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

[Darren10]

No state has the authority to override the feds. That is the basic Federal Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

Jefferson argued effectively against such. Patrick Henry's proposition was defeated.

More Later...

Nope. No more later. This line of dialogue is closed.

[california boy]

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?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You do realize that this lame reasoning was the exact same reasoning that those who wanted to prevent blacks from marrrying whites to marry used. It is perfectly logical. Whites can marry anyone they want as long as they are white. Blacks can marry anyone they want as long as they are black. Gays can marry anyone they want as long as they marry someone who is straight.

Why do you even bring up this point? Does this kind of logic help you personally justify in your own mind the your rabid agenda to keep gays marrying?

The real question for this thread is why would the Mormon church even care if the Supreme Court allowed gays to marry? How would it effect your religious beliefs. How would it effect your ability to teach your children the values that the church has? What personal effect would gay marriage have on anyone in the church?

If gays are not allowed to marry does anyone think they will no longer be gay? Why is it better for gays to have sex outside of marrriage? Is that more moral? If the Federal government recognizes gay marriage, will that turn more people gay? I personally have yet to hear a single reason how gay marriage will effect Mormons at all. Why would a Mormon even care if the Supreme Court granted marriage equality to gay couples? Legalizing gay marriage would be a non event for Mormons and anyone else who is not gay.

Edited October 6, 2012 by california boy

[MormonMason]

The real question for this thread is why would the Mormon church even care if the Supreme Court allowed gays to marry? How would it effect your religious beliefs. How would it effect your ability to teach your children the values that the church has? What personal effect would gay marriage have on anyone in the church?

Lawsuits, for one. Bible companies already are being sued by gays to remove the word "homosexual" from passages where the word is found in these translations. Churches are being sued for refusing to allow a same sex marriage to be performed on some of their property. That is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from gays suing the Church and the State punishing the Church for refusing to solemnize gay marriages in temples. Think it through to its logical conclusion. That, for one, is the reason why the Church has asked members to support movements that have a mission to prevent such things from even being a possibility.

I think the Church might back away from making such suggestions to members if the gay agenda are willing to sign and would sign statements to the effect that they never will and never can be allowed to bring suit against a church for refusing to perform or to allow to be performed on church-owned property, a gay marriage, and that the State cannot subject the Church to fines and/or other punishments for refusing to solemnize said marriages on church properties or in temples.

Edited October 6, 2012 by MormonMason

[DavidB]

Lawsuits, for one. Bible companies already are being sued by gays to remove the word "homosexual" from passages where the word is found in these translations. Churches are being sued for refusing to allow a same sex marriage to be performed on some of their property. That is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from gays suing the Church and the State punishing the Church for refusing to solemnize gay marriages in temples. Think it through to its logical conclusion. That, for one, is the reason why the Church has asked members to support movements that have a mission to prevent such things from even being a possibility.

I think the Church might back away from making such suggestions to members if the gay agenda are willing to sign and would sign statements to the effect that they never will and never can be allowed to bring suit against a church for refusing to perform or to allow to be performed on church-owned property, a gay marriage, and that the State cannot subject the Church to fines and/or other punishments for refusing to solemnize said marriages on church properties or in temples.

You don't have your facts lined up well.

If suing Church's was such a concern, then those suits would be happening everyday in States that have Public Accommodation Laws, but this is not happening is it?

And before you try and use the Pavilion case from New Jersey as a reference, you should first determine why the Pavilion was at issue and not a formal meeting house.

Since we are not reading of daily, weekly, or monthly laws suits from States with public accommodation laws, then we can presume that there is something in the public accommodation laws which exempt formal meeting houses.

However, a citizenry which does not want these types of lawsuits should not vote in the affirmative for public accommodation laws.

