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

[Islander]

39 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

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.

Well, it has no propositions from the conservative side. Mike Lee's amendments were rejected. We are going to swallow that bill hook and sinker to be weaponized against any and all that raises ANY kind of objection. We've seen that before. 

Again, your argument is purely political. That was precisely my point. It has nothing to do with the work of the church. No need to "stand in favor..." of anything. It is a political stand for purely political reasons. 

[Arthur Vandelay]

24 minutes ago, Islander said:

Well, it has no propositions from the conservative side. Mike Lee's amendments were rejected.

The bill is *incredibly* conservative.

It explicitly calls out the Full Faith and Credit clause.  It is about as originalist as you can get.  Scalia is probably having a party and a seance with Clarence and Ginnie Thomas.  No state is compelled to perform or recognize SSM by law.  But they must honor the contracts entered into in other states.  Like I said, the constitution is pretty darn clear on this one.

[Ragerunner]

4 hours 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.

 

These major issues have a lot to do with the 3-fold of the church and more importantly how to love our neighbors the way God does.

Without the 2 greatest commandments the rest will struggle to move forward.

[The Nehor]

21 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"?

Marriage is marriage when it ensures legitimacy of my children so everyone will know who will inherit my lands and titles and avenge my death if necessary.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

Well, it has no propositions from the conservative side. Mike Lee's amendments were rejected. We are going to swallow that bill hook and sinker to be weaponized against any and all that raises ANY kind of objection. We've seen that before. 

When?

[Damien the Leper]

On 11/30/2022 at 7:12 PM, The Nehor said:

When?

Almost a week and...nothing. Not surprised.

[smac97]

An update: Second Congressman Renounces His Vote for ‘Disrespect for Marriage’ Act

Quote

Another one of the 47 House Republicans who voted for the so-called Respect for Marriage Act has withdrawn his support, charging Democrats with “failing to provide legitimate safeguards for faith-based organizations” that hold “deeply-held religious beliefs” about natural marriage.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) announced on Monday that he will reverse his vote in favor of H.R. 8404, which skeptics call the “Disrespect for Marriage” Act. Although he favors laws that would equate same-sex relationships with marriage and once voted for the “Equality” Act, he said this bill goes too far.

“My record shows that I am a long-standing advocate against discrimination of all types,” he said. “I, however, cannot support any effort that undermines religious liberties by failing to provide legitimate safeguards for faith-based organizations that object based on their deeply-held religious beliefs.”

The proposal would allow federal law to override state constitutional marriage protection amendments and allow private individuals to sue business owners for “harm” resulting from the owner’s faith-based refusal to participate in a ceremony he or she believes to be a sin. The U.S. Senate passed the bill last Tuesday, 61-36. A more punitive version of the bill passed the House on July 19 with 47 Republican votes, including that of Diaz-Balart.

But the Florida Republican chided Senate Democrats for rejecting religious liberty amendments and other protections for Christians offered by Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to safeguard people of faith from being legally compelled to violate their conscience. Instead, they substituted a legally ambiguous bipartisan amendment which critics say opens the floodgates for lawsuits against faithful business owners.

“Our Founders understood that religious liberties are sacred and vulnerable, and must always be vigorously protected,” said Diaz-Balart. “Senate Democrats … doubled down on a bill that fails to uphold the religious liberties which are sacred to our nation.”

He became the second House Republican to have a change of heart over the controversial legislation. Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) blamed the expedited vote for Republicans’ confusion and his former “yea” vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave congressmen just one day to review the consequential legislation. “We didn’t have a lot of information on it when they were calling for the vote,” said Perry last month.

 

“They jammed it through without any religious liberty protections,” agreed Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on Monday’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” The amended bill only protects nonprofits from participating in the marriage ceremony itself, “not, for example, if you’re running an adoption organization, or maybe you’re a private Christian school. No, that’s not what they’re protecting, so it falls way short.”

“This [bill] actually destroys religious freedom … and that’s why they’re doing this,” Perry said. Without the strong religious freedom and conscience protections offered in the Senate, his fellow Republicans “absolutely must vote no,” he said.

It “will be a mistake for them if they vote for this. And I would encourage them absolutely not to do it.”
...
The House plans to make a final vote on the amended bill this week, possibly as early as Tuesday. 

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave congressmen just one day to review the consequential legislation."

Why on earth would legislators vote in favor of "consequential litigation" after only having "just one day" to review it?

Why would Congress only be given one day to review such legislation?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

An update: Second Congressman Renounces His Vote for ‘Disrespect for Marriage’ Act

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave congressmen just one day to review the consequential legislation."

Why on earth would legislators vote in favor of "consequential litigation" after only having "just one day" to review it?

Why would Congress only be given one day to review such legislation?

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you new to the whole politics things?

[smac97]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Are you new to the whole politics things?

It's the lawyer in me.  There are times when questions with obvious answers still need to be asked.  And answered.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's the lawyer in me.  There are times when questions with obvious answers still need to be asked.  And answered.

Thanks,

-Smac

When the question is asked by that outlet I just ignore the question. I assume it is in bad faith or false. Add in Mario Diaz-Balart and I really don’t trust it. This isn’t the first time he voted for LGBT protections and then later recanted to look good politically with his base. It is political posturing and the reason given is just an excuse. There is a reason this story is only showing up on far-right propaganda sites.

[Calm]

If a bill has passed, but wouldn’t with the recanted votes, what happens?  Does it depend on where the bill is in the process?  Will it change the vote up until the time the bill gets signed by the President or some point earlier (passing to the Senate?)?

