Church Response To Supreme Court Marriage Rulings

[tyler90az]

I love this statement by the LDS Church. I am glad that the LDS Church, as an institution, is recognizing publicly that the way government is heading is troubling, instead of the "the government is good, we must obey" traditional approach.

This is not an example of the way government heading is troubling. Like stated in another thread that would be the Patriot Act and Citizens united.

The church did not issue a statement when Al Gore lost election even know he had majority vote.

[Stone holm]

This is not an example of the way government heading is troubling. Like stated in another thread that would be the Patriot Act and Citizens united.

The church did not issue a statement when Al Gore lost election even know he had majority vote.

Well they also did not issue a statement when an atheist lost his bid to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance due to a lack of standing. Which makes it all look to depend on whose ox is being gored.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This is not an example of the way government heading is troubling. Like stated in another thread that would be the Patriot Act and Citizens united.

The church did not issue a statement when Al Gore lost election even know he had majority vote.

So you believe our rights as state citizens to determine laws within our own states through the act of voting being totally trampled on a rendered useless if all-knowing government overlords deem it not according to their own wills is somehow a step in the right direction??

Don't think the "boys from the mountains" will be doing much Constitution saving if that is a prevailing LDS viewpoint.

[Stone holm]

So you believe our rights as state citizens to determine laws within our own states through the act of voting being totally trampled on a rendered useless if all-knowing government overlords deem it not according to their own wills is somehow a step in the right direction??

Don't think the "boys from the mountains" will be doing much Constitution saving if that is a prevailing LDS viewpoint.

I do not know what the wording of the oath of office is for the Governor of California, but I suspect it is similar to the Presidents. We live in a country which has three co-equal branches and all have an obligation to respect the Constitution. In more recent times, we have tended to rely solely on the Judiciary to interpret the Constitution, and its decisions are pretty much final on the subject, however, both the legislative and executive branches have a responsibility in that regard. I don't know what the prevailing LDS viewpoint is. But if you talk about the "boys from the mountains" referring to the "hanging from a thread" prophecy, IMNSHO the Constitution has always been in more peril from the right -- and that the likely meaning of that prophecy if it is valid, is that the Elders of Israel will finally wake up from their fellow travelling with the Christian Right just in time to save the American principles we all love and cherish before the country becomes some kind of fundamentalist theocracy.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I do not know what the wording of the oath of office is for the Governor of California, but I suspect it is similar to the Presidents. We live in a country which has three co-equal branches and all have an obligation to respect the Constitution. In more recent times, we have tended to rely solely on the Judiciary to interpret the Constitution, and its decisions are pretty much final on the subject, however, both the legislative and executive branches have a responsibility in that regard. I don't know what the prevailing LDS viewpoint is. But if you talk about the "boys from the mountains" referring to the "hanging from a thread" prophecy, IMNSHO the Constitution has always been in more peril from the right -- and that the likely meaning of that prophecy if it is valid, is that the Elders of Israel will finally wake up from their fellow travelling with the Christian Right just in time to save the American principles we all love and cherish before the country becomes some kind of fundamentalist theocracy.

That is one one the funniest lines I have read in a while. You really believe our country is running headlong into becoming a radicalized Christian theocracy. Like the Saudi Arabia of Christianity?!?

The social programming of the left through media and schooling really is working. And you don't even see it. They actually have you believing the Christian Right is on the brink of taking over America. Very sad.

[oremites]

The church did not issue a statement when Al Gore lost election even know he had majority vote.

What statement should they have issued? The president isn't elected by popular vote. Al Gore wasn't the first person to have a majority and still lose the election.

[Avatar4321]

Enforcing any law can always be seen as persecution by those breaking the law. The difference is huge. We were more analogous to the same sex marriage supporters back then. We were fighting established law, the majority of the people were against us, and most found us disgusting and a danger to public morality. The court ruled we could not break the law. Under orders from God we backed down. They kept fighting and won. I have to wonder what would have happened had we truly built an invincible Zion then, would we have won?

There is no law that can be interpreted to mean that temple marriages can be forcibly done in either federal or state law. I will fight tooth and nail against any law that could be read that way. This is not it. If you are just saying we should be wary of insane laws then I agree but this is not the starting point for them. This is not a slippery slope to it. That will take another slope.

I honestly hate the whole debate and our involvement. It causes nothing but suffering for so many and seems to align the Church on the same side as some horrible people. We are allying with Stalin and we do not have the excuse that we are fighting a Hitler. The church is not fixated on homosexuality. I can think of it being mentioned in a church meeting I attended twice in the last three years. Some members make it a crusade and I worry about why. So often the pet sin we love to decry is the one we have no temptation for so making it out to be horrific is a cheap virtue akin to the fit person who loves to condemn gluttony or the naturally cautious person who loves to condemn gambling or the stupid person who condemns intellectual pride.

