Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[TripletDaddy]

lol @ cowboy!

[Northwestcoug]

Whoa! Pump the brakes progmo's!

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/ld...-sex-marriage/

The happy-go-lucky LDS Smile website is also very serious about this:

http://ldssmile.com/2015/06/29/elder...-sex-marriage/

[Northwestcoug]

This seems to reinforce the idea that the majority was carefully imposing their own morality with their decision. Either legislating morality is acceptable or it isn't. Gay marriage advocates have been banging the secular drum for years, but many seem fine with legislating their morality that aligns with their belief. Can you think of a compelling legal reason that gay marriage should be protected but polygamy shouldn't?

You seem to be talking about the religious morality of gay marriage, while to me the SCOTUS was concerned about the inequality of gays in matters of law. I think they did a good job letting religion fight their own battles.

[Commando]

[Clark Addison]

Whoa! Pump the brakes progmo's!

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/ld...-sex-marriage/

I found this part interesting:

members who support same-sex marriage are in error. They are rejecting the doctrines of the church and the teachings of the prophets. But unless they make a concerted, organized effort to damage the church or undermine its teachings, the church will tolerate their erroneous views in the hope that over time they will be persuaded to repent.

What are the chances that any significant number of people who support gay marriage will "repent"? I feel pretty confident in saying that the number is very, very low.

On the other hand, what are the chances that the church will continue to soften its stance on all things gay? I don't know if anyone will argue that we are seeing these three things

1. The church has undoubtedly changed tremendously in this regard over the last 20+ years
2. The church's change is also continuing recently, with further reaching out and softeing in the last couple of years
3. Young people, in and out of the church, are more open to gay rights than the old fogies who keep leaving us, and will likely grow even more so as time goes by

That being the case, it seems to me that it is MUCH more likely that the church will come closer to the viewpoint of gay marriage supporters, than it is that we will see movement from those supporters. I am not saying that there will be gay marriages in the temple anytime soon, but I would guess that in 20 years, that will look much less unlikely than it does today.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The happy-go-lucky LDS Smile website is also very serious about this:

http://ldssmile.com/2015/06/29/elder...-sex-marriage/

LOL. I'm so glad that this will be the new debate. I always need something to look forward to.

[Uncle Ted]

Official First Presidency Statement...

TL; DR: A home with a loving mother and father rules (I guess single parent homes suck). We love everyone but if you are gay then go and get married somewhere else. Also, you are welcome at church (as long as you are not having that gay sex).

This letter, with enclosure, is being translated and will be distributed to units identified as French and Spanish in the United States and Canada. Distribution in these languages will be complete within two weeks. If leaders need this letter in languages not listed above, they may contact the member of the Presidency of the Seventy who supervises the area. Area leaders can forward requests to Church headquarters (1-801-240-2933). 13782
RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
LEGALIZING SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE IN THE UNITED STATES


June 29, 2015
Because of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court and similar legal proceedings and legislative actions in a number of countries that have given civil recognition to same‐sex marriage relationships, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints restates and reaffirms the doctrinal foundation of Church teachings on morality,marriage, and the family. As we do, we encourage all to consider these teachings in the context of the Plan of Salvation and our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children. Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well‐being of society. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).


Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and vital to eternal salvation. A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.


Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”


Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.


The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same‐sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of same‐sex couples in matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.


The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.


As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite all to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths God established in the beginning, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.
THE COUNCIL OF
THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND
QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER‐DAY SAINTS

[Uncle Ted]

Enclosure...

Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex Marriage


The Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise.


For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops [2010], 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world, but the physical and social toll for doing so is a painful matter of record. So, too, with issues of unchaste sexual behavior, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation. As the First Presidency has previously said and as this current response affirms, “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society” (First Presidency letter on “Same‐Sex Marriage,” January 9, 2014).


2


What is the Church’s policy on homosexual relations? “Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.
“If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.
“While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. “If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 21.4.6).


Does the authorization of same‐sex marriage affect my right to religious freedom?
Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we exercise that right, we must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God. “While we strive for the virtue of tolerance, other commendable qualities need not be lost. Tolerance does not require the surrender of noble purpose or of individual identity. The Lord gave instruction to leaders of His restored Church to establish and maintain institutional integrity—‘that the Church may stand independent’ (D&C 78:14)” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Teach Us Tolerance and Love,” April1994 general conference).


How do I respond respectfully to those who consider the Church’s position on this matter unchristian?
Our objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable. “On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference).


What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject? “Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities. “If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president. “. . . Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).

[byu71]

Enclosure...

Let me preface this by saying I am not a user of alcohol. Not on moral grounds, I fear liking it and getting addicted to it.

In this message the consumption of alcohol is put on the same level as gay marriage and abortion as far as the church is concerned. All are OK with civil law, but not with God's law.

Earlier I asked what I thought was a reasonable question and all I got was a "huh".

It was stated the youth of the church are more current and accepting of gay marriage. I am curious if they have the same acceptance level for the use of alcohol?

In my opinion I have seen too many men uncomfortable going to church because they enjoy beer. Too many controversies between husband and wife over the husbands desire to have a beer.

[Uncle Ted]

Let me preface this by saying I am not a user of alcohol. Not on moral grounds, I fear liking it and getting addicted to it.

In this message the consumption of alcohol is put on the same level as gay marriage and abortion as far as the church is concerned. All are OK with civil law, but not with God's law.

Earlier I asked what I thought was a reasonable question and all I got was a "huh".

It was stated the youth of the church are more current and accepting of gay marriage. I am curious if they have the same acceptance level for the use of alcohol?

