Church statement on Equality Act

[SeekingUnderstanding]

42 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Please don't confuse the facts with the Gay Agenda and their activists. It is so much more effective to ignore facts and restructure history to make sure you score points.  Gads, do I hate this kind of drivel, but thank you for at least trying. 

Looks like you stepped in the cow manure too. You realize before prop 8, gays had the constitutionally protected right to marry in California, right? Who is revising history to fit their beliefs again? Pot meet kettle.

Edited May 13, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the links.  Assuming that this is accurate, look at the # of organizations backing this Equality Act:

Why would the church put out a public statement from the PR group opposing something that has such a broad support across so many influential organizations.  How is this even smart strategically?  Its one thing to be opposed to something and to work through back channels to try and defeat it, but its a whole different thing to make a public statement like they did.  How is this even wise PR strategy?  This looks so stupid on so many different levels.  

If I concluded that something was stupid on so many levels, I wouldn’t spend a whole paragraph asking questions about it.

As far as using back channels, have you considered tax exemption and fiscal transparency yet?

Edited May 13, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What about them? If you're suggesting that the Church isn't the only church that does this, I'd agree. They're not alone. So what?

The boy has cried wolf repeatedly. I'm no longer paying attention to the boy's claims.

Aren't you saying the same thing about the other "other religious organizations that also strongly oppose the Equality Act as unbalanced, fundamentally unfair and a path to further conflict" and how important religious freedom is? Are they all the same to you?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Please don't confuse the facts with the Gay Agenda and their activists. It is so much more effective to ignore facts and restructure history to make sure you score points.  Gads, do I hate this kind of drivel, but thank you for at least trying. 

The term Gay Agenda is an uncharitable polemic, and I'm not even sure what it means anyway.  Every group and every cause has its supporters and detractors and people all along a spectrum of different beliefs.  Restructuring history and ignoring facts is an interesting accusation, do you care to expound on those comments or are you just trying to score points yourself.   

[blueglass]

44 minutes ago, provoman said:

not sure of your point, but it is interesting that you post about religious freedom while at the same time denying a religion the freedom to operate within the dictates of its own conscience.

Could you tell me more about the operation of the religious conscience of those who direct what the Lord calls the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  How does this conscience discern between right and wrong?  What tools do they employ?  Tell me more about these "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" ? 

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Have more time to post. How many of those companies, in support of the Act, maintain business or for profit enterprises in Countries where either homosexuality is illegal or homosexual conduct is punishable by death. Here is an article, it is from 2016, 

I think I understand your point, that these companies that support more rights for LGBTQ individuals need to do more to promote this on a global level.   I don't know enough about what they have done along those lines, but I agree that more needs to be done on a global scale.  Every incremental step forward towards equality in any country is a step in the right direction.  I don't think its even possible to expect that we can take one giant step across all countries at the same time.  

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If I concluded that something was stupid on so many levels, I wouldn’t spend a whole paragraph asking questions about it.

As far as using back channels, have you considered tax exemption and fiscal transparency yet?

When I said using back channels I was thinking about the church working with its church broke representatives in congress, and other lobbyists to try and get something passed without making a public declaration.  I'm not sure what you mean by tax exemption and fiscal transparency.  I am in favor of greater fiscal transparency for the church, and I'm not sure where I stand on tax exempt status for religious organizations.   

[Calm]

Just FYI:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900070101/equality-act-federal-religious-freedom-lgbtq-rights-mormon-lds-church.html?_cid=Email-2&utm_campaign=2da6382303-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_13_10_06&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Deseret News&utm_term=0_2e4a89ae88-2da6382303-585657509

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just FYI:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900070101/equality-act-federal-religious-freedom-lgbtq-rights-mormon-lds-church.html?_cid=Email-2&utm_campaign=2da6382303-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_13_10_06&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Deseret News&utm_term=0_2e4a89ae88-2da6382303-585657509

Thanks for posting, the comments section is very interesting at the Dnews as well, even though they heavily moderate the comments section, you still get some variety of perspectives.  

