News Flash: The LDS Church WILL be actively opposing gay marriage in California this November, and is encouraging members to actively oppose gay marriage in California.
They are asking all members of the church to, “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.”
Here’s the memo to the church, which will be read to all members in California next Sunday.
Ouch.
Does anyone know if this proposed amendment has any chance of passing, based on polls, etc.?
And if so, does the U.S. Supreme Court have the authority to overturn it at some point?
I find it rather interesting that the letter is specifically to be read on June 29th, which is recognized in the GLBT community as “Pride Day,” the anniversary of the Stonewall riots. It COULD have been read tomorrow, June 22nd, but they’ve chosen a specific date, in a way which seems deliberately provocative.
Two things stand out in the letter, making me wonder just a bit about its authenticity:
(1) The language about “revers[ing] the vote of the people” seems unusually political (for lack of a better term) for a FP letter. On the other hand, it is taken almost verbatim from the recent evangelical ex-gay propaganda, which LDS leaders have closely parrotted for the past several years.
(2) The whole “Local church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved” passage seems to conflict with other post-2000 communications, which have tended more to explicitly deny “official” participation while encouraging individuals to jump on the bandwagon.
If this letter is genuine, it PUTS THE LIE to the recent LDS Public Relations spin, wherein they claimed that the twice-read 2006 letter to “make your opinion known” was not a direction to LDS members to “support” a constitutional amendment.
How many more Stuart Matis incidents do LDS leaders need, before they rethink these political crusades?
I should also point out, however, that this letter seems consistent with what Mitt Romney claimed, regarding private backroom deals between Gordon Hinckley and Jerry Falwell.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/september/34.74.html
Romney Quote: “[But] several months ago, not long before he died, I had the occasion of having the Rev. Jerry Falwell at our home. He said that when he was getting ready to oppose same-sex marriage in California, he met with the president of my church in Salt Lake City, and they agreed to work together in a campaign in California. He said, ‘Far be it from me to suggest that we don’t have the same values and the same objectives.’”
Romney gave this interview prior to the death of Gordon Hinckley, lest anyone be confused.
Let’s slow down until this can be verified. Once there is an official statement - or this actually is read in multiple meetings - etc., we have plenty of time to discuss it.
I generally would never suggest postponing a thread someone else has posted, but this is jumping the gun a bit, imho.
John, the most recent poll I have seen shows about 51% support for the amendment. That’s down significantly from support for Prop 22 which passed by about 65% if I recall correctly. If Barack Obama’s candidacy continues to bring out young voters in the November election, it seems to me that those young voters will be against the amendment in much higher margins.
I had really thought that the church would stay out of this one, and I agree with Nick’s analysis above. The letter contradicts many things we have been told here before.
Nick, I don’t want to continue this, as I already said in #4 - but do you REALLY have to characterize a simple meeting as “private backroom deals”? You know the message of those words; there are much less loaded ways you could have phrased it. These were two leaders meeting to discuss common ground. I know the content of the discussion bothers you more than any other content could, but “private backroom deals”?
this makes me sad.
Yes Nick…for the church to say, “we do not want to get political” and then get into stuff like this is hypocritical to me. Perhaps what they mean to say is…”we want our members to decide for themselves if they are republican or democrat..but we still set the “moral” agenda.” You & i know very well they play the PR game & neglect so many other moral issues.
I personally don’t know what to make of the churches crypto-politicizing, but for me atleast, i think there are more important things I can do then donate my means and time to this. I am personally not opposed to civil unions but yet will teach my family the value of eternal marriage as is taught by the church without belittling same sex unions. I applaud monogamy and commitment. Instead, I will continue spending my time helping sick people at the hospital and speaking truth to power…sorry first presidency.
And ironically…on the afernoon of the 29th I will be helping my local freeconomy group put up a fence at my friends house who is in a same sex union and then will have a bbq after church with all of them.
Current polls seem to be vacillating between pass or fail, with either side by small margins.
My understanding is that Prop 22 passed with 61% of the vote in 2000. Public opinion polls have shown an average annual increase of 2% for approval of marriage equality. That includes increases across all age categories. If that gives any useful predictor in the case of the current initiative, we could expect the initiative to be defeated.
The Obama factor actually cuts two ways. Yes, Obama has proven to be a powerful force in getting younger voters out to the polls, and younger voters are much more likely to vote against the amendment. On the other hand, however, Obama has very strong support in the African American community, which is noted as having a very strong anti-gay current. Therefore, Obama could cause a large anti-marriage-equality voting presence.
Surprised to see the authenticity of the memo questioned. For what its worth, the memo was sent to me by a high-ranking LDS Director of Public Affairs in Southern California.
Bring it on…I work for a TV station and part of my compensation is a small percentage of revenue generated by advertising. Let’s hope both sides spend thousands of dollars on this.
Matt, I’m glad to hear some independent confirmation of the authenticity.
If anyone’s interested, here is a chronology of how things went in California during Prop 22:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/doma.shtml
“Bring it on…I work for a TV station and part of my compensation is a small percentage of revenue generated by advertising. Let’s hope both sides spend thousands of dollars on this.”
The “ever-caring” & christlike attitude of a disaster capitalist.
#10 - That’s all I was asking for Matt. I have seen enough doctored announcements in my decades in the Church simply to want to make sure it is authentic.
Stephen, I had my tongue firmly in cheek here. The church doing this may just be what is need to push me over the edge into resigning my membership. Let’s see how this is handled in my wife’s ward. They may just read the letter and that is that, or they may start heavily leaning on people to contribute. I live in a rather upscale ward/stake, so I suspect the begging for money will take place.
“And if so, does the U.S. Supreme Court have the authority to overturn it at some point?”
That’s a loaded question … the answer is yes. Just a matter of reinterpreting the constitution of the United States and overturning precident, which it does more often than you would think.
The best example is Brown v. Board of Education.
Looking back, everyone sees that as a good thing, though the transition was rough. Had a friend who became property as a result of integration, and was subjected to all the effects of property. She actually said it was a good thing, because it put her off limits to those outside the gang who decided that they owned her.
