Earlier, I had written a post titled, “I will not quit my post until properly relieved.” I wish to thank those of you who commented–even if you disagree.
The point of my original post was that we should follow the Brethren when they act ex officio, even if it means certain defeat. I would like to comment more along those lines. Now, what should you do if you’re a government official, and the Brethren advocate policy X, which is extremely unpopular, and, in your best judgement wrong, and perhaps illegal or perhaps unconstitutional? Then your oath as a government official may supercede the Brethren’s counsel. The late Rex Lee stated in his confirmation hearing as US Solicitor General that if the Brethren advocated something in contravention with the Constitution and laws of the United States, then his duty was to side with the law. Indeed, all Latter-day Saints (at least the ones in the USA) are expected to “befriend” the constitutional law of the land [D&C 98:5-6]. Even Dallin Oaks opposed the Brethren’s take on a public issue (school prayer).
I can certainly respect those (even in my own immediate family!) who oppose Prop 8 or Amendment 2 on those grounds. However, this is not a matter of violating the constitution, this is a matter of changing it, and the government has the right to place reasonable restrictions on whom one may marry. For example, what sane person would advocate repeal of laws prohibiting marriage to underage people? I’m sure that pedophiles would appreciate not being charged with statutory rape. I am also sure that the state has a valid interest in banning incest. Who wants to saddle taxpayers with DNA-based maladies that come with that practice?
While reasonable people may differ on what is an acceptable boundary on minimum age or close family relations in marriage, the principle, I think, stands. That line may be fuzzy, but it exists, and some reasonable line must be drawn.
More clear, I believe, is the line marking restrictions against same-sex marriage (though I admit that the line fuzzes when dealing with hermaphrodites and transsexuals). The correlation between homosexual acts and sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS is perhaps as significant as the correlation between incest and mental and physical defects. To say that the state has the right to ban transfats to promote public health, but not certain sexual activities seems like a disconnect.
Nor is this a matter of denying equal rights, in my view. Laws banning sex with near-relations, underage children, and those of the same gender are applied equally against everyone. Now, if there was a law banning homosexuals from owning property or inheritance rights, then I would object. I have a homosexual near-relation, and to assert that, say, President Thomas Monson can will his property to his beloved wife, but my near-relative cannot will his property to his beloved companion is to say that President Monson has a right that is denied to others. THAT would be a denial of equal rights, and I suspect that even all of the Brethren would object–loudly.
Brother Theodore Brandley ably defended the Brethren’s position. One of his arguments was that if we are not for their view when they act ex officio, perhaps the Brethren see something that we missed. Indeed, as Brother Oaks described in his July 1990 Ensign article, “Religion in Public Life,” while the actual court decision may have been sound, what followed turned out to be quite deleterious to freedom–just as the Brethren foretold.
Last Wednesday, I took all of that into account as I cast my ballot for Amendment 2.
UPDATE: Amendment 2 seems to have won in Florida, and, as of 8:30 pm PST, Prop 8 seems to be winning in California. However, given those who won–big–nationwide, I sincerely doubt that either would survive a federal court challenge. Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley tells us that, “the Supreme Court follows the election returns.”
Still, I did my duty. If my efforts come to naught, so be it. I will accept the consequences of all the firepower that the Zeitgeist, earth and hell have arrayed against those who cross them.
About 30 years ago, a beaker broke as I was cleaning it (I didn’t drop it or otherwise misuse it; it cracked as I was wiping it.) in high school chemistry class. My father had forbidden me from paying for that beaker, on the grounds that my lab fees were for such a possibility–much to the teacher’s chagrin. When she asked why I wasn’t paying, I replied that I was more afraid of him than of her. So it is today. I am more “afraid” (in the reverential sense) than I am of any and all of the powers that be–in any sense.
Some have been critical of proponents of Prop 8 and Amendment 2, complaining that they blindly follow fallible men. While it is true that, as Joseph Smith put it, “a Prophet is a Prophet only when acting as such,” we have here a situation where the Brethren are acting ex officio. To be candid, I have problems understanding the act of vitiating the counsel of the Brethren when they act as one–and ex officio. It is one thing to say that one is going to vote contrary to counsel because of other obligations or that supercede that counsel, or circumstances that prevent heeding that counsel at this time, but it is quite another to say that the Brethren are wrong in giving that counsel.
