tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9105015510513969546.post4544413624227982610..comments2023-09-22T10:33:06.365-07:00Comments on Proclaim Liberty: MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONYGabrielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11544013118278792679noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9105015510513969546.post-50118134548418582362008-10-29T21:08:00.000-07:002008-10-29T21:08:00.000-07:00I have posted this on behalf of the person to whom...I have posted this on behalf of the person to whom this post is referenced. This was his correspondence to me via email:<BR/><BR/>Here is my response to your most recent blog posting. Thank you so much for being so fair-minded as to post my responses. The Lord said that we should, "Come and let us reason together.." I look forward to hearing more from you<BR/><BR/>GF - The only reason government involves itself in any way in the religious institution of marriage is for issues regarding divorce, i.e. the division of property, custody of children, etc. Since the government cannot dictate to religious organizations who can be married, and marriage in religious organizations is between a man and a woman, the only unions to which a government can ever involve itself in with regard to marital dissolution, are those between a man and a woman.<BR/><BR/>CM - Sorry, but many religious organizations perform same-sex weddings. The government can't pick one religion to favor and therefore should allow SSM. Atheists need a way to marry, so civil marriages done at the Court House need to be available as well. Church & State need to remain separate. Churches should marry whom they wish, but government must treat all alike. Consider this -<BR/><BR/>Bruce R. McConkie, in his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, gives us additional doctrinal support for the absolute separation of church and state. He discusses -<BR/><BR/>Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:22-26. He states -<BR/><BR/>"How better could the Master Teacher proclaim his doctrine of separation of church and state than he did here in avoiding the trap of the Pharisees and Herodians?<BR/>These scheming and hypocritical "spies" offered Jesus these two alternatives as possible answers to their diabolically clever question: (1) Say, 'Yes, pay the hated poll tax to Rome as the law already requires,' which answer would cause the Pharisees to inflame the people against him. Or: (2) Say, as the sect of Zealots taught, 'No, Israel is a theocracy; God only is her King; pay no tribute to a foreign power,' in which event the Herodians would have delivered him "unto the power and authority of the governor," charging him with sedition and rebellion.<BR/>But from his lips instead came the decree: 'Render unto God and Caesar their own.' That is, in this present world where wicked men will not repent and come unto the fulness of the Lord's perfect order of government, there must be two separate powers - ecclesiastical and civil - the one supreme in spiritual matters, the other in temporal. Neither power can dictate to the other. And men are subject to them both."<BR/>(Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols.,[Salt Lake City: Bookcraft], 1:600,601.)<BR/><BR/>People cannot be denied civil equality based on subjective religious doctrine. This is what D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 express.<BR/><BR/>GF - Since the government has clearly overstepped its bounds by involving itself with religious ceremonies and religious definitions, I have the right to voice my opinion to the government that it has intervened where it should not have.<BR/><BR/>CM - Government is in NO WAY interfering. It doesn't tell religious organizations what they can or cannot do. Yes, you DO have the right to express your opinion via speech, press, and your vote. HOWEVER, the aforementioned verses denounce the idea of restricting the rights of others based on our subjective religious beliefs. Voting for prop.8 does that since gays DO have that right. You may feel that it is not a "natural right", but it IS at LEAST a LIBERTY and infringing upon those based on our theology is still condemned. You stated above that, 'government involves itself in any way in the religious institution of marriage is for issues regarding divorce, i.e. the division of property, custody of children, etc. " Agreed. These same reasons also apply to gays. Government needs to address them as well.<BR/><BR/>GF - D&C 134:4 is a mandate to all members of the Church to voice their opinion, that the government has intervened in proscribing rules of worship and dictating public devotion with regard to marriage. Marriage is a religious function, and the government has no business defining what marriage is. It does not have that right. Yes on Proposition 8 reaffirms that the government has no business in defining or dictating a historically religious institution.<BR/><BR/>CM - As stated for the reasons above, government MUST be involved from a civil/secular standpoint. It also has a need to address the above reasons for atheists. gays have those same needs and government needs to address them from a legal standpoint. Government also extends additional rights/benefits to married people (over 1000 from the feds alone). This alone makes it necessary for the government to get involved in determining marriage. Let churches deal with marriage from a theological point of view and let government deal with marriage from a legal/civil rights perspective.<BR/><BR/>GF - In regards to the church loosing its tax exempt status, I find the threat of the government to impose fines on an organization for speaking out on political issues deplorable. It violates the right of individuals to express their views. Through the tax code, the government has found a clever mechanism to silence its greatest threat, people who believe in a being superior to the state. I believe the current tax code is immoral and should be abolished.<BR/><BR/>CM - I agree...unless a church is more of a political organization than a religious one.<BR/><BR/>GF - I do not believe the government should have any right to participate in social engineering by granting favorable treatment to people who are married or to whomever it deems.<BR/><BR/>Cm - As you stated above, "government involves itself in any way in the religious institution of marriage is for issues regarding divorce, i.e. the division of property, custody of children, etc. " . If government we totally out of the marriage business, there would be no legal way to address the above. Stay-at-home moms could be put out on the street, a man's property would go to his next of kin blood relative rather than his wife. Aliimony and child supprt and visitation are all out the window as well. This is EXACTLY how gay couples are treated though. Would any LDS woman like to live without the protections marriage provides? No Way! How can we, as LDS, do unto gays that we wouldn't want done unto us?<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that churches need to address marriage from a religious standpoint and let government deal with marriage from a civil standpoint addressing the division of property, custody of children, etc. type of issues and since gays need to have those addressed as well, government has an obligation to give them these same Civil Rights.<BR/><BR/>We LDS need to liken the scriptures and our past history unto ourselves. Our scriptures denounce infringing upon the rights of others. Gays have the right in CA to marry. We can't vote to revoke those rights (like others did to us 120 years ago). Voting for Prop 8, therefore, is hypocritical and unChrist-like on many levels.Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11544013118278792679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9105015510513969546.post-55701494194271774482008-10-29T10:14:00.000-07:002008-10-29T10:14:00.000-07:00Very interesting write-up! I'd never taken that a...Very interesting write-up! I'd never taken that angle on it before, and your point is very well-argued! :-) Thanks!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15875615042494162401noreply@blogger.com