Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

[jwhitlock]

Have you actually read the DOMA and Prop 8 rulings of the SCOTUS?  The Prop 8 decision was a decision not to decide and was based on lack of standing.  The DOMA decision was what was known as a plurality decision -- the 5 vote majority did not have a consensus on the Constitutionality of SSM, the deciding vote was whether the Federal Government could restrict rights and benefits granted by a State -- it too avoided the question of whether SSM was Constitutionally mandated.  So I am not sure where you are coming from on this.  The District Court decision in this case was a new issue and it has yet to be tested by the judiciary appellate process -- but it appears to squarely address the issue.

 

You'll notice that I used courts' and not court's in my post. That was on purpose. I've read the various decisions and come to the conclusion that the judiciary in general is overstepping their bounds on this matter. The Feds are simply continuing a long standing tradition of usurping power reserved to the states bit by bit over the years - something that has been detrimental to society as a whole. When Federal judges such as this one start overturning state laws that are outside of their constitutional authorities, they should be opposed and disciplined - something that is not going to happen, given the current arrogance of our Federal system.

 

The wording of this judge's ruling, where he makes the absurd claim that gays were being denied a right, simply demonstrates how out of touch he is with the complex issues of this case. He's trying to mandate laws by judicial fiat, and that should be a disturbing thing to anyone who values liberty and freedom.

[jwhitlock]

Well, I guess we shouldn't have fired the first shot, eh?  There is a small minority of us in the church who were saying, back in 2008, that our involvement was a bad idea.  Five years later, not only is gay marriage legal in CA but now you're claiming that those we offended are going to seek revenge.

 

I'm not really worried... Religious freedom has won the day in two court cases this week in Utah.

 

More rot. Since when is opposing SSM "firing a shot", as you so poorly term it? Perhaps you should read a little bit more about the hateful comments from SSM supporters against the church in the wake of Prop 8, and the demonstrated history of revenge by SSM against those who have opposed them once they've gotten the upper hand - something else that was demonstrated in California.

 

I realize that you perhaps think that no one is going to sue the church or demand revenge or demand that their marriages be recognized by the church or demand that temple sealings be performed for gay couples or that anyone who holds a viewpoint in opposition to SSM for religious reasons is going to be punished for expressing those beliefs. If so, you need to get out of your bubble and see what some gay activists are really saying, and what some court rulings are really doing when it comes to SSM. It's disturbing as a trend and cause for concern.

 

And I suspect, from what I'm reading on gay sites, that perhaps as many gays actually oppose SSM as support it, though it should be clearly evident that the vast majority of gays aren't particularly interested in getting married, since there are penalties imposed for doing so by our "enlightened" government.

 

For a little bit of a taste of what some groups want to do, go to the Affirmation web site and read their mission statement, which includes making (in their words) all aspects of the gospel (think temple sealings) available to gays in SSM situations. Think that they aren't going to use the law to sue the church? Think again.

[jwhitlock]

Not really.  Nobody was forcing SSM on us, We were the ones that raised the sword with Prop 8, not to defend our own rights, but to deny a privilege to another group. And although many Mormons tried to claim victim status, that was a very tortured illogical claim.  Perhaps it was the sword of righteousness, but it definitely was a sword aimed at a minority.

 

Glad to see that you're actually being correct in terming SSM as a privilege (and it is a special privilege granted to the very small minority of gays that use it) instead of a right.

 

On the other hand, I don't see anyone trying to claim victim status on our side, though that time may appropriately come. And the sword of righteousness phrase is just ridiculous.

[jwhitlock]

Keep preaching it Brother Whitlock.  Meanwhile, a SCOTUS ruling and 18 states have decided to let the 14th amendment stand.

 

I'm curious though... Do you really still want to go with the will of the people on this matter?  Cause the polls I've seen are showing that nationally your view is in the minority.

 

Have you actually read the 14th amendment? I doubt it since, you misunderstand "equal protection" to think it includes "special privilege" which is what SSM actually is.

 

Evidently I need to repeat this again: gays currently have the exact same right to marry within the same structure as anyone else. Many gays take advantage of that right. The implementation of SSM is nothing more than a special privilege extended to a few for political purposes. That implementation as law has potentially significant adverse effects - as I have enumerated earlier in this thread - that should be appropriate of concern to anyone.

