The Church's Changing Position on the Legalization Same-Sex Marriage

[DrumNFeather]

Right. And I'm not holding myself out as a real estate law professor but I do litigate real estate cases so it is part of my bailiwick. Notice I have not said a word about the tax issue here.

But a real live tax expert has.

Now you two don't go hurting yourselves with all the back patting going on here...

[woot]

This thread is awesome. Tex has the balls to reveal his true motivations, while Jacob works desperately to change the subject to what the word "benefits" means (etc.).

Tex's motivations boil down to sheer bigotry, so I get why so many who share his views work so hard to hide theirs. It's fun to watch.

[Tex]

In the same article ...

Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

But ...

The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples.

It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition’s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490

[Indy Coug]

In the same article ...



But ...



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490

It's only a matter of time.

[Solon]

At the J. Reuben Clark Law Society meetings at Stanford last weekend, Elder Lance Wickman, General Counsel to the Church, spoke. He said a number of things which were very interesting, but one stood out.

He decried the California Courts overturning the will of the people and declaring that gays have a Constitutional right to marry. He contrasted this with Washington State's process of debate and a vote in the legislature and a bill being signed by the Gov. allowing same-sex marriage. He emphasized that the bill contained important protections for religious entities.

The point was that the Church would much prefer that same-sex marriage be a statutory allowance than a constitutional right. And the Church would strongly prefer statutory protections rather than Court-determined constitutional limitations on their actions which would be vague, uncertain, and instantly malleable in a court ruling or to see Constitutions re-written to allow and protect same-sex marriage.

The Church knows the tide is against them on this one and they will start actively "not opposing" same sex marriage bills that give them the statutory protections they seek because this route is far more preferable than the Constitutional-right rubric.

Watch same-sex marriage sweep across the land in the next decade in the form of state legislation "not opposed" by churches--all in an effort to preempt Constitutional analyses done by judges and/or constitutional amendments imposed in referendums.

I haven't read the Maryland proposition, but it looks like Rambam has delivered the goods.

the LDS Church has quietly stepped back from public involvement in the continued political push to oppose same-sex marriage.

"Mormon leaders in Maryland have been silent on the ballot measure to affirm or toss the state’s new same-sex marriage law," writes Michelle Boorstein of The Washington Post. "Activists in other states voting next month on the issue (Maine, Minnesota and Washington) say they see the same thing.

Some see it as a direct result of how involved the LDS Church was in passing California’s hotly debated Proposition 8, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Those headlines generated a lot of controversy and opposition to the church.

Others argue, Boorstein reports, that it is the Utah-based church’s attempt to remain neutral at a time when Mormon Mitt Romney is running for president.

"It’s the political climate we’re in," LDS Church spokesman Michael Otterson told The Post. "There was just too much over-interpreting."

That could be an understatement.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfa...ssage.html.csp

EDIT: here's the Washington Post article Stack linked. It's interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...eck=0&denied=1

[Moliere]

http://ldsmag.com/article/1/12969

This article has all sorts of crazy in it. At one point he pretty much says we all need to just be sheep so we can achieve Zion:

As you have pointed out, the Lord wants us to be a Zion people, of one heart and one mind. Such a state requires we are obedient as a body of Saints. The Lord has said "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine." (D&C 38:27) Is our current situation somehow exempted from this command? Does this command not apply to our current generation?

[Indy Coug]

http://ldsmag.com/article/1/12969

This article has all sorts of crazy in it. At one point he pretty much says we all need to just be sheep so we can achieve Zion:

So you can't be obedient without also being mindless sheep?

[Harry Tic]

http://ldsmag.com/article/1/12969

This article has all sorts of crazy in it. At one point he pretty much says we all need to just be sheep so we can achieve Zion:

From the author's bio: "He left this position in 2009 to return to school where he studied Airport Management at the University of Central Missouri and Utah Valley University."

[Indy Coug]

From the author's bio: "He left this position in 2009 to return to school where he studied Airport Management at the University of Central Missouri and Utah Valley University."

So what's the problem with that?

[Harry Tic]

So what's the problem with that?

Did I say there's a problem with that?

[jay santos]

http://ldsmag.com/article/1/12969

This article has all sorts of crazy in it. At one point he pretty much says we all need to just be sheep so we can achieve Zion:

The concept of following like sheep is not a wrong one. The issue is how much you trust the person you're following. I don't like people cracking the concept of obedience, even following blindly like sheep, because it's a simple and beautiful concept. If God appeared and you were 100% sure it was God and you trusted him 100%, you wouldn't have much of a problem following him like a sheep and you would be honored to do so out of devotion and fidelity.

Some people have the notion of a prophet that deserves that kind of trust: direct line to God, infallible, etc. But the prophets have clearly reversed opinions and have been proven wrong enough that it's very difficult to demand that level of trust.

[Indy Coug]

Did I say there's a problem with that?

No, but your smilie seems to think so.

[Harry Tic]

No, but your smilie seems to think so.

No, that's the icon I use to suggest a bemused grin.

Here is the icon I use to suggest that something is wrong:

And here's is the icon I use to suggest that something is really wrong:

And here is the icon I use when I can't believe that I am having a conversation about this. :yikes:

Of course there's no reason whatsoever that students of Airport Management can't have opinions that are just as valid as those of high falutin' professors, or insurance salesmen, or whatever. But it's a little odd to tout it as a credential.

[Moliere]

Some people have the notion of a prophet that deserves that kind of trust: direct line to God, infallible, etc. But the prophets have clearly reversed opinions and have been proven wrong enough that it's very difficult to demand that level of trust.

This is the problem. His argument basically ignores all the prior doctrine counsel given by the Lord's prophets (interracial marriage, PH ban, polygamy required for CK, adam-god doctrine, blood atonement, etc.) that has been reversed. He's basically saying that since the prophets have been against gay marriage for the past 180 years that the position will never change so we should just follow them. Frankly I trust the church leaders, but not 100% and I probably trust them less than most members of the church.

[Harry Tic]

As for the content of the article, there's nothing of much interest in it. Members of the church sympathetic to the ruling are chastised for their unfaithfulness. No one's doubting that there aren't lots of quotes and lots of evidence from church leaders available to the author to support his condescending call to repentance of those that take issue with him. The word 'prophetic' is wielded often and indiscriminately. None of this is unfamiliar to anyone.

But I can't help but get the "R Gary" vibe from this piece. For the uninitiated, "R Gary" is an LDS blogger who maintains a blog whose primary purpose is to marshal statements of LDS leaders against evolution. He's kind of like one of those hoarders and apocalyptic types but instead of ammo, he stockpiles random quotes from General Authorities present and past. (nice analogy, huh?). But he is oddly tone-deaf and seems to know nothing at all, and take no interest in, the subtler turns of how LDS rhetoric and policy (I won't say 'doctrine') develops over time. For R Gary, anything ever said by a General Authority is, by default, true unless explicitly and directly repudiated by the Church through some kind of official channel.

Here's the analogy as I see it. There is absolutely no doubt that the church has issued pronouncements on a number of issues related to DOMA and gay marriage in general. More sensitive and thoughtful observers of the church need to not only take these positions into account but the subtle and understated ways in which positions evolve, soften, and mature. One would look in vain for a General Authority that dared directly contradict BKP or Elder Bednar's statement on this or that. But, again, a sensitive observer would note that things indeed are moving in the church, albeit slowly. How far will things move? Who knows? We should have learned by now that they could move pretty far, as Moliere notes.