Welcome to the Newest Gay Marriage State in the Country

Where has President Monson endorsed civil unions? I know the Church has supported non-discrimination protections for gays, but I was unaware it went so far as to support civil unions. In fact, the closest thing I can find to an official Church statement on the matter seems at odds with the idea that it is "official Chuch doctrine" that we support civil unions. From a joint press conference just over a year ago with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman:

Elder Wickman wrote:
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.

BroncoBot wrote:
I'd like to see where all you "if you're against paying taxes, you shouldn't have a temple recommend" people sit on this. You guys OK with this law? Ready to protect and defend this one? Just wondering.

I'm trying to figure out what you even mean by this.

Sno, that press conference wasn't a year ago, it was in 2007 or 2008 sometime.



I typed in "civil unions" in lds.org about 8 months ago, when I was trying to make up my mind on the subject, and read something (I'm pretty sure it was by president Monson) that stated that they do oppose gay marriage, but they don't tolerate discrimination towards gay people. I can't find it now.

Schmoe wrote:

I'd like to see where all you "if you're against paying taxes, you shouldn't have a temple recommend" people sit on this. You guys OK with this law? Ready to protect and defend this one? Just wondering.

I'm trying to figure out what you even mean by this.

Seconded. I think he might be saying that if you don't pay taxes to the country you live in, you can't answer the "honest with your fellow man" and "uphold the law" portions of the recommend interview.



I'm not sure as to what else he is saying there. :)

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Sno, that press conference wasn't a year ago, it was in 2007 or 2008 sometime.



I typed in "civil unions" in lds.org about 8 months ago, when I was trying to make up my mind on the subject, and read something (I'm pretty sure it was by president Monson) that stated that they do oppose gay marriage, but they don't tolerate discrimination towards gay people. I can't find it now.

It was in 2006, and it was republished in December 2012 to reiterate the Church's stance.



I agree that the Church does not tolerate discrimination--you can find that with a quick search. They have backed the new anti-discrimination laws in the State of Utah: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343558/Mormon-Church-backs-protection-of-gay-rights-in-Salt-Lake-City.html?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



What I cannot find is the Church at any level, much less President Monson, embracing civil unions. Previous anti-discrimination law proposals that included civil unions for gays did not receive the Church's backing. Everything I have found has been opposed to civil unions.

snoscythe wrote:

Sno, that press conference wasn't a year ago, it was in 2007 or 2008 sometime.



I typed in "civil unions" in lds.org about 8 months ago, when I was trying to make up my mind on the subject, and read something (I'm pretty sure it was by president Monson) that stated that they do oppose gay marriage, but they don't tolerate discrimination towards gay people. I can't find it now.

It was in 2006, and it was republished in December 2012 to reiterate the Church's stance.



I agree that the Church does not tolerate discrimination--you can find that with a quick search. They have backed the new anti-discrimination laws in the State of Utah: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343558/Mormon-Church-backs-protection-of-gay-rights-in-Salt-Lake-City.html?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



What I cannot find is the Church at any level, much less President Monson, embracing civil unions. Previous anti-discrimination law proposals that included civil unions for gays did not receive the Church's backing. Everything I have found has been opposed to civil unions.

I might have read something that the church was anti-discrimination and so that meant that they were pro unions. I allow for the possibility that I made that connection in my mind. I though that I read something a little more convincing on the subject, though. Either they took it down before all of this started happening in March-ish, because they are trying to more fully clarify their position, or I just read something ambiguous that I took to mean a certain way and they took it down for that reason.



I'm pretty sure there was an article that popped up with some sort of information about the churches stance toward civil unions. I don't know, it was about a year ago I saw it, and i have seen many other church articles since then that have pushed that to the back burner.

hawkwing wrote:
Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

Lame. Libertarians aren't for gay marriage. Libertarians aren't "for" anything for that matter, unless you say they are "for" the absence of aggressive violence. Can't see how anything God has ever asked conflicts with that.

jvquarterback wrote:

Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

Lame. Libertarians aren't for gay marriage. Libertarians aren't "for" anything for that matter, unless you say they are "for" the absence of aggressive violence. Can't see how anything God has ever asked conflicts with that.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Alexander Hamilton



Sometimes you have to take a stand.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

Lame. Libertarians aren't for gay marriage. Libertarians aren't "for" anything for that matter, unless you say they are "for" the absence of aggressive violence. Can't see how anything God has ever asked conflicts with that.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Alexander Hamilton



Sometimes you have to take a stand.

Well libertarians are for a LOT of things. You won't find a group that is stronger for balancing the budget, for example. You won't find a political group that is more involved in the well being of children (most consider spanking to be physical abuse, for example - as does the LDS church).



They are *for* a very small, limited, government for example. They are for the constitution and individual rights and property rights. They are *for* other people living however they choose to live, as long as that choice doesn't infringe on the finances or rights of others.



As Jefferson said about religion, they basically say about everything: "(If) it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket" than libertarians are for that. Libertarians are FOR freedom (the party that actually cares most about that) and AGAINST government overreach.

hawkwing wrote:
Sometimes you have to take a stand.

As long as you're not standing on someone else I think libertarians can agree with that.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

Lame. Libertarians aren't for gay marriage. Libertarians aren't "for" anything for that matter, unless you say they are "for" the absence of aggressive violence. Can't see how anything God has ever asked conflicts with that.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Alexander Hamilton



Sometimes you have to take a stand.

