My brief discussion with a fellow ward member

[SoCalCoug]

So, which press release is the true one?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...der-attraction

1. Against civil unions and domestic parternships with same rights as marriage.
2. Against adoption by gays in such relationships.

PWNED.

Before you hurt yourself slapping your own back, read it again and more carefully. First, it says the church only objects to conveyance of all rights of marriage, although it identifies adoption as a key rigth that they would keep with marriage alone. IOW, if you take a marriage and call it a union, then they object. But if you make a union that is somethign less than marriage (i.e. no adoption rights) then it may be fine. The quotation I offered, which is more recent, identifies certain rights to which they do not object being given to civil unions. These differences, btw, are why I said "Not exactly" in my post.

Can you wrap your head around any of that?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by creekster

Before you hurt yourself slapping your own back, read it again and more carefully. First, it says the church only objects to conveyance of all rights of marriage, although it identifies adoption as a key rigth that they would keep with marriage alone. IOW, if you take a marriage and call it a union, then they object. But if you make a union that is somethign less than marriage (i.e. no adoption rights) then it may be fine. The quotation I offered, which is more recent, identifies certain rights to which they do not object being given to civil unions. These differences, btw, are why I said "Not exactly" in my post.

Can you wrap your head around any of that?

You forgot to say "pwned".

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Not exactly. THe church stated in a press release:

"It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman."

"Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...otes#continued

No, it is exactly what Waters said. His quote from Wickman (the church's general counsel) states exactly what Waters said, which is that any governmentally recognized union between a man and a woman that grants the same rights and privileges as a marriage is wrong and not supported by the church.

What you are saying is different than what Waters asserted. You are saying that the church doesn't oppose granting SOME rights and/or privileges to gay couples. That is also true (although the church's press release includes language that creates an exemption for where those rights infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches, whatever that is supposed to mean), but only insofar as the union doesn't grant ALL of the rights and/or privileges.

In short, I think the church's position is fairly summed up as this:

1. Unions which are the legal equivalent of marriage are wrong.
2. Some rights and/or privileges may be appropriately granted, including a handful mentioned in the church's press release, all subject to the church's determination in any instance that granting any rights (including those mentioned in the church's press release), may not actually be appropriate.

I think the church's position on #1 is clear. The church has effectively taken no helpful position with respect to guidance on #2.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by NorCalCoug

The thing I hate about the whole ordeal is the horrible precedent that it would have set where the people already voted overwhelmingly on something (see Proposition 22 in 2000 - 61% YES vote) and having that overturned by a few liberal yippy yahoo judges who feel it's within their rights to legislate from the bench.

Isn't it the court's job to protect us against unconstitutional laws? It shouldn't be concerned with what the majority wants. It's not the majority that needs protection. If judges are going to lean one way, I would prefer that they are liberal. I would rather be granted excessive rights (if there is such a thing) than have rights restricted. Conservatives always want to tell other people how to live. How about letting people live their lives without having your outdated ideals infringe on them.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Conservatives always want to tell other people how to live.

Sincerely,

Al Gore

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, it is exactly what Waters said. His quote from Wickman (the church's general counsel) states exactly what Waters said, which is that any governmentally recognized union between a man and a woman that grants the same rights and privileges as a marriage is wrong and not supported by the church.

What you are saying is different than what Waters asserted. You are saying that the church doesn't oppose granting SOME rights and/or privileges to gay couples. That is also true (although the church's press release includes language that creates an exemption for where those rights infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches, whatever that is supposed to mean), but only insofar as the union doesn't grant ALL of the rights and/or privileges.

In short, I think the church's position is fairly summed up as this:

1. Unions which are the legal equivalent of marriage are wrong.
2. Some rights and/or privileges may be appropriately granted, including a handful mentioned in the church's press release, all subject to the church's determination in any instance that granting any rights (including those mentioned in the church's press release), may not actually be appropriate.

I think the church's position on #1 is clear. The church has effectively taken no helpful position with respect to guidance on #2.

The church has staked out its position as "ok" with some undefined nebulous form of "civil union-lite."

If the church were to actually try and roll back those rights that already exist, which it opposes, wow, what an undertaking.

When/if this church becomes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Straights, there will be many that will have a difficult time with it, both members and non-members.

Perhaps there are moderate voices which might see this course as suicide for the church. Or rather, suicide for a church that includes people more liberal than exUte and NorCal.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The church has staked out its position as "ok" with some undefined nebulous form of "civil union-lite."

If the church were to actually try and roll back those rights that already exist, which it opposes, wow, what an undertaking.

When/if this church becomes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Straights, there will be many that will have a difficult time with it, both members and non-members.

Perhaps there are moderate voices which might see this course as suicide for the church. Or rather, suicide for a church that includes people more liberal than exUte and NorCal.

I guess you better ask for your name to be removed from the records now, because it already is a church for straights. It's not a church for anyone engaging in homo sex anyway.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

I guess you better ask for your name to be removed from the records now, because it already is a church for straights. It's not a church for anyone engaging in homo sex anyway.

So we are agreed that I am right, and you are wrong on whether gay rights are involved in this issue.

I'm glad this guy in the ward has me to talk to, and not you. But then again, maybe all you would try to do is tell him to believe in your way, or hit the highway.

[YOhio]

Equality Utah is taking some of the words used by church officials in an attempt to get church support for a Gay Bill of Rights. This one will be fun to watch.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10949324