Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

Define judge  Do you mean like I have seen you do?  or like you accuse others of doing?

Just curious

I am not going to reply to you CountryBoy.  I can write anything and you assume the very worst in me.  I have asked you why before.  So..what ever I write seems to rub you the wrong way.  But sometimes I have no agenda..just asking a question or stating an opinion.  An example of judgement..is what you do to me.

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am not going to reply to you CountryBoy.  I can write anything and you assume the very worst in me.  I have asked you why before.  So..what ever I write seems to rub you the wrong way.  But sometimes I have no agenda..just asking a question or stating an opinion.  An example of judgement..is what you do to me.

About what I expected...a dodge and accusation......

Shrugs....

[T-Shirt]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

They deserve the right to marry just like every other citizen in this country.

Gays have always had the same right to marry as anyone else, long before California was even a State.  No civil rights were denied.  The Church is not denying any civil rights to anyone in Mexico or Australia.

[Tacenda]

nevermind

Edited July 20, 2016 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I would have agreed with you until the recent efforts by the church to push back on pending legislation in Mexico and the vote coming up in Australia asking the members to get involved in fighting gay marriage..  Sadly, the church seems to be picking up again right where they left off with Prop 8. They are just doing it in other countries.  To what extent remains to be seen.

This is interesting:  Do you have some good sources which specify which legislation (content and who is actually pushing it)?  Is it a fact that "the church seems to be picking up again right where they left off with Prop 8"?   Why do you condition it with "To what extent remains to be seen"?

[california boy]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you see how slanted and unfair "deny{ing} people their civil rights" sounds?  Particularly since what you are describing is people exercising constitutional rights by participating in the legislative process?

You object to the Church and its members exercising their constitutional rights.  That does not seem appropriate or healthy.  It's not like the Church and its members have been resorting to violence, or threats, or coercion, or anything other than completely lawful behavior.

I am reminded of this story about Tom Hanks expressing a similar attitude toward us:

I hope some day you can come to a place wherein you do not object to Latter-day Saints exercising their right to "vote their conscience."

Right.  Latter-day Saints who disagree with you about same-sex marriage, and who dare to vote in a way you don't like, are satanic.

Such a pleasant conversation.

And rather than seek to understand what you presently do not, you attribute the worst, most evil of motives to us.  You literally accuse us of having satanic motives.

And what's really weird is that our position is actually pretty straightforward, and pretty easy to understand.  And yet here you are, professing both ignorance on your part and - in that admitted position of ignorance - attributing satanic motives to us.  (Are the majority of Californians who in 2008 voted in a way you don't like re: Prop 8 likewise satanic?  Or is that just a special accusation you reserve for the Mormons?)

I disagree with Tom Hanks, but at least he got it.  At least he called for "respectful disagreement."  

-Smac

Oh please.  This is about the most disingenuous post you have ever written about me.  I have said in virtually every post I have written on this subject that the church has every right to voice it's beliefs in the public square and that members have every right to vote and campaign on any cause that they want.  Either you have never ever read any of my posts on this issue or you are trying to attack something that is just not there.  I am amazed that you have come to these conclusions.

But that doesn't change whether what the church is doing is right or not.  Working to take away the civil rights of others in order to enforce your own religious beliefs I believe is appalling wrong.  But that has nothing to do with their right to do so.  Let the church do what it will.  I am still going to be pretty harsh on calling them out for what they do.  

That said, this thread is not about gay marriage.  I really am not interested in getting into yet another thread on this subject.  If you want to continue to talk about this subject, there are plenty of other threads already addressing this issue.  I probably should not have addressed Country Boys post.  But I did, so for that I apologize.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

I can see why you believe what you do.  I don't think I have anywhere tried to tell you that you are on the wrong path.  I have spoken up for years in defense of the right and need of each person to live their own life as they judge best.  I have vocally expressed that even as I believe that the Church is true, I also believe that God's plan for many LGBT individuals may be to leave the Church and pursue same-sex relationships.  I believe in a God who is powerful enough to work everything out, even when I can't.  That is why I am surprised that you accuse me of thinking that because I have been blessed with success it is possible for anyone to follow the same path.  That would indeed be presumptuous.  

