How will the Mormon Church adapt to mandatory gay sealings

[_ajax18]

I believe part of why the Church is so concerned with the gay marriage issue is that it will soon be under political and even legal pressure to solemnize gay marriages in the temples. They'll also force LDS adoption services to place children in gay parent homes.

My question is whether the church will react by shutting down its temples in the U.S.A. and forcing those remaining in the U.S.A. to go out of the country to the temple or will it give in and start solemnizing gay marriages?

Probably more soon to come will be LDS adoption services being shut down. I can't see the current leadership giving in and placing children in gay homes.

I doubt such legally pervasive gay rights will exist in 2nd and 3rd world countries. I'm sure the Church would be able to pay them off for a while. Most people in the 3rd world have basic survival as a higher priority than asserting social justice as gays. So that's my prediction.

[_squawkeye]

You must be drinking past dated coca cola or something. Civil law won't require religions to perform marriage ceremonies they do not believe in. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will tell States they have to recognize legal marriages performed in other States. That is about all the Government will do.

[_ajax18]

You must be drinking past dated coca cola or something. "Civil law won't require religions to perform marriage ceremonies they do not believe in."

Would civil law have required Mormons to seal blacks in the temple had the 1978 revelation not come out not a moment too soon? Homosexuals pretty much believe that whatever special favors blacks got, that's what they'll need to become powerful and respected citizens who are able to stand up for promote their own rights.

The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will tell States they have to recognize legal marriages performed in other States. That is about all the Government will do.

Which I guess means the quickest reaction will be the disbandment fo LDS Adoptotion Services.

[_squawkeye]

A popular Utah pasttime now is adopting little negro children. Will this morph into adopting little homosexuals in the future?

[_ajax18]

So you're saying that the U.S. government will never force the Church to solemnize homosexual marriages? If so, I disagree. I think it's headed that way.

[_cinepro]

So you're saying that the U.S. government will never force the Church to solemnize homosexual marriages? If so, I disagree. I think it's headed that way.

This is absolutely absurd.

How could the U.S. government even do that? What is the mechanism the government has to compel a Bishop to stand before two people and perform a marriage when he doesn't want to? If the Bishop absolutely refuses, do they then arrest him and take him to jail? If so, what would the charge be?

Until 1978, black people couldn't be sealed in the Temple, and it obviously had been legal for hundreds of years for blacks to get married civilly (and by other churches). Yet, the "government" never made a move to force anyone to perform a marriage they didn't want to.

What makes you think this might change?

[_ajax18]

So you're saying that the U.S. government will never force the Church to solemnize homosexual marriages? If so, I disagree. I think it's headed that way.

This is absolutely absurd.

How could the U.S. government even do that? What is the mechanism the government has to compel a Bishop to stand before two people and perform a marriage when he doesn't want to? If the Bishop absolutely refuses, do they then arrest him and take him to jail? If so, what would the charge be?

Until 1978, black people couldn't be sealed in the Temple, and it obviously had been legal for hundreds of years for blacks to get married civilly (and by other churches). Yet, the "government" never made a move to force anyone to perform a marriage they didn't want to.

What makes you think this might change?

I think if 1978 were any later, there would have tremendous pressure for the federal government to force the LDS church to marry black people in temples. It is absurd, but when the federal government train gets going, it's almost impossible to get it stop, and it never goes back.

[_ludwigm]

In Hungary, as - I think - everywhere in Europe, marriage is a civil act. It is typically committed in special rooms of the mayor's office, mostly in a beautiful, uplifting environment. This is the official, legal step.

Before or after this official marriage, the couple may/can marry in one - or all - of 2473 churches/religions/sects/groups.
The government doesn't care. It doesn't count for them.
The churches are not forced to do (or not do) anything with marriages. Nothing is mandatory. Nothing should be.
Here the state and religion are separated. (Well, in Italy and in Poland there are tricks one can not understand, but they are the extremities. )

Does exist civil marriage in US?
What if
- the gays (lesbians, atheists, negroes, gypsies, tell-your-examples, anybody who have nothing to do with churches/religions/sects) can marry before civil officials
- the churches/religions/sects do what they want

Is this scenario out of the question? In the United States of America? In the country of unlimited opportunity?
Leave me alone ...

[_cinepro]

I think if 1978 were any later, there would have tremendous pressure for the federal government to force the LDS church to marry black people in temples. It is absurd, but when the federal government train gets going, it's almost impossible to get it stop, and it never goes back.

But the "government" doesn't just force "churches" to do stuff. What part of the government would apply this force? What would the law look like that would require it? What would be the basis of this law?

The Church already enacts mass discrimination towards women and the priesthood. When was the last time you worried about the government forcing the Church to give women the priesthood?

[_asbestosman]

Does exist civil marriage in US?

Yes. You can be married by a justice of the peace.

What if
- the gays (lesbians, atheists, negroes, gypsies, tell-your-examples, anybody who have nothing to do with churches/religions/sects) can marry before civil officials
- the churches/religions/sects do what they want

Is this scenario out of the question? In the United States of America? In the country of unlimited opportunity?

I suspect this is what will happen in the end. Actually, I suspect that what will happen is that the government will only issue civil unions for everyone and marriage for nobody. Marriage will be left as a religious term, not one used for the basis of civil privilege--only civil unions will do that. At least that's what I think will be the case witin 20 years if not sooner.