How will the Mormon Church adapt to mandatory gay sealings

[_ludwigm]

...
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.

In Hungary, marriage is NOT a religious term. For the government, it is a legal one. It can be ended by divorce, another legal action.
I repeat, religions do what they want with marriage.

We have the same feature You call "civil union". (By word-by-word translation it is called life partnership in hungarian.) People can begin and end it with the filling of an application form (plus a little fee...) . Rights and obligations are near the same as marriage. Interestingly, the original statute doesn't use gender.
Our gays don't fight for marriage, because they could win only the opportunity of the process of the divorce .

Ooooooh, we have smilies !!!!!!! !!!!!!!

[_ajax18]

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?

I think that's a good point with women and the priesthood Cinepro and ludwigm. Ludwigm I personally wouldn't have a problem with the scenario you outlined in Hungary. I don't see why the Church would either personally, but perhaps you could fill me in.

Cinepro do you know if the Church would have faced any government action if it continued with the ban on priesthood for blacks?

I'm still trying to figure out why the Church is willing to spend so much to fight this. It seems so rare that we see them take a strong position on anything. Would you agree? If the slippery slope of my scenario is not what they're afraid of, what is it?

[_ajax18]

But the "government" doesn't just force "churches" to do stuff. What part of the government would apply this force?

I think the most obvious would be the threat of the church losing its tax exempt statu. I'm not sure how that works but it seems to be a very real threat. For example the boy scouts are a private club and therefore should have the right to set its own terms of exclusion? Yet the government (specifically the supreme court) seems to be the one who decides whether or not they are permitted to exclude gays or atheist. What powers did the court have in this case? Could they just cut off any federal funding, or can they deny the boy scouts freedom of assembly anywhere? Or would they just be able to deny them from assembling in government buildings like schools?

with the filling of an application form (plus a little fee...)

This brings up another good point that I noticed in Latin America. People rarely married. The $30 fee they initially paid probably wasn't the biggest reason but it didn't help encourage marriage either. If they married by the Catholic church they didn't directly pay this fee. The fee for divorce was so horrendous that people just couldn't do it. The missionaries would often meet entire wards of people in each area who can't join the Church because they're practically in their second marrieage but could never get out of the first one.

[_cinepro]

I think the most obvious would be the threat of the church losing its tax exempt statu. I'm not sure how that works but it seems to be a very real threat. For example the boy scouts are a private club and therefore should have the right to set its own terms of exclusion? Yet the government (specifically the supreme court) seems to be the one who decides whether or not they are permitted to exclude gays or atheist. What powers did the court have in this case? Could they just cut off any federal funding, or can they deny the boy scouts freedom of assembly anywhere? Or would they just be able to deny them from assembling in government buildings like schools?

The issue here is whether or not the government should give certain groups preferences or benefits over other groups. If the government excludes a group from paying taxes, then in effect other tax payers are subsidizing that group. If the government allows a group to use certain facilities that are not available to other groups, that group has been given a preference.

Having a government that uses these benefits to influence the behavior of organizations is not the same as having a government that forces groups to do stuff using governmental power and authority.

[_Lamanite]

The idea that there was government pressure on the Church regarding it's policy on blacks and the priesthood is patently false, and without evidence or proof.

The concept that the government could somehow "Force" the Church to perform sealings is absurd. There is no legal precedent, and the current Supreme Courts jurisprudence will not likely uphold any type of attempt to legislate how or who we marry in our Temples.

Now, you could probably make a case for the removal of the tax exempt status of the Church, but it would be tenuous at best. The ramifications to religious institutions across the country would be enormous. The logical conclusion would be that it's silly to even consider. As it has been already pointed out, just look at the perceived discrimination against women within the Church; what has been the heavy handed response from the Government...*crickets chirping*, bupkis.

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. We miss you Cinepro. Selek almost had a brain aneurysm when I said that because you were gone we are now about as fair and balanced as FOX news. He said I was ignorant, and was making inflammatory political slurs.

[_ajax18]

There is no legal precedent, and the current Supreme Courts jurisprudence will not likely uphold any type of attempt to legislate how or who we marry in our Temples.

A lot of the rules we see now in society once had no legal precedent and may have seemed equally absurd to people in times past.

Now, you could probably make a case for the removal of the tax exempt status of the Church, but it would be tenuous at best.

I guess I understand the idea of the federal government withholding funding if you don't do what they want, but I'm not as well versed in the idea of tax exemption for obedience to the federal government.

So everybody agrees that this is absurd and will never happen. Maybe we should put this thread in a time capsule for future reference. In any event the church sure has put a lot of money into this issue. I still haven't found a satisfactory answer as to why.

[_Lamanite]

In any event the church sure has put a lot of money into this issue. I still haven't found a satisfactory answer as to why.

I wish I knew why so much money was dumped into this ridiculous proposition. I'm Mormon. I love Gay people, and think they should get married. I just don't get why I should feel my marriage is somehow threatened by two people who are in love, getting married. And the socio-economic arguments are just as silly. puh-leese!

Send the money to the Congo and see if there aren't any hungry kids down there. Hell, pick anyplace in the World and see if we can find and help the fatherless and the widows and the hungry and the naked, et al.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_ajax18]

What do you think the church leadership is thinking? I'm not necessarily asking if anyone can justify it.

[_Lamanite]

What do you think the church leadership is thinking? I'm not necessarily asking if anyone can justify it.

That's easy. The basic unit of Society and the Gospel and the Plan of Happiness is the family. So the Church feels responsible to protect the Family and the moral fabric of our society. They feel Gay marriage is an affront to all of the above and should be opposed by any and all lawful means.

in my opinion

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_JohnStuartMill]

In any event the church sure has put a lot of money into this issue. I still haven't found a satisfactory answer as to why.

I wish I knew why so much money was dumped into this ridiculous proposition. I'm Mormon. I love Gay people, and think they should get married. I just don't get why I should feel my marriage is somehow threatened by two people who are in love, getting married. And the socio-economic arguments are just as silly. puh-leese!

Send the money to the Congo and see if there aren't any hungry kids down there. Hell, pick anyplace in the World and see if we can find and help the fatherless and the widows and the hungry and the naked, et al.

Good to see there are Mormons who haven't lost perspective. I have no doubt that Joseph Smith Jr. would have said the exact same thing you have here.