Here we go again. Just like the ERA.
This is so backward and destructive and, Mitt Romney’s candidacy having brought so much attention to the church, this will not stay under the wire. I have to go throw up a little.
You know the message of those words; there are much less loaded ways you could have phrased it. These were two leaders meeting to discuss common ground. I know the content of the discussion bothers you more than any other content could, but “private backroom deals”?
Ray, I understand how those words might grate on you. Honestly though, I would have found the meeting disturbing when I was an extremist-believing Mormon. The idea that an LDS “prophet” stoops to the likes of Jerry Falwell (an enemy of the LDS church, for goodness sake!) for planning and counsel really goes against the independent nature of Mormonism as urged more than once in the D&C. Further, if you think about it, the meeting of Hinckley and Falwell could have been publicly touted as a very positive “reaching out” move, but no—it was kept quiet. Neither man evidently wanted his flock to know who he was spending his time with. So yes, I consider it a “private backroom deal,” not because it’s provocative to say that, but because it was under wraps until it became conveniently useful to Romney’s political goals.
“The idea that an LDS “prophet” stoops to the likes of Jerry Falwell (an enemy of the LDS church, for goodness sake!) for planning and counsel really goes against the independent nature of Mormonism as urged more than once in the D&C.”
That’s where our views differ. That’s fine.
The analysis I read of the amendment a few months ago in our local paper said that it would be just as subject to overturn by the California Supreme Court as the law established by Prop 22. But I’m not a legal expert and wasn’t preparing for a quiz, so can’t sum up the reasons for it. Incidentally, 3 of the 4 judges who voted to overturn Prop 22 were appointed by Republican governors. Arnold has said that he will not support the amendment on the ballot.
I’m surprised that anybody is surprised by this.
Hmmm. I know it sounds insensitive, but in a way I feel as though I don’t have a dog in this fight. But as I think of it, I do have a small dog (maybe a chihuahua) in this fight. I have a visible career, and my religion is known. When the membership is seen as a body politic, there are problems for all of us. Obviously, it limited Romney, and that was when the church remained neutral. I would prefer not to follow our evangelical brethren down this slippery “cannon fodder in God’s army” slope. I am just not a social conservative. Perhaps that means I lack vision or that I am just looking out for number one. I’m sure both are true.
Being optimistic, though:
1 - I hope the official release is less politicized than it sounds.
2 - It still seems pretty clear that although they are applying pressure to participate, it’s not mandatory or “enforced” in any way (e.g. not “worthy” if don’t join in).
3 - I live in AZ, not CA, so it looks like it won’t be read in my state since it’s not in legislation.
4 - The law of chastity is certainly clear in the church (e.g. you can’t be in good standing and have any extramarital, premarital, or homosexual sex). I highly doubt that if homosexuals are legally married, the church would say, “Oh, I guess that’s not a violation of the Law of Chastity now, so welcome back! My bad!” I suppose that if same sex marriage becomes legal, the church will have to make an even stronger statement about the Law of Chastity, maybe (?). My objection is on the grounds that I don’t like to legislate morality.
Vote the way you would if the Savior stood beside you, and you won’t go wrong. Given that instruction, I believe it’s quite possible we could vote various ways in good conscience. As for cracking open the checkbook, this still seems a matter of conscience to me. Do what you believe to be right.
Ann, I’m somewhat surprised because I live in California, and have seen the consequences of the last campaign. I really thought that perhaps church leaders would regret the number of people who went inactive, or were very hurt by the past campaign, or at least not want to stir up more bad press. But then I’m a hopelessly naive optimist, I suppose.
I just don’t know how the church can say the Constitution is inspired and then go ballistic when the provision for extending the rights to the pursuit of happiness and equal protection to everyone comes up.
I’m still not over being angry that they didn’t think I should have equal protection of my rights.
It’s not just the issue of an inspired Constitution. It’s also the very basic Mormon teaching of a Council in Heaven, wherein the bad guy came up with a plan to enforce commandments upon all of humanity in order to bring them all back to the presence of deity.
It never ceases to amaze me that leaders of a faith which holds this teaching insist upon engaging in the same tactic by attempting to legislatively enforce the tenets of their faith on a diverse citizenry.
#25 - Come on, Nick, that is WAY over-the-top. This statement does NOT try to “enforce the tenets of their faith” in the same way that was fought against in the Council in Heaven. The “tenets of their faith” teach that homosexual activity should be avoided; this does NOT attempt to legislate that activity out of existence. There is a HUGE difference between the compulsion of outlawing a practice and an attempt to keep that practice from being called the same thing that heterosexual unions have been called for thousands of years.
You know I support civil unions with FULL civil rights, and, when push comes to shove, can’t support this amendment if it still allows common-law “marriages”. However, to equate support of this amendment with Satan’s plan simply is hyperbolic absurdity.
There is room to disagree with this request without turning it into a support of Satan.
Ray, I’m sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. However you wish to characterize the issue, the crusade itself is clearly an attempt to impose the tenets of a religious faith upon the wider citizenry—including a portion of that citizenry who follow their own religions by supporting, and even solemnizing, civilly recognized marriages between persons of the same sex.
I’m not just picking on the LDS church here, Ray. I have equally vehement feelings with regard to the religious and governmental persecution faced by early Mormons, with regard to their choices in forming families. Efforts by other faiths, along with the government, to prohibit plural marriage were blatant applications of the same behavior that Mormonism teaches was exhibited by Lucifer in the “Council in Heaven.” Those other churches had the excuse of not holding that doctrine, but their behavior was still reprehensible.
Pouchg said: Stephen, I had my tongue firmly in cheek here. The church doing this may just be what is need to push me over the edge into resigning my membership. Let’s see how this is handled in my wife’s ward. They may just read the letter and that is that, or they may start heavily leaning on people to contribute. I live in a rather upscale ward/stake, so I suspect the begging for money will take place.
Right…my apologies. It is so hard to see where people are coming from in their comments. Sorry for being sardonic. It has made me feel hesitant about paying tithing to the church over the next month or so just in case it is used for this cause. Knowing what the church did in Hawaii made me feel this way too.
