Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe for you it was just some definition that needed defending.  For hundreds of thousands of gay couples, it meant legal rights.  How could you not understand that.

The existence of human rights themselves are predicated upon the acceptance of certain definitions. Reason demands this.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe for you it was just some definition that needed defending.  For hundreds of thousands of gay couples, it meant legal rights.  How could you not understand that.

I understand that.  That’s why many supported the civil union compromise. It gave gay couples the benefits associated with marriage without calling it marriage.  
 

Is marriage itself a right?  Or is marriage a specific thing with a specific definition?  That was the argument.

Edited by Rivers
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Rivers said:

I understand that.  That’s why many supported the civil union compromise. It gave gay couples the benefits associated with marriage without calling it marriage.  
 

Is marriage itself a right?  Or is marriage a specific thing with a specific definition?  That was the argument.

If you view marriage as a religious ritual, then that is exactly what it is.  If you believe that marriage has legal rights, then it is a government recognized union available to all citizens.

Since there is a separation of church and state in this country, you can't have it both ways, only viewing it as a religious right reserved for your religious views on marriage AND want all the legal protections of government.  It is for this reason that the Supreme Court recognized that every single American has equal protection under the constitution to be entitled to marry.

You or any religious organization has no legal right to impose your religious definition of marriage for all citizens.  You can only define marriage within how your religion defines marriage.

At some point, you really need to recognize exactly what legal rights you can impose on others.  Most have figured that out already.  

Link to comment
22 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The existence of human rights themselves are predicated upon the acceptance of certain definitions. Reason demands this.

Like what definitions are not clear?

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Rivers said:

I understand that.  That’s why many supported the civil union compromise. It gave gay couples the benefits associated with marriage without calling it marriage.  
 

Is marriage itself a right?  Or is marriage a specific thing with a specific definition?  That was the argument.

To that point of "is marriage a right"; I might say "No". The "no" is based on my belief that "marriage" has it's origins as a religious ceremony. 

Now, is it a "right" to commit oneself to another of ones choosing? I say yes.

So to a degree, I think Governments should get out of the "marriage" business - license, payment, etc. 

 

California Boy, this is in no way to deminish a same-sex relationship. I see the issue as the way some EU countries do - religious "marriage" is a ceremony and all "marriages" must be officiated civilily.

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
On 11/18/2022 at 12:22 PM, bluebell said:

I’m extrapolating, but I think that a big aspect of Prop. 8 was so that the beliefs of the church on SSM would be crystal clear, to the members and everyone else.

People shouldn’t be at all confused on that point anymore. Now it seems more important to find a way to exist together in peace. 

I disagree. The Church's Proposition 8 lobbying efforts were intended to have maximum influence on California law while minimizing the public's perception of the Church being involved. If it simply wanted to make its own position clear to the world, it would have been upfront with its lobbying and not tried to make it look like an interdenominational grass-roots effort. 

Back then, the defenders of California's constitution simply said that if Mormons or anybody else were against same-sex marriage then the solution was simple--don't enter into such a marriage. Now that a super-majority of Americans agree with that side, the Church seems to have conceded the issue and is no longer kicking against the pricks.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I disagree. The Church's Proposition 8 lobbying efforts were intended to have maximum influence on California law while minimizing the public's perception of the Church being involved. If it simply wanted to make its own position clear to the world, it would have been upfront with its lobbying and not tried to make it look like an interdenominational grass-roots effort. 

Back then, the defenders of California's constitution simply said that if Mormons or anybody else were against same-sex marriage then the solution was simple--don't enter into such a marriage. Now that a super-majority of Americans agree with that side, the Church seems to have conceded the issue and is no longer kicking against the pricks.

I don’t see a disagreement between the church wanting its beliefs known and also having it be an interdenominational effort.  After all, making its beliefs known would not have been the only goal. 

Edit to add:  I should probably clarify my previous remark as well because I was responding more from an "why the prop. 8 fight and not this one" perspective. 