To say that the state has the right to ban transfats to promote public health, but not certain sexual activities seems like a disconnect.
Maybe, but no more so than the focus on the impact a certain definition of marriage will have on “sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS … and mental and physical defects” while ignoring the predictable outcome of copulation between heterosexual drug abusers.
Are there any lawyers in here? Please help in my research.
I’m LDS, but seem to oppose Prop 8. What a waste of my time, since I’m not in CA!
I find it interesting when the LDS Church wanted the federal government to leave them alone–because of their marriage practices–they (LDS) thought it was unconstitutional for the feds to tell them who they can/can’t marry.(those of you with access to legal records can find this specific case)
Now, years later, they are asking the feds to tell people who they can/can’t marry.
Steven, correct me if I misunderstood your statement. Same-sex marriages CAN’T leave wills/property to their partner, because their union isn’t legally recognized. I have no clue if stopping Prop 8 would alter this, however as it currently stands (or as I understand/misunderstand it) there is a huge denial of “equal rights.”
Steven,
Thanks for writing about this again. You have given us some good examples of appropriate times for the government to put restriction on marriage. Age and close family.
If we are comparing age with same-sex-marriage you are saying that a homosexual person does not have the same reasoning as an adult. If you are bringing up the example of close family you are saying a same-sex-union would result in birth defects.
You site Aides as a reason to make same-sex-unions illegal. Aides as well as other STD’s are spread through promiscuity. In fact many places in the US and even more places throughout the world Aides is spreading faster among heterosexual populations. To illegalize a form of monogamy does seem like a very big disconnect.
I think that perhaps to resolve the issue, government should no longer recognize any marriage but only civil unions, whether heterosexual or homosexual. That leaves religious groups to define them as marriage if they want to. Government should only be in place to recognize dependent rights (inheritance, hospital, etc.) and should otherwise let anyone else define the union as something more if they so choose.
It does not appear that the church would be opposed to this as it has nothing wrong with the idea of inheritance rights for homosexual couples. Beyond protecting rights that marriage confers, I don’t see why the State needs to be involved in the whole business as each group, whether religious or unreligious, has its own definition for what it is.
JP,
Your argument makes sense but early-LDS leaders claimed that their marriage rights were being denied based on 1st Amendment freedom of religion. The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of relgion did not extend to plural marriages. That is definitely not the argument here as most same-sex marriage proponents would argue for rights under 5th/14th Amendment Equal Protection. I guess we’ll see where this goes.
We need to be careful about the comparisons we draw from relating laws granting marriage status to homosexuals, compared with incest, perversions with animals, or marriage to minors. Prohibitions on adult incest are based on the reality that the gene pool becomes contaminated for birth defects and mental disorders. Public health becomes the primary motivation for this law. Perversions with animals, and marriage to minors involve the question of equal rights. I’ll pretend to be an attorney here, but the marriage contract is just that, a contract. It is based on the mutual agreement and exchange of consideration of two consenting parties. It follows then that animals are not legally recognized as legitimate parties to the formation of a contract, but rather are generally seen as property and in some contractual cases the consideration for a contract, ie the purchase of a horse. The law also recognizes the protection of minors from being legally obligated to contracts which they willing enter. Society has deemed that Children under a certain age are more likely to get themselves into trouble that would not agree to as reasonable adults – so again this is to protect society. So, I don’t think these examples are comparable to consentual adult homosexuality given that none of these circumstances apply.
The official position on the duty of LDS government officials to follows formal Church positions is as follows:
“Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality
To my knowledge–apart perhaps of President Joseph F. Smith’s testimony in the Smoot hearings–the Church has not made a formal statement regarding the duties of LDS voters. As for me, though, when I am a voter, I consider myself as operating first as a citizen of the United States, with a duty to my country, so that, to paraphrase:
“While the Church may communicate its views to [me], as it may to any other [voter], [the Church] recognizes that these [LDS voters] still must make [our] own choices based on [our] best judgment and with consideration of the [interests of other individuals who would be affected].”
