111 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Fair enough, but this guy’s beef is with the concept of a referendum in general. He’s opposed to this just as he would be opposed to a referendum for allowing gar marriage or opposed for a referendum allowing black people to get a job without being discriminated against. |
He seems like a nice guy, but I think he’s ultimately wrong. |
Libertarians speak out. This is the fundamental belief. I am glad that we don’t vote on everyting. |
Tolerance does not mean acceptance. |
It would be one thing for him to simply talk about the complications of referendum, or to state that he doesn’t share belief in the reasoning used for supporting Prop 8; it’s another thing–and quite arrogant at that–to authoritatively state that the Church erred in supporting the initiative. On another note, I take issue with his statement that the Church “does not fully accept gays for who they are and probably never will.” Speaking as one of “them,” I feel very accepted in the Church. The Church is clear in its position on sexual expression, and cautions concerning the streams we allow to inform our sense of identity, but neither of those lack of acceptance for who I/we am/are. |
I meant to say: “…but neither of those ideas denote lack of acceptance for who I/we am/are…” |
Why is it better for the voice of the few to trump the voice of the many when deciding important issues that will affect the whole of society? This is not about not letting gays love whomever they want. This is not simply a question of civil rights. The results of this struggle determine how marriage will be defined and described in our society. If we don’t care about that and don’t do anything about it, then we are in a sad situation indeed. |
I think he objects to referendums being used to legislate morality. I don’t have an opinion on that, but I’ve seen too much “Town Without Pity” behavior here to dismiss hia opinion on the issue of gay marriage. Anyone who doesn’t do the checklist can be very quickly ostracized. But, still, I’d fight any attempt to legalize gay marriage here. I wouldn’t need the prophet to tell me to do it. On the still other hand vitriole and unkindness have no place in this debate from either side. |
Except the vast majority of state appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the notion that there is any such fundamental right as gay marriage. In short it is not a civil right. But, assuming that it is for sake of the discussion, that means that 48 states and the entire federal government are depriving gays/lesbians a fundamental right. That proposition makes reason stare. Rather, an extremely small but vocal minority has had very limited success in two state court systems which imposed gay marriage on the vast majority of its own citizens, creating new fundamental rights, when none previously existed, and which are rejected by most appellate courts which have actually litigated this issue.
No, in reality, a majority of Californians for the second time in eight years have defined marriage as it has been defined in California for the past 158 years, and how the vast majority of the world’s civilizations have defined it for millennia. This is absolutely the province of the California electorate. There are legitimate societal interests in affording heterosexual unions the stature of marriage, which do not exist for homosexual unions. And, in California, all unions, hetro or homosexual are afforded all the same rights California law can bestow. |
Tolerance does not mean acceptance. But affirming same-sex couples’ right to marry is not the same as condoning their exercise of it. Were it put to a vote, I would definitely vote to affirm the Ku Klux Klan’s right to free speech, even though I fundamentally disagree with how they choose to exercise it. I’m sorry, but “I don’t accept their lifestyle” is not a convincing rationale for denying someone’s constitutional rights. |
Steve M, I think your analogue is a bit askew. Yes, we (society) can accept the idea that the K.K.K. can believe what they want, but we vehemently refuse to tolerate any imposition of those beliefs on society at large–let alone any acting out of such. |
Steve, Was the fight over prop 8 really about consitutional rights since they already had a civil union law, which gave them all the same rights as marriage as far as ca is concerned? I have got my suspicians that they it’s about increasing acceptance and legitimacy of gay relationships and I don’t think it’s the place of the government to do that. |
we vehemently refuse to tolerate any imposition of those beliefs on society at large What are the gays imposing on society? Humor me. Give me a serious answer. Pretend I’m from Mars and I don’t have a clue as to what’s going on. |
it’s about increasing acceptance and legitimacy of gay relationships and I don’t think it’s the place of the government to do that Was it the place of government to help increase acceptance and legitimacy of cross-racial marriages? |
Mark N # 14
That’s not what government did, nor was it government’s purpose. It struck down the criminalization of certain marriages based on improper and unconstitutional classifications based on race, using the 14th Amendment, which was specifically enshrined into the Constitution to protect Blacks–former slaves.
Not at all similar. |
I think your analogue is a bit askew. Yes, we (society) can accept the idea that the K.K.K. can believe what they want, but we vehemently refuse to tolerate any imposition of those beliefs on society at large–let alone any acting out of such. Yes. Exactly. In applying your argument to the Prop 8 situation, I think it actually favors the legalization of gay marriage. I don’t see how allowing same-sex couples to marry constitutes an “imposition of [their] beliefs on society at large.” I don’t have to accept their beliefs–or their actions. But their decision to marry doesn’t infringe upon my rights. On the other hand, when religious groups undertake to strip gays of their rights on the basis of their own subjective notions of morality, it does constitute imposing their beliefs on society at large. It results in a very real infringement upon the freedom of same-sex couples. Mormons and other religious conservatives imposed their subjective notions of marital morality on the whole of society; as a result, gays and lesbians now do not have a right that they had a few weeks ago. Was the fight over prop 8 really about consitutional rights since they already had a civil union law, which gave them all the same rights as marriage as far as ca is concerned? Yes, it certainly was about constitution rights. It was about one constitutional right in particular–the fundamental right to marry the partner of one’s choice. |
I’m sorry, but “I don’t accept their lifestyle” is not a convincing rationale for denying someone’s constitutional rights. Interesting perspective now that the anti-8 crowd now wants to bully pro-8 businesses and people into not exercising their freedom of speech … |
It is a fundamentally flawed argument to propound that a state’s referendum system runs contrary to the form of government established by the founding fathers. In fact, part of the genius of the Constitution is that states are (and ought to be) left to manage most social issues without any interference from the federal government. However each state chooses to implement the “will of the people” is in fact for the citzens of that state to decide. The ballot initiative is the chosen vehicle in California for allowing modifications to the state legal code and/or state constitution. Bear in mind that, where Proposition 8 is concerned, this has nothing to do with the United States Constitution. Except in the minds of hyperactive ACLU lawyers. |
#13 Mark N., Gays want to impose their values that a homosexual marriage is as acceptable in nature as a heterosexual marriage. Guy Murray put it well that there is simply no precedent or reason for homosexual marriage to be put on equal footing, especially if that footing were mandated by law. That is inherently dictated morality. The problem with arguing against the imposition of morality is that such an argument is, in itself, an imposition of morality. Especially when one attaches “rights” to it. So this guys words are misguided. In the vote for “rights” versus “traditional morality” in CA, “traditional morality” won. And rights can still win as long as those who fight so hard for rights do not fight against traditional morality. I am very interested to see if that is possible. There is a group working for such a thing in Utah, but in CA, that may be too much to ask for now. |
Steve m, a civil union grants all the same rights as marriage so a gay couple gains nothing except a change in wording on whatever certificate they get from the state, so I don’t see how this is about rights at all. This is about making their relationships more legitimate in the eyes of the public. |
Where did the term “traditional morality” come from? Who coined it? Why not just morality, or God’s morality? When did we start to define what is moral by our traditions? It seems those who like this term, dislike the term “situational ethics”(?) |