I remember one of the apostles answering a question (years ago) on why the church put so much effort into Prop. 8 but then didn't do much (or maybe anything, I can't recall) when a different state was dealing with the same issue.  That apostle (and I don't remember which one it was) said that the Lord told them to fight for Prop. 8 and then told them not to fight in that other state.  That that wasn't the battle the church or members needed to be in at that time, when it apparently was earlier. 

My remarks were meant to address my thoughts on why the Lord might change how He wants us to engage with SSM over time and location.  It wasn't meant to be an explanation of the members or the church's motives specifically when Prop. 8 was taking place.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
2 hours ago, provoman said:

To that point of "is marriage a right"; I might say "No". The "no" is based on my belief that "marriage" has it's origins as a religious ceremony. 

Now, is it a "right" to commit oneself to another of ones choosing? I say yes.

So to a degree, I think Governments should get out of the "marriage" business - license, payment, etc. 

 

California Boy, this is in no way to deminish a same-sex relationship. I see the issue as the way some EU countries do - religious "marriage" is a ceremony and all "marriages" must be officiated civilily.

I am ok with that as long as a person doesn’t expect any government recognition or rights attached to that religious marriage. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don’t see a disagreement between the church wanting its beliefs known and also having it be an interdenominational effort.  After all, making its beliefs known would not have been the only goal. 

Edit to add:  I should probably clarify my previous remark as well because I was responding more from an "why the prop. 8 fight and not this one" perspective. 

I remember one of the apostles answering a question (years ago) on why the church put so much effort into Prop. 8 but then didn't do much (or maybe anything, I can't recall) when a different state was dealing with the same issue.  That apostle (and I don't remember which one it was) said that the Lord told them to fight for Prop. 8 and then told them not to fight in that other state.  That that wasn't the battle the church or members needed to be in at that time, when it apparently was earlier. 

My remarks were meant to address my thoughts on why the Lord might change how He wants us to engage with SSM over time and location.  It wasn't meant to be an explanation of the members or the church's motives specifically when Prop. 8 was taking place.

The Lord uses the term "expedient" in these kinds of "revelations du jour" in the D&C. The basic doctrines and principles stay the same.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

What is a right in the first place? What makes a right? How are they ordered? 

Rights are defined by law and by the Constitution that governs what laws may be instituted by the legislature.   What makes them a right are the laws that are instituted by that country.   
 

if the law is unclear or if a law seems to violate the constitution then the courts get involved 
 

 

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
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.  

 

I too, don't think it is disrespectful to the church if you actually want to get married/feel like you should.  It only becomes disrespectful if you are doing as a show of "I can do what I want and you can't stop me."

The marriage/living in sin thing is kind of interesting. My relative lived with his girlfriend first.  I had such mixed feeling over it all because I hoped he would obey the commandments, but also know there were some real concerns about them getting married.  I thought about how much easier it would be for them to split if they didn't marry.  The marriage has lasted longer than I thought, but I won't be surprised if it comes crashing down at some point.

That isn't the situation you are asking about, but I hope it shows how people can have such terribly mixed feelings on this.

So how do I feel about your situation?  In the past I would have had incredibly mixed feelings.  Now I just figure that if you honestly seek God's will in it and try to follow him then who am I to say whether you should live together or get married?  It's between you, God and your partner.

 

 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Rain said:

... Now I just figure that if you honestly seek God's will in it and try to follow him then who am I to say whether you should live together or get married?  It's between you, God and your partner.

As in, between God, you, your partner, and no one else : Certainly, it's not between God, you, your partner, and anyone else on this board.  And, while I appreciate and admire the fact that you wish to consider your family's feelings on the matter, it's not even a matter between God, you, your partner, and your family.* 

No matter how much you might respect and value anyone else's opinion, and might respect and might even love the person or persons whose opinion or opinions you seek, opinion polls are a really bad way to conduct one's personal life, and the greater the potential impact of the decision, the more that prospect applies: "50.1% in favor, 49.9% against!  Well, that settles it!  I/we know what to do now!"  You should do what you believe, and what you believe that God believes, is best.  Period.  No one else's opinion on the matter should count.