Edited December 7, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If a bill has passed, but wouldn’t with the recanted votes, what happens?  Does it depend on where the bill is in the process?  Will it change the vote up until the time the bill gets signed by the President or some point earlier (passing to the Senate?)?

It doesn’t change anything. You can’t take back your vote. The House passed the bill. The Senate amended it and passed it. Now the House has to pass the amended version before it goes to the President’s desk.

It will take a little while. I think they are going to attach it to something else. The Democrats have a few things they want to push through before the House adjourns but there is really no realistic way it doesn’t pass.

This grandstanding about withdrawing his support is pointless except that it might convince some gullible people that he was always against it..

[smac97]

An update:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement on Tuesday, December 13, 2022.

We extend a heartfelt thank you and our congratulations to all who played a part in the passage of the amended Respect for Marriage Act. Their efforts to protect religious freedom as Congress sought to codify the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision are both historic and commendable.

Section 6 of the Act states:

Quote

SEC. 6. NO IMPACT ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND CONSCIENCE.

(a) In General.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.

(b) Goods Or Services.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

I think this is pretty good.

Quote

The amended Respect for Marriage Act specifically recognizes that “diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.”

The full statement: "Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect."

Again, this is pretty good.

Quote

As restated last month, “the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged.” Congress has now reaffirmed that our beliefs “are due proper respect.”

The new law demonstrates that respect. The law states that it can't be used to harm religious or conscience rights for faith-based institutions. It protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. It protects the grants, licenses, contracts and accreditation of religious schools. And it ensures that religious organizations, religious schools and their employees do not have to perform or host same-sex marriages or celebrations. No law is perfect. But putting such protections in the federal code is a big step forward.

Indeed.  I hope this helps reduce tensions.

Quote

The Church has been pleased to participate with many others in the difficult but worthy work of civil engagement that accompanied the passage of this bill. Like the Church-supported Utah law in 2015, our efforts are helping the nation pursue freedom, fairness and respect for all.

Cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

An update:

Section 6 of the Act states:

I think this is pretty good.

The full statement: "Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect."

Again, this is pretty good.

Indeed.  I hope this helps reduce tensions.

Cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m glad to see the Church’s statements and efforts are far more positive and supportive of the bill, its passage, its contents and potential ramifications than even by many of its members here (not referring to Smac).

I am grateful to Iive in a country that requires legal recognition and civic respect for my (same-sex) marriage and interracial marriages just as it requires marital recognition and respect for both opposite-sex and intraracial couples. 

I will continue to work toward and look forward to a future where citizens across all LGBT, straight, mixed, biracial, intraracial, inter-faith, secular, and religious communities can peacefully, even supportively, coexist on the basis of shared respect, even when the law has to step in to encourage growth toward such. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Daniel2

[gopher]

At the signing, this statement was made:  "This law and the love it defends strike a blow against hate in all its forms".  Is it possible for believing members of the church to oppose same sex marriage without hate?

[Calm]

14 hours ago, gopher said:

At the signing, this statement was made:  "This law and the love it defends strike a blow against hate in all its forms".  Is it possible for believing members of the church to oppose same sex marriage without hate?

Yes, though it probably depends on what you mean by oppose and how it is done.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Calm

[gopher]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yes, though it probably depends on what you mean by oppose and how it is done.

Oppose by legal and ethical means as well as being Christlike in speech and behavior.  I'm thinking of those members who are kind and loving people, but disagree with same sex marriage for whatever reasons they may have.  It sounds like they will still be accused of hate.  Maybe it's best for them to keep it to themselves or risk losing jobs, opportunities, promotions, etc.

[Vellichor]

Maybe this has already been addressed, but does this act do anything to protect the religious rights of individuals who do not want to be forced to promote same-sex marriage, e.g., people like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop?

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Vellichor said:

Maybe this has already been addressed, but does this act do anything to protect the religious rights of individuals who do not want to be forced to promote same-sex marriage, e.g., people like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop?

I'm not a lawyer, but my reading is no, as Masterpiece is not a religious related organisation.

The outcome of the 303 Creative case might though (depending on how it is ruled).

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Vellichor said:

Maybe this has already been addressed, but does this act do anything to protect the religious rights of individuals who do not want to be forced to promote same-sex marriage, e.g., people like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop?

No.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jakob42 said:

Can you explain the Priesthood ban?  

What do you know of it?  And what are you interested in?

Basic info is on church’s website:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Dario_M]

Yeah yeah.  ... the priesterhood.

Oh my.... i still need to get the priesterhood. But i wanna wait. My misionaries are not happy that i wanna wait. So does the bishop. 

Ontopic. I wish it whas allowed to marry with the same sex. Then i could marry a nice man in the Temple. It would be amazing. 💙 For me. 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Dario_M

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah yeah.  ... the priesterhood.

Oh my.... i still need to get the priesterhood. But i wanna wait. My misionaries are not happy that i wanna wait. So does the bishop. 

Ontopic. I wish it whas allowed to marry with the same sex. Then i could marry a nice man in the Temple. It would be amazing. 💙 For me. 

How you familiar are you with the Church’s position on same sex relationships?

Also, do you understand why many members believe that same sex marriage doesn’t work with exaltation and therefore it doesn’t make sense to have it in the temple?

[Dario_M]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

How you familiar are you with the Church’s position on same sex relationships?

Also, do you understand why many members believe that same sex marriage doesn’t work with exaltation and therefore it doesn’t make sense to have it in the temple?

Uum.. what is your problem actually according to my post?

I just say that i would be happy if it would be like that. For me. Offcourse i know that it probably would never happen.

And have you not read the titel of this topic? I am just being ontopic. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

simply explain it

Because it defies a “simple” explanation - especially for believers.