 

In any case, the courts have used "equal protection" not solely for its intended purpose, but as rationalization for rulings outside of their areas of authority. While true discrimination can be appropriately addressed, opposing SSM does not fall within the category of discrimination (since no right everyone else has is being denied) and so SSM supporters are being misleading in the way they're characterizing those who oppose them.

 

Then again, that seems to be pretty much SOP. Demonize us and try to turn public opinion (which is always shallow and sound-bite driven) against us.

 

So when you claim that by exercising our constitutional right at the ballot box to try to oppose a special privilege that has potential harmful effects, we are persecuting others or denying them rights, you are being totally inaccurate. We have as much right to influence public opinion as you do, and to try to deny us that right is, frankly, disturbing.

[Stone holm]

You'll notice that I used courts' and not court's in my post. That was on purpose. I've read the various decisions and come to the conclusion that the judiciary in general is overstepping their bounds on this matter. The Feds are simply continuing a long standing tradition of usurping power reserved to the states bit by bit over the years - something that has been detrimental to society as a whole. When Federal judges such as this one start overturning state laws that are outside of their constitutional authorities, they should be opposed and disciplined - something that is not going to happen, given the current arrogance of our Federal system.

 

The wording of this judge's ruling, where he makes the absurd claim that gays were being denied a right, simply demonstrates how out of touch he is with the complex issues of this case. He's trying to mandate laws by judicial fiat, and that should be a disturbing thing to anyone who values liberty and freedom.

 

Exactly, how could you possibly read the DOMA decision as the Feds usurping power over the States?  It was a portion of a Federal law that was struck down because it was held to interfere too much with the power of the States?  In fact, DOMA was initially adopted for that express purpose in reaction to a determination by a State Court of the issue based upon the Hawaiian State Constitution.  In fact, most all of the New England cases were based on State Constitutions not the Federal Constitution.

[Avatar4321]

I'm finding it increasingly odd what people think is a appropriate to say/do that limits the personal lives of other people. Why is it any of your business if two gay people want to get married? Do you also oppose gay people having driving licences?

 

The laws dont limit anything. The issue is recognition. People are free to enter and call any relationship they make anything they want. but you sure as heck dont have a right to force other people to recognize your relationship status.

[Stone holm]

Just finished reading the opinion.  The outcome is not particularly surprising.  What was surprising was the fact that the most quoted Supreme Court Justice in the opinion is Scalia.  A lot of Scalia's statements made to try and support discrimination against gays when it comes to marriage, got used against the State arguments in the case. The only major deficiencies I saw in the reasoning of the case, were that I don't think the DOMA decision can be read exactly as it was in the opinion, and I think the Court should have addressed the Full Faith and Credit issue in the case.

[rockpond]

You need to be accurate here. No one removed their ability or their right to be legally married in California. They had the same right as anyone else, within the same existing structure, and many gays chose to exercise that right in participating in mixed gender marriages. No one was denied any right, so phrasing it in the way you do is inaccurate.

 

Further, to claim as you did that we were persecuting and oppressing people because they wanted an expanded privilege that we felt would be detrimental to society and marriage, and would also be used as a bludgeon against the church, is ludicrous. I've explained those viewpoints earlier on this thread, and you might want to respond directly to those before you continue with this misrepresentation of us as persecutors. 

 

Prior to Prop 8, homosexual couples in California were able to enter legally recognized same gender marriages.  That is a fact.

 

Prop 8 removed (albeit for only a few years) their access to legally recognized same gender marraiges.  Again, that is a fact.

 

Since we played a part in that, we were the oppressors of a minority.  Speaking collectively of church membership, not individually.

[rockpond]

More rot. Since when is opposing SSM "firing a shot", as you so poorly term it? Perhaps you should read a little bit more about the hateful comments from SSM supporters against the church in the wake of Prop 8, and the demonstrated history of revenge by SSM against those who have opposed them once they've gotten the upper hand - something else that was demonstrated in California.

 

I realize that you perhaps think that no one is going to sue the church or demand revenge or demand that their marriages be recognized by the church or demand that temple sealings be performed for gay couples or that anyone who holds a viewpoint in opposition to SSM for religious reasons is going to be punished for expressing those beliefs. If so, you need to get out of your bubble and see what some gay activists are really saying, and what some court rulings are really doing when it comes to SSM. It's disturbing as a trend and cause for concern.

 

And I suspect, from what I'm reading on gay sites, that perhaps as many gays actually oppose SSM as support it, though it should be clearly evident that the vast majority of gays aren't particularly interested in getting married, since there are penalties imposed for doing so by our "enlightened" government.

