There's a site called mormonsfor8.com that lists, among other things, how much money LDS people have donated to supporting the campaign. One commenter on the site discussed the problem of the legalization of gay marriage resulting in lawsuits against churches that won't perform gay marriages.
He said this:
I see this line of argument as a transparent effort to frighten voters. It is as if you have no familiarity at all with the CA Supreme Court decision. Here’s a quote from the decision itself. Note, there is specific language in the decision that addresses your concern.
In re: Marriage Cases.
“Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)72″
Does anybody know if this is true?And, if it is true, what other reasons do we have for amending the CA constitution? I'm morally opposed to gay marriage (see my other post on this), but I wonder about the legality of it all....because I don't know enough about it.
5 comments:
"Mormonsfor8" is actually an anit-blog that is made to look like a pro one. Just FYI.
According to my Stake Presidency, the issue the church has is that is a question of doctrine. When laws are enacted that reflect something antithetical to our doctrine, there is a need to speak out. That's why they felt compelled to speak out on this issue and to join the coalition of churches that had already formed to support the proposition. Honestly, for me the only really legitimate reason to vote for it is to say "I prayed about it and God told me to do it". Unfortunately that doesn't fly as a basis for advertisements or anything like that, because it's a matter of personal conscience. I've been pretty uncomfortable with a lot of the reasons flying around, both pro and con, because a lot of them strike me as fearmongering and specious reasoning. I don't think we should make decisions out of fear, but out of faith.
That's interesting about the site...I didn't bother to notice/care which way it went. I just thought the comment was interesting.
One of my big fears is the idea that we (meaning Mormons, the church, whatever you want to say) could find ourselves in a bad situation if we don't perform gay marriages. So I wondered if the guy commenting was for real, or if he made it up.
I don't know if that is true or not. It could very well be true, but it could also very well be overturned if it were challenged, as has happened elsewhere previously. Your concern is one that has also been expressed by the temple workers in San Diego (I get update from my parents, since they work there on Saturdays). If it comes down to a trial and a judge determines that refusing to perform a gay marriage counts as discrimination or even a hate crime, it could go that way. I'm morally opposed to gay marriage, but legally . . . I don't know. I just know that people have already suffered because of their moral stance on the issue, as you can see here
I don't know why the link isn't working in my previous comment, but it's from the SF Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1
That could very well have been stated in the California ruling--however, the ruling just permits gay marriage, the comment itself is likely from the majority opinion. In such a case, the judges who are in the majority are allowed to write their reasoning. There is also a dissenting opinion by the opposing judges. What they say is considered in future cases, but it doesn't bear the weight of law, and as Rantipoler states, it can be overturned. As far as churches losing their right to perform marriages--perhaps that could happen--but even if it did, people can be married civilly and then sealed in the temple.
What I see as a more imposing question would be the church losing its tax-exempt status as a religious entity for defending what it considers a moral issue. A lot has happened in just the last ten to fifteen years in the political spectrum related to issues the church has made a stand on. I've seen numerous articles or comments left by readers that call for the removal of tax-exempt status for churches that take stands on anything related to politics. Will that someday mean that churches will one day not be able to teach against such issues without being penalized in some form or other--It was a little over a hundred years ago that the government threatened to seize all property belonging to the church if it didn't cease polygamy. Could something like that happen for other reasons? It seems far-fetched, but go back twenty to thirty years and so would a lot of things going on in our society and politics today. For me the ramifications of these propositions failing is unforeseeable, but I would rather err on the side of caution than possibly open up a Pandora's box that my children and their children would have to face during their formative years.
Post a Comment