DiscussMormonism.com

This is an offshoot of something I just mentioned here.

In the Mormon church, "legality" of sex between two people, in the eyes of Elohim, is determined by whether or not those two people are married to each other. But marriage is, in the United States anyhow, a governmentally-recognized legal joining. The temple ceremony includes an oath not to have sexual relations with anyone other than one's husband or wife, to whom one is legally and lawfully married.

Now consider a "civil union". This is the alternative that some people have offered up in lieu of "marriage", for gays. This civil union would actually be recognized by the state, and would supposedly offer up all of the rights and privileges, as well as incur all of the same obligations, as marriage - it just wouldn't use the word "marriage". It's a civil union.

Suppose two heterosexuals, a man and a woman, enter into such a civil union.

Are they "living in sin" if they have sex with each other? Would the LDS church baptize such a couple, who were joined by the state in a civil union? Would such a couple be worthy to enter the temple, and would their civil union count toward fulfilling the covenant against sexual relations with one's husband or wife, with whom one is legally and lawfully wedded?

Sethbag wrote: Suppose two heterosexuals, a man and a woman, enter into such a civil union.

Are they "living in sin" if they have sex with each other? Would the LDS church baptize such a couple, who were joined by the state in a civil union? Would such a couple be worthy to enter the temple, and would their civil union count toward fulfilling the covenant against sexual relations with one's husband or wife, with whom one is legally and lawfully wedded?

Well, I don't know what the church would think (and obviously, I don't really care), but for all intents and purposes, that's exactly what I have with my wife: a civil union. All I care about is how my relationship is defined by law, because that's all that matters with respect to how we're viewed on the outside. "Marriage" is just a word commonly used to indicate that relationship contract (a legal contract), and is unfortunately conflated with all the hocus bogus crap about how it's viewed "in the eyes of the Lord."

But to answer your question, if the church were consistent, they would view it as you described. The fact is, they don't even recognize a difference yet, since civil unions don't technically exist (at least, not in the US. In Canada, for instance, if a couple has been living together long enough, they are considered "common law married" which is pretty much a civil union), so it's hard to say what stance they would take on it if it became a recognized legal contract.

One would think, however, that if they did take that stand, they would have to regard any marriage outside a temple to be a couple "living in sin," wouldn't they? And if they don't because of their legal status, they'd have to honor the contract of a civil union.

My guess is that the LDS church would have a different outlook depending on what options the government offers. If the government only grants civil unions, and leaves "marriage" to be defined by religions (that's how it ought to be) then I think the LDS church would not require heterosexual couples to repent for having sex within their monogamous civil union. On the other hand, if the government grants two kinds of legal union, both a lesser civil union and a greater "marriage" union, then I could see the LDS church only accepting the greater. For some reason they like to discriminate and be legalistic about these things.

The Dude wrote:On the other hand, if the government grants two kinds of legal union, both a lesser civil union and a greater "marriage" union, then I could see the LDS church only accepting the greater.

What would the church do if as in my hypothetical, you could either have a greater civil union or a lesser marriage union?

Abman, that link isn't working on my machine. Can you try again?

Asbestosman wrote:What if civil unions were treated as first-class across the nation while marriage was treated as second-class? What if those in civil unions had all the rights of marriage (insurance, property, visiting, etc.), but also paid no taxes while those that were married paid taxes as usual.

Would this method be agreeable to all? Then religion can keep marriage while anyone who wants a tax break could get a civil union, but could not call their relationship marriage.

What would the church do in this case? Complain, of course.

Sethbag wrote:Abman, that link isn't working on my machine. Can you try again?

viewtopic.php?p=202899

Or look for "Separate But Unequal--Could You Ever Support It?" in the Off-Topic Forum.