Closing Temples

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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.

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.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

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.

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.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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

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:

Education Code (EC) 51933 (Outside Source) specifies that school districts are not required to provide comprehensive sexual health education, but if they choose to do so, they shall comply with all of the requirements listed below.

Comprehensive sexual health education instruction shall be age-appropriate and bias-free, and all factual information shall be medically accurate and objective. Instruction shall be appropriate for students of all genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and it shall be accessible for English language learner students and students with disabilities. Instruction shall encourage communication between students and their families and shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

In addition, in grades seven to twelve, instruction shall include all of the following: information about the value of abstinence; information about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including all Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-approved methods of reducing the risk of contracting STDs; information about all FDA-approved methods of contraception, including emergency contraception; information about California’s newborn abandonment law (Safe Surrender Law EC 51933 [12]) (Outside Source) and Penal Code 271.5 (Outside Source) and skills for making responsible decisions about sexuality.

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.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

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?

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

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

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!'"

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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

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.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

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.

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

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

Lame