Brent misses every point that he tries to hit, and there end up being two basic components to his editorial: outrage and muddle-headed thinking. The progressives of the late 19th century wanted to be ultra-democratic, and so the state constitutions from that era have crazy referendum setups. I don’t much like such referendums myself. Partly because I’m an Easterner and so they’re not part of my political experience, and partly because they tend to turn real political issues into an absolute circus. But California has referendums. Californians can change their setup if they want to, but they seem to like it fine, and that’s their business. In any case, it’s the way their system was designed to work. And Brent is arguing that their political process (which falls well within the bounds of republican and democratic normalcy) is somehow illegitimate just because it turned out a result that offends his moral sensibilities. Funny thing: Brent wasn’t railing against the referendum process when it looked like prop 8 was going down in flames. Brent misses the point even worse when he says: “Questions of morality or civil rights should never be turned over to a majority vote.” People disagree about moral issues, and the only way to resolve these disagreements is to put them to a vote. Therefore, questions of morality and civil rights are always turned over to a majority vote, in the court no less than in the legislature, and in the legislature no less than in a plebiscite. Brent thinks that because his (rather controversial) moral outlook is so obvious that it should be enshrined as law by fiat. My guess is that he’d feel differently if his side had succeeded in defeating prop 8. In that case, it would suit him just fine to have the morally enlightened citizenry of California speak up for the rights of gays to marry. But now that it’s failed, he’s whining about the fact that those lousy trolls were able to vote on the issue in the first place. If Brent weren’t so utterly ineffective at formulating his ideas and communicating them, he might end up being dangerous. |
The framers of the Federal constitution did not anticipate Marshall’s claim for the Supreme Court of a power not explicitly granted in the Constitution, that of judicial review of acts of Congress, and thus provided no check on this power, short of amending the Constitution itself: Given how carefully the constructed their system of checks and balances, if they could have foreseen it, they would certainly have provided an easier check on a bad court decision than the difficult and cumbersome process of amending the Constitution itself, which is overkill for most bad court decisions. |
This is about making their relationships more legitimate in the eyes of the public. And if they’re successful, and gay relationships are made more legitimate in the eyes of the public… then what? Seems to me that we’re already too late on that one anyways. I don’t think I ever watched a single episode of “Will and Grace”, but my not being there on a weekly basis apparently didn’t hurt the show any. (I thought it ran for seven seasons, but I just looked it up on IMDB, and it went for eight.) Gay people are everywhere now. I admit that some of them cause me to cringe at their flamboyance; there was some new reality show on the other night that my daughter flipped the channel to, and it’s yet another week-to-week competition where somebody gets kicked off the show each week, and the point of this one is to find the best makeup artist in the bunch. There are some “scary” gay people on there, and, predictably, the most normal participant of the bunch (a mother — I didn’t catch if she’s a single mother or not — of two young daughters) was the first one to be kicked off the show. She was just too boring to last, too conventional looking, not “out there” enough. If we’re going to scream about the normalization of somebody’s life that shouldn’t probably be normalized, I think that honor would have to go to the show “The Girls Next Door”, which gives us Playboy Bunnies and their life with Hef from week to week. (If the good die young, Hugh Hefner will live to 140.) I mean, if this show isn’t a tract for plural marriage (or the world’s idea of it), then I don’t know what is. Good grief almighty. But I haven’t heard anyone complaining about the beliefs and ideas and lifestyle being imposed on us by that show. Why haven’t we, as church members, been encouraged to do what we can to get organized and get that stuff off the air? |
Brent Holloway is just another of the hundreds of LDS who have misjudged this entire issue. It simply isn’t about civil rights or morality but about a state sanctioned license that carries many rights and responsibilities, and the many discrimination law suits that will result for rejecting same sex marriage. One only needs to look to what has happened in Canada since SSM was legalized (note that it was ‘legalized’ and not decriminalized as abortion or divorce or sodomy was). Canada is the county that resembles the USA most and now we see that a marriage celebrant who refused to marry a gay couple, and only recommended another celebrant who would, was forced to pay $2500 in compensation to the gay couple. (http://www.zenit.org/article-23136?l=english). Our Bishops, who hold state granted ability to perform marriage regularly marry those who don’t qualify for a Temple marriage, such as a couple already pregnant or were one partner is a non-member. If gay marriage is legal and lawful they will also have to marry that gay (still member) to his partner or face an anti-discrimination suite; or not marry anyone at all. But worst is what happened to pastor Stephen Boissoin or to Bishop Henry (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb45.htm) and the money that had to be spend defending the basic religious practice of calling some activities sinful and wrong. Now current LDS members look at ‘equality’ and ‘love for all’ but just don’t seem to see what the ramifications are to declaring gay marriage as legal and lawful. And that’s without considering all the moral implications of changing the fundamental building block of society from a man-women and any children they raise, to a man-man situation, nor considering any scriptural and revealed doctrine on the issue. Fortunately the brethren have stepped up to the plate and drawn a line and done this in the most pubic manner possible, since AZ or FL may not have resulted in as much publicity as Prop 8 in CA. In this I’d say they were truly inspired. They, I believe, also did this so that we the members finally get it through our heads that gay marriage and homosexual sexual relations are not OK or an equality matter. If the Brent’s of this world have it their way, we in the church will just have to never talk about homosexuality in public and take it off our books all together and pretend that it isn’t a sin anymore -which I suspect is what the gay lobby actually wants to see. |
What I don’t understand is how someone can claim to believe that God’s definition of marriage is good, right and beneficial and yet oppose its institution into society as a whole. It seems to me that each person should use their voice to vote for what they believe is most beneficial to society, not only for what it considered “fair”. If there is one thing I have learned in life it is that “fair” is not always “good” and “fair” is almost always impossible to achieve anyways. Either you believe the definition of marriage in a traditional way is good, or you do not. We should all vote according to the dictates of our consciences, and allow others to do the same without vilification. |
#25: Our Bishops, who hold state granted ability to perform marriage regularly marry those who don’t qualify for a Temple marriage, such as a couple already pregnant or were one partner is a non-member. If gay marriage is legal and lawful they will also have to marry that gay (still member) to his partner or face an anti-discrimination suite; or not marry anyone at all You are being disingenuous. Did you even read the article you cited? The person who refused to marry the gay couple was not a religious leader, he was a civil authority required under law to provide those services. This did not involve a religious leaders. That civil servant was required to do their job. I would also have a valid complaint if I were gay in Massachusetts, and some town clerk told me I would have to go to another town to get a marriage license. |
#22:Referendums: “..tend to turn real political issues into an absolute circus”. I agree. That’s why I tend not to vote for them here in CA. Usually, they are emotional, and fail in a legal test. |
#28—Religion is part of a pluralistic community. You cannot ask someone to throw away their moral beliefs when they vote any more than someone can ask gays to throw away theirs. |
Bob, you’ve focused on an aside that I made about referendums, and missed the overriding point that demonstrates that the aside isn’t relevant. |
Look, even the Bill of Rights was ratified by majority vote. Nothing is off limits. |
#29: I asked no one to give up their moral beliefs when voting. I said take them into the booth with you. But in our pluralistic community, we have an agreement of giving space to each other’s views, and that our two large institutions, Church and State, keep as much space as possible between each other. #30: But DKL… sometimes your little points are better than your big ones. |
DKL, your comment on line 22 is completely, 100%, right! I attempted to answer the editorial but after reading your response, I am left to say, I do not think I could do better. |
