If same sex marriage becomes a national law

[Borg]

...would the Church be forced "by law" to abide by that law?

Would they be required to embrace same sex marriage outside the temple at least, much akin to the Church abiding by the renouncing of plural marriages?

[Slim]

They'd be forced to abide here but then they'd probably go establish some colonies in Mexico where they continue to deny same sex marriage.

[Non Sequitur]

They'd be forced to abide here but then they'd probably go establish some colonies in Mexico where they continue to deny same sex marriage.

That's pretty funny.

[Donuthole]

What do you mean my embrace it outside the temple? Today, would a SSM couple get thrown out of sacrament meeting for showing up together? I don't think they would.

It is legal to drink alcohol, however I don't think the church has embraced alcohol outside the temple.

Your comparison to plural marriage is a bit confusing to me, as that was something practiced by the church which was prohibited by law, whereas same-sex marriage would be something not practiced by the church which is permitted by law (much like alcohol consumption).

[LiveCoug]

...would the Church be forced "by law" to abide by that law?

Would they be required to embrace same sex marriage outside the temple at least, much akin to the Church abiding by the renouncing of plural marriages?

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.

[Indy Coug]

I think the main concern is whether or not the church would be required to perform same-sex marriages in order to perform any state/federally recognized marriages, or at the very least be able to be held civilly liable for refusing to do so.

This certainly wouldn't happen at first, but who knows where the Slippery Slope would take us?

[Flystripper]

They'd be forced to abide here but then they'd probably go establish some colonies in Mexico where they continue to deny same sex marriage.

nice!

[Flystripper]

I think the main concern is whether or not the church would be required to perform same-sex marriages in order to perform any state/federally recognized marriages, or at the very least be able to be held civilly liable for refusing to do so.

This certainly wouldn't happen at first, but who knows where the Slippery Slope will take us?

I can't see the church being forced to perform temple marriages for homosexual couples. Currently they are not being forced to perform temple marriages for all heterosexual couples that want one.

I can see the church being "forced" to perform homosexual civil marriages and honestly I don't have a problem with that. I don't foresee lines of gay couples at Mormon churches waiting to get married, though I could envision a gay couple trying to force the hand of the church to perform a gay civil marriage as a form of protest against the church.

If that ever happens it would be in the best interest of the church to perform the gay civil marriage and be done with it.

[Indy Coug]

I can't see the church being forced to perform temple marriages for homosexual couples. Currently they are not being forced to perform temple marriages for all heterosexual couples that want one.

I can see the church being "forced" to perform homosexual civil marriages and honestly I don't have a problem with that. I don't foresee lines of gay couples at Mormon churches waiting to get married, though I could envision a gay couple trying to force the hand of the church to perform a gay civil marriage as a form of protest against the church.

If that ever happens it would be in the best interest of the church to perform the gay civil marriage and be done with it.

So you don't think freedom of religion and the First Amendment has any relevance here?

[Flystripper]

So you don't think freedom of religion and the First Amendment has any relevance here?

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.

[Indy Coug]

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

That is probably the most likely outcome.

[il Padrino Ute]

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

This is what I think would happen. The feds couldn't force any religion to perform civil ceremonies for one particular group if it's not performing any civil ceremonies.

[WashingtonCoug]

My guess is that at some point, couples would go get sealed by a justice of the court and then go get sealed in the temple. Later you would hear stories in seminary and EFY about a couple that was sealed in court and then died on the way to the temple. The supreme justices that ruled against the church abstaining from performing homosexual marriages in temples would be stricken with disease and never recover.

[Donuthole]

My guess is that at some point, couples would go get sealed by a justice of the court and then go get sealed in the temple. Later you would hear stories in seminary and EFY about a couple that was sealed in court and then died on the way to the temple. The supreme justices that ruled against the church abstaining from performing homosexual marriages in temples would be stricken with disease and never recover.

Ok, that made me legitimately laugh out loud.

[statman]

I think the main concern is whether or not the church would be required to perform same-sex marriages in order to perform any state/federally recognized marriages, or at the very least be able to be held civilly liable for refusing to do so.

This certainly wouldn't happen at first, but who knows where the Slippery Slope would take us?

The Church would stop performing marriages - period. Sealings would still be heterosexual only, and would be done only after a civil marriage. This is how things are already done in LDS temples in Europe...