Jump to content

Does This Affect Lds Democrats?


Buzzard

Recommended Posts

This just came over the transom:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-his-support-for-same-sex-marriage.html

So, with the Democratic POTUS announcing support for a position that the church is foursquare against, does it make it harder for a faithful LDS who is a Democrat to support Mr. Obama?

I'm not saying harder to be a Democrat, there are positions in both parties that are compatible-and incompatible-in both parties with the churches stand on things. I'm talking about support for the president in light of his election year conversion.

Someone needs to ask Bishop (He used to be one in NV) Harry Reid how he feels about all this.

Link to comment

Buzzard:

He is not a Democratic POTUS. He is the POTUS. While the church is opposed to SSM it is not opposed to extending many of benefits to same sex couples as different sex couples now enjoy.

I'm not a Democrat, but lean liberal in my thinking. I think that honest, good hearted, people can disagree on the complex issue of SSM as opposed to Civil Unions. I see SSM has become a divisive issue that doesn't benefit anyone. What is to be gained by denying hospital visitation rights to same sex couples? What is to be gained by denying SSM couples the full protections of the 14th Amendment.

In listening to President Obama he was torn between his desire for Civil Unions and the application of various Antihomosexual laws as they have played out. Finally coming to the conclusion that enforcement of Antihomosexual laws created more problems than could be justified. It was a tough call. I'm not sure that different circumstances wouldn't have produced a different outcome.

I don't know how Senator Reid likes or dislikes the idea. But I do agree with him that a Constitutional Amendment defining marrage as only one man and one woman as ill advised.

Link to comment
So, with the Democratic POTUS announcing support for a position that the church is foursquare against, does it make it harder for a faithful LDS who is a Democrat to support Mr. Obama?

Asking whether or not it is harder implies that it is hard in the first place. Speaking only for myself, it wasn't hard in the past to support the President. I suspect that his decision to support a position that is contrary to the position of the Church will be as difficult for Democratic LDS as President Bush's decision to start a war of agression in Iraq was for Republican LDS.

Link to comment

There isn't any candidate that is a perfect fit for most voters. At the federal level, the only real issue that touches ssa is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and how it applies to taxes and military benefits and the like. And even before this announcement, Pres. Obama had allowed his Attorney General to refuse to defend it in court (notwithstanding that it is the executive branches job to so defend). So why does it matter what President Obama thinks personally about this issue, in any decision to vote for him?

Link to comment

How do you figure?

This really isn't news IMO. President Obama is simply endorsing something that we have already known he would. He just let Biden and others lead the way. So what's different today than yesterday?

Most LDS I've met believe in the absolute separation of church and state. Today's news shouldn't change their opinion.

Link to comment

If I accepted responsibility as President to defend the laws of the US, then I would do it, even if I personally believed differently. If I believed it were an unconstitutional law, then I might appoint someone outside my administration to do it, because defending the laws is what I swore to do. Laws passed by congress are presumptively constitutional.

DOMA did not become law over a presidential veto. It was passed by large majorities of both the senate and the house after much discussion about constitutionality. During the 2008 campaign, Obama favored repeal because he didn't like the law --- I couldn't find a quote that said he ever thought it to be unconstitutional.

Link to comment

Okay... I've said this before, I'll say it again...

Homosexuals do not have to be married to a partner to be able to have hospital visitation, property rights, etc etc etc. i.e., "rights" available to any heterosexual married person.

I am a widowed, single, woman. I have no children... my nearest relative is 2500 miles away from me. Therefore, I've established legal documents covering numerous circumstances... to whit: A Physicians Directive for Health Care (sometimes called Living Will) naming a good friend from Church as my health care representative to speak for me in case I can't, in accordance with my stipulations in the Directive (i.e., anything from hospital visits and physician consultations and treatment to end-of-life decisions, etc).

I've established a legal Power of Attorney naming the person I want to handle all of my legal affairs if I am unable to do so while still alive... and a legal document naming my Representative (formerly called Executor) of my will, etc.

