Church's stance on Prop 8 from LDS.org

[Wingnut]

The founding fathers wanted to keep religion out of government, but felt religion was very important in society. George Washington, for one, occasionally MADE his troops go to church, because he felt it was good for them.

They also wanted to keep government out of religion. That was the point. They didn't like being forced to be part of the Church of England, which the government mandated.

[Wingnut]

I think all these threads need to be merged. We're getting too many about the same subject.

Ask and ye shall receive: Preserve Marriage - Yes on Prop 8 - LDS Mormon Forums

[Guest DeborahC]

Personally, I don't care.

As long as "we" in the Churches have our standards, why care what the government does? I mean, honestly, I'm worried about my own salvation. I can't be the moral police for the world... I can only work on myself.

[ztodd]

Personally, I don't care.

As long as "we" in the Churches have our standards, why care what the government does? I mean, honestly, I'm worried about my own salvation. I can't be the moral police for the world... I can only work on myself.

The problem with that is that it will affect what kind of a society you raise your (future?) children in, and what they will teach them in school.

[Guest DeborahC]

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he. will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6.

If you rear your children correctly and teach them at home, the school won't have that much of an influence on them. You cannot protect your children from society their entire lives. You can only teach them correctly at home.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think :)

[Starfish]

Personally, I don't care.

As long as "we" in the Churches have our standards, why care what the government does? I mean, honestly, I'm worried about my own salvation. I can't be the moral police for the world... I can only work on myself.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, of course. But our Prophet has asked us to get involved. When a society degenerates, the "righteous" go down with it in that they are not spared the grief (classic BoM message). Sometimes we have to dig back into our testimony, decide if the Prophet is truly a prophet, and follow him.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Starfish

[FernRL]

In a way, I agree with you, DeborahC, that the biggest influence on our children comes from teachings in the home. And also that we shouldn't legislate morality.

Even so, we do believe in a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Therefore we need to take an active role in it.

Immorality is allowed, with or without marriage, however. The thing marriage does is give a different commitment than someone can have being single. For marriage not to be defined in the way we usually think of it, means that "married, filing jointly" would mean virtually the same as "single, filing jointly" on our tax returns. There may be other ways in which "married" will not be differentiated from "single" in the welfare system.

I don't usually get all paranoid about things that "could happen" in the future, as in some of the issues that are usually addressed in Pro side of this debate, but I also liked this viewpoint:

How same-sex marriage threatens liberty

[Guest DeborahC]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, of course. But our Prophet has asked us to get involved. When a society degenerates, the "righeous" go down with it in that they are not spared the grief (classic BoM message). Sometimes we have to dig back into our testimony, decide if the Prophet is truly a prophet, and follow him.

I wasn't aware that the Prophet had told us to get involved in the government. Was that at the last Conference? Did he say what specifically we should do?

Sorry, I can't attend Church, and I'm just now listening to the Conference.

[goofball]

I wasn't aware that the Prophet had told us to get involved in the government. Was that at the last Conference? Did he say what specifically we should do?

The first page of this topic has some links that encourage us to be involved. That might help answer your above question

[Guest DeborahC]

Thanks!

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh!

So what I just learned (because I'm computer illiterate) is that if a line is BLUE that means it is a LINK!

KOWABUNGA! I'm a REAL GIRL!

[rameumptom]

The problem of not being involved and just hiding in our own homes, is that eventually it will infiltrate our homes and churches. Saying No on Prop 8 threatens the Church and other organizations with penalties from the state government. It means kids will be taught IN School that SSM is the same as heterosexual marriage. Want your kids being taught that in school?

It means that LDS Family Services will have to get out of the adoption business in California, or be forced to adopt children to same sex couples. It could eventually mean bishops must do SSMs, or the Church be forced to do them in the temple or lose their authority to marry by the state!