You are right.  We are in agreement with this issue.  I didn't realize that you have acknowledged that there may be other paths for others.  Maybe it is good to hear both of our stories.  I think it provides insight from both perspectives.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

I believe everyone deserves happiness beyond imagination. That would actually make me happy, seeing everyone happy.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is interesting:  Do you have some good sources which specify which legislation (content and who is actually pushing it)?  Is it a fact that "the church seems to be picking up again right where they left off with Prop 8"?   Why do you condition it with "To what extent remains to be seen"?

 

Defeated in the U.S., LDS Church takes fight against same-sex marriage to Mexico

 

There was a thread on what the church is doing to fight gay marriage in Australia.

ThenChurch speaks up on SSM again

 

 

[busybee]

On 15/07/2016 at 6:10 PM, california boy said:

Well i am going to agree with just about all you said.  Except I think that there are those people who are emotionally attracted to the same sex and do not have that same kind of attraction to the opposite sex.  I also think that there are some people who are attracted to both sexes.  There is a big difference between putting an arm around a mate and holding someone in your arms that you want to spend the rest of your life with.  I think the challenge, as you and others have pointed out is keeping lustful feelings out of such a relationship.  But I think it is possible to do so.  I would like to talk about this a little deeper.  What do you think

DO you think it would be possible (for an undetermined amount of time) for a heterosexual couple who are in love to keep their feelings chaste? I ask this sincerely. I think it would become increasingly difficult as the relationship deepened.

[rodheadlee]

Remember when gay meant happy?

[busybee]

On 16/07/2016 at 7:15 AM, california boy said:

I was away from the computer for a while, and it looks like this thread has exploded into many fractions and ideas.  It would consume way too much of my time  to answer each post individually.  And I think we are getting into areas that there is simply a difference of opinion.  The question that seems to have fragmented the discussion is the question of whether it is against the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss.  I think that we can agree that it is against the Law of Chastity for a married man to date hug or kiss someone other than his wife.  I think we can also agree that it is against the Law of Chastity to date, hug or kiss someone you are related to.  So as I see it, there are three questions that I would like to focus on.keeping in mind that we are NOT discussing married men and people we are related to

Is it against the Law of Chastity for any single person who is not related to the person to date hug or kiss someone.

And is there a difference between someone who is gay and someone who is straight when it comes to this question.  Do the rules change and it becomes against the Law of Chastity when you want to date, hug or kiss someone of the same sex.

Is this your personal opinion, or is this church policy/doctrine?

I should add that in dating, hugging and kissing, the person is still required to push away any thoughts of sexual behavior towards the person they are dating, hugging, and kissing. whether they are straight or gay.  I think we have all agreed on that as well.

I don't think that if we can come to an agreement on this then it is possible to move the discussion forward. I want to thank everyone for working with me on trying to better understand this issue.  I appreciate your thoughts.

Call me crazy, but how do you avoid physical responses to physical acts? That just isn't how things work. Yes, we have to keep things within the bounds of the Law of Chastity ie not get carried away with hugs and kisses, but seriously, the purpose of hugs and kisses are to show affection in a physical way. When two people are attracted to each other, to say you can hug and kiss and not have a physical reaction is ridiculous. What is important is how you control those physical reactions and whether you continue to engage in hugging and kissing despite the inevitable reactions that result from such acts. You either need to know how to operate the brakes, or you shouldn't be driving the vehicle.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Defeated in the U.S., LDS Church takes fight against same-sex marriage to Mexico

There was a thread on what the church is doing to fight gay marriage in Australia.

ThenChurch speaks up on SSM again

Thanks for that.  Very informative.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Oh please.  This is about the most disingenuous post you have ever written about me.  I have said in virtually every post I have written on this subject that the church has every right to voice it's beliefs in the public square and that members have every right to vote and campaign on any cause that they want.  

Right.  And then you come to an LDS message board and attribute satanic motives to our exercise of that right.

