#47370 Gay Marriage

[vorpal blade]

In his answer to question #47370 Curious Physics Minor points out that the case of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association does not say that a religion can be forced to do something it doesn't want to do. I agree, but I don't think this is the real issue. In question #46262 the California Supreme Court is quoted as saying no religion will be forced to change its religious policies or practices in regard to gay marriages. I think this is disingenuous.

There was a time, not too long ago, when the government decided that polygamy was wrong. How did the government go about trying to "influence" the Mormon Church, without actually impinging upon the religious freedom of the Mormons? Well, the government confiscated Church properties, and threatened to take away our temples. Leaders were imprisoned for practicing polygamy or even preaching it. Mormons lost their civil rights to vote, serve on juries, or become elected officials simply for believing in polygamy.

Today government is moving in the direction of imposing its belief that same sex marriage is a civil right. In California it will be necessary for schools to teach that same sex marriage is just as valid as traditional marriage. Those who preach against same sex marriage, which is legally recognized in the State of California, will be considered to be practicing discrimination, using hate speech; and any institution which protects such people will very likely loose their tax exempt status, and possibly be sued out of existence. You don't have to actually compel a church to teach what you want them to teach, all you have to do is take away their property, their right to defend themselves in court, and imprison their leaders... then you go along way to stamping out the religion.

In the Ocean Grove case the Methodists lost the tax exempt status of their pavilion, which was largely used for church services. The services were open to the public, but the Methodist drew the line when it came to letting lesbians perform civil unions in their pavilion. To the gay rights crowd this means illegal discrimination, and that the facility is not open to all persons on an equal basis. The situation is not exactly the same as a bishop refusing to marry a same sex couple, but it is easy to see that the same arguments given for taking away the tax exempt status of the Ocean Grove Methodists could be used to revoke tax exempt status on LDS meetinghouses and temples for refusing gay marriages. And, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

[orb360]

We believe in living under the rule of law....

its an article of faith or something...

anyways

Outlawing polygamy means we stop.

Making gay marriage legal means nothing...

Sleeping around is legal... yet we still disfellowship / excommunicate people for it....

If gay marriage is made legal we can still condemn it...

Also, we've been denying people without temple recommends entry to LDS Temples for forever... People have been trying to make a big stink about it but no one has been successful...

In any case... it's prophesied that things will get worse before they get better... Mabye this is a catylyst?

Doesn't matter... just have to be true no matter what right?

[Nanti-SARRMM]

But I don't believe that the church gets tax credit or anything like that, so what happened to the Methodists won't happen to us. Also, if the Government would have done that, they would have tried to force us to give the priesthood to Blacks between 68 and 78 when the revelation was received.

That's my opinion anyways.

[vorpal blade]

Outlawing polygamy means we stop.

Making gay marriage legal means nothing...

I do see the difference between what happened with polygamy and what is happening today with gay marriage. The trend is to making gay marriage legal. One might ask himself, how does it hurt us if some people can now do something they couldn't before? Why would the government go after the Church? After all, the change doesn't say a man must marry a man.

I think we have to consider the issue in terms of all the other laws and pressures put on groups that don't go along with political correctness. The government isn't going to stop you from performing heterosexual marriages, but in California they have already put a stop to labelling one person the groom and the other the bride. It is party A and party B on the records, or they won't let you record it in the state. Those that have tried have had their marriage application rejected. That's a little thing. The government can use other laws to force you to do what it considers is the right thing to do.

With homosexual marriage now considered a civil right in California, much like the right to vote and so forth, the threat is that the government will be able to prosecute you if some homosexual couple feels their civil rights have been violated if you refuse to recognize their marriage or their right to get married. Or the government can withdraw a tax exempt status to an organization that they feel is not serving the best interests of the community. Discrimination is also one of the hot buttons for some people. I think there is no doubt that some people feel that any Church that teaches that homosexual behavior is evil, and refuses to perform a gay marriage, is guilty of violating the civil rights of homosexuals. Now that gay marriage is recognized in California promoting opposition to gay marriage is seen in much the same light as promoting racism. There is little tolerance for oppostion to political correctness. Already parents can have their children taken away from them by the state if the parents are considered racists. It doesn't seem a far stretch to me to see the day when the state will be able to take your children away from you if you oppose homosexuality, or gay marriage.

