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

[sethpayne]

Seth,

The Supreme Court declared that religious organizations cannot be taxed because the power to tax is the power to destroy. Such organizations may preach nearly any policy, but must refrain from advocating for a particular candidate.

If you want to be cynical, the organizations which you consider at a disadvantage (you seem not to realize that many of them pay no taxes and that contributions to them are charitable and deductible) could simply declare themselves churches or religious organizations. There are plenty of examples.

Thanks Robert. Good point about taxation being the ability to destroy and good points all around.

As you can see, I'm no tax expert.

[Walden]

The inability of our government to act is one of our greatest political blessings. I do not want Washingtn DC to "fix" our problems. I want We the Peple to fix our problems and to do so based upon Judaic-Christian moral principles.

UPDATE: The founders of Texas designed its state legislature to meet only once for abut four months every two years. Their thinking was that the less they can meet the less harm they can do to the people. God bless Texas.

If you are proposing that "We the People to fix our problems and do so based upon Judaic-Christian moral principles" than what do you propose we do with those who are not Christian, do not embrace Judaic-Christian values, or have disdain for the supposed "moral" stance of Judaic-Christian principles?

Would you propose a "love it or leave it" stance?

[wenglund]

There is already a precedent for how LDS and other like-minded people would react to a Supreme Court ruling over-turning a California proposition on SSM. I am talking about Proposition 22, a law enacted in 2000 restricting marriage to opposite couples, which the California Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 2008.

The way that LDS and other like-minded people reacted wasn't to consider their thinking unconstitutional (they didn't agree with the CSC ruling, though they accepted its legality), but rather they proposed an amendment to the California constitution, which took the form of Prop 8.

Depending upon how SCOTUS rules (assuming they accept the cases) on Prop 8 and other state and federal DOMA legislation, there may be a similar reaction. An amendment to the U.S. constitution has been in the works for some time, and hasn't been pursued very actively or broadly since, up until perhaps the near future, it wasn't generally deemed necessary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 5, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Darren10:

"The inability of our government to act is one of our greatest political blessings. I do not want Washingtn DC to "fix" our problems. I want We the Peple to fix our problems and to do so based upon Judaic-Christian moral principles".

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

Treaty of Tripoli

See http://www.alternet.org/5-people-who-bravely-fought-christian-takeover-america?paging=off

[Bikeemikey]

Nearly all of your premises (assumptions) here are wrong. Not only do you not understand LDS theology, but you desperately need to take a two-semester university course in "Constitutional Law," usually taught within a political science dept.

It probably isn't your fault that you don't understand the American political and legal system. Our elementary and secondary schools don't bother to teach it, and hardly anyone understands it. What a shame!!

My lack of understanding of "Constiutional Law" (which you have so generously pointed out and highlighted as factual error rather than a difference in interpretation) is most likely because I have never been to School in the US. I have referenced in at least one of my earlier posts that I am new to living in the US and really struggle to make sense of/find consistency in USA-LDS approach to the interestion of church and state - theology/constituion.

Cheers.

[Darren10]

If you are proposing that "We the People to fix our problems and do so based upon Judaic-Christian moral principles" than what do you propose we do with those who are not Christian, do not embrace Judaic-Christian values, or have disdain for the supposed "moral" stance of Judaic-Christian principles?

Would you propose a "love it or leave it" stance?

The answer what to do is easy. We as a people have *always* believed in behaving ourselves based on Judaic-Christian moral principles. Regardless of what others believe or accept, we behave on good morals. Stand firm and be bold and be consistant. And if there are those who openly reject and disdain Judaic-Christian morals, what kinds of laws do you think they'll support? Should they have power at the federal level and have supremacy powers over your state?

I propose that this country was founded on Judaic-Christian moral principles and is a Christian nation in the sense of the sum of the people's faith has always been Christian. (I absolutely reject a Christian theocracy or to announce our Christianity in any federal legal documents which has authoratative governance over the people. On the state level it depends). The moral principle and collective Christian faith are critical reasons as to why we are so very blessed. The more We the People move away from these moral principles and the Christian faith in general the more we jeopardize our blessed freedoms.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Darren10

[Bikeemikey]

Bikeemikey:

Any church is free to believe, teach, and enforce any of its own rules. It can, for example, exclude green with purple pokey dotted haired people from joining, or retaining membership.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I fully support this. I have no desire to see any Church limited the the actions may take as effecting their members, or the speech they may make in the public forum.