I think the overall vibe of the religious freedom debate that the church has been promoting in recent years, is not resonating with the nation as a whole.  I think the church is already clearly behind the curve on this issue, and that opposition to this Equality Act, which seems to have broad bipartisan support, is just a bad look for the church.  

[poptart]

It ever occur to some of you that half the reason why this stuff gets pushed is because many people from the religious right still act like the same entitled bigots they have since the 50's?  Amazing times, when it's the LDS church who actually tries to be fair, yet the flag ship denominations of Christianity (if you can call em that) either fall totally to the left or way, way to far to the right.  It's like compremise has gone right out the window.  Keep that up, and more people will just walk away and either become unafiliated or just plain secular.  Can't have your cake and eat it too, that's life.

 

FYI, that was a compliment for the church, an honest one.  Puts a smile on my face that at least one Christian body here stateside is not stuck in good old boy mode...

Edited May 13, 2019 by poptart

[provoman]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Could you tell me more about the operation of the religious conscience of those who direct what the Lord calls the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  How does this conscience discern between right and wrong?  What tools do they employ?  Tell me more about these "countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios" ? 

you are welcome to write the leaders of a Chruch and ask them.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think I understand your point, that these companies that support more rights for LGBTQ individuals need to do more to promote this on a global level.   I don't know enough about what they have done along those lines, but I agree that more needs to be done on a global scale.  Every incremental step forward towards equality in any country is a step in the right direction.  I don't think its even possible to expect that we can take one giant step across all countries at the same time.  

Is there moral high ground in doing business in a Country where homosexual conduct is a crime OR homosexual conduct is punished with death? 

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, provoman said:

Is there moral high ground in doing business in a Country where homosexual conduct is a crime OR homosexual conduct is punished with death? 

It’s a good question and I think it should be discussed.  You can make an argument to avoid those countries on moral grounds, but some might question the effectiveness of a strategy like that.  Perhaps getting involved in the country and seeking to influence the culture from the inside is more effective.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What a load of cow manure. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to remove gay’s right to marry. As for Obama’s position? He was against prop 8. https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php

And yes it is extremely ironic the church is now advocating “fairness for all.” 

I guess you missed the phrase in the source you just cited: "Obama is skating gingerly past his previous position on the issue."  Yes, just like the LDS Church, Obama changed his previous position fully supporting Federal law permitting only marriage between a man and a woman.  Both the LDS Church and Obama got "woke" and changed their positions.  That fact may not make you feel comfortable, and it doesn't make it so easy to demonize the LDS Church, but in the real world that is how history rolls.  You need to admit the facts openly and without rancor.  Prop 8 in California was passed only to maintain what had been long accepted law in that State, but recently overturned.  The U.S. Supreme Court then nullified that vote.  I know that it is more fun to rewrite history and obfuscate, but that is how it went.

I am glad that our legal process in this country finally determined that non-traditional marriage is Constitutional, and I commented often on this board at the powerful irony that the Mormons were opposed to non-traditional marriage in supporting Prop 8, but had their own non-traditional marriage destroyed by that same Supreme Court in Reynolds v the USA.  Do you understand the irony?  The hypocrisy?  You are so busy being angry at the LDS Church for now supporting "fairness for all," that you have entirely missed the point.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

The church made a stand against the equality act in 2019 but was completely silent after Judge Clark Waddoups wrote a religious freedom argument decriminalizing polygamy.  As far as I understand today if families legally and lawfully consist of multiple wives in Niger or Liberia for example the church will not permit baby blessings, or baptism and will excommunicate members of the church who participate.  On the other hand as of April 2019 if gay couples wish to bless the baby in church, or baptize their children the church will enter these parents into the MLS system.  The church is against religious freedom which supports section 132.  

Oh the irony, the irony.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Please don't confuse the facts with the Gay Agenda and their activists. It is so much more effective to ignore facts and restructure history to make sure you score points.  Gads, do I hate this kind of drivel, but thank you for at least trying. 

Hey, man, we were the outsiders in the late 19th century, and we lost the right to practice plural marriage.  Then we found ourselves supporting a move to deny others their right to practice a non-traditional form of marriage.  Indeed, Utah became the most anti-polygamy state in the union, viciously and mercilessly persecuting the Pligs.  Our own snake now has come full circle to bite us.  There is a lesson in that somewhere.  Can anyone tell me what it is?  Has Pres Nelson gotten the message?