Quote

Either you have never ever read any of my posts on this issue or you are trying to attack something that is just not there.  I am amazed that you have come to these conclusions.

You are "amazed" that I take exception of having me and mine being accused of having satanic motives for supporting traditional marriage and opposing same-sex marriage?  Really?

Quote

But that doesn't change whether what the church is doing is right or not.  Working to take away the civil rights of others in order to enforce your own religious beliefs I believe is appalling wrong.  But that has nothing to do with their right to do so.  Let the church do what it will.  I am still going to be pretty harsh on calling them out for what they do.  

Yes, that is clear.  Hence my reference to Tom Hanks and his capacity for "respectful disagreement," and my hope that you someday will be able to emulate his example.  Until then, we'll get accusations of satanic motives.  Public accusations.  To our faces.

That is . . . disappointing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 20, 2016 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

The short answer to the OP is "Yes, as long as gays suppress their sexuality during this life and then are made 'not gay' in the next life."

[california boy]

3 hours ago, busybee said:

DO you think it would be possible (for an undetermined amount of time) for a heterosexual couple who are in love to keep their feelings chaste? I ask this sincerely. I think it would become increasingly difficult as the relationship deepened.

Of course.  It all depends on how important it is for them to be together and whether that was the only way they could be together and still follow their religious beliefs.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Remember when gay meant happy?

It still does. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, busybee said:

Call me crazy, but how do you avoid physical responses to physical acts? That just isn't how things work. Yes, we have to keep things within the bounds of the Law of Chastity ie not get carried away with hugs and kisses, but seriously, the purpose of hugs and kisses are to show affection in a physical way. When two people are attracted to each other, to say you can hug and kiss and not have a physical reaction is ridiculous. What is important is how you control those physical reactions and whether you continue to engage in hugging and kissing despite the inevitable reactions that result from such acts. You either need to know how to operate the brakes, or you shouldn't be driving the vehicle.

Personally, it sounds way more possible than living a life without anyone to share that life with, without ever knowing the joys of being with someone you love.  I would rather be celibate with someone I love than be celibate and be all alone.  Sexual relations is not the most important part of my relationship with my partner. Many people hug and kiss and date for months before getting married.  Sometimes years.  Of course it becomes difficult, but not impossible.

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  And then you come to an LDS message board and attribute satanic motives to our exercise of that right.

I have never attributed satanic motives to the right of the church to speak out.  I have only attributed satanic acts to forcing others to follow the church's beliefs.  You can accuse me all you want of being animately against the church working to take away the civil rights of gay couples.  What you can't do is accuse me of ever saying that the church did not have the right to speak out.  I think you are smart enough to see the difference.

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are "amazed" that I take exception of having me and mine being accused of having satanic motives for supporting traditional marriage and opposing same-sex marriage?  Really?

Yes, that is clear.  Hence my reference to Tom Hanks and his capacity for "respectful disagreement," and my hope that you someday will be able to emulate his example.  Until then, we'll get accusations of satanic motives.  Public accusations.  To our faces.

That is . . . disappointing.

Thanks,

-Smac

What is American is being allowed to speak in the public square.  What is un-American is working to take away someone's civil rights.  It would be un-American to deny anyone that right.  But that doesn't mean that what they are speaking about should not be rebuked in the strongest terms.  Denying someone's cilvil rights is a pretty serious thing to do against any  minority.  It is exactly that kind of action that should be condemned by those that believe the rights of ALL are guaranteed in the constitution.  Gay marriage did not infringe one bit on you or the church's right to believe and define marriage any way you wanted to.  It wasn't your civil rights that were up for a vote.  It was gay couples. Having religious beliefs does not  insulate you from the consequences of your actions.  Forcing someone to follow one's religious beliefs is the plan of Satan according to MORMON theology.  I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of modern leaders doing exactly what we were told was what the war in heaven was all about.  Or do you not think that Satan's plan was one of forcing to live the laws of God?  If the war was not about that, then what exactly was the war in heaven about?