And I again disagree, Nick.
I agree that the way that we were treated with regard to polygamy is central to the way I perceive homosexual unions - whatever they are called. I also agree that polygamy in our day and age is MORE IMMORAL than homosexual activity - since “moral” is a socially determined word and homosexual activity is accepted more than polygamy. So, I believe that my ancestors were acting more immorally in their time than you are now.
Having said all of that, the actions of the earlier churches was an attempt to eliminate the practice of polygamy by jailing it practitioners and confiscating their property. It was the literal outlawing of the activity itself - by force and literal compulsion. In that regard, it was forcing morality as law. **It was attempting to force people into not sinning** - the very definition of Satan’s plan.
This is not that type of action. Nothing in this amendment would jail you or your partners; nothing in it would confiscate property from you; **nothing in it would force you to stop being an actively gay man**. The only harm this would do, especially if accompanied by full rights within civil unions, is to remove a specific title from your union. I KNOW THAT IS PAINFUL, but it is not enforcing Satan’s plan. It is not doing to you what was done to us years ago.
It is legal discrimination I personally can’t accept, but it is not coercion of action - which is the heart of Satan’s plan. Satan’s plan says, “I won’t let you sin.” This says, “I won’t let you change the term used for what you do to make it appear to not be sin.” Again, **I know you don’t accept that definition of sin**, and I don’t fully support it either, but it’s nowhere close to Satan’s plan.
I just don’t know how the church can say the Constitution is inspired and then go ballistic when the provision for extending the rights to the pursuit of happiness and equal protection to everyone comes up
Err, because they are (a) talking about the State of California’s Constitution here, not the United States Constitution, (b) inspired doesn’t mean every word is gospel and never to be amended, (c) we are talking interpretations of a document that alter its original meaning.
On the other hand, see: http://ethesis.blogspot.com/2008/06/eleventh-article-of-faith.html
Ann, I was a little surprised too. Now I feel dumb. I don’t expect the church to come around on gay issues for a long time, but based on some positive signs over the past 6-7 years, I kind of figured they’d sit this one out.
I also thought Monson was less likely to bring the church into controversial or political arenas, for some reason. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during the FP and Q12 meetings to see which members were pushing hard for a statement/action, and which members kind of held back.
‘Ouch.’ ‘Administrator????? (or John Dehlin?????)
Actually that ouch should be directed towards the mormon blogganacle which insists in being sympathetic to the homosexual agenda!
Never has the church given any indication that they will one day change the law of chastity. And gay sex is simply against the law of chastity. So you can’t keep comparing it to blacks/priesthood issue (that comparison only fits for divorced men).
At least the evangelicals and most catholics understand that permitting more gay ‘penetration’ in society will lead to its downfall spiritually and in simply religiosity; and, if God keeps his word, eventually in societies own destruction with more family breakdowns and children raised in dysfunctional families…..and on and on it goes. All consequences of breaking the Law of Chastity!
You ALL ought to support this political intervention no matter what the social consequences, or to any other Romney family member future campaign! (Although Nick here #2 has a point in that it doesn’t seem to be typical FP language so the letter itself is probably fake).
#2 John, My understanding is that this issue is a state issue, nothing to do with the US Supreme Court. Their has been a move to rule that the proposed amendment itself is unconstitutional according to the California constitution. If the California courts find in favor of this petition then the proposition would be removed from the ballot. I pretty sure if the proposition wins it could be tied up in the California courts and could be found unconstitutional. As someone pointed out this is not a Republican or Democratic issue in California. This is extremists wanting to take away peoples rights. That is how it is looked by 49 or 50 % of Californians. My hope is that number grows.
Since prop 22 my wife and I attend church very little. I have never had anyone from the church explain how two homosexuals getting married affects our marriage or our children’s sexuality. We have dozens of homosexual friends who are mostly couples, but a few single, and they have never had any influence when it comes to sex, let alone sexual orientation on our family. The church leadership should be ashamed of themselves for siding with such hateful people as those who want to take the rights away of committed couples.
#22 hawkgrrrl
‘My objection is on the grounds that I don’t like to legislate morality’
D’oh! Almost every law is based on morality: don’t kill, don’t rape, don’t abuse children, don’t abuse wives, don’t steal…and we should still have don’t cheat on your spouse and don’t have gay sex or you’ll go to jail.
Almost all of them. Maybe taxation law can be considered not morally based since the money goes to politicians.
Someone please list the rights, in CA, that “marriage” would provide that “civil union” does not.
That is a serious question. I don’t know enough about that specific question in CA.
#29:
Nothing in this amendment would jail you or your partners; nothing in it would confiscate property from you; **nothing in it would force you to stop being an actively gay man**.
While you are technically correct, Ray, I’m sure you can also see that such actions are incremental. There are substantial voices in the religious anti-gay movement who not only oppose marriage equality, but outline a much broader campaign, including recriminalization of homosexual activity (notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision on this issue) with strict, strong enforcement. One zealot, Paul Cameron, has gone so far as to repeatedly urge a “final solution” (yes, that’s his exact phrase, and I’m sure you recognize where else it was used!) to eliminate homosexuality from the populace. Paul Cameron happens to be in Moscow, Russia, this week, advising Russian religious leaders that they need to implement such things “before its too late,” and pointing to the United States as “evidence” of the perils of ignoring his advice.
Satan’s plan says, “I won’t let you sin.” This says, “I won’t let you change the term used for what you do to make it appear to not be sin.”
Ray, have you any serious doubt that religious leaders, including LDS religios leaders, oppose legal recognition of committed same-sex relationships, primarily because they theorize that marriage equality would result in more homosexual activity, which they define as sinful?
Wow, this issue is really going to continue separating out people over the next few years, both within the Mormon church and in the broader society (including probably helping undo much of the mainstreaming the Mormons have accomplished; I wouldn’t be surprised to eventually see the Mormons as the only ones left standing in the anti-gay rights arena, most everyone else having caved into the pressure of political correctness).
I bet within a decade you’ll see things like a Mormon-owned wedding reception center getting burned down because they declined gay business and other persecution.