[california boy]

Lawsuits, for one. Bible companies already are being sued by gays to remove the word "homosexual" from passages where the word is found in these translations. Churches are being sued for refusing to allow a same sex marriage to be performed on some of their property. That is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from gays suing the Church and the State punishing the Church for refusing to solemnize gay marriages in temples. Think it through to its logical conclusion. That, for one, is the reason why the Church has asked members to support movements that have a mission to prevent such things from even being a possibility.

I think the Church might back away from making such suggestions to members if the gay agenda are willing to sign and would sign statements to the effect that they never will and never can be allowed to bring suit against a church for refusing to perform or to allow to be performed on church-owned property, a gay marriage, and that the State cannot subject the Church to fines and/or other punishments for refusing to solemnize said marriages on church properties or in temples.

Could you remind me again how many lawsuits were won when the church barred any black from being married in the temple regardless of worthiness and membership? Tell me again how the church was forced to marry blacks in the temple the church was discriminating against blacks even though the laws and courts found discrimination against blacks in the private sector to be illegal? Tell me again how many gay couples the church has been forced to marry in the New York temple? Actually can you tell me ANY case where ANY church in the United States has been forced by the Federal Government to marry ANYONE against its religious beliefs? You got a couple of hundred years to draw on. Let me know what you can report.

Fear is such a more powerful force when combined with ignorance. Does it feels better to support discrimination if you can come up with some irrrational fear even if it is totally unsupported by facts.

That, for one, is the reason why the Church has asked members to support movements that have a mission to prevent such things from even being a possibility.

Can I get a CFR that the church has EVER given this as a reason to oppose gay marriage?

Edited October 6, 2012 by california boy

[Bikeemikey]

Bikeemike;

I got the same vibe to move along the storyline and focus on the main theme of the thread. I'm not the only one here speaking on a tangent, in fact my dialgue has been by and large responding to other's questions and challenges, including your own. But, yes, of course we can move along with the post.

Building on what I said initially, the LDS Church has a long history of waiting out a Supreme Court decision and then taking action accordinly. Their core belief in being subject to the laws of the land I think generates a sense of moral obligation to follow the court's decisions as well as the law of the land. Along similar lines as youself, I personally wonder how much could a court decision "push the envelope" befre the LDS Church may find itself in a canundrum. What if the court ruled something that's blatantly unconstitutional? I wonder what the LDS Church's reaction would be? As for a hypothetical ruling striking down Prop 8, I think the LDS Church will accept it and move on.

Thanks Darren10,

I was not trying to single you out. I also enjoyed the ideas you shared regarding the constitution.

Cheers.

[Bikeemikey]

Nope. No more later. This line of dialogue is closed.

:-)

[Bikeemikey]

Lawsuits, for one. Bible companies already are being sued by gays to remove the word "homosexual" from passages where the word is found in these translations. Churches are being sued for refusing to allow a same sex marriage to be performed on some of their property. That is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from gays suing the Church and the State punishing the Church for refusing to solemnize gay marriages in temples. Think it through to its logical conclusion. That, for one, is the reason why the Church has asked members to support movements that have a mission to prevent such things from even being a possibility.

I think the Church might back away from making such suggestions to members if the gay agenda are willing to sign and would sign statements to the effect that they never will and never can be allowed to bring suit against a church for refusing to perform or to allow to be performed on church-owned property, a gay marriage, and that the State cannot subject the Church to fines and/or other punishments for refusing to solemnize said marriages on church properties or in temples.

Don't we already have that document signed by the govt? It is the constitution - the whole point of this thread is that we hve the protections we need from a slippery slope while at the same time attempting to take away freedoms provided to others from the same document?

Surely if we successfully erode the freedoms of one group granted via the constitution we are also opening the door for our own freedoms to be successfully eroded in the future.

Isn't it the case that If prop 8 is upheld we have begun the slippery slope - not the other way around?

Edited October 6, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

You do realize that this lame reasoning was the exact same reasoning that those who wanted to prevent blacks from marrrying whites to marry used. It is perfectly logical. Whites can marry anyone they want as long as they are white. Blacks can marry anyone they want as long as they are black. Gays can marry anyone they want as long as they marry someone who is straight.

