I wish all Church’s would stand up!!!!

Legislation can not over rule the constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Religion. That guarantee is one of the supreme laws of the land and will nullify the requirements of any religious practice to conform to a practice. Furthermore, that constitutional guarantee allows the Church an almost unfettered ability to set its own policy. The only restriction that could effect faithful LDS is that a Mormon who works as a Justice of the Peace or in any other similar civil capacity would be required, as a function of their office, to perform their civil duties for all, this will undoubtedly create moral quandary and ethical dilemma for those few who object on religious grounds to performing their duties. It would be wise for the legislature to craft legislation that would protect the employment of those who so object. I believe the church would be prudent to actively protect their members by intervening in the political process for that purpose only.

I really think you are missing the main point of this entire battle although your argument is logical and appears correct.

While you’re right that there is no requirement to “support” marriage equality a church still can’t discriminated against same sex couples in a ceremony which the state needs to recognize as legally binding. Anti-discrimination laws stop them from doing so for legally binding practices such as marriage or adoption or mediation (which Bishops can do in some areas of the world). Priesthood ordination aren’t recognized by the state therefore not a discrimination issue. But marriage, in many ways, can be seen as a service performed by the church on behalf of the government since the government regulates who can and who can’t marry (underage, siblings etc).

The consequences of all of this is that Temple marriages won’t be recognized by the state anymore as already happens in many countries. And the ability to marry would be taken away from Bishops since they’d “discriminate” against same sex couples. Remember that Bishops can marry because the state grants them the legal authority to do so, not from priesthood authority.

But then again people in many countries need to marry before the state in one ceremony and then travel to a Temple for the church marriage so in many ways this is already happening in some countries and isn’t a concern for the church.

And off course all this could be avoided if they grant specific permission to churches to discriminate against same sex couples as they allow them to discriminate when hiring professors in BYU or seminaries, but I doubt they will.

Kennyboon, the decision of the California Supreme Court does not require any church to “support” marriage equality. Churches are free to teach and believe whatever doctrine they wish. Likewise, the court’s decision has nothing at all to do with requiring that the LDS church marry same-sex couples in its temples. Temple marriage is completely different from civil marriage. Anyone who tells you that the court’s decision will make the LDS church have to marry same-sex couples in its temples is lying to you, in order to scare you into giving them money.

Its also about overturning the will of the people, not only the gay marriage issue.

After all the first presidency start that letter by addressing the court’s overturning the the people choice clearly expressed in March 2008. I don’t think that this was the case in the MA. MA voters would probably be overwhelmingly pro gay marriage.

I understand why you would be hesitant to buy into the ‘clean up the church’ idea – it seems to smack of both a conspiracy theory by the church and a victims complex among those that disagree. Notwithstanding this, I can’t help but think of the publicity nightmare for the church when the September Six and the Danzigs (sic) were kicked out. This is a convenient way to have the socially liberal element remove themselves from the Church and to align themselves with mainstream evangelicals.

I might be wrong on this point, but it seems pretty convenient.

You can find it here. http://www.affirmation.org/media/2008_06_24.shtml

I’ll paste it below

Open Letter to California Mormons
“We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy”

by Jeffrey S. Nielsen
24 June 2008

I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we’ve made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders’ encroachment into political matters. In fact, a growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members, are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60’s when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70’s when they opposed legal equality for women.

Of course, religious authorities of any denomination possess the right, and may claim the legitimacy, to set the theology and policy for their religious community. When they; however, attempt to interject religious doctrine into the public spaces of a diverse democracy without reasonable justification, then members, especially faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.

No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violate your religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not physically harm another person. After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.

I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender. So to discriminate and deny them equal protection and equal opportunity under civil law because of these natural traits; especially in this case, sexual orientation, is grossly unfair and should be rejected outright in a compassionate and just democracy. If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.

You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment. I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents. I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the unreasonable and unjust call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family.

Somehow I can’t envision the FP and the Q12 sitting in a meeting saying, “How do we get rid of members who think for themselves? Hmmmm, how about we oppose gay marriage? Yeah, that will drive out those who think for themselves.”

That is not the way it works here in Ontario. I am not aware of any prelate performing a marriage against their will. Churches set their policies and their members participate in the manner those members see fit. The laws of the country determine what is acceptable to the public at large AND with respect to the rights of minority groups. Minority Groups include people like Mormons and Homosexuals, because both groups suffer (or have suffered) discrimination, the law seeks to ensure that all people are apart of society. Criminal sanctions are set against activities that are demonstrated to be harmful. Judges are set as adjudicators. Lawyers are employed to argue reason and morality. Politicians are employed as delegates of the majority. The majority sets the rules, if these rules do not apply to harmful activities and have the effect of excluding a minority group from fundamental rights, the courts will either strike down a law or read down a law so that the law is eliminated or interpreted in a way that permits all people to be equal actors in society.