Personally, I feel the gay rights movement should be actively resisted and am on board with the church on this. People are trying to put homosexuality on the same spectrum of political correctness as civil rights (100% justified) and the feminist movement (mixed results), but I argue it’s a different matter, a very strong temptation that is a moral issue.
Things are changing fast, and I’m personally very alarmed. And from what I’ve seen, the Mormon bloggernacle seems to be much more an agent of promoting worldly political correctness on the gay issue than otherwise.
“Err, because they are (a) talking about the State of California’s Constitution here, not the United States Constitution,”
California’s equal protection guarantees are modeled after the ones in the US Constitution. The principle is exactly the same and I think it’s nothing other than sad for the church to lose their perspective on that.
You can see homosexuality as a sin. I don’t because I’ve known a lot of thoroughly decent and downright exceptional gay people and realize that what they do in their private lives has no bearing on mine. But that aside you can see homosexuality as a sin and still have a sense of perspective that recognizes that there is a world of sin out there in people’s personal and public lives. Fixating on one questionable one that separates the church from an awful lot of people in the country, brings great turmoil to LDS families that have gay members and causes significant numbers of saints to lose their testamonies is a painful and dysfunctional mistake that puts the church on the other side of the inspired Constitution.
#35:
Someone please list the rights, in CA, that “marriage” would provide that “civil union” does not.
Ray, the Supreme Court of California recognized that California’s civil union law provided “virtually all” (their words) of the legal rights of marraige to same-sex couples. However, there is also a right to equal treatment before the law, and our national jurisprudence has been rather emphatic against claims of “separate but equal.”
I’d really invite you to read the California Supreme Court decision. Whether one agrees with the court or not, their reasoning is sound. As they eloquently point out, if the government labels a same-sex legal union differently than they do an opposite-sex legal union, same-sex couples are effectively relegated to second class status. That’s the point, after all! Those who don’t want same-sex unions to be called “marriage,” are arguing that same-sex unions are something less than marriage.
I bet within a decade you’ll see things like a Mormon-owned wedding reception center getting burned down because they declined gay business and other persecution.
Yeah, those damn homosexuals are a violent lot, prone to arson–right, Chris? It’s so good to know that religious people never persecute homosexuals, especially by beatings, vandalism of property, or murder!!
I thought Conservative Member was a troll with the first comment. Now I’m sure.
Wow, the irony. Here you are the persecutor, whose active bigotry currently abets real violence against a minority population, and yet you’ve tried to twist things round so that you appear to be persecuted — in your own mind you are a hypothetical target of persecution.
Nick, remember, I have said openly that, in our current situation, I support gay marriage.
Let me say it this way:
As much as I support gay marriage right now, demonizing the Church’s current position as **comparable to Satan’s plan** is:
1) Incorrect - and obviously so, imho;
2) Hyperbolic;
3) Counter-productive (since it might alienate even those like me who support you otherwise);
4) etc.
We can discuss the appropriateness of this decision in our own minds and whether ornot we will support it actively, but Satan’s plan? Come on!
#36 - I agree that law is based on morality. The problem is that by the Church claiming to only be involved in moral issues, not political ones, they are really saying they have a right to be involved in EVERY political issue that exists, since they are all based on the morals of society.
I just wish all the money that is going to be thrown away on this issue were put to good use, like lessening the economic inequality of the world so there are no poor among us…
Oh, and Nick, I did read the decision. I just haven’t seen the specific **rights** that will be gained by marriage vs. civil union. I really would like a list of them.
“Effectively relegate” HOW? If they simply mean “in the minds of the citizenry” but without actual, practical, systematic discrimination, I can’t accept that. I really am serious about wanting to know precisely what rights currently are being denied that are not held within civil unions - and remember, again, I am on your side minus the silly Satan’s plan verbiage.
Ray, I don’t demonize the theological position of the LDS church. They are entitled to believe in spaceships from Uranus if they wish, and I would defend their right to those beliefs. It is their attempt to legislatively impose the effects of their position on a diverse populace, that I condemn.
Oops - I meant to reference #34 on my last posting.
Conservative member, you are sick sick sick. I find it impressive that you are twisted enough to decry buttsex, but actively support genocide. Kudos to you. Pervert.
Ray, I’ve already indicated for you that the right to equal treatment before the law is at issue.
“Effectively relegate” HOW? If they simply mean “in the minds of the citizenry” but without actual, practical, systematic discrimination, I can’t accept that.
Suppose a law was passed which allowed members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living in the U.S. “virtually all” of the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, but would not call them citizens. Suppose the law designated such persons as “recognized inhabitants.” Are we to conclude that there is no difference, and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would thus receive equal treatment under the law, as is their right? Or would fair-minded persons conclude that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were being treated differently by the law, and that the difference in terminology actually implied a lesser status?
Nick - I would support any legislation to ensure equal rights and treatment for all. The sticking point is the concept of “right to equal treatment before the law.” Is “marriage” a term defined by the state or by religion? I would posit that the terms “civil union” and “marriage” should have equal rights before the law, but use different terminology. I would certainly defend your rights to equal treatment, but if the name of one’s union is the only distinction in so-called rights, then I think your analogy is actually okay with me. To be called “recognized inhabitants” with the exact same right to vote, same taxes, same laws applied, equal rights and obligations to military service, etc. What is the difference then? I realize this sticking point is important to you personally, but I don’t agree that the term “marriage” makes a jot of difference in how people should be treated or how their rights should be respected. The law is there to protect. The church’s position is that the term “marriage” is theological, not created for or by the state. I’m not trying to knock the hornet’s nest, but maybe the issue is that the legislation isn’t written right if the only way to afford equality to all is through the term “marriage.” What about all those people who don’t believe in marriage but are living as if they were married. Should they not have access to the same rights in some cases? Does common law marriage cover them adequately? Why not apply common law logic to same sex couples then?
Nick, good heavens, Mormons right this instant are not treated equally in this country, but do you support our “right” to lobby our several governments to **force** the Christian majority to change what they call us and recognize us legally as “Christians” - to give us that designation by judicial decree because the lack of it relegates us to “second class status”? For a specific example, should the FLDS be designated “Christian” so that they will be “treated equally before the law”? You know as well as I do that the belief that they are not Christian and are destined for Hell played a direct role in the way they were treated.