DavidH, thanks for adding President Smith’s quote from the Smoot Hearings. After attending the state-wide Stake Conference here in AZ yesterday and especially after President Packer’s talk, that statement gives me greater comfort. I wasn’t able to catch every word because of my crazy 18-month old, but I at least understood that if we are to follow the brethren, we should vote for Prop 102. If I feel that it is against my conscience, am I then going against the brethren to not vote for it? I really don’t know where to go on this one. If I were an elected official, I’d feel even worse if I went against the church’s official position that I felt violated public policy. And I consider myself well within the mainstream.
I find it interesting when the LDS Church wanted the federal government to leave them alone–because of their marriage practices–they (LDS) thought it was unconstitutional for the feds to tell them who they can/can’t marry.(those of you with access to legal records can find this specific case)
Now, years later, they are asking the feds to tell people who they can/can’t marry.
For what it’s worth, the Church isn’t trying to govern which religious ceremonies a particular church solemnizes, or who lives (and has sex) with whom. It’s just advocating that government choose not to recognize those some of those arrangements. John Taylor would probably have given his right arm to secure for the Church the kind of treatment that the US government currently gives to gay couples.
Same-sex marriages CAN’T leave wills/property to their partner, because their union isn’t legally recognized.
Steven was speaking hypothetically. Generally speaking, you can will your property to whomever you wish. It’s intestacy law (what happens to your property if you don’t have a will) where marriage (or lack thereof) really comes into play.
“Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.
I’m confused. This is worded as a descriptive statement. Is it meant to imply that LDS public officials have no duty to “follow the prophet” on matters withing their official responsibility?
If so, I do not understand how this works as a doctrinal position. (But I do see how it is a good think to say for PR purposes. Perhaps it is deliberately ambiguous?)
Clarifications about my comment in two respects:
The quote from the Church’s website was incomplete, the full paragraph reads:
“Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.”
The first sentence is descriptive as kodos points out, but the second sentence recognizes in a prescriptive way that LDS government officials “must” make decisions based on their own judgment and taking into their constituency.
2. I did not include quotations from Joseph F. Smith in my post. The quotation at the end of my post was the second sentence of the Church’s official position which I modified as if it also applied to us as voters. I would be surprised if the Church were ever to state publicly that its official position on the exercise of personal independent judgment is any different for LDS voters than it is for LDS officials.
My reference to Joseph F. Smith and the Smoot hearings are to President Smith’s testimony there that the Church did not “control” the LDS vote, and that LDS voters were expected to exercise their own judgment. That was the thrust of his testimony, but I do not have links to his actual statements.
I missed the Arizona satellite stake conference (I was in Denver, and attended a fast and testimony meeting there), but heard that President Packer gave rather forceful support for Proposition 102.
JP, California has a domestic partner law which gives eligible people (including gay partners) rights equal to those married. Prop 8 does not interfere with that. As for leaving wills, you can leave your stuff to anyone you choose…married or not. What concerns me most about the “rights” business is that being married doesn’t guarantee much without a will/trust…and what is guaranteed can vary depending on states. (How often do we hear people urging heterosexuals to marry to get “rights”?) Everyone needs the appropriate legal documents to protect themselves when it comes to health and wealth and it is irresponsible to give people the idea that everything falls in place because of a marriage license.
Thanks for info, guys. Really appreciate it. New to this community and it is really a breath of fresh air.
Discussion without attacks. What a novel idea. . .
For me, its simple. What kind of society do you want to live in 10 years from know? Do you want to live in a world where people ask your kid:”When you grow up do you want to marry a boy or a girl?” If you want to live in that society then vote against prop 8.
If your like me, and you want your kid to be spared that kind of nonsense then vote for Prop 8.
As for “following the Bretheren”. My rule is this, follow the living Prophet. In cases where the 1st presidency doesnt exist, follow the majority of the 12.