27. woodboy “he was a civil authority required under law to provide those services” So are Bishops when they marry a couple; they are acting as ‘a civil authority under law’ not in a function of the Priesthood or a priesthood ordinance or duty. What many members don’t know is that in our church only ‘Sealers’ in Temples or Apostles have the priesthood authority to Marry, or those who hold the sealing power through ordination, all other priesthood holders actually do not have any ecclesiastical authority to marry. Only in some states and countries are Bishops granted a government license or the authority to act as public marriage celebrants because the government recognizes them as the leaders or pastor of a basic church unit. (In most all latin american nations Bishops don’t have legal authority to marry because the state doesn’t give then that authority so they can’t legally marry a couple but only bless the union which was married legally elsewhere.) In those nations where the government grants Bishop authority to marry, Bishops will need to follow all the legal requirements as the government dictates because the authority comes from the government not the church, ie not marry siblings, not marry someone in a coma, and not discriminate against any group according to current anti-discrimination practices, etc etc |
Interesting, especially the comments. |
heard some interesting speculation today about how LDS efforts on behalf of P8 could help mend fences with evangelicals and thus aid Romney’s 2012 bid. |
34, Yes bishops in the US have the civil authority to perform weddings. but they are not employees of the state, as was the person in question in the article cited above. That is a crucial distinction. A religious celebrant can refuse to marry me for all sorts of different reasons, a state employee whose job it is to perform marriages cannot. |
heard some interesting speculation today about how LDS efforts on behalf of P8 could help mend fences with evangelicals and thus aid Romney’s 2012 bid. Keep dreaming. Sure, the hatred has been leveled a bit but its not because evangelicals hate us less - the LBGT community simply hates us more. |
Woodboy, Actually he can’t refuse to perform marriages when asked to do so by a, say, non-member couple. We will have to agree to disagree here because the way I see it, and obviously as Carlos see’s it too, a Bishop is an ad honorem employee of the state every time he performs a wedding. And if he refuses as you say here ‘for all sorts of different reasons’, well that’s when the law suits will start. Normal people will probably just find someone else to marry them, but the politically motivated gay lobby will make an issue out of this since the Bishop is a state representative when it comes to civil marriages. (Note that I use ‘normal people’ to differentiate from the belligerent gay agenda proponents) |
I agree with Brent. We sure wouldn’t be extolling the virtues of a popular vote determining values or morals we are opposed to, or which would directly take away our rights. Not that we always agree with the decisions of the courts, but atleast we know the constitution is designed to not only protect others’ rights, but ours as well. |
Charlie, Note that this is in contrast to Justices of the Peace and clerks, who are obligated (in mass) to perform gay weddings. This is not the case in CT, where I believe JPs are free to refuse. |
“that compels a minister or pastor to marry those he does not wish to,” Under anti-discrimination! It would be a civil suite or, as in Canada, a claim to a ‘human rights’ type tribunal which are set up in many places so that people can file complaints without the expenses of going to civil court. “Catholic priests will only marry couples where at least one of them in Catholic. In the Episcopal: Yes, that is the case TODAY. If gay marriage becomes legal a gay couple will go out become catholic on purpose and then use the rejection to sue under the various anti-discrimination acts. That’s the whole purpose of the catholic church’s involvement in this Prop 8, and remember that the Catholic church went looking for Monson to join them. It is to stop the Canadian case happening or the Mass case in adoption (which you should be aware off by now). Sure you still haven’t had a gay rigths couple taking on catholics in Mass, but more because the priest are looking out for them selves and the gays haven’t bothered to take it on yet…they are all protesting around the country. Also there is the basic situation of what we stand for. If we stand for traditional marriage, as we do, then we should stand up and say so. Just like we do as an institution against crime, dead beat dad’s, divorce, abortion etc etc. |
“rather the state recognizes the marriage he solemnizes in his role as minister as being legally binding” Doesn’t happen in the LDS church. He doesn’t have a ‘role’ as a minister and as a priesthood holder to marry. Only apostles have that role, under the ’sealing key’ which they pass on to the very few who act as marriage celebrants in Temples. Once they are released they stop being able to marry in our church even though they remain as High Priests. This is about the roles and responsibilities of each priesthood office, ie Deacon can pass sacrament, Teachers prepare and home teach, Priest baptize, Bishop sits in judgment of the people etc but in his office there isn’t a role for marrying couples -only the state lets him act in its behalf, the state, not the church. But not to worry. this is an area of our doctrine that almost no one understands or knows about since they always saw Bishops marrying someone. And the church has a problem with this in countries where the state has not granted Bishop authority to marry, like in Brasil, were some Bishop will hold a ‘church wedding’ and say ‘by the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood….I pronounce you man and wife….before God..” Such a wedding a an aberration since the priesthood office of Bishop doesn’t have any authority to do this (by the Priesthood etc). |
Charlie, you are woefully misinformed about the possibilities of anti-discrimination laws. There is no basis, none, to believe they could ever be used in the ways you describe. |
MCQ, Already happened in Canada -which is the nation that most resembles the US in the world. You are just don’t want to see what the gay lobby will get up to. |
Wow, where to start. What do you mean by “anti-discrimination” as a cause of action? The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, which is more restrictive than the federal one, forbids discrimination against protected classes in specifically defined areas–employment, housing, public accomodation, and a handful of others. Marriage is not among them, nor is religious worship, and furthermore several parts of the statute have specific exemptions for religious institutions. So although sexual orientation is a protected class in massachusetts, the law is more narrow than you suggest as to what constitutes a credible claim of discrimination. Churches can discriminate as much as they want. If you are making claims about all the “anti-discrimination” lawsuits that will happen, they need to have some basis in fact and law. Second, the cases I cited all occur regularly in massachusetts, where gay marriage already is legal and has been for 4 years. There haven’t been lawsuits not because “gays haven’t bothered to take it on” but rather because there are no grounds on which to sue, just like there are none for straight non-Catholics to claim discrimination because of the RCC’s refusal to marry them. As to your other point, the state does not care at all about sealing power, apostles, prisethood offices, or any of the other Mormon-specific things you mention. In the eyes of the state, the bishop is a minister of a church, and as such is given authority by state law to solemnize marriages. As pointed out, such is not the case in most other countries. |
Furthermore, Canadian law is not binding in the US, even if they do resemble us. |
“bishop is a minister of a church, and as such is given authority by state law to solemnize marriages” Exactly what I said! The church isn’t the one authorizing our Bishops to marry, its all under the states authority and must be done according to state law, not church practices. For example a Bishop still can’t marry 1st cousins because the government says they can’t even though we do marry cousins by proxy when they are dead. But if marriage between two men is lawful then..well already explained it. As to discrimination, well, when a gay couple wins a case, and compensation, we can talk again. And I never claimed that Canadian law is binding in the US, you are making that up. I offered what has already happened in Canada as an example of what could happen here, as pointed out first in comment 25, especially considering what happened to that Bishop Henry. Its an example not a statement of what is binding. But it seems you are only reading what you want to see instead of what is written. You ought to start from the very beginning again and actually read what is written and not what you chose to add in between the lines! |
If President-elect Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act won’t that invalidate any law prohibiting marriage (as well as those limiting abortion and who knows what else): same-sex, bigamy, polygamy, underage, and so on? If marriage is a civil right, then there should be no discrimination in applying for a license. Perhaps we could just save money and stop issuing licenses and let people marry who they may. Then we will see what happens to the fabric of morality in our society. Something interesting written by Andrew Sullivan in “Virtually Normal: An argument about homosexuality 1995.” “…gay men have need for extra-marital outlets. . .same-sex marriage will make adultery more acceptable.” |