Based on your argument, the only way that everyone can be treated equally in the law is to legislate that there be NO differentiators in common terminology. I love that idea, but it’s completely unworkable in the political arena.
Simple, serious question:
Can you think of ANY situation where you would deny “marriage” to two adults?
Hawkgrrrl, I understand where you’re coming from, but if “marriage” is to be religiously defined, then the government must remove the title of “marriage” from all legal recognition of spousal relationships. Furthermore, several religious denominations are quite willing to include same-sex spousal relationships in their definition of “marriage,” so who’s religion gets to set this definition for society?
Even if “marriage” is a word and concept which was originated by religious groups (a claim which is entirely unsupported, btw, other than by an intensely literalistic reading of Genesis), it has moved into the sphere of civil law, where the question is not one of what does any particular religion teach.
The LDS church can hold its own theological definition of “marriage” all it likes, even to the extreme of disciplining its members for using the term “marriage” in reference to a legally-recognized marriage of same-sex partners (saying they could, not that they would). The LDS church does not, however, have any authority whatsoever to establish the definition of “marriage” under civil law.
Thanks to an amendment the UT constitution now says that marriage is limited to one man and one woman and no other arrangement can constitute a marriage. Do you think we’ll see a letter from the First Presidency encouraging members to petition the governor and law enforcement in UT to execute their sworn responsibility to enforce it?
Damn it.
Both eloquent and economic, Randy.
#51:
Mormons right this instant are not treated equally in this country, but do you support our “right” to lobby our several governments to **force** the Christian majority to change what they call us and recognize us legally as “Christians” - to give us that designation by judicial decree because the lack of it relegates us to “second class status”?
You’ve just illustrated the important distintion here, Ray. I would not support an effort to “force the christian majority” to call members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “christians.” I would, however, support an effort to force the government to include members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the category of “christians,” where that category had any reflection in civil law.
As I just said to Hawkgrrrl, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who live in California can call same-sex marriages “Martian Spaceships,” for all I care. The matter at hand isn’t what a religious group accepts as “marriage.” It’s about what civil law recognizes as “marriage,” in order to carry out its mandate to guarantee equal protection under the law.
Can you think of ANY situation where you would deny “marriage” to two adults?
Absolutely, Ray. For example, where one of those adults is mentally handicapped, and unable to give willing, informed consent to the marriage.
“The LDS church does not, however, have any authority whatsoever to establish the definition of “marriage” under civil law.”
You are right, Nick, it doesn’t have the right to **establish** that definition. It does, however, have the right to have its voice heard - every bit as much as any other organization in this country.
I get your vehement opposition to the Church’s stance; I really do. Again, in general, I am on your side in this particular case. I just wish the action was reversed - to define “in the law” all recognized unions as “civil unions” and let religious organizations define “marriage” any way they choose. Frankly, within the Church and others who chose to uphold the orthodox definition, THAT would do more to strengthen and sanctify “marriage” than anything else possibly could.
I just wish the action was reversed - to define “in the law” all recognized unions as “civil unions” and let religious organizations define “marriage” any way they choose.
I would have no difficulty at all with such a structure, Ray. What you suggest would ensure equal treatment under the law, which is the point here.
#53 - Enforce what?
#56 - I agree, Nick. Would you grant that person the right to enter into a civil union?
#60:
No, I wouldn’t, and for the same reason—lack of willing, informed consent.
Would you allow that person to engage in sexual conduct?
Enforce the law which prohibits polygamy within UT before meddling in CA’s laws.
#62:
More to the point, I would hold the other person accountable for rape under criminal statutes.
I agree with every one of your answers, Nick - but you just “condemned” someone to a life of celibacy with no chance for release (except self-administered) in this lifetime. I know there is the critical “consenting” aspect, but the definition of “ability to consent” is determined by someone else - **someone NOT of the community being restricted from sexual conduct and marriage**. Finally, many who might be restricted as unable to consent surely will object and claim they are able to give full consent. The fact that a line must be drawn automatically means that most lines are arbitrary to some degree.
Iow, it is a disagreement over the particular application of the “legislative restriction” that is in question here - not the fact that some organization would try to influence a restriction and deny what otherwise might consider a “right”.
To the contrary, Ray, I did not condemn anyone to a life of celibacy, unless you refer to rapists who only have sexual relations with adults who are incapable of willing, informed consent. I really wasn’t interested in falling for the trap set up in #62. Since I didn’t play the game of saying that “persons incapable of willing, informed consent shouldn’t be allowed to have sex,” like you apparently hoped I would, your arguments in #65 really aren’t applicable.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Those who desire to live with members of their own sex in an intimate relationship need to come up with a term other than marriage to define what their doing.
OK, Nick, so rephrase your #64. If you wouldn’t allow that person to engage in sexual conduct (at least, if you classified any sexual conduct with that person as rape), how are they not left to a life of celibacy? Phrased differently, what sexual conduct would you allow someone who is not capable of informed consent?
Those who desire to live with members of their own sex in an intimate relationship need to come up with a term other than marriage to define what their doing.
Why is that, Jared? You’re making a declaration as if your statement speaks for itself, but surely there’s something to support your opinion? Surely you have something more to reason with, besides “because I think my deity said so”?
#68:
Ray, I’m not in the business of “allowing” or “not allowing” sexual conduct for adults who are incapable of willing, informed consent. You’re trying to force me into that, for your own rhetorical purposes, but I’m just not willing to play that game. Besides, as you note, the consent issues raised by your hypothetical make it entirely inapplicable to the discussion at hand.
Nick, it’s not a rhetorical game, and it’s not inapplicable in the VERY narrow way I applied it - that ALL determinations of restrictions are arbitrary to some degree. That’s the only point I was making.
Again, my wish is that the situation will play out such that the government re-classifies everything IT allows as civil union, leaving other organizations to define marriage as they will. I am willing to share more with you about my hopes as to the Church, but that will have to be in a separate, private e-mail. You have my address, so let’s let this drop out of courtesy to each other.