*See Matthew 19:5-6.  While I believe this scripture applies with particular force to traditional marriage because of the potential for the participants in such unions to create mortal tabernacles for the spirit children of God (whether in this life or in the Millennium), I can understand why a couple in what, historically, has been viewed as a nontraditional union would find value in this scripture.  Candidly, as someone who has attracted the collective indifference of the female of the species and who considers the prospect that such a state of affairs to change for him in this life to be quite remote, a large part of me says, hey, if a couple can find happiness in what, historically, has been considered a nontraditional union, more power to such a couple.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

What is a right in the first place? What makes a right? How are they ordered? 

"What the government giveth, also, the government may take away.  But what God giveth*, no government can take away."

*Or, if one is not religious, what is innate

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As in, between God, you, your partner, and no one else : Certainly, it's not between God, you, your partner, and anyone else on this board.  And, while I appreciate and admire the fact that you wish to consider your family's feelings on the matter, it's not even a matter between God, you, your partner, and your family.* 

No matter how much you might respect and value anyone else's opinion, and might respect and might even love the person or persons whose opinion or opinions you seek, opinion polls are a really bad way to conduct one's personal life, and the greater the potential impact of the decision, the more that prospect applies: "50.1% in favor, 49.9% against!  Well, that settles it!  I/we know what to do now!"  You should do what you believe, and what you believe that God believes, is best.  Period.  No one else's opinion on the matter should count.

*See Matthew 19:5-6.  While I believe this scripture applies with particular force to traditional marriage because of the potential for the participants in such unions to create mortal tabernacles for the spirit children of God (whether in this life or in the Millennium), I can understand why a couple in what, historically, has been viewed as a nontraditional union would find value in this scripture.  Candidly, as someone who has attracted the collective indifference of the female of the species and who considers the prospect that such a state of affairs to change for him in this life to be quite remote, a large part of me says, hey, if a couple can find happiness in what, historically, has been considered a nontraditional union, more power to such a couple.

Thanks for your input.  I didn't mean to imply that my decision was going to be based on how the board feels.  I was really looking for an idea how members may view something like this and give me a perspective of how others may feel.  Hopefully this will give me a better idea what issues my family might be dealing with.

Link to comment
On 11/18/2022 at 10:11 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.  

 

To me, whether gay or straight, marriage and family is a worthy goal and should be applauded. I hope your family comes to see your union with your partner as just as valid as theirs. 

Link to comment
On 11/17/2022 at 11:44 PM, Rivers said:

Literally nobody is talking about abolishing interracial marriage.  

Don’t be ridiculous. They aren’t going to ban it. Just leave it up to the states…..

 

…..some of whom will try and ban it.

Senator Braun said interracial marriage should be let to the states back in *checks notes* last year? Wait….that can’t be right.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
23 hours ago, provoman said:

To that point of "is marriage a right"; I might say "No". The "no" is based on my belief that "marriage" has it's origins as a religious ceremony. 

Now, is it a "right" to commit oneself to another of ones choosing? I say yes.

So to a degree, I think Governments should get out of the "marriage" business - license, payment, etc. 

 

California Boy, this is in no way to deminish a same-sex relationship. I see the issue as the way some EU countries do - religious "marriage" is a ceremony and all "marriages" must be officiated civilily.

1- I wonder if this is accurate. Not a CFR but curious if you have any info about the "origins" of marriage as a religious ceremony. perhaps some evidence that is more robust than say...the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

If I'm not mistaken Pagans practiced marriage pre-organized religion

2- If it turns out that marriage truly was originated via religion, it has been more than religious for a very long time. Government is obviously involved in marriage. With that in mind, do you feel that it is better to go back to an ancient origin instead of treating everyone equally based on the reality that marriage has been more than just a religious ceremony for a very long time. IOW- why go back to an origin and ignore modern reality? It seems like a lot of mental gymnastics just so one can say "no".