In my opinion I have seen too many men uncomfortable going to church because they enjoy beer. Too many controversies between husband and wife over the husbands desire to have a beer.

I am not sure if they are all on the same level. Would one get excommunicated or disfellowshipped for having a beer now and then?

I would suspect that in a lot of cases someone would be at least disfellowshipped for an abortion (other than for the reasons outlined in the CHOI). I suspect someone would be at least disfellowshipped for having sex outside of (non same sex) marriage (especially if they are melchizedek priesthood holder, been to the temple, or something like that). If someone breaks the WoW would that get them for disfellowshipped or, worse, excommunicated? If it is a beer now and then I would suspect not. What if someone has a little gay sex now and then? (Say, not the hardcore stuff but just maybe the Bill Clinton "I didn't not have sex..." stuff including with maybe cigars, etc.) Could we get a ruling from the bishops around here?

[byu71]

I am not sure if they are all on the same level. Would one get excommunicated or disfellowshipped for having a beer now and then?

I would suspect that in a lot of cases someone would be at least disfellowshipped for an abortion (other than for the reasons outlined in the CHOI). I suspect someone would be at least disfellowshipped for having sex outside of (non same sex) marriage (especially if they are melchizedek priesthood holder, been to the temple, or something like that). If someone breaks the WoW would that get them for disfellowshipped or, worse, excommunicated? If it is a beer now and then I would suspect not. What if someone has a little gay sex now and then? (Say, not the hardcore stuff but just maybe the Bill Clinton "I didn't not have sex..." stuff including with maybe cigars, etc.) Could we get a ruling from the bishops around here?

Good points.

[pellegrino]

I am not sure if they are all on the same level. Would one get excommunicated or disfellowshipped for having a beer now and then?

I would suspect that in a lot of cases someone would be at least disfellowshipped for an abortion (other than for the reasons outlined in the CHOI). I suspect someone would be at least disfellowshipped for having sex outside of (non same sex) marriage (especially if they are melchizedek priesthood holder, been to the temple, or something like that). If someone breaks the WoW would that get them for disfellowshipped or, worse, excommunicated? If it is a beer now and then I would suspect not. What if someone has a little gay sex now and then? (Say, not the hardcore stuff but just maybe the Bill Clinton "I didn't not have sex..." stuff including with maybe cigars, etc.) Could we get a ruling from the bishops around here?

The only way an alcoholic or a junkie is going to be exed is he is having gay sex.

[Uncle Ted]

The only way an alcoholic or a junkie is going to be exed is he is having gay sex.

Thanks for the ruling, Bishop.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You seem to be talking about the religious morality of gay marriage, while to me the SCOTUS was concerned about the inequality of gays in matters of law. I think they did a good job letting religion fight their own battles.

No, the SCOTUS ruled there was a fundamental right to gay marriage, the ruling was not based on equal protection. IIRC correctly, a quick summation of "substantive due process" is that the government (and states) cannot pass laws that deprive someone of certain fundamental rights. Due process means that the government can't take life, liberty or property without an appropriate procedure that limits the possibility of being railroaded. The SCOTUS developed a legal doctrine of fundamental rights that the government can't infringe or else there will be a de facto deprivation of due process rights. I believe the first case on this front was Griswold vs. Connecticut which overturned a Connecticut law that either banned or limited the legality of contraception.

The Catch-22 here is that by allowing for a fundamental right to gay marriage, the SCOTUS has made it much easier for polygamy to be legalized. But if the court had ruled on equal protection grounds -- which they didn't -- it would have been easier for the hardcore lefties to launch an attack against religions that don't want to perform or recognize gay marriage. Gays were not recognized as a suspect class under equal protection. Without that, laws that ostensibly discriminate based on sexual orientation aren't subjected to heightened scrutiny.

I'm not sure how the argument would go, but if we take the example of the tax-exempt status of churches, if gays were regarded as a "suspect class" under equal protection, then those litigating these cases on behalf of gay rights groups would argue that the government is violating the equal protection clause by granting tax-exempt status to churches that discriminate based on sexual orientation. To me, a hypothetical case like this is hard to figure out for several reasons, but first is whether the government has actually passed a law that discriminates against gays, because the government isn't discriminating -- the churches are. Then second, you have to look at how the free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment works with the equal protection clause of the 14th.

The Supreme Court's ruling last Friday was actually the more narrow and conservative grounds for allowing gay marriage, as opposed to allowing it on equal protection grounds.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just about anyone celebrating original intent strict constructionism in criticizing this decision is employing a legal doctrine to support their subjective view of morality. Most of these people are active in a Christian sect. Scalia, a lifelong, active Catholic, is thoroughly hypocritical and disingenuous in this sense. I confess: my conviction about the immorality of opposing same sex marriage very much clouds my own constitutional thinking. What's ironic about the complaints about subversion of the democratic process is that the justices are also sensitive to the political will. Does anyone believe this would have happened had it not been for the sudden reverse tide of public opinion following Proposition 8? This dispute is all about morality and our nation's consensus about morality.

I think Scalia's dissent was mostly about Scalia. Probably the same is true about the other dissenters. With all the marriages going on everywhere now, if stare decises should ever prevent modification of a Supreme Court's statement of what the law is, it is here. The dissents are like counting angels on the head of a pin. Pointless mental masturbation.

lol. Have you read Scalia's dissent? He started the name calling.

I hate to break this terrible truth to you. This is how judges usually decide cases. It's about what they think is right, not about elegant legal constructs. In my opinion, this is the hardest, most terrible thing about being a lawyer.

SU, have you seen this Jon Stewart clip about Scalia's dissent? He addresses both the hypocrisy and the name-calling you mention. Hilarious.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/jon...rit-1714926675