So, while polygamy is a separate issue, I think it illustrates the power of the state to suppress religious groups which the government feels are contrary to the morals and welfare of the people. Once again we may be persecuted because we are seen as a threat to what is becoming the established order. It is our job to see that gay marriage does not become the established order.

[vorpal blade]

But I don't believe that the church gets tax credit or anything like that, so what happened to the Methodists won't happen to us. Also, if the Government would have done that, they would have tried to force us to give the priesthood to Blacks between 68 and 78 when the revelation was received.

That's my opinion anyways.

There are some differences between what happened to the Methodists and what might happen to us. But I have to disagree with you that we are talking about a "tax credit." We, like the Methodists, don't pay property taxes on church properties. We do pay property taxes on commercial businesses. We are exempt from property taxes because we are a charitable organization. That can easily go away if it is seen that we are promoting a political party, if our property is used as a business, or if it is perceived that we promote opposition to the laws of the land, or promote things contrary to the peace and welfare of the general public. There are many enemies to the Church that would love to see us lose our tax exempt status. That is why we are extremely careful about the kinds of activities we allow in our meetinghouses.

In the Ocean Grove case the situation is a little different. The Methodists owned a lot of beach front property used for the benefit of their members - summer religious camps, church meetings, and recreation. Evidently this was not considered solely for charitable purposes, so they had to pay property taxes. New Jersery decided that it didn't have enough beach front property for public use, so they agreed to not ask for taxes if the organization opened up the property so that the public at large could also use it. The Methodists never dreamed that sharing their private property with others, allowing them to use the beaches and so forth, would force them to allow homosexual couples to marry in their pavillion, a place largely used for their church services. They didn't object if the couple exchanged vows on the beach, just not in their meetinghouse. The government authorities ruled that open to the public meant that if a heterosexual couple could be married in the pavillion, then they had to allow homosexual couples to marry there.

As a result the Methodists will have to pay taxes on the pavillion. Fortunately for them at the present time they won't have to pay taxes on all of their property. Property taxes on all of the property is estimated to be $500,000 a year. I can see that in time homosexual activists could force the Methodists to pay the full amount.

It is true that so far we have resisted attempts made by some groups to take away our rights. They didn't take away our privileges for denying the priesthood to blacks. There were those who wanted to do so. There are those who almost succeeded in getting the Los Angeles Temple taken away from us using Imminent Domain because the Temple doesn't pay property taxes, and the city council wanted additional tax revenues. When our enemies feel secure enough they will try again to take away our property. The excuse that we deny homosexuals their civil rights might be a sufficient excuse for many people.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

The excuse that we deny homosexuals their civil rights might be a sufficient excuse for many people.

But that's the thing. We aren't denying them their civil rights but not allowing them to get married in the temple. They can get married, have a civil union and all that and still come to church. They won't receive any callings not be authorized to take the sacrament, but beyond that, the church does nothing to infringe on whatever rights may be had.

The land issue isn't so much a problem either, I don't think, because for one, the temples are private property, and that land which is public, could probably be forced to have a civil union on it, but beyond that, it doesn't apply.

But apart from that, no civil liberties are being taken away. We cannot be forced to marry a gay Mormon couple in the temple if they so wanted. They can get married elsewhere, but we cannot be forced to marry them. At least that is what I understand though.

So I doubt that just because we refuse to marry a homosexual in the temple and refuse to let them to participate in callings or the sacrament means that will will have to pay taxes. If that were the case, the government would have done something to us for putting members on probation for drinking and smoking.

[orb360]

Outlawing polygamy means we stop.

Making gay marriage legal means nothing...