Carlos, “The church isn’t the one authorizing our Bishops to marry, its all under the states authority and must be done according to state law, not church practices. For example a Bishop still can’t marry 1st cousins because the government says they can’t even though we do marry cousins by proxy when they are dead. But if marriage between two men is lawful then..well already explained it.” Yes the marriages must be valid under state law. But there is nothing in state law that compels a religious officiant to marry those he/she does not wish to. “As to discrimination, well, when a gay couple wins a case, and compensation, we can talk again.” If this is such a slam dunk, why has nothing like it happened in Mass, where gay marriage has been legal for 4 years? Because there is no basis for a discrimination suit. I have outlined above what discrimination is, and there is nothing in state or federal law to support a claim of discrimination in the scenario you bring up. “And I never claimed that Canadian law is binding in the US, you are making that up.” That was in response to charlie. Both of you suggested by your wording that because Canada is “similar” to the US, that makes it more likely that such a thing would happen here. “But it seems you are only reading what you want to see instead of what is written.” I did read what is written. The case you cite was a state employee whose job it was to perform marriages. He was not a religious officiant. This is similar to the current situation in Mass where a Justice of the Peace or clerk cannot refuse to perform a gay marriage, but a religious minister can. Both of you are arguing from a position of ignorance about the law with regard to marriage and discrimination. |
49, |
Hi folks. A lot of interesting comments about my article. I don’t mind opposing points of view, even if I don’t agree with some of them. I am impressed with your intelligent views. (Unlike the gentleman in my local paper, who called me a false prophet. Oh boy.) I spent a little time formulating a response, but then, just as I was finishing up, I hit some damn button on my keyboard, which erased it all. (And I had made some very good points too.) Oh well. I don’t have time for much of a response now, but to say, I am neither a proponent or opponent of gay marriage itself. I actually feel that my opinion shouldn’t get a vote - especially when it concerns someone’s civil rights. That was the point of my article. Population contests, (or more apt description: “popularity contests”) are a horrible venue for the determination of legal matters. We shouldn’t all get to vote on whether someone can marry or not. Luckily, racial issues (including mixed-race prohibitions) of the past somehow escaped the antics of hyper-activists in states like California, who believe that they are somehow protecting something (like what, the “sanctity of marriage?” - give me a break), by their foolhardy rush to ballotize every issue. And I hope that you keep one thing in mind as you continue your expressions. Issues like these tend to polarize us into distinct groups. That’s one reason why I think the Church made a mistake in its activist stance. I have met some folks in the gay community. I’ve never met one, who wasn’t kind and gentle. What is missing from this discussion, which often seems so black and white, is compassion, which tends to soften the hard edges of opinion. That is where I have erred in the past. If you can muster the courage, attend a support group meeting of LGBT folks. You’ll find that they are just like the rest of us. Their desire for marriage isn’t to try and force their lifestyle on anyone. Hardly. But they would like to have the same rights, privileges and opportunities as anyone else in this country. Compassion goes a long way in healing our differences. |
Woodboy, “But there is nothing in state law that compels a religious officiant to marry those he/she does not wish to” Nor was there anything is state law permitting gay marriage yet judges is MA and CA managed to ‘invent’ an argument which made gay marriage legal (overturning the peoples will in CA after they voted on this in 2000 on Prop 22) What you still fail to see, as MCQ and Brent fail to see, is that when a mormon Bishop is marrying a couple he is a defacto state official for the ceremony, not a church official since Bishops can’t marry in our church, only Temple Sealers can, and a smart legislating gay favoring judge will on day argue to condemn the ‘homophobic LDS church’ as they see it. Why they haven’t yet in MA? they are still on their honeymoon plus whats the percentage of mormons there, 0.02%? After they stop marching in front of Temples they may start to spend money challenging this in test cases. Anyway it took 8 years for gays to overturn Prop 22, that’s ignoring all that happened previously, so you still have 4 years to wait and see (if discrimination arguments are used against Bishops) |
#53: Carlos, Judges often overturn the will of the Majority if it violates the Constitution rights of the Minority. That’s one of their jobs. |
Bob, Say what? 1)Those judges were legislating from the bench. They should apply the law as legislature’s determine. They didn’t have a god given nor a constitutional right to protect the minority. 2)Mormon Bishops have no church authority to marry, he only has the authority the state government gives him and as such he is a defacto government/state employee when officiating in a wedding. In our church only Sealers in Temples and Apostles hold church authority to wed. 3)I’m saying marriage is only between a man and a woman and so judges found an argument to change this but that argument is fundamentally wrong -not that they will listen to me off course. Marriage means man-women joining as one just like ‘man’ = male or woman = female. Why not come up with another word for that man-man union instead of usurping the word ‘marriage’? This isn’t all that difficult to understand. |
“What you still fail to see, as MCQ and Brent fail to see, is that when a mormon Bishop is marrying a couple he is a defacto state official for the ceremony, not a church official since Bishops can’t marry in our church, only Temple Sealers can” You keep stating this repeatedly as if it is somehow relevant to your argument about discrimination lawsuits. Plus, bishops can marry for time, they just can’t perform sealings. And though this is bordering on pointless, for a moment i will indulge your test case scenario. Gay couple goes to mormon bishop, wants to get married, mormon bishop refuses. So they try to file a lawsuit. There are a few options: There is no statute forcing anyone to marry you, so the bishop is not breaking the law in any sense. So you try to sue for discrimination under the civil rights act. Did discrimination take place? Ok, sexual orientation is a protected class under Mass law. But discrimination is only forbidden in certain circumstances. This is not housing or employment related. The only shot you might have is public accommodation, but churches are not businesses open to the public, and religious organizations are given broad based statutory exemptions anyway (MGL ch. 151A). So this isn’t even really discrimination under the law. So you try a constitutional approach claiming your rights have been violated. The Goodrich case said people have the right to marry a person of their choosing without regard to sexual orientation. How has your right been violated here? You are free to marry the person. The decision (and nothing else in case law or statue) does not give you a constitutional right to marry in any church of your choosing. Furthermore, what damages would be suffered in such a scenario? Now let’s say for a moment that beyond all reason this was somehow found to be a valid discrimination claim. The problem is still that the defendant can raise an affirmative defense that being forced to perform such a marriage would violate his constitutional right to free expression (guaranteed by both the US and Mass constitutions). Like most states, this right is very well enshrined in Massachusetts law. Also like most states (though apparently not CA), the court applies a Sherbert-style test to any law conflicting with the constitutional right to free expression (Attorney Gen. v. Desilets, 418 Mass. 321). There is NO POSSIBLE WAY such a law could pass a test of strict scrutiny. If the court holds that the state has a compelling interest in allowing gay people to get married, a law or decision forcing someone to perform a marriage against their conscience would certainly not be the least disruptive way of providing that right. This is also why the court would find such a law unconstitutional should someone try to pass it. Say you tried to file in federal court instead. Marriage is a state issue, so the only way they would hear it is if your US constitutional rights had been violated. But sexual orientation is not a protected class under the US constitution or federal law, so that route is out too. Lastly, it is difficult to imagine what damages would be suffered by the plaintiffs in such a scenario. The above are all reasons why any such lawsuit would quickly be tossed out by a court. Religious rights are firmly entrenched in law. Remember the church handily won both lawsuits, in state and federal court, that were filed over the building of the temple in Belmont, MA. I imagine that this argument will not matter much to someone who is paranoid and believes that judges constantly do what they want in complete ignorance of jurisprudence, statutory and case law, and who relies on fantastical hypotheticals to make points. if you have a legal rebuttal though, I’d like to hear it. |