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess you missed the phrase in the source you just cited: "Obama is skating gingerly past his previous position on the issue."  Yes, just like the LDS Church, Obama changed his previous position fully supporting Federal law permitting only marriage between a man and a woman.  Both the LDS Church and Obama got "woke" and changed their positions.  That fact may not make you feel comfortable, and it doesn't make it so easy to demonize the LDS Church, but in the real world that is how history rolls.  You need to admit the facts openly and without rancor.  Prop 8 in California was passed only to maintain what had been long accepted law in that State, but recently overturned.  The U.S. Supreme Court then nullified that vote.  I know that it is more fun to rewrite history and obfuscate, but that is how it went.

I am glad that our legal process in this country finally determined that non-traditional marriage is Constitutional, and I commented often on this board at the powerful irony that the Mormons were opposed to non-traditional marriage in supporting Prop 8, but had their own non-traditional marriage destroyed by that same Supreme Court in Reynolds v the USA.  Do you understand the irony?  The hypocrisy?  You are so busy being angry at the LDS Church for now supporting "fairness for all," that you have entirely missed the point.

I think it's important to understand the full picture of what happened in California.

Around the year 2000, someone determined that California law didn't specifically prohibit gay marriage.  So, Prop 22 was put forward as a way to make the state law clear as to marriage only between a man and a woman.  The Church got involved in the passage of Prop 22 (I was living there at the time and serving in a bishopric... I remember being asked to come to my Bishop's home on a Saturday morning with a group of other men in the ward where he asked me to donate to Prop 22.  We were also asked by our church leaders to post Prop 22 signs in our yards and to canvas neighborhoods, knocking on doors, asking people to vote in favor of 22).

Prop 22 passed.  It was later challenged and deemed unconstitutional per the California state constitution.

Gay marriages began to occur and were legally recognized in California under the state's existing constitution.

Then, in 2008, Prop 8 was placed on the ballot to amend the California state constitution and "fix" the problem that allowed Prop 22 to be overturned.  I was no longer living there but heard quite a bit, through friends/family/news about the Church's efforts to get it passed.

Then, as was discussed, Prop 8 went through a series of legal battles/appeals that eventually led to the 2015 SCOTUS ruling.

 

ETA:  What I find interesting in the Prop 22 / Prop 8 story is that each attempt the Church supported to make it less likely that gay marriage would be recognized actually ended up leading to greater legal recognition.  Perhaps the Lord was using the Church to advance His wishes. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by rockpond

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

Prior to Obergefell v. Hodges, the Obama administration announced that the did not believe that DOMA was constitutional and said the DOJ would not defend it.

Yes, Loyd, Obama did eventually get "woke" and turned on a dime to do so.  He was wise to take that position.  I always recommend that we accept the shifting norms of Con Law. That is how we maintain regular order and the rule of law in this country.  I am amazed that many citizens just don't get it.  At present, for example, a great many citizens (including our Dear Leader) hate our Constitution.  That is irremediably sad, but not surprising.

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What a load of cow manure. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to remove gay’s right to marry.

Which the majority of Californians supported.  Remember it was millions of non-Mormons who passed prop 8.

[carbon dioxide]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

ETA:  What I find interesting in the Prop 22 / Prop 8 story is that each attempt the Church supported to make it less likely that gay marriage would be recognized actually ended up leading to greater legal recognition.  Perhaps the Lord was using the Church to advance His wishes. 

Lots of bad stuff are legally recognized. Perhaps the Lord gives everyone to a chance to take a stand on the issue so we may be judged for good or bad at judgement day.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it's important to understand the full picture of what happened in California.

Around the year 2000, someone determined that California law didn't specifically prohibit gay marriage.  So, Prop 22 was put forward as a way to make the state law clear as to marriage only between a man and a woman.  The Church got involved in the passage of Prop 22 (I was living there at the time and serving in a bishopric... I remember being asked to come to my Bishop's home on a Saturday morning with a group of other men in the ward where he asked me to donate to Prop 22.  We were also asked by our church leaders to post Prop 22 signs in our yards and to canvas neighborhoods, knocking on doors, asking people to vote in favor of 22).

