Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Kramodlog]

Marriage, in addition to its magical effect, is also a form of "contract" (scare quotes used because it isn't arbitrated using contract law). That declaration is acknowledged by the state and according certain privileges and obligations. A couple is a couple before the contract is entered into, but marriage adds a expectation of stability on the part of participants (thus it is expensive and time-consuming to exit the union).

Many of marriage's effects can be at least partly duplicated by other legal frameworks: wills, living wills, contracts and agreements, power of attorney, etc. Marriage as a legal entity is merely a bundled package offered by the state with its own attached riders (like incestuous can't take advantage).

And the state can provide that legal bundle to couples who didn't go through the ritual, like it does in Québec. The ritual is not a necessity. Right now the state discriminates against couples who didn't go through with the ritual for no good reason, like it use to refuse to give that legal bundle to couples of the same gender.

Gender, rituals, ethnicity, aren't good reasons refuse the legal bundle to couples.

 

[Nagol]

And the state can provide that legal bundle to couples who didn't go through the ritual, like it does in Québec. The ritual is not a necessity. Right now the state discriminates against couples who didn't go through with the ritual for no good reason, like it use to refuse to give that legal bundle to couples of the same gender.

Gender, rituals, ethnicity, aren't good reasons refuse the legal bundle to couples.

Actually, Quebec has the weakest form of common-law in Canada. Dissolution of a common-law arrangement comes with no recourse except for child-support, no sharing of property even if acquired during the relationship, etc. In other provinces and territories the participants become more entangled though still less than those who specifically use the bundle or gather the individual agreements.

I'm in favour of offering a bundle to any group of consenting adults; it is best if the legal framework is kept separate from any association's definition/framework. Pope Innocent III Pious IV has a lot to answer for with regard to his annexation of marriage.

 

[Kramodlog]

Actually, Quebec has the weakest form of common-law in Canada. Dissolution of a common-law arrangement comes with no recourse except for child-support, no sharing of property even if acquired during the relationship, etc.

If you buy a property you have to fo see a notary and they are the ones who make papers regarding ownership in case people leave each other. The rest is pretty much similar. Like you can adopt, file joint income taxes and put RRSPs in the name of your spouse for retirement even if you aren't married.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And the state can provide that legal bundle to couples who didn't go through the ritual, like it does in Québec. The ritual is not a necessity. Right now the state discriminates against couples who didn't go through with the ritual for no good reason, like it use to refuse to give that legal bundle to couples of the same gender.

Gender, rituals, ethnicity, aren't good reasons refuse the legal bundle to couples.

Um, the state in Quebec does require that you do go through the ritual to get married. Or is this a confusion between the ritual of a religious marriage vs the ritual of a civil marriage (which may very little ritual involved at all)?

As far as I can tell, common-law marriage in Quebec is very loose and affords very few of the privileges of "ritual" marriage.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

A difficulty that I have is the notion that conflict can and must be avoided. That seems to frame the issue in an unhelpful manner. Families have to deal with all sorts of issues -- learning difficulties, death or debility of a family member, alzheimers and other forms of dementia, mental illness in general, issues relating to poverty, substance and other abuse, legal issues -- which cannot in general be removed from a child's life. A standard based on an avoidance of conflict seems unrealistic.

(I imagine a response that preventable conflict can and should be avoided. But, also, that putting homosexuality as a conflict item next to the above is not reasonable.)

A possible more core standard might be the following, which is taken from the discussion that I linked, above:



But, that answer is challenged later in the same discussion:

With some elisions:



Thx!
TomB

I'm not suggesting that conflict should be avoided, even if the conflict is preventable. Conflict isn't aways a bad thing. It can lead to beneficial changes being made, in some instances. What I find unreasonable is expecting Mormons to have to baptize kids of same-sex couples. It's not like it's some super-secret that Mormons are against same-sex marriage. These couples know this. They have different beliefs than the Mormon church, and they want the Mormon church to basically ignore its beliefs and traditions, so they can join. I don't support the Mormon church or it's ridiculous reasoning for hating same-sex love. Hell, you can ask trappedslidder, he'll telly you how favorably I view Mormons. Regardless of how backwards and ignorant I find them, they have their beliefs. If you want to join that group, or any similar group, it would probably help if you held the same beliefs.

I have to question why these couples want their kids to join the Mormon church? As I said before, it's not secret that Mormons are against same-sex marriage. Why would you want your kids to join a group that is going to teach them to hate you and your partner? It's like a black couple adopting a white kid, and sending him off to be indoctrinated by their local KKK chapter on how to hate black people. And before people start complaining, no, it isn't the same situation. It's the same idea, though. You are joining a group that is against you and your beliefs, and you know this beforehand. It's not a surprise that they don't want you or your kids to join. It makes no sense to put your kids into this kind of situation.

If they have a need to follow some religion, there are plenty of them to choose from. If they are so interested in a space faring religion, they can join Scientology. They're fairly similar, and it's my belief that Scientology took some of its ideas from Mormonism.

 

[tomBitonti]

I have to question why these couples want their kids to join the Mormon church? As I said before, it's not secret that Mormons are against same-sex marriage. Why would you want your kids to join a group that is going to teach them to hate you and your partner? It's like a black couple adopting a white kid, and sending him off to be indoctrinated by their local KKK chapter on how to hate black people. And before people start complaining, no, it isn't the same situation. It's the same idea, though. You are joining a group that is against you and your beliefs, and you know this beforehand. It's not a surprise that they don't want you or your kids to join. It makes no sense to put your kids into this kind of situation.