This is my last comment on gay marriage in this thread.  This discussion is not about gay marriage, it is about the relationship between being gay and the plan of happiness.  I felt like your response deserved to be addressed because it was very misleading in the position I have always had on this issue.  But that does not mean I want to derail this thread any more than has already happened.  There are countless threads that have taken this course.  I am more than happy to continue this discussion in another thread if you feel that I have still not made my position perfectly clear.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is un-American is working to take away someone's civil rights.

How are civil rights that are currently in place actually being taken away? I see a discussion over the interpretation and granting of civil rights and protected classes, but where are the efforts to take way civil rights or remove protected class status?

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How are civil rights that are currently in place actually being taken away? I see a discussion over the interpretation and granting of civil rights and protected classes, but where are the efforts to take way civil rights or remove protected class status?

another thread.  I would be glad to answer your question.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I have never attributed satanic motives to the right of the church to speak out.  I have only attributed satanic acts to forcing others to follow the church's beliefs.

First: What a crock.  The majority of the residents of California, 52.24% (7,001,084), voted in favor of Prop 8.  I reeks of bad faith to characterize the efforts of the Church and its members pertaining to Prop 8 as "forcing others to follow the church's beliefs."  Nobody can in good faith assert that seven million California voters were voting to "forc{e} others to follow the church's beliefs."

Second: You are still apparently incapable of "respectful disagreement."  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, even important things.  To say that that a vote for Prop 8 is "satanic" is despicable.  Vile.  Poisonous.  Slanderous.  Profoundly anti-Mormon.  Hateful.

Again, Tom Hanks and many, many others get it.  I have sometimes been repulsed by some few people who believe much as I do in terms of God and morality, but who I have seen proceeding to say hateful things about gay people, attribute the worst possible motives to gay rights activists, and so on.  You aren't any better than any of them.  You are just like them, just on the other side of the argument.

Quote

You can accuse me all you want of being animately against the church working to take away the civil rights of gay couples.  

I don't really need to accuse.  You are publicly on record of accusing us of having satanic motives/actions.  Your hateful words are self-evident.

I wish you'd retract them.  From here on out I won't be able to see you as a reasonable, intelligent, passionate, involved, well-informed person who happens to have a categorically opposing viewpoint on some things as compared to my worldview.  Your hateful rhetoric against me and mine is pretty much going to predominate all of those admirable attributes.

Your words are poisonous, CB.  You cannot accuse us of being satanic (or having satanic motives, or of engaging in satanic behavior - however you want to parse it out) and expect to have civil discourse with us.

Quote

What is American is being allowed to speak in the public square.  What is un-American is working to take away someone's civil rights.  It would be un-American to deny anyone that right.  But that doesn't mean that what they are speaking about should not be rebuked in the strongest terms.  

Reasoned, principled disagreement, yes.  I'm all about that.

Accusing an entire religious group with which you don't agree of being satanic (or having satanic motives, or of engaging in satanic behavior - however you want to parse it out) . . . no.  Nope.  Can't agree to that.  That is not healthy.  That is not right.  That is a lie.  It is poisonous to reasoned discourse and disagreement.  

Look at what we are doing.  We're no longer talking about the topic.  We're talking about your hateful rhetoric against an entire category of persons.

For the record: I acknowledge that there were principled and good-faith arguments for voting against Prop 8 (not the constitutional argument, but other important arguments).  I also acknowledge that there were principled and good-faith arguments for voting for Prop 8.

Quote

Denying someone's cilvil rights is a pretty serious thing to do against any  minority.  It is exactly that kind of action that should be condemned by those that believe the rights of ALL are guaranteed in the constitution.  Gay marriage did not infringe one bit on you or the church's right to believe and define marriage any way you wanted to.  It wasn't your civil rights that were up for a vote.  It was gay couples. Having religious beliefs does not  insulate you from the consequences of your actions.  

So the "consequences of {my} actions" are . . . you falsely accusing me and mine of having satanic motives/actions?  Is that the way it works?  You are the arbiter and administrator of "consequences" for voting in ways you do not like?

You're just calling a spade a spade?  

Reasonable minds can't disagree about such things?  

Tom Hanks is a buffoon?  "Respectful disagreement" is not something to which we should aspire?  