[MarginOfError]

The Church losing authority to perform marriages isn't a very big deal. The Church lacks the authority to perform marriages in many countries. What happens there is the couple goes to the court house to get their civil wedding, and then goes to the temple within a few weeks to get sealed. If the US government, or any State, were to require all religious personnel performing marriages to also perform same sex marriages, the Church would simply have to give up the right to perform these marriages. This would not affect the sealing ordinance at all.

[rameumptom]

While it is true the Church would continue to manage, you are missing the bigger points. The bigger problem lies in the representation of unions that do not reflect the Proclamation on the Family being taught to our kids as normal, and perhaps preferred.

Second, the reason government has approved marriage in the past is because it has shown to benefit government and society. You cannot get around the idea of how this "right" does not benefit society, but only the individuals involved. Government would have never established a specialized recognition of marriage, if it did not feel there was a major benefit to society. It never would have fought polygamy in the late 19th century, if there was no value to society in doing so. I do not see what value there is to society in approving SSM that does not also apply to polygamy or any other relationship.

When everything is made the same, then nothing is special or significant. We should have learned this from Satan's plan to save everyone.

[MarginOfError]

I'm not disagreeing that same sex marriage is a bad idea. I only disagree that the consequences of same sex marriage are as earth shattering as advertised. In fact, I don't think the consequences of legalizing same sex marriage will be any different than if we keep it illegal. From what I can tell, we're going to suffer the consequences either way.

[Elphaba]

Other kids in the high school have said this. Although i would hope it is highly unlikely does not mean it doesn't happen and in this case I have heard it from enough people at my old high school there I would believe it.

I searched again today for any story in The Register about this, but couldn't find anything. I also googled it and found nothing.

Do you know where a story about the vandalism is?

Also, I asked what high school you attended, since I am from the same area. Of course, you don't have to answer, and I'll think nothing of it if you don't. I was just wondering.

Elphaba

[goofball]

I searched again today for any story in The Register about this, but couldn't find anything. I also googled it and found nothing.

Do you know where a story about the vandalism is?

Also, I asked what high school you attended, since I am from the same area. Of course, you don't have to answer, and I'll think nothing of it if you don't. I was just wondering.

Here is the link. I was on my earlier post because I like to back up what I say

News: Proposition 8 | signs, sign, ban, vandalism, people - OCRegister.com

I spent some time growing up in Irvine

[FernRL]

The children I gave birth to in the eighties are some of the taxpayers of today. They are good law-abiding citizens. They have had a great advantage in life due to having a male father as well as a female mother. Marriage has traditionally supported this concept.

I expect that is why single people as well as gays are discriminated against in regards to taxation. (That is not entirely true, though, because the marital advantage does not extend to those couples where each partner makes nearly the same amount of money, so that they are better off filing as "married filing separately")

To me marriage is all about having the right to discriminate. Why do Gays and Lesbians want to be married to the same sex? Why don't lesbians marry gays if they don't want any discrimination?

Non-discriminatory marriage would mean that any number of roommates or friends could band together to abuse the laws related to marriage.

[Elphaba]

I searched again today for any story in The Register about this, but couldn't find anything. I also googled it and found nothing.

Here is the link. I was on my earlier post because I like to back up what I say

News: Proposition 8 | signs, sign, ban, vandalism, people - OCRegister.com

I spent some time growing up in Irvine

Thanks for that information.

Yes, I read The Register story when you first referenced it. However, there is nothing in the article about a teacher supporting his/her students in vandalizing yard signs.

You said: Other kids in the high school have said this. Although i would hope it is highly unlikely does not mean it doesn't happen and in this case I have heard it from enough people at my old high school there I would believe it.

This is the information I was looking for, but cannot find. Do you have any reference to a teacher supporting his/her students in vandalizing the yard signs. Do you know where I can find it?

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I expect that is why single people as well as gays are discriminated against in regards to taxation. (That is not entirely true, though, because the marital advantage does not extend to those couples where each partner makes nearly the same amount of money, so that they are better off filing as "married filing separately")

The point is that only people who are married can file their taxes jointly, even if it is in their best interests.