No we aren't. We were fighting to be left alone. They are fighting to force society to recognize their unions. There is a huge difference there.

Doesnt change the fact that marriage laws were used to persecute the Church.

[Avatar4321]

Well they also did not issue a statement when an atheist lost his bid to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance due to a lack of standing. Which makes it all look to depend on whose ox is being gored.

The issue isn't whether cases can be thrown out for lack of standing. The problem with throwing it out for lack of standing in this case is because it gives the State governments defacto veto power over legislation and referendums they dont like because they can simple decide not to defend the statute or measure. If our State representatives refuse to defend the clear will of the people, who has standing to go to Court and defend the laws the people supported? No one. That's the problem.

[Stone holm]

That is one one the funniest lines I have read in a while. You really believe our country is running headlong into becoming a radicalized Christian theocracy. Like the Saudi Arabia of Christianity?!?

The social programming of the left through media and schooling really is working. And you don't even see it. They actually have you believing the Christian Right is on the brink of taking over America. Very sad.

No I don't believe that the Christian Right is on the brink of taking over America, nor do I believe the Constitution is in peril, or that the end of days is imminent, or that America is turning into Sodom and Gomorrah, or that SSM is a factor in the collapse of heterosexual marriage. I do, however, feel that the principal danger to the Constitution comes not from the left, but from the right.

[Stone holm]

No we aren't. We were fighting to be left alone. They are fighting to force society to recognize their unions. There is a huge difference there.

Doesnt change the fact that marriage laws were used to persecute the Church.

To be left alone? Is somebody forcing you into a SSM? Is somebody saying you can't marry someone?

[The Nehor]

No we aren't. We were fighting to be left alone. They are fighting to force society to recognize their unions. There is a huge difference there.

Doesnt change the fact that marriage laws were used to persecute the Church.

Said another way: We were fighting so we could hide in the boonies and break the law. They are fighting to change the law so they do not have to go hide and break it. They are trying to force society to accept it JUST LIKE WE DID when we brought plural marriage before the Supreme Court. Is this just sour grapes that we lost and they won?

Marriage laws were used to persecute the Church.....because we were flagrantly breaking the laws. We had to and we paid a price for it. God approved. To expect government to leave us alone while we break the nation's laws and cry persecution when they did smacks of naivete the pioneers did not suffer from.

[The Nehor]

The issue isn't whether cases can be thrown out for lack of standing. The problem with throwing it out for lack of standing in this case is because it gives the State governments defacto veto power over legislation and referendums they dont like because they can simple decide not to defend the statute or measure. If our State representatives refuse to defend the clear will of the people, who has standing to go to Court and defend the laws the people supported? No one. That's the problem.

People actually directly affected by the law.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

To be left alone? Is somebody forcing you into a SSM? Is somebody saying you can't marry someone?

No, but we are being forced to accept and cater to the behavior.

Must I find the articles concerning private companies being fined for exercising their conscience in not giving marriage related services to homosexual couples?

Seems the only "choice" is to support and cater to them or shut up and close-up up shop if you won't.

[Calm]

To be left alone? Is somebody forcing you into a SSM? Is somebody saying you can't marry someone?

I believe he meant that they were not trying to get the government to recognize plural marriage, but to ignore it...the opposite of what is being attempted now...the official civil recognition of SM.

[Calm]

They are fighting to change the law so they do not have to go hide and break it.

How would it break the law for anyone to perform a SSM ceremony or to live together as a couple?

[rockpond]

No, but we are being forced to accept and cater to the behavior.

Must I find the articles concerning private companies being fined for exercising their conscience in not giving marriage related services to homosexual couples?

Seems the only "choice" is to support and cater to them or shut up and close-up up shop if you won't.

We live in a society founded upon a constitution that dictates all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consistent with that, our society has determined that you cannot operate businesses in the public sphere and discriminate against people.

Would it be appropriate for an anti-Semite photographer to refuse to photograph a Jewish wedding?

Personally, I think that a business owner should be allowed to refuse service to anyone and suffer the consequences in a free market economy but that isn't the way our laws are currently setup.

[Stone holm]

People actually directly affected by the law.

