LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Nanda]

Look at Anne Heche, clear example of choosing to be gay. she says she is and then she isn't.

Oh brother... It's called being "Bisexual." Bisexuals don't "choose a side" when they choose a partner. I'm married to a man, but that doesn't make me heterosexual. I could just as easily have ended up with a woman; and guess what? That wouldn't have made me a lesbian, either.

 

[Orontes]

I read this in the same faith debates section and it got me to thinking:

"The letter from the First Presidency shows clearly what side of this isssue LDS members should be supporting.

Below is the statement from the First Presidency of the LDS church, which was sent to California churches, urging them to support the California amendment.

"The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children." The letter continues with, "We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

LDS Church letter asks members to fight gay marriage - ABC4.com"


The LDS Church's stance is that same-sex marriage is not "ordained by God". While I find this lamentable, I still wonder: does the fact that something is viewed as prohibited, not ordained by God, sinful, heretical or otherwise disapproved necessarily mean that it should be made illegal in secular law as well?

Hello,

The answer to your question would depend on the specifics of the moral/religious system in question.

Not just looking at the LDS Church, but also at other religious groups that have opposed secular legalization of same-sex marriage on the grounds of their own religious beliefs, is this a principle that is normally applied in other areas of human endeavour? Do these groups generally seek to make things illegal for everyone when those things aren't in accordance with the teachings of their faith?

One should note that LDS opposition to the Gay Marriage issue in California isn't about making gay marriage illegal. The issue is about making it legal. What does that mean? It means that gay marriage isn't illegal in California. One could go to a church and be married to one's gay/lesbian partner even before the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22. The issue is about requiring state sanction/endorsement of gay marriage.

Also (and going back to the LDS Church specifically), the 11th Article of Faith is as follows:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Can marriage ever be considered an aspect of worship of God? If so, is the statement to the California churches in conflict with the 11th Article of Faith?

To your two questions:

Question One, yes it could.

Question Two, no it is not. If a church claimed gay marriage as a rite of worship that is their own affair. People may believe as they will. The LDS stance is concerned with the role of the state. One should also note that from the 1878 Supreme Court Reynolds case, religious worship claims do not provide carte blanche on practice. The Court ruled the "Free exercise Clause" only applies to belief, not practice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One should note that LDS opposition to the Gay Marriage issue in California isn't about making gay marriage illegal. The issue is about making it legal. What does that mean? It means that gay marriage isn't illegal in California.

No, it's not illegal. In fact, same-sex marriage is currently perfectly legal in California.

One could go to a church and be married to one's gay/lesbian partner even before the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22. The issue is about requiring state sanction/endorsement of gay marriage.

I think you're missing the point.

Question Two, no it is not. If a church claimed gay marriage as a rite of worship that is their own affair. People may believe as they will. The LDS stance is concerned with the role of the state.

But in keeping with your odd comment earlier, if marriage and state sanction of marriage are separate issues, then why isn't it enough for the LDS Church leadership to declare "government, do what you want, but we won't consider these same-sex couples married"?

One should also note that from the 1878 Supreme Court Reynolds case, religious worship claims do not provide carte blanche on practice. The Court ruled the "Free exercise Clause" only applies to belief, not practice.

Two thoughts:

- what bearing does a Supreme Court decision have on the interpretation of Mormon doctrine?

- if the "free exercise" clause does not apply to practice, then how is this campaign against same-sex marriage justified on the part of the LDS Church? Isn't that practice?

 

[emiliano]

When they want to destroy our rights and freedoms then my assessment is very fair. They are a danger to the mental development and wellbeing of children, a threat to liberty and are dead weight holding the progression of society back.

OH! How passionate of Father Heathen holding the progression of society back? And to what exactly is your society progressing to? Have you thought of the dangers to our children that this vices poses? A threat to liberty of libertinage? Why would we want our children exposed to the “if it feel good do it regardless of consequences”? Instant gratification of ones desire? We have more than enough problems with addictions to all sort of things that are the direct consequence of a lack of control and higher moral principal, to have you and your lot putting filth into them. For as long as we are the majority we will defend and protect them from you, so these people that have united to call their member "We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman" have their rights. If they are the majority that what the constitution must say? Majority rules doe it not?

 

[Tau]

For as long as we are the majority we will defend and protect them from you, so these people that have united to call their member "We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman" have their rights. If they are the majority that what the constitution must say? Majority rules doe it not?

So if the majority of americans wanted to pass a law re enslaving all Black people that would be OK by you would it?

The majority is not always right, in fact the mob is quite a stupid animal.

As for you being in the majority anyway...I doubt it.

