cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board - My brief discussion with a fellow ward member

- Religion (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - My brief discussion with a fellow ward member (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24600)

My brief discussion with a fellow ward member

He says "I've been hearing a lot of stuff about gay rights from my clients, who are mostly liberal. That we are against gay rights. Prop 8 or something? I told them it's not true."

I then apprised him of the situation.

"Oh. I need to talk to you later about this."

Hopefully you told him the Churches response to Prop 8, and not some Waters version of what the Church has counseled?

Quote:

Originally Posted by T Blue (Post 293097)

Hopefully you told him the Churches response to Prop 8, and not some Waters version of what the Church has counseled?

No kidding. Do everyone a favor Waters, and just point this guy to the Church's press releases on lds.org.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat (Post 293208)

No kidding. Do everyone a favor Waters, and just point this guy to the Church's press releases on lds.org.

Uh... Excuse me. Mr. Corleone? (Cough... Cough...)

Proposition 8 isn't about "rights". Equal rights for registered domestic partnerships are already guaranteed by California state law under the California Family Code Section 297.5. I'm not sure what it is all about but it's not about equal rights. IMO it must be about equal "verbiage" b/c they already have all the rights, benefits, and privileges that married couples do in the state.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...file=297-297.5

"297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

The thing I hate about the whole ordeal is the horrible precedent that it would have set where the people already voted overwhelmingly on something (see Proposition 22 in 2000 - 61% YES vote) and having that overturned by a few liberal yippy yahoo judges who feel it's within their rights to legislate from the bench.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorCalCoug (Post 293302)

The church's spokesman has said that the church is opposed to civil unions that grant the same rights and privileges as marriage.

Just maybe you can wrap your ahead around the fact that it is about rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 293307)

The church's spokesman has said that the church is opposed to civil unions that grant the same rights and privileges as marriage.

Link?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 293307)

The church's spokesman doesn't speak on behalf of CA state law.

Wrap your head around that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 293307)

Not exactly. THe church stated in a press release:

"It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman."

"Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...otes#continued

Quote:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...der-attraction

1. Against civil unions and domestic parternships with same rights as marriage.
2. Against adoption by gays in such relationships.

PWNED.