Another Gauntlet Hits the Ground

[Ray Agostini]

Yes, "gay marriage" is only an alleged civil right, not an actual one. So?

I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion. From the Universal Declaration on Human Rights:

Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Who tried to "suppress the civil rights of others," Ray?

Because the claim that the Church, groups of Latter-day Saints, individual Latter-day Saints, or the entire Proposition 8 movement tried any such thing is an utter canard.

The only thing in the whole affair that could legitimately be classed as an attempt to "suppress the civil rights of others" is the attempts of the "No" faction to intimidate -- and thus silence -- the "Yes" supporters.

The Church actively sought help from members outside of California. First Presidency statements were read over pulpits in other states to "gather forces" to overturn Prop 8, including contributing financial aid. The Gay community isn't so well organised. There is no organisational figurehead who has anywhere near the power to create such opposition on any political issue. In the Church, theoretically, one man has that power. I have heard supporters of the Prophet saying things like, "I don't understand all the issues, but the Prophet has asked us to support this drive to overturn Prop 8". If this isn't collective intimidation, I don't know what is. By the sheer force of numbers and obedience to the Prophet, the civil rights of a minority group can be overturned. I also call this bullying. But I grant that you will call it "democracy" (see Winston Churchill on efficacy of democracy). (And yes, I understand the concept of Gerrymander and how it is inequitably used.)

For instance, there is no reason why our civil right to support legitimate causes in the public square cannot co-exist with the religious freedom of American Anglicans to bless "gay" unions.

Then why not "Gay marriage"? Because of "the word of God"? A revulsion to non-traditional options?

Ah, race-baiting. The last refuge of the unprincipled anti-Mormon bereft of an actual argument.

In 1954 Apostle Petersen's remarks were taken seriously by members, but in 2009, when quoted, they are called "race-baiting". What is now so offensive about Apostle Petersen's remarks? Do you have the gumption to support a "special witness of Christ" who spoke 1954, or is it a case of "the times, they are a'changing"?

[cinepro]

Just to be clear, I am just as disappointed and disturbed by the threats and vengeful reactions that poured out last November. I just don't think Elder Oaks' message is very clear.

For example, shouldn't we first clarify which of the reactions we saw from Prop 8 are legal, and which are illegal? Boycotts and protests are legal within certain limitations, and they are used by religious people all the time, so a boycott or protest can't, by itself be classified as "bad". Certainly, no one likes it when someone protests or boycotts you, but can we claim that one group's use of these legal, democratic tools are in fact persecution?

Elder Oaks' also seems to classify the political battle over SSM as being a religious right:

"A second threat to religious freedom," he said, "is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged 'civil right' of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage."

I'm not a lawyer, but I thought the issues of "religious freedom" and "civil rights" (or "rights" in general) had been hashed out a long time ago (but not always in ways the Church liked). Meaning, Churches have their rights, and the public has their rights. What specific "religious freedoms" are being called into question over the issue of SSM? Are there examples from states and countries which already authorize this practice?

[Mordecai]

I'm not worried. It's just a totally irresponsible comparison.

Actually, I think that it was a very brave thing to say, as it is both controversial and true. What you feel is irresponsibility on his part is probably due to the backlash that you know comes. I would argue that the backlash is unAmerican and irresponsible, not Elder Oaks, and designed to scare people into shutting up. This is a controversial issue no matter what we do. Mormons are a cultural minority, and we have not been treated fairly on so many levels. Some of the effect and the motive of the Left's treatment of Mormons is absolutely comparable to that of the racists who attempted to control Black people, when they tried to exercise their fundamental rights. There is no place in American society for that kind of behavior, whether based on race or religious culture. I applaud him for speaking without fear, and he told the truth, making an apt analogy.

[Ray Agostini]

I guess had Elder Oaks been making the speech in Canada, he would have been over the top with the word "alleged." But, not Australia, mate.

FYI, Bob.

• 71% of respondents agreed that same-sex partners should have the same legal rights as de facto heterosexual couples.