1) The judiciary interprets the laws made by the legislature. Also the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 2) Mormon bishops have church authority to marry for time, if local law allows it. From the church handbook: Members who are planning a civil marriage may invite any of the following presiding officers 3) you keep stating the bishop becomes a “de facto state employee” without proof. The bishop does not receive compensation from the government. He is not a state employee. |
“They didn’t have a god given nor a constitutional right to protect the minority. ” That is a dangerous viewpoint. The Constitution protects minorities by giving them rights that the majority cannot take away by legislation. |
“Plus, bishops can marry for time” Wrong! This is were the error lies. Bishops, and stake presidents or mission presidents simply can’t marry a couple under any church ie priesthood authority. That authority just simply DOES NOT exist in the LDS church. Again, for the last time, only Sealers hold that key after correctly ordained. Where it says “if civil law authorizes him to do so” it means that only the civil law authorizes him not the priesthood law(for lack of a better term). While your arguments are good and reasonable in #56, what you aren’t seeing is WHAT marriage is: its a State issued licence in the eyes of the government and not a religious ceremony as, say, conferring the priesthood or baptism or Sealing or any other ordinance done under the priesthood authority is. So your argument should part from the states ‘blind’ point of view of who can issue that license in the states’ name and what the conditions are, ie they can’t be siblings, 1st cousins, nor can you discriminate based on religious or sexual orientation etc. The fact that no one has bothered to sue a church is irrelevant because the politically active gay lobby soon will. A catholic priest/mormon bishop is actually doing a job for the state when he presides in a marriage ceremony. And this is also why the Catholic church is involved in Prop 8 since they already suffer the effects of same sex marriage in adoption services. If it happen in adoption it could also happen in issuing a marriage license -which only the State can do. As in the adoption case involved state funds in a marriage case it involves a State License: the marriage one. But yes, you are right in saying that this is becoming tedious and pointless now. Only a judge will be able to decide who is right here, you or me! How ironic. “Lastly, it is difficult to imagine what damages would be suffered by the plaintiffs in such a scenario” Costs in finding a “bishop” who does agree to marry them, which in the Canadian case, was about $2500 |
The fact that no one has bothered to sue a church is irrelevant because the politically active gay lobby soon will. true. also, SLC probably doesn’t want to rewrite Personal Ancestral File, TempleReady, and familysearch.com to accommodate same-sex couples. |
#56: Woodboy, what you left out of your options, was a Civil lawsuit. I was sent down to a “First-Day-of-Trial” settlement conference to settle a Defamation of Charter S\C lawsuit. A young girl was openly disfellowshipped from a Mosque for her sexual behavior . I have also handled Defamation suits for persons outing a Gay. I am only saying, you take a chance taking any action based on your idea of the “charter” of an other. I seems to me Marriage should be: a man, a woman, and kids. Otherwise, what’s the point of the man\man or woman\woman limit?womanwoman |
#61: Sorry about the bad selling, my wife was telling me the sink is stopped again! |
Spelling…. |
Bob, |
“true. also, SLC probably doesn’t want to rewrite Personal Ancestral File, TempleReady, and familysearch.com to accommodate same-sex couples.” What? This thread is becoming absolutely ridiculous. How would a court force the church to rewrite software? |
#64:Discrimination laws make it illegal for US employers to discriminate in any aspect of employment because of age, disability, national origin, race, …” |
There are many things that are illegal but not necessarily criminal. |
I’ve enjoyed reading the arguments here, but I get annoyed when people refuse to acknowledge sound reason. Carlos, you are wrong, and woodboy is right. There is no argument. You keep making the point that bishops don’t have authority in our church to marry. Guess what? The state doesn’t care. They view the bishop’s authority and a temple sealer’s authority exactly the same. For that reason, bishops will never be forced to marry gays—the same way that a temple sealer will not be forced to seal gays or anyone else without a valid temple recommend. Neither bishops nor sealers are employees of the state, and therefore they have the right to marry whomever they wish. It’s always been that way. It will continue to be that way. The real argument here is how gays marrying does or doesn’t threaten the family. I may not agree with the lifestyle, but so far, I have seen no valid argument for why gays having the ability to marry would threaten my family, and how forbidding them to marry would strengthen it. |
#67: It is not my wish to have a word fight. I am trying to point out how that some things begin as matters for the criminal court, and end up in the civil court. I handled many criminal assaults,that were remade into Torts. I handled the Rodney King case for two of the officers as Torts. |
“his lover filed suit claiming he was a family doctor and was losing clients because they now knew he was Gay. A weak case” A weak case today, in 10 years it may be the norm. Collinized, “Guess what? The state doesn’t care. They view the bishop’s authority and a temple sealer’s authority exactly the same” Again missing the point that it is a State issued License just as a drivers license or a shooters license, so the ‘authority’ parts from the government and is given by the government not the church (in bishops case). The state doesn’t care if a sealer or bishop handles it as long as it is done according to the state’s laws and policies. If a sealer (who does have church authority) marries a brother/sister couple, then there is no legal marriage because the government says so. You guys are also (conveniently) forgetting that marriage was a ‘man-women’ back in the ’80s and no one questioned that nor imagined that it could ever change. It was beyond all possibilities until someone came up with an argument to change this. If they can change it in such a fundamental way through a court case, ie in very definition, what’s there to stop them changing discrimination against gays to also apply to a Bishops refusal, since he’s names on a public list? I know what you’ll argue that it’s a non-existent or weak case, but the gay lobby has a clear anti-family, anti-mormon agenda! I’ll wait and see who’s wrong here, and get back to you when a Bishop is actually challenged! And No, it won’t be a long wait. But today this has become tedious at best! |
Bob, |
Carlos #70: “If a sealer (who does have church authority) marries a brother/sister couple, then there is no legal marriage because the government says so.” You’re not making sense. Are you saying that if you get sealed in the temple that the state doesn’t recognize the marriage? Because my marriage license says otherwise. Whether you get married by a bishop, apostle, sealer, Catholic priest, or a rabbi, the state sees it exactly the same. Before my wife and I were sealed, we had to get a state-issued license. Yes, in the church, we view a temple sealing different than a marriage performed by a bishop. But the state does not see a difference. |
Of course, you had a civil marriage license as well. Brent’s issue is with referendums being used to decide this issue. I don’t have an opinion one way or another on that, but if gay marriage became an issue in Utah, I’d vote against it. For me, the larger issue in Brent’s column was his call for kindness. Southern Utah is a hard place to live and be different. Many use the church as a club for those who don’t conform and many obey blindly what they perceive to be commandments and forget the larger one “Love Thy Neighbor.” That can be very hurtful to true believers who begin to realize that allegiance to “church” is more important to allegiance to Christ. It’s societal. Same sex marriage is maybe the most visible issue where this displays itself, but there are many other areas where members are unkind to others and feel justified. |
#73: Next year, I think you will be getting a chance to vote on Civil Unions in Utah. (Dixie Utah should love that). |
First off, Brent doesn’t quite understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If he did, then he would not have included everything he did in his essay. Brent says that the church does not accept gays for who they are a never will. This is a GROSS generalization. People understand and are accepting of gays in the church. My friend attends a ward in California whose membership consists mainly of homosexual men and women. Those people go to church faithfully and feel that their ward accepts them for who they are. This is not a singular experience happening only in that ward. The church accepts homosexual people and people from all races, creeds, nationalities, etc. It is people that sometimes are not so accepting. Additionally, is Brent saying that we should not stand up for our views and opinions? That we should back down just because we are going to be persecuted, possibly like other Saints? Did Christ back down when He was persecuted for doing His Father’s will? No, he didn’t and neither should we. Finally, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is founded on revelation, including revelation received from God by our current prophet. The Prophet and His counselors sent out a call to support Proposition 8. Even if it’s hard for us to agree with that, if we believe that the church is true and believe that Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet, then we also believe that the words he says are true words from God. Don’t forget that. |
