Legal stuff and children in same sex marriage

[Anonymous]

Sorry I know the Internet is exploding with this but I have a question.

And before that. Yes. I’m a sensitive guy. I cried last night before I slept, thinking about all the people who will be affected by the new policy. I feel like someone took my church and did horrible things with it.

A family member told me he talked to an area 70. The 70 explained why the new policy was put in place.

I live in Denmark and don’t know anything about the laws in the US.

The explanation:

If a mixed orientation marriage breaks up and the child wants to be a member but the homosexual member won’t allow it, the heterosexual parent could risk losing custody because she is in the church and could be viewed as not fit for being a parent because she is in the church.

This is paraphrasing and I didn’t hear the original conversation.

But can this in any way be true? And wouldn’t it be exactly the same with two heterosexual parents?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see this scenario as ringing true. From what I observe religion does not usually play a part in legal custody in the US. As far as church policy goes, I believe if one parent does not allow baptism the kid can’t be baptized until he or she reaches 18. This new policy brings into question whether the child can be baptized at all if the gay and straight parent have joint custody.

[Anonymous]

I am not a lawyer, but that is the way I understood it – or some ramification. US law can be crazy and you can sue over what many (even vast majority) thinks is ridiculous. You may not win, but you can hassle someone like this.

But let’s say for a moment that is true. There are many other cases such as a part-member couple that this could happen. I heard someone say that as a teen they were able to join the church because her mother said “yes”, but her father refused to give permission. Why are they only calling this out on Gay parent’s children?

Also couldn’t the church handle this another way if it truly is a legal issue and have the gay parent sign something saying, “I am giving my OK even though I know there is potential for my child to hear at church that my conduct is sinful and I will not hold the church liable”?

[Anonymous]

I do not think this can be answered with anything close to certainty. Not just because we are not lawyers, but that even lawyers would not be able to say one way or another.

Having gone through the divorce process, and custody issues with the courts, all I can say is that it does not often follow what “logically” we think should happen. It is a legal process that is strange and complex and foreign to me, which is why lawyers make money.

I do know that in my case, the issue or religious belief was specifically brought up that I had changed my lifestyle choices and my religious beliefs. Of course, it was my ex trying to build a case that I should not have custody rights, and among many other false claims, was completely wrong. My lawyer had to fight to discredit the false claims, as I have remained active at church. The point is…the legal process DID review this as a factor in the decisions for the custody of the kids, and it is written into my divorce agreement to maintain church participation.

You would not think these things become part of a legal process where freedoms of religions are written in the constitution…but the legal process is not logical to us, nor easy and clear cut. It is interpreted by lawyers and judges.

It comes down to what lawyers will or will not fight for, and you are at the mercy of the judge that rules.

These concerns raised in the OP are valid concerns. I don’t think even a lawyer could answer, only provide legal advice and then it would have to play out in an individual circumstance.

Anyone in such a situation should get a good lawyer, and shop around for the right lawyer that will fight for your needs.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. I am not big into lawyer bashing – I have too many very good friends that I deeply respect. But it reminds me of a saying that I think has some truth even without lawyer bashing.

“put one lawyer in a small town and they will barely make enough to live on, put two lawyers in a town and they will be the wealthiest two people in the town” (updated to be less sexists and replaced “man” with “people”).

My point that I took away from the Thoughtful Faith was I could see where there might be a way that the church was trying to just stay out of court a bit (a wise thing for them to do) and there is some truth to it keeping kids from being in the middle of some divorces. The latter was certainly has some huge issues. Would the legal term being “throwing them under the bus”?

[Anonymous]

Ok so here is my theory on the legal reasoning for this new policy.

Quote:

I have read a bunch about this new policy. Most of what I am reading does not appear to get to what I believe to be the heart of the issue.

I am a business man. Where I work we have a policy where no outside organizations or individuals can post signs or solicit. This means that you can’t put up a sign for a fundraiser for children with cancer or ask your coworkers to buy a candy bar for your kid’s soccer team. This policy is to protect against unions. The reasoning goes that if we allow these kinds of postings and solicitations then we would be hard pressed to deny similar practices from individuals trying to organize the labor force. Management does not want a union.

I look at this new policy from that same perspective and I believe that church leadership does too. The quotes are from an article found here: http://lds.net/blog/buzz/lds-news/myths … ys-policy/

I do not agree with much of what the article says but it is the only place that I have found so far that at least addresses the legal issue

“Adultery and fornication are both grounds for excommunication. Up until the legalization of same-sex marriage, those who participated in same-sex relationships could receive church discipline under either of these other grounds.

The Church respects the law, and now recognizes same-sex marriages as legal, even if still sinful. Because of this, same-sex relationships could no longer be penalized as fornication requiring their addition to the definition of apostasy.”

This is a problem. Very soon we could have people in gay marriages that are active in the church. (imagine that someone like Mitch Mayne where to get married to someone of the same gender tomorrow.) Is there any question in the TR interview that would prevent such a person from attending the temple to do endowments or baptisms for the dead? How can we draw a hard line in the sand to prevent this kind of scenario? I imagine that this is THE big reason for the addition to the apostasy definition.

“If anything, this action is a response to protect the Church from the recent Supreme Court ruling. By categorizing same-sex relationships as apostasy, the Church puts itself in a strong legal position should a same-sex couple sue in order to be married by a bishop or in the temple.”

I do not think it reasonable to fear that gay people would sue to get married in the temple and actually believe that this is an element of fear mongering. There seem to be very strong protections on the division of church and state that would protect this from happening. However, I could see people suing for other reasons. Suppose that I am in a gay marriage and am enrolled at BYU – should I not have access to married student housing? Suppose that I work for one of the enterprises in the business arm of the church and am in a same sex marriage – Should my spouse be covered under my medical plan? Can I legally be fired for getting same sex married? In my mind declaring such unions as apostasy helps to keep such problems from happening. You cannot have access to married student housing and are probably kicked out of BYU because your marriage is a continuing act of apostasy. You cannot have a same sex spouse on the insurance because your marriage is a continuing act of apostasy. You can be fired for getting same sex married because to do so represents an act of apostasy. There could be hundreds or thousands of legal questions regarding how same sex married couples need to be legally treated in church run businesses and universities. For me this is THE other big reason for this policy. This policy helps to answer all these questions and protect the church legally. Charity and love have nothing to do with it – this is business.

But why the stuff about not baptizing the kids until they turn 18, etc. etc?

This question gets answered pretty well by the Lawyer interviewed on the Thoughtful Faith Podcast. He said that divorced parents suing each other for “parental alienation” is something that is relatively new and growing. One parent teaches the kids that the other parent is a horrible person. He speculated that the guys at the church law firm may have already fought some cases on these grounds where one of the divorced parents is homosexual and that the trend would likely increase over time as homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable and gay couples become legally married.

It sounded like this Lawyer being interviewed was familiar with the church process, had worked with/against church lawyers, and had discussed upcoming trends in the legal/litigation environment with some of these guys but did not have any direct knowledge of the back room decision making involved in creating this policy. He did say that he had information from a reliable source that the church law firm drafted the policy – which he then went on to clarify meant that they probably drafted policy options that the Brethren could review and decide upon.

So there you go – that is the best legal justification that I have been able to cobble together so far with a healthy dose of speculation mixed in.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info Roy. It does help make a bit of sense of this.

Roy wrote:

He said that divorced parents suing each other for “parental alienation” is something that is relatively new and growing. One parent teaches the kids that the other parent is a horrible person.

The bolded part is certainly something new!

[Author]

Posts