• 57% of respondents supported same-sex marriage. The poll suggests a 20-point jump in support since when 2004. Newspoll found 38 per cent in favour and 44 per cent against.

Now go see how many Australians are in favour of Voluntary Euthanasia, and then read how the Federal government overturned overwhelming support for VE legistlation in another state. That's "democracy" for you.

[jwhitlock]

It is amazing that Oaks spends so much time early in his speech defending "religious freedom", then refers to the "alleged 'civil' right' " of others (the quotation marks around "civil right" is his). Let me make that clear:

But he then says:

So, it was "not about civil rights", but his earlier comment says it all, "alleged 'civil' right". You are not going to win kudos by trying to suppress the civil rights of others (not "alleged civil rights", real civil rights) by appealing at the same time for your "religious rights". You have a right to worship and believe as you please, and there's no reason why religious freedom and civil rights cannot co-exist. It is clear that Oaks wants some minorities not to have those full civil rights. He considers their claim null and void, and on the basis of "the word of God". Not on any demonstrable harm that same-gender marriage can cause to society. If that were clear (demonstrable harm) he might have a point. This reminds me of Mark Petersen's argument back in 1954:

How uncanny.Perhaps in 50 years time you'll be emphasising the fact that "Oaks was only speaking as a man".

You seem to be unable to grasp the not-so-subtle differences in what Elder Oaks is talking about. That's understandable. He does, after all, have a legal background and is eminently qualified to make such distinctions. As a matter of fact, he does so very well.

But that doesn't stop you from twisting it around to the old "denying others civil rights" platitude.

Pahoran's answered you well. I could, of course, take your rationale to its logical conclusions where every right should be available to everyone without regard to anything, but I doubt you would agree with three-year-olds driving cars on the highway.

You simply choose to draw the line for who gets what "alleged civil rights" differently than we do. What you don't do is make any kind of good argument as to why your line is better than our line. We have, of course, explained our line on this very board; and we find, in return, that all we get back are shallow platitudes concerning rights, without any depth as to consequences.

In any case, I don't expect much else from someone who would denigrate the persecution of Mormons as of no matter, while bleating piously about the denial of civil rights. I'll leave you to your trendy social causes.

[Ray Agostini]

You seem to be unable to grasp the not-so-subtle differences in what Elder Oaks is talking about. That's understandable. He does, after all, have a legal background and is eminently qualified to make such distinctions. As a matter of fact, he does so very well.

So is Justice Michael Kirby, a Gay member of the High Court of Australia. Do you have any openly Gay politicians or Supreme Court judges yet? Have you had an openly atheist President yet? Opinions, even among legal eagles, will vary.

But that doesn't stop you from twisting it around to the old "denying others civil rights" platitude.

There has been no "twisting". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear even sovereignty cannot and should not overrule basic human rights.

I could, of course, take your rationale to its logical conclusions where every right should be available to everyone without regard to anything, but I doubt you would agree with three-year-olds driving cars on the highway.

And that would be an old and exaggerated chestnut.

In any case, I don't expect much else from someone who would denigrate the persecution of Mormons as of no matter, while bleating piously about the denial of civil rights. I'll leave you to your trendy social causes.

I have denigrated the persecution of Mormons? How? On the issue of Prop 8, I do not support the acts of vandalism, nor the violent rhetoric against Mormons. In fact I abhor it. And I am quite certain that the vast majority in the Gay community also find such comments offensive.

[ttribe]

There has been no "twisting". The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear even sovereignty cannot and should not overrule basic human rights.

I've asked this question a few times and I still don't have an answer - how can any act which requires the consent of another person (i.e. marriage) be considered a basic human right? Generally, I look at the Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution, and I don't see one listed there that requires someone else's consent. They are acts which I, alone, can and do pursue. This, of course, makes logical sense. On the other hand, I cannot exercise a "right" to marriage, unless I convince someone else to also exercise their "right" to marriage. Frankly, the "right" to marriage (for either a heterosexual or a homosexual) appears rather contrived and unprecedented.

