Don’t be ridiculous. You’ve bought into Prop 8 proponents lies.

No lawsuit will go forward, simply because the government cannot tell any church who they must marry.

No synagogue has ever been forced to marry someone outside the Jewish faith. Same for Eastern Orthodox Church.

And the Catholic church has always refused to marry anyone who has been divorced but whose marriage hasn’t been annulled. There is not a judge in the land that has ever tried to order a priest to marry a couple just because there is a civil divorce decree and marriage license.

The First Amendment is very clear on this. There will be no rush to the courts simply because no lawyer in his right mind would ever take it. And no judge would ever side with someone whose clergy will not marry them.

That’s why we have Justices of the Peace.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage

*Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families*

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Check out other official LDS opinions regarding prop 8 at:
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8

Very interesting…

To address legal rights:

First, were marriage and domestic partnerships truly identical and interchangeable institutions, there would be no issue of legal rights.

For example, marriage in a church and marriage before a justice of the peace offer exactly the same civil, social, and emotional benefits. This is because all parties – both in and without the relationship – see these two things as identical and because there are no state-enforced barriers as to who can participate in each.

Suppose, however, that the State were to say that only Christian church marriages would be recognized by the state and that Jews must have a justice of the peace, then these would be inequal. It could be said all day long that “Jews have the same rights” but it would not be true. They would be subjected to a separate legal status.

This is similar to what anti-gays are proposing. They claim that gays would “still have rights” because of domestic partnership laws, but the very act of restricting gay couples from marriage based only on the fact that they are gay couples makes such status inequal.

Second, all the above is moot because marriage and domestic partnerships are NOT indentical and interchangeable.

Most of the laws that allow interaction between couples and the State are the same. But the social and emotional benefits are tremendously different. As are the practical applications.

Take insurance, for example. While a couple that has filed state paperwork can apply for coverage, the process for acceptance has much higher requirements than those for marriage. And hospitals and other institutions are much delayed in their recognition of partership v. marriage.

They just aren’t the same.

But the biggest difference is in Federal recognition.

Currently the Federal government recognizes neither status. But I expect that to change in the near future. I predict that the Federal government will allow states to define who is married and who is not and will grant benefits and rights based on state determination.

Proposition 8 will prevent the federal government from allowing gay couples to have social security, immigration, and a thousand other Federal rights, benefits, and obligations.

There are the commonly known IRS, social-security and health insurance advantages a heterosexual couple is given automatically when they get married. But there are some examples of other advantages with being “married”:

Car Rental agreements generally will not charge extra for a driver who is a spouse.
AAA has advantages to households with spouses.
Car insurance coverage is better with a spouse rather than a roommate or a “life-partner”.
Certain insurance coverage is automatic when you go on your honeymoon and then thereafter.
Inheritance is automatic (though, everyone should have a will).

These should be automatic benefits with no extra legal haggling for gay/lesbian couples too…right?

“What lawsuits? What are you talking about?”

I think she’s refering to some of the stuff outlined in this article at NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Robert,

“religious groups should refrain from contributing anywhere near the amount of money they have so far. It is almost on the same coin of big business. Contributions of nearly $20 million dollars have been made to sway this vote one way. It is toeing the line, if not crossing it, of special interest groups enforcing their will through funding. That is why there should be a limit in California on campaign funds.”

The LDS church has not donated any money to the pro prop 8 campaign. It has encouraged members to donate $ but no one is forced. I was asked to donate and did on my own but was not forced to. I know people who didn’t and there were no repercussions.

To begin, let me please draw a parallel with an issue that is just as partisan. Abortion has from day one been argued as a moral issue from one side of the bench to a civil liberties issue by the other. But who is right or wrong? In my opinion (which amounts to a grand total of one vote by the way), neither is one or the other, but pushing your beliefs onto another person is where the real problem begins.

For Prop. 8, it begins and ends on both sides. By calling people hateful or bigoted for not agreeing with your view is dangerous ground to tread. For example, if it is truly a moral issue with one person, should they be considered hateful for not agreeing with it? True bigotry can be found in a country like Iran, where homosexuality until recently was a crime punishable by death. On the flip side, I also believe that marriage is a legal issue. With that said, religious groups should refrain from contributing anywhere near the amount of money they have so far. It is almost on the same coin of big business. Contributions of nearly $20 million dollars have been made to sway this vote one way. It is toeing the line, if not crossing it, of special interest groups enforcing their will through funding. That is why there should be a limit in California on campaign funds. But that is another issue entirely.

To end my discussion I imagine a little biographical information would add credibility. I am of voting age, and currently a student at a fairly liberal state institution in Southern California. A school that gets quite caught up in its democratic process too (we burned down a Bank of American thirty years ago during a riot protesting Vietnam). I am also a non-practicing member of the LDS church. Being raised in the Church has probably helped guide some moral compass I may have, but I would be lying to myself to say that my membership has shaped my identity. For some it may, but not for me. At any rate, my parents are dead set on which way their vote will go, but I’m still not so sure. If someone could please tell me exactly what rights would legally (and stress LEGALLY, please no more speculation on what could happen) be gained or loss, it would greatly inform me to make a better decision. Notice I never said the “right” one.

If they would only “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and “give unto God what is God’s” they would back off of gay marriage as a civil right and mind their own business when it comes to religious belief. If they refuse to “give unto Caesar”, as in respecting the rule of civil law, and try to merge what is civil and what is holy then aren’t they the ones who are in jeopardy of hellfire?

I wonder.