 

For a little bit of a taste of what some groups want to do, go to the Affirmation web site and read their mission statement, which includes making (in their words) all aspects of the gospel (think temple sealings) available to gays in SSM situations. Think that they aren't going to use the law to sue the church? Think again.

 

Your first paragraph above reinforces the fact that we fired the first shot.  That's what prompted the "hateful comments" and the "revenge".

 

I don't doubt that some groups may try to use the legal system to seek change within the LDS church.  I am just comfortable that they won't succeed.

[Stone holm]

Prior to Prop 8, homosexual couples in California were able to enter legally recognized same gender marriages.  That is a fact.

 

Prop 8 removed (albeit for only a few years) their access to legally recognized same gender marraiges.  Again, that is a fact.

 

Since we played a part in that, we were the oppressors of a minority.  Speaking collectively of church membership, not individually.

 

That pretty much sums up the debacle.  The problem is that when people feel or believe that they are righteously fighting to control the culture of a country (or as more frequently put defending the morals of the country), the adverse impact that fight may have on others is not viewed as oppression.  Eliminating sin is the goal, and since the elimination of sin is viewed as righteousness, collateral damage to the sinners is not taken into account.  That type of thinking, of course can lead to sending out the military to to bring the Mormons back in chains and stamp out one of the two remaining forms of barbarism -- but that is old history, and history doesn't repeat itself, except when of course it does.

[rockpond]

Have you actually read the 14th amendment? I doubt it since, you misunderstand "equal protection" to think it includes "special privilege" which is what SSM actually is.

 

Evidently I need to repeat this again: gays currently have the exact same right to marry within the same structure as anyone else. Many gays take advantage of that right. The implementation of SSM is nothing more than a special privilege extended to a few for political purposes. That implementation as law has potentially significant adverse effects - as I have enumerated earlier in this thread - that should be appropriate of concern to anyone.

 

In any case, the courts have used "equal protection" not solely for its intended purpose, but as rationalization for rulings outside of their areas of authority. While true discrimination can be appropriately addressed, opposing SSM does not fall within the category of discrimination (since no right everyone else has is being denied) and so SSM supporters are being misleading in the way they're characterizing those who oppose them.

 

Then again, that seems to be pretty much SOP. Demonize us and try to turn public opinion (which is always shallow and sound-bite driven) against us.

 

So when you claim that by exercising our constitutional right at the ballot box to try to oppose a special privilege that has potential harmful effects, we are persecuting others or denying them rights, you are being totally inaccurate. We have as much right to influence public opinion as you do, and to try to deny us that right is, frankly, disturbing.

 

Read it.  And, frankly, the federal judges seem to keep agreeing with my interpretation and not yours.

 

Go ahead and stick with your argument that gays already have equal rights because they can enter heterosexual marriages.  Fewer and fewer people are buying that logic.

 

Take note, nobody is demonizing you here.  I've never replied to any of your arguments calling them "rot".  Yet you and Scott have both done that to me.

 

I believe in our constitutional right to vote at the ballot box.  I believe in the first amendment.  And I believe that the 14th amendment is there to help protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority.  And that is exactly what it did this week.

[ERayR]

That pretty much sums up the debacle.  The problem is that when people feel or believe that they are righteously fighting to control the culture of a country (or as more frequently put defending the morals of the country), the adverse impact that fight may have on others is not viewed as oppression.  Eliminating sin is the goal, and since the elimination of sin is viewed as righteousness, collateral damage to the sinners is not taken into account.  That type of thinking, of course can lead to sending out the military to to bring the Mormons back in chains and stamp out one of the two remaining forms of barbarism -- but that is old history, and history doesn't repeat itself, except when of course it does.

 

Whatever the outcome of this culture war one side or the other is going to be impacted negatively. 

[Stone holm]

Your first paragraph above reinforces the fact that we fired the first shot.  That's what prompted the "hateful comments" and the "revenge".

 

I don't doubt that some groups may try to use the legal system to seek change within the LDS church.  I am just comfortable that they won't succeed.