[DanGB]

. Some of the effect and the motive of the Left's treatment of Mormons is absolutely comparable to that of the racists who attempted to control Black people, when they tried to exercise their fundamental rights. There is no place in American society for that kind of behavior, whether based on race or religious culture. I applaud him for speaking without fear, and he told the truth, making an apt analogy.

For this very reason I wish Elder Oaks had done a little more thinking before issuing his speech for public review. Most, if not all outside the Church believe that the Church discriminated against blacks religiously and maybe even socially. To now paint a persecution portrayal using the plight of the very group that most believe were wrongly discriminated against religiously by the Church. We may want to all make ourselves feel justified within this group, but the public is the public. Elder Oaks is a bright man but methinks someone should have stopped him here. If this was just his words at an isolated presentation at BYU Idaho, probably no damage done. But to give it to the press, well even I could look like a great PR exec in preventing that one!

[Ray Agostini]

I've asked this question a few times and I still don't have an answer - how can any act which requires the consent of another person (i.e. marriage) be considered a basic human right? Generally, I look at the Bill of Rights for the U.S. Constitution, and I don't see one listed there that requires someone else's consent. They are acts which I, alone, can and do pursue. This, of course, makes logical sense. On the other hand, I cannot exercise a "right" to marriage, unless I convince someone else to also exercise their "right" to marriage. Frankly, the "right" to marriage (for either a heterosexual or a homosexual) appears rather contrived and unprecedented.

Well look at the case of "genetic engineers", a la Hitler, who executed homosexuals. The right to marriage is a basic human right. No one comes along and says "you shall not marry because you have a genetic deformity". Whatever it may be. Right? Have we legislated against that? "Everyone" has the right to marry, unless, in some countries, they are Gay! I honestly believe that some people would be better off not marrying because of their circumstances, but I would not go as far as prohibiting marriage to them. If two people with Downes Syndrome decide to marry, should the law legislate against that?

[ttribe]

Well look at the case of "genetic engineers", a la Hitler, who executed homosexuals. The right to marriage is a basic human right. No one comes along and says "you shall not marry because you have a genetic deformity". Whatever it may be. Right? Have we legislated against that? "Everyone" has the right to marry, unless, in some countries, they are Gay! I honestly believe that some people would be better off not marrying because of their circumstances, but I would not go as far as prohibiting marriage to them. If two people with Downes Syndrome decide to marry, should the law legislate against that?

Hmmm...I guess I'm still not seeing it. I agree that people may be permitted to marry...but a "right"? We don't allow minors to marry. I suspect (but don't know) that there may be restrictions on individuals with certain mental impairments. Do those restrictions make it any less of a "right" in your mind? Do you agree with me that if there is such a "right", it is altogether unique insomuch as I cannot exercise it unless someone else says so (a potential spouse)?

[Ray Agostini]

Hmmm...I guess I'm still not seeing it. I agree that people may be permitted to marry...but a "right"? We don't allow minors to marry. I suspect (but don't know) that there may be restrictions on individuals with certain mental impairments. Do those restrictions make it any less of a "right" in your mind? Do you agree with me that if there is such a "right", it is altogether unique insomuch as I cannot exercise it unless someone else says so (a potential spouse)?

Let me put it to you in "pedestrian" terms. I'm a former driving instructor. Everyone has the "right" to have a driver's licence. Even disabled people can get a licence. So yes, it is a right. What people do not have the right to do is break the law, or the road rules, with impunity. But they do have a right to a driver's licence, as long as they meet the minimum age under state laws, and providing they are not so disabled as to be unable to handle a vehicle. That's why the three-year-old driving, by J Whitlock, is a ridiculous analogy.

Minors are not only disallowed to marry, there are statute ages of consent, which vary. In some countries it's 14, in others 16, or 18. In my country no one under the age of 18 is legally allowed to buy alcohol. Likewise, there are heavy penalties for selling cigarettes to a minor, that is, someone under 18. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. LOL. I have to laugh.

