And Maine makes it 5 ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

... states that have legalized gay marriage, according to CNN. Three other states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa -- already allow same-sex marriages, and Vermont has passed a law legalizing gay marriage that takes effect in September.

Has the LDS Church fought this development in any of these states -- or is the "revelation" received by Brethren to get involved in politics and fight gay marriage (i.e., Prop. 8 in CA) only apply to certain states?

.

.

.

.
...

[_JohnStuartMill]

I don't think there are very many Mormons in those states. I imagine that the Church got involved in California and Arizona because they had considerable in-state resources there.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't think there are very many Mormons in those states. I imagine that the Church got involved in California and Arizona because they had considerable in-state resources there.

But if God instructed the Brethren to fight against the legalization of gay marriage (as many TBM's believe), wouldn't that apply to all states trying to recognize gay marriage? I had no idea God was so selective in His political battles ....

[_TAK]

make that 6 ..

While not a state, DC city council vote to allow SSM ..

LDS owned WTOP:
http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1669221&nid=25

[_JohnStuartMill]

I don't think there are very many Mormons in those states. I imagine that the Church got involved in California and Arizona because they had considerable in-state resources there.

But if God instructed the Brethren to fight against the legalization of gay marriage (as many TBM's believe), wouldn't that apply to all states trying to recognize gay marriage? I had no idea God was so selective in His political battles ....

You know that the Brethren make political calculations just like anyone else. They probably recognized that sending in out-of-staters to interfere with politics makes for bad publicity.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You know that the Brethren make political calculations just like anyone else. They probably recognized that sending in out-of-staters to interfere with politics makes for bad publicity.

Indeed. I just didn't know that God's will was contingent on good or bad publicity.

[_Sethbag]

I actually think that the church's massive effort in California will come back to haunt it, at least to some extent. This will be when more and more states allow it, as Vermont and Iowa just have, through their legislatures, and over the following few years, the sky doesn't fall. When straight couples go through life essentially unaffected, and huge numbers of formerly straight youth aren't converted to gayness by married homosexuals.

Then people will be able to look back at this Prop 8 controversy and see the church's effort as a good example of grumpy old conservative white men overreacting in a world that doesn't necessarily operate the way they'd like it to, and that a Supreme Being and Creator of the Entire Universe is unlikely to have commanded them to put up that huge fight in California.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I suspect that, as gay marriage gets consistent majority support in the United States, the Church will try to say that it's never been against civil unions. They'd be wrong, though:

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... attraction

[_Jason Bourne]

New York may be the next one or two down the line. The Governor of that state has introduced legislation to legalize gay marriage. Also, last year he directed the state agencies to recognize such marriages from other states.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I actually think that the church's massive effort in California will come back to haunt it, at least to some extent. This will be when more and more states allow it, as Vermont and Iowa just have, through their legislatures, and over the following few years, the sky doesn't fall. When straight couples go through life essentially unaffected, and huge numbers of formerly straight youth aren't converted to gayness by married homosexuals.

Then people will be able to look back at this Prop 8 controversy and see the church's effort as a good example of grumpy old conservative white men overreacting in a world that doesn't necessarily operate the way they'd like it to, and that a Supreme Being and Creator of the Entire Universe is unlikely to have commanded them to put up that huge fight in California.

In other words, it'll be just as embarrassing as the priesthood ban, except the Church won't be able say, "Uhh... we don't know where that policy came from."

Where will the Church go from here? It can't flip-flop on the issue in the near future without looking stupid. If there is a pro-gay revelation in a few decades, will the Mormons of the future claim that God just didn't want gay marriage for this particular period of history?