I do see the difference between what happened with polygamy and what is happening today with gay marriage. The trend is to making gay marriage legal. One might ask himself, how does it hurt us if some people can now do something they couldn't before? Why would the government go after the Church? After all, the change doesn't say a man must marry a man.

I think we have to consider the issue in terms of all the other laws and pressures put on groups that don't go along with political correctness. The government isn't going to stop you from performing heterosexual marriages, but in California they have already put a stop to labelling one person the groom and the other the bride. It is party A and party B on the records, or they won't let you record it in the state. Those that have tried have had their marriage application rejected. That's a little thing. The government can use other laws to force you to do what it considers is the right thing to do.

With homosexual marriage now considered a civil right in California, much like the right to vote and so forth, the threat is that the government will be able to prosecute you if some homosexual couple feels their civil rights have been violated if you refuse to recognize their marriage or their right to get married. Or the government can withdraw a tax exempt status to an organization that they feel is not serving the best interests of the community. Discrimination is also one of the hot buttons for some people. I think there is no doubt that some people feel that any Church that teaches that homosexual behavior is evil, and refuses to perform a gay marriage, is guilty of violating the civil rights of homosexuals. Now that gay marriage is recognized in California promoting opposition to gay marriage is seen in much the same light as promoting racism. There is little tolerance for oppostion to political correctness. Already parents can have their children taken away from them by the state if the parents are considered racists. It doesn't seem a far stretch to me to see the day when the state will be able to take your children away from you if you oppose homosexuality, or gay marriage.

So, while polygamy is a separate issue, I think it illustrates the power of the state to suppress religious groups which the government feels are contrary to the morals and welfare of the people. Once again we may be persecuted because we are seen as a threat to what is becoming the established order. It is our job to see that gay marriage does not become the established order.

It's only an issue because it's a hot topic... It will blow over.

Some people condemn eating meat... still plenty of meat eaters who don't care....

I think the westboro baptist church has more to fear from the government than we do.

[Fredjikrang]

It may blow over, it may not. What happens if it doesn't?

There is a big difference between vegetarians and homosexuals you know. For one, vegetarians haven't worked toward passing a law about vegetarianism.

I think the westboro baptist church has more to fear from the government than we do.

I don't think that is the point. The point is that there is a chance that a church that advocates the worship of God is being brought down because they are standing for their morals. Morals that our church also happens to uphold. If nothing else we should be trying to help them in this instance.

It sounds to me that you are saying, "Oh, look at that person drowning over there. Good think I have a life vest." and then going on your merry way, ignorant to the possibility that your life vest can come undone.

[orb360]

It may blow over, it may not. What happens if it doesn't?

There is a big difference between vegetarians and homosexuals you know. For one, vegetarians haven't worked toward passing a law about vegetarianism.

I think the westboro baptist church has more to fear from the government than we do.

I don't think that is the point. The point is that there is a chance that a church that advocates the worship of God is being brought down because they are standing for their morals. Morals that our church also happens to uphold. If nothing else we should be trying to help them in this instance.

It sounds to me that you are saying, "Oh, look at that person drowning over there. Good think I have a life vest." and then going on your merry way, ignorant to the possibility that your life vest can come undone.

A more fitting analogy would be we're both stuck in the velociraptor pen.... (where being "in the pen" means condemning gay marriage, or at least not supporting it)

and the westboro baptist church is about to be eaten by one of the raptors because he looks tastier... (aka, more vocal)

and we stand there, in the pen, knowing that we are next...

Of course, they will open the gate and let us out immediately should we decide to cave...

But we won't give up so easily... we would rather be eaten by velociraptors than be forced to change our beliefs. (not that we won't try and kill the raptor, but that's a long shot... destruction is almost assured)

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I think that it has a long way to come before affecting the church though. First off, the California Amendment needs to fail, which will mean that gay marriage will continue to be legal in California. Even with that, whether or not we think it is right doesn't matter, the marriage will still be legal. There'd have to be a major unconstitutional law to go into place forcing the church to change its policies, to accept gay members to have callings, to allow them to partake of the sacrament rightfully before the Lord. They would have to mess with the very fabric of separation of church and state.