Just know, Ray, that even when we disagree, I have incredible respect for you!
What Ray (#58) & Nick (#52) are saying is what I would most prefer to the present legislation: limit state-sanctioned unions to the term “civil union” affording all equal rights and protections; allow religions to afford the term marriage to those whom they will. Of course, that will bring up more problem as only religions recognized by the state have the authority to perform marriages (of course, we could all jump over a broom). Basically, the middle ground is not as grounded as it would seem.
This is the problem with trying to make the church membership an active body politic. Politics are never on our own terms (whatever those terms may be). They are always a compromise. The church isn’t writing the legislation, nor am I, nor is Ray, nor is Nick. That’s both the beauty and the farce of politics. Someone with an agenda writes a piece of legislation and tries to persuade everyone to agree to it. It’s never perfect. If the church has made its stand, individual members can support it or not. It’s no secret the PoF opposes same sex marriage. I don’t see this as the straw breaking the camel’s back. I would like to hope (and there’s reason to believe) that the church would support legislation that ensures equal treatment and rights for all regardless of sexual orientation or practices. The issue isn’t treatment, just making a stand on the term marriage.
My chihuahua (#22) is shrinking. Or at least getting sleepy.
RE 73, Well the Gov’t could just require a brief civil ceremony of some sort (on par with getting something notarized: no muss, no fuss) as happens with LDS couples in some European countries. Then the happy, legal couple could do whatever they like at various churches.
If the gay issue does progress enough to involve persecution for those against gay marriage, I don’t think it will be only or even mostly gays doing the persecution. I think many irreligious people without a spiritual cause that satisfies their soul will get behind gay rights as their substitute cause, whether they themselves are gay or not.
I recently looked up California church membership statistics and found that it went down about 10,000 members between 2005 and 2007. Is it common for church membership to rise and fall there, or is that a new pattern?
Check out how many moved to Utah.
“I just don’t know how the church can say the Constitution is inspired and then go ballistic when the provision for extending the rights to the pursuit of happiness and equal protection to everyone comes up.”
The pursuit of happiness is not, and never has been, a part of the Constitution. It’s a line from the Declaration of Independence, which does not establish any particular right or set of rights.
“The analysis I read of the amendment a few months ago in our local paper said that it would be just as subject to overturn by the California Supreme Court as the law established by Prop 22. But I’m not a legal expert and wasn’t preparing for a quiz, so can’t sum up the reasons for it.”
I believe this is incorrect as a legal matter.
The Cal decision was based on the state constitution. If that is amended through constitutional amendment process, then the Cal decision will effectively have been reversed. The court will not be able to rule otherwise.
In general, a court cannot find that part of the constitution is itself unconstitutional.
I believe this is pretty uncontroversial, as a matter of law. I’d be very curious to see a legal argument the other way.
#75 With the cost of homes so high in Calif MANY members sold their home and moved to another state, being able to pay cash for a larger and nicer home in other states. One of the wards I lived in had been decimated from people leaving the state. I myself left the Bay Area in ‘06 because it was not worth the cost of a home there.
Kaimi, what I read was in the San Diego Union Tribune, so it must be true.:) Actually, I was fairly surprised to read that, since I thought that an amendment would be untouchable by the court, but that’s what that particular analysis claimed. But I don’t remember who it was that wrote the article.
In our particular neck of the woods, high home prices haven’t deterred anyone from moving here– our more expensive wards have been growing quite a bit, but my guess would be that anyone who wasn’t in a very high income field would have moved elsewhere in the last few years.
I live in SoCA so this issue is a hot button issue here. I do not believe that the amendment will pass. Most polls that I have seen or heard about suggest that many people have changed their position on gay marriage BECAUSE of the CA supreme court decision.
“It’s not just the issue of an inspired Constitution. It’s also the very basic Mormon teaching of a Council in Heaven, wherein the bad guy came up with a plan to enforce commandments upon all of humanity in order to bring them all back to the presence of deity.
It never ceases to amaze me that leaders of a faith which holds this teaching insist upon engaging in the same tactic by attempting to legislatively enforce the tenets of their faith on a diverse citizenry.”
There you go parroting Satan’s propaganda again Nick. Satan is always trying to claim that God’s commandments are evil restrictions on freedom. That any social order based on those commandments are violations of our agency, and that any laws that dare to promote a virtuous society or behavior is hypocritical.
How is upholding the God given definition of marriage a restriction on anybody’s freedom?
1: The government did not create marriage, God did- so I think it highly arrogant for government to claim it can decide what marriage is.
2: Gays are free to form committed monogamous relationships if they want to regardless of what the government says about marriage. This is not about freedom, it’s about sodomy being socially unacceptable behavior You don’t like that so you want to use the societal approval of sexual relationships within marriage as a way to gain societal approval for your sexual aberrations and perversions.
You gays can go do what you want, but please stop demanding that we redefine and rewrite the laws concerning marriage to include you. Leave us alone and we leave you alone. That’s what I call tolerance. Not this demand that we upend the entire social order.
Might I point out that marriage has always been between man and woman- even in societies where sodomy and homosexual relations were acceptable- even approved of.
Did the people of Thebes define marriage to include homosexual relations, or between those of the same gender? They did not. But surely you don’t accuse Thebes, the home of the Sacred Band (an elite military unit that required it’s members be pairs of gay lovers), surely you don’t accuse them of denying gay marriage because they’re homophobic or bigoted.
There is this stunning arrogance among “progressives” to assume that tradition has no value and that modern morality is always oh so superior to older morality. There’s this assumption that somehow we are the first to ever debate these issues- and yet it is truer to say that there is nothing new under the sun. There is a reason that successful societies have restrictions on sexual behavior- and particularly in limiting marriage to male and female pairings.
There you go parroting Satan’s propaganda again Nick. Satan is always trying to claim that God’s commandments are evil restrictions on freedom. That any social order based on those commandments are violations of our agency, and that any laws that dare to promote a virtuous society or behavior is hypocritical.
