LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

To see the gay community compare thier condition to blacks is absolutely absurd.

Why? Julian Bond doesn't think so.

even to compare homosexuality to race is ridiculous. homosexuals are not a "people", "ethnicity", or "race". If they were one of those things they would have a regional origin and very likely have been decimated ages ago by natural selection (due to low mating success).

The focus is not on the race part, madhatter, but on the discrimination part. That's the comparison. It doesn't matter whether the discrimination is based on region or not; it matters whether it's justified or right. It isn't. That's the point.

 

[Autodidact]

To see the gay community compare thier condition to blacks is absolutely absurd.

even to compare homosexuality to race is ridiculous. homosexuals are not a "people", "ethnicity", or "race". If they were one of those things they would have a regional origin and very likely have been decimated ages ago by natural selection (due to low mating success).

I don't think it would. Interestingly, another reason we can't really compare civil rights to religious rights is that people are free to choose their religions; they can't choose their race or gender. If, for instance, a Mormon woman or a Catholic woman was upset that she couldn't hold the priesthood, she could simply find a church where she could be ordained. Problem solved.

I disagree. It's wrong to discriminate against Mormons, despite the fact that anyone can leave the LDS Church any time they like. The issue isn't whether you're free to choose, it's whether the discrimination is right or wrong, beneficial or harmful, justified or unjustified.

 

[Autodidact]

They enjoy the same rights and privileges already. I was able to marry the woman of my dreams, just like every other male over 18 in the country who is mentally able to make choices for themselves. the same goes for my wife and every other female in this country.

I don't seem to enjoy the same right as you, since I am not able to marry the woman of my dreams.

 

[Autodidact]

They enjoy the same rights and privileges already. I was able to marry the woman of my dreams, just like every other male over 18 in the country who is mentally able to make choices for themselves. the same goes for my wife and every other female in this country.

No, Ill vote for it. What I meant was that I think there should be something in it that gives churches the freedom to marry whomever they want.

Like this?

Affirmation of religious freedom. This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution's religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith's tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.
[actual language of the Maine same-sex marriage law as passed by the legislature]

This is the kind of language every such statuts has contained, which for some reason has not stopped the fearmongers from spreading their rumors.

 

[Autodidact]

you did it again, you compared gay people to blacks. :clap

Actually, he's comparing prejudice to prejudice. LDS opposition to interracial marriage and black civil rights is so eerily reminiscent of its opposition to same-sex marriage and gay civil rights. They never seem to learn from their mistakes; on the wrong side of history every time.

 

[dallas1125]

If it's so sacreligious for gays to marry, then why don't you try to stop atheists from marrying? Isn't that just as sinful?

Still dont get the comparison...Whats sinful about atheists getting married?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, its not the same as the black priesthood thing.

I doubt the possibility that churches will be required to marry same sex individuals. It still is a possibility though. I bet you that when same sex marriage is legalized there will be lawsuits against churches. All I want in the bill that legalizes it, is a recognition that we can reserve our freedom of religion that is guaranteed by the constitution.

Isn't the Constitution itself that recognition?

I actually think the ideal situation can happen. It all depends on the leaders. We need people to stop taking extremes on both sides of the issue and come together in the middle.

IMO, those supporting same-sex marriage have already done this. The reasonable position is to allow people on both sides to follow their conscience: people who want same-sex marriage can have it and people who disapprove don't have to be involved.

Civil Rights are different from religious rights, though, and I think we can all agree on that.

We can? I'm not sure what you mean. I take religious rights to be a subset of civil rights.

Many churches, including the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church, refuse to ordain women. That's a religious issue, and it's not one governments typically involve themselves with. Civil rights, on the other hand, should be guaranteed to all people, regardless of race, gender, etc.

As was touched on before, it's possible for a crank to sue anyone for pretty much anything, but if we're talking about serious lawsuits, I think you'll see lawsuits to have women installed as Catholic priests on the basis of employment discrimination legislation* before you'll see people suing for same-sex marriages in churches that disapprove.