As Vorpal said with the Ocean View church, it's properties were being used commercially, and thus were taxed, and thus were treated as public lands and thus people had a right to marry there.

[vorpal blade]

I think that it has a long way to come before affecting the church though. First off, the California Amendment needs to fail, which will mean that gay marriage will continue to be legal in California. Even with that, whether or not we think it is right doesn't matter, the marriage will still be legal. There'd have to be a major unconstitutional law to go into place forcing the church to change its policies, to accept gay members to have callings, to allow them to partake of the sacrament rightfully before the Lord. They would have to mess with the very fabric of separation of church and state.

As Vorpal said with the Ocean View church, it's properties were being used commercially, and thus were taxed, and thus were treated as public lands and thus people had a right to marry there.

Er, not exactly. As I understand it the Methodist Church was allowing the public to use its private property in order to avoid having to pay property taxes. I don't think they were using this property commercially. It might be like some property the Church owns for the use of boy scouts or Young Women's Camp. We think of this use as for a religious purpose, but the state thinks of it as recreational use and therefore taxable. In order to avoid the taxes the Methodists used a program called Green Acres, as I recall, which permits the general public to also enjoy the private property free of charge. But because the Methodists objected to same sex marriage they wouldn't allow this use on their property. They didn't think this was part of the deal in opening the use of the property to the public.

To me allowing the public to use the property means that the public must follow the rules and use the property as intended by the people who own the property and have always used it. The public can't go in and build their own private houses, establish places of business, burn crosses, or whatever. But because some people in Ocean Grove can't see a difference between a same sex marriage and a traditional marriage the state said the Methodists had to allow same sex marriage in their pavilion or lose their tax status.

The issue was brought to a head because a lesbian couple felt that their civil rights had been violated when the Methodists would not permit a same sex marriage in the Methodist pavilion. We have not signed an agreement with the government to allow our meetinghouses to be open to the public, but it doesn't seem to me to be too much of a leap to take to imagine that someone is going to claim that their civil rights have been violated because a building which enjoys tax-exempt status will not permit a marriage to be performed in their building, or the bishop refuses to perform such a marriage.

As another example, we are getting to the point where in some places doctors or health care officials are not allowed to refuse to perform an abortion. Abortion is considered a civil right by some, and the government has the power to do a lot to enforce civil rights. The Church does not accept government money for its schools, or we would be forced to do a number of things that we believe are immoral.

The government doesn't have to actually force the Church to change its policies. It can say, fine, you can believe as you wish, but now you will have to pay billions of dollars in taxes. Marriages performed in the Church will not be recognized by the state. All Church buildings and grounds will be taken by confiscation (for failure to support homosexual civil rights) or by Imminent Domain. They don't have to pass any more laws, just interpret the laws we have to say that we must be suppressed.

If Proposition 8 passes in California we will have won a victory, but I expect the issue will not die. If we fail to pass the proposition I expect all hell to break loose.

[Fredjikrang]

A more fitting analogy would be we're both stuck in the velociraptor pen.... (where being "in the pen" means condemning gay marriage, or at least not supporting it)

and the westboro baptist church is about to be eaten by one of the raptors because he looks tastier... (aka, more vocal)

and we stand there, in the pen, knowing that we are next...

Of course, they will open the gate and let us out immediately should we decide to cave...

But we won't give up so easily... we would rather be eaten by velociraptors than be forced to change our beliefs. (not that we won't try and kill the raptor, but that's a long shot... destruction is almost assured)

Okay, I'll use your analogy.

There are a bunch of people (churches) all in the pen with the velociraptors. We see Westboro Church about to be eaten. You have presented two options:

1. Let Westboro die, hoping that we won't be noticed. (Likely not stopping our own deaths.)
2. Give in and be let out of the cage (We live, but have compromised our morals.)