You want to protect children from the dangers of thinking for yourself?
Well we want to protect them from you.

 

[Orontes]

[/size][/font]
No, it's not illegal. In fact, same-sex marriage is currently perfectly legal in California.

Quite.

I think you're missing the point.

That is exactly the point of LDS action.

But in keeping with your odd comment earlier, if marriage and state sanction of marriage are separate issues, then why isn't it enough for the LDS Church leadership to declare "government, do what you want, but we won't consider these same-sex couples married"?

If you think my comment odd you most likely do not understand the jurisprudential issue at hand. I'll explain. California already had a very broad civil union law. The civil union law provided all the base legal protections marriage entails. What has occurred via the California Supreme Court's action is a rights claim is being made. This right claim is the creation of four judges. This itself is startling as it is a usurpation of the democratic process, by and through which rights are determined. Now a rights claim is a demand that necessarily indicates the sanction and endorsement of the state and thus places obligations on the state. If gay marriage is a right (something that has never been determined for heterosexual marriage) then the state is obligated to insure there is no impingement of that right. This means that organizations that deny that right claim may be subject to state action. In simple terms, if a right to a thing exists, then the denial of that right by an organization may suffer civil penalties. An example would be the fate of Catholic adoption agencies and charities in Massachusetts all of which have now closed down. The affair is an attempt via the Judiciary to create social acceptability by the power of the state, when it is not considered so by vast members of society and then penalize disagreement. Proposition 8 is an attempt to correct this example of Judicial overreach.


To your question, because the Church in the U.S. is impacted by the decisions made the state. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not a religious body.

- what bearing does a Supreme Court decision have on the interpretation of Mormon doctrine?

The Reynolds case has no bearing on Mormon interpretation of doctrine. It does impact practices in the U.S for Mormons as all other religious bodies.

- if the "free exercise" clause does not apply to practice, then how is this campaign against same-sex marriage justified on the part of the LDS Church? Isn't that practice?

The ruling in the Reynolds case is a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court is distinct from the LDS Church. The LDS Church's actions in support of Propostion 8 is a political act contra the ex nihilo creation of rights by the California Judiciary. It does not concern the religious beliefs of gays.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is exactly the point of LDS action.

How do you mean?

If you think my comment odd you most likely do not understand the jurisprudential issue at hand. I'll explain.

I understand them just fine. I don't understand, however, why you would think that same-sex couples would be satisfied with just being declared married in a religious wedding or commitment ceremony and be happy to go without the legal rights of marriage they're pursuing.

California already had a very broad civil union law. The civil union law provided all the base legal protections marriage entails.

Really?

One major difference between civil unions and marriage immediately springs to mind: how exactly did California's civil union law ensure recognition of the legal status of that union in another state?

What has occurred via the California Supreme Court's action is

a rights claim is being made. This right claim is the creation of four judges. This itself is startling as it is a usurpation of the democratic process, by and through which rights are determined. Now a rights claim is a demand that necessarily indicates the sanction and endorsement of the state and thus places obligations on the state. If gay marriage is a right (something that has never been determined for heterosexual marriage) then the state is obligated to insure there is no impingement of that right.

Yes, all US states are required to abide by the democratically-enacted United States Constitution. This is not news.

And if the people's duly-elected representatives feel a need to modify the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, there is a mechanism in place to effect change to it.

This means that organizations that deny that right claim may be subject to state action. In simple terms, if a right to a thing exists, then the denial of that right by an organization may suffer civil penalties. An example would be the fate of Catholic adoption agencies and charities in Massachusetts all of which have now closed down.

Yes, any individual or group who breaks the law is subject to the consequences provided for in the law.

The affair is an attempt via the Judiciary to create social acceptability by the power of the state, when it is not considered so by vast members of society and then penalize disagreement. Proposition 8 is an attempt to correct this example of Judicial overreach.

No, this "affair" is an attempt via the judiciary to protect the rights of the people. Proposition 8 is an attempt to once again deny those rights.

To your question, because the Church in the U.S. is impacted by the decisions made the state. Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not a religious body.

And each church can choose to regard, disregard or assign whatever status they want to those licences as they see fit.

No church is compelled to marry any person who they do not want to marry.

The Reynolds case has no bearing on Mormon interpretation of doctrine. It does impact practices in the U.S for Mormons as all other religious bodies.

Ah... so the judgement of whether some form of worship constitutes belief or practice does not necessarily have any bearing on how Article 11 applies to it.

The ruling in the Reynolds case is a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court is distinct from the LDS Church. The LDS Church's actions in support of Propostion 8 is a political act contra the ex nihilo creation of rights by the California Judiciary. It does not concern the religious beliefs of gays.