Does that make me a brain washed, drone, loser who can’t think for himself? Nope. It just means I’ll alaways be right.
Is that arrogant? Yep, and it also has the benefit of being true.
Pedro – Between the two points 1) The Prophet (Brethren) is absolutely always right in every circumstance; to 2) The leadership of the LDS Church are false prophets and wrong on all core issues of doctrine and morality; there lies a nearly infinite range of ideoligcal possibilities and perspectives. The only point I will make is this, Choosing to adopt as you have, a seemingly absolutest position relative to the issue, is pefectly acceptable when stated and defended as a personal position. Your first statement demonstrates this well:
“As for “following the Bretheren”. My rule is this, follow the living Prophet. In cases where the 1st presidency doesnt exist, follow the majority of the 12.”
Your final statement however implys that other positions, even if they lie in region 1), are false for not being exactly on point with your particular ideology. Generally most members of the Church on not on the same point here, though they are decidely in the same region. Unless you can show the math, I’d avoid absolutes.
You’re all missing the point.
I have read the letters above from self-described members of the church who do not support Prop 8. They are they who present themselves as so compassionate, so wise and thoughtful. So wonderfully educated beyond the simple thinking of the General Authorities, able to see nuances in the scriptures that lessor members of the church are unable to comprehend. So able to find a moral equivalence between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Mincing words and the meaning of words, able to reason themselves into taking the side of a group of people who believe they will never find happiness until they have compelled under color of law:
1. That schools indoctrinate your children, at the youngest possible age, without your permission or knowledge, into accepting homosexuality as the normal, wonderful, moral equivalence of heterosexuality. And if mommy and daddy say otherwise, they are evil, bigots.
2. No organization, religion or not, may teach any thing that might put homosexuality into a negative light. Gay groups will be the ones to decide whether something is offensive.
3. Church adoption services will be required to provide the same services for same sex couples or be shutdown.
4. Church counselors, including Bishops, will be required to provide the same counseling services for same sex couples as other couples.
5. Same sex couples must have the same access to religious buildings and ceremonies as other couples. To deny them equal access is bigotry. Do gay members of the church really believe that the day will come when they and their same sex partner will be able to marry in the temple?
I’m sure that may be some of the wise who will think to respond to this by prophesying that none these things will happen. Yet, they have, some have happened here(Mass), others of the above have already happened in other countries (Canada and GB). All places where the gay movement has gained the legal upper hand.
Wow Dave, that pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? It is interesting that you mention prophesy though, because frankly you would need an extraordinary justification for points 2,4,5 which have absolutely no rational basis. Points 1 and 3 are your best arguments, a bit inflated, but at least reasonable. You should have focused there, rather than trying to chalk the list up to 5. 2,4,5, These points show either a lack aquantence with the issue, or a willful ignorance.
2) I’ve heard this one before…Pretty soon your banker will be gay. Then your kids will have a gay teacher. They will move into your neighborhoods and take over the world. It will only be a matter of time before everybody is gay.
4) Don’t Bishops and counselors generally want to visit people with sexual problems/deviances, or would they prefer to limit their services to individuals in less need. Secondly, you really think this. Professional public counselors mabey, but Bishops. Where is the precedent for that.
5) The temple recommend already discriminates simply on the basis of religion. Not to long ago it discriminated on the basis of race – long after it was unpopular I might add. The corporate structure excludes women from all ecclesiastical and executive positions. The KKK is not required to cater to African Americans, neo-nazi’s are not required to include jews. You have a weak argument here.
Dan, please elaborate on your points (especially 3-5). I am finding it difficult to understand how the LDS Church would be “forced” to give counseling, allow temple marriages, etc. if Prop 8 is stopped.
Items that came to my mind were:
1) It is legal to drink Alcohol, but that doesn’t mean the LDS Church has to allow its members to drink. Nor are we forced to accept membership requests from people who drink.
2)Try and work for the Church Offices and not be a card-carrying member.
The Church is well protected as a private organization. Are you saying that if a non-member, heterosexual comes in and wants counseling from a Bishop, they have to give it? The Church can place limits on who they accept, employ, marry, give counseling to, etc.