Why do you even bring up this point? Does this kind of logic help you personally justify in your own mind the your rabid agenda to keep gays marrying?

The real question for this thread is why would the Mormon church even care if the Supreme Court allowed gays to marry? How would it effect your religious beliefs. How would it effect your ability to teach your children the values that the church has? What personal effect would gay marriage have on anyone in the church?

If gays are not allowed to marry does anyone think they will no longer be gay? Why is it better for gays to have sex outside of marrriage? Is that more moral? If the Federal government recognizes gay marriage, will that turn more people gay? I personally have yet to hear a single reason how gay marriage will effect Mormons at all. Why would a Mormon even care if the Supreme Court granted marriage equality to gay couples? Legalizing gay marriage would be a non event for Mormons and anyone else who is not gay.

So you support the right of churches to discriminate with in their membership base (with in the bounds of consent) but not the right of churches attempt to push this discrimination into the political arena?? Is that correct?

You would feel a group attempting to force the church marry gays is violating the same principle as the LDS community when they attempt to stop gays marrying?

Let me know if I am reading you correctly.

[Bikeemikey]

The real question for this thread is why would the Mormon church even care if the Supreme Court allowed gays to marry? How would it effect your religious beliefs. How would it effect your ability to teach your children the values that the church has? What personal effect would gay marriage have on anyone in the church?

Those are great questions.

I have been thinking through the same questions. Here are a few plausible responses from a few LDS perspectives I have heard.

LDS believe in salvation - that is the point.

Homosexuality would get in the way of salvation (at least many LDS would make this claim).

The govt is a monolithic entity that will/can impact people's private (moral) decisions.

As such, it is an entity will/can impact people's salvation.

In virtue of the govts capacity to impact an individuals salvation the have an obligation to impact it positively.

Therefore legislation should enhance the principles that lead to salvation, even at the expense of some (individual) freedoms.

There are a number of critiques to this - wont tackle them now.

Another common idea is that enhanced moral tolerance of principles that violate the standards for salvation don't impact my capacity to teach my principles to my family and church community. It does however reduce the chance that such teachings will stick/be followed by my children etc.

As such I have an obligation to enhance the likelihood that my family attain salvation by limiting the prevalence of immoral actions in the communities I live in. If I can use the govt to do this I ought, even if by doing so i am using the govt to limit others freedom (a theological paternalism if you will).

None of this is irrational. It is a cost benefit analysis where all metrics are skewed toward salvation over freedom. It is both reasonable and rational. Govt already limits some freedoms of individuals in favor of greater benefits for the community (the whole we gain more than we lose - there have been some good quotes on this topic earlier in the thread).

The question from a theological perspective is whether one who is compelled by govts to live a certain way would be eligible to "salvation" anyway. Is Salvation as much about the actions we would have made (had the context been different) as it is about actions we did make?

In my opinion you are not going to change most LDS people's mind engaging them at a political level... You have to address the theological underpinnings related to the govts capacity/role in salvation. Something that may actually not be wrong , though personally I think the ideas above are not valid.

[MormonMason]

Don't we already have that document signed by the govt? It is the constitution - the whole point of this thread is that we hve the protections we need from a slippery slope while at the same time attempting to take away freedoms provided to others from the same document?

Surely if we successfully erode the freedoms of one group granted via the constitution we are also opening the door for our own freedoms to be successfully eroded in the future.

Isn't it the case that If prop 8 is upheld we have begun the slippery slope - not the other way around?

It is also everyone's right to sue the pants off of any person or organization. Freedom of religious practice is supposed to be protected by the Constitution--except when it isn't, such as under US vs. Reynolds and other such legal precedent. Conceivably it is possible that suits will be brought against the Church even more so than now. Bible companies have the right to print in their Bibles what they want under the Constitution, but that is not stopping gays from suing them to remove their protected expression from print. Think this through a bit more than you have.

[MormonMason]

You don't have your facts lined up well.