 

I took a gay to a funeral today.  Its pretty clear that we have since Prop 8 managed to make our collective selves public enemy No. 1 amongst the LGBT community at least from what I understood of our conversation.  Since Pope Francis has managed to get the world to quit focusing on the Catholic views regarding homosexuality and SSM, we are pretty much left standing alone there in the spotlight with the Fundamentalists.  When I tried to point out to a Jewish friend that the Church sort of sat on the sidelines this time and is being much less politically aggressive, he simply took a shot across the bow suggesting that we "defrost [Elder] Packer and [Elder] Oaks during alternate conferences to keep the pot stirred."  At this point, I have given up and just try to change the subject after suggesting that the Church is no longer politically aggressive on the issue.

[Stone holm]

Whatever the outcome of this culture war one side or the other is going to be impacted negatively. 

 

Yeah, the question is the extent of the self-inflicted wounds.  See post above.  We may well have massively increased the amount of negative impact upon ourselves, and in the process, the general consensus amongst the LGBT community is that by our actions associated with Prop 8 we actually helped their cause.  Sigh.

[rockpond]

I took a gay to a funeral today.  Its pretty clear that we have since Prop 8 managed to make our collective selves public enemy No. 1 amongst the LGBT community at least from what I understood of our conversation.  Since Pope Francis has managed to get the world to quit focusing on the Catholic views regarding homosexuality and SSM, we are pretty much left standing alone there in the spotlight with the Fundamentalists.  When I tried to point out to a Jewish friend that the Church sort of sat on the sidelines this time and is being much less politically aggressive, he simply took a shot across the bow suggesting that we "defrost [Elder] Packer and [Elder] Oaks during alternate conferences to keep the pot stirred."  At this point, I have given up and just try to change the subject after suggesting that the Church is no longer politically aggressive on the issue.

 

It seems that the church has backed away from political activity.  But listening to last general conference it's clear that we are still politically vocal on the matter.

[webbles]

Prior to Prop 8, homosexual couples in California were able to enter legally recognized same gender marriages.  That is a fact.

 

Prop 8 removed (albeit for only a few years) their access to legally recognized same gender marraiges.  Again, that is a fact.

 

Since we played a part in that, we were the oppressors of a minority.  Speaking collectively of church membership, not individually.

Well, technically, homosexual couples could not enter into legally recognized marriage until after the fateful decision of the San Francisco mayor in 2004.  Before then, California didn't allow it (because of Proposition 22).  When the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22, Prop 8 was created to overrule the California Supreme Court's decision.  If it wasn't for the San Francisco mayor, we might not have had Prop 8 and California would still be disallowing same gender marriages.

[Stargazer]

I'm finding it increasingly odd what people think is a appropriate to say/do that limits the personal lives of other people. Why is it any of your business if two gay people want to get married? Do you also oppose gay people having driving licences?

 

You're trending somewhat ridiculous here.  Driving licenses are issued to individuals.  Marriage licenses are issued to couples.  Apples/Oranges comparisons are not very persuasive.

 

It is none of my business if two persons of the same sex decide to have sex together.  It is none of my business if two persons of opposite sex decide to have sex together.  If they are all consenting-age adults, it is also not society's lookout, either.

 

Marriage, on the other hand, is not private.  It is public, for a public purpose.  Originally, the justification for marriage was the intent of the two persons involved to procreate and thereby provide for any children that resulted -- if any.  Almost all couples joined in marriage do, in fact, produce children.

 

Marriage of two men or two women cannot, for completely biological reasons, produce children, and for that very reason marriage is oxymoronic.  There's no POINT to it.  Marriage is not for declaring your committment to each other, it is not to make it cheaper to provide a roof over your head, and it is not for getting tax breaks (regardless of what the Internal Revenue Code might say this week).

 

And please don't come at me with the standard idiotic what-ifs.  LIke "what if the couple is infertile?"  "what if the man and woman are each 99 years old?"  The answer to this is "SO WHAT?"  Remember John the Baptist?  Remember Isaac son of Abraham?  Miracles happen -- or if you prefer, unexpected things happen.  We've all heard stories of couples who adopted a child after years of being unable to conceive a child, only to conceive some time later.  For some unexplained reason.  I know one such couple.  Besides, contracts of all sorts fail to produce results, even if all the parties involved try their hardest.  What about my recording contract?  Have you ever heard any of my music on the radio, or seen it in the record stores?  No?  Well, nobody liked it, so the recording contract failed to conceive anything! 

 

OK, I made up the part about my recording contract.

 

I'm all for civil unions, myself.  In Washington state our civil union law was quite nifty -- it was one of those "everything except calling it marriage" laws.  Of course that wasn;t enough.

