Closing Temples
 

Admittedly, I am happily far far away from the Prop 8 situation in California. However, being LDS and on a ward mailing list somehow does not prevent me from getting all of the emails about prop 8. I haven't done a ton of research into it, but I heard from someone the other day that if gay marriage was legal in California, the church might be forced to close its temples.

I guess my question is two fold: 1)Has anyone else heard this? 2)For you many lawyer types...does the legalization of gay marriage in CA put a clock ticking on someone suing to get married in one of our temples? Thus the need for closing?

I would think that nobody would try that because we don't let our own members in sometimes for various reasons...and to my knowledge nobody has tried to sue over that...so why would this be any different?

Thanks.

Are there any countries where the church has Temples and the gospel is moving forth where gay marriage is allowed?

I am just uninformed on the subject and am curious if countries where gay marriage is allowed a great blight has fallen upon the land.

We've had four years now in MA since gay marriage was legalized with a temple there in Boston. I would think if there is any legitimacy to this claim, that we would have heard a lot more of it by now.

Those kind of emails and that kind of fear tactic seems extremely manipulative and immature.

That's kind of what I was thinking...isn't it legal in Hawaii as well?

That was voted down a long time ago. But they recognize civil unions. Not "marriage."

The threat of closing temples is a little extreme. It could potentially come to that, I suppose, but that would be the nuclear option.

More likely would be lawsuits that would force churches (not only ours) to perform gay marriages. Yes, I know ... I've read all the lawyers who say it's impossible. I don't believe them.

I also don't believe that just because that hasn't yet happened in Massachusetts, it means it couldn't.

canada has several temples and allows gay marriage...

If you talk to tooblue he will say its only a matter of time till he gets thrown in jail for preaching homosexuality is evil from the pulpit (hate speech).

I was in canada 2 weeks ago and it looks the same to me.

Under what legal authority would someone be able to sue a church for not performing gay marriage?

Fear mongering. As usual, truth is no impediment to any position.

Heterosexual marriage is legal and to my knowledge, the church hasn't been forced to marry any straight people yet. Why would gay marriage be different?

Netherlands, Canada. The church will not close temples over this. At worst they would stop performing marriages and just do sealings like they do in Europe.

These emails are spot on.

Since the repeal of prohibition, the church has been forced to perform temple marriage for those who consume alcohol.

Because premarital sex is legal, the church has been forced to remove all requirements of chastity from temple marriage requirements.

Though the church prohibited AA's from entering the temple, the government forced miscegenation in the temple because it was legal.

The most galling is that due to First Amendment requirements, the church has been forced to grant temple weddings to those who speak ill of their sustained leaders.

I have no doubt that the church will likewise be forced to perform same-sex marriages in the temple if it is legalized.

My wife and I had that conversation last night. She has come to the conclusion that the Yes on Prop 8 campaign is mostly half-truths and scaremongering, but she is still voting on it because she feels that the Church has asked us to vote that way and she has faith in the Church. Truthfully, I respect her for that.

The No on Prop 8 group's strategy has become clear....lay low until the final week and then bombard. I have seen a bunch of No commercials and radio spots now.

Interesting highlights...

1. The State Superintendant of Schools has done a commercial stating that the arguments about teaching gay marriage in school are untrue. There is no requirement to teach any marriage in California school. The Yes camp countered yesterday with a commercial claiming that the Superintendent lied. As is the case with the Yes commercials, they very quickly flashed two links on the screen as support for their claims.

I went and checked out both links. Here are the two "proofs" offered by Yes to show that the Superintendent lied. Both are links to sex health education.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/sexeducation.asp ....which states:

the other link was http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/faq.asp ... which is more of the same unrelated info...a discussion on HIV/AIDS awareness, abstinence, and sexual health.

no wonder the Yes group flashed the links so quickly. There are likely hoping nobody goes and reads them.

Incidentally, the Yes commercial claims that in actuality, 96% of CA schools are required to teach about marriage. The claim is made and the links above are flashed onto the screen. Neither of those links make any mention of any schools being required to teach about any marriage, let alone 96%.

2. The No on Prop 8 site has a direct link to California's Opt Out clause, including the actual form parents can fill out, which allows parents to pull their child from any school activity that violates their "religious or moral beliefs." The Yes on Prop 8 group has been disingenuous and provided no reference or discussion of the existing Opt Out clause. Instead, the Yes group focuses on a couple in Mass. that received a "King and King" book. Very sloppy lawyering, frankly.

here is the link for those that want to read about the actual Opt Out clause:

http://www.savecalifornia.com/getact...efe1743269dc58

The one thing I still don't get about all this "think of the children" stuff.....currently, with civil unions, a teacher could inform students that some people have two mommies or two daddies. If Prop 8 passes, they can still talk about two mommies and two daddies because civil unions are not going anywhere, gays can still adopt etc. Nothing changes. More fearmongering.

Sssh! Stop making salient points here. Tex won't believe you, anyway.

Tell your wife this is from SU:

"Men [and women] rejoice at being led like cattle again, with the terrible gift of freedom that brought them so much suffering removed from them . . . . We will convince them that they will only be free when they have surrendered their freedom and submitted to us . . . . Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: 'Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!'"

I dont know what is more boring....sitting down and reading the actual Bros. Karamozov....or re-reading your reset of this quote over and over.

