Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
11.05.2008 10:39 pm

Church responds to same-sex marriage votes

Special to the Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

COMMENTARY
Since Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot in June of this year, the citizens of California have considered the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. After extensive debate between those of different persuasions, voters have chosen to amend the California State Constitution to state that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Voters in Arizona and Florida took the same course and amended their constitutions to establish that marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman.

Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family, identity, intimacy and equality — stirs fervent and deep feelings.

Most likely, the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in this country.

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position.   No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

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.

Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved.  In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society.  While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position.   Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances.  As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

Even though the democratic process can be demanding and difficult, Latter-day Saints are profoundly grateful for and respect the ideals of a true democracy.

The Church expresses deep appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the many Latter-day Saints and others who supported the coalitions in efforts regarding these amendments.

6 comments

Comments are closed.

One of your best posts Dana.

— Tim
9:59 am November 6th, 2008

This topic is one of personal, as well as public, interest to me. Disclaimer: I have a homosexual child of 24. That’s the personal reason. As a matter of public policy, I can see both arguments. And so, here I sit, on the fence with my mug on one side, and my wump on the other. :)

I continue to maintain that the vocal Gay community is missing the point. They are deliberately getting in people’s faces and demanding things. My belief is that the best option is something similar to Vermont’s civil union law. Don’t call it marriage, because that appropriates religious language and gets too far into the face of the religious community.

Also, by the way, I’m disturbed for religious reasons by the various gay marriage bans. Whether you agree with the theology of the churches that do marry gays or not, the idea that the state would make a fundamentally religious act illegal flies in the face of the first amendment, as well as an attempt by the state to regulate the Church. I’d be interested to see what will happen the first time a Minister marries a gay couple illegally and gets arrested for it.

— hs
6:28 pm November 6th, 2008

I agree calling it marriage is hurting them, and have often said some sort of title in the realm of legal union or civil merger would help quite a bit.

hs, marriage has not been made illegal. It has been defined. Just like any other license, it has certain requirements before someone can get it.

A church can marry a gay couple if they want to. That doesn’t mean that the state has to recognize it. Seperation of church and state. What one does has no effect on what the other one does. Churches don’t have to marry gays in Boston if they don’t want to, and the state can’t force them to.

— Tim
10:37 pm November 6th, 2008

I am married, whether or not any government recognizes the marriage. That said, I find it ludicrous that a church opinion should be allowed to affect civil law.

If a religious group does not want to perform or recognize a same-sex marriage that is a matter for that church. No religion is forced to perform a wedding that does not meet the criteria of that religion. Within opposite-sex marriages there are churches that will not recognize the marriage of other denominations/religions. There are religions that will not perform marriages for opposite-sex partners because they do not meet that religions criteria. Yet these same religions do not seek to make those marriages illegal - they only work to make gays and lesbians illegal. It is that distinction that makes their behavior in this matter bigoted and discriminattory.

If a religion is against gay marriages, then don’t perform one - but stay out of mine.

— C. Granger
10:15 pm November 9th, 2008

C-

First off, the opinion of a church doesn’t affect civil law. The opinion of voters does. Voters decided to pass Prop 8 in California. Did churches help raise funds for commercials? Yes they did. That falls under freedom of speech, and is no different than any lawyer group, company, PAC, or other legally recognized organization donating to any campaign. But it was the people of California who voted, pure democracy in action.

As I said in my last post, marriage was defined under Prop 8. The definition for licensure is not favorable for the gay community, and they are obviously not happy about it. It is their right as citizens to work to change that definition. I am sure they will be exercising that right.

Your points about marriage in churches are all correct, and all besides the point. Legally, marriage is a license with a set of tax rules…that’s it. I can’t marry my sister, you can’t marry your partner, a blind person can’t get a driver’s license, a convict can’t get a liquor license, etc etc etc. All licenses have rules that have to be met before you can get one. Right now, you don’t meet them with your partner.

If you want it to change, then calling people bigots is not the way to go about it. Don’t act like the pouting kid in the grocery store aisle. Despite what people seem to think, marriage is not a civil right, and it is not a legal right. A license is not a right (the Supreme Court ruled on this multiple times, one involved a driver’s license, and I forget the other ones).

Good luck in your quest.

— Tim
1:26 pm November 10th, 2008

Just wanted to inform the difference in a Civil Union (which is not legal in MOST states)and Marriage

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as “next-of-kin” for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

— Joe
11:42 pm November 12th, 2008