Mormon church comes out in support of same-sex marriage law

[Rivers]

On 11/21/2022 at 3:16 PM, Damien the Leper said:

From you:

Braun was brought up. You were wrong. There is a difference between what you said previously and what you say above. They are not the same argument.

Both statements are correct.  Nobody is talking about abolishing interracial marriage. And nobody is going to try passing any law doing so.  There are maybe two or three people in the entire country that are against interracial marriage.  It’s ridiculous that we are even talking about this.

[Rivers]

On 11/21/2022 at 1:07 PM, The Nehor said:

And if there is one thing that US politics will not abide at all it is silliness and lunacy.

So I just woke up from a decade long coma. How have things been going lately?

Wait….who was President? The failed casinos guy? The one in Home Alone 2?

Now we have a present that that is going senile.  Yes.  Things are really silly now.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Now we have a present that that is going senile.  Yes.  Things are really silly now.

Not really. Misspeaking is not senility. The current President has shown plenty of wit and there aren’t tons of his advisors running to news outlets to anonymously tell everyone he is secretly being propped up.

I will take a President who stutters and misspeaks occasionally over one who took a dementia test and then bragged about how well he did on it.

“Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.”

Well, at least the journey had some laughs.

[BlueDreams]

On 11/18/2022 at 9:11 PM, california boy said:

Well thank you, I guess.  I always believed that gay couples should. not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage.  Their love and their families are just as real and as important as straight couples.  So yes, I am happy about not only the Supreme Court ruling, but also a bipartisan support on that ruling.

But I also have to say that it has always saddened me that the Church fought so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples in California.  I hope that the reason the Church has come out in support of this legislation is to right a wrong.  Maybe others don't see it that way, but it does help me have better feelings about the Church in my life.

My partner and I are not married.  A big reason why we haven't married is because of the Church's feeling about gay couples marrying.  We just felt it might be better for my family if we don't marry.  We haven't really talked about it for a long time.  But interesting enough, my partner brought it up the other night, maybe because of it being in the news lately.  I kinda wonder how those on this board feel about us getting married.  Would it be viewed as disrespectful towards the Church?  It is kinda weird that living in sin might be preferred to gay couples marrying.  You know, the whole apostate thing from just a few years back.   I am a little confused to be honest.  

 

The other day my cousins and I were talking about one of their potential plans to marry her live-in girlfriend that she thinks may be the one to tei the knot with. We talked dresses v suits and the options around velvet blazers. If she marries her, her active lds parents, me, and her active sister will be among the guests. 

I remember eons ago talking a hypothetical with my co-worker when I was a student working at the BYU bookstore. We were all members and around the same age and this would have been around or soon after prop 8. The hypothetical was if a close relative got married to the same sex would you attend the wedding. Most said they would, even if they were uncomfortable to some degree because they love their relative. Mind you this was at least 11 years ago. Possibly 15. And with a younger generation. So it may have gotten easier to say yes to the hypothetical. It has for me at least.

On a religious level I don't think it would be a thumb to the faith. Particularly since I assume you don't actively participate in your nascent faith and I doubt that would be the reason you'd be marrying. I obviously couldn't say how your family would interpret it. That's a different story with people who tbh I struggle to understand. Their reactions would never be mine. Not at any point in my life. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Scott Lloyd]

I haven’t been closely following this thread, so I’m not sure whether anyone has linked to this Deseret News article, but I doubt it, since the article was published just a short time ago. 
 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/11/28/23471943/why-mormons-support-amended-respect-for-marriage-act
 

It quotes Elder Jack Gerard as giving a very reasoned explanation for the Church’s position on the legislation. Noteworthy is that he reiterates that the Church’s doctrine regarding marriage has not changed and will not change (which has been expressed umpteen times already) but that the Church’s position on the new legislation is consistent with the Church’s longstanding “fairness for all” compromise. 
 

For my part, I cannot share Elder Gerard’s confidence that amendments to the bill are sufficient to protect the Church and other entities from religious persecution over the belief that marriage is properly between a man and a woman. I fear it is only a matter of time before secularist zealots use the proposed legislation as an excuse to go after the tax-exempt status of the Church and other faith groups or charities over this issue. I share the opinion of Sen. Mike Lee that the supposed protections in the amendments are too anemic. I favor an amendment he has proposed that would prohibit by force of law the Respect for Marriage Act from being used for this purpose. 
 

Time will tell, I suppose. I hope Elder Gerard’s  optimism is well placed. But I’m skeptical. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

On 11/18/2022 at 9:11 PM, california boy said:

Well thank you, I guess.  I always believed that gay couples should. not be discriminated against when it comes to marriage.  Their love and their families are just as real and as important as straight couples.  So yes, I am happy about not only the Supreme Court ruling, but also a bipartisan support on that ruling.