Govt. should not limit the right of Churches to define their own membership boundaries, or attempt to exert pressure on forcing Church groups to adpot social moral perspectives.

Do Churches have an obligation to not attempt to use their position in society to force through Govt legislation and laws that enforce their religious moral views on the broader community, esspecially when such attempts may be a restriction on the freedom of others?

Is there a ***-for-tat relationship between our wonderful religious freedoms and our relgious responsibilities?

[Bikeemikey]

The answer what to do is easy. We *always* behave based on Judaic-Christian moral principle. Regardless of what others believe or accept, we behave on good morals. Stand firm and be bold but be consistant. And if there are those who openly reject and disdain Judaic-Christian morals, what kinds of laws do you think they'll support? Should they have power at the federal level and have supremacy powers over your state?

I propose that this country was founded on Judaic-Christian moral principles and is a Christian nation in the sense of the sum of the people's faith has always been Christian. (I absolutely reject a Christian theocracy or to announce our Christianity in any federal legal documents which has authoratative governance over the people. On the state level it depends). The moral principle and coplective Christian faith are critical reasons as to why we are so very blessed. The more We the People move away from these moral principles and the Christian faith in general the more we jeopardize our blessed freedoms.

So you would fundamentally support the limiting of other peoples private behavior and actions in as much as they violate our "Christian Moral" beliefs under the idea that the restriction in their freedom and liberty is better for the country as a whole?

We gain more from the restriciton of their freedoms than we lose from the restriction of their freedoms?

Cheers,

Mike

[wenglund]

Do Churches have an obligation to not attempt to use their position in society to force through Govt legislation and laws that enforce their religious moral views on the broader community, esspecially when such attempts may be a restriction on the freedom of others?

Within the United States, because of the First Amendment, churches aren't in a position to force through Govt legislation. Only the democratic party has been successful in doing that with Obamacare. At best, churches can encourage their membership to support or work against certain legislation. If religions encourage their members to support legislation against cold-blooded murder, which unavoidably restricts freedom to murder, I don't see how that would be a problem. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

I would NOT want the US Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8, no matter what Bill of Rights it may violate.

So having our private religious morals forced on the nation is more important than the rights of others declared to be inviolate in the US constituion?

Is forcing society to be better/morally superior more important than peoples individual freedoms?

Edited October 5, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Within the United States, because of the First Amendment, churches aren't in a position to force through Govt legislation. Only the democratic party has been successful in doing that with Obamacare. At best, churches can encourage their membership to support or work against certain legislation. If religions encourage their members to support legislation against cold-blooded murder, which unavoidably restricts freedom to murder, I don't see how that would be a problem. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Murder is direct and obvious harm in violation freedom to property and life. The constituion does not provide the freedom to violate the (negative) consent of others re: murer. Does the constition allow us to violate the (positive) consent of individuals to marry? The argument around murder rationally trends to supporting the right gay couples of individuals to marry, in my opinion.

Relgion is allowed freedom (specifically the freedom to discriminate with the religious community) because membership in relgious communities is based on the assumption of (informed and uncoereced) constent.

The murder question is a violation of consent, that is not the case with the behaviors Prop 8 is focused on. Or have I missed something with this?

Likewise the first amendent allows religious freedoms, is it a religious freedom to perform the ordinance of marriage on a gay-couple if your religion deems that appropirate and acceptable in the eyes of God?

Edited October 5, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[USU78]

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.

Horsepucky. Babies are born knowing only how to suck, cry and poop. It takes more than 2 years for them to become fully cognizant of the humanity of those big people in their environments. Line upon line morality has to be beaten into them. The human beast is pretty close to tabula rasa. The term was invented a long time ago and experience has shown it to be both accurate and apt.

A child, had it the capacity, would kill to enforce its desires. It's a good thing nursing babies haven't the capacity. Their mothers would never survive.

[Sleeper Cell]

.

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.

The same can be said of the members of the Supreme Court, itself. It is not uncommon for Supreme Court justices to write strong dissenting opinions when they disagree with the decision of the Court (i.e., the decision of the majority of the justices).

