cofchristcousin

I agree, but there is no serious bandwagon getting this going. Civil Marriage is already available in 6 states, canada, and a few others countries. By the time people are willing to accept this as an alternative to civil marriage equality it will all be over. imo. Civil Marriage = Civil Unions. Why is it not easier to just realize that the word marriage is a legal contract and also a separate and distinct religious sacrament. One need not taint the other just because it uses the same word.

Thanks for the pass, I am just lost at how much is read into my posts that I haven't said.

? How is my saying "I don't know.. I have concerns...I want to be fair... and I am open to learning more" hypocritical and stereotyping? I must be missing something.

I don't have a solid opinion on that. I believe these marriages are generally exploitive of women and children, but I don't know how that plays out constitutionally. These marriages do not fit into the same marriage contract as 2 party marriages. I don't know if a standardized contract could be crafted that would be acceptable to different colonies of polygamists. It has to be considered on it's own merit which I am willing to do when the time comes.

That would be my preference, but that boat is sailing. 6 states already have legal marriage and more to come. I will vote for either all marriage or all unions, whichever comes to my ballot box first.

Right. I wouldn't come to your church for an ordinance to obtain these benefits and responsibilities. They come with the civil contract called Marriage. It is different from the ordinance of marriage.

She didn't offer any, most likely didn't have faith they would be received and considered. I can offer some. The very same benefits that different gender marriage gives society. It makes for more stable and secure families. 20 - 30% of gay families include some children. It is best we give every family the resources, responsibilities and rights that allow them to provide for their well-being. Health Insurance for spouse and your spouse's children, survivor benefits, visitation rights, medical decision for the spouse rights, visitation of the children you are raising rights, social security, disability, tax breaks, adoption of the partner's children, the right to bury your own spouse should they die, joint parenting rights such as access to school and medical records, domestic violence intervention, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses, funeral and bereavement leave, the right to be party to securing education loans for your jointly raised children. I could go on with about 1000 more. These make for more stable families and also give more demanding responsibilities than couples without the legal commitment. The gltb families will exist whether we permit them these rights. For the sake of the children and the well-being of these families, how can we say no?

Really, if you are fearfully of hate speach legislation then I think the best place to address that is focusing on hate speach legislation. Whether gay marriage is legal or not is not a factor.

Traveler, I'm not sure what the thread was originally focused on, but I would never support civil laws that would force any church to accept gltb marriage. I believe that constitutional protection should and will stand. I support the laws in place in Maine that allow people to not be held to equal accomodation requirements when a gltb marriage would compromise their religious beliefs. I do work to change our civil laws to allow equality in marriage and I do work in my own denomination to promote a change in our policies. But, In my work in these areas I have not found any gltb equality advocate that wants to force any church to perform our marriages. We strongly believe that each religion's choices are the stewardship of the those members, and government has no place meddling in that.

Yikes! You read my rants!?! :) Like I said, many in my church are wrestling with this in recent months and likely for quite a while into the future. You may be right and the LDS will always consider gay unions sinful. Nonetheless, I am grateful for the little points of grace in the midst of such strong feelings that I've witnessed in my visits here.

I was thinking of several evangelical organizations and ministers that are calling the churches to get out of the anti-gay marriage movements. Barna.org is one, Greg Boyd, Tony Campolo, etc. I can see where it was a bit vague. :)

I do see that you have gltb's best interest at heart. I see God and his purposes a bit differently than you describe. Because of this, I focus on aligning my life towards God's reconciling efforts in our conflicts and lack of authentic love rather than awaiting God to destroy my enemies.. or me if I get it wrong. YMMV

I've not been saying that, so I guess I agree?

Oh, I'm not saying most Christianities are wanting to change, but they do not have the salvation theology that is focused on gender and families. Most christian salvation theologies are centered on the individual, rather than the family.

You may be right that gay marriages will never be a part of your denomination. Your salvation theology is unique and most Christianities do not have the same theological barriers with gay marriages. There are building movements even within Evangelical churches. My denomination is on the cusp of being ready to fully accept in the developed countries but there are other jurisdictions where gays might be executed for associating with an affirming church. We struggle with how to keep threatened gays safe in those cultures and give space for others who disagree, and also allowing the freedom to openly marry and ordain in the areas where it is legal and time to make the change. It's a stressful and joyful and heartbreaking time in my church as we seek to honor the worth of these diverse people and circumstances.

