Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[LiveCoug]

Anyone who says this is not a big change is being disingenuous. This does not just cover children adopted by a gay couple. The way it is written, anyone who has a married or cohabiting gay parent (<--singular) falls under this policy. We have a family in our ward where the husband left his wife for another man when their three sons were young. The mother won primary custody, but the father (who lived with his partner) had custody every other weekend and during parts of the summer. Mother was devout LDS and these kids were fully integrated into the ward. Baptism, ordination, scouts, youth conference, temple trips, everything. They were part of our ward family and everyone loved them and included them in every way. Under this new policy, this will not be possible. This is a stunning and far-reaching decision.

Like the polygamy policy, I don't see this as being seen too often. That said, I don't understand the policy and I don't really like it.

It doesn't make me angry and bitter like many I see here and on facebook, though. I'm still all in.

[Green Monstah]

How many of you were this upset when polygamist children were told the same thing?

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/s...n-church-73787

I hope you are outraged.

The Maddie Brown situation made me sad. She is probably the most reasonable person on that stupid show.

I feel the same way here. Not mad, just really disappointed.

[Green Monstah]

I think I'm done.

I won't lie, I had the same thought last night, but the more I think about it, the more I think that there are parents and kids who need allies within.

[smokymountainrain]

I won't lie, I had the same thought last night, but the more I think about it, the more I think that there are parents and kids who need allies within.

Of course. If you think you're right, all the more reason to stay in. Can't do any good as it pertains to the church from the outside.

[Green Monstah]

Anyone who says this is not a big change is being disingenuous. This does not just cover children adopted by a gay couple. The way it is written, anyone who has a married or cohabiting gay parent (<--singular) falls under this policy. We have a family in our ward where the husband left his wife for another man when their three sons were young. The mother won primary custody, but the father (who lived with his partner) had custody every other weekend and during parts of the summer. Mother was devout LDS and these kids were fully integrated into the ward. Baptism, ordination, scouts, youth conference, temple trips, everything. They were part of our ward family and everyone loved them and included them in every way. Under this new policy, this will not be possible. This is a stunning and far-reaching decision.

I have to think that the policy will be revised so that it will not apply to kids in the situation you describe, but as written, no such exception exists.

[TripletDaddy]

I think I'm done.

No!!!!!! Please reconsider!!!!

[Harry Tic]

Or consider the phrase, "has lived ... in a same gender cohabitation or marriage relationship." Imagine that a young woman--perhaps before joining the church--goes through a lesbian period and briefly lives with a partner. Joins the church, temple marriage, Relief Society president, the whole works. Years later she has kids, having put her past behind her (or so she thinks!) and maybe even forgotten about it. Turns out her little pride and joy, Tylar Caleb McConkie Smith, will need to get permission from the 1P to get baptized. Because, you know, those weird couple of months back in mom's college days.

[TripletDaddy]

More deets about her lesbian phase please. Pics if poss.

[Harry Tic]

More deets about her lesbian phase please. Pics if poss.

Yeah, I guess I should taken into account the fact that DDD is all over this thread and predicted his response. Bad example on my part.

[Commando]

More deets about her lesbian phase please. Pics if poss.

I did my first adjustment of status for a lesbian couple this week. Totally hott.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The meteor has hit.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Anyone who says this is not a big change is being disingenuous. This does not just cover children adopted by a gay couple. The way it is written, anyone who has a married or cohabiting gay parent (<--singular) falls under this policy. We have a family in our ward where the husband left his wife for another man when their three sons were young. The mother won primary custody, but the father (who lived with his partner) had custody every other weekend and during parts of the summer. Mother was devout LDS and these kids were fully integrated into the ward. Baptism, ordination, scouts, youth conference, temple trips, everything. They were part of our ward family and everyone loved them and included them in every way. Under this new policy, this will not be possible. This is a stunning and far-reaching decision.

Agreed.

[cougjunkie]

I think I'm done.

Lol, cabron.

[Moliere]

Anyone who says this is not a big change is being disingenuous. This does not just cover children adopted by a gay couple. The way it is written, anyone who has a married or cohabiting gay parent (<--singular) falls under this policy. We have a family in our ward where the husband left his wife for another man when their three sons were young. The mother won primary custody, but the father (who lived with his partner) had custody every other weekend and during parts of the summer. Mother was devout LDS and these kids were fully integrated into the ward. Baptism, ordination, scouts, youth conference, temple trips, everything. They were part of our ward family and everyone loved them and included them in every way. Under this new policy, this will not be possible. This is a stunning and far-reaching decision.

I wouldn't say your situation above is black and white. I would think given that the mom had primary custody that the kids could still have participated, at least according to the new policy. Of course you might need to get first presidency approval, but it is certainly possible.

That doesn't change the fact the policy is dumb and hurtful and contradictory to many hutch teachings. But that's nothing new. The church has gone against many teachings in the scriptures before and will probably continue to do so in the future.

[TripletDaddy]

The meteor has hit.

What do you predict will happen?