 

And in the end, calling a petunia a rose will not change the nature of the petunia. 

[jwhitlock]

Exactly, how could you possibly read the DOMA decision as the Feds usurping power over the States?  It was a portion of a Federal law that was struck down because it was held to interfere too much with the power of the States?  In fact, DOMA was initially adopted for that express purpose in reaction to a determination by a State Court of the issue based upon the Hawaiian State Constitution.  In fact, most all of the New England cases were based on State Constitutions not the Federal Constitution.

 

Obviously missing my point. Moving on...

[jwhitlock]

Prior to Prop 8, homosexual couples in California were able to enter legally recognized same gender marriages.  That is a fact.

 

Prop 8 removed (albeit for only a few years) their access to legally recognized same gender marraiges.  Again, that is a fact.

 

Since we played a part in that, we were the oppressors of a minority.  Speaking collectively of church membership, not individually.

 

Selectively picking our facts, are we?

 

Prior to Prop 8, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman.  That was changed to provide a special privilege for gays by activist judicial fiat - not by the voice of the people. That is fact.

 

Prop 8 corrected that by putting it to the voice of the people so that it reverted back to the original definition - which was a right available to everyone, without exception. That is fact.

 

Prop 8 was the overturned again by judicial fiat, now proving that the voice of the people is irrelevant, unless it conforms to what activist judges think it should. That is fact.

 

Frankly, the whole situation was disturbing not just for how SSM proponents got the courts to foist their agenda on California, but how the voice of the people concerning a reasonable reiteration of what marriage was supposed to be was discarded by misrepresenting marriage - not just SSM - as a right that was being denied to gays. That is a fact.

 

And now you're misrepresenting us as being persecutors and oppressors in the face of those facts. I find that reprehensible.

[jwhitlock]

Your first paragraph above reinforces the fact that we fired the first shot.  That's what prompted the "hateful comments" and the "revenge".

 

I don't doubt that some groups may try to use the legal system to seek change within the LDS church.  I am just comfortable that they won't succeed.

 

You need to re-read the part where I stated you "poorly phrased" this as a first shot. The first shot was judicial activism overturning the will of the people prior to Prop 8.

 

And I also find it reprehensible that you seem to see the hate mongering against the church and its members - because they opposed SSM - as perhaps justified.

 

It's not.

 

If you don't find it justified, then you need to clearly state that, instead of mis-characterizing us as "persecutors" and "oppressors". While I recognize the methodology of SSM supporters such as yourself in demonizing those who oppose SSM, your comments are frankly over the top and unwarranted by the facts.

[jwhitlock]

Read it.  And, frankly, the federal judges seem to keep agreeing with my interpretation and not yours.

 

Go ahead and stick with your argument that gays already have equal rights because they can enter heterosexual marriages.  Fewer and fewer people are buying that logic.

 

Take note, nobody is demonizing you here.  I've never replied to any of your arguments calling them "rot".  Yet you and Scott have both done that to me.

 

I believe in our constitutional right to vote at the ballot box.  I believe in the first amendment.  And I believe that the 14th amendment is there to help protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority.  And that is exactly what it did this week.

 

Frankly, the fact that judges seem to keep agreeing with your interpretation simply means you agree with the concept of governing by judicial fiat, and not by the will of the people. I call that tyranny.

 

As to your second item, it is a fact that gays have the same right to enter into the same types of marriages that I do. The fact that, according to you, fewer and fewer people are buying into it simply means that they aren't thinking particularly deeply beyond the sound bites they're getting fed. That works in your favor, doesn't it.

 

Your third item is an outright lie. You accused those who supported Prop 8 of persecuting and oppressing the minority. That, my boy, is demonizing the opposition for your information. And that claim is indeed, pure rot.

 

Finally your fourth item simply reinforces your methodology of demonizing the opposition when you misrepresent opposition to SSM as "tyranny of the majority". It seems that whenever someone wants a special privilege, it doesn't matter to you whether it may be harmful to society or the rights of others; as long as they can characterize it as being persecuted or oppressed, some judge can properly grant whatever they want.  That's rot.

 

Basically, what I have from you is a shallow dismissal of the significant problems that can and probably will come with SSM. There is not attempt to address those concerns; there never has been by those who support SSM. That doesn't invalidate the concerns; it just makes it clear that those of you who support SSM don't really care about running roughshod over the rights of others.