*which probably doesn't apply to the LDS, since your priesthood isn't paid for their duties, is it?

They enjoy the same rights and privileges already. I was able to marry the woman of my dreams, just like every other male over 18 in the country who is mentally able to make choices for themselves. the same goes for my wife and every other female in this country.

That's equality of the right to marriage in the same sense that "every religion but Islam is prohibited, but everyone can go to whatever mosque they want!" is religious equality.

 

[Katzpur]

Real fast to LDS members, does the church let non-members get married in the meeting houses?

I think it would if anyone wanted to, however I don't believe the chapel can be used even for LDS weddings. LDS weddings held at LDS meeting houses are typically held in the Relief Society room or the cultural hall. I do know of one LDS ward in Salt Lake City that has a beautiful garden. I would imagine that if a non-LDS couple wanted to use it for their wedding, they could get permission to do so.

 

[happyhummingbird]

I would imagine that if a non-LDS couple wanted to use it for their wedding, they could get permission to do so.

Why they would want to get married in a church that prohibits civil unions to other people is beyond me. Why anyone would stay in a church that does that is actually beyond me.

 

[Katzpur]

I disagree. It's wrong to discriminate against Mormons, despite the fact that anyone can leave the LDS Church any time they like. The issue isn't whether you're free to choose, it's whether the discrimination is right or wrong, beneficial or harmful, justified or unjustified.

Let me see if I can explain why I see it the way I do; I'm really struggling to put this into words, so bear with me. Speaking strictly of issues that affect only members of the Church (e.g. who can be ordained to the priesthood), Latter-day Saints believe the authority to hold the priesthood is determined by God, as opposed to men. Therefore, it would be pointless for a woman to insist that she is "entitled" to the priesthood. People who really believe in God don't tell Him that He messed up and needs to rethink things. If a woman sincerely believed that she was entitled to hold the priesthood, she would be rejecting the notion that the Church was being directed by revelation. Consequently, holding the priesthood would be something she would have to concede to be meaningless.

 

[Katzpur]

We can? I'm not sure what you mean. I take religious rights to be a subset of civil rights.

Maybe you're right, but I've always considered the two to be distinct, due to the separation of church and state. It seems to me that religions should have the right to govern their own affairs, but that they should not interfere in the affairs of the state -- and visa versa, of course.

As was touched on before, it's possible for a crank to sue anyone for pretty much anything, but if we're talking about serious lawsuits, I think you'll see lawsuits to have women installed as Catholic priests on the basis of employment discrimination legislation* before you'll see people suing for same-sex marriages in churches that disapprove.

*which probably doesn't apply to the LDS, since your priesthood isn't paid for their duties, is it?

That's right. I'm not sure what the ramifications would be in the Catholic Church. That's an interesting point you've raised.

 

[Katzpur]

Why they would want to get married in a church that prohibits civil unions to other people is beyond me. Why anyone would stay in a church that does that is actually beyond me.

Yes, I believe you already mentioned that.

 

[happyhummingbird]

If a woman sincerely believed that she was entitled to hold the priesthood, she would be rejecting the notion that the Church was being directed by revelation. .

Or she might just think that some 70-year old+ men have it wrong and may have interpreted the message wrong from god. Or she may have read early Church history in which women were able to give healing blessings. Or one of many other things.

That's not rejecting the notion that the Church was being directed by revelation, it's rejecting that a certain person might have got it wrong. Especially if "God" is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11).

Not everyone who questions is rejecting what is taught, they are rejecting the reasons, the way it is communicated, etc.

 

[happyhummingbird]

Yes, I believe you already mentioned that.

Actually, I don't believe I said those exact words, but it never hurts to mention things more then once. I do believe that is why the men who call themselves the 'twelve apostles' repeat things over and over and over in general conference, the church magazines, in the sunday school lessons, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe you're right, but I've always considered the two to be distinct, due to the separation of church and state. It seems to me that religions should have the right to govern their own affairs, but that they should not interfere in the affairs of the state -- and visa versa, of course.