I think that we are in the midst of a changing of the guard, or maybe the changing of the tide in the broader society and even in the subcultures. These conversations are evidence of this. Even within the LDS there are subtle changes in the rhetoric. From silence, excommunication, then the era of trying to change the gay, then to statements accepting that being gay is not a choice, the emergence of Affirmation, statements that the church is not anti-gay and affirms some rights to them at the same time as working to remove equal rights in California. Things are confusing as the tide changes, for a time the waters move in both directions. These conversations show the polarity, questions, seemingly incongruent responses that comes in the midst of social movement. Even though the LDS are holding fast in with the word "marriage", they are still moving with the tide towards better treatment of gltb, along with the culture.

Are there some statistics or speculation on the percentage of LDS who accept gltb and their unions/marriages? I would doubt there are polls, we don't have them either. I had heard that 30% of LDS or maybe cultural Mormons struggle or are against the current LDS position. and seeker7, I like the link you have provided. Christianity is not of one mind on gltb issues. As Biblical and contextual scholarship enters the mainstream more and more I think we will soon be seeing more denominations dropping the barriers to the Sacraments. imo.

I believe it was an attempt at civil disobedience, and I agree it was not with the dignity of MLK and Ghandi. I do not personally support picketing a religion or this rather shallow civil disobedience against the LDS. I know Christians really do believe that they are being faithful to God, Christians both sides of the issue. I think it's important to give respect to a person's religious life even when I disagree and I also expect that respect returned. I know the LDS Church and others are not Fred Phelps kind of thinkers, although there are always individuals that might. Just as the vast majority of gltb advocates do not engage the political process on the low-respect level of this kissing couple. I think it is very important that this country and our churches have serious and respecting conversations that include the gltb in their midst. It is beginning to happen some places. I even support some civil disobedience, but it needs to be with dignity and not simply a mocking of another group, the way we have been mocked over the years. imo, stacie

These guys are not fighting for the right to kiss at the Temple. I seriously doubt they care about that. The LDS institution's prominent and vocal participation in the Prop 8 fight that resulted in the loss of the marriage right has made it the symbolic icon of gltb oppression. It used to be Jerry Falwell, now it's the LDS and Fred Phelps. (Although most people realize Phelps is in a category all his own) When gltb marriage advocates protest by way of civil disobedience the LDS will often be the focus because of the symbolic power that gives the protest. It wasn't about the kissing, it's about marriage and using a kiss and arrest at the hands of the LDS to bring gltb marriage into the headlines and remind the public of the LDS role.

From the other side of the fence.... This was a public protest/civil disobedience against an institution they believe was instrumental in loosing the fundamental right to marriage in California. It got publicity, put the conversation back in the news, put the church in an awkward position, forced them into public statements that would also serve their purposes. And it worked as they had planned. This is not something I would do, but I understand the frustrations and anger and the reasons for doing it.

Visit the Community of Christ Temple! It's one of my favorite places on earth. no bias,

I didn't say it was too complicated, I said it was more complicated, compared to gay marriage. I said nothing more than that.

The polygamy marriage issue is far more complex than gay marriage. Gay marriages can operate under the very same laws as straight marriages, just remove the gender specifications. Polygamy cannot operate under these same laws. There may come the day when their marriages are made legal, but I have a feeling that the it will be very difficult to draw up laws that would be worthwhile to the polygamists themselves. If the man dies, are the women still married to each other? If one is sick, who can visit and make decisions? The "group" is unwieldy. Polygamists tend to be religous and have different criteria for what makes marriage. I don't think polygamist legal marriage can easily be made "one size fits all".

That's why I'm visiting here. I want to put a human face on the LDS and understand the foundations of why? Not the stuff on tv or in print where we justify and draw lines, but the authentic neighborly kind of sharing done at a kitchen table. I can't do that in person, so this fellowship is the kitchen table/laptop where we can talk from the heart.

(I am not LDS) By the authority of the State or country or jurisdiction where it is legal, and also the denominations that allow gltb marriages. The Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada, and some sects of Judaism, pagans, etc can perform gay marriages where it is legal. In the little window when it was legal in California 80 retired Methodist ministers volunteered to perform marriage ceremonies, so that the active ministers would not be sanctioned. They figured it would not be worth the denomination's effort to sanction the retired ones.