What If Prop 8 Is Ruled Unconstitutional By The Supreme Court? How Do We As Lds Reconcile Some Of The Implications That Would Result?

[Walden]

It is odd that so many have come to view the entire issue as LDS Church and Prop 8...How did anyone arrive here? You are correct the "Church" did no such thing.

I think that it is disingenous for LDS believers to act all aghast when critics argue that "the Church" was behind support for Prop 8, and then counter-argue that it was local church members who banded together out of their own interests to fight for Prop 8, and that "the Church" was not involved.

Per the now-infamous letter from SLC in 2008, it specifically stated that "We ask that you 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."

When "the Church" asks you to donate your "means and times" it is no subtle hint on which side you should be supporting if one hopes to be a LDS member of the highest standing. I mean really, this is a church that is based on the concept of donating one's "means and time" to a greater cause (such as 10% of your income to remain a member in good standing, as well as countless, innumerable hours of free service that is required from a lay ministry), and thus they realize that power of words. So no, SLC may not have directly funded Prop 8, but they knew exactly what they needed to say (the "buzzwords" if you will) to ensure that their adherent followers would pony up the cash and the time necessary to get the vote they desired with Prop 8.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Walden

[USU78]

Religious moralism is not the standard by which laws that are created to protect the rights, liberties and life are enacted.

Demonstrably untrue, even if you'd left out the loaded language. "Religious moralism"? Really? Is it religious moralism to outlaw child abuse? That stems from religion-based morality. How about theft? Religion-based morality. Assault? Religion-based morality.

[Mark Beesley]

*** This is not a thread either discussing politics or homosexuality ***

From another thread Wenglund made the following comments regarding the content in this opening post.

United States LDS, more than any other group in the US, have a divine belief in the constitution and many also have the belief that that the constitution or the principles of the constitution is being/going to be will destroyed/hang by a thread.

As such, whenever LDS engage in political debate/engagement we seem to always bring it back to protecting the constitution (for this reason constitutional conversation is religiously heightened for LDS). Most Mormons I have talked with on prop 8 talk about how constitutional values are being eroded by the courts siding against the "will of the people".

A few basic assumptions:

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to ensure the constitution is enacted..

They only time the Supreme Court would rule against the will of the people is of the people are demanding unconstitutional changes.

Such changes would be against the fabric of freedom.

If prop 8 is found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional the LDS have a choice, they will have to admit they were/are fighting against freedom and the constitution, or they will create an understanding of the US legal context that says the Supreme Court is "fallen".

My question to LDS on this board (myself included) is as follows:

How would we attempt to resolve the tension I have presented above. Would we either admit we have been acting against the principles of the constitution & freedom, would we proclaim the supreme court as fallen (as per bluebells post fallen may be interpreted to simply mean wrong), or would we (as wenglund suggested) find another way of managing this tension?

How would/will you respond?

A coupe of other posters have adequately responded to the false premise that the Constitution is somehow viewed as scripture (it isn't), and that Supreme Court Justices in interpreting the document have to be presumed to be following the original intent of the drafters of the original document (they aren't).

I simply want to point out that however the Supreme Court rules on Proposition 8, it affects ONLY the government, i.e. those who issue marriage licenses and the like. It has no effect on those who issue Temple Recommends. The day the Supreme Court tells the Church who may and may not enter the Temple is the day hell sees its first snowfall.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And the church should have no influence whatsoever in state and federal issues.

The question is how long new laws concerning marriage influence the Church...as in other countries with hate speech laws, etc.

[USU78]

My view is that the mere fact that Prop 8 is headed tothe Supreme Court that the US Constitution has been violated.

By that same logic, the fact that Darren is charged with littering means he necessarily did it. No trial necessary. No right against self-incrimination. No right to counsel. No presumption of innocence.

[Mark Beesley]

And the church should have no influence whatsoever in state and federal issues. That would be exceeding their purpose. The church should not send out letters to stakes and wards encouraging members to donate time, money or effort to political causes. Nor should the church unrighteously use members tithing money to in any way support political lobbying or causes. It is unnecessary to advise or give counsel members on voting or politicking in favor of church morals and ethics.