Hmm. But at the end of the day, isn't the state itself the entity that protects the legal separation of church and state? If we took that idea of non-interference to its logical extreme, it would mean that religious people would have no recourse when their religious rights are violated.

 

[Katzpur]

Okay, time for a humor break...

As isolated as Salt Lake City may have been from the rest of the country back in 1852, news concerning the Mormons always did seem to travel quickly. Anticipating a lot of backlash from the rest of the country to the official announcement of the doctrine of plural marriage (aka polygamy), Brigham Young called four of the Church’s most faithful and articulate leaders to move to four of the nation’s largest cities and to launch newspapers that would explain and justify the practice, as well as other LDS doctrines. The four, Orson Pratt, Erastus Snow, George Q. Cannon and John Taylor did as they were asked, moving to Washington D.C.; St. Louis, San Francisco and New York City respectively, where they began to publish four separate newspapers.

Elder John Taylor’s newspaper in New York City, was entitled, “The Mormon.” The masthead of that newspaper occupied nearly half of the front page. It had a picture of an American flag, a beehive (representing the people of the Utah territory), an eagle (a symbol of the United States), and a couple of scrolls under the eagle’s outstretched wings. The one on the right, over Joseph Smith’s signature, says, “Given by inspiration of God.” The one on the left, over Brigham Young’s signature said: “Mormon Creed: Mind you own business.”

Too bad we're not taking Brigham's advice. On the other hand, I think this just goes to show that people in general have a very difficult time respecting other people's choices where morality is concerned. I know that the citizens of the United States back in the middle of the nineteenth century were genuinely appalled at the "lack of morality" among the Latter-day Saints, and they wanted to put a stop to it. Today the shoe is on the other foot. I just think it's really unfortunate that we can't just live and let live.

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, I don't believe I said those exact words, but it never hurts to mention things more then once.

Well, I answered you once. Would you like me to do so again?

 

[Katzpur]

Hmm. But at the end of the day, isn't the state itself the entity that protects the legal separation of church and state? If we took that idea of non-interference to its logical extreme, it would mean that religious people would have no recourse when their religious rights are violated.

I suppose, but where do you draw the line? It can almost become a Catch-22, can't it? I think we have to consider the real purpose of separation of church and state in answering that question.

 

[happyhummingbird]

justify the practice,

That may have been the problem. The practice of polygamy/bigamy was illegal.

The one on the left, over Brigham Young’s signature said: “Mormon Creed: Mind you own business.”

Actually, according to this source (BYU Studies - Minding Business: A Note on the "Mormon Creed"), it was William Smith who said it in a talk to a New York congregation in 1844.

On the other hand, I think this just goes to show that people in general have a very difficult time respecting other people's choices where morality is concerned. I

Agreed, but you will see that until the LDS Church stop trying to stick their nose into civil marriages, there is always going to be that issue. What I would suggest to all active LDS members is to talk to you congregations your bishops, your stake presidents, etc. and present a well-documented case about why the Church should stay out of civil marriage/unions.

 

[Katzpur]

That may have been the problem. The practice of polygamy/bigamy was illegal.

Oh really? Could you tell us, please, when that law went into effect?

Actually, according to this source (BYU Studies - Minding Business: A Note on the "Mormon Creed"), it was William Smith who said it in a talk to a New York congregation in 1844.

He may also have made the statement, but the newspaper and its masthead was exactly as I described it. Unfortunately, my only picture of it is in a book; if I could find it online, I'd post it.

Agreed, but you will see that until the LDS Church stop trying to stick their nose into civil marriages, there is always going to be that issue. What I would suggest to all active LDS members is to talk to you congregations your bishops, your stake presidents, etc. and present a well-documented case about why the Church should stay out of civil marriage/unions.

I think you missed my point.