Refusing to acknowledge principled, good faith arguments against your position is just not possible?  

And yet you somehow hope to come to this board and have a reasoned discussion with Mormons?

What happens when a large number of some other minority you dislike happens to vote in large numbers for a ballot initiative you dislike (or against a ballot initiative you like)?  Would you likewise trot out an accusation of "satanic" motives/actions against Muslims?  Jews?  Gays?  

I ask you to give some serious reconsideration to your accusation.  Accusing us of having satanic motives/actions is deplorable.  And unfair.  And inaccurate.  And poisonous.

Quote

This is my last comment on gay marriage in this thread.  This discussion is not about gay marriage, it is about the relationship between being gay and the plan of happiness.  I felt like your response deserved to be addressed because it was very misleading in the position I have always had on this issue.  But that does not mean I want to derail this thread any more than has already happened.  There are countless threads that have taken this course.  I am more than happy to continue this discussion in another thread if you feel that I have still not made my position perfectly clear.

No need for further discussion, I think.  You have made your position perfectly clear.

It just happens to be a hateful, poisonous position which I hope you will reconsider and retract.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

"Respectful disagreement" is a good thing and should be a governing principle to which we should all aspire.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 20, 2016 by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First: What a crock.  The majority of the residents of California, 52.24% (7,001,084), voted in favor of Prop 8.  I reeks of bad faith to characterize the efforts of the Church and its members pertaining to Prop 8 as "forcing others to follow the church's beliefs."  Nobody can in good faith assert that seven million California voters were voting to "forc{e} others to follow the church's beliefs."

Second: You are still apparently incapable of "respectful disagreement."  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, even important things.  To say that that a vote for Prop 8 is "satanic" is despicable.  Vile.  Poisonous.  Slanderous.  Profoundly anti-Mormon.  Hateful.

Again, Tom Hanks and many, many others get it.  I have sometimes been repulsed by some few people who believe much as I do in terms of God and morality, but who I have seen proceeding to say hateful things about gay people, attribute the worst possible motives to gay rights activists, and so on.  You aren't any better than any of them.  You are just like them, just on the other side of the argument.

I don't really need to accuse.  You are publicly on record of accusing us of having satanic motives/actions.  Your hateful words are self-evident.

I wish you'd retract them.  From here on out I won't be able to see you as a reasonable, intelligent, passionate, involved, well-informed person who happens to have a categorically opposing viewpoint on some things as compared to my worldview.  Your hateful rhetoric against me and mine is pretty much going to predominate all of those admirable attributes.

Your words are poisonous, CB.  You cannot accuse us of being satanic (or having satanic motives, or of engaging in satanic behavior - however you want to parse it out) and expect to have civil discourse with us.

Reasoned, principled disagreement, yes.  I'm all about that.

Accusing an entire religious group with which you don't agree of being satanic (or having satanic motives, or of engaging in satanic behavior - however you want to parse it out) . . . no.  Nope.  Can't agree to that.  That is not healthy.  That is not right.  That is a lie.  It is poisonous to reasoned discourse and disagreement.  

Look at what we are doing.  We're no longer talking about the topic.  We're talking about your hateful rhetoric against an entire category of persons.

For the record: I acknowledge that there were principled and good-faith arguments for voting against Prop 8 (not the constitutional argument, but other important arguments).  I also acknowledge that there were principled and good-faith arguments for voting for Prop 8.

So the "consequences of {my} actions" are . . . you falsely accusing me and mine of having satanic motives/actions?  Is that the way it works?  You are the arbiter and administrator of "consequences" for voting in ways you do not like?

You're just calling a spade a spade?  

Reasonable minds can't disagree about such things?  

Tom Hanks is a buffoon?  "Respectful disagreement" is not something to which we should aspire?  

Refusing to acknowledge principled, good faith arguments against your position is just not possible?  

And yet you somehow hope to come to this board and have a reasoned discussion with Mormons?

What happens when a large number of some other minority you dislike happens to vote in large numbers for a ballot initiative you dislike (or against a ballot initiative you like)?  Would you likewise trot out an accusation of "satanic" motives/actions against Muslims?  Jews?  Gays?  