I've established a legal document naming the person I authorize to handle the Disposition of Remains upon my death.

In other words, I don't understand what "rights" a homosexual thinks they don't have in regard to their partner... all they have to do is see that the appropriate legal documents are established...

as a single woman I have done so and it makes no difference my sexual status. My wishes are legally established. Marriage is not an issue...

So this whole notion of homosexuals needing marriage to have "rights" is bogus...

GG

Link to comment

They cannot file a joint tax return.

They cannot become beneficiaries of one anothers social security and other benefits.

They cannot automatically assume responsibility for their partner, in the hospital, unless everything is legally written out (which is too often not the case - accidents happen and people don't always plan - married couples automatically assume responsibility for their spouse, in a medical emergency).

Here is a link to benefits not given under "domestic partner" relationships.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Link to comment

While I'm not generally a fan of him, I agree with Harry Reid's take on this:

"Reid, who voted in 1996 for the Defense of Marriage Act — which defined marriage as between a woman and a man — but opposed a 2006 effort to amend the constitution to that effect, said in a statement that his “personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman” and that the issue should be left to the states. But, he added, “in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married. The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd.”
Link to comment

If I accepted responsibility as President to defend the laws of the US, then I would do it, even if I personally believed differently. If I believed it were an unconstitutional law, then I might appoint someone outside my administration to do it, because defending the laws is what I swore to do. Laws passed by congress are presumptively constitutional.

This is silliness. There is no constitutional check of the laws before Congress passes them.

Link to comment

They cannot file a joint tax return.

They cannot become beneficiaries of one anothers social security and other benefits.

They cannot automatically assume responsibility for their partner, in the hospital, unless everything is legally written out (which is too often not the case - accidents happen and people don't always plan - married couples automatically assume responsibility for their spouse, in a medical emergency).

Here is a link to benefits not given under "domestic partner" relationships.

http://www.nolo.com/...fits-30190.html

I think it would behoove two committed partners to make sure they behaved responsibly and did take care of things legally if they chose to enter into such a relationship. Many of the items listed in your link can be handled legally. Now that I'm single, I don't qualify for some of the items either... But some of the most important like health/end-of-life decisions, etc etc are easily addressed without actual marriage.

GG

GG

Link to comment
So, with the Democratic POTUS announcing support for a position that the church is foursquare against, does it make it harder for a faithful LDS who is a Democrat to support Mr. Obama?

It should make it impossible if such a one accepts LDS doctrine. It doesn't affect one's standing in the Church. But standing in the Church is not an indication of righteousness or belief by any means nor does good standing validate one's beliefs that happen to be erroneous or contradictory to the Church.

A simple comparison of LDS doctrines with stances on the issues bears this out:

Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

Feminism (third wave and higher)

Abortion

Socialism and the Welfare State

Capital Punishment

War

Agency and Private Property

etc. etc.

It does not matter that the Church itself is politically neutral or might not take a public stance. The doctrine is still there and is still taught and one will have to decide if one believes LDS doctrine or not and if one will enliven one's faith or not (Romans 1:32, James 2:26, etc.) by supporting them in the public arena.

Link to comment
Supporting the Democrats or any Liberal party has always put one in direct conflict with critical LDS doctrines now for the last few decades as similarly stated values might be found there, but the actual Gospel in operation and compatibility with LDS doctrine is not.

According to your standard, "The doctrine is that" , "Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of the various political parties. "

Link to comment

It should make it impossible if such a one accepts LDS doctrine. It doesn't affect one's standing in the Church. But standing in the Church is not an indication of righteousness or belief by any means nor does good standing validate one's beliefs that happen to be erroneous or contradictory to the Church.

A simple comparison of LDS doctrines with stances on the issues bears this out:

Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

Feminism (third wave and higher)

Abortion

Socialism and the Welfare State

Capital Punishment

War

Agency and Private Property

etc. etc.