If suing Church's was such a concern, then those suits would be happening everyday in States that have Public Accommodation Laws, but this is not happening is it?

And before you try and use the Pavilion case from New Jersey as a reference, you should first determine why the Pavilion was at issue and not a formal meeting house.

Since we are not reading of daily, weekly, or monthly laws suits from States with public accommodation laws, then we can presume that there is something in the public accommodation laws which exempt formal meeting houses.

However, a citizenry which does not want these types of lawsuits should not vote in the affirmative for public accommodation laws.

Not yet. But the erosion of rights in the case of the Mormons has not yet been completed. It began in the late 19th century with US vs. Reynolds. Over time, it will be easier to erode these rights over time as we have seen many times in the past. Give it time.

[MormonMason]

Could you remind me again how many lawsuits were won when the church barred any black from being married in the temple regardless of worthiness and membership? Tell me again how the church was forced to marry blacks in the temple the church was discriminating against blacks even though the laws and courts found discrimination against blacks in the private sector to be illegal? Tell me again how many gay couples the church has been forced to marry in the New York temple? Actually can you tell me ANY case where ANY church in the United States has been forced by the Federal Government to marry ANYONE against its religious beliefs? You got a couple of hundred years to draw on. Let me know what you can report.

Fear is such a more powerful force when combined with ignorance. Does it feels better to support discrimination if you can come up with some irrrational fear even if it is totally unsupported by facts.

Can I get a CFR that the church has EVER given this as a reason to oppose gay marriage?

It was a different circumstance prior to 1978. However, before one can be sealed in the temple to a spouse for time and eternity one must hold the priesthood. See where this is going?

As to the CFR, I guess you weren't paying attention to full content of the letters that were circulated regarding potential reasons for why Prop 8 needed to be voted in.

[Bikeemikey]

It is also everyone's right to sue the pants off of any person or organization. Freedom of religious practice is supposed to be protected by the Constitution--except when it isn't, such as under US vs. Reynolds and other such legal precedent. Conceivably it is possible that suits will be brought against the Church even more so than now. Bible companies have the right to print in their Bibles what they want under the Constitution, but that is not stopping gays from suing them to remove their protected expression from print. Think this through a bit more than you have.

Thinking, thinking, thinking... now successfully thought it through a but more than I had before... thanks for the suggestion.

The irony is that many individuals, homosexual or otherwise, are just as opposed to our Church having our religious freedom restricted as they are to our "church" (as they see it) attempting limit the freedoms of others private beliefs.

Also, what were you hoping I would see as I think it through more - perhaps you could just tell me, might make the conversation a little more productive.

[Bikeemikey]

Not yet. But the erosion of rights in the case of the Mormons has not yet been completed. It began in the late 19th century with US vs. Reynolds. Over time, it will be easier to erode these rights over time as we have seen many times in the past. Give it time.

You the erosion of Mormon freedoms through court action began with US vs. Reynolds and our best defense about future restrictions of freedom to to tell other people they can't get married?? I am finding this hard to follow.

You obviously dont agree with the US vs. Reynolds decision (correct me if I am wrong) so how would you agree with the Prop 8 movement? What is Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment to "one man and one women" leaving the Gay component aside?

[Bikeemikey]

It was a different circumstance prior to 1978. However, before one can be sealed in the temple to a spouse for time and eternity one must hold the priesthood. See where this is going?

I have no idea where you are going with this... it is really helpful in a discussion if you frame you position with "clear" ideas, rather than hinting and suggesting at things and then telling the other person to figure it out. Please elaborate on where you are going with the above statement.

As to the CFR, I guess you weren't paying attention to full content of the letters that were circulated regarding potential reasons for why Prop 8 needed to be voted in.

Please provide the CFR rather than saying it's there you just don't like to read or listen. In the absence of the CFR all of us how have read the letters circulated and not found reference to the ideas you expressed will assume you have overreached.

Cheers.