I ask you to give some serious reconsideration to your accusation.  Accusing us of having satanic motives/actions is deplorable.  And unfair.  And inaccurate.  And poisonous.

No need for further discussion, I think.  You have made your position perfectly clear.

It just happens to be a hateful, poisonous position which I hope you will reconsider and retract.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things.

"Respectful disagreement" is a good thing and should be a governing principle to which we should all aspire.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are distorting what I have said in order to further justify what the church actions were.  What I actually said is that forcing others to follow your personal religious beliefs was the same plan Satan proposed.  Now if you can sit there on your high horse and tell me that Satan's plan was not to force others to live the commandments of God,  And if you can tell me that the church didn't want gays to have the right to marry because it was against their belief and they wanted to force them to not be able to marry by taking away that right despite the fact that the Supreme Court of California had already ruled that under the constitution of the state of California they are guaranteed that right, then you would have a point.   Can you?  

You can't even acknowledge that the right to marry was guaranteed them in the constitution of California and the California Supreme court ruled that it was their legal right to marry.  You can't acknowledge that every single district and federal court in this country ruled that gays have the civil right to marry guaranteed them by the US Constitution.  And you can't even acknowledge that the church worked vigorously to overturn that ruling by campaigning for a proposition that would amend the constitution of the state of California, which forced this issue to be heard by the Supreme court who reaffirmed that ruling.  And now you stand here and talk about not having a good faith discussion on this subject?????  Please. 

Edited July 20, 2016 by california boy

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You are distorting what I have said in order to further justify what the church actions were.  What I actually said is that forcing others to follow your personal religious beliefs was the same plan Satan proposed.  Now if you can sit there on your high horse and tell me that Satan's plan was not to force others to live the commandments of God,  And if you can tell me that the church didn't want gays to have the right to marry because it was against their belief and they wanted to force them to not be able to marry by taking away that right despite the fact that the Supreme Court of California had already ruled that under the constitution of the state of California they are guaranteed that right, then you would have a point.   Can you?  

I give up.  You've accused us of having satanic motives/actions.  I reject the charge.  I think Tom Hanks was right to call for "respectful disagreement."  I also think accusing the other side of satanic tactics is destructive and reprehensible.

Quote

You can't even acknowledge that the right to marry was guaranteed them in the constitution of California and the California Supreme court ruled that it was their legal right to marry.  You can't acknowledge that every single district and federal court in this country ruled that gays have the civil right to marry guaranteed them by the US Constitution.  

Oh, brother.  Are you at all familiar with the legal history pertaining to same-sex marriage prior to Prop 8?

Are you familiar with Baker v. Nelson?

Standhardt v. Superior Court of Ariz., 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. 2004)?

Are you familiar with the legal definition of "marriage" in Black's Law Dictionary?  What it is now?  What it used to be?

I have never denied the reality of the legal decisions pertaining to same-sex marriage.  Ever.  I acknowledge them.  But you overstate your case by quite a bit.

Quote

And you can't even acknowledge that the church worked vigorously to overturn that ruling by campaigning for a proposition that would amend the constitution of the state of California, which forced this issue to be heard by the Supreme court who reaffirmed that ruling.  And now you stand here and talk about not having a good faith discussion on this subject?????  Please. 

Please, indeed.  I have never been asked to "acknowledge" such things.

Meanwhile, you remain on record as having publicly accused the LDS Church and its members of resorting to satanic motives and actions because they voted on Prop 8 in a way you did not like.  No room for principled or respectful disagreement, I guess.  It's your way or the highway.  To vote in a way you, CB, do not personally approve of is to be guilty of satanic motives and actions.

The mind reels.

-Smac

[california boy]

Let's make this simple. If you can give one reason why the Mormon church encouraged members to donated 20 million dollars and 70% of the manpower to take away the civil rights of gays to marry other than to force them to abide by the churches definition of marriage of only between one man and one woman then I will withdraw my accusation that the church was forcing gay couples to follow the churches beliefs on marriage.