Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have donated some 9 million dollars to support California's Proposition 8. It's a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Church has encouraged the faithful to be active in the campaign - not just by donating money, but also by making phone calls, walking neighborhoods and finding other ways speak out. Thursday, we're talking about Proposition 8, and about the LDS Church's view on homosexuality.
Same Sex Marriage
Are you LDS? Have you taken any action regarding Proposition 8? What do you think the role of a church should be in political campaigns?
I went to California to visit my daughter last weekend (Oct 17-21) and must have seen over 100 TV ads for and against Proposition 8. As an LDS member it was disheartening to me to see how "FEAR" was used as the prime motivation behind the ads to vote in favor of Prop. 8. I also saw 3 or 4 LDS kids (or other Christian kids based on how they looked) standing with posters on a street corner and then on the other street corner were 15-20 kids from Cal Arts talking about love and letting people make up their own minds.
It seems to me that the LDS Church will make these moral stands but they always seem to be on the wrong side of history. They voted in the 1850's to be a slave territory, they sanctioned polygamy, they were big supporters of prohibition, they fought against the ERA amendment, and they didn't give blacks the priesthood until after the civil rights movement was basically over in 1978.
Morality is so narrowly defined by most LDS people that they don't see larger moral issues. They don't seem to understand that the constituion guarantees rights and does not limit them. The constitution limits government and defines rights. Same Sex Marriage is an extention and definition of rights that should be granted to everyone.
Again as an LDS member is hard for me to understand how with their belief in the pre-existance and the great war in heaven that they want to use government to force people into correct moral choices. If they truly had faith in their theology, they'd have faith in their ability to teach their morality in their families and churches and let the people make their own choices.
Well said. Mormons need to understand that most of the world is not "pro-Mormon" or "anti-Mormon." We get along according to law and principles, and the same laws and principles that allow them freedom of worship allow homosexuals freedom to marry. I talked to my sister about this last night; the bottom line for her is it's a great idea to legislate God's opinion. She really, like many Americans, does not understand the underpinnings of liberty.
=We get along according to law and principles, and the same laws and
=principles that allow them freedom of worship allow homosexuals
=freedom to marry.
And should allow polygamous groups to marry. If you agree with that,
then we can talk. If you _don't_ agree with that, then please tell me
what's wrong with plural marriage when it's taken for granted that gay
marriage should be legal.
I am with you. I am a Christian of great faith and believe that GOD will judge us all when we die. I am not so arrogant as to believe it is my job to do GOD'S judging. So long as they don't try to teach my children these things are acceptable to our faith then I could care less. When GOD has had enough I will watch the fireworks. I will continue to lead my family in the belief that we respect others religious / heathen beliefs and share the gospel with those who will hear it.
No one is interested in you sharing anything when you call them "heathen beliefs" (which is about as arrogant as it gets). The God I would choose to believe in isn't interested in "judging" anyone. You have a small-minded conception for what is possible in a God. I appreciate that you "could care less" about what others do and I couldn't care less about what you as well. We'll agree to stay away from each other and that suits me just fine.
I don't understand why same-sex relationships are so threatening to some people. Any relationship can compromise the integrity of society, the question is fidelity and commitment to community, right. Plenty of church-going heterosexual youngsters get married irresponsibly and find themselves in a load of financial or other trouble with children they aren't prepared to raise, and that adds nothing to the community and often drains it. I wouldn't support an irresponsible homosexual coupling under the same circumstances. But as far as I'm concerned, that's the only threat to me from other people's personal decisions about love and marriage.
Not sure how this affects anyone? See NPR article showing how this directly affects religious liberties in the U.S.
http://www...d=91486340 (Take special note of "Act Three" section of the article).
"Live and let live" would be nice wouldn't it? The Golden Rule is as simple as it gets, but human nature complicates things.
Thank you so much for bring the fear tactics of the H8 campaign up. I appreciate that you don't know ANYTHING about the FACTS of the issue. Please stop reading your little forwarded emails from ward members that propagate this BS.
=It seems to me that the LDS Church will make these moral stands but
=they always seem to be on the wrong side of history. They voted in
=the 1850's to be a slave territory, they sanctioned polygamy, they
=were big supporters of prohibition, they fought against the ERA
=amendment, and they didn't give blacks the priesthood until after the
=civil rights movement was basically over in 1978.
How can you say that polygamy was "on the wrong side of history" but
gay marriage is on the right side? I am opposed to those polygamous
groups who marry off under age girls to older man, just as I am op-
posed to the small minority (but stereotypical for some people) of gay
men who prey on under-age boys. But the only legal reason I can think
of for prohibiting polygamy among adults is the Victorian value sys-
tem, and that value system opposes gay marriage just as fervently as
it opposes polygamy.