ROTFLMAO

Yeah, right, the Church should just stand idly by when an issue arises that it believes has more moral characteristics than political characteristics, just because some yahoo says its political. Gimme a break!

[Mark Beesley]

P.S. As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not agreed to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling striking down Prop 8.

[ksfisher]

And the church should have no influence whatsoever in state and federal issues.

I'm going to go home and make sure all my candles are hid under a bushel.

[wenglund]

And the church should have no influence whatsoever in state and federal issues. That would be exceeding their purpose. The church should not send out letters to stakes and wards encouraging members to donate time, money or effort to political causes. Nor should the church unrighteously use members tithing money to in any way support political lobbying or causes. It is unnecessary to advise or give counsel members on voting or politicking in favor of church morals and ethics.

Does it strike anyone else as wildly presumptuous and inane for a self-declared atheist, and a gay propagandist, to presume to tell the Church and its members what the purpose of the Church is and what it supposedly can or cannot do in regards to issues of state?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Demonstrably untrue, even if you'd left out the loaded language. "Religious moralism"? Really? Is it religious moralism to outlaw child abuse? That stems from religion-based morality. How about theft? Religion-based morality. Assault? Religion-based morality.

It is demonstrably true that humans are born with the capacity to discern what is right or wrong without being taught the principles of moralism according religion. Humans are better than that.

[DavidB]

P.S. As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not agreed to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling striking down Prop 8.

Correct, The Court has not decided, as of yet, to hear DOMA suits or Prop 8.

[DavidB]

There is no need for religion, in order for a society to deem that "murder" is not acceptable, or that stealing is wrong. So while the 10 Commandments may serve as a historical guide - in and of themselves the 10 Commandments were not necessary for societies to create/adopt laws against certain acts.

[Damien the Leper]

ROTFLMAO

Yeah, right, the Church should just stand idly by when an issue arises that it believes has more moral characteristics than political characteristics, just because some yahoo says its political. Gimme a break!

Considering how Wade responded to me, it would be appropriate for the church and others with discriminatory agendas should mind their own business. No church or religion is the arbiter of truth, morals or ethics.

I concede to Wade that I was telling the church what to do. For that, Wade, I as an atheist sincerely apologize for overstepping.

[DavidB]

Really? Is it religious moralism to outlaw child abuse? That stems from religion-based morality.

Just for laughs, I am sure you are aware that under the 10 Commandments parents could kill a disobedient child - and as far as I can tell there was no age limit to that prevented the parents from doing so. And isn't "spare the rod spoil the child" found in the Bible?

Edited October 4, 2012 by DavidB

[Damien the Leper]

There is no need for religion, in order for a society to deem that "murder" is not acceptable, or that stealing is wrong. So while the 10 Commandments may serve as a historical guide - in and of themselves the 10 Commandments were not necessary for societies to create/adopt laws against certain acts.

Hallelujah!! Someone who gets it.

[RobertAC]

Does it strike anyone else as wildly presumptuous and inane for a self-declared atheist, and a gay propagandist, to presume to tell the Church and its members what the purpose of the Church is and what it supposedly can or cannot do in regards to issues of state?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It depends. If a church is receiving a tax break, it is, in essence, receiving a type of government subsidy. The federal and state governments have, in the past, put regulations on religious institutions who are receiving tax-exempt status.

I tend to agree with Valentinus that religious institutions need to make choices as to whether they are going to comply with tax codes that prohibit political activities -- and thus recieve tax breaks for themselves and their members -- or "go commando" so to speak and take on political causes.

The problem is that the current tax codes are vague as to what is prohibited activity, and they do put an uncomfortable prohibition on religious institutions which, quite frankly, unanimously have their own moral codes which may or may not comply with social and political views.

[ksfisher]

It depends. If a church is receiving a tax break, it is, in essence, receiving a type of government subsidy. The federal and state governments have, in the past, put regulations on religious institutions who are receiving tax-exempt status.

I tend to agree with Valentinus that religious institutions need to make choices as to whether they are going to comply with tax codes that prohibit political activities -- and thus recieve tax breaks for themselves and their members -- or "go commando" so to speak and take on political causes.