But I also have to say that it has always saddened me that the Church fought so hard to take away the civil right for gay couples in California.  I hope that the reason the Church has come out in support of this legislation is to right a wrong.  Maybe others don't see it that way, but it does help me have better feelings about the Church in my life.

My partner and I are not married.  A big reason why we haven't married is because of the Church's feeling about gay couples marrying.  We just felt it might be better for my family if we don't marry.  We haven't really talked about it for a long time.  But interesting enough, my partner brought it up the other night, maybe because of it being in the news lately.  I kinda wonder how those on this board feel about us getting married.  Would it be viewed as disrespectful towards the Church?  It is kinda weird that living in sin might be preferred to gay couples marrying.  You know, the whole apostate thing from just a few years back.   I am a little confused to be honest.  

 

At the risk of putting any pressure on you (seriously, none intended) I’m one active member who would love to come to your wedding. We only know each other through this board but if your partner and you decide to make the commitment, and you’re not too weirded out by balding mid-age dude who looks like he was cut straight out of TBM-type-casting, I’d be honored. Denver international has direct flights most anywhere. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 11/23/2022 at 1:25 PM, Rivers said:

Both statements are correct.  Nobody is talking about abolishing interracial marriage. And nobody is going to try passing any law doing so.  There are maybe two or three people in the entire country that are against interracial marriage.  It’s ridiculous that we are even talking about this.

Your attempt at twisting Braun's position is telling. You stated that "literally" nobody is talking about banning interracial marriage. Using the terminology that Braun did by saying leave it up to the states to decide is precisely what you're attempting to say it isn't. The mental gymnastics of your response is tiresome.

[Damien the Leper]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I haven’t been closely following this thread, so I’m not sure whether anyone has linked to this Deseret News article, but I doubt it, since the article was published just a short time ago. 
 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/11/28/23471943/why-mormons-support-amended-respect-for-marriage-act
 

It quotes Elder Jack Gerard as giving a very reasoned explanation for the Church’s position on the legislation. Noteworthy is that he reiterates that the Church’s doctrine regarding marriage has not changed and will not change (which has been expressed umpteen times already) but that the Church’s position on the new legislation is consistent with the Church’s longstanding “fairness for all” compromise. 
 

For my part, I cannot share Elder Gerard’s confidence that amendments to the bill are sufficient to protect the Church and other entities from religious persecution over the belief that marriage is properly between a man and a woman. I fear it is only a matter of time before secularist zealots use the proposed legislation as an excuse to go after the tax-exempt status of the Church and other faith groups or charities over this issue. I share the opinion of Sen. Mike Lee that the supposed protections in the amendments are too anemic. I favor an amendment he has proposed that would prohibit by force of law the Respect for Marriage Act from being used for this purpose. 
 

Time will tell, I suppose. I hope Elder Gerard’s  optimism is well placed. But I’m skeptical. 

Religious liberty is no more important that the right to have freedom from religion. Legislating state or federal law from the pulpit is dangerous. Religious opinion on "proper" marriage has no place in legislation. Let religious people have the their religious ceremony that does not need to be recognized by secular government. "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" are later additions and fabrications propagated by mid 20th century religious zealots and their "holy" Juggernaut. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I haven’t been closely following this thread, so I’m not sure whether anyone has linked to this Deseret News article, but I doubt it, since the article was published just a short time ago. 
 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/11/28/23471943/why-mormons-support-amended-respect-for-marriage-act
 

It quotes Elder Jack Gerard as giving a very reasoned explanation for the Church’s position on the legislation. Noteworthy is that he reiterates that the Church’s doctrine regarding marriage has not changed and will not change (which has been expressed umpteen times already) but that the Church’s position on the new legislation is consistent with the Church’s longstanding “fairness for all” compromise. 
 

For my part, I cannot share Elder Gerard’s confidence that amendments to the bill are sufficient to protect the Church and other entities from religious persecution over the belief that marriage is properly between a man and a woman. I fear it is only a matter of time before secularist zealots use the proposed legislation as an excuse to go after the tax-exempt status of the Church and other faith groups or charities over this issue. I share the opinion of Sen. Mike Lee that the supposed protections in the amendments are too anemic. I favor an amendment he has proposed that would prohibit by force of law the Respect for Marriage Act from being used for this purpose. 
 

Time will tell, I suppose. I hope Elder Gerard’s  optimism is well placed. But I’m skeptical. 

“I’m sorry. We can’t allow you to have rights because we are afraid in the distant future it might make us have to pay taxes.”

That is not the moral and rational slam-dunk argument you seem to imagine it to be.

