If same sex marriage becomes a national law

[Pheidippides]

I am not a con law expert. I guess I just don't have a problem with the idea that if an organization wants to perform a marriage that is recognized by the government, then that organization would need to abide by equal protection under the law. (assuming that equal protection is what the original poster meant by saying that same sex marriage becomes national law)

This takes nothing away from religious sealings and ceremonies which I believe Mormons view as being more important than a civil marriage which could just as easily be performed by a Justice of the Peace.

I could also see the LDS church halting the practice of performing civil marriages and remain in the business of conducting religious marriages.

I'm not a con law expert, but I play one on TV. Unless my understanding is grossly off, I cannot envision a scenario in which the church is forced to perform same sex marriages (well, okay, I can envision a relatively far-fetched scenario in Utah, and a couple of others I guess - but both would require a change in current constitutional interpretation).

[PaloAltoCougar]

Shortly before the Prop 8 election, 59 Con Law professors throughout California (and there are some big names on the list) unanimously opined, among other things, that if same sex marriage were legalized, "No church will be required to perform or to recognize such marriages. No church’s tax-exempt status will be affected by its decisions about whether to solemnize marriages between same-sex couples."

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/constitutional_1.html

[Shaka]

Just for informational purposes in the time when I was there for my mission couples in South Africa get married civily and then have a week to get to the temple in Johanessburg for the sealing ceremony. If they do not make it in the alloted week then they have to wait a year.

[LA Ute]

Shortly before the Prop 8 election, 59 Con Law professors throughout California (and there are some big names on the list) unanimously opined, among other things, that if same sex marriage were legalized, "No church will be required to perform or to recognize such marriages. No church’s tax-exempt status will be affected by its decisions about whether to solemnize marriages between same-sex couples."

http://www.californiaprogressreport....utional_1.html

I think they are probably right about churches being required to perform or recognize the marriages. I do think, however, that gay rights advocates would find every possible way to use the federal law to harass and marginalize the churches who didn't recognize or perform same-sex marriages, which has always been my biggest concern about the issue. I am not convinced that the more extreme gay rights advocates have a "live and let live" attitude any more than extreme homophobes do.

I also will bet you that 59 out of 59 of those professors voted against Prop 8, but that may be beside the point, except insofar as it affects their objectivity.

[Fiyero]

Blacks had a legal right to marry one another prior to 1978. Was the church required by law to allow them to marry in the temples? The church can continue to restrict marriage inside the buildings that they privately own. However, I don't see how a church could fail to recognize a civil marriage; and even if they did, what exactly would the couple be deprived of?

[wuapinmon]

I have the authority to marry people in South Carolina because I'm a notary public, not because I hold the priesthood. I think all these worries about the Church are unfounded. If nothing else, the US Church would just stop doing civil ceremonies and just have sealings.

[Moliere]

Define embrace? Would they deny a married same sex couple from attending church? Most likely not... Would a same sex married couple be allowed to attend the temple, have a calling etc? Nope.

What if the married gay couple lived in separate apartments and kept the law of chastity?