Marriage is a universal right. Or it should be within age constraints. If you are going to legislate Gays out of marriage, then I would ask, then why not legislate everyone out of marriage who may pose a "threat" to society? Or marital unions that may not be "in the best interests" of society?

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't believe boycotting is realy on the same level of civil rights intimidation. Boycotting is nothing more than organizing a group vote to have influence!

We do that (or attempt to) all the time in the Church!

Have we ever organized a boycott of specific people who are suspected of having voted differently than we would wish? Not that I've heard.

I can't see any way that boycotting somebody for having voted a certain way isn't voter intimidation.

And, yes, there were at least a few cases of which I'm aware in which Mormons were fired for having contributed to the Prop 8 campaign. That is anti-democratic and is designed to inhibit the free expression of political opinion in a free society.

[Ray Agostini]

And, yes, there were at least a few cases of which I'm aware in which Mormons were fired for having contributed to the Prop 8 campaign. That is anti-democratic and is designed to inhibit the free expression of political opinion in a free society.

In spite of this opposition, did anyone forbid Mormons from expressing their opinions at the ballot box? Did anyone hold a gun to Mormon heads and say, "you must vote this way"?

Who isn't intimidated in politics? Why is Oaks on the Whinge-Trail on this matter? His forebears were killed for what they believed, and he's complaining about "voter intimidation"?

[PacMan]

To now paint a persecution portrayal using the plight of the very group that most believe were wrongly discriminated against religiously by the Church.

That's not what he did. Go read the quote, and stop listening to the media.

Ray:

If you are going to legislate Gays out of marriage, then I would ask, then why not legislate everyone out of marriage who may pose a "threat" to society? Or marital unions that may not be "in the best interests" of society?

Because by definition, two same gendered individuals can't marry each other. That's not marriage. That's like demanding that the state recognize me as a black female (I'm a white dude), just because I want it to. The definition of marriage has statutory, religious, colloquial, and traditional meaning. There's absolutely no reason to change it. It's pointless. Marriage is a type of civilian union. So long as a homosexual union (call it what you want so long as the term is taken) is equal to a heterosexual union, there's no constitutional issue. There's no inequality. It is only an alleged civil rights issue. Because they're both under the umbrella of civil unions.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Ray,

Oh, come on.

In spite of this opposition, did anyone forbid Mormons from expressing their opinions at the ballot box? Did anyone hold a gun to Mormon heads and say, "you must vote this way"?

Ever hear of deterrence? You're smarter than that.

PacMan

[Ray Agostini]

Ray:

Because by definition, two same gendered individuals can't marry each other. That's not marriage. That's like demanding that the state recognize me as a black female (I'm a white dude), just because I want it to. The definition of marriage has statutory, religious, colloquial, and traditional meaning. There's absolutely no reason to change it. It's pointless. Marriage is a type of civilian union. So long as a homosexual union (call it what you want so long as the term is taken) is equal to a heterosexual union, there's no constitutional issue. There's no inequality. It is only an alleged civil rights issue. Because they're both under the umbrella of civil unions.

PacMan

So what's the difference? If two people in their 80s decide to get married, will their sexual impotence have any bearing on their marital status? So what if two Gay men in their 30s, or 80s, decide to get married? Why would you object to that, because it doesn't meet God's command to "multiply and replenish"?

What is your fundamental objection to Gay marriage?

Scriptural?

Be honest now.

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, for what it's worth: Some of the more hallucinatory critics are chortling with glee that there's going to be a huge backlash against the Church on account of Elder Oaks's remarks, just as they're joyfully convinced that official Mormon support for Prop 8 has severely damaged the Church's public image.

There's no doubt, of course, that our popularity has sunk to record lows on The Daily Kos, and it's true that Keith Olberman identified Elder Oaks as one of "the world's worst people" tonight to his nationwide television audience of 527 viewers.