It does not matter that the Church itself is politically neutral or might not take a public stance. The doctrine is still there and is still taught and one will have to decide if one believes LDS doctrine or not and if one will enliven one's faith or not (Romans 1:32, James 2:26, etc.) by supporting them in the public arena.

You do know that the Church does not have an official position on capital punishment, right? You've said before that the Democratic Party is completely incompatible with LDS doctrine (and it's unclear whether you think capital punishment should be supported by members of the Church or not), but you should also know that Republicans tend to favor the death penalty. Democrats typically don't. As for abortion, the Church is not completely opposed to it. It acknowledges several exceptions which may justify (and sometimes even necessitate) having an abortion.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you simply say "war." Do you mean members of the Church should oppose the War on Terror (for example)? Because that, ironically, is the typical Democratic position. Also, I do not see how agency and private property are related.

You need to understand, BCSpace, that you can be both a faithful member of the Church and a Democrat, while still adhering to the standards and principles of the gospel. There are many Democrats who oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., and many Republicans who support them. It's not as black and white as you're making it.

(Please don't interpret this as a way of saying that I am a Democrat, because I'm not -- but I'm not a Republican either. The words "Democrat," "Republican," "liberal," "conservative," etc. are just labels that don't really mean anything to me.)

Link to comment

Yes. Notice that it doesn't take a political stance, but it does have a doctrine on it. That is why it does not matter whether or not the Church takes a public stance.

You've said before that the Democratic Party is completely incompatible with LDS doctrine

I stand by those past words unequivocally and I freely speak them on other boards or in face to face discussion currently. It's unfortunate we can't debate that issue directly here. However, we can debate the other issues one by one. That is why I listed them.

(and it's unclear whether you think capital punishment should be supported by members of the Church or not),

It's an official doctrine of the Church.

but you should also know that Republicans tend to favor the death penalty. Democrats typically don't.

I am well aware of that.

As for abortion, the Church is not completely opposed to it. It acknowledges several exceptions which may justify (and sometimes even necessitate) having an abortion.

Agreed. It can be stated in a nutshell that the Church is opposed to abortion as a general method of birth control and according to the CHI, even abortion under those exceptional conditions can result in Church discipline. Support for Roe v Wade therefore is incompatible with LDS doctrine.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you simply say "war."

The doctrine on D&C 98 for example is quite different from the traditional Democratic position.

Do you mean members of the Church should oppose the War on Terror (for example)? Because that, ironically, is the typical Democratic position.

You'll have to provide more details. However, GBH's "War and Peace" in GC (published as doctrine) is also in opposition to the traditional Democratic position.

Also, I do not see how agency and private property are related.

An extension of the notion of Socialism and the welfare state is what I had in mind. Environmentalism as well. The Law of Consecration is in complete opposition to the first two (see my siggy).

Link to comment
Yes. Notice that it doesn't take a political stance, but it does have a doctrine on it. That is why it does not matter whether or not the Church takes a public stance.

So if I voice my support for capital punishment, then I'm sinning? You know Joseph Smith supported capital punishment, right?

I stand by those past words unequivocally and I freely speak them on other boards or in face to face discussion currently. It's unfortunate we can't debate that issue directly here. However, we can debate the other issues one by one.

Feel free to voice your opinion all you want. That's your right and privilege to do so. But the Church disagrees with you.

Agreed. It can be stated in a nutshell that the Church is opposed to abortion as a general method of birth control and according to the CHI, even abortion under those exceptional conditions can result in Church discipline. Support for Roe v Wade therefore is incompatible with LDS doctrine.

Actually, Roe v. Wade states that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion (under certain restrictions), thereby making abortion officially legal in the United States. Since the Church (implicitly) states that abortion should not be illegal, general support for Roe v. Wade is not "incompatible with LDS doctrine."

The doctrine on D&C 98 for example is quite different from the traditional Democratic position.

D&C 98 says that war is only justified when the Lord commands it. I'm pretty sure religious Democrats (and religious Republicans, for that matter) would agree with this.