 

Perhaps you'd like to address my concerns about why SSM is problematic directly, instead of presenting this kind of "gays have been persecuted by denying them SSM" fantasy. I've posted them previously on this thread, for your convenience.

[jwhitlock]

It seems that the church has backed away from political activity.  But listening to last general conference it's clear that we are still politically vocal on the matter.

 

So reiterating our doctrinal position in conference concerning homosexual behavior and SSM is only being politically vocal.

 

Maybe you don't understand that if something is wrong in the eyes of God, then His church through the prophets will speak out in warning against it. By casting this in a purely political light, you're basically claiming that clear prophetic counsel condemning those things is not of God, but is misplaced political posturing by men.

 

Thanks for giving us the viewpoint of the world in this particular situation.

[Stone holm]

You need to re-read the part where I stated you "poorly phrased" this as a first shot. The first shot was judicial activism overturning the will of the people prior to Prop 8.

 

And I also find it reprehensible that you seem to see the hate mongering against the church and its members - because they opposed SSM - as perhaps justified.

 

It's not.

 

If you don't find it justified, then you need to clearly state that, instead of mis-characterizing us as "persecutors" and "oppressors". While I recognize the methodology of SSM supporters such as yourself in demonizing those who oppose SSM, your comments are frankly over the top and unwarranted by the facts.

 

This is not hate-mongering by him, that is simply not necessary -- we have collectively drawn this down upon ourselves.  There are many churches who do not perform or accept SSMs.  Yet these churches have also recognized that they should not be trying to coerce others into accepting their positions via politics.  Telling the faithful not to do it and excommunicating them when they do is one thing, its a completely different thing to enter the political fray and endorse legislation to coerce conformance.  Cultures change over time -- in fits and starts the cultural change has been moving towards more and more individual liberty and freedom.  Sometimes that is a good thing, in fact most of the time it is a good thing, otherwise you wind up with people forcing conformance to things which sometimes defy logic -- such as Christianity destroying scholars who were saying the Earth circled the Sun rather than vice versa.  As a result, one of the major things that America has stood for despite being considered one of the most religious countries on Earth, is that we need to keep politics and religion separate.  We have not always been very good at that, until the early 1800's Massachusetts still had an established Church, and in the late 1800's there was a concerted effort to destroy Mormonism, in the first half of 20th Century anti-semitism was so strong that FDR felt constrained to hide what was going on in Europe for fear the American populace would oppose the war if they thought it was about rescuing the Jews, today there are efforts in some segments of the nation to discriminate against Muslims, -- but in general we have been fairly good about keeping the two separate.  Because of the Cold War and Marxism's aversion to religion, we began blurring the lines between religion and politics -- I think that hit hightide with Prop 8.  The point is when you start pushing religion in the political realm, eventually you get blowback, and we were at the spearpoint in this particular push -- and we should expect, humans being human, that we will take a fair amount of punishment as a result of being there.  If we pour salt in the wounds, the blowback will be even worse.

[jwhitlock]

This is not hate-mongering by him, that is simply not necessary -- we have collectively drawn this down upon ourselves.  There are many churches who do not perform or accept SSMs.  Yet these churches have also recognized that they should not be trying to coerce others into accepting their positions via politics.  Telling the faithful not to do it and excommunicating them when they do is one thing, its a completely different thing to enter the political fray and endorse legislation to coerce conformance.  Cultures change over time -- in fits and starts the cultural change has been moving towards more and more individual liberty and freedom.  Sometimes that is a good thing, in fact most of the time it is a good thing, otherwise you wind up with people forcing conformance to things which sometimes defy logic -- such as Christianity destroying scholars who were saying the Earth circled the Sun rather than vice versa.  As a result, one of the major things that America has stood for despite being considered one of the most religious countries on Earth, is that we need to keep politics and religion separate.  We have not always been very good at that, until the early 1800's Massachusetts still had an established Church, and in the late 1800's there was a concerted effort to destroy Mormonism, in the first half of 20th Century anti-semitism was so strong that FDR felt constrained to hide what was going on in Europe for fear the American populace would oppose the war if they thought it was about rescuing the Jews, today there are efforts in some segments of the nation to discriminate against Muslims, -- but in general we have been fairly good about keeping the two separate.  Because of the Cold War and Marxism's aversion to religion, we began blurring the lines between religion and politics -- I think that hit hightide with Prop 8.  The point is when you start pushing religion in the political realm, eventually you get blowback, and we were at the spearpoint in this particular push -- and we should expect, humans being human, that we will take a fair amount of punishment as a result of being there.  If we pour salt in the wounds, the blowback will be even worse.