Well said Sarah. Collinized, its now beyond tedious! But you ought to take a look at this video, to put the above essay and what you are defending into a bigger picture, and then chose sides, chose if you defend the gay theology of marriage or the church’s: |
It’s possible Carlos doesn’t live in the US, so maybe things are different there. (But in the US, bishops, sealers, etc. are granted authority by the State to execute the wedding.) |
Finally, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is founded on revelation, including revelation received from God by our current prophet. The Prophet and His counselors sent out a call to support Proposition 8. Even if it’s hard for us to agree with that, if we believe that the church is true and believe that Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet, then we also believe that the words he says are true words from God. Don’t forget that. Applicable in certain states only. |
#75: “I realize that IT does not fully accept gays…” (Brent). “PEOPLE understand and are accepting of gays in the church.” (Sarah). These are two different statements about behavior. One is speaking about the Institution, The other, talking about individuals within that Institution. |
#76 I get it, okay. Gay marriage rubs you the wrong way. So say that. Don’t use fear tactics and unfounded arguments to back up your viewpoint. #75 & #76 When the church funds and aligns itself with organizations that use fear and in some cases blatant lies to spread their message, it doesn’t matter how much the church accepts gays in reality. The world will see us as intolerant. |
Responding to #75, Sarah: “First off, Brent doesn’t quite understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” Well, I never claim to know much about anything, but being a lifelong active member (50 years plus) of the Church in question, I have a general idea of what it’s about. But Sarah, you did get me to laugh - which is always a good thing. Next: Kind of reminds me of the slave holders in the South, who were so sure that their slaves actually enjoyed being slaves because of how well they were treated. Don’t believe it. Having met many LDS and former LDS gays, I can tell you unequivocally that every gay person I’ve met feels that they were not and are not accepted for who they are by the Church. The key phrase is “for who they are.” True acceptance means this: 1) Acknowledgment that gays did not choose their sexual orientation. They were born that way, and it isn’t a disease that needs to be cured or corrected. 2) The intimate relationship of a gay person is just as valid as that of a straight person. Acceptance of these two points is not likely in the foreseeable future. Next point: Heavens no. In fact, if you’ll read my article carefully, you’ll see that I believe that the Church (and its people) have the right to speak out against whatever they consider sin, and to even excommunicate its gay members. I hope the government stays out of the business of Churches - forever. You can voice all the denouncements against the gays that you want, but please, please, please, try to restrain yourself from putting your moralistic opinions on a ballot. I still can’t understand why people like you feel so compelled to have a voice in someone else’s life. Is it that you think gays are contagious? Are they taking something from you? Exactly what is it that you are “protecting?” For the life of me, I can’t figure this out. But please, go ahead and continue to show your disdain for gays. I never suggested that you don’t have the right to tell them exactly what you think of them. I never would. Next: My comment about the Church making a mistake, is primarily due to the divisiveness created by their activism. Making a public statement is one thing, but in case you missed it, there are a lot of people who believe that the Church went overboard with this political issue (even within the Church, yikes). Asking for donations, requesting its Church members to get involved by actively campaigning, created walls. Hurtful walls. While the Church may have intended only to be involved in the marriage component of the gay issue, it aligned itself into an “anti-gay” posture. A lot of harm was done. Now, the question is, does the Church care? That, I don’t know. I guess we’ll see. |
“… try to restrain yourself from putting your moralistic opinions on a ballot. I still can’t understand why people like you feel so compelled to have a voice in someone else’s life.” First, to get anywhere with your argument you need to read DKL’s comments on line 22, and have a compelling response. Most laws are based on some moral idea. Any group in a democratic-republic such as ours may create a law that inhibits freedom and imposes a moral standard on the citizenry. If a majority of people in a society feel that prostitution, adultery, polygamy, incest, sodomy, and other such conduct are bad for their civilization (even if they base their “moralistic opinions” on some religious notion), they are allowed to create laws forbidding such conduct. I recognize your right to organize and attempt to change public opinion just as you should recognize Church members’ (even if encouraged by the Church) right to do the same. You look at your friends/family who are homosexual and say, they are good people, just like me, and should be given every societal benefit. As for me, I look to my three young children and take very seriously my charge to bring them up with certain morals, because I believe that will afford them the greatest chance for happiness. If I can get together with other likeminded people to get laws passed that create a community in which it is easier to raise my children with those morals, I can and will organize and exercise my franchise. It does not even need to be about raising children. Even more basic, what kind of a world do I want to live in. You are in the minority on this one, for now. But don’t worry the tide is changing in your favor, much to my and others disappointment. But that’s democracy. |
#82: I think you &(DKL#22)are mistaken. We are not a part of a Union where the majority rules. We are ruled by laws. Theses are subject to Court interpretation. Some laws cannot be changed. Some laws cannot exist, no matter how the majority feels. Some Rights in our system apply to everyone, not just the majority. The majority cannot deny those Rights to the minority. Laws and Rights are not created by vote and there are rules as to how one can “organize and attempt to change public opinion”. All of this is the purpose of, and is spelled out in, the U.S. Constitution. |
Bob, please provide the responses to the following inquiries. |
77. queuno: Texas; its the Canadian case that is different since their Marriage Commissioners execute ceremonies, so they resemble our Bishops/Priest not the town clerk Although not about marriage, it nevertheless addresses a problem with churches rejecting a gay member: http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/gay-christian-wins-suit-against-bishop-for-discrimination/ But this is now a matter of time, of when will they nor if! |
#84: 1)Congress shall pass no law….. |
Bob, I will certainly agree that Congress cannot make a law that will inhibit religious worship, political speech, and the ability to peaceably assemble. What about the individual state legislatures? State legislatures are not Congress. Also, wouldn’t you agree that even the Bill of Rights or any part of the Constitution for that matter, may be amended. You must agree, after all you cite Article 5. In the end, remember that the Bill of Rights was set up by a majority vote and can be changed by the same. Respecting your right to representation in the U.S. Senate by two senators; first, Article 1, sec. 3, as discussed may be amended to give states three senators. The real question is how would you feel if a court interpreted the word “two” to mean really one? I don’t think you would like that very much. Yet you seem to be perfectly complacent when courts make the same type of egregious interpretation in other parts of the document. In the end this is a democracy and the majority wins in all instances, except in the relatively few cases where the majority have curbed their own ability to do so. But that does not presuppose that the majority cannot ever amend what they have done. |
#87: “What about the individual state legislatures”? They can not override the U.S. Constitution. |
Bob, you responses make it ever more difficult for me to understand your line of reasoning. Let me ask you this, is gay marriage a right found in the constitution, if so where? If not, why do you think it is a right that should exist independent of the will of the majority of the people. |
Carlos: The article you cite is in England and is about the Anglican Church. This is not analogous to the state for two reasons: first, the Anglican Church is a state church and is under the control of Parliament. Second, given the United State’s expressive association jurisprudence, it is unlikely that an employment anti-discrimination law could be enforced against a religious employer for a religious position. Incidentally, non-religious positions from religious employers are exempt from Title 7 and every state anti-discrimination statute I’ve heard of, but that’s a statutory exemption, not a constitutional one. John Marshall: The First Amendment is applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Every provision in the U.S. Constitution (except one) may be amended by two-thirds of each house of congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures. The Constitution cannot be amended to allow a state unequal representation in the Senate. |