This isn't particularly new law. And anybody who read the transcripts of the oral arguments could have seen there was a distinct possibility that was where the case was headed. It is not uncommon for cases to get tossed out for lack of standing. Kennedy actually. Probably did the social conservatives a favour because he avoided a square equal protection argument in both the Prop 8 and the DOMA case. Although the DOMA case was decided on equal protection grounds it was couched in a States rights format that avoided declaring a general Constitutional mandate. This has left the door open to discrimination in those States where they have not adopted SSM. The polls show that a political repeal of Prop 8 would have occurred anyway had the case not been dismissed. Kennedys approach was actually consistent with the concept of judicial restraint since in both cases he avoided a more overarching decision in preference for a narrower one. Which makes the political shot taken in the press release even more galling.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

We live in a society founded upon a constitution that dictates all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consistent with that, our society has determined that you cannot operate businesses in the public sphere and discriminate against people.

Would it be appropriate for an anti-Semite photographer to refuse to photograph a Jewish wedding?

Personally, I think that a business owner should be allowed to refuse service to anyone and suffer the consequences in a free market economy but that isn't the way our laws are currently setup.

Being Jewish is not a behavior, being balck, blue, white, yellow, green, purple, lilac, whatever, is not a behavior.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

[rockpond]

Being Jewish is not a behavior, being balck, blue, white, yellow, green, purple, lilac, whatever, is not a behavior.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Nope, my comparison was apples to apples...

Being homosexual is no less a behavior than being heterosexual. One has no control over their homosexual feelings, heterosexual feelings, nor Jewish ancestry. Sure, all three of those can be acted upon or not acted upon. But none of the three can be reduced simply to behavior.

[Ron Beron]

The idea that the Framers of the Constitution were religionists is faux history. While most were Masons, they were not particularly noted for their religious views or faith. The key actors were guided by Enlightenment principles . Madison in particular, who drafted the Constitution was very concerned that church and state be kept separate and expressed regret about the tradition of having a Congressional chaplain having gotten started.

They may not have been religionists, but they were certainly deists. Their belief in a God who gave mankind the liberties we enjoy is, to quote, "self-evident",

[Avatar4321]

Said another way: We were fighting so we could hide in the boonies and break the law. They are fighting to change the law so they do not have to go hide and break it. They are trying to force society to accept it JUST LIKE WE DID when we brought plural marriage before the Supreme Court. Is this just sour grapes that we lost and they won?

Marriage laws were used to persecute the Church.....because we were flagrantly breaking the laws. We had to and we paid a price for it. God approved. To expect government to leave us alone while we break the nation's laws and cry persecution when they did smacks of naivete the pioneers did not suffer from.

No. They arent analogous. We were never challenging the laws to force people to accept it. We were challenging the laws so we could live our religious principles without government inteference.

No one is preventing anyone in a same sex relationship from calling it whatever they want or defining the terms of their relationship. They aren't trying to be left alone to live their lives. They are demanding that society recognize their relationships be sanctioned by the rest of us. We didn't care about polygamy being sanctioned. We just wanted them to leave us alone.

When laws are made specifically to target your religious beliefs, then you are being persecuted whether you break those laws or not.

[jwhitlock]

Marriage laws were used to persecute the Church.....because we were flagrantly breaking the laws. We had to and we paid a price for it. God approved. To expect government to leave us alone while we break the nation's laws and cry persecution when they did smacks of naivete the pioneers did not suffer from.

Actually, this is not totally accurate. The series of laws were passed specifically targeting the church after the church started practicing polygamy. In addition, since laws governing marriage are the responsibility of the states, and since the Mormons left the United States for the Utah territory, there were troubling legal precedents set with the way the Feds handled it.

In reality, our practice was not breaking laws when it started. Laws were passed to make it illegal, which makes it a very different situation than the claim that we were "flagrantly" breaking them.

[thesometimesaint]

So you believe our rights as state citizens to determine laws within our own states through the act of voting being totally trampled on a rendered useless if all-knowing government overlords deem it not according to their own wills is somehow a step in the right direction??

Don't think the "boys from the mountains" will be doing much Constitution saving if that is a prevailing LDS viewpoint.

Federal Law always trumps State Law. That is in the US Constitution.

[thesometimesaint]

They may not have been religionists, but they were certainly deists. Their belief in a God who gave mankind the liberties we enjoy is, to quote, "self-evident",

They were religionists. Which makes it all the more impressive that they put aside their personal religious ideas and kept them out of our Constitution.

From Wiki:

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson^[19][20][21] (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin.^[22] Others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.^[23]

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".^[24]

[jwhitlock]

Federal Law always trumps State Law. That is in the US Constitution.

Actually, the states rights issue was a sore point of contention that led to the Civil War. The supremacy of Federal law wasn't really fully cemented in place until the victors made it so in 1865.