[Bikeemikey]

The same can be said of the members of the Supreme Court, itself. It is not uncommon for Supreme Court justices to write strong dissenting opinions when they disagree with the decision of the Court (i.e., the decision of the majority of the justices).

True... would it change our response to a potential Prop 8 verdict of all justices with unanimous in their decision to overturn prop 8?

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

Within the United States, because of the First Amendment, churches aren't in a position to force through Govt legislation. Only the democratic party has been successful in doing that with Obamacare. At best, churches can encourage their membership to support or work against certain legislation. If religions encourage their members to support legislation against cold-blooded murder, which unavoidably restricts freedom to murder, I don't see how that would be a problem. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Churches can't force the government to enact any laws, and the government can't enforce laws against religious beliefs, beyond basic safety. Churches can dictate what their members believe but can not compel action. That's how the separation of Church and State works. Murder by definition is the illegal taking of another human life. No society that I know of condones murder.

[sethpayne]

There is already a precedent for how LDS and other like-minded people would react to a Supreme Court ruling over-turning a California proposition on SSM. I am talking about Proposition 22, a law enacted in 2000 restricting marriage to opposite couples, which the California Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 2008.

The way that LDS and other like-minded people reacted wasn't to consider their thinking unconstitutional (they didn't agree with the CSC ruling, though they accepted its legality), but rather they proposed an amendment to the California constitution, which took the form of Prop 8.

Depending upon how SCOTUS rules (assuming they accept the cases) on Prop 8 and other state and federal DOMA legislation, there may be a similar reaction. An amendment to the U.S. constitution has been in the works for some time, and hasn't been pursued very actively or broadly since, up until perhaps the near future, it wasn't generally deemed necessary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

If things do get to that point do you think the success of such an amendment is even possible given the current political climate? It seems, from what I've read at least, that the country is close to 50/50 on this issue. I think it may be difficult to even get a proposed amendment past congress, let alone out for ratification by 2/3 of the states.

Seth

[thesometimesaint]

True... would it change our response to a potential Prop 8 verdict of all justices with unanimous in their decision to overturn prop 8?

No it wouldn't. Our response will be the same regardless. We retain the right to perform the marriage ceremony for those whomever we choose. Churches are not subject to Public Accommodation Laws. Though I know of none that will turn visitors away from public services. IE; While our Sacrament Meetings are open to the public the Temple is by written invitation only.

[wenglund]

Does the constition allow us to violate the (positive) consent of individuals to marry?

Yes. It is currently constitutionally permissible for states to restrict the freedom of children and incestual relations from consenting to marry or marrying at all, and this because the states have a rational interest in so doing.

However, SSM isn't about restricting the freedom of gays to marry. They already have that freedom. Rather, it is about selectively extending legal recognition and state licensing to SS couples. Do you understand the difference?

If there is a restriction of freedom issue involved, it is whether the people as a state should be restricted in their freedom to offer legal incentives to those familial relationship they think are best and in the states interest to promote. Gay supporters have been somewhat successful in getting certain courts to restrict the people's freedom to offer those rational incentives.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 5, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

If things do get to that point do you think the success of such an amendment is even possible given the current political climate? It seems, from what I've read at least, that the country is close to 50/50 on this issue. I think it may be difficult to even get a proposed amendment past congress, let alone out for ratification by 2/3 of the states. Seth

It is hard to say. If memory serves me correctly, more than 2/3rds of the states currently have DOMA-like laws and constitutional amendments. So, it isn't beyond the realm of possibilities. It might help, though, to reverse the trend in public opinion by dispelling the propaganda and educating people about the compelling rational reasons for retaining the long-standing legal definition of marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Darren10]

Sometimessaint #103;

From your link (all bold mine):

RE: Charles Pinkley:

After the Revolution, when the federal Constitution was being drafted, a delegate from South Carolina named Charles Pinckney decided that there should be no such religious qualifications for federal office.

I emphatically agree. I also disagree with doing this at the state level but such should be fought against at the state level. Note that neither Pinkley nor any other founder sought to use the federal government to thwart state-level religious tests.

As for the no religious test, your link writes:

Although it was limited to federal office, the provision no doubt inspired the Supreme Court when in 1961 it struck down religious tests at the state level in the case Torcaso v. Watkins.