You'll have to provide more details. However, GBH's "War and Peace" in GC (published as doctrine) is also in opposition to the traditional Democratic position.

Democrats tend to strongly oppose the War on Terror. Republicans tend to strongly support it. I don't know how to provide more details than that.

An extension of the notion of Socialism and the welfare state is what I had in mind. Environmentalism as well. The Law of Consecration is in complete opposition to the first two (see my siggy).

How exactly is the Law of Consecration "in complete opposition" to environmentalism? Is it a sin to care about and protect the Lord's creation? You know Brigham Young could be (and is) considered by some an ardent environmentalism and conservationist, right?

Link to comment
D&C 98 says that war is only justified when the Lord commands it. I'm pretty sure religious Democrats (and religious Republicans, for that matter) would agree with this.

Surprisingly, no. In all of my discussions on the topic with fellow members, both online and face-to-face, I have found exactly zero who would agree with the the standard of justification outlined in D&C 98.

Link to comment

Yes. Notice that it doesn't take a political stance, but it does have a doctrine on it. That is why it does not matter whether or not the Church takes a public stance.

So if I voice my support for capital punishment, then I'm sinning? You know Joseph Smith supported capital punishment, right?

If you support capital punishment, then you are in agreement with LDS doctrine.

I stand by those past words unequivocally and I freely speak them on other boards or in face to face discussion currently. It's unfortunate we can't debate that issue directly here. However, we can debate the other issues one by one.
Feel free to voice your opinion all you want. That's your right and privilege to do so.

Thank you, I shall.

Where? Nothing I said is incompatible with that statement. One could, for example, in multiple parties, find the notion of helping the poor, but the actual way to accomplish it is often different. A welfare state, for example, is incompatible with doctrine. You're forgetting that the Church encourages agency, but that does not mean it encourages one to support that which is incompatible with doctrine.

Actually, Roe v. Wade states that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion (under certain restrictions), thereby making abortion officially legal in the United States. Since the Church (implicitly) states that abortion should not be illegal, general support for Roe v. Wade is not "incompatible with LDS doctrine."

But if one chooses abortion contrary to LDS doctrine, then one is in opposition to LDS doctrine. If one supports the notion of choosing wrong, one is under the condemnation of the Romans 1:32 principle which verse LDS doctrine actually elucidates on.

The doctrine on D&C 98 for example is quite different from the traditional Democratic position.
D&C 98 says that war is only justified when the Lord commands it. I'm pretty sure religious Democrats (and religious Republicans, for that matter) would agree with this.

That's not what I said. I'm quite sure they would NOT agree on the doctrine on D&C 98:

http://institute.lds...c-in-091-98.asp

And current events bears this out.

Democrats tend to strongly oppose the War on Terror. Republicans tend to strongly support it. I don't know how to provide more details than that.

Well, then perhaps you might find something in the published doctrine or perhaps you could state what is it about the "War on Terror" that you think is incompatible with LDS doctrine.

An extension of the notion of Socialism and the welfare state is what I had in mind. Environmentalism as well. The Law of Consecration is in complete opposition to the first two (see my siggy).
How exactly is the Law of Consecration "in complete opposition" to environmentalism?

I didn't say it was. Read it again. But I do make a private property connection below. So in a way, it might indeed be somewhat connected to the LoC afterall.

Is it a sin to care about and protect the Lord's creation? You know Brigham Young could be (and is) considered by some an ardent environmentalism and conservationist, right?

With regards to BY, the only statements that matter would be those published by the Church. I myself have no problem with a clean and preserved environment, but that is not environmentalism in and of itself as most people think of it.

With regards to environmentalism, I think there is a tinge of conservationism in LDS doctrine. But if one is talking about theft of private property or private resources or maintaining that the population is too large then one would certainly be in opposition to LDS doctrine. Yes, I'd say Environmentalism as most people understand it is in opposition to the Gospel.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...