I would again suggest that there is another option, one that results in us neither dying nor living with compromised morals. What if all of the people in the cage banded together to fight the velociraptors? Suddenly the odds aren't so bad.

I just think it is ridiculous that you have such a poor view of the outcomes. Believe it or not, there are far more people in the US that would stand for churches being separate from the state.

That being said, I do believe that it is the government's right to not make a church tax exempt if they don't think that the church is providing a real service. That is part of being separate.

[orb360]

A more fitting analogy would be we're both stuck in the velociraptor pen.... (where being "in the pen" means condemning gay marriage, or at least not supporting it)

and the westboro baptist church is about to be eaten by one of the raptors because he looks tastier... (aka, more vocal)

and we stand there, in the pen, knowing that we are next...

Of course, they will open the gate and let us out immediately should we decide to cave...

But we won't give up so easily... we would rather be eaten by velociraptors than be forced to change our beliefs. (not that we won't try and kill the raptor, but that's a long shot... destruction is almost assured)

Okay, I'll use your analogy.

There are a bunch of people (churches) all in the pen with the velociraptors. We see Westboro Church about to be eaten. You have presented two options:

1. Let Westboro die, hoping that we won't be noticed. (Likely not stopping our own deaths.)
2. Give in and be let out of the cage (We live, but have compromised our morals.)

I would again suggest that there is another option, one that results in us neither dying nor living with compromised morals. What if all of the people in the cage banded together to fight the velociraptors? Suddenly the odds aren't so bad.

I just think it is ridiculous that you have such a poor view of the outcomes. Believe it or not, there are far more people in the US that would stand for churches being separate from the state.

That being said, I do believe that it is the government's right to not make a church tax exempt if they don't think that the church is providing a real service. That is part of being separate.

Unfortunately, there are 5-10 raptors.... and 2 people... and just in case, Darth Vader is stalking the upper level of the pen.... If you were to actually win, you'd probably attract his attention and he'd take you on as his apprentice in a plot to overthrow the emperor...

Wait... nope... crossing into the plot of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed there...

Anyways... I think my train de-railed....

[Imogen]

i think you're all over reacting. seriously. this ruling was not against an entire religion taking away their tax exempt status. it was against one church that WAS violating the terms of its agreement with the state of new jersey. it doesn't matter what their reasons were. if you violate a statute, you violate a statute and you will be penalized. since they were supposed to allow the use of that land to all members of the public EQUALLY, they had to uphold that. they could have said "ok we won't have ANY weddings in the pavilion, thus negating this problem." the pavilion wasn't part of their church, it was just owned by them. using land for church functions sometimes doesn't make it "special." and if it does, than my mom's backyard is the holiest place on this planet.

because of the first amendment, no church will ever be FORCED to perform gay marriages. churches were not forced to perform interracial marriages. churches have discretion. plenty of catholic churches turn away people who want to be married because they're not catholic. that is their right. a priest can turn down any couple for any reason they see fit. and they have not been condemned by the government or penalized for exercising their religious freedom. and neither would the mormon church. no judge would let it get past the filing stage if they were smart.

as for westboro, they're all psycho and, frankly, make christians look like judgmental jerks who can't mind their own business.

[D'artagnan]

as for westboro, they're all psycho and, frankly, make christians look like judgmental jerks who can't mind their own business.

You know what, I apologize for that. That's my fault right there. All my subliminal messaging to them and indoctrination took an unexpected turn and went south. They were supposed to revolt against the government and put me into power, instead of all this.

Oh well, I just need to go back in time, grab Shay and his rebelling followers, tell him that taxes are higher than ever and then we'll have a full out rebellion.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Ahem. Off topic.

[D'artagnan]

Ahem. Off topic.

So true, so true, my comrade. Let us return to the discussion that has been before us, if it so be that it continue. My apologies.