People in civil unions do not have this option, and must always file separately.

Why do Gays and Lesbians want to be married to the same sex?

Because they are gay and lesbian, of course.

Why don't lesbians marry gays if they don't want any iscrimination?

I don't understand this comment. "Lesbian" and "gay" mean the same thing. But I think you're saying lesbians should marry gays to prevent discrimination, though I'm not sure.

However, if this is what you're saying, how is this any different from a lesbian marrying a straight man?

There could never be any attraction between a lesbian and a gay man, and thus, no point for them to marry.

Non-discriminatory marriage would mean that any number of roommates or friends could band together to abuse the laws related to marriage.

No it does not. According to the Family Code Section 297:

297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share

one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of

mutual caring.

(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when

both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the

Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of

filing, all of the following requirements are met:

(1) Both persons have a common residence.

(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of

another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been

terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.

(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would

prevent them from being married to each other in this state.

(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.

California's law only allows two people to engage in a same-sex union.

Elphaba

[FernRL]

Sorry if I confused the issue.

I was just saying that Marriage is discriminatory by nature. That is why we don't marry someone at random.

It sounds like California law is also discriminatory, too, with considerations like residency, age, family relationship, and number--just not gender.

I am saying that not all points of discrimination are bad. Somewhere along the line "discrimination" has become a dirty word, which I think is truly wrong.

Somewhere along the way taxation laws were made to favor married people. At that time it was understood that "marriage" was a union between two people of opposite gender who were adults unless they had the consent of their parents. Presumably these laws were made because society recognized that marriage (so defined) was beneficial to society at large. I don't see where this applies to same-sex marriage.

Also, out of curiosity...

Does California law also disallow marriages of opposite genders where they do not share a residence?

[goofball]

If kids in the high school are talking about this, then the school’s administration has heard it as well.

The administration would never just ignore the rumors out of hand. It would investigate the situation to see if there were any merit to the rumors.

And if there were, the school would take immediate action, including suspending/firing the teacher, and reporting the teacher to the police. To not do so places the school itself at a risk no school administration would be willing to take.

If you have heard it from enough people at your high school, the press would have heard of it as well, and would be all over it. In fact, this is the kind of story the press loves.

Also, if the accusation is true, have any of your friends called the police to report it? Because if they have, the press would know about it.

And, again, the school’s administration would never just let these rumors fly and not do anything about it.

I anticipate if such actions were encouraged by a teacher than an investigation would occur. However an investigation takes time and in a case like this it would be very difficult to find concrete evidence that a teacher recommended such actions. There is no way a school in SoCal would reprimand without such evidence. A lawsuit against the school would follow to closely

Also who is to say what the teacher said verbatim. There are so many ways to encourage people to action without saying exactly what they need to do. Kids are smart, they can understand many things.

Also I think such a story would be very hard to put in a paper. Since these are high school age kids you may have to protect their identity and could not put their names in the article.

At the end of the day none of this changes what has happened. You will believe what you believe and I will believe what I will believe. however I have been pleased that our conversations have been very civil.

Did you grow up then in Orange County then?

Also I support the leaders of the LDS church. As such I would vote for Prop 8 if I was still in CA.

Edited October 24, 2008 by goofball

[Elphaba]

I was just saying that Marriage is discriminatory by nature. That is why we don't marry someone at random.

Well, that’s the most interesting way I’ve heard the word used.

Given your application of the word “discrimination,” one would be discriminating against the entire planet’s population when choosing a partner. Obviously, this is not the intent of the word.

It sounds like California law is also discriminatory, too, with considerations like residency, age, family relationship, and number--just not gender.

It depends on if you’re talking about “civil unions,” or “marriage.” Some of the requirements are different for each.

I am saying that not all points of discrimination are bad. Somewhere along the line "discrimination" has become a dirty word, which I think is truly wrong.

