What If The Church Had Issued The Following Statement Pre-Prop 8 Vote.

[Bikeemikey]

This is a rushed and poorly crafted attempt at a letter the Church could have issued a few years ago as an alternative method of engaging the US govt. and people on the question of SSM, specifically during the pre-election California Prop 8 issue.

This is obviously a hypothetical.

I am curious to see what peoples responses are to the kind of ideas i have expressed in this hypothetical statement. It is a position that I find to be more inline with my personal sense of liberty and politics, though I am not sure how I would have reacted had there been a response from the Church along these lines.

I would appreciate thoughts and feedback on the different ideas expressed, rather than responses to the full body of content collectively... there may be one or two ideas that people can relate to with out relating to every idea expressed.

I have also included a very simple poll that allows you compare your response to the actual church response in during the California Prop 8 issue. Please share you reasons for how you voted.

A hypothetical statement the Church could have made:

In our recent history the LDS church and community has been the subject of active discrimination by the government of the USA. These violations have directly limited our religious freedoms and violated the sacred right to religious and other freedom that all Americans fundamentally believe are essential to liberty. At that time the highest courts of the United States sided with the govt, and the tyranny of the majority, over their duty to protect religious freedom and liberty. This was done in an attempt to assert a principle of moral right, commonly held at the time, on the Mormon church and community.

At this time, as a Church, we must side with our fellow brothers and Sisters in the LGBT community who are seeking to have their rights to conscience and belief respected and upheld by the US govt, what ever the disposition of populist majority may be. While we as a church fundamentally disagree with the practice of homosexuality, and within our church community will not engage in the practice of gay marriage, we fundamentally believe in the free exercise of religion and conscience and stand with those seeking to have such freedoms protected by the Govt. We are willing to support our fellow Americans in the pursuit of their freedoms, though we must again emphasize that our support of freedom from govt. coercion is under no circumstance a religious endorsement of SSM or homosexuality. We also request an understanding from our homosexual countrymen, that as a church and community only God is able to change our religious dictates and moral conscience, and that they respect our rights to practice with out fear of legal compulsion or force, just as we respect theirs.

The church could have also added:

Furthermore, as marriage is a term of religious preponderance, we encourage the US govt. to entirely do away with the regulation of the term and the harnessing of benefits issued by the govt. to the concept of marriage. The current relationship between state entitlements and marriage reduces the capacity of religious institutions to freely express their sacred understanding of marriage without wading into the hostile political debate regarding individual rights and entitlements. The conflation of scared religious ceremonies with govt. benefits does a disservice to both religion and govt.

The Church may have also added:

Though the LDS church, at this time, has totally discontinued the practice of polygamy, we respectfully request that the Govt. of the USA issue and official apology to the LDS church and community for the violations and freedoms and the restriction of religious practice that was forced on the early LDS saints. These violations included forcible detention of LDS members and the forfeiture of property. We call on the supreme court to over-turn the Reynolds vs. USA ruling and once again take up their sacred constitutional duty to protect American freedoms and liberty.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[guerreiro9]

There is a huge difference between proposition 8 and the persecution faced by members of the church over polygamy. Proposition 8 is about whether a particular action should be endorsed by the state and given tax favored status and not about whether a particular action should be allowed by law. The church did not in any way prevent people from engaging in same sex marriages, it only encouraged people to vote not to endorse this behavior and give it tax favored status. Contrast this with what was enacted upon the church in regards to polygamy. If polygamy was entered into property was confiscated and prison time was demanded. I do not believe the church was even seeking legal recognition of polygamy or a tax favored status for their marriages. They only wanted the right to practice their religion as they saw fit and that was denied them. I am positive the church would have been more than satisfied if the government had said "do as you wish but do not expect us to endorse it and subsidize it". Can the same be said of those opposing proposition 8?

[Bikeemikey]

There is a huge difference between proposition 8 and the persecution faced by members of the church over polygamy. Proposition 8 is about whether a particular action should be endorsed by the state and given tax favored status and not about whether a particular action should be allowed by law. The church did not in any way prevent people from engaging in same sex marriages, it only encouraged people to vote not to endorse this behavior and give it tax favored status. Contrast this with what was enacted upon the church in regards to polygamy. If polygamy was entered into property was confiscated and prison time was demanded. I do not believe the church was even seeking legal recognition of polygamy or a tax favored status for their marriages. They only wanted the right to practice their religion as they saw fit and that was denied them. I am positive the church would have been more than satisfied if the government had said "do as you wish but do not expect us to endorse it and subsidize it". Can the same be said of those opposing proposition 8?

My hypothetical statement specifically requested the separation of state benefits from marriage. That way we could discuss the merits of such benefits with out also talking about sacred religious ceremony.

I also never said that the prop 8 debate is the same as polygamy.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[jwhitlock]

My hypothetical statement specifically requested the separation of state benefits from marriage. That way we could discuss the merits of such benefits with out also talking about sacred religious ceremony.

The state does not provide benefits for being married; quite the contrary. It discourages marriage by its tax and welfare policies.

[Bikeemikey]

The state does not provide benefits for being married; quite the contrary. It discourages marriage by its tax and welfare policies.

In some regards ... It is however more hit and miss that consistent. There are still issues with estate taxes at death, social security, access to health insurance etc that hinge on marriage.

Regardless my statement would remove either penalty or benefit from being linked to marriage.

Hypotheticals are a recipe for endless arguments. This may be a short thread.

Fine with me.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[guerreiro9]

No you didn't say they are the same but you did insinuate that the church should be more sympathetic because it has also suffered discrimination.

I do not believe that the levels of discrimination are comparable enough to produce the sympathy you desire.

In fact I do not believe proposition 8 actively discriminates against same sex marriage. It is simply encouraging another form of marriage and does not attach any legal penalties to same sex marriage. I see this as perfectly acceptable while I view the discrimination the church faced in regards to polygamy as unacceptable. If those engaging in same sex marriage were being legally punished for doing so (as were polygamists) I would view that as unacceptable.

I do not believe state benefits should be separated from heterosexual marriage or heterosexual civil union or any name you wish to call it. I am perfectly fine with removing legal endorsement of religious ceremonies, but I believe civil pairings of male and female should be encouraged and given tax preferred status.

As such I am fine with the Church's response regarding proposition 8.

[Bikeemikey]

No you didn't say they are the same but you did insinuate that the church should be more sympathetic because it has also suffered discrimination.

I do not believe that the levels of discrimination are comparable enough to produce the sympathy you desire.

In fact I do not believe proposition 8 actively discriminates against same sex marriage. It is simply encouraging another form of marriage and does not attach any legal penalties to same sex marriage. I see this as perfectly acceptable while I view the discrimination the church faced in regards to polygamy as unacceptable. If those engaging in same sex marriage were being legally punished for doing so (as were polygamists) I would view that as unacceptable.

I do not believe state benefits should be separated from heterosexual marriage or heterosexual civil union or any name you wish to call it. I am perfectly fine with removing legal endorsement of religious ceremonies, but I believe civil pairings of male and female should be encouraged and given tax preferred status.

As such I am fine with the Church's response regarding proposition 8.

Thanks for your thoughts... Make sure you vote on the poll.

[Skylla]

We have had too many SSM threads.

Skylla