Nice try there, Cicero, with the old game of setting up a straw man to demonize those who disagree with you. Where did I ever say that “god’s commandments are evil restrictions on freedom?” Rather, I said that it is wrong for any one religion to impose its opinion of “god’s commandments” on a diverse, pluralistic society. Congratulations on believing that your particular religion has the right opinion on what your deity requires. You’ll have difficulty, of course, showing me what religion doesn’t have its members thinking the same thing. You’re all excited about imposing LDS-ism onto civil law, but what if some other faith gets to impose their ecclesiastical opinions onto civil law, when those opinions disagree with yours?
How is upholding the God given definition of marriage a restriction on anybody’s freedom?
Demonstrate to me that your deity ever gave a definition of marriage, and maybe there will be something to talk about on that question, Cicero.
1: The government did not create marriage, God did- so I think it highly arrogant for government to claim it can decide what marriage is.
What you really mean, of course, is that your particular religious tradition chooses to interpret the Genesis story of Adam and Eve as an indication that your deity invented marriage. Good luck with proving that as a historical truism. Why should your particular reading of Genesis govern all of society, including those who do not subscribe to your particular religious faith?
2: Gays are free to form committed monogamous relationships if they want to regardless of what the government says about marriage. This is not about freedom, it’s about sodomy being socially unacceptable behavior You don’t like that so you want to use the societal approval of sexual relationships within marriage as a way to gain societal approval for your sexual aberrations and perversions.
Really, Cicero? Did you go to your faith’s “prophet” to have him magically read my mind, or did you just come up with this on your own, through standard anti-gay propaganda?
You gays can go do what you want, but please stop demanding that we redefine and rewrite the laws concerning marriage to include you. Leave us alone and we leave you alone. That’s what I call tolerance. Not this demand that we upend the entire social order.
Cicero, do you ever actually think for yourself, or is all your thinking dictated by Focus on the Family, Exodus, and the LDS leaders who have been parrotting these groups verbatim for several years now? Funny that your “prophets” have to get their words from “uninspired” “apostate” christian millionaire clergy, rather than from the deity you claim to communicate with.
Might I point out that marriage has always been between man and woman- even in societies where sodomy and homosexual relations were acceptable- even approved of.
You certainly might point that out, Cicero, if you were able to point to anything other than religious dogma to make your point. Kindly point to legitimate historical and/or anthropological data that backs up your claim.
So far, Cicero, all you seem able to do is to make religious proclamations. That’s all very nice for teaching Sunday school or giving sacrament meeting talks, but it’s simply not enough to demonstrate that a pluralistic society needs to match its civil laws with your very small minority faith.
“The government did not create marriage, God did- so I think it highly arrogant for government to claim it can decide what marriage is.”
And yet God has modified the practice of marriage at various times. Meanwhile, the First Presidency is calling upon CA LDS to actively influence how government claims to decide what marriage is. hmmmmm Would that be arrogance?
“You gays can go do what you want, but please stop demanding that we redefine and rewrite the laws concerning marriage to include you.”
Thought it was worth mentioning that I’m not gay. Never have been. Never will be. Nor is anyone in my immediate family. But that doesn’t stop me from opposing wrongheaded violations of the principles of civil liberties. Or seeing when the church is doing itself a disservice.
Personally, I doubt most of the people who support gays’ rights are gay. In the case of CA, a recent Field poll says that 51% of Californians support their Supreme Court decision while only 42% oppose it. I’m sure 51% of Californians aren’t gay.
Latter-day Guy #48,
“Conservative member, you are sick sick sick. I find it impressive that you are twisted enough to decry buttsex, but actively support genocide. Kudos to you. Pervert”
Ummmm, is it kudos to me, or am I a pervert?
I wouldn’t say I decry ‘buttsex’ as you put it, just homosexuality. (Lets be polite here, OK?)
And I am a bit ’sick sick sick’. Sick of the mormon blogganacle’s constant defense of gay marriage and gay union when all the church does is condemn it as immorality; as breaking the law of chastity and nothing else.
Genocide? well, just get rid of homosexual activities and we will all be better off! [Rant about being ok with killing people deleted.]
“Genocide? well, just get rid of homosexual activities and we will all be better off! If it takes a final solution, well, we will have to all sacrifice and bare it.”
Conservative member, perhaps you would kindly cast the first stone?
In Canada you see them fined and actively punished by the Government there (some interesting cases fining people and rendering punitive treatment against them for turning down business). No one needs to burn them down.
The arson against Church buildings and Mormons mostly takes place in other areas, for other reasons.
I just haven’t seen the specific **rights** that will be gained by marriage vs. civil union. I really would like a list of them. — that is actually one of the reasons that the law was struck down, what Volokh notes is a clear result of slippery slope application. The lack of a difference in rights justifies striking down laws that give things different names.
I just wish the action was reversed - to define “in the law” all recognized unions as “civil unions” and let religious organizations define “marriage” any way they choose. the point of the alternate reading of the Eleventh Article of Faith that I posted …
As to #66 — Nick, you do know that this is a hot topic in the disabled community? As it is as the foundation of the right for children who can not consent to sex to have abortions without parental knowledge or consent? Some interesting twists there, not so much a trap as another huge can of worms.
Kaimi I believe this is pretty uncontroversial, as a matter of law. I’d be very curious to see a legal argument the other way. you are right as a general principle, the two approaches I’ve seen are to turn to readings of the federal constitution and to find that the constitution conflicts with itself and reject the alien portion (even if it is newer and the proper rule of construction would be to read the constitution to harmonize the new/alien portion as dominant).
Fun stuff courts get into.
Nick, that wasn’t fair to tell Cicero to look for historical examples and ignore Thebes. You should have, perhaps, referred to the Sioux Indians, or other anthropological sources. He has you on Greece, where family, love and child bearing were not seen as necessarily related topics. But regardless of what most people think, Greece was not the whole world (just the best, my Grandfather would say).
That approach tends to just irritate the people you are talking with, persuading them that Orson Scott Card was right.
