban gay marriage going forward would be a constitutional amendment, and that is not going to happen. This issue will probably be like abortion and will be brought up to fire up the religious right, but no real movement will happen.

[Daniel2]

I am just glad this whole fight is over. The only way to ban gay marriage going forward would be a constitutional amendment, and that is not going to happen. This issue will probably be like abortion and will be brought up to fire up the religious right, but no real movement will happen.

I share your feelings of relief that this particular legal question is over.

Rather than it becoming an issue comparable to abortion, my sense is that it will be viewed in the future like interracial marriage has become today.

[Teancum]

What's so sad about the hours of angst and dollars of campaigning spent on Mormons is that there are so many more worthy causes that would benefit from this passion, time and money.

One day soon I hope that someone in the leadership will wake up and realise that they are completely wasting their time on a matter that is none of their business and such greater needs in the world than stopping a gay couple getting married.

Move on, you've lost the battle. Meanwhile wars rage and children starve. Go and do something actual of merit and value.

This...

[JAHS]

What's so sad about the hours of angst and dollars of campaigning spent on Mormons is that there are so many more worthy causes that would benefit from this passion, time and money.

One day soon I hope that someone in the leadership will wake up and realise that they are completely wasting their time on a matter that is none of their business and such greater needs in the world than stopping a gay couple getting married.

Move on, you've lost the battle. Meanwhile wars rage and children starve. Go and do something actual of merit and value.

I don't want to repeat myself so please go back and read my post #116.

[Storm Rider]

Our church requires the legality to validate marriage in this life.

If all governments ceased, there would either be no more marriage or marriage would be the basic kernal of remaining government.

Think about it: marriage basically says the spouses combine as one legal entity, that they are parents to one another's children and that they share home and property.

Do you see government in that? Because it's there.

 

That is a very different view of marriage; I am not sure I have ever heard a similar opinion.  When did government create marriage?  

[sunstoned]

The logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd would dictate that 3 heterosexual couples who get together for orgies should be able to be married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men. It is about group sex couples having “rights as humans to be able to equally marry” as single partner couples do, and “it’s about benefits and adoption rights.” They just “want equal rights” and “equal protection.” This is the same logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd, and those quotes are the words they use.

 

Marriage between a man and a woman was given to us by God long before the United States government became involved. If gay marriage is a “human right,” it cannot be granted by the United States government. Those who insist that it can must be willing to accept the corollary that human rights can be denied the United States government.

 

The logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd would dictate that 3 heterosexual couples should be able to be married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men.

 

To use the same language and reasoning of the pro-gay marriage crowd, it is about group marriage couples having “rights as humans to be able to equally marry” as single partner couples do, and “it’s about benefits and adoption rights.”

 

They just “want equal rights and privileges.” It is “about family.”

 

This is the same logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd, and those quotes are the words that pro-gay marriage people have used in their public discourse.

 

If 3 heterosexual couples consider themselves married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men (with all the ‘benefits’ of marriage), and they go around proclaiming their orientation/preference for group sex, then people have every right to discriminate against them. People should have a “right” to discriminate against someone who openly touts their immoral behavior.

Before you throwing around different types of "relationships", you might want to reflect on the types of relationships that Joseph Smith had.  Yes, I am referring to to his polyandry (two men, one women) and his polygamy (one man, many women).  Not to mention the age differences (Helen Kimball being fourteen years old).  In light of the actions of its founder, the church does not have a lot of room to judge the marital relationships of others.  If anyone messed with the traditional concept of marriage it was Joseph Smith.  the church needs to be careful how it judges.  Glass houses.

[sunstoned]

The way that it's currently set up, all civil marriages are merely that--civil contracts. Civil marriage does not require the blessing of any religion at all. Some people choose to have their marriages performed by religious clergy, and the state has granted religious clergy of any stripe to perform marriages.

I don't really understand the need to have "government get out of the marriage business." Civil marriage is a civil contract, and no government official is forcing any clergy members to exercise their religious authority to authorize civil marriages against their will. If any religion wants to withdraw from performing civil marriages and only authorize religious ceremonies, they are free to do so. For those churches that wish to continue to perform religious rites while simultaneously performing the civil right of marriage, they are likewise free to do so.

This is very well put.  the state is not imposing its will upon any religion.  

[Meadowchik]

That is a very different view of marriage; I am not sure I have ever heard a similar opinion. When did government create marriage?

Marriage was government. Think about the first time a sexual relationship was enforced by a group of people. What it might have looked like was a man being able to affirm: "my wife and my child," and others more or less respecting it. Rituals began at some point to signify that binding.

Women would have benefited from the stability and protection of a mate, and men the stable continuance of mate and any children.

Once those bonds were made, within any given clan or random group, that family was another grouping in and of itself. It was like it's own country with its own rule.

Marriage predates history, so this view is a result of deducing from knowns. We know that marriage is an institution existing all over the world from before historical times. By and large, marriage was a sexual, public union, terms usually dictated and enforced locally, those terms and such growing to what they are now as government grew.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

This is very well put. the state is not imposing its will upon any religion.

Hopefully not, at least in the US. However, it is churches who usually require public, legal marriage as an element of marriage recognition. In the US, we already have the option, case by case, to be married without religion. Churches are free to adhere to their own rules, of marrying within or outside of religious ceremonies.