Of course not; I think you missed my point: political advocacy is a practice, not a belief; by your standard, the LDS Church's actions on this issue are not protected... the LDS Church is no more entitiled to create public policy based on its views than a church that supports same-sex marriage is entitled to do so based on its views.

 

[Orontes]

[/size][/font]
How do you mean?

Gay marriage as an act of faith or devotion is not illegal. Requiring state sanction and endorsement of gay marriage (through the auspice of the Judiciary) is what the LDS Church has opposed.

I understand them just fine. I don't understand, however, why you would think that same-sex couples would be satisfied with just being declared married in a religious wedding or commitment ceremony and be happy to go without the legal rights of marriage they're pursuing.

Satisfaction level in and of itself level is not relevant. What is relevant is the process by and through which rights come about. There are no "legal rights" absent the democratic process. Judicial imposition is undemocratic. It is autocratic, and thus must be opposed.

Really?

One major difference between civil unions and marriage immediately springs to mind: how exactly did California's civil union law ensure recognition of the legal status of that union in another state?

Yes really.

You are confused. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (96) has already removed the issue of states being forced to recognize any gay/lesbian etc. marriage laws of another state. The California Supreme Court's four judges invention of a gay marriage right, does not change this situation.

Yes, all US states are required to abide by the democratically-enacted United States Constitution. This is not news.

And if the people's duly-elected representatives feel a need to modify the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, there is a mechanism in place to effect change to it.

My post does not address the U.S. Constitution. It is concerned with California and its constitution. Even so, there is indeed a process/mechanism whereby rights are determined, modified etc. It is not via Judicial fiat. It is through the ratification process.

Yes, any individual or group who breaks the law is subject to the consequences provided for in the law.

The creation of law is the domain of the legislature, not judges. To assert there is a law or right that is simply the product of judicial whimsy is to assert an illegitimacy.

No, this "affair" is an attempt via the judiciary to protect the rights of the people. Proposition 8 is an attempt to once again deny those rights.

Alas, it is not. In the political arena, rights claims minus the democratic process are not rights, but the product of the autocratic mind

[/size]

And each church can choose to regard, disregard or assign whatever status they want to those licences as they see fit.

No church is compelled to marry any person who they do not want to marry.

You are confused. The issue is not about what ceremonies a given church may or may not perform or what they regard, but the impact the invention of a gay marriage right has on the larger society. Churches within the domain of the invention are subject to the legal ramifications of that invention. I have illustrated this already via the closer of Catholic charities in Massachusetts.

Ah... so the judgement of whether some form of worship constitutes belief or practice does not necessarily have any bearing on how Article 11 applies to it.

Whether a particular is considered a belief or practice under the ruling of the Supreme Court Reynolds case is not something controlled by the LDS Church. Beliefs of the LDS Church via Article Eleven do not impact the Supreme Court or the state.

Of course not; I think you missed my point: political advocacy is a practice, not a belief; by your standard, the LDS Church's actions on this issue are not protected... the LDS Church is no more entitiled to create public policy based on its views than a church that supports same-sex marriage is entitled to do so based on its views.

I don't know what point you are attempting. The LDS Church does not create policy for California. It may advocate for such however as may any other individual, group or lobby. The LDS Church doesn't claim any special protection in this regard over and above the standards already in place for free speech and the right to lobby.

 

[emiliano]

So if the majority of americans wanted to pass a law re enslaving all Black people that would be OK by you would it?

Well, because I am not an American I don’t know that one, from what I know of the USA the majority of their people would most likely opposed such a law. I don’t know if you can grasp this but this means that the people that would propose and support such an amendment would be a minority, I believe that the case of gay marriages is an altogether different issue, I believe that the movers and supporter of proposition 8 are in the majority and they have taken action to prove it, they want to prove that the state’ Supreme Court ruled against the will of the majority and The LDS is within it right to tested.

The majority is not always right, in fact the mob is quite a stupid animal.

I didn’t say anything about the right and wrong of the majority’s will, what I want to point out to you is that the majority rules, well that is the case in the country where I reside (Australia) that is still a Monarchy, a constitutional one.

As for you being in the majority anyway...I doubt it.

That’s is what proposition 8 is going to tell us, I am interested in the final result.

You want to protect children from the dangers of thinking for yourself?

Well we want to protect them from you.

Well, this is our parental duty, to teach and protect, as I said we will know what is the will of the majority, won’t we? And whatever the decision is we will have to live with it, because the majority rules.

 

[gnostic]

It comes down to how we believe such principles effect other people and society as a whole. As in the case of same-sex marriage the LDS church believes that the legal and social embracing of same-sex marriages and relationships will result in a negative effect on our society.