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Don’t be ridiculous. They aren’t going to ban it. Just leave it up to the states…..

 

…..some of whom will try and ban it.

Senator Braun said interracial marriage should be let to the states back in *checks notes* last year? Wait….that can’t be right.

Par for the course...

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/more-than-a-century-after-it-was-first-proposed-president-biden-signs-historic-law-making-lynching-a-federal-crime

Link to comment

Just saw this: THREE CHEERS FOR MORMON SUPPORT OF SAME-SEX LEGISLATION? NOT SO FAST

The key bit:

Quote

I have no objection to the bill specifying that religious not-for-profits will not be legally required to furnish “any services, facilities, or goods for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” The only place where this right has ever even been in question is in the fevered imaginations of paranoid conservative Christians. But the exemptions go much further, including an amendment I would call a poison pill with respect to the future of advocacy for LGBTQ equality within religious colleges and universities by protecting the tax-exempt eligibility of these institutions as they continue to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals.

This provision, should it be included in the version of the bill that passes both the House and Senate, will essentially preempt the Religious Exemption Accountability Project’s attempts to attain redress for LGBTQ victims of discrimination at evangelical and Mormon colleges and universities via the court system—as well as any future attempts along these lines. As someone who’s been trying for years to get the public to care about queer students facing discrimination in Christian institutions of higher education as they organize and fight for their rights (to very little fanfare and often to dismissal or apathy at best), this provision bothers me deeply.

In any case, RFMA is very much not the Equality Act, a bill that would provide sweeping non-discrimination protections for queer Americans that has languished in Congress for years. It’s a defensive piece of legislation, a protection of the status quo rather than a step forward. If America were truly a functional democracy, we could do much better. But since America is not a functional democracy, RFMA is the best we can get right now. With that in mind, as Democrats work to pass RFMA, they should still complain that it doesn’t go far enough, rather than take a victory lap as if they’re pushing through a major progressive achievement.

By the same token, it’s irresponsible of the liberal punditocracy to heap praise on the religious institutions whose lobbies work to make sure more robust nondiscrimination protections remain out of reach. The Mormon Church, after all, isn’t changing its own harmful dogma and internal practices regarding homosexuality and the rest of the LGBTQ spectrum. 

In fairness, the LDS leadership going even this far in terms of accommodating those outside the church and its understanding of morality, when the Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention remain staunchly opposed, does represent a remarkable shift from the days of LDS support of California’s Proposition 8. That should be acknowledged. In so doing, however, there’s no need to, as it were, make “saints” out of “sinners” when the LDS Church, just like nearly all evangelical churches and the Catholic Church, continue to consider LGBTQ existence “intrinsically disordered” and to treat queer people as “less than.”

"The Mormon Church, after all, isn’t changing its own harmful dogma and internal practices regarding homosexuality and the rest of the LGBTQ spectrum."

Huh.  So that's the expectation in some quarters, is it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Don’t be ridiculous. They aren’t going to ban it. Just leave it up to the states…..

 

…..some of whom will try and ban it.

Senator Braun said interracial marriage should be let to the states back in *checks notes* last year? Wait….that can’t be right.

No state will abolish interracial marriage.  That’s just plain silly.  
 

 

Edited by Rivers
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

How about Mike Braun? I'll wait while you look him and his poor attempt to backtrack up.

Lol he's a senator from my state. Sorry guys.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Rivers said:

No state will abolish interracial marriage.  That’s just plain silly.  

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?

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Rivers said:

No state will abolish interracial marriage.  That’s just plain silly.  
 

 

From you:

Quote

Literally nobody is talking about abolishing interracial marriage.  

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.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...