Prop 22 passed.  It was later challenged and deemed unconstitutional per the California state constitution.

Gay marriages began to occur and were legally recognized in California under the state's existing constitution.

Then, in 2008, Prop 8 was placed on the ballot to amend the California state constitution and "fix" the problem that allowed Prop 22 to be overturned.  I was no longer living there but heard quite a bit, through friends/family/news about the Church's efforts to get it passed.

Then, as was discussed, Prop 8 went through a series of legal battles/appeals that eventually led to the 2015 SCOTUS ruling.

I agree.  I lived in Southern California during that entire period and saw it first-hand, just as I witnessed first-hand the earlier very successful LDS opposition to the ERA in another state.  Just like the R. Catholic and Evangelical churches, the LDS Church has not been slow to attempt to impose their moral norms on the rest of society.  All a legitimate part of the democratic process.

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

ETA:  What I find interesting in the Prop 22 / Prop 8 story is that each attempt the Church supported to make it less likely that gay marriage would be recognized actually ended up leading to greater legal recognition.  Perhaps the Lord was using the Church to advance His wishes. 

You may be right in that suggestion, which I have heard before, and it is part of the path back to legalization of plural marriage.  I don't think that the Brethren would want that at all, but that may in fact be the final outcome of the broadening of non-traditional marriage.  Muslims and the FLDS will certainly welcome that development.  In a 2007 paper, the Reorganite historian Roger Launius asked "Is God the Ultimate Practical Joker"?  You and he are right to raise that question.  I already know for certain, based on my personal experience, that He has a wicked sense of humor.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Which the majority of Californians supported.  Remember it was millions of non-Mormons who passed prop 8.

What does this non-sequitur have to do with anything? Specifically that the church was front and center in the effort to pass prop 8 (removing a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians) and thus the irony of the church now proclaiming it seeks "fairness for all" and balance.

[Wade Englund]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Church posted a statement about the Equality Act on its Newsroom page.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-expresses-support-fairness-for-all-approach

I'm curious if anyone has any insight regarding the second to last paragraph.  What religious rights would the Equality Act repeal?

Simply put, in principle it is not unlike the law of physics which indicates that the larger something gets, the less room there is for other things--kind of like:

Or, it is similar to the economic notion of scarcity, where, given limited resource, the greater the consumption by the government, the less resources there are for other things.

I trust that you can make the connection between these principles and  he question at hand, but if not, I will be happy to explain.

What may prove interesting is that the so-called Equality Act may have deleterious effects on groups other than just religion. Indeed it may negatively impact other suspect or protected classifications.

Beware what you wish for. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hey, man, we were the outsiders in the late 19th century, and we lost the right to practice plural marriage.  Then we found ourselves supporting a move to deny others their right to practice a non-traditional form of marriage.  Indeed, Utah became the most anti-polygamy state in the union, viciously and mercilessly persecuting the Pligs.  Our own snake now has come full circle to bite us.  There is a lesson in that somewhere.  Can anyone tell me what it is?  Has Pres Nelson gotten the message?

I don't see the irony that you are alleging took place. I believe that God approves of plural marriage for a small minority of individuals and his people have practiced it as such since almost the very beginning. To take a stand in support of God's direction seem the appropriate step.

At no time has God said, "Oh, by the way, all that stuff I said about reproduce and fill earth being one of the main reasons for your existence, I was kidding. I really just want to my children to have sex with anyone they want and be hedonists."  As a result, I don't see a conflict to take a stand on religious grounds. Equality has never been about being identical; we are not and never have been. We are individuals with different roles to play. 

Thank God the prophet, the pope, and the vast majority of Christian leaders still take a stand that homosexuality is wrong by God's direction and have not pandered to secularism of today's world. 

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Looks like you stepped in the cow manure too. You realize before prop 8, gays had the constitutionally protected right to marry in California, right? Who is revising history to fit their beliefs again? Pot meet kettle.

Go ahead, how long was it legal? LOL, those few months from May to November ain't much, but go ahead, stretch if it makes you feel good.