LDS Church reaction to Prop. 8 ruling ....

[_harmony]

One would think that some LDS would be pleased that their governor was picked to be an Ambassador.

JAK

He wasn't my governor.

[_JAK]

One would think that some LDS would be pleased that their governor was picked to be an Ambassador.

JAK

He wasn't my governor.

The comment could have read: one would think that some LSD would be pleased that a governor of a predominately Mormon state was asked to be an Ambassador.

Part of what is significant is that a Democratic president chose to ask a Republican governor to be Ambassador to China. Obama could have chosen a Democrat. The appearance is that a Democratic president recognizes the value and contribution which can be made by a governor who happens to be a member of the opposing party and who may have various points of disagreement with the President.

For those who did have their governor selected who are also LDS, and likely Republican, one would think they might have a good feeling about the choice.

JAK

[_bcspace]

By saying the court's decision "is welcome," does this mean the Church does NOT oppose the civil union laws in CA (which the court said are equal to the marriage laws in CA)?

No.

Does this also mean that the Church is ok with the 18,000+ gay marriages still recognized under CA law?

No.

It seems to me that the Church is slowly getting boxed in to a fight over nothing more than the word "marriage," and is not fighting against civil unions or gay marriages that are recognized by law.

It does seem that way. The whole point of the fight is moot without also taking on "civil unions".

In the prop 8 case, I belive that court to be overwhelmingly pro gay marriage yet to overturn the voters would have been too ostentatious at this time so they validated the 18,000 to be used as another toehold later.

[_JohnStuartMill]

The Church hasn't taken a clear position on civil unions, bcspace. Maybe you could nudge them in the direction of being more forthcoming.

[_JAK]

The Church hasn't taken a clear position on civil unions, bcspace. Maybe you could nudge them in the direction of being more forthcoming.

Are you sure about this, John?

From the discussions, it would seem the LDS is opposed to “civil unions.” It would seem the LDS would see “civil unions” as a clear inroad toward same-sex marriage.

Can you point to specific, official LDS opinions or doctrines which suggest it has no position on “civil unions”?

JAK

[_RAJ]

JAK wrote:

Can you point to specific, official LDS opinions or doctrines which suggest it has no position on “civil unions”?

What exactly the LDS Church's position is with respect to civil unions or domestic partnerships is somewhat confusing --- so, strictly speaking, JSM is correct. The LDS Church's position is unclear. Much of the confusion stems from this and similar official statements the LDS Church made as part of its participation in the prop 8 political campaign:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... f-marriage

The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

That the Church "does not object" [to domestic partnership rights] is not the same as the Church fully supporting civil unions. One could get the impression that the LDS Church is okay will civil unions based on the preceding statement, (and the Church is probably fine with that) but that would be an incorrect impression.

[_JAK]

JAK wrote:

Can you point to specific, official LDS opinions or doctrines which suggest it has no position on “civil unions”?

What exactly the LDS Church's position is with respect to civil unions or domestic partnerships is somewhat confusing --- so, strictly speaking, JSM is correct. The LDS Church's position is unclear. Much of the confusion stems from this and similar official statements the LDS Church made as part of its participation in the prop 8 political campaign:

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... f-marriage

The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

That the Church "does not object" [to domestic partnership rights] is not the same as the Church fully supporting civil unions. One could get the impression that the LDS Church is okay will civil unions based on the preceding statement, (and the Church is probably fine with that) but that would be an incorrect impression.

The first quote is from JAK. The second quote is from the source you linked.

It is interesting that you recognize “The LDS Church’s position is unclear.” Perhaps some members would take issue with that. Perhaps not. In any case, most doctrinal shifts come over time and as new information becomes available. Some result from legislation which precludes religious doctrine. The doctrine is modified.

JAK