The problem is that the current tax codes are vague as to what is prohibited activity, and they do put an uncomfortable prohibition on religious institutions which, quite frankly, unanimously have their own moral codes which may or may not comply with social and political views.

So churches need to choose between speaking about what is right and wrong and receiving a tax break?

[DavidB]

So churches need to choose between speaking about what is right and wrong and receiving a tax break?

why should a church get a tax break beyond that of what is provided every other legal person?

And the answer to your question is Yes, a Church should have to decide between a tax break and political activity, as the Church agreed to such conditions when it asked for a tax break.

Edited October 4, 2012 by DavidB

[sethpayne]

The problem is that the current tax codes are vague as to what is prohibited activity, and they do put an uncomfortable prohibition on religious institutions which, quite frankly, unanimously have their own moral codes which may or may not comply with social and political views.

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint. It is a bit troubling that mega pastors like Joel Osteen (a sincere guy I happen to like) and Benny Hin (a proven fraud) pay no tax on their Church salaries and generally live in Church-owned residences which are generally not subject to real estate taxes. The whole purpose of the tax break is to encourage people to pursue a life of service and piety without an undue financial burden. It's turned into a circus of manipulation.

I think the tax code should do one of two things:

1) Give tax exemption to all non-profits -- including political non-profits

or

2) Remove the tax exemption completely for all non-profits

It seems incredibly unfair that Church's -- both on the right and the left -- are free to tell their members how to vote on specific issues from the pulpit (Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee for example) while non-profit political organizations advocating specific causes like AIDS research, Breast Cancer awareness, or even gay rights don't enjoy the same tax exemption.

Plus, I don't like the idea of the IRS deciding what a Church can or can't say.

Seth

Edited October 4, 2012 by sethpayne

[RobertAC]

So churches need to choose between speaking about what is right and wrong and receiving a tax break?

That's the way the government sees it and the way, I would imagine, a large number of the taxpayers see it.

There are cases where ministers have spoken out against politicians, against particular wars, against abortion and have come close to losing their tax exempt status.

[RobertAC]

I'm sympathetic to this viewpoint. It is a bit troubling that mega pastors like Joel Osteen (a sincere guy I happen to like) and Benny Hin (a proven fraud) pay no tax on their Church salaries and generally live in Church-owned residences.

I think the tax code should do one of two things:

1) Give tax exemption to all non-profits -- including political non-profits

or

2) Remove the tax exemption completely for all non-profits

It seems incredibly unfair that Church's -- both on the right and the left -- are free to tell their members how to vote on specific issues from the pulpit (Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee for example) while non-profit political organizations advocating specific causes like AIDS research, Breast Cancer awareness, or even gay rights don't enjoy the same tax exemption.

Plus, I don't like the idea of the IRS deciding what a Church can or can't say.

Seth

I agree.

[Walden]

So churches need to choose between speaking about what is right and wrong and receiving a tax break?

No, churches simply need to remain politically neutral to receive a tax break (theoretically). They can speak all they want about what they consider right and wrong, and generally do.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Considering how Wade responded to me, it would be appropriate for the church and others with discriminatory agendas should mind their own business. No church or religion is the arbiter of truth, morals or ethics.

If our "org" is what it has claimed to be since 1830 day one...actually that would be 1820 for those who know our history...it is exactly that...the "arbiter of truth, morals or ethics".

[Cobalt-70]

I simply want to point out that however the Supreme Court rules on Proposition 8, it affects ONLY the government, i.e. those who issue marriage licenses and the like. It has no effect on those who issue Temple Recommends. The day the Supreme Court tells the Church who may and may not enter the Temple is the day hell sees its first snowfall.

Unless the First Amendment is repealed, that could never happen. The absolute worst that could ever happen is that the church loses the right to receive church welfare (i.e., its charity tax exemption)--which would have no effect anyway, so long as the church remains non-profit, and therefore has no income to tax.

[Cobalt-70]

P.S. As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not agreed to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling striking down Prop 8.

That's true, but Justice Ginsburg strongly hinted that she thought the Court would hear it. It only takes agreement by four justices to get it on the docket.