Church's stance on Prop 8 from LDS.org

[Elphaba]

I would say that religious schools (BYU included) will be threatened with losing tax exempt status if homosexual "rights" become enshrined in federal law.

People who are homosexual already have their rights enshrined by federal law--you cannot discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation.

Regarding married housing for same-sex couples, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages; thus, it cannot force the school to provide married housing, and the school‘s tax exempt status would remain untouched.

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.

Unless the Church rents out the temple to the public, the Church cannot be forced to open the temple’s doors to the public. The same is true for the chapels.

Additionally, the court’s decision that same-sex marriage was constitutional said the government may not discriminate against same-sex couples by barring them from civil marriage – a legal institution established and regulated by the government. Religious groups and clergy members remain free to recognize or refuse to recognize marriages within their religion as each sees fit. Some faiths do not permit same-sex couples to marry within that faith; however, a growing number do. Under current California law, all couples regardless of their sexual orientation may choose to be married by a clergy person in a welcoming community of faith or by a civil servant such as a judge or authorized deputy.

In other words, if the court's decision were not overturned by Proposition 8, none of the issues you brought up would affect the Church in any way.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Elphaba,

At least this is how it is now. Little by little, as private rights are revoked by public mandates, we could again come to the day when the temples of the Lord are threatened to be shuttered by government. It happened over polygamy, remember? With the right/wrong people in place in governance, we could see the same thing occur for the "right of the people."

After all, in our time we've seen the RICO laws used against abortion clinic protesters, Habeas Corpus denied to Islamic warriors/terrorists, and seen the feds do unimaginable things at Ruby Ridge and Waco to people they deemed as against their agenda.

For a government that secretly tested syphilis in the 1950s on patients at the Tuskegee VA hospital, can't we assume that other stupid or insane things could be done by governments? Do you remember what government did at the Selma bridge, when peaceful Civil Rights marchers tried to cross it?

Today they might not go after BYU or the Church, but what about 10 years from now, when such laws are moved further to the left outfield?

For me, these are real concerns, because we've seen the terrible things our government has done before. This isn't to say our government can only do bad things - but it shows a pattern that government must be used cautiously, so as to not become a tyrant's tool.

[Fiannan]

People who are homosexual already have their rights enshrined by federal law--you cannot discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation.

Where is that a federal law?

[Hemidakota]

We had a laugh today in our local news, reporting that PROP-8 Yes signs were stolen from yards, street corners, and one happen to be seen and was apprehended by the Carlsbad Police Department. It figures! What next? Burn down houses and churchs those who vote?

[FernRL]

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

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.

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

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

In the dictionary I use, (Webster's Universal College Dictionary, 1997,) "discrimination" is defined as: "1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2...." and "discriminating" is defined as: "1. analytical. 2. discerning, perspicacious. 3. having excellent taste or judgment. 4. biased, discriminatory." Which, in turn means: " characterized by or showing prejudice or partiality...."

So, when I said "discrimination," I meant all methods of analyzing or discerning, but I admit that I am also biased where my husband and family are concerned.

I was also talking about marriage, either in the traditional way or as SSM. When you responded regarding one of my posts regarding marriage with information about civil unions, I thought that meant the same laws applied, so, sorry if I was confused there.

I still think tax laws "discriminate" in some cases, in favor of married people over singles, and that particular issue of discrimination has value to society at large. So, I personally approve of it.

I also think that the taxation issue is one reason gay people would prefer being married as opposed to just being in a "domestic union."

I also believe that married opposite-gender couples should be given preferential treatment when it comes to adoptions, which I believe would greatly benefit the children involved.

Also, as far as I can tell, legal discrimination is accepted except when specifically disallowed by law--as in: on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. And age, marital status, and possibly other considerations may be legally prohibited in some cases, but not in every application.

I personally like every gay or lesbian person I know that I know. One of my cousins is a lesbian, and I know several gay men. My cousin hates men universally as far as I can tell, and I certainly don't approve of that, but I like her as a person. Every gay man I know has treated me with respect and kindness, and has been exemplary of many of the qualities I always looked for in a husband. Fortunately, for me, I found a husband who has those same qualities but is heterosexual as well.

I also think gays and lesbians should have equal opportunity to receive psychological help for their problems. Does that mean I am prejudiced against them or biased in favor of them? I can't really tell.

[Moksha]

Every gay man I know has treated me with respect and kindness, and has been exemplary of many of the qualities I always looked for in a husband.

I had some homosexual neighbors once who used to bring us some goodies everytime they baked something. Their pies, bread and cookies were great and most appreciated. No other neighbors were that thoughtful. That taught me an important lesson: The way to a man's friendship is through his stomach.