LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Storm]

I realise that 'gay community' was a blanket statement, but I couldn't think of a more specific or useful term. If you could provide me with one, I would be grateful.

There isn't one. My point was that different people have different agendas. Sorry, didn't mean to pick on you.

This seems to be what it boils down to: Churches fear a faction of the gay community will, at some point in the future, attack their freedom to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

But is it a legitimate fear? I don't think it is. It's possible that some queers would bring such lawsuits, but I can't imagine that they'd be successful. I myself would vehemently oppose such a thing, and so would every queer I know.

The majority (if not all) of the gay community today have no desire to push the issue of freedom of religious practice. Thus, the fastest route to the 'equal protection under the law' that you seek is to simply recede on this point which you do not seem to care about, and work to construct an institution (ie civil unions) which will give same sex couples all the rights of marriage, but agree to allow religious institutions to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

How exactly are we supposed to recede from a point that exists only in the minds of our detractors?

What proposition 8 has done, to my understanding, has taken the name 'marriage' off the table, indicating that the pro 8 voters feel that a different name for homosexual unions will provide sufficient legal protection for religious groups to distinguish them. I can understand that accepting this and agreeing to work under a different name is not equality, but given that having civil unions seems to have done the job of protecting the rights of homosexual couples in the UK and other places, is giving up the name such a huge issue, and has it really created the catastrophic blow to equality that is often claimed?

The importance of the word depends on who you talk to. It's not a priority for me, not now that I know it STILL doesn't grant full equality, but it is for some.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

If your marriage was not legally recognized, what would you be asking for?

Provided that me and my (at the moment hypothetical) wife were provided domestic protections (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc) by the state, which I do believe are already afforded to cohabiting couples (in the UK at least), I couldn't really care less what the state considered my relationship to be given that the spiritual aspect of my marriage would be, by far, the most important part for me.

Heck, I do believe that is why we see a decline in marriage in the UK - it is no longer an institution that provides much more than tax breaks. People are more than happy to just cohabit.

 

[gnomon]

So,

Why should the state be allowed to recognize the religious view of one portion of the population but not the religious view of others on this issue.

It is the religious view of many churches already and the marriages have already been performed for same-sex couples so why is that other religious institutions get to have their religious definitions established under law?

In other news, Nepal has recognized same-sex marriage.

 

[Watchmen]

What is unfair in California, is you have a group of people who were married... and now are being told that they are no longer considered married anymore. They have had that stripped from them utterly... no Civil Union to replace it, its just gone.

Where once they had the rights and responsibilities, the joys and hopes that the union brings... now they don't. They have essentially been forced to divorce for the sake of a word.

That is beyond cruel... its sick.

wa:do

That's not completely true. The status of those married before Prop 8 will be determined by the Cal Sup Ct. and it is likely those marriages will stand. Also, even if those couples are no longer legally "married," they are still "domestic partners" with essentially the same state rights as those "married" in California.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Ps... the church thing is way over used.
Are Catholics forced to marry Athiests?
Are Mormons forced to let non-mormons into the temple to be married?
Are Jews forced to marry Muslims and so on?

NO.... This is a State function, a state contract... no church will be forced to marry anyone it deems unworthy of marriage in its church for religious reasons.

wa:do

Crossing religious boundaries is different to sexuality. There are gay Mormons, who I am sure would be very happy if the postulated loss of freedom of religious practise happened. I am less sure that there are religious/non-religious people keen to cross religious barriers to get married whilst overtly maintaining their original faith. However, I am inclined to agree that the risk of such action is small to the point of insignificance, though it is on this point that most of the controversy lies. To simply afford the protection to religious groups is surely harmless, though potentially ugly symbolically.

 

[painted wolf]

Yet until their fate is decided, they live in a terrible grey area.

I admit I don't know much about Californian 'domestic partnerships' or 'common law marriage'.
Here in NH they are practically non-existent, save for some visitation and inheritance.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Gay Mormons would have to follow the laws of the church... one of the big laws is no gay sex.
So they can't get into the temple to begin with. Just like a smoker can't.
You don't see smoking or drunk Mormons suing to get into the temple.
(not that I personally feel that is a proper analogy, but it fits the Temple law mindset)

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I realise that 'gay community' was a blanket statement, but I couldn't think of a more specific or useful term. If you could provide me with one, I would be grateful.

It's not the terminology that's the problem. It's the idea that gay people are, or need to be, a monolithic group. Do you think that about Mormons as well? Or do Mormons get to have different opinions about things?

This seems to be what it boils down to: Churches fear a faction of the gay community will, at some point in the future, attack their freedom to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

NO, that's not the problem, unless they're massively ignorant. That is not, has never been, and cannot in the U.S. be the issue. The problem is that they don't want gay people to be able to marry.

In October 2004, the First Presidency's office issued a statement saying the church "favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."

The majority (if not all) of the gay community today have no desire to push the issue of freedom of religious practice.