We aren’t forced to give Temple marriages to non-members, no matter what their sexual preference. I don’t know about adoption services, I assumed that service was a private section of the Church Offices. The Government can’t force us to employ non-members, how could they force us to marry non-members?
Sorry “Dan” whoever you are, I meant “Dave”
Title VII (which does not recognize sexual orientation discrimination) and state dsicrimnation laws (some states do recognize sexual orientation as a protected class) already exempt religious organization from discrimination laws. Others in previous comments already pointed out that we discriminate based on church membership to allow people in the temple. Discrimination is not always a bad term, it simply means to treat differently. For religious cases, churches are almost always excluded.
I have a hard time seeing the adoption issue (having adopted through LDS Family Services in the New Hampshire and Mass office). We already discriminate in that only members with recommends can take part in adoptions. Which means that we already discriminate based on religion and sexual orientation at least. It is entirely possible that the state could make it mandatory for LDSFS to recongnize SSM or lose its status, but they would have to overturn current exceptions to already existing discrimination laws. So, for years the state was ok with us discriminating and now this extra class will change its mind? I just see that as #1000 of things that would have to happen and we are still on #2. The more obvious first step would be to force LDSFS to allow other relgious groups to use its services before SS couples.
Again, I am not using discriminate in a bad way, just its technical meaning.
Justa quick note to anyone who cares. We have just passed through yet another election season and I like so many others have felt the uniquely American “spirit” that goes with speaking ones mind both here in the forum, as well as the ballot. Overall I think the election has been good on both issues and offices. There has been debate, argument and discussion. Like always, some things I wanted to see happen, did, and others didn’t. While the discussions regarding Proposition 8 have been very good for most of us, the discussion is largely over. I think the Academic considerations from all persuasions have been well posited, but will only tire from here – barring the emergence of new issues. Proposition 8 passed, and while this was not the outcome I felt was most appropriate, I do feel that the process which brought about the outcome is appropriate nad the legitimacy of the law should stand as the will of the people. I am not trying to assume the audacity of suggesting that others on this blog should drop the issue from here. If there are still points to be made, then so be it. As for me – the people have spoken, I respect that, and we should all have our opinions but respect democracy. I hope this does not sound arrogant, that is truly not my intention, but I needed to get this off my chest. To those in the community I have barged into, Thank you for the discussion.
Cowboy, okay ‘prophecy’ was tongue-in-cheek, no pun intended. It doesn’t matter whether or not any of the above scenarios I posit above are rational or not. The homosexual act itself, especially when described in clinical terms, defies rational thinking.
The scenarios above have either happened (see links at end of post), or, given what the gay agenda has thus far accomplished, are within the realm of future possibilities.
What ultimately is the end goal of the gay agenda? After reading the links below, can anybody really believe that the end goal is a legal recognition of same sex marriage? The behavior and actions of the militant gay group, tells me that this is a miserable unhappy group of people. The truth is that they will never find lasting happiness in the homosexual act (Alma 41:10). But in the militant gay mind this can’t be, therefore the source of their unhappiness must be projected outwardly away from themselves, and placed upon individuals, groups, religions who hold and teach that the homosexual act is deviant. Therefore happiness cannot be had until all such have been silenced and put away or replaced by a new generation taught otherwise.
Just because YOU think some action or behavior is not rational, doesn’t mean it won’t or can’t happen.
Scenarios 1,2 and 3 have already happened, review the links below. They are not irrelevant. Scenarios 1-3 considered collectively along with activist judges, politicians and bureaucrats disregarding the rule of law paint a picture in which scenarios 4 and 5 are not easily dismissed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024956/Catholic-adoption-agency-defy-gay-rights-law.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=41163
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=40453
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=40182
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77734
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77632
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76930
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78339
“The homosexual act itself, especially when described in clinical terms, defies rational thinking.”