And a snipet from the omniscient wikipedia:

This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution

No Religious Test Clause

RE: Joel Barlow:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

I again emphatically agree. The governmnet (federal government) is not founded on "the Christian religion". Key here is "religion".Being founded on a religion is different than being founded on the principles of a religion. If the government of the United States was founded on the Christian religion than we would probably read "thus saith the Lord" in the Constitution. We are, however, very blessed that the Constitution says nothing of God. But it is perposterous, even boarderline impossible to argue that religious moral principles were not behind the US Constitituion. In fact, you can even say they were the driving force for its inception and creation. It was written under the correct belief that our rights come from God; not government. The US Constitution enmuerates some of our natural rights but does NOT grant them. As I said to Walden, I strongly oppose declaring our nation a Christian nation in any federal governing document, including in its treaties. We are, however, asa peaople, very much a Christian nation. And that has ensured our freedoms for than anything else in the world.

The “no Christian nation” language in the treaty is strong evidence that early American leaders did not view the country that way. It helps handily debunk the Religious Right’s assertions that the United States was founded to be a “Christian nation.”

Rob Boston, the author of your link, is throroughly wrong in how he views the religious right. I'm part of thereligious right and I know many others who are as well. By and large their desire is for people to adhire to moral principle in order to be free. It is NOT to insert "Christ" into official documents or anything of the such.

From George Washington:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness."

Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States…Preparatory to his declination ( Baltimore: George and henry S. Keatinge, 1796), pp.22-23.)

"You do well to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor

( Washington, D.C.:W.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol.XV, p.55, from his speech

to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.

"You do well to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor

( Washington, D.C.:W.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol.XV, p.55, from his speech

to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.

http://www.americand..._washington.htm

RE:Gulian C. Verplanck

He's of little consequence. He is quoted as saying:

"t seems to me clear that whenever Congress or any other political body in this country meddles in affairs of religion, they must run counter more or less to the spirit of our free institutions, securing equal religious rights," Verplanck asserted. "In this land, where every man’s faith is protected, and no man’s faith is preferred, even a resolution or a proclamation for a fast from the civil authority may offend the consciences or wound the feelings of some or the other of our citizens.”

I agree that all religion should be protected under the law but it is absurd to think that Congress who opens (and I think closes) with daily prayer for its sessions, twho passed the Thanksgiving Holiday cannot offer prayer. I do not know the exact context of the law purposed but it is not inherently wrong for Congress to offer prayer. And Andrew Jackson may have opposed this prayer proposal fearing it violated the fre exercise of religion but he himself was caught up in Manifest Destiny and used that belief to kill lots of Indians. I don't look to him for my spiritual guidance. I don't care much for him politically either.

RE: Ulysis S. Grant.

He was an extraordinary general but a very poor president. Of him Boston writes:

No tax money for religious schools and no religious worship in the public schools. Keeping public schools secular, Grant proposed, would be in the best interests of the nation.

Apparently this is in the context of states not giving taxes to their schools who offer religious instruction and admonishments. On a federal level, I'm fine with opposing that. In fact, I'd love to see a dramatic reduction in federal tax dollars to schools period. Note the void in what Grant did against prohibiting states from proving tax dollars to schools. That's because he could do not. He had not lived in a time where the federal governmnet was viewed as a means to make any such prohibition to the states. Things are quite different now. I stand for restoring this federalistic principle into our government. Now, here's what Boston quotes Grant as saying the following:

“Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the security of free thought, free speech, a free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men irrespective of nationality, color or religion,”

Prohibting free expression of religion and religious beliefs IS prohbiting free speech and thought. Like I said, Grant was a poor president.

RE: Ellery Schempp;

Here's the scenario Boston presents:

One guy who went to court was a high school student in suburban Philadelphia named Ellery Schempp. In the late 1950s, Schempp protested – to no avail – over his high school’s policy of reciting the Lord’s Prayer and reading from the King James Version of the Bible every morning. Schempp pointed out that his family was Unitarian and didn’t appreciate the school pushing Protestant Christianity on them.

