Closing Temples

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

The threat of closing temples is a little extreme. It could potentially come to that, I suppose, but that would be the nuclear option.

More likely would be lawsuits that would force churches (not only ours) to perform gay marriages. Yes, I know ... I've read all the lawyers who say it's impossible. I don't believe them.

I also don't believe that just because that hasn't yet happened in Massachusetts, it means it couldn't.

Tex, I sort of understand your concern which reflects that held by a great many others. I don't expect the following to allay that concern but, if nothing else, you can file away the following information and use it to embarrass a lot of people should your fears eventually be realized.

Anyway, group of 60 or so law professors here in California, mainly in the field of constitutional law (the lawyers here will recognize some pretty big names), have weighed in unanimously that the concerns about being forced to conduct gay marriages or the loss of tax exemptions are simply unfounded. They conclude, in part, that:

"The claim that Proposition 8 is necessary to protect the tax exemptions of churches that refuse to solemnize or recognize marriages between same-sex couples is also false. As the Supreme Court of California made clear in its decision in the Marriage Cases, “affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.” 183 P.2d. 384, 451-52 (2008).""

http://www.californiaprogressreport....utional_1.html

As you fear, history may prove them wrong, but we can bring this out and really embarrass them if it does.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Thanks counselor.

I hadn't thought of precedence.

I guess we are screwed. Especially when that first lawyer in the US cites to Canadian law. That is some persuasive jurisdiction right there!

PS the Boy Scout case would not be precedent for the state of California violating the First Amendment as it pertains to freedom of religion..since the boy scout case is not about freedom of religion. You should watch more than 2 or 3 episodes of LA Law before you start making legal pronouncements.

I like you tooblue and think you are toocool, so I will now recuse myself and get sketching my bowl of fruit.

So, to continue with the condescension theme I need to be a lawyer in order to be able to understand the relevance of a homosexual man (albeit in Canada) citing the legalization of gay marriage as precedence in his case against Scouts Canada to permit him to form a Scout troop.

One completely UNRELATED ruling used as precedence to successfully win another ruling ... ?

And, furthermore I need to be a lawyer to understand you have now narrowed your argument to specifics surrounding the situation in California in the United States of America in order to avoid addressing your belittling accusations of fear-mongering.

Silly tooblue. The same thing or something similar isn't going to happen in the US. That's too much thinking outside the box. I mean seriously tooblue, you don't have a picture of a banana in your portfolio so I just don't believe you can draw one

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Thanks counselor.

I hadn't thought of precedence.

I guess we are screwed. Especially when that first lawyer in the US cites to Canadian law. That is some persuasive jurisdiction right there!

For your reading pleasure:

Davidson, from Lambda Legal, said lawyers have referred to Canadian decisions in the pending cases around the country dealing with the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts high court justices quoted Canadian marriage rulings at some length in their ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in that state.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG20A9TUS1.DTL

[exUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

We've had four years now in MA since gay marriage was legalized with a temple there in Boston. I would think if there is any legitimacy to this claim, that we would have heard a lot more of it by now.

Those kind of emails and that kind of fear tactic seems extremely manipulative and immature.

the clout yet. That's why they are going after state by state. If you think it will stop there, you are nutz. They hate religion and want to damage religion as best they can.

How long can ANY state get by with not recognizing a legal marriage from another state without some judge agreeing with that position?

And then.....

And then.......

[exUte]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

Admittedly, I am happily far far away from the Prop 8 situation in California. However, being LDS and on a ward mailing list somehow does not prevent me from getting all of the emails about prop 8. I haven't done a ton of research into it, but I heard from someone the other day that if gay marriage was legal in California, the church might be forced to close its temples.

I guess my question is two fold: 1)Has anyone else heard this? 2)For you many lawyer types...does the legalization of gay marriage in CA put a clock ticking on someone suing to get married in one of our temples? Thus the need for closing?

I would think that nobody would try that because we don't let our own members in sometimes for various reasons...and to my knowledge nobody has tried to sue over that...so why would this be any different?

Thanks.

No one knows for sure. Did you ever in your lifetime think that a law had to be passed to define what marriage is? Or a McDonald's being sued because one of their patrons spilled some coffee in their lap? Or Roe v Wade would usher in partial birth abortion (in cased you missed it, the baby is almost delivered before having forcepts inserted into the base of their skull to kill it)?

I think I heard once that Satan is pretty clever and his goal is to destroy individuals and families. I'd say he's a great marathon runner. Don't you?