Being on the wrong side of history

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is at least one primary reason the church opposes it. I think there's legitimate concern about being forced to accept/solemnize gay marriages within the church.

That's an interesting question. How could the Church be forced to do that?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

President Monson himself said that it's OK to disagree with the Church on the gay marriage issue.

If I were to send a letter to the first presidency, it would be promptly returned to my stake president, who has no voice in the matter anyway. So what's the point? I love the Church, and that's why I care about the Church's position. I don't see why it's necessary for the Church to even take a position on this issue. As the Church grows in other countries, is the Church going to make attempts to affect laws in every nation on earth? If it's a freedom of religion issue, then I can see how it's in the Church's interest. I cannot see how opposition to gay marriage is in the Church's interest.

Fair enough.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is at least one primary reason the church opposes it. I think there's legitimate concern about being forced to accept/solemnize gay marriages within the church.

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that free exercise can't be violated by the state. Something about separation or church and state.

But I could see a lot of noise about it, just as what's happened to the Boy Scouts, though a private institution isn't the same thing as a religion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

No I wouldn't. Another point for Creekster.

I still think the Church is wrong on the gay marriage issue.

I don't. The Church is not likely to take another stance again, but I would have liked to see marriage for straights and civil partnerships for others.

I would hate to have the day when the law of the land mandates who a Church recognizes as husband and wife.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would hate to have the day when the law of the land mandates who a Church recognizes as husband and wife.

It will almost certainly never do that. But it may be that a church could be forced to withdraw its ceremony from those approved to grant public beneifts such as tax deductions, etc.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

That's an interesting question. How could the Church be forced to do that?

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that free exercise can't be violated by the state. Something about separation or church and state.

But I could see a lot of noise about it, just as what's happened to the Boy Scouts, though a private institution isn't the same thing as a religion.

Free exercise is already "violated" (some would say regulated) in a variety of ways. As you point out with the Boy Scouts (which was a narrow 5-4 vote), all it takes is a few justices to see it their way and boom, you've got imposed gay marriage.

Don't think it couldn't happen.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by creekster

It will almost certainly never do that. But it may be that a church could be forced to withdraw its ceremony from those approved to grant public beneifts such as tax deductions, etc.

Not a big deal. You just get married by a justice of the peace before your temple ceremony. They already have to do this in some countries.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mudphud = Sooner.

Ok, now I see it.

Was it the "formerly known as Soonercoug" right under his name that gave it away?

[The_Tick]

I can't wait until the government says gays can marry.

Then the government is going to pull the non-profit status of the BSA because the don't alllow gays in.

Then the church gets rid of BSA.

I am all for gay marraige if this will be the outcome.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Was it the "formerly known as Soonercoug" right under his name that gave it away?

LOL, how long as THAT been there? Now you know how often I read those things.