Bob brings up splitting CA. Here’s an utterly fascinating summary of attempts to split states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_secession_proposals |
The State of Jefferson will rise again! |
Nate W: actually the Anglican Church is only under the Crowns control not Parliament. The churches General Synod is the equivalent body to Parliament, under the Crowns authority. That discrimination case was due to a mistake made by the employer in not specifying the vacancy as a church specific one in which gays would not be accepted, which is legal to do under current British anti-discrimination. But the big picture here is that 5 years ago this would never have come up |
#89: I am not sure any type of marriage is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution(?) But greater minds than ours have not challenged Gay marriage by speaking of the U.S. Constitution(?) I don’t think the “majority of the people”, have ever spoken on anything. But no, I don’t think the majority always wins, or should. The founders feared the majority or majority rule, and built a system to work around “The Mob”. |
#91: Good link. I think West Virginia wanted to continue to sell it’s coal to the North, that why they didn’t go with the South. With the Southern Senators gone, it was an easy to make the new State. |
This is from another mormon blog. Let’s see how the east coast smart-arse lawyer types answer these questions, especially the Yeshiva University case and photographer’s case and the Methodist’s case: ” Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group’s view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, “parachurch” organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases: Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state’s highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm. Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls’ parents sued, saying the school was violating the state’s civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge. Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business. Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee’s religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company. Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California. Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing. Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association’s tax benefits. The case is ongoing. Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city’s marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts’ leases. Meanwhile, the mayor’s office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts’ $1-a-year lease for a city building.” You will all probably say ‘well its all public lands’ or it isn’t religious, but the issue here is how it is all changing. Soon churches won’t even be able to say that gay sex is a sin without being accused of ‘hate speak’. |
There really isn’t much difference between Yeshiva University and BYU when it comes to same sex marriage. Both universities are private and church sponsored. |
Carlos: Tell me how same-sex marriage has to do with any of these items and I’ll be glad to talk about them. Specifically, tell me why any of these would be a problem with same-sex marriage but would not be a problem with California’s domestic partnership law that bestows upon same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Once you do that, I’ll gladly be your “east coast smart-arse lawyer type.” |
#96: Carlos, this gives me much pain. You can tell, I believe in letting Gays live their lives, where I don’t see their doing so effects mine. |
I think a difference between Yeshiva University and BYU is the latter’s honor code. I can’t imagine how a student in a SSM would be allowed admission or continuing status. After all, the student commits not to engage in said behavior. The burden is on the student, not the university. (I don’t know if Yeshiva U has an honor code.) queuno, the ex-BYU HCC member. |
Nate #98, “Tell me how same-sex marriage has to do with any of these items..” Doh! What the…? Maybe my english is bad or my spelling? But you have to now add eHarmony to that list. Story only broke yesterday. Nate #98, “Once you do that, I’ll gladly be your “east coast smart-arse lawyer type.”” Bob #99 “I believe in a pluralistic society, we must find ways to keep space between each other” |
Nate W., You’re parsing like a good lawyer. But, at the end of the day, all of those incidents have to do with SSM–directly. As I said before, when the courts speak they establish a precedent that will influence further related court decisions–sometimes for generations to come. I don’t think legalized SSM and gay anti-discrimination law suits happening side by side is a product of mere coincidence. The more SSM becomes generally legalized across the states the more it becomes codified as a civil rights issue–and that has everything to do with everyone of those examples cited by Carlos. |
Carlos, Jack: None of these have to do with same-sex marriage. Most of these incidents occurred in states where marriage rights do not exist or did not exist at the time of the incident. At its roots, the debate over Proposition 8 is a policy debate. The question is whether Proposition 8 is better than the alternative of same-sex marriage. Policy is implemented in the real world. While this statement may seem obvious, experience shows that it is a point worth making. Too often, those in favor of a change in policy focus too much on the unacceptability of the status quo to question whether the alternative will be better, while those against a policy compare the imagined harm to a utopian alternative rather than the reality of the status quo. In the case of Proposition 8, we have to compare the status quo of same-sex marriage with the alternative under California law: a world with the same anti-discrimination laws, the same adoption laws, and domestic partnership laws that provide same-sex couples with an institution that only differs from marriage by its name.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Look it up. These lawsuits have been around before gay marriage lawsuits. You’re aiming at the wrong target. Even if you stop same-sex marriage, these lawsuits will go on because of anti-discrimination laws. In fact, existing anti-discrimination laws have been part of the calculus on same-sex marriage cases. So, if anything, the causation works the other way. |
I think you need to consider how long the fight for SSM has been going on. The push for legalized SSM has done more to raise the general level of consciousness toward civil rights for gays than any other cause. SSM is the goal post at the end of the field–so to speak–in the game of gay anti-discrimination. And as such, further realization of legalized SSM will be the continued ultimate civil rights victory for gays–as it will serve to codify all else with respect to gay/lesbian rights within the strictest boundaries of anti-discrimination law. Frankly, it scares me. |
#104: Granting people civil rights does not scare me. Why does it you? Or, is it having “strictest boundaries of anti-discrimination law”, that scares you? |
Because we’ve gone from viewing civil rights as a legal means of recognizing that all people are human and therefore deserving of equal access to inalienable rights to viewing it as a “legal” process in which the inalienable rights themselves are manufactured–no matter how horribly whimsical that process may be. |
#106: I am not sure what you are saying, but I think you are at the core of what should be the discussion. Are Gays asking for something beyond the “inalienable rights” listed by Jefferson: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? If so, what is it. ( Remember, the answer can not be “What God told me.”). |
Nate W #103, But, respectfully, what I believe you are missing here is that all SSM cases will be based on some form of anti-discrimination and that is what concerns people. We will no longer be able to say that we uphold and respect the laws of the land when we disagree with SSM when it is legal and lawful, even if the disagreement stems from a religious point of view, as happened with polygamy. Plus that Yeshiva University involved a same sex couple, and true there is no SSM in NY, but if this is a problem now what will it be when SSM is legal? The gay lobby can just increase the amount of people they take to court, not just one photographer, or a private adoption service in CA or eHarmony (ie private companies not churches). Plus in Mass, the adoption case, the point was that the CathChurch had been adopting for decades but has to withdraw from the public system, so where does that end? will the church also have to withdraw from the education system because they won’t recognize SSM? will BYU have to withdraw because its honor code rejects even a one off gay lover? I’m not a lawyer (obvious?) but I do run a large business and we have had the weirdest cases against us, arguments that lawyers dreamed up, like people who resign to go to college and then come back 6 months later saying that they were forced to resign due to our ‘discriminating attitudes’ etc etc. And yes, some we won because they were ridiculous but others we lost when our legal firm said that there was no case, and yet others we just settled out of court because its cheaper. But the creativity and guile that those in your profession come up with is bewildering! We have learned to expect the unexpected and wait for new laws to be invented by judges every once in a while. But your argument in #103 is fairly decent and convincing so maybe I will hire you after all!! |
