- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If anyone wants the article I read from the Deseret News here is the link: The letters do appear to be signed only by local Stake leadership.
In part it reads:
“Hawaii’s largest religious denominations have come together in opposition to a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the Aloha State.
With a special session of the state Legislature two weeks away, local leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, the faith-based Hawaii Family Forum and Hawaii Family Advocates, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have independently coalesced around the position that lawmakers should not pass proposed legislation to legalize gay marriage.”
I believe marriage is a religious issue, and the government has no place or right to be involved in it. Period.
Governments should issue civil union permits that are recognized by the state…for legal reasons only.
Religion should issue marriage permits that are recognized by couples, families and perhaps the gods. It’s really no one else business.
IMO.
But since the government wants to control the marriage debate , and really don’t acknowledge religious marriages as being legit… I believe they need to not discriminate on who can and cannot get married.
This is why I’m adamently opposed to the church position and cannot support the church getting involved in making laws that forbid same sex marriage. But I can understand and respect why they, as a religious institution, has the right to decide they will not perform or recognize same sex marriages.
IMO.
cwald wrote:
IMO.But since the government wants to control the marriage debate , and really don’t acknowledge religious marriages as being legit… I believe they need to not discriminate on who can and cannot get married.
This is why I’m adamently opposed to the church position and cannot support the church getting involved in making laws that forbid same sex marriage. But I can understand and respect why they, as a religious institution, has the right to decide they will not perform or recognize same sex marriages.
IMO.
This is also my opinion, exactly. The fear of the church, and other churches which oppose same sex marriage, is that the government will force them to perform or at least recognize the marriages. I think the fear is legitimate. (Disclaimer: I am not saying that I agree with the church’s position on same sex marriage, but the church, along with other churches, is a religious and private organization which can set it’s own policy without government interference – separation of church and state is a two way street.)
To follow up on what DJ just said, I find it naive to tell church leaders (not just LDS leaders) that the government will never step in and dictate how they handle marriages. All we have to do is look at the laws that were passed, after the fact, to ban polygamy, and the people who were jailed, after the fact, for not divorcing wives they already had married when those marriages were not illegal at the time of the marriages, to see why church leaders have little if any confidence in future government action if they refuse to perform marriages that are legal within their governmental structure. I understand the differences between the two scenarios, but I also understand, as a history teacher and Mormon, how dicey it can be when the answer is, “Trust me. The government will never do (fill in the blank), because it respects your right to practice your religion according to the dictates of your own conscience.”
Those concerns get dismissed and even ridiculed by lots of people, but they are legitimate concerns – even if I personally believe it will not come to that extreme in the case of forcing all organizations to perform gay marriages.
Old-Timer wrote:To follow up on what DJ just said, I find it naive to tell church leaders (not just LDS leaders) that the government will never step in and dictate how they handle marriages. All we have to do is look at the laws that were passed, after the fact, to ban polygamy, and the people who were jailed, after the fact, for not divorcing wives they already had married when those marriages were not illegal at the time of the marriages, to see why church leaders have little if any confidence in future government action if they refuse to perform marriages that are legal within their governmental structure.
I understand the differences between the two scenarios, but I also understand, as a history teacher and Mormon, how dicey it can be when the answer is, “Trust me. The government will never do (fill in the blank), because it respects your right to practice your religion according to the dictates of your own conscience.”
Those concerns get dismissed and even ridiculed by lots of people, but they are legitimate concerns – even if I personally believe it will not come to that extreme in the case of forcing all organizations to perform gay marriages.
I agree. Government can’t be trusted on any level, for a multitude of reasons. The tax code is another very good example that shows how government can change on a whim. Churches used to be able to speak their belief towards politics and not be threatened with losing tax benefits. Then the 501(c)3 came along. Now in order for a church to continue having tax benefits, they can not speak their belief towards politics. This is why the LDS church specifically states that it has “no position”. Now, if government would just get out of regulating marriage…. One can wish, right?
Just to be precise, non-profit organizations are forbidden to use their non-profit funds to back any particular candidate. That’s an important difference. They still can express their political views and even support causes – and they even can urge their members to vote according to their religious beliefs (and specify beliefs, which, in practical terms, can equal support of one candidate over another), but they can’t spend non-profit money to support specific candidates. That’s why the Catholic Church could engage with Prop 8 and ask the LDS Church to join them, while the LDS Church couldn’t back Mitt Romney financially in his campaign – even if it had wanted to do so, which the top leadership absolutely didn’t want to do.
Thus, there is no legal restriction on any non-profit organization leaders speaking about gay marriage – or marriage issues of any kind. The issue isn’t speaking about the issues; the issue is concern over what happens with regard to non-profit organizations when something becomes the law of the land with which they do not agree.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.