But I'm reasonably sure that the Church's stance on Prop 8 solidified a more positive image (if only slightly) among many people, as well, and that Elder Oaks's comments, as they make their way into the national media, will receive support from substantial numbers of people, too. I recall, for instance, a BYU forum address by Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, just prior to the referendum on Prop 8. "God bless BYU," he said at the close of his remarks, referring to LDS stands on moral issues (expressly including Prop 8 ), "and God bless the LDS Church." And there have been similar expressions from more than a few people on the morally and politically conservative side of the aisle.

Of course, it may be that our critics simply don't get out much. "How could Ronald Reagan possibly have won?" the leftist Manhattan writer Susan Sontag is reputed to have wondered after the 1980 American presidential election. "I don't know anybody who voted for him!" Those who drool at the delicious thought that the Church's public image has been irreparably damaged if not destroyed by its advocacy of Prop 8 should try to remember that Prop 8 won.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If you are going to legislate Gays out of marriage, then I would ask, then why not legislate everyone out of marriage who may pose a "threat" to society? Or marital unions that may not be "in the best interests" of society?

Er, I'm pretty sure that's precisely the point of the laws which prevent me marrying my mum, even though she's now widowed and well past menopause, and which similarly prohibit by two lovely single sisters from marrying each other.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray,

Oh, come on.

Ever hear of deterrence? You're smarter than that.

PacMan

My point is simply this, Pac. Mormons today don't have half the gumption nor pluck that their forebears had. Here you are, in 2009, deciding the outcome of Gay marriage in America, when your forebears were just happy to be alive to practise their religion in the secluded quarters of the Wasatch. The privilege you now have to "speak out", comes from the inalienable right bequeathed to you by "American democracy". I have been a lifelong supporter and believer in "the American dream". Life, liberty, and freedom. To now view the demise and condemnation of a section of American society, who should have the same rights, liberty and freedom as all Americans should have, regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of religious bodies, deeply saddens me. And that such voices crying out for freedom from oppression should be the target of a once minority religious group who were themselves once persecuted, is something that strains my capacity to evoke compassion for their "cause".

Live and let live. If you really believe that God will be the final arbiter, then do not make haste to judgements that God himself may not make.

[staccato]

Incidentally, for what it's worth: Some of the more hallucinatory critics are chortling with glee that there's going to be a huge backlash against the Church on account of Elder Oaks's remarks, just as they're joyfully convinced that official Mormon support for Prop 8 has severely damaged the Church's public image.

There's no doubt, of course, that our popularity has sunk to record lows on The Daily Kos, and it's true that Keith Olberman identified Elder Oaks as one of "the world's worst people" tonight to his nationwide television audience of 527 viewers.

But I'm reasonably sure that the Church's stance on Prop 8 solidified a more positive image (if only slightly) among many people, as well, and that Elder Oaks's comments, as they make their way into the national media, will receive support from substantial numbers of people, too. I recall, for instance, a BYU forum address by Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, just prior to the referendum on Prop 8. "God bless BYU," he said at the close of his remarks, referring to LDS stands on moral issues (expressly including Prop 8 ), "and God bless the LDS Church." And there have been similar expressions from more than a few people on the morally and politically conservative side of the aisle.

Of course, it may be that our critics simply don't get out much. "How could Ronald Reagan possibly have won?" the leftist Manhattan writer Susan Sontag is reputed to have wondered after the 1980 American presidential election. "I don't know anybody who voted for him!" Those who drool at the delicious thought that the Church's public image has been irreparably damaged if not destroyed by its advocacy of Prop 8 should try to remember that Prop 8 won.

You forgot to mention what Olberman said:

One would think that with the Mormon's history of having previously been on the wrong side of integration and the wrong side of that pesky ancient order of one woman per marriage, that these are subjects about which Elder Oaks would want to shut the *** up! - Keith Olbermann

I think he's got a point there.