Discrimination is not a bad word; however, the act of discrimination, defined by prejudice, is. But again, if you are going to apply the word “discrimination” when choosing a partner, you would be discriminating against the entire planet. It is not a proper application of the word.

Somewhere along the way taxation laws were made to favor married people. At that time it was understood that "marriage" was a union between two people of opposite gender who were adults unless they had the consent of their parents. Presumably these laws were made because society recognized that marriage (so defined) was beneficial to society at large. I don't see where this applies to same-sex marriage.

I’m not saying it does. I was only clarifying that civil unions do not guarantee the same benefits as same-sex marriages do.

Also, out of curiosity...Does California law also disallow marriages of opposite genders where they do not share a residence?

Again, you’re confusing “civil union” with “marriage.”

The answer to your question is no, California does not consider whether a couple is living together, or not, when it comes to marriage. This currently applies to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

However, civil unions, for which only same-sex couples can apply, do have different requirements than a marriage, including that the couple must already be sharing a residence.

If Proposition 8 is approved, then the only option a same-sex couple has, if it wants to obtain many of the benefits of a marriage, is a civil union.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I anticipate if such actions were encouraged by a teacher than an investigation would occur. However an investigation takes time and in a case like this it would be very difficult to find concrete evidence that a teacher recommended such actions. There is no way a school in SoCal would reprimand without such evidence. A lawsuit against the school would follow to closely.

No, it wouldn't, as the school districts have strict policies that must be followed if it suspects a teacher of improper conduct. And the teacher agrees to abide by these policies when he/she signs a contract. So, until an investigation is complete, the teacher has no choice but to abide by the policy(ies).

Additionally, the press would know if such an action were taken by the high school. Even if nothing was proven yet, the paper would print the allegation(s).

Also who is to say what the teacher said verbatim. There are so many ways to encourage people to action without saying exactly what they need to do. Kids are smart, they can understand many things.

If this is how it happened, then the teacher was not "supporting" kids in the vandalism.

Also I think such a story would be very hard to put in a paper. Since these are high school age kids you may have to protect their identity and could not put their names in the article.

That depends on how old they are--if they are eighteen or older, then the paper could identify them by name.

However, if they weren't eighteen, the press would simply identify them as "high school students at [the high school's name].

However I have been pleased that our conversations have been very civil.

As have I.

Did you grow up then in Orange County then?

Yes, I did. I grew up in Costa Mesa, Garden Grove and Fountain Valley. Once out of high school, I lived in Huntington and Newport Beach, Orange, and Dana Point (is Dana Point in Orange County?) You name it, I lived there.

I never lived in Irvine, though I did work for a company located in Irvine for a short time.

Also I support the leaders of the LDS church. As such I would vote for Prop 8 if I was still in CA.

If I gave the impression that you should not vote for Proposition 8, I'm sorry, as that was not my intent.

I was only questioning the validity of the story that a teacher was supporting his/her students in vandalism.

Elphaba

[Fiannan]

The first step of making homosexual marriage equal to heterosexual marriage will then lead to homosexuality becoming more and more a protected class. Then civil rights laws will confirm the same privledges to homosexuals as all other protected groups.

I would say that religious schools (BYU included) will be threatened with losing tax exempt status if homosexual "rights" become enshrined in federal law. Then temples could lose tax exempt status and then even church meeting houses as it could easily be shown that homosexuals were "discriminated" against when not allowed to be married or even when the Church disciplined members if they admited to engaging in same-sex relations.

[Starfish]

If I may, I'd like to requote a portion of the letter sent to the leaders of the LDS Church in CA, from the First Presidency:

"The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

I submit that this letter was drafted after extensive prayer, study, and urgent seeking of guidance from the Spirit. These men do not act lightly, nor do they act without complete unanimity of all 15. If we do not support our Prophet and the Apostles in this important matter, then we are in a position of rejecting them and their divine calling. If we are in disagreement, then it's time to get on our knees, work it out with God, and get our own confirmation.