Well libertarians are for a LOT of things. You won't find a group that is stronger for balancing the budget, for example. You won't find a political group that is more involved in the well being of children (most consider spanking to be physical abuse, for example - as does the LDS church).



They are *for* a very small, limited, government for example. They are for the constitution and individual rights and property rights. They are *for* other people living however they choose to live, as long as that choice doesn't infringe on the finances or rights of others.



As Jefferson said about religion, they basically say about everything: "(If) it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket" than libertarians are for that. Libertarians are FOR freedom (the party that actually cares most about that) and AGAINST government overreach.

Most importantly though they are for legalizing weed. That is usually the first chant you hear coming out of their mouths.



That being said, I'd vote for a libertarian in a heartbeat because fiscal extremism in the opposite direction of liberalism is exactly what this country needs. Not too dissimilar to a credit card junkie joining up a Dave Ramsey financial discipline class.

Mizzou is right in part. Though legalizing weed isn't the #1 priority of libertarians, though republicans and democrats paint it like that (there is serious threat to their power bases in the libertarian belief).



Libertarians believe that it is morally reprehensible to leave a debt for our children to be burdened under.



If stopped electing republicans and elected libertarians instead, the debt battle would actually start pushing back this way

mizzoucoug wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

Lame. Libertarians aren't for gay marriage. Libertarians aren't "for" anything for that matter, unless you say they are "for" the absence of aggressive violence. Can't see how anything God has ever asked conflicts with that.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Alexander Hamilton



Sometimes you have to take a stand.

Well libertarians are for a LOT of things. You won't find a group that is stronger for balancing the budget, for example. You won't find a political group that is more involved in the well being of children (most consider spanking to be physical abuse, for example - as does the LDS church).



They are *for* a very small, limited, government for example. They are for the constitution and individual rights and property rights. They are *for* other people living however they choose to live, as long as that choice doesn't infringe on the finances or rights of others.



As Jefferson said about religion, they basically say about everything: "(If) it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket" than libertarians are for that. Libertarians are FOR freedom (the party that actually cares most about that) and AGAINST government overreach.

Most importantly though they are for legalizing weed. That is usually the first chant you hear coming out of their mouths.



That being said, I'd vote for a libertarian in a heartbeat because fiscal extremism in the opposite direction of liberalism is exactly what this country needs. Not too dissimilar to a credit card junkie joining up a Dave Ramsey financial discipline class.

Oh No! Weed!



I don't smoke the stuff, but there are much more pressing issues. With trillions in debt (can't wait for that inflation to take over, it will really ease my student loan debt) and the corruption we've seen from both parties the last 50 years, making sure I know whether my neighbor is smoking the "herb" is pretty low on my "need to take action" list.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

Lame. Libertarians aren't for gay marriage. Libertarians aren't "for" anything for that matter, unless you say they are "for" the absence of aggressive violence. Can't see how anything God has ever asked conflicts with that.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Alexander Hamilton



Sometimes you have to take a stand.

I think libertarians would make their stand aligned with the previously mentioned solution. Get the government out of marriages. Why are we paying the state to get married??? Why does the state have to authorize that act?

BroncoBot wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

Its times like this that I'm glad I'm not a Libertarian so I can follow the council of the prophet of God and not feel it goes against my political beliefs.

Lame. Libertarians aren't for gay marriage. Libertarians aren't "for" anything for that matter, unless you say they are "for" the absence of aggressive violence. Can't see how anything God has ever asked conflicts with that.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Alexander Hamilton



Sometimes you have to take a stand.

I think libertarians would make their stand aligned with the previously mentioned solution. Get the government out of marriages. Why are we paying the state to get married??? Why does the state have to authorize that act?

yep. Libertarians are also the most likely group to "allow" our temple marriages to exist as/is, and to not try to mess with them.



If libertarians were around and in conrol back in the 1800s we wouldn't have had to move from Nauvoo, or kirtland, or new york, or .... We'd still be on the gold standard, wouldn't be in debt, wouldn't have overreaching welfare, wouldn't have social security AT ALL (it would be called welfare for old people, and old people would have to apply just like welfare - since SS is the biggest running ponzi scheme of all time).



**sigh**

Well, elections are only about winning and that's what everyone needs to understand come 2014 and 2016. For now, everyone who voted for Obamacare has got to pay with their job--it's that simple. Republicans/I/Tea Partiers have got to win every conceivable seat to neuter the fraud in chief we have right now.



Then we can look at a viable 2016 candidate to challenge Witchary who apparently is going to run.

The Supreme Court has issued a stay, until the appeal can be decided. So gay marriage is back off the table in Utah, at least temporarily.

hawkwing wrote:
The Supreme Court has issued a stay, until the appeal can be decided. So gay marriage is back off the table in Utah, at least temporarily.

You know, Judge Shelby acted quite irresponsibly in not issuing an immediate stay. He knew this was a huge decision he was handing down, one that was going against the direct will of the people of Utah. He should have granted the stay while everything got sorted out.

The Church has released instructions to leaders on same sex marriage.



http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage?fb_action_ids=10100449262642794&fb_action_types=og.likes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Short version:

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.