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

[Cobalt-70]

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

That's not what is happening. Churches have an absolute right to say pretty much whatever the crap they want. It's just that sometimes what they say converts them from a church into a lobbying firm or a political action committee. The IRS regulation is just a means of classifying organizations according to what they do.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Not even that. They can take political positions. It's just that when they start lobbying or campaigning for candidates, they are no longer functioning purely as a church, and that may affect their organizational category under IRS regulations.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That's not what is happening. Churches have an absolute right to say pretty much whatever the crap they want. It's just that sometimes what they say converts them from a church into a lobbying firm or a political action committee. The IRS regulation is just a means of classifying organizations according to what they do.

Very true...use IRS status to determine activity.

[sethpayne]

That's not what is happening. Churches have an absolute right to say pretty much whatever the crap they want. It's just that sometimes what they say converts them from a church into a lobbying firm or a political action committee. The IRS regulation is just a means of classifying organizations according to what they do.

I see. I thought i had heard of the IRS investigating a Church in LA when the pastor went on an anti-Bush rant back in 2004 ... but my memory could be bad.

[ksfisher]

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.

Exactly!

[MiserereNobis]

How dedicated is the LDS church to the American constitution? I find it interesting that America is the "leader" of the free world yet the democratic world chooses the British parliamentary model to follow, not the American constitution.

If the American constitution were thrown out in a revolution a couple of hundred years from now, would that cause a theological crisis in the LDS church?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How dedicated is the LDS church to the American constitution? I find it interesting that America is the "leader" of the free world yet the democratic world chooses the British parliamentary model to follow, not the American constitution.

If the American constitution were thrown out in a revolution a couple of hundred years from now, would that cause a theological crisis in the LDS church?

Yes it would...an take heart the rest of the world will catch up someday.

[Saints Alive]

How dedicated is the LDS church to the American constitution? I find it interesting that America is the "leader" of the free world yet the democratic world chooses the British parliamentary model to follow, not the American constitution.

If the American constitution were thrown out in a revolution a couple of hundred years from now, would that cause a theological crisis in the LDS church?

Not really. The LDS belief is that the writers of the constitution were divinely inspired not that the living breathing document itself is divine or some kind of pseudo-scripture.

[MiserereNobis]

Yes it would...an take heart the rest of the world will catch up someday.

I pray for a return of the Papal States and religious tolerance instead of religious freedom.

Bring back the monarchies!

[MiserereNobis]

Not really. The LDS belief is that the writers of the constitution were divinely inspired not that the living breathing document itself is divine or some kind of pseudo-scripture.

This makes sense to me, though Pa Pa apparently disagrees.

[Saints Alive]

MiserereNobis:

I hope that it is abundantly clear that once you get past basic doctrine in the LDS church things aren't that clear cut. Ask 2 mormons a question and get 3 different opinions.

[Saints Alive]

This makes sense to me, though Pa Pa apparently disagrees.

I have heard it both ways but I think my view is a little better supported (thats why its my view ) Edited October 5, 2012 by Saints Alive

[MiserereNobis]

MiserereNobis:

I hope that it is abundantly clear that once you get past basic doctrine in the LDS church things aren't that clear cut. Ask 2 mormons a question and get 3 different opinions.

Yes, this has become very clear to me. Perhaps this is the strength and weakness (if I may say) of having so much based on personal revelation, instead of having declared dogma.

[Saints Alive]

I'd concur... and it works for us.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This makes sense to me, though Pa Pa apparently disagrees.

Forgot my smiley face.... But a very large part of LDS Doctrine is that our (USA) Constitution is inspired by God and one of the reasons that the America's are the "promised land".

[MiserereNobis]

Forgot my smiley face... . But a very large part of LDS Doctrine is that our (USA) Constitution is inspired by God and one of the reasons that the America's are the "promised land".

Well, North America, eh? South America was solidly Catholic ground

[juliann]

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.

But the church says much the same thing for any large scale service project. As frustrating as it may be for those who are angry at the church for this, it really is true that there was no pressure....because everything was done outside of "the church". (Although I'm sure there were exceptions somewhere as there always is with over zealous members). There was no obvious way of even knowing all who were involved unless you were there for everything yourself. There is certainly no way to know who gave money since anything under $99 isn't public information and all money had to go to the political organization sponsoring Prop 8. It was never discussed in church beyond the announcement. There was not even mention of the win which is what I found most surprising. No one was even talking about it in the halls.