I fully agree tha no government, state or federal, should compel a public school student to say a prayer. (Student voluntarily saying a prayer is a much different story). However, if a state compels its students to pray than redress for this should stay at the state level. The federal governmnet has no business prohbiting states from making this choice on their own.

When it became obvious that school officials weren’t going to stop, Schempp tried another tactic: One day, he told his teacher he would like to read along with the daily Bible verse. The teacher was pleased, figuring that Ellery had finally had a change of heart. He was less pleased when Ellery began reading from the Quran and even angrier when the young man refused to stand for the Lord’s Prayer. He sent Ellery to the principal’s office.

I hold the same standards to reading the Quran in school.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

So you would fundamentally support the limiting of other peoples private behavior and actions in as much as they violate our "Christian Moral" beliefs under the idea that the restriction in their freedom and liberty is better for the country as a whole?

You mean like laws against killing? Yesiree. Laws favoring the faithful over the adulterer? Yesiree? Laws against bearing false witness (slander, libelous writing, lying, false advertisement, etc)? Yesiree.

We gain more from the restriciton of their freedoms than we lose from the restriction of their freedoms?

Assuming that's a declarative, I'll renference my examples above and agree. Assuming that'san interrogative than I still refer to my examples above and say, yes, we gain more from restricting immoral behavior though I do not view governmet as the means to regulate all moral behavior. I do, however, believe in using good and moral principles, and there are none better than that from the Judaic-Christian heritage, to create law.

[Darren10]

So having our private religious morals forced on the nation is more important than the rights of others declared to be inviolate in the US constituion?

Please reread my posts which declare that our freedoms are a natueal result from our moral living. Each of us individually must use good morals to base our decision upon supporting or not supporting any proposed law. If you disagree with me than let me know why you agree with laws against muder and theft.

Is forcing society to be better/morally superior more important than peoples individual freedoms?

When did I say "force". I think "forcing" good morals could create more evil than good. From the get go I have always supported letting the people decide on what is good andwhat is bad. I have also argued not to let the *federal* governmet thwart the rights of the states. That's simpe adhiring to federalism. That's nothing new for our nation. In fact, that's what it was founded upon.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Darren10

[DavidB]

Depends on whether we are talking about secular arms of religious groups. The LDS Church pays taxes on such secular operations, where many other churches do not. By the way, I think you meant Bob Jones Univ.

Yes Bob Jones University, which was/is considered a religious organization and tax exempt under 501C3, The Supreme Court upheld that taxing of this tax exempt organization.

[Sleeper Cell]

Murder is direct and obvious harm in violation freedom to property and life. The constituion does not provide the freedom to violate the (negative) consent of others re: murer. Does the constition allow us to violate the (positive) consent of individuals to marry? The argument around murder rationally trends to supporting the right gay couples of individuals to marry, in my opinion.

By that argument, any government restriction on who can marry violates the positive consent of individuals to marry. Yet, I have never heard a proponent of gay marriage argue that the definition of marriage should be expanded to include brothers and sisters or parents and their adult children.

Any two adults are free to enter into any sort of relationship they want, and they are free to call it a marriage or anything else they choose. However, there is a difference between allowing consenting adults to enter into any sort of relationship they want and demanding that the state formally recognize and subsidize that relationship.

For that matter, why should the state give special status and benefits to “sex-based” domestic partnerships and deny them to other types of domestic partnerships?. Why not, for example, give the same tax breaks and legal benefits to an adult who is living with and caring for an aged parent?

Likewise the first amendent allows religious freedoms, is it a religious freedom to perform the ordinance of marriage on a gay-couple if your religion deems that appropirate and acceptable in the eyes of God?

Absolutely. The issue is not what consenting adults can do or what a church can do, but whether or not the state should grant special status and legal benefits to a private domestic relationship.

[DavidB]

Horsepucky. Babies are born knowing only how to suck, cry and poop. It takes more than 2 years for them to become fully cognizant of the humanity of those big people in their environments. Line upon line morality has to be beaten into them. The human beast is pretty close to tabula rasa. The term was invented a long time ago and experience has shown it to be both accurate and apt.

A child, had it the capacity, would kill to enforce its desires. It's a good thing nursing babies haven't the capacity. Their mothers would never survive.

None of that demonstrates that religion is required for a developing child to learn that murder is not acceptable.