[vorpal blade]

i think you're all over reacting. seriously. this ruling was not against an entire religion taking away their tax exempt status. it was against one church that WAS violating the terms of its agreement with the state of new jersey.

The state of New Jersery claims that the Methodists were violating the terms of the agreement; the Methodists disagree. The agreement was that the property would be open to the general public. This does not mean that the general public can use the grounds for whatever purpose they feel like. I think it can be inferred that the general public would be limited to use the facilities in the same way that the Methodists were limited to use the facilities.

it doesn't matter what their reasons were. if you violate a statute, you violate a statute and you will be penalized.

No one violated a statue. There is a disagreement as to what constitutes open to the public, and what was permissible on their property.

since they were supposed to allow the use of that land to all members of the public EQUALLY, they had to uphold that. they could have said "ok we won't have ANY weddings in the pavilion, thus negating this problem."

First, the agreement doesn't specifically say that all members of the public are allowed an equal use of the land. But, I'm willing to let that point slide. Second, you assume that a homosexual couple that wants to get "married" is equal to a heterosexual couple who wants to get married. I strongly disagree with that. Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. There are specific meanings and understanding to this traditional definition of marriage. What a homosexual couple does cannot be considered marriage in the eyes of God, or even in the dictionary. "Gay marriage" is a public acknowledgement of an intent to continue an immoral and sinful lifestyle. Equally does not imply that something foreign, that you happen to like to call "marriage," is the same as what has traditionally been called marriage. I might define human sacrifice as "marriage," but that still doesn't give me the right to practice human sacrifice wherever members of the public are free to perform marriages.

because of the first amendment, no church will ever be FORCED to perform gay marriages. churches were not forced to perform interracial marriages. churches have discretion. plenty of catholic churches turn away people who want to be married because they're not catholic. that is their right. a priest can turn down any couple for any reason they see fit. and they have not been condemned by the government or penalized for exercising their religious freedom. and neither would the mormon church. no judge would let it get past the filing stage if they were smart.

No right, even one guaranteed by the First Amendment, is absolute. Rights frequently come into conflict, and the judges, which have been very liberal on this issue, decide who's rights will prevail. I think it is almost certain that the government will enforce many policies already on the books which are intended to make sure that there is no discrimination against same sex couples. Already challenges have been made to religious adoption agencies because they believe, on the basis of their religion, that children should be placed only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has been forced to stop offering adoption services for this reason.

Those advocating same sex marriage are trying to withdraw tax exemptions and benefiths from any religious organization that does not accept same sex unions. We see in the Ocean Grove case that a religious organization has been forced to give up tax exemption because they refuse to recognize a same sex union is the same thing as a marriage. Acccrediting organizations in some places are pressuring religious schools and universites to provide married housing for same sex couples. Some student religious organizations have been told by their universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they do not accept same sex couples in their club memberships.

This is how it starts. While it may not seem reasonable to believe that this is a serious issue and rationally it will all blow over, experience teaches me that pressure will continue to be brought to bear until the Church changes its position on homosexual behavior, or we are taxed and regulated out of existence.

[Imogen]

just because something is "traditional" doesn't make it right. discrimination is always wrong no matter what your reasons are. you may not like change, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. people thought integration was wrong. people thought giving women the right to vote was wrong. religion was used to defend those views. i'm sorry to break it to you, but sometimes religion is wrong. and people abuse religious principles and ideals because they are uncomfortable with something or disagree with it. well, guess what? we live in the united states, i disagree with your religious ideas, and i don't think laws should be made with them. it's unfair to the people who do not share those beliefs. live by your principles. practice what you preach for yourself. but don't say that someone is unequal to you because they disagree or don't want to live how you live.

and ps-only PART of their tax exempt status was taken NOT FOR THE WHOLE METHODIST RELIGION. it was ONE church in ONE state that was deemed to be violating an agreement. they DID say the land would be open to the public equally, and they went back on their agreement. that is HARDLY an attack on religion.

[bismark]

out of curiosity, how is the church treated in say european countries where gay marriage is legal?