One last comment. There is an excellent publication, The Conciliation Quarterly, ( http://conciliation4pub.mennonite.net/ ) and one of the more interesting articles I read was about a year long effort to do congregational conciliation projects on the issue of homosexual unions. The people involved, some of the most skilled and experienced in the world, failed to make any headway and wrote about how they had seriously come to doubt that anyone else could either.
Those churches that have embraced pan-human marriage are the ones that are most likely to trend post-Christian and to have serious membership shrinkage, as well as serious problems outside of first world countries (much of the problem in the world wide Anglican communion is between those in the United States/England/Canada and the largest mass of their congregants in Africa where they see little of the benefits of pan-human marriages and are persecuted because of the actions of their brethren, whom they also think are in the wrong).
The issue seems to be harder than it looks to either side. Both sides are somewhat emotionally invested, with what they feel to be good cause. Both feel their opponents ought to focus on something else, both feel oppressed by their opponents.
And no, I don’t think that Greece was necessarily the best, and that there has been no progress since.
Two points/questions. (1) I live in Massachusetts and the Church was conspicuously absent in organized efforts to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Why is the Church now piping up in California?
(2) Of all the pressing social issues of our day, the Church has designated same-sex marriage as worthy of a press-release and political activism? Not poverty? Environmental degredation? Universal health care? Again, why is the Church silent on all these issues, but chooses to do battle over same-sex marriage?
I am proud of the LDS church for taking a stand on an important LOC issue. Shame on the bloggernaccle for overwhelmingly being out of harmony with the Bretheren on this issue.
Conservative Member,
You should read about Nazi Germany’s courageous persecution and attempts to exterminate homosexuals. Sure they took things overboard a bit with the Jews, but at least they had the moral clarity to bare the sacrifices entailed by ridding their society of sin.
Seriously, advocating a “final solution” for homosexuals is infinitely more immoral than any sin they might be guilty of. Gordon B. Hinckley is rolling at his grave at the notion that a self-styled Mormon is publicly calling for such anti-Christian violence. If you really think that exterminating homosexuals is a lesser sin than LoC violations, I’m ashamed you’re a member of Christ’s Church. And, I’m pretty sure Christ isn’t exactly bragging about it either.
Actually, I’m starting to suspect at this point that “Conservative Member” is just an Anti-Mormon troll trying to make conservative Mormons look like bigoted troglodytes. Born and raised in Utah, and I’ve never, never met someone like that.
Conservative Member = Friend (the troll from the post a few days ago).
#94 Adam, “Conservative Member” is not “Friend”
I was “Friend” and I am ashamed of myself. I started it almost as an intellectual exercise, but with a leaning toward mean-spiritedness, and then I went completely overboard. I was wrong to do it, and I admit that. If that damages any credibility I might have here in the future, then I deserve that.
I am having some very significant doubts now myself about my faith, and have for a few years. I’ve been reading stuff here for a while and decided to play “devil’s advocate” and went way overboard. I was a troll in every sense of the word. I am not proud of it, in fact as I already said, I am ashamed. Nonetheless, I am coming clean now. I have posted honestly under my own full name for a couple of days now, and I am honestly, actively seeking truth and light. I do, however, have serious doubts that the Church can provide them to me any longer. As I said on Ray’s thread, however, I still have some nagging feelings that I am trying to resolve.
I am not, however, Conservative Member, and Conservative Member is not or was not “Friend”.
Regarding Brad’s comment in #93, I have never met anyone who seriously advocated the postion of Conservative Member (”final solution”), but I have met (outside of Utah) members who were as emphatic about white shirts as “Friend” was. Those members, even in my strong and active days, bugged me no end with their endless nitpicking and “trivia as truth” philosophy.
However, I did know some very old southern women who were very long in the church that I am pretty sure would have been “ok” with Conservative Member’s “final solution.” I had the “pleasure” of home teaching them. They are now dead, and I both hope and suspect that if the sentiment expressed by Conservative Member exists anywhere in our Church that it is a dying sentiment.
Again, I apologize for my bad behavior, and promise to do better. I expect people to treat me honestly, openly, and fairly, and I should do the same to them. I was completely wrong for “trolling” as Friend. I won’t do it again.
Although I’m a native Californian, I’m glad I don’t live in California right now. My faith and devotion to following the Brethren of the Church are too tenuous right now to be forced into a political battle such as this promises to be. What do you do when “morality” as defined by the Church does not match your own? Isn’t morality one of the great territories of religion?
Andrew Callahan (a.k.a. Friend): Thanks for coming clean. I knew you were joking when you mentioned that the boy needed to read “The Miracle of Forgiveness” in 2-3 days. I guess playing devil’s advocate works best when all parties involved know what’s going on. Cheers.
#88:
Nick, that wasn’t fair to tell Cicero to look for historical examples and ignore Thebes. You should have, perhaps, referred to the Sioux Indians, or other anthropological sources. He has you on Greece, where family, love and child bearing were not seen as necessarily related topics. But regardless of what most people think, Greece was not the whole world (just the best, my Grandfather would say).
I wasn’t ignoring Cicero’s example of Thebes, Stephen. Rather, his example didn’t establish his blanket claim that marriage has “always been” between one man and one woman (okay, he said “a” man and “a” woman). One society, from one particular point in time, does not establish what has “always been.”
Those churches that have embraced pan-human marriage are the ones that are most likely to trend post-Christian and to have serious membership shrinkage, as well as serious problems outside of first world countries
First, who’s talking about “pan-human” marriage, Stephen? Such a term implies marriage between any number of humans without any restrictions whatsoever.
Second, we’re not talking about churches embracing marriage equality. No matter what is done legally, there will be religious bodies who refuse to accept it, just as there are a handful of religious bodies who shun marriage altogether (talk about serious shrinkage problems!).
More importantly, however, are you describing a truly causal relationship, or a mere correlation? You seem to suggest that if a church accepts marriage equality, it will become “post-christian,” have “serious shrinkage,” and have trouble in primitive backwater nations where social disapproval is expressed via molotav cocktails and genocide. You may be right, but you give no examples (please, don’t point to ancient Thebes–grin!). Even if you did, of course, it would be difficult to prove the causa