- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I know this might be a challenge but please keep politics out of this discussion. Elder Oaks clarified the church support for the Respect for Marriage Act.
Quote:Some of our members have expressed concerns that the new national Respect for Marriage law is in conflict with the Church’s teachings against same-sex marriage. We see a need to clarify the Church’s position on that new law.
At the time the national Respect for Marriage Act was adopted, the Church publicly reaffirmed our Church doctrine approving only marriage between one man and one woman.
Marriage bills previously proposed in the Congress made no attempt to protect religious freedom. The Church came out in favor of amendments that added religious freedom protections to the proposed Respect for Marriage Act. The amended bill was signed into law, but its overall effect was misunderstood because many news stories focused on only the part of the act that affirmed same-sex marriage.
The Respect for Marriage Act did restate same-sex marriage as the law of the land, but that added little because that law was already in effect under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. The focus of the Church’s efforts was not on same-sex marriage, but on ensuring the act contained the necessary protections for religious freedom.
As signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act included valuable provisions to assure that no federal or state laws could be used to harm the religious or conscience rights of faith-based institutions or their members. In the end, the total law ensures that religious organizations, religious schools, and their staff do not have to perform or host same-sex marriages or celebrations. It protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. It protects the grants, licenses, contracts and accreditation of religious schools. And it specifically provides that its own provisions cannot be used to violate anyone’s rights to religious freedom. Putting such protections in the federal law was a big step forward. We will be alert to proposed future state action and legislation as we continue our defense of religious freedom.
I wish, wish, wish that the explanation could have included something like a softening towards our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. Instead, the church appears to have been solely motivated by self interest.
I wish as much as well, Roy, but that was clearly not Oaks’ intent. However, in the church’s defense, I think they felt it necessary to make a “clarification” because some of the old guard expressed the very concern the church was softening on gay marriage (and I don’t believe the church was). The old guard aren’t the only tithe payers and local leaders, but many of them are both. Oaks, in his usual form, summed up the church’s support in that last paragraph quoted:
Quote:In the end, the total law ensures that religious organizations, religious schools, and their staff do not have to perform or host same-sex marriages or celebrations. It protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. It protects the grants, licenses, contracts and accreditation of religious schools. And it specifically provides that its own provisions cannot be used to violate anyone’s rights to religious freedom.
I believe that is true and it’s what the old guard needs to hear. Oaks always seems to lean toward appeasing the old guard as opposed to the rest of us, and that’s what he did here.
While I wish we could support same-sex marriage inside the Church, I like that we are officially supporting it for those outside the Church who want it. It is not my ideal, but it is improvement – and I think it better aligns with the 11th Article of Faith.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.