Limits on the ability of the majority / government are entirely necessary for a free society, because when the majority excludes a minority group that does no demonstrative harm, then freedom of the individual is meaningless. This is the key to the entire debate. The ‘wrongfulness’ of a particular practice is not in question, the harm to society has not been proven to any impartial adjudicator, period. I would suggest that much evidence exists to the contrary, and feel the courts have rightly decided. There is no grounds to merit a constitutional amendment that, in light of the present decision result in the amendment being read down as much as possible.

In short the church is encouraging members to waste time and effort to attempt to exclude members of society that are not a threat to society. The only thing to be gained in the exercise is the alienation of those progressives who remain in the church. In fact, I believe this letter is an effort to clean the church of those who would think for themselves, think of the consequences for their fellow man, and who would require proof before walking on the rights of others based on their sexual preferences. It is certainly a sharp edge.

“If the church doesn’t use government funds, it can set whatever policy it wants and the government cannot do a thing about it”

I believe this is wrong and its the key to this entire debate. The point is that it isn’t allowed to set its own policies at all in this area of adoption simply because it rejects same sex marriage. Its not about using public money or not but in not being allowed to legally provide adoption services, or even provide legal marriage services, since it rejects gay-marriage and this is then seen as discriminatory by the courts. Once gay-marriage is legal, a church will have to marry gays or no one at all, and provide adoption services to both gays and straights or no one at all. Maybe #219 articulates this better. The only way around this is to specifically permit discrimination against same-sex couples in the anti-discrimination act, therefore it would permit a church group to discriminate against some couples just as, say, the military discriminates against persons of certain age in choosing officer candidates (for example). But the discriminating against gay couples would have to be listed as specific exemptions to anti-discrimination law.

Nick,

I doubt I will ever convince you of the wrongfulness of gay marriage or of homosexuality for that matter. But then, as I’ve said before, you are free to lobby your case but so is the church and so is Pt Monson. Oh, you’re right about the testimony on Jesus in 2000, I’d forgotten about that, my bad. So now its the revelation on the priesthood in ‘78, then the proclamation in ‘95 and finally the Jesus statement? in ‘00.

I’ll take the comments here so far into account in developing my opening salvo. I will probably begin the post with a definition of what I understand “love” to be, so we can see if we have common ground there as a prelude to debating whether or not love can be “unconditional.”

I imagine we’ll come up with a few different definitions of what love, and especially God’s love, really is.

I would also like to do a separate post on whether or not–or to what degree–Mormonism is like spiritual Darwinism.

First, I don’t equate the possibility of receiving a lesser eternal reward as a result of my own actions as a sign that God loves me any less. Indeed, the fact that God gives us the opportunity to use free agency can be seen as the ultimate expression of love. The fact that I screw it up and, hence, don’t live up to my potential does not mean God loves me any less because of my acts. Think of how we parents relate to our children. I give them instructions and rules, adherence to which may result in a reward — for example, “if you clean up your room, we can go get ice cream tonight” If they do it, great, we’re off to get a scoop. If not, tough luck. But no matter how they choose to respond, my love for them is unchanged. I’m disappointed, but I still love them despite their faults. The fact that God puts conditions on exaltation does not, in my mind, equate to his placing conditions on his love for us.

Second, regardless of how we feel about our relationship to God, I think our mandate to love others unconditionally is pretty clear. Citations in the scriptures and Confernce talks to this point are legion. In your child molester example (always the extremes here on the ‘Net!), you’re right that the sinner may not be entitled to my trust or community (file under: fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice . . .), but he is entitled to my forgiveness and love, despite his sins. Isn’t that what “turning the other cheek” is all about? Pres. Hinckley addressed this very subject just a couple of years back (read the talk here), saying,

“I know this is a delicate and sensitive thing of which I am speaking. There are hardened criminals who may have to be locked up. There are unspeakable crimes, such as deliberate murder and rape, that justify harsh penalties. But there are some who could be saved from long, stultifying years in prison because of an unthoughtful, foolish act. Somehow forgiveness, with love and tolerance, accomplishes miracles that can happen in no other way.”

In other words, we are required to forgive all men, and forgiveness is the ultimate act of love. Sound familiar?

So, I personally hope to never hear again “the B.S. notion” that I am entitled to withhold my love from those I deem to be “sinners.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/11291/1484

Too bad, here it is again: http://mormonalliance.org/newsletter/jul_2003.htm

- Lets just make sure we don’t equate “the Correlation committee told me not to use it” with “its false doctrine.”

Also, I don’t know about you, but Love is the only unfailing, unconditional attribute about God that I can positively support. If the Ensign editorial staff didn’t like using “unconditional love”, that’s really too bad. I bet a lot of people in this Church could do well to remember God’s love more often.