If “secularist zealots” go after taxing churches it won’t be based on this and it won’t be limited to one church or on this legislation and a proposed amendment to this bill won’t prevent it. These caricature secularists will just go after all churches and their tax-exempt status in general and it won’t be because gay couples are begging to be allowed into the temple with the evil government saying we will give you your tax exempt status back if you just seal gay couples. The whole scenario is absurd.

[sunstoned]

56 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Religious liberty is no more important that the right to have freedom from religion. Legislating state or federal law from the pulpit is dangerous. Religious opinion on "proper" marriage has no place in legislation. Let religious people have the their religious ceremony that does not need to be recognized by secular government. "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" are later additions and fabrications propagated by mid 20th century religious zealots and their "holy" Juggernaut. 

^Truth^.  The founding fathers took great care to make sure there was a separation between church and state.  That separation as been eroded over the past two centuries.  The current screech is religious freedom is being attacked, which is non sense.  People exercising freedom of speech is not an attack on religious freedom.   

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“I’m sorry. We can’t allow you to have rights because we are afraid in the distant future it might make us have to pay taxes.”

That is not the moral and rational slam-dunk argument you seem to imagine it to be.

If “secularist zealots” go after taxing churches it won’t be based on this and it won’t be limited to one church or on this legislation and a proposed amendment to this bill won’t prevent it. These caricature secularists will just go after all churches and their tax-exempt status in general and it won’t be because gay couples are begging to be allowed into the temple with the evil government saying we will give you your tax exempt status back if you just seal gay couples. The whole scenario is absurd.

You put quotation marks around your first sentence in the above post, indicating you are quoting someone or something. However, you didn’t attribute it. It’s certainly nothing I or anyone I know of has said. I’m guessing it’s your own words intended as a dishonest distortion of my position. And an absurdly transparent one at that. Did you even read my post thoroughly?

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You put quotation marks around your first sentence in the above post, indicating you are quoting someone or something. However, you didn’t attribute it. It’s certainly nothing I or anyone I know of has said. I’m guessing it’s your own words intended as a dishonest distortion of my position. And an absurdly transparent one at that. Did you even read my post thoroughly?

Those were sarcastic quotation marks and yes, I read it thoroughly.

[The Nehor]

On 11/23/2022 at 2:25 PM, Rivers said:

There are maybe two or three people in the entire country that are against interracial marriage.

This is very naive. I can point you to whole dark corners of the internet where a disgust at interracial marriage is the norm and yes, they would prohibit in a heartbeat if they could.

I wish your statement was accurate. I really do. It is not.

[Mark Beesley]

The “Mormon Church” did no such thing, so the topic title is already suspect. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made sure it has a voice in the SSM vs. Religious Freedom debate, a voice which is silenced by intransigent insistence that the whole world accede to a Religious as opposed to Secular definition of marriage.  Nothing in the Church’s announcement moves the needle away from the doctrine that homosexual activity is sinful. I suspect what we might see in the future is increased Church emphasis on the Sealing between a man and woman, with less emphasis on the “marriage.” Just a thought. 

[OGHoosier]

14 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

The “Mormon Church” did no such thing, so the topic title is already suspect. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made sure it has a voice in the SSM vs. Religious Freedom debate, a voice which is silenced by intransigent insistence that the whole world accede to a Religious as opposed to Secular definition of marriage.  Nothing in the Church’s announcement moves the needle away from the doctrine that homosexual activity is sinful. I suspect what we might see in the future is increased Church emphasis on the Sealing between a man and woman, with less emphasis on the “marriage.” Just a thought. 

This is probably true. The sealing power has mostly been applied in the context of the bourgeois nuclear family, which has been a convenient and intuitive practice. As society's definitions about family fluctuate, we may revisit the fact that the sealing power is not necessarily tied to the culturally dominant family structure. 

As it stands, though, I wonder if "marriage" will end up returning to the realm of the religious after all. Formalized marriage in the US is declining as an institution. Liquid modernity is a remarkably corrosive acid, it might eat through the concept of formalized marriage relationships save in the case of the religious, for whom the institution retains relevance. 

Then again, I doubt that will entirely happen. We have taken a chainsaw to many a Chesterton's fence, and I expect we will see what exactly they were holding back before too long. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will return, with all that entails.

Edited November 30, 2022 by OGHoosier

[Kenngo1969]

25 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

... We have taken a chainsaw to many a Chesterton's fence, and I expect we will see what exactly they were holding back before too long. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will return, with all that entails.

For the benefit of the uninitiated:

https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/

https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm

Thanks,

-Ken

[OGHoosier]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

For the benefit of the uninitiated:

https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/

https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm

Thanks,

-Ken

You're a treasure.

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

You're a treasure.