That's absolute nonsense.

A legal same-sex marriage would not make me want to become gay.

Would legal same-sex marriages change your attitude about homosexuality?

I don't think so. If anything you would still be prejudiced against gay and lesbians no matter what the outcome. Would gay marriage lessen yours? No. So why do like depriving other people their rights?

 

[Sunstone]

It comes down to how we believe such principles effect other people and society as a whole. As in the case of same-sex marriage the LDS church believes that the legal and social embracing of same-sex marriages and relationships will result in a negative effect on our society. It will likely lead to more children being raised without a father and a mother, which pattern we believe to be divinely established by God for the greatest benefit of man. It will likely lead to decreased sexual inhibitions in general which will over time degrade our society's moral fabric, which we believe to be the heart of a strong society. In attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the moral character of our society, the church feels a duty to publicly support measures that block attempts that we feel threatens these moral values.

The Church leadership is, of course, free to believe whatever it wishes to believe. But I find it's position on gay rights is based on falsehoods, and is tragically immoral. Consequently, I believe the Church leadership has made a grievous error in opposing the rights of homosexuals and others -- one that is at least potentially damaging to the interests and happiness of millions of people who have done nothing to injure the Church. I fully expect that at some future time, there will be a reckoning.

 

[Tau]

Well, this is our parental duty, to teach and protect, as I said we will know what is the will of the majority, won’t we? And whatever the decision is we will have to live with it, because the majority rules.

Religion is again trying to subvert national governments all over the world it seems.

If you guys want a fight you will get one.

I will do all I can.

 

[emiliano]

This what Australia has done, it very similar to proposition 8
The Marriage Amendment Bill
On May 27, 2004, approximately two months after the UK proposed its Civil Partnership Act 2004, the then federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock introduced the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004[3], intending to incorporate the common law definition of marriage into the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act.[4] In June 2004, the bill passed the House of Representatives. On August 13, 2004, the Senate passed the amendment by 38 votes to 6. The bill subsequently received royal assent, becoming the Marriage Amendment Act 2004.
[edit] Specifications of the bill
The amendment specifies the following:
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_in_Australia#The_Marriage_Amendment_Bill

 

[Muffled]

I'm reminded of a quote from the Bible. I don't know the exact quote, and can't look it up right now, but it says something about how people should live by the law of their land, except when it contradicts God's law. Allowing gay marriage doesn't make anyone but supporters of it go against God's law. If our law says that homosexuals can marry each other, none of these people opposing it have to engage in homosexuality, so they should go by the idea of abiding by the law of this land.

Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation; But sin is a reproach to any people.
Pr 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah; But he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.

1. When God judges a land, everyone in the land suffers including Christians.

2. In a land where people can vote, those who are Christians certainly can't encourage or support sin by voting for it.

3. Christians at all times and in all places should be encouraging people to repent their sin.

 

[Tau]

This what Australia has done, it very similar to proposition 8
The Marriage Amendment Bill
On May 27, 2004, approximately two months after the UK proposed its Civil Partnership Act 2004, the then federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock introduced the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004[3], intending to incorporate the common law definition of marriage into the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act.[4] In June 2004, the bill passed the House of Representatives. On August 13, 2004, the Senate passed the amendment by 38 votes to 6. The bill subsequently received royal assent, becoming the Marriage Amendment Act 2004.
[edit] Specifications of the bill
The amendment specifies the following:
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_relationships_in_Australia#The_Marriage_Amendment_Bill

So what about hermaphrodites and transexuals, you dont recognise those either?

What a backward little country Australia is becoming, fine languish in the dark ages, I don't really care, I am european.

 

[Tau]

3. Christians at all times and in all places should be encouraging people to repent their sin.

Which is whysome Christians are among the biggest most detestable hypocrites on earth.

Jesus said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'...perhaps you should listen to your God.

Stay out my life fundamentalists, Il take my chances with God like the rest of you.

This is why people get angry with foolish Christian pretenders.

 

[Polaris]

I believe the Church leadership has made a grievous error in opposing the rights of homosexuals and others

Exactly what rights are we opposing?

 

[Tau]

Exactly what rights are we opposing?

The right to marry for one thing

 

[Starfish]

The right to marry for one thing

Full circle. No one is denied the right to marry. We are all equally allowed to marry, within limits.

 

[Sunstone]

Exactly what rights are we opposing?

Marriage is a basic human right. Homosexuals are human. Either they have a basic human right to marriage or no one does. If the State can deny them their right to marriage, the State can deny you your right to marriage.