Dave –
I can’t speak to the clinical aspect of homosexuality, as far as I am aware the jury is still out on deciding whether genetics has any play into the attraction. From there, if indeed genetics do play into Same Sex Attraction, it will need to be decided whether that is abnormal, or something “nature intends”. I won’t pretend to have an answer here one way or another. This being said and for what it is worth, I share your sentiment and overall distaste for the notion of what you have delicately termed “the homosexual act”. Nature and biology aside, your right it does seem peculiar at best.
“It doesn’t matter whether or not any of the above scenarios I posit above are rational or not.”
Would it seem too trite if my response here were simply: “yes it does”
Frankly Dave, the rest of your argument is possessed of actual fearmongering, “the gays have an agenda to control the world.” I don’t make that accusation lightly, but references to a non-existant “militant gay group” as though such a group could be identified – and one having legitimate political will for world domination – does little for providing credibility to your arguments. Finally your credibility is further diminished by citing the highly polemic pseudo-news organization Worldnetdaily. As far as your religious comments regarding homosexuality, I share your sentiment regarding the overall inconsistency of SSM with the Gospel or christianity in general. I am likewise perplexed with you over the unrealistic expectations of Homosexual groups for acceptance among Latter-Day-Saints. As for their overall happiness and peace of mind, we ought to let homosexuals speak for that.
Dave –
Just a thought regarding the “gay militant group”. Some theorists speculate that the GAP is actually a secret front just such a group. That means they are organized even better than you say. Have you ever noticed how gay you feel in those clothes.
Cowboy you made this statement, “We need to be careful about the comparisons we draw from relating laws granting marriage status to homosexuals, compared with incest… Prohibitions on adult incest are based on the reality that the gene pool becomes contaminated for birth defects and mental disorders. Public health becomes the primary motivation for this law.”
I’m trying to get my head wrapped around the SSM argument based on consenting adults having the right to marry and not being discriminated against.
If the gene pool contaminations is the only reason against incestuous marriage; this would allow for SSM of related partners. Cousins could become wife and wife or husband and husband. This could become quite confusing. Then of course heterosexual related couples, who agree to be sterilized, should be granted the same rights as homosexual related partners. If three consenting adults (heterosexual or homosexual or maybe both) want to be married, what is the bases to stop that? Do they also have the same equal rights? Who had the right to determine marriage was just two people?
I’m struggling with marriage as a “right” and therefore protected by constitution.
TK –
Admittedly when I was making the comment you are quoting I thought of the possiblities you are suggesting, ie homosexual marriage between siblings, and decided not to go there. I won’t argue this one confuses me, as does homosexuality in general. I don’t want to be misunderstood, I do not advocate homosexuality, I don’t agree with it. I think it gets easy in this discussion to lose sight of the objectives, I am guilty of that like the rest. Your final point is the one that I think needs addressing, that of marriage being a protected right under the constitution. After all the gene pool argument doesn’t get any mileage if marriage is denied to siblings, and yet they still have sex. Same goes for homosexuality, prop 8 did nothing to impede homosexuals from their lifestyle, it just denied them the social legitimacy extended to heterosexuals. The issue I have had, and mentioned in other posts, is that the Churh used to practice polygamy, and fought vigorously to protect that practice. Obviously they lost. Now we want to protect the traditional family as though that is our perspective. Are we then renouncing polygamy? For every negative social impact one can surmise for homosexuality, another could match with an equally negative side effect of polygamy, so if rights are the issue then do we now support, albeit retrospectively, the efforts which discriminated against our non-traditional marriage practice?
So now comes the perspective which may get me banned, I was not going to mention this but it is how I feel. Less than six months ago the Church was mildly back in the public view for a practice which it discontinued almost 100 years ago exactly. The FLDS raids in Texas again had the Church’s practice of polygamy under a microscope. The Church hired gallup’s (I think gallups) for a massive public perspective survey in order to gage societies familiarity with the distinction between the LDS and FLDS church’s. While the findings did suggest that segments of the population did conflate the two, most people were generally aware of the distinctions. The poll also found that, while general discussions about “Mormons” did not necessarily incite comments regarding polygamy – discussions about polygamy, with the public at large, do incite comments about Mormons. You can probably see where I am going from here, but it seems that the proposition 8 effort was more of a PR campaign to mainstream the Church and distance the correlation to polygamy, then it was about “Traditional Marriage” as is applies to gays. Obviously I can’t prove any of this, and I am willing to except that I could be in error, but I find it odd that we would be involved in a legal debate that has such historical significance for us. Finally the SSM debate is not a new one, but generally we stay out of it. So the timing is suspect I think.