If they have a need to follow some religion, there are plenty of them to choose from. If they are so interested in a space faring religion, they can join Scientology. They're fairly similar, and it's my belief that Scientology took some of its ideas from Mormonism.

Most of the above I agree with. I find it very hard to imagine a homosexual couple wanting to send their child to an organization which will teach them that their parents are very bad people.

However, there are other cases: A minor (say, who is 14) who wants to join, with parents who disagree but who won't stand in their child's way. A child of separated parents, one of whom is openly gay and who has a new (non-married) partner. Or, what is to happen to a child who is a long standing member whose parents are discovered to be homosexual, and who, until discovery, and worked very hard to keep their sexuality hidden?

I also have a problem with requiring a child of a homosexual marriage to make a declaration of disapproval. Unless *all* admissions are required to make the same declaration. Even then, the requirement strikes me as wrong minded.

This all seems to be a way of causing a lot of harm, by disrupting relationships and communities.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Kramodlog]

Um, the state in Quebec does require that you do go through the ritual to get married. Or is this a confusion between the ritual of a religious marriage vs the ritual of a civil marriage (which may very little ritual involved at all)?

You can also file your income taxes with your partner so governments consider your couple a de facto union and your partner a de facto spouse. No need to waste time and money on the ritual.

Basically, the government recognizes couples whether they went through the ritual or not.

As far as I can tell, common-law marriage in Quebec is very loose and affords very few of the privileges of "ritual" marriage.

You pretty much get the same rights, benefits and responsabilities, including being able to be a foster parents. No discrimination for unmarried couples. Or single people for that matter. The big difference, to over simplify, is that you aren't entitled to half of what your spouse had and half of the income.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You can also file your income taxes with your partner so governments consider your couple a de facto union and your partner a de facto spouse. No need to waste time and money on the ritual.

Basically, the government recognizes couples whether they went through the ritual or not.

You pretty much get the same rights, benefits and responsabilities, including being able to be a foster parents. No discrimination for unmarried couples. Or single people for that matter. The big difference, to over simplify, is that you aren't entitled to half of what your spouse had and half of the income.

According to the Quebec government website on common-law marriage, you're playing up the 'same rights, benefits, and responsibilities' bits quite a bit.

Also, single people can adopt in the US. It's harder (as I imagine it would be in Quebec) because of the fewer resources involved (mostly time).

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Most of the above I agree with. I find it very hard to imagine a homosexual couple wanting to send their child to an organization which will teach them that their parents are very bad people.

However, there are other cases: A minor (say, who is 14) who wants to join, with parents who disagree but who won't stand in their child's way.

I view it the same as getting a tattoo. Can a 14 year old get a tattoo? Sure, with parental consent. Is the parent going to give consent to this 14 year to make a declaration of disapproval about same-sex marriages? It's possible. Is it likely? I doubt it.

A child of separated parents, one of whom is openly gay and who has a new (non-married) partner.

I'm willing to bet there would be a lot of court dates set for that couple.

Or, what is to happen to a child who is a long standing member whose parents are discovered to be homosexual, and who, until discovery, and worked very hard to keep their sexuality hidden?

At that point the child would have already been baptized, so I guess it would be a non-issue. I'd still question why this couple would stay in the Mormon church if they were married and know what the Mormon religion teaches about homosexuality.

I also have a problem with requiring a child of a homosexual marriage to make a declaration of disapproval. Unless *all* admissions are required to make the same declaration. Even then, the requirement strikes me as wrong minded.

I'm guessing it's something all members do. They're Mormons. As I said before, their hate of same-sex marriages isn't a secret. You know what you're getting into. Why, knowing what Mormons believe, you'd still want to join is beyond me. It's like Black mormons. When you see what Mormons believe about black people, you wonder why would any black person want to join or stay a Mormon?

This all seems to be a way of causing a lot of harm, by disrupting relationships and communities.

I agree. It disrupts the Mormon community. You know what they believe. You know how they feel. You still want to go join up and force them to change their beliefs to please you? That's a bit unfair. I mean, would you want Mormons to demand you make changes to your beliefs and traditions just so they can join?

 

[trappedslider]

Most of the above I agree with. I find it very hard to imagine a homosexual couple wanting to send their child to an organization which will teach them that their parents are very bad people.

However, there are other cases: A minor (say, who is 14) who wants to join, with parents who disagree but who won't stand in their child's way. A child of separated parents, one of whom is openly gay and who has a new (non-married) partner. Or, what is to happen to a child who is a long standing member whose parents are discovered to be homosexual, and who, until discovery, and worked very hard to keep their sexuality hidden?

I also have a problem with requiring a child of a homosexual marriage to make a declaration of disapproval. Unless *all* admissions are required to make the same declaration. Even then, the requirement strikes me as wrong minded.

This all seems to be a way of causing a lot of harm, by disrupting relationships and communities.

Thx!
TomB

HEre's the letter from The First Presidency clarifying

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY

47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200

November 13, 2015

To: General Authorities; Area Seventies; General Auxiliary Presidencies; Stake, District, Mission, and Temple Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.

All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.

May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.

Sincerely yours,

https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng

and some commentary http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook

I suggest you read the letter and commentary before posting more questions. Also did you have a chance to watch the video that I linked to up thread?