 

A couple of points here to remind you of the nature of a church belonging to God that is led by prophets:

 

- Prophets are going to speak out on issues as directed by God, even if they are unpopular with the world. That's the way it always has been; the opposition of the world is irrelevant when it determining if the church is doing something right or not.

- What rockpond is doing is indeed demonizing the opposition when he falsely characterizes us as persecutors and oppressors. It's not justified in this case for reasons I have stated previously in this thread - reasons which you and others choose to ignore.

- Characterizing Prop 8 or other issues the church speaks out on as only "coerc[ing] conformance" is false. It's another mischaracterization that SSM supporters use in their arguments.

- There is a fine line between keeping undue religious influence out of politics and denying those of religious faith a voice in the public arena. The judicial fiats involved with SSM that are being discussed here clearly cross the line into latter territory, and NOT the former. Again, this is another mis-characterization of SSM supporters.

- If you think that we're moving in general towards more individual liberty and freedom in this country, then you're existing in an alternate reality. Government mandates have become steadily more repressive and the very possible effect of SSM will be a curtailment of religious freedom in this country.

- You need to be very, very careful about even inferring that those who are going to try to punish us for our beliefs and opposition to SSM are in any way justified in their actions. To infer in any way that we deserve what we get because we took a stand on a moral issue that has potential negative impact for us and for marriage in general from a legal standpoint is disturbing and wrong.

- Apparently you and rockpond think that somehow we "pour salt in the wounds" by continuing to make clear our doctrinal opposition to SSM. Evidently you think we need to just "shut up" about the subject since it's unpopular with the world.  Evidently God disagrees with you since the prophetic counsel on the subject continues to be very clear in opposition to your worldview. I for one am glad to continue to receive clear direction concerning what the position of God is on the subject and I don't particularly care if the world likes it or not.

[Stone holm]

A couple of points here to remind you of the nature of a church belonging to God that is led by prophets:

 

- Prophets are going to speak out on issues as directed by God, even if they are unpopular with the world. That's the way it always has been; the opposition of the world is irrelevant when it determining if the church is doing something right or not.

- What rockpond is doing is indeed demonizing the opposition when he falsely characterizes us as persecutors and oppressors. It's not justified in this case for reasons I have stated previously in this thread - reasons which you and others choose to ignore.

- Characterizing Prop 8 or other issues the church speaks out on as only "coerc[ing] conformance" is false. It's another mischaracterization that SSM supporters use in their arguments.

- There is a fine line between keeping undue religious influence out of politics and denying those of religious faith a voice in the public arena. The judicial fiats involved with SSM that are being discussed here clearly cross the line into latter territory, and NOT the former. Again, this is another mis-characterization of SSM supporters.

- If you think that we're moving in general towards more individual liberty and freedom in this country, then you're existing in an alternate reality. Government mandates have become steadily more repressive and the very possible effect of SSM will be a curtailment of religious freedom in this country.

- You need to be very, very careful about even inferring that those who are going to try to punish us for our beliefs and opposition to SSM are in any way justified in their actions. To infer in any way that we deserve what we get because we took a stand on a moral issue that has potential negative impact for us and for marriage in general from a legal standpoint is disturbing and wrong.

- Apparently you and rockpond think that somehow we "pour salt in the wounds" by continuing to make clear our doctrinal opposition to SSM. Evidently you think we need to just "shut up" about the subject since it's unpopular with the world.  Evidently God disagrees with you since the prophetic counsel on the subject continues to be very clear in opposition to your worldview. I for one am glad to continue to receive clear direction concerning what the position of God is on the subject and I don't particularly care if the world likes it or not.

 

Like I said, the perspective of whether something constitutes "persecution" depends upon your perspective as to whether you are wielding a "sword of righteousness".  I'll leave it up to God to make that judgment as to who is right or who is wrong, and as to whether it was an inspired move to nudge the Saints to get involved politically with the Prop 8 movement from the pulpit at Conference.  Perhaps it was, perhaps the Lord wanted to bring down the wrath of many Americans down upon His people, maybe He wanted to alienate the moderates who had no particular sympathy for the LGBT cause at the time -- given the way it played out, somehow I don't think so.  But you could be right, perhaps He intended us to actually give the LG cause a popularity boost -- I don't know, but am highly skeptical.