In fairness two possible explanations other than a PR campaign are:
1) The Church was involoved in the Proposition 21 “the Knight Act” which was the predecessor to Prop 8 in California. Perhaps the Church feels comfortable in California because it has a strong member base there.
2) It would have been involved in Massachussetts had Mit Romney not been Governor. Having any direct involvement in a State where the Governor is a prominent member of the Church could be seen as scandalous by the public.
Too much to say, sorry.
Cowboy, You think I’m fear mongering? Have you not noticed the threats against the church and its temples since the passing of Prop 8? A anti-Utah movement now in the process of being organized?
Pseudo-news organization Worldnetdaily? That was totally irrelevant. You can Google for the same events and find them reported in any number of places. An event that actually happened doesn’t become a non-event just it happens to be reported in Worldnetdaily.
And no, I don’t wear GAP. No particular reason for not wearing it, but I’m sure they make a fine product.
“Cowboy, You think I’m fear mongering? Have you not noticed the threats against the church and its temples since the passing of Prop 8? A anti-Utah movement now in the process of being organized?”
Dave –
Lets start with where we agree. The protests on temple square are a little late at best, and also are happening in the wrong place. The opponents to Prop 8 who are gathered at temple square should have put this type of energy into their campaign efforts in California. Yes, some of the protestor are acting like jackasses, and boycotting Utah does nothing for SSM. Finally, while the Church played a significant role in campaigning for Prop 8, a largely non-LDS demographic voted in favor of the initiative, so the protestors should be taking up their case with the people of California.
Now for a little divergence of opinion. Boycotts, legal action, public gatherings, march’s, etc, are all legitmate means of protest and campaign. Let’s not forget that these means were directly employed by the Church in the form of door knocking, and cold calling. Let’s also not forget that some of these people were peddling the falsehood that Churches will be forced to marry and admit homosexuals into their congregations. Finally the fact that there is an irrational demonstration of this type of approximately two thousand people in the fringe gay community, does mean that your anxieties over, again a non-existant/unidentifiable “militant gay group” are somehow justified. The proof is in the fact that this group of protestors has had, and (here goes prophecy) will have absolutely no impact. So yes, your concerns are very extreme.
“Pseudo-news organization Worldnetdaily? That was totally irrelevant. You can Google for the same events and find them reported in any number of places. An event that actually happened doesn’t become a non-event just it happens to be reported in Worldnetdaily”
Actually it was very relevant. Let’s not forget, that your references to Worldnetdaily were intended to reinforce your arguments regarding points 2,4,5 of your initial post (we have already conceded on points 1,3). None of the widely recognized legitimate news sources have reported on those points as being realistic outcomes. That is why you had to choose such a polemic source, had you had something more credible you surely would have sourced that instead. Worldnetdaily is just one notch above citing those newspapers in the grocery store checkout lines.
My niece in Chicago said her friends sister wrote this and I wanted to share it with you all.
1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.
7. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with “civility, respect and love,” despite their differing views.
8. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The phrase “separation of church and state”, which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
9. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.
Harriet –
The Church definately did influence the outcome on Prop 8, but I agree that it’s influence was perfectly within the framework of the law. You are correct that the phrase “seperation of Church and State” was not found in the contsitution originally, however don’t misunderstand, that notion is explicitly implied in the second amendment -“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” this specifically prohibits the establishment of a federal Church. Keeping Church out of government was the intention, don’t misunderstand the founders. Finally you are correct that the matter (prop 8) was settled by the voters who were largely a non-LDS constituency. That notwithstanding, let’s not act as though the Church did not strong arm the members on this one.
sorry, 1st amendment.