[Hamba Tuhan]

You forgot to mention what Olberman said:

One would think that with the Mormon's history of having previously been on the wrong side of integration and the wrong side of that pesky ancient order of one woman per marriage, that these are subjects about which Elder Oaks would want to shut the *** up! - Keith Olbermann

I think he's got a point there.

Unless, of course, the REAL point is that religious groups have the right to be 'on the wrong side' of all kinds of issues and hopefully will be able to maintain the right to voice their opinions and engage in the political process without fear of intimidation or reprisals.

[Mordecai]

marriage: 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Nowhere in this definition do I read anything about the government having to use the term married to describe a couple, in order for a couple to be married. A civil union is a legal commitment, so according to this definition, living together as husband and wife, after a ceremony and after having been recognized legally, means you're married. So prop. 8 isn't stopping anyone from marrying, so even if it's a right for any two people to "marry," no one is stopping gay couples.

Besides, gay people, despite being gay, still have thoughts and feelings and aren't handicapped, last time I checked. That being so, they can obviously choose to marry (the opposite sex), if they want to. So on that level, they have the right to marry.

Also, a gay union doesn't have rights. It's an abstract concept. Since when should the government act as the thought police, by regulating language to reflect a political dogma that a gay union=marriage.

[spinner]

Another thing about Oaks talk I don't quite understand is this:

"Atheists and others would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation." Judeo-Christian scriptures established the marriage of a man and a woman thousands of years ago, he said, and those who would change this ancient order "should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.

Uhm, why the atheist baiting? What evidence is there that atheism was a driver in the backlash against Mormons and other prop-8 supporters? One certainly doesn't have to be atheist to support secular governance and disagree with his appeal to scripture in lawmaking.

[Mordecai]

Another thing about Oaks talk I don't quite understand is this:

Uhm, why the atheist baiting? What evidence is there that atheism was a driver in the backlash against Mormons and other prop-8 supporters? One certainly doesn't have to be atheist to support secular governance and disagree with his appeal to scripture in lawmaking.

90% of atheists voted against prop. 8... and let's face it, atheists are the ones pushing hard for an anti-religious secular government. Who else is?

[DanGB]

Incidentally, for what it's worth: Some of the more hallucinatory critics are chortling with glee that there's going to be a huge backlash against the Church on account of Elder Oaks's remarks, just as they're joyfully convinced that official Mormon support for Prop 8 has severely damaged the Church's public image.

There's no doubt, of course, that our popularity has sunk to record lows on The Daily Kos, and it's true that Keith Olberman identified Elder Oaks as one of "the world's worst people" tonight to his nationwide television audience of 527 viewers.

But I'm reasonably sure that the Church's stance on Prop 8 solidified a more positive image (if only slightly) among many people, as well, and that Elder Oaks's comments, as they make their way into the national media, will receive support from substantial numbers of people, too. I recall, for instance, a BYU forum address by Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, just prior to the referendum on Prop 8. "God bless BYU," he said at the close of his remarks, referring to LDS stands on moral issues (expressly including Prop 8 ), "and God bless the LDS Church." And there have been similar expressions from more than a few people on the morally and politically conservative side of the aisle.

Of course, it may be that our critics simply don't get out much. "How could Ronald Reagan possibly have won?" the leftist Manhattan writer Susan Sontag is reputed to have wondered after the 1980 American presidential election. "I don't know anybody who voted for him!" Those who drool at the delicious thought that the Church's public image has been irreparably damaged if not destroyed by its advocacy of Prop 8 should try to remember that Prop 8 won.

IMHO, if Olberman had 527 viewers, it would be 526 more than he deserves.

Unfortunately Olberman and all the other media outlets that go with this story will get at least 527 times as many viewers than Robert George will generate from any forum. Write or wrong, it's just a simple fact what generates interest.

With all the effort the Chirch has put into distancing itself from the two lightening rod issues of polygamy and it's past treatment of blacks, it simply was not one of Elder Oaks better decisions to use the analogy. The media reaction and attention to issues the Church itself would rather leave behind was easily predictable.