"If Same-Sex
Marriage Becomes Legal,
Will The Church Be Forced To Open
The Temples To Gays For Their Own
Wedding Ceremonies Or
Face Lawsuits?"
Someone wrote to us asking us this question regarding California's
Proposition 8. Here is our response -
Yes, we've heard that and it is a baseless claim. Even the
California Supreme Court's ruling allowing gay marriage specifically
stated that churches and ministers would be exempt from prosecution -
"Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the
designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom
of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no
religion will be required to change its religious policies or
practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious
officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention
of his or her religious beliefs."
Read the whole ruling for yourself here or just
go directly to the above quotation.
Gays make up about 2-3% of the population. Women make up more than
50%. Have women sued the Church to get the priesthood? The active
women of the Church are already members and many have temple recommends
and are just worthy as their husbands. People and the courts are FAR
more sensitive regarding the equality of women than they are regarding
homosexuals. From an outside view, our practices are pure
sexism. Practicing homosexuals on the other hand are not even members
nor could they be, much less hold temple recommends. What right
would they have to marry in a temple? Do you think a Catholic couple
in Salt Lake City could sue to be married in the Salt Lake Temple
because they think that it's so pretty and want to be married their
like their LDS friends have? It's laughable.
We all have heard of the Westboro Baptist Church aka the "'God
Hates Fags' Church" (GodHatesFags.com) and their rabid and hateful diatribes against
homosexuality. They still have their tax exempt status. Claims of
lawsuits and we LDS losing our tax exempt status are simply fear-
mongering desiring to shed more heat than light, wanting to feed on
peoples' emotions rather than to their logic and intellect.
Even if some whacko activist judge said that gays COULD marry in the
temple, 3 things would happen -
#1 The Church would tie the decision up in courts for years via
appeals and motions and would undoubtedly succeed in reversing that
ruling. There will be some sympathetic church going judge who surely
doesn't want gays forcing themselves on his own church. The judge
could be libertarian minded and dismiss the case on First Amendment
grounds saying, "What part of 'Shall Make No Law...Prohibiting The
Free Exerise Thereof' don't you understand?". The judge could also
be an elected figure and doesn't want to anger the vast majority of
voters by ruling against churches. It'll get dismissed somewhere
along the line.
#2 If that failed, the Church would simply quit performing legal
marriages in California temples and would encourage couples to get
married in non-CA temples or allow them to get married at City Hall
or by their bishop in the Cultural Hall and then immediately go to
the temple for the non-legally binding religious ordinance of sealing. This is done all over the world where temple marriages are not recognized as legally binding. The Church also waves the one-year probation penalty for marrying outside of the temple in such cases. The Church Handbook of Instruction specifically states that.
#3 If that didn't work, we would, along with other churches and
liberty minded people, push to pass a constitutional amendment
(state or federal) that would allow churches to marry whom they will
in their own facilities. Other churches would support it since they
would be hassled by gays as well. Such an amendment would get passed
at light speed. No politician would dare oppose it. It would have
overwhelming public support. This would be pushed through even if #1
and #2 were ruled in the Church's favor.
The bottom line is that gays will NEVER, barring a specific r
evelation to the contrary occuring, be sealed in the temples. Those
saying otherwise are simply engaging in fear mongering to scare
people into backing their cause. They desire to shed more heat than
light. They don't want people to think...just to act because rational
thinking destroys their assertions. Unfortunately, the Church did
this in CA, even after it was made aware of the falsehoods.
Please pass on the above info to anyone who feels that the Church
will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for practicing
homosexuals. We would L-O-V-E to hear their responses.
California's state constitution allowed Civil Same-Sex Marriage prior to Prop. 8. During that time, there was no incident involving same-sex couples demanding to be sealed in any of the seven LDS temples in California. There have been no lawsuits brought against the Church, Church officials or individual members for preaching that homosexual activity is an abomination before God. The state of California has not pulled the Church's non-profit status. There have been no threats or threats of threats nor rumors of threats to any aspect of religious liberty.
Massachusetts has had Civil Same-Sex Marriage since 2004 and there have been no incidents involving same-sex couples demanding to be sealed in the Boston Massachusetts Temple either. Massachusetts' LDS population experienced the identical outcomes that California had. No problems at all.
The following is a partial list of countries what perform Civil Same -Sex Marriages and the LDS temples in each -
As was the case in Massachusetts and California, there have been no
legal incidents nor threats to religious freedom in any of these
countries either. Unfounded claims that such incidents would take
place in locales where Civil Same-Sex Marriage proved to be
unwarranted and .
Elder Oaks' fearful remarks at BYU-Idaho are similarly unfounded
and unwarranted.
Also, has legalizing Civil Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts (and other states),
as well as the above listed countries harmed the sanctity of
holy matrimony for any couples in those places? Have temple sealings
been nullified in those locales? Obviously not. No couple's marriage
has been harmed anywhere due to Civil Same-Sex Marriage.