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc. ” Say what? What was that? Ohhh, no its normal lawyer talk, right? jk Its no longer a logical fallacy, nor a coincidence only, when one has to pay real money and in the ruling the judge mentions Roman jurisprudence or British common law. I may think that its post hocy ergoy.. whatever, but the judge doesn’t. (No offense intended Nate W) |
No offense taken, and I have no intention of defending all lawyers. And believe me, I understand the frustration of having to answer frivolous claims. But that falls within the realm of employment non-discrimination law. I can tell you that of the things you have to worry about in employment law, same-sex marriage is not one of them. In fact, because it streamlines the law, your obligations are clearer, leading to fewer lawsuits. Regarding Yeshiva, a) they are nonsectarian, b) they never raised a religious defense, and c) Yeshiva allowed unmarried straight couples to live in the dorms, just not unmarried gay couples. So yeah, this doesn’t bear much resemblance to BYU at all. eHarmony was an out-of-court settlement, and I doubt eHarmony would have lost if they would have gone to trial. Still, if eHarmony would have made clear that their services were to match Christian singles or some such thing (advertise their niche status), there would be even less of an issue. If businesses have a rational business model that appeals to a nice in a market, they won’t usually lose an anti-discrimination case. If they advertise services to the general public, there is no rational basis for them to deny service to gays and lesbians, but they decide to anyway, that will likely be a case. (I’m not an employment lawyer, so there may be some wrinkles in the law that I’m not explaining well here). And if you’ll notice, LDSFS is still placing children in Mass. Not only are they discriminating against gay couples, but also against non-Mormon couples. They don’t take federal or state funds, don’t place children for the state, and don’t do foster services, so the government has a lot less reason to control them. Am I saying there will never be conflicts between the interests of the Church and gays and lesbians? Nope. I do think that this country is one of the most respectful of religious freedom and religion in general. The Church is not being tossed on the shoals in countries where same-sex marriage is legal, and there’s even less of a chance of it in this country. The Church is also not standing alone on this issue, either. Inasmuch as there is a wide religious tradition of condemning homosexuality, I think this issue will be looked upon more like not ordaining women clergy than Bob Jones not allowing interracial dating. There are always bumps in the road, but I think that predictions of armageddon are not borne out by history. And p.s., I may play an east-coast type here in the Bloggernacle, but I’m from Salt Lake City, so be aware of my limited jurisdiction before you ask for my business card. |
From the lesson manual… Joseph Smith: “I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. “Heber C. Kimball, while serving as a counselor to President Brigham Young, reported: “I will give you a key which Brother Joseph Smith used to give in Nauvoo. He said that the very step of apostasy commenced with losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom, and that whenever you discerned that spirit you might know that it would lead the possessor of it on the road to apostasy.” It seems that Brent has some differing feelings on this subject than the Brethren. (“My faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, erred in supporting this type of political initiative.”) However, it is probably better to resolve those differences internally rather than publicly, as not to openly “find…fault with the Church, saying they are out of the way…” We would do well to avoid “the very step of apostasy [that comes by] losing confidence in the leaders of this church and kingdom” Also, a reminder from 3 Nephi, in response to the “my church” mentality evident in the article – this is spoken by the Lord to the Nephites: “Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.” When Brent said, “I would really rather that my Church doesn’t try to place its definition of morality onto the general public…” I cringed a little. Well, needless to say, it isn’t your church, Brent – it is the Lord’s Church. When one gets in the habit of calling the Lord’s Church as “my Church”, they inevitably start feeling uncomfortable when “their Church” doesn’t do things in their way. They stop “calling upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake” because there are too worried about their own sake. Replacing the phrases “my Church” and “my faith” with “the Lord” (whose Church it really is) in the above article would reveal the pathetic nature of those sentences: “I would really rather that the Lord doesn’t try to place [His] definition of morality onto the general public…” I believe that this is the heart of the gospel: making public the Lord’s (and His Church’s) definition of morality. I’ll just let this sentence stand as it was written: “…The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, erred in supporting this type of political initiative.” Really? Do you really believe that? The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles – our prophets, seers, and revelators – collectively and unanimously “erred” on this issue? It is as if Brent is saying as was once said to President Packer, “I am an active and faithful member of the Church; however,…” In President Packer’s situation he was encouraged to join a certain organization of Church members. His response, after refusing to join was this: “I told my two hosts that if the announcement had read, ‘We are active and faithful members of the Church; therefore,…’ I would have joined their organization. “That however meant that they put a condition upon their Church membership and their faith. It meant that they put something else first. It meant that they were to judge the Church and gospel and the leaders of it against their own backgrounds and training. In meant that their commitment was partial, and that partial commitment is not enough to qualify one for full spiritual light. “I would not contribute to publications…that by spirit or inclination are faith destroying. There are plenty of scholars in the world determined to find all secular truth. There are so few of us, relatively speaking, striving to convey the spiritual truths, who are protecting the Church. We cannot safely be neutral.” Well, if “we cannot safely be neutral” than I sure hope we don’t find ourselves in opposition to the Church and Kingdom of God. We cannot be the kind of Church members that are “active and faithful; however”, without put[ting] a condition upon [our] Church membership and [our] faith. We must be the kind of Church members that are “active and faithful; therefore” because “partial commitment is not enough to qualify one for full spiritual light.” It seems to me that we must resolve it in our own minds to follow the Brethren and have faith that they are led by the Spirit and by revelation. Certainly, we are entitled to receive our personal convictions that the counsel and teachings of the Lord’s servants are good and true. Let us not, therefore, publish criticism while settling these things in our hearts. Just one week ago the Church posted an article with these words: “Following the passing of Proposition 8 in California, the Church released statements urging civility and reaffirming its position on the issue.” For me, that’s it – that’s all I need. I can take that to prayer and the issue is settled. Elder Gibbons spoke to this subject in October 2006 saying: “Brothers and sisters, let’s sell that summer cottage in Babylon. Let us be not “almost” but “altogether” Latter-day Saints. “In Joseph Smith Translation, Luke 14:28 the Lord says: ‘Wherefore, settle this in your hearts, that ye will do the things which I shall teach, and command you.’ I love that phrase ‘settle this.’ Brothers and sisters, I pray that we are ‘settled.’ There are precious blessings that come only from the complete yielding of one’s heart to God.” There is no doubt in mind that the Brethren have aligned themselves with God, on this important moral issue. And after every other consideration they decided “do the things which [the Lord taught, and commanded them], and they asked the Saints to do the same. This is simply the hand of the Lord working for the progress of good in our latter-day world, even if “[c]oncern over the institution of the family will be viewed [by society] as untrendy and unenlightened.” (Elder Maxwell, prophesy given in 1978). There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, “‘Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.’ (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173). “Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kgs. 5.) “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” So, those are my thoughts on the subject and about the article in the original post. It’ll be interesting to see if there is more discussion, as there hasn’t been a comment for more than a week. |