As offensive as it is to those who resent the church's part in this, you need to remember that it is also offensive to tell members who approached this as they do any other proposition in proposition crazy CA that they were zombies when it came to this one.

[Bikeemikey]

My view is that the mere fact that Prop 8 is headed tothe Supreme Court that the US Constitution has been violated. No matter what the Supreme Court ruling is, for or against my opinion, it won't change the fact that as far as I can tell the people of California spoke and excercised their state constitutional rights to enact Prop 8 for their state. The federal governmnet had no business to interfere with this decision in the first place. Judge Vaughn Walker overruled Prop 8 declaring that homosexuals desiring to marry would have their right to due process taken away. He also declared that the arguments used to support Prop 8 were archaic and out of date. Thus it is now going ot the US Supreme Court. A matter of simply excercising individual rights in one's state has become an issue of the federal government dicatating tothe states what they can and cannot vote on. There is no constitutional basis for ruling against Prop 8 as far as I'm concerned.

The LDS church has a long history of respecting the Suopreme Court's final word on legal matters. As far as the Church goes, they'll probably abide by the court's ruilng no matter what side their ruling falls on. As for me, as a voting citizen, I'm staunchly against ruling against Prop 8.

I believe this has already been said the the constitution was set up to protect the country from the tyranny of the masses. Under constitutional government the majority do not have the right to violate the principles of the constitution.

[Bikeemikey]

Or, would we point out that you have yet to accurately frame the supposed tension and have instead propped up a straw man?

You have failed to demonstrate that you have enough of a grasp of the issue to accurately state your own position, let alone presume to speak for LDS.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Always love your sum ups Wade.

Thanks for you contribution to the thread.

[Bikeemikey]

The Church did no such thing. Individual LDS members are free to contribute or not contribute to any political cause as they so choose. The principles of freedom have nothing to do with prop 8. California already has Domestic Partnerships, the functional equivalent to marriage with all of its rights, responsibilities, duties, and privileges. So all the claptrap against Prop 8 was just over what to call marriage without any legal consequences.

So you would feel it is possible for our actions to be in violation of the constitution but not in violation of freedom?

You would also feel that advocating, supporting and fundraising efforts to limit the behavior of others through a method that is deemed to be contrary to the constitution (based on the hypothetical that the SC would strike down prop would not be a violation of the freedom of others?

Was the US govt decision to reject the Mormon practice of polygamy a violation of our freedoms, and do you consider this decision constitutional?

[Damien the Leper]

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".

That is a faith belief and not a proven or provable fact.

[Bikeemikey]

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

Seth

The IRS is not attempting to tell the church what they can and can't say, unless the church has request a non-profit status based on the grounds it is a religious charity. In that case the expectations are well documented prior to the church agreeing to receive the tax advantages.

[Damien the Leper]

I pray for a return of the Papal States and religious tolerance instead of religious freedom.

Bring back the monarchies!

Absolutely not. Theocracy is a more worse case scenario than what is foretold in Revelation. That would be a more devastating end to the world than God coming back.

[Bikeemikey]

Thanks to everyone who provided some insight into there thoughts on this question.

I have enjoyed reading the responses.

It seems from the responses that American LDS members are likely to like Supreme Court decisions they agree with and then simply claim the Supreme Court is wrong when it is a decision they don't like.

I had hoped that their would be more of a two way street with this process, that perhaps if the Supreme Court did come back and say Prop 8 was unconstitutional that it might be a wake up call for how we LDS in the US tackle the question of freedoms for Americans that believe differently to ourselves.

I must admit. As a life long member recently relocated to the United States (from a country with Parliamentary Govt) I have found the church in the US to be very different from the Church i grew up with. I am still trying to understand the relationship of the US saints with the constitution as it seems quite contradictory...

thanks for the help.

[TAO]

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?

We will take it to mean that we took a correct moral stance on the issue, and the court decided to legalize it anyways (the court isn't there to choose between right and wrong).

In any case, we'll move on to the next battle, which will probably be in the classroom.

Edited October 5, 2012 by TAO