Hey, I'm just running full speed all of the time to try to keep up with you!    

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

The “Mormon Church” did no such thing, so the topic title is already suspect. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made sure it has a voice in the SSM vs. Religious Freedom debate, a voice which is silenced by intransigent insistence that the whole world accede to a Religious as opposed to Secular definition of marriage.  Nothing in the Church’s announcement moves the needle away from the doctrine that homosexual activity is sinful. I suspect what we might see in the future is increased Church emphasis on the Sealing between a man and woman, with less emphasis on the “marriage.” Just a thought. 

So do we consider marriage by definition to mean united by God?  Or does any kind of union we call a marriage qualify?

What actually makes a marriage "marriage"?

[Mark Beesley]

16 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

This is probably true. The sealing power has mostly been applied in the context of the bourgeois nuclear family, which has been a convenient and intuitive practice. As society's definitions about family fluctuate, we may revisit the fact that the sealing power is not necessarily tied to the culturally dominant family structure. 

As it stands, though, I wonder if "marriage" will end up returning to the realm of the religious after all. Formalized marriage in the US is declining as an institution. Liquid modernity is a remarkably corrosive acid, it might eat through the concept of formalized marriage relationships save in the case of the religious, for whom the institution retains relevance. 

Then again, I doubt that will entirely happen. We have taken a chainsaw to many a Chesterton's fence, and I expect we will see what exactly they were holding back before too long. The Gods of the Copybook Headings will return, with all that entails.

It may come that as we gain greater insight into the eternal nature of the law of adoption and how that relates to our relationship to a Father in Heaven, as well as a Mother in Heaven, and our own ambitions to be a productive member of a Celestial Kingdom, that we will begin to understand the nature of the sealing power, and how it binds adoptees into a truly Eternal family. And then we might begin to understand more fully why, without the sealing power, the Earth would be utterly wasted.

[Mark Beesley]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So do we consider marriage by definition to mean united by God?  Or does any kind of union we call a marriage qualify?

What actually makes a marriage "marriage"?

I don’t know why you would want to complicate it. Marriage is now a secular contract between two people, the terms of which may vary according to state law.

[Islander]

On 11/18/2022 at 5:33 AM, Ragerunner said:

I don’t believe that is what is happening. 
I think the church leadership has gained more knowledge and understanding over the last few decades and realize there is more to this. 
I still think we will see even more light and knowledge on this topic in the future.

The days of Kimball and Packer’s position that this is a ‘mental disorder’, ‘chosen feelings’, ‘they are deviant’, ‘curable disease’ and that gay marriage will some how destroy heterosexual marriage are over.

Now comes the hard part, helping members understand that Kimball was wrong on this topic with much of his statement in Miracle of Forgiveness and yes this is a major pivot from Prop 8 effort days as well.

This is also going to challenge many members ingrained political views as well. Which have already been on full display on Deseret and Tribune comments threads and many other social media forums.

That is the win. 

Pure virtue signaling. These kind of purely political stands have absolutely nothing to do with advancing the 3-fold mission of the church. The church is bleeding members on account of all the problematic issues in its previously undisclosed history. It should concentrate in providing an honest and transparent discussion about these issues and addressing the cracks in the foundation. It seems like, as usual, the church wants to appear to be "modernizing" its position on social issues, after being chastised by their position on race and a male-only priesthood.

 

[OGHoosier]

15 minutes ago, Islander said:

Pure virtue signaling. These kind of purely political stands have absolutely nothing to do with advancing the 3-fold mission of the church. The church is bleeding members on account of all the problematic issues in its previously undisclosed history. It should concentrate in providing an honest and transparent discussion about these issues and addressing the cracks in the foundation. It seems like, as usual, the church wants to appear to be "modernizing" its position on social issues, after being chastised by their position on race and a male-only priesthood.

 

I disagree. This legislation is in line with the Church's efforts since the Utah Compromise. I think the effort is fairly wise. The issue is 70-30, legislation codifying Obergefell would come one way or another. We might as well strike while the iron is hot and get a law passed with our protections written in. That way, future moves against our legislative position can be condemned as primarily vindictive and without exigent justification. If we dug in our heels and pulled hard against such laws, the ones which would inevitably pass would a) have worse terms for us and b) have a better public position in so doing.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

I don’t know why you would want to complicate it. Marriage is now a secular contract between two people, the terms of which may vary according to state law.

That's certainly not my definition of marriage.  Your mileage may vary.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's certainly not my definition of marriage.  Your mileage may vary.

It is the church's definition though, so it can't be dismissed altogether.  Whether two people get married by the justice of the peace, a friend who got "ordained" over the internet, or a bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they are all the same-married.

Edited November 30, 2022 by bluebell