[Stargazer]

The gay marriage issue has been rectified through the legal system of our country.  But there are still a lot of work to be done to insure gay citizens are treated equally in this country.  Discrimination still exists in housing, employment and public accommodation laws.  These are the next big issues facing those that truly believe that everyone should have the same civil rights.  I applaud the church for making a big step forward in the State of Utah on these matters.  That does count for something.

Sigh. Long before Prop 8 was Prop 22, and before that was a 1977 legislative act tightening up California's marriage laws to specify opposite sex persons when it came to marriage, and long before that there was the broad assumption in all of society all over the world that marriage was between opposite sex partners and nobody else, and not even them if they were related too closely by blood. This is why I don't subscribe to the notion that a right was taken away. It didn't exist as a right.

In fact, it still isn't a right, actually. Marriage is a privilege, which should be clear from simple logic. Where prior permission from the State is required to be obtained to do an action, it is not a right, but a privilege. Privileges can be granted or denied at the State's initiative, and the rules may change as needed.

When it comes to marriage, you can't get married without a license. And the license may be denied unless the parties contracting it conform to the regulations pertaining to it. These regulations mostly deal with degree of consanguinity. For example, a brother and a sister may not marry. The Washington state statute is probably similar to other states' when it comes to what is a prohibited marriage. If you're more closely related to your prospective spouse than second cousin, then you can't marry in Washington. It might be interesting to note that the consanguinity law does not except same-sex marriage. I.e, a man may not marry his same-sex first cousin. Harking back to old concern for the excessive promulgating of genetic defects. The law now apparently pretends that children may be created by same-sex partners from each other's genes. Something that isn't possible. I await the day when some Social Justice Warrior attempts to get the law changed so that two brothers may marry each other -- whereupon it will suddenly become clear that the whole purpose of marriage in the first place was to provide for the engendering, health and raising of children, not merely to make two people feel that their relationship was meaningful by giving them a piece of paper with fancy official markings on it.

I'm tired of this topic. I'm done with it.

[california boy]

I'm tired of this topic. I'm done with it.

 

I am glad you are finally done with this topic.  So are most people.  You are of course entitled to hold on to your belief for as long as you need to.  But virtually every court in this country have ruled against your beliefs. None of them bought into your way of thinking.It is settled law. 

[ERayR]

Marriage predates history, so this view is a result of deducing from knowns. We know that marriage is an institution existing all over the world from before historical times. By and large, marriage was a sexual, public union, terms usually dictated and enforced locally, those terms and such growing to what they are now as government grew.

 

Perhaps even from the Garden of Eden.  

[longview]

I am glad you are finally done with this topic.  So are most people.  You are of course entitled to hold on to your belief for as long as you need to.  But virtually every court in this country have ruled against your beliefs. None of them bought into your way of thinking.It is settled law. 

Yeah, I guess you are tickled PINK that the social engineering and legislating from the bench has FINALLY overcome the "silent" majority that prefer to safeguard the stability and protection of the BASIC unit which provides the best possible outcome for children and society.

 

BUT I will never give up standing against the assaults on the family that are coming from many directions.  It is not just the phony issue of homosexual rights.

[jkwilliams]

I thought this was an interesting approach gay couples used to use for legal protection. I'm glad they don't have to do that anymore.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/magazine/the-lost-history-of-gay-adult-adoption.html?_r=0

[Gray]

Yeah, I guess you are tickled PINK that the social engineering and legislating from the bench has FINALLY overcome the "silent" majority that prefer to safeguard the stability and protection of the BASIC unit which provides the best possible outcome for children and society.

 

BUT I will never give up standing against the assaults on the family that are coming from many directions.  It is not just the phony issue of homosexual rights.

 

A majority of Americans favor gay marriage. Most people have the good sense to realize that affording others the same rights as us does nothing to interfere with our own rights. 

[Tony Frank]

Before you throwing around different types of "relationships", you might want to reflect on the types of relationships that Joseph Smith had.  Yes, I am referring to to his polyandry (two men, one women) and his polygamy (one man, many women).  Not to mention the age differences (Helen Kimball being fourteen years old).  In light of the actions of its founder, the church does not have a lot of room to judge the marital relationships of others.  If anyone messed with the traditional concept of marriage it was Joseph Smith.  the church needs to be careful how it judges.  Glass houses.

 

You were not there and you have no idea what was going on. You assume that when a woman was sealed to the prophet it had to involve sexual relations. Nice try.

[jkwilliams]

You were not there and you have no idea what was going on. You assume that when a woman was sealed to the prophet it had to involve sexual relations. Nice try.

 

I can't answer for sunstoned, but in the cases where the wives said they had relations with Joseph, I tend to believe them. There's not really any good reason not to believe them.

[JAHS]

I can't answer for sunstoned, but in the cases where the wives said they had relations with Joseph, I tend to believe them. There's not really any good reason not to believe them.

I don't think there is a problem if some of them did have sexual relations with him, since "to raise up seed" (Jacob 2:30) is one of the reasons for the principle.

But I have yet to see any convincing proof that he had sexual relations with those women who were already married to someone else. Those sealings were meant for the next life.

[jkwilliams]

I don't think there is a problem if some of them did have sexual relations with him, since "to raise up seed" (Jacob 2:30) is one of the reasons for the principle.

But I have yet to see any convincing proof that he had sexual relations with those women who were already married to someone else. Those sealings were meant for the next life.

 

I guess we disagree on what is convincing evidence, then. Even Brian Hales accepts that Joseph was intimate with Sylvia Lyon, though he argues that it's not technically polyandry because he believes she was separated from her husband at the time.