Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?

[Stone holm]

Perhaps you didn't hear that gays were marrying in certain religions prior to it being legally sanctioned in a few states. So much for imposing religious beliefs. Sorry, but you will have to find a much better and less obvious canard upon which to ply your inanity.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So gays marrying in certain Religions before it was legal in that State imposes their religion on me how? The whole argument that SSM somehow violates our religious freedom simply put is bogus. It has no impact on our religious freedom, but imposing our religious beliefs on others to prevent them from getting married most certainly does violate their religious freedom.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My personal viewpoint, *if* the government were able to prove an overriding interest for society, the decision was justified.  But I question whether that condition was met.

I don't question that, the simply have not provided any evidence for it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So gays marrying in certain Religions before it was legal in that State imposes their religion on me how?

You might want to read what Wade acutally wrote. I have no idea what you are questiong here. I can only assume that you either didnt read what Wade wrote or simply didnt comprehend it. And I am not trying to be snarky here.

[rockpond]

You say you grasp the critical difference, but demonstrate otherwise with this last convoluted claim. Religious freedom doesn't entail legal recognition/promotion of religious beliefs and practices. Rather, it entails limiting legal restrictions on religious beliefs and practices. Do you now grasp the critical difference?

 

If not, let's use an example to illustrate the difference. There are some religions that use marijuana as part of their religious worship. Since marijuana is illegal in most states, such laws are an infringement of the religious liberty to smoke marijuana as a part of religious worship. Whereas, in those states where marijuana usage is permitted, the states tend not actively promote marijuana smoking through tax exemptions and government benefits. The lack of state promotion of marijuana is NOT a violation of religious freedom. Rather, it is the exercise of state right to promote its own interests (i.e. its people's interest).

 

Do you comprehend?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You are correct, I should have said "constitutional protections" not "religious freedoms".

 

So we agree that if our church, the LDS church, were to lose its ability to perform legally recognized marriages in the temples, it would NOT be a violation of our religious freedoms?  Correct?

[rockpond]

Right or wrong doesn't enter into it. It does show that the government has and will use it's coercive power to try to force institutions to give up their moral views when the government has decided those views go against public policy. The case cited in the OP of Bob Jones is much more recent and much more likely to be cited than Reynolds, but even though Reynolds would possibly turn out differently today, until or unless overturned, remains a valid precedent for courts to use. 

 

I agree that the government has used coercive power in violation of the constitution and Reynolds is an example.  I also stated, early on in this thread, that the Bob Jones precedent should be a concern for BYU (and church members who want to maintain it as is).

 

So I think we agree on those points.  I was just highlighting the irony you pointed out how we were once the victims of a public outcry against non-traditional marriage.  Now we have become the ones who are decrying the non-traditional marriage desires of another minority.

 

I wonder where things would stand right now if we had, rather, stood up and said:  give marriage equality to gay/lesbian couples because everyone should enjoy equal protection under the law.

[wenglund]

No; there has to be an overriding public interest(stake) in restricting religious expression. You can't use your religious freedom to shout FIRE in a crowed theater unless there is a actual fire. You can use freedom of religion to pack 100 people into a room designed for 50.

 

Yes SS couples are routinely denied their right to marriage and cohabit by law. I just find no overriding public interest(stake) in restricting it by law. It is long past time to get marriage, a religious ceremony, out