- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote:
Handbook 1 answers that question:Handbook 1; Section 3.6.3.1 wrote:Church officers and Latter-day Saint chaplains are not to use their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex.
If you want to get very technical, that sounds like a bishop could perform a same sex marriage but they would have to obtain authority to perform marriages apart from their authority as a BP and make it clear (somehow) that they are using the non-church given authority to perform the marriage.
Even then I’d imagine there would be an issue. Optically it would be the bishop using his authority to perform the marriage even if they were acting with authority provided elsewhere.
I had an interesting conversation with my mother and wife about something similar to this. My nephew is gay, and recently became engaged to his partner. In order to help facilitate the marriage of one of my best friends, I went online last summer and got “ordained” so that I could legally officiate at his wedding. I performed the ceremony and it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. I don’t plan to do this often, but when close friends or family desire my help, I freely offer it. I did so in the case of my nephew, figuring it would mean more if I officiated than some random government official. Both my wife and mother objected to this offer, but for different reasons. My mother because she felt it could be grounds for me to be excommunicated (I don’t agree, but can see her point and fear) and my wife because while she’s supportive of my nephew, she felt that having me officiate went to far (I see her point but don’t necessarily agree). This may all be avoided if one of his friends officiates. In any case, these were some interesting and thought provoking discussions I’ve had recently about boundaries and how far a member could go in supporting a same-sex lifestyle without endangering their church standing.
Thank you for sharing that Rumin. Sounds like an interesting moral, ethical, and social quagmire to navigate. Sometimes those sorts of sticky issues provide the greatest opportunities for personal growth. I agree with Roy, Rumin – it does seem difficult. My daughter had been engaged to a non-member atheist (self described) and I had offered to get an online ordination and perform their wedding. My wife was supportive of the idea and DD was not opposed. I don’t guess I believe this is related at all to any “official position” I might have int he church. It has nothing to do with this church at all. But I can see how someone else might see it in an entirely different light. FWIW, Robert Kirby did once write a column about how he got ordained and did perform a gay marriage and he’s still a member. Thanks for the podcast DJ. DarkJedi wrote:The vast majority of married gay couple members (or ex-members) are not active and have no desire to be and don;t want their kids to be either. My own opposition to the policy was that it was unfair – it treated gays couples (and their children) differently than hetero couples (and their children) for the same sin.
Actually as I have pointed out before, it affects heterosexual parents too. If someone gets married, has a child and their other half runs off with a homosexual partner, that means that their child would have been excluded from these church rituals, because of the behavior of their other half. I dated someone at high school who I think leaned towards lesbianism more than heterosexuality – it would have been possible we could have had children…
Now if she got married to me, and ran off with a woman & divorced me, not only would I be still paying money to her to live off, but she would almost certainly have custody of the child(ren), and I would have to pay to get access to them.
But say I did get occasional access to them or even got custody (which is unlikely given that men rarely do get that in divorce courts except in extreme cases)… Then if I wanted the child(ren) to “obtain church blessings”, a bishop or whoever could turn around and say that their mother was lesbian and refuse them (even if their mother herself consented).
SamBee wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:The vast majority of married gay couple members (or ex-members) are not active and have no desire to be and don;t want their kids to be either. My own opposition to the policy was that it was unfair – it treated gays couples (and their children) differently than hetero couples (and their children) for the same sin.
Actually as I have pointed out before, it affects heterosexual parents too. If someone gets married, has a child and their other half runs off with a homosexual partner, that means that their child would have been excluded from these church rituals, because of the behavior of their other half. I dated someone at high school who I think leaned towards lesbianism more than heterosexuality – it would have been possible we could have had children…
Now if she got married to me, and ran off with a woman & divorced me, not only would I be still paying money to her to live off, but she would almost certainly have custody of the child(ren), and I would have to pay to get access to them.
But say I did get occasional access to them or even got custody (which is unlikely given that men rarely do get that in divorce courts except in extreme cases)… Then if I wanted the child(ren) to “obtain church blessings”, a bishop or whoever could turn around and say that their mother was lesbian and refuse them (even if their mother herself consented).
You are correct, Sam, but it’s still a very small number of children. I’m one of the biggest opponents of the old policy, we’re on the same page.
My point is that that policy’s consequences didn’t just affect LGBT people, but heterosexual parents as well as their children. Very poorly thought out. I wager that there are quite a few families in this position, where one half has gone into a same sex relationship and the other doesn’t. I myself know of a few people who used to attend our ward who are now in gay relationships. What if they had married someone in the church, had children (both of which are heavily encouraged by the LDS) and then gone off that way? What about converts who had children before joining?
One girl who used to be in YSA with seemed obviously lesbian to me by her behavior, but no one else picked up on it and she wasn’t out of the closet. I never remarked on it at the time. Some years down the line and it’s now on her Facebook profile, and she’s inactive.
I don’t disagree Sam, but it’s really relative. Out of 16 million members we’re talking a few thousand at the very most. And homosexuals are not the only people in situations like that – I know several families just in my stake where one spouse has become disaffected (sometimes divorced, sometimes not) or never was a member and won’t allow the children to be baptized, ordained, etc. Again, out of 16 million it’s a very small number/percentage. One of the problems with the policy was that it was the church making the ordinances unavailable to that very small number. That said, it is not my intention to minimize the individual impact the policy had on people – it did hurt people and in some ways still does. I think those few thousand people do matter to the Lord. Sure, I get that, but with those parents, it’s not the result of an official policy. I believe it was the church’s biggest misfire since they finally got rid of the priesthood ban.
Recently the reversal of the POX has come under question. Days after the POX reversal (early April) the church issued many updates to the Church Handbook of Instruction 1. Those updates did not include a reversal of the POX. At the time no one was really concerned, citing that the April updates to the handbook were probably in the works before the POX reversal, and that they would be in the next round of updates.
The next round of updates happened a few days ago. Those updates did
notremove the POX from official policy. The handbook does include language that removes the one year penalty for getting sealed after a civil union. I mention this because the policy of the one year penalty changed
afterthe POX reversal. It made it into the updated handbook while the POX reversal did not. (parenthetical note: isn’t it great to have a handbook to help minister to people that’s full of exclusion policies and penalties)
I’ve read rumors that the entire chapter in which the POX language is found is currently being rewritten (as opposed to tweaks to language here and there) and that the updates will be released sometime in the next 6 weeks.
That said… this is kind of crazy. BPs and SPs referencing the handbook will still find the POX. The POX was supposedly reversed in early April. Did we reverse the policy or not???
I am ill, if this happens. ^^^^^ If the entire chapter is being rewritten, I can wait – but it is tone deaf not to change that particular policy even if the rest isn’t ready to publish.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.