[MormonMason]

Thinking, thinking, thinking... now successfully thought it through a but more than I had before... thanks for the suggestion.

The irony is that many individuals, homosexual or otherwise, are just as opposed to our Church having our religious freedom restricted as they are to our "church" (as they see it) attempting limit the freedoms of others private beliefs.

Also, what were you hoping I would see as I think it through more - perhaps you could just tell me, might make the conversation a little more productive.

If they would keep it private? If that were all I think I would not have an issue with the situation. But, they don't want it private. It is all over television. Bible companies are being sued to remove protected expression. They are busy redefining terms in the dictionary and even lying about ancient practices in Egypt and Rome to legitimize their stance. Many of them have a specific wish to punish the Church for their private beliefs.

[MormonMason]

You the erosion of Mormon freedoms through court action began with US vs. Reynolds and our best defense about future restrictions of freedom to to tell other people they can't get married?? I am finding this hard to follow.

You obviously dont agree with the US vs. Reynolds decision (correct me if I am wrong) so how would you agree with the Prop 8 movement? What is Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment to "one man and one women" leaving the Gay component aside?

I only agree with US vs. Reynolds with regard to practices that are harmful to others. In practices that are not harmful to others US vs. Reynolds gives broad leeway in how government can determine just what can and cannot be considered harmful.

I never said they cannot get married, only that they cannot be granted that if they plan to use it as a weapon to punish churches in future for not solemnizing their marriages wherever they want to have them solemnized. All it would take to make me lose concern over it is for them to sign an official, legally binding document, in perpetuity, that they cannot turn around and sue the Church or otherwise seek to legislate against the Church for exercising their religious freedom in denying solemnization of said unions in religious structures such as church buildings and temples. Just a signed document would alleviate the fears that people in and out of the Church have regarding the logical conclusion of the current situation. One that could be taken to courts of the land when things start taking a turn for the worst when they find they cannot get their marriages solemnized in temples or on other Church properties in spite of the secular side of things.

Edited October 6, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

I have no idea where you are going with this... it is really helpful in a discussion if you frame you position with "clear" ideas, rather than hinting and suggesting at things and then telling the other person to figure it out. Please elaborate on where you are going with the above statement.

Please provide the CFR rather than saying it's there you just don't like to read or listen. In the absence of the CFR all of us how have read the letters circulated and not found reference to the ideas you expressed will assume you have overreached.

Cheers.

Think on it a little (or a lot) more and you will. You will have to let go of a few things and open your mind for a bit.

As to the CFR, I do not have copies of the letters and do not live any longer in California, and am away from my sources of information related to this, so I cannot provide as asked at this point. But, I do remember the general contents of the letters and this very concern of mine was part of said letters. Anyone else still there or who has access to the information is perfectly fine to chime in with the relevant quotes. But I saw the material and I am certainly not backing down from this when I know darn well what I saw, heard and read. Sorry but until I have access to the information, I cannot provide the exact quotations of the relevant letters. But, I also am not retracting what I know to be the case in what I read at the time.

And, by the way, I am speaking of not only Prop 8 but of Prop 22 and related material preceding Prop 8 as well.

Edited October 6, 2012 by MormonMason

[Bikeemikey]

I only agree with US vs. Reynolds with regard to practices that are harmful to others. In practices that are not harmful to others US vs. Reynolds gives broad leeway in how government can determine just what can and cannot be considered harmful.

I never said they cannot get married, only that they cannot be granted that if they plan to use it as a weapon to punish churches in future for not solemnizing their marriages wherever they want to have them solemnized. All it would take to make me lose concern over it is for them to sign an official, legally binding document, in perpetuity, that they cannot turn around and sue the Church or otherwise seek to legislate against the Church for exercising their religious freedom in denying solemnization of said unions in religious structures such as church buildings and temples. Just a signed document would alleviate the fears that people in and out of the Church have regarding the logical conclusion of the current situation. One that could be taken to courts of the land when things start taking a turn for the worst when they find they cannot get their marriages solemnized in temples or on other Church properties in spite of the secular side of things.