They have no interest and no ability to do this.

Thus, the fastest route to the 'equal protection under the law' that you seek is to simply recede on this point which you do not seem to care about, and work to construct an institution (ie civil unions) which will give same sex couples all the rights of marriage, but agree to allow religious institutions to distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

Not necessary. Marriage does this now.

What proposition 8 has done, to my understanding, has taken the name 'marriage' off the table, indicating that the pro 8 voters feel that a different name for homosexual unions will provide sufficient legal protection for religious groups to distinguish them. I can understand that accepting this and agreeing to work under a different name is not equality, but given that having civil unions seems to have done the job of protecting the rights of homosexual couples in the UK and other places, is giving up the name such a huge issue, and has it really created the catastrophic blow to equality that is often claimed?

I think the upshot of this approach would have been to eventually legalize gay marriage, but for the passage of Proposition 8, which makes this impossible in California.

 

[emiliano]

The only reason this is listed this way in the DSM IV is because this is the only way to protect the rights of Transgendered individuals.
Without this definition it would be legal to deny them health care, treatment and a host of other ills.
With this definition at least they have some sort of legal recourse. This is the only reason it has yet to be changed. Because the law otherwise refuses to protect their rights in any way.

Kind of sick isn't it... to have to be labeled in such a way, just to try to live a happy normal life.


Gay couples have all the rights and protections as hetero couples. New Hampshire passed the law with no Judicial ruling over our heads. The only flaw is that it is called Civil Union rather than Marriage.
While my mate and I will remain Married despite her legal gender status.


Actually things are quite a bit different here in New Hampshire. The Episcopal Church is lead in New Hampshire by an openly gay Bishop. His congregation never considered his sexuality an issue, they just respected him as a man of God.
Perhaps us old yankees just aren't bothered with judging other people and focus on improving ourselves?

I know the fuss over Gene Robinson took just about all of us in New Hampshire by surprise. While I'm not an Episcopalian I've met Bishop Robinson and he is a wonderful person that any religion should be glad to have as a representative.

He was also married under the Civil Union law here in NH. He and his husband have been together since the 1980's.

wa:do

I’ve commented on this before, in Christianity, to have an incline to homosexuality is not a sin, but the church demands abstinence form homosexual practices, because that is a sin. I believe you that there can be a homosexual bishop in a Christian church, but it would a repented, abstinent, transformed individual, in fact churches are full of repentant sinners seeking strength in in her. You cannot be a Christian and a practicing homosexual and be Christian, there are some gay’s congregation that called themselves Christians, that is only on their minds, there is no such thing as a unrepented gay Christian. The church has a command to call all people to repentance, that involves a change, it is also a command to judge and correct in order to guide people to the kingdom that the Lord went to prepare for those that obey, that’s what Christian beliefs are, if you don’t obey you are not a Christian, acceptance by a congregation does not make him a Christian, as I said Christianity is not an all welcoming religion, it call all to repentance, it does not accept unrepentance of sin. There is always the argument that excommunication of unrepented sinner is unloving, but the truth is that what is unloving is to see people in a path that leads to perdition and not do anything to get them off it.

 

[Autodidact]

Provided that me and my (at the moment hypothetical) wife were provided domestic protections (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc) by the state, which I do believe are already afforded to cohabiting couples (in the UK at least), I couldn't really care less what the state considered my relationship to be given that the spiritual aspect of my marriage would be, by far, the most important part for me.

Heck, I do believe that is why we see a decline in marriage in the UK - it is no longer an institution that provides much more than tax breaks. People are more than happy to just cohabit.

O.K. try this. Find the woman you love. Then propose to her that you all sign some legal documents such as power of attorney, and only get married in the church, and see how that goes over.

 

[Autodidact]

Crossing religious boundaries is different to sexuality. There are gay Mormons, who I am sure would be very happy if the postulated loss of freedom of religious practise happened. I am less sure that there are religious/non-religious people keen to cross religious barriers to get married whilst overtly maintaining their original faith. However, I am inclined to agree that the risk of such action is small to the point of insignificance, though it is on this point that most of the controversy lies. To simply afford the protection to religious groups is surely harmless, though potentially ugly symbolically.

Probably gay people in every denomination would be working to change the views of their denominations, which I'm sure you agree is their right.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Gay Mormons would have to follow the laws of the church... one of the big laws is no gay sex.
So they can't get into the temple to begin with. Just like a smoker can't.
You don't see smoking or drunk Mormons suing to get into the temple.
(not that I personally feel that is a proper analogy, but it fits the Temple law mindset)

wa:do

I appreciate your analogy is completely correct now, but the entire postulation comes at a time when freedom of religious practice has been eroded to the point of being unable to distinguish between homosexual and heterosextual [which we both agree is a terribly long shot of a postulation]. Thus, presumably, viewing homosexuality of a sin would have to have been forbidden at some point in this path.