The Boy Scouts were caught under New Jersey's public accommodation law, the issue being around the freedom of association. The applicability of such a law to churches would be different, as would the section of the First Amendment it falls under.

But I don't put it past gay organizations to try, or sympathetic judges to rule in their favor. Or perhaps a legislature will test the courts by actually legislating it, though that is much more unlikely because they are answerable to the people.

The fact that gay marriage statutes were overturned in two states by 4-3 margins, and the Dale case was won 5-4 suggests to me there are razor margins in the judiciary on this issue.

You mean like the fact that 8 or 9 years ago a controversial ruling that relied upon a completely unrelated court decision as precedence allowed the highest court to rule that it IS legal to own child pornography in Canada?

Ya, who'd a thunk such things were possible :rolleyes:

The Boy Scout analogy isnt relevant, which you seem to acknowledge, so not sure why it is even there.

Will some groups try to file a lawsuit? I agree, some may try. Again, how will it even get past summary judgment? What is the legal basis? There is none.

Back to your cocoon of fear, my friend. Probably more comfy in there, anyway.

Lame

I would give you negative feedback for this unprovoked attack on my wife's honor...but truth be told, I have given everybody negative feedback and now I only get a cryptic pop-up that says that I must spread more feedback around before I can give it again.

you parade your wife around here

So, when the Boy Scouts of Canada were forced by the courts to permit a gay man to organize a troop that is not relevant? You mean when the man cited discrimination and used the legalization of Gay marriage to bolster his case that is not relevant?

And the fact that once Boys Scouts of Canada removed all prohibitions the Gay man NEVER formed a troop because his ONLY purpose for suing was to to advance the gay agenda -- that's fear mongering?

How about the fact that the church in Canada nearly eliminated Scouting completely due to the ruling -- that's not relevant?

Amazing that I have the time, given that I am so busy parading my kids around here, too.

If, by "parade," you mean post a link to a hot video of my wife trotting around the office in a miniskirt, then I think you are wrong. I have never done that.

tooblue, stick to drawing bananas. No, it is not relevant.

The Boy Scouts are not protected under the First Amednment like religions are protected.

The Church dropped the boy scouts (an unrelated entity) because it didnt want to have gay scoutmasters, not because there was a risk of the Church being forced to perform gay marriages as part of its religious practice. The Church cannot control how the BSA is operated, so it chose to disassociate.

I found this funny. I'm not in CA, but I guess I have to assume the No on Prop 8 campaign is 100% truthful and scaremongering is simply not a part of their tactics.

What do you mean by negative feedback? Is that a board functionality thing?

Precedence has no relevance ... nope, none at all ... lawyers and courts don't rely on precedence, nope not a... maybe you should start drawing bananas.

What the hell are you waiting for?

Maybe you can point to the cataclysm predicted by No on Prop 8 if the measure passes.

I can cite loads of things the Yes on Prop 8 group has predicted.....a few months ago, there was a pamphlet talking about an attack on democracy itself if Prop 8 were to fail. Our kids, the Church's tax exempt status, this very thread is wondering if temples would close. That is fearmongering.

As far as I know, the No camp has complained of unfair treatment under the law and discrimination.

I am open to be educated. Has the No camp predicted horrible things to come in the future if Prop 8 passes?

My videos are posted as a subscriber service. If you want free stuff, go to youporn.com

DDD, I apologize for dragging you into a potential discussion with a Prop 8 retard. I haven't followed this at all other than the little I've read on CG and CB.

But I have followed politics for a long time and rarely have I seen (and by rarely, I mean never) one side of the fence be completely truthful while the other continuously resorts to "half-truths". It just doesn't happen. Maybe this is a first. I will accept that as a possibility if you say it is so as you are 100x more educated on this issue than I am.

Thanks counselor.

I hadn't thought of precedence.

I guess we are screwed. Especially when that first lawyer in the US cites to Canadian law. That is some persuasive jurisdiction right there!

PS the Boy Scout case would not be precedent for the state of California violating the First Amendment as it pertains to freedom of religion..since the boy scout case is not about freedom of religion. You should watch more than 2 or 3 episodes of LA Law before you start making legal pronouncements.

I like you tooblue and think you are toocool, so I will now recuse myself and get sketching my bowl of fruit.

your wife has very sexy calves and high heels. Tell her SU said that too. Your avatar is a cute reenactmaent of your meeting her.

well I agree...the no camp has also been self serving.

One good example was the earliest commercials they were running...it depicted a heterosexual couple trying to get married but all these obstacles prevented them from actually getting married. The narrator appealed to emotion and said, 'what if you couldnt marry the person you love?"

I found that to be incredibly misleading and poor sportsmanship, as well.

However, in this particular issue, the No camp has referenced actual CA law, CA education code, the State Superintendent of SChools has spoken out on the issue.......while the Yes camp has referenced a negative experience in Massachusetts and offered no other legal foundation for any of the things it is floating.

Either way, the bottom line is that BYU is not going to a BCS bowl game this year and that makes me mad.

Undoubtedly the questions asked by liberal legal minds to their conservative friends, when discussing the Dale lawsuit, July 29, 1992.

Me in my cocoon, you with your head in the sand.

I'll see you in Vegas, baby!

that isnt my wife! that is "Nailen" Sarah Palin.

Indeed. Triplet's wife was too ugly to even be a mission sister.

Why is that a funny joke?