But again Mormonmason... we share the same concern on this matter. I personally don't care if homosexuals get married, they just can't get married in the LDS church (unless revelation would come saying it is ok).

Why do you not think the constitution already offers this protection to our religion?

In my mind it clearly does.

[Bikeemikey]

If they would keep it private? If that were all I think I would not have an issue with the situation. But, they don't want it private. It is all over television. Bible companies are being sued to remove protected expression. They are busy redefining terms in the dictionary and even lying about ancient practices in Egypt and Rome to legitimize their stance. Many of them have a specific wish to punish the Church for their private beliefs.

Having a private belief and keeping it private are different. Our religious beliefs are private beliefs. We do however engage 50K missionaries to share those beliefs. We are also attempting to impact state legislation to protect (in the prop 8 case our private definition of marriage) in the public arena.

There are Christian channels on TV and radio. There are magazines and books also.

As for the suing over the bible stuff. The constitution does not protect us from frivolous lawsuits (unfortunately) only unconstitutional outcomes. This concern is irrelevant (except for demonstrating there are unreasonable people on the other side of the debate.

There are unreasonable people on both sides of the debate.

[MormonMason]

But again Mormonmason... we share the same concern on this matter. I personally don't care if homosexuals get married, they just can't get married in the LDS church (unless revelation would come saying it is ok).

Why do you not think the constitution already offers this protection to our religion?

In my mind it clearly does.

US vs. Reynolds proved to the Latter-day Saints of the day that they did not have the protections they thought they were guaranteed by the Constitution when the Supreme Court upheld it. With activist judges in all ranks of the court system, how long do you think it would take to strip a few more rights from the Church through the courts if this is allowed to continue unabated?

[Bikeemikey]

US vs. Reynolds proved to the Latter-day Saints of the day that they did not have the protections they thought they were guaranteed by the Constitution when the Supreme Court upheld it. With activist judges in all ranks of the court system, how long do you think it would take to strip a few more rights from the Church through the courts if this is allowed to continue unabated?

Which is why it is so important that we are on the correct side of these debates. We ought to be on the side that protects freedoms, even those ones we don't agree with.

LDS who align themselves with the Prop 8 cause are creating the increased possibility that more US vs. Reynolds style cases will not be in the favor of religious freedom.

If we as an LDS community were to come out and say we had our freedoms taken away (US vs. Reynolds) and do not want that to happen to any other community. Let us fight for religious and personal freedom together... just dont ask our church to marry you.

Would not that be a better position. More inline with our own historical learning, our views on personal freedom, religious freedom and the constitution?

[MormonMason]

No, "the cause" has long had that view. The Church, so long as it holds the view that practice of homosexuality is sin, will always be a target of "the cause." You are not thinking this through clearly enough and not to its logical conclusion if you think otherwise.

[Bikeemikey]

No, "the cause" has long had that view. The Church, so long as it holds the view that practice of homosexuality is sin, will always be a target of "the cause." You are not thinking this through clearly enough and not to its logical conclusion if you think otherwise.

So "the cause" is Gay people? Gay people who want to be married? Gay people who want to destroy our church? People who want to destroy our Church who may or may not be gay? People who want to destroy all churches because they are gay? Gay people who want to be leaders of churches that hate gay people?

I am not even sure what the post above is responding to/in reference to...

In a free society there is no problem with our church being targeted by other non-govt. groups who wish to dispute/change our views on homosexuality.

Our objective should not be to overthrow "the cause".

Our objective should be to support law and practices that ensure our church and the cause are both on equal footing before the govt and that neither party is able to have the private practices of their organizations/private beliefs administered/interfered with by the govt...

However, you responses consistently suggest you will not be happy until "the cause" has been overwhelmingly put down? Is that what you want?

I totally fail to see how "the cause" or any cause is relavent to this discussion, in as much as the cause is not part of govt.