 

[Autodidact]

I’ve commented on this before, in Christianity, to have an incline to homosexuality is not a sin, but the church demands abstinence form homosexual practices, because that is a sin.

Maybe your Church does. Many others do not.

I believe you that there can be a homosexual bishop in a Christian church, but it would a repented, abstinent, transformed individual, in fact churches are full of repentant sinners seeking strength in in her. You cannot be a Christian and a practicing homosexual and be Christian, there are some gay’s congregation that called themselves Christians, that is only on their minds, there is no such thing as a unrepented gay Christian.

I see. So Jesus died and put you in charge, did he? Did you know that there are millions of Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin? And obviously, lesbianism is not a sin in any Christian Church, unless they're heretics, because neither God nor Jesus ever prohibit it or describe it as such. Divorce, on the other hand, is clearly a sin, and no Church could ever have a divorced pastor and call itself Christian.

The church has a command to call all people to repentance, that involves a change, it is also a command to judge and correct in order to guide people to the kingdom that the Lord went to prepare for those that obey, that’s what Christian beliefs are, if you don’t obey you are not a Christian, acceptance by a congregation does not make him a Christian, as I said Christianity is not an all welcoming religion, it call all to repentance, it does not accept unrepentance of sin. There is always the argument that excommunication of unrepented sinner is unloving, but the truth is that what is unloving is to see people in a path that leads to perdition and not do anything to get them off it.

And the argument, probably correct, that homosexuality is not a sin.

 

[painted wolf]

I’ve commented on this before, in Christianity, to have an incline to homosexuality is not a sin, but the church demands abstinence form homosexual practices, because that is a sin. I believe you that there can be a homosexual bishop in a Christian church, but it would a repented, abstinent, transformed individual, in fact churches are full of repentant sinners seeking strength in in her. You cannot be a Christian and a practicing homosexual and be Christian, there are some gay’s congregation that called themselves Christians, that is only on their minds, there is no such thing as a unrepented gay Christian. The church has a command to call all people to repentance, that involves a change, it is also a command to judge and correct in order to guide people to the kingdom that the Lord went to prepare for those that obey, that’s what Christian beliefs are, if you don’t obey you are not a Christian, acceptance by a congregation does not make him a Christian, as I said Christianity is not an all welcoming religion, it call all to repentance, it does not accept unrepentance of sin. There is always the argument that excommunication of unrepented sinner is unloving, but the truth is that what is unloving is to see people in a path that leads to perdition and not do anything to get them off it.

Gene and his husband didn't get married to be celibate. Not that anyone has the right to pry into his bedroom.

Welcome to the wider world of Christianity.
I suggest you check out "For the Bible Tells Me So" a wonderful film on the subject.
For the Bible Tells Me So

wa:do

 

[DeepShadow]

O.K. try this. Find the woman you love. Then propose to her that you all sign some legal documents such as power of attorney, and only get married in the church, and see how that goes over.

I don't see the problem with this. I've always said that the government needs to stop handing out marriages.

 

[painted wolf]

I appreciate your analogy is completely correct now, but the entire postulation comes at a time when freedom of religious practice has been eroded to the point of being unable to distinguish between homosexual and heterosextual [which we both agree is a terribly long shot of a postulation]. Thus, presumably, viewing homosexuality of a sin would have to have been forbidden at some point in this path.

Once upon a time the church thought that African Americans could never hold the priesthood...
God changed his mind on that one, who's to say he can't change his mind here too?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I don't see the problem with this. I've always said that the government needs to stop handing out marriages.

Hmmm. Are you married?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

O.K. try this. Find the woman you love. Then propose to her that you all sign some legal documents such as power of attorney, and only get married in the church, and see how that goes over.

Firstly you have to be legally married to get a temple marriage anyway. But if we are still in the hypothetical situation that our legal marriage would not be considered valid by the state, assumably church policy would allow for us to simply get married in the temple anyway? And if we are in that hypothetical situation, then I don't see why the woman would be adverse to seeking the rights of a couple in some more convoluted legal route. Again, the spiritual aspect of that relationship would be so much more important to render anything the state said to the point of insignificance, provided that I had rights that gave the relationship legal stability.

In any respect, I don't see that postulation as being particularly coherent.

 

[emiliano]

Right. You're missing the point. The point is that the definition of marriage is not the same as who gets to participate in it. Marriage is a relationship. Prop 8 does not change this; it only changes who gets to enter into it.

The last time I checked, after proposition 8 there has been no more licences issued for same sex marriages, there are however some challenges to the way that money for it successful campaign was collected and an investigation will be conducted. There maybe yet a technicality that may annul the majority will. So it will be interesting to follow it course, I am glad that I chose this country to live in.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Once upon a time the church thought that African Americans could never hold the priesthood...
God changed his mind on that one, who's to say he can't change his mind here too?

wa:do

It wasn't a never thing as much as a not until the afterlife thing, but in any respect, touche.