As I've said in other posts, get the Utah state legislature consider-
ing a bill that would legalize marriage of from two to four adults of
_any_ gender combination (which would legalize both polygamy and gay
marriage), and I would support that bill.
I’m a member of a large “faithful” Mormon family, and a number of family members believed “because so-and-so at church said so” that if the Proposition fails the Mormon Church would be forced to perform gay marriages in the Temple. I was amazed, but it was very illustrative of the fear and lack of information driving the process.
I heard mention of the ADF (the Alliance Defense Fund), and I'm curious as to why the LDS church would agree to join a coalition that has hired ADF as its legal counsel when the ADF in its hiring policies refuses to hire Mormons?
Isn't discrimination wrong in all cases, whether it's directed at gays or Mormons?
Listening to several comments about churches losing their tax-exempt status, it's important to note one very important thing:
The involvement in this action has nothing to do with partisanship. Church association aside, it is vital to recognize that this is not about political parties nor a specific candidate.
It is a group of people who share similar moral values--whether they be LDS, Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, Sun-Worshipers or otherwise. This is a moral issue. If religion and/or personal conviction have any place in government, it is about moral issues like this proposition.
Before you go crying 'foul' on tax-exempt status. It would help to look at what the IRS code actually says on the matter.
Here's a summary from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State website:
The free speech rights of religious leaders are already broadly protected by the U.S. Constitution. Clergy can and do address public policy concerns, ranging from abortion, gay rights and gun control to poverty, civil rights and the death penalty. They may support legislation pending in Congress or the state legislatures, or call for its defeat. They may endorse or oppose ballot referenda. Indeed, discussion of public issues is a common practice in religious institutions all over America.
The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. This restriction, which is found in federal tax law, is not limited to churches and other religious ministries. In fact, it is applied to every non-profit organization in the country that holds a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
I am troubled that the Mormon Church's position against gay marriage violates their own canon of scripture where they claim they will not infringe on the religious rights and liberties of other as stated in Doctrine and Covenants Section 134:
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
Thus, a gay person wanting to approach God in a church that blesses and celebrates a gay marriage, would not be allowed to be married according to that church's sacraments.
Being a WELS Lutheran, I believe that homosexuality is a sin as the Bible clearly states. But, as an American I find it offensive that the government is involved in the business of Marriage at all. It's my view that Govt. needs to get out of the business of marriage and limit their view on it to Civil Unions. Marriage, even between various "Christian" denominations, varies widely. For instance, according to my denomination's beliefs, marriage ends at death because there will be no need for it in the afterlife. For Mormons, it's eternal. America is supposed to be the land of "Freedom of Religion" which includes freedom from religion if you so choose.
I invite all people of faith to take a moment and put the shoe on the other foot before they decide to try and legislate morality.
What belies Proposition 8 is the L.D.S. Church's belief that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle - that this whole issue is about agency - because the unacceptable alternative, in their view, is that homosexuals were designed that way in the pre-existence by god, therefore, they would have to have the same rights as everyone else.
Now, having said that, here is my question:
By definition, a bisexual can “choose” who they have sex with. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are born that way. If people truly believe in the idea of “choosing their sexuality” then they, themselve's, must have had sexual options. If not, and they still believe in “choosing sexuality,” they are hypocrites… and cruel one’s at that (hardly Christ-like and far from the "golden rule").
Please ask your L.D.S. guests, did they choose their sexuality?
=By definition, a bisexual can “choose” who they have sex with. Both
=heterosexuals and homosexuals are born that way. If people truly
=believe in the idea of “choosing their sexuality” then they,
=themselve's, must have had sexual options. If not, and they still
=believe in “choosing sexuality,” they are hypocrites… and cruel one’s
=at that (hardly Christ-like and far from the "golden rule").
=
=Please ask your L.D.S. guests, did they choose their sexuality?
I most definitely did not choose my sexuality. I'm straight. So how
does that make me a hypocrite?
Note that I have no problem with gay marriage in principle; I just say
that if we're going to make gay marriage legal and therefore shoot
down the Victorian value system, let's also make the _other_ things
that value system prohibits legal as well at the same time.
Proponents of a ban on gay marriage often say that it "threatens traditional marriage." In what ways is traditional marriage threatened, beyond a simple reduction in exclusivity? Is this perhaps only an imagined threat, not unlike those of miscegenation in the late 1960s?
10/22/2008 7:23:40 PM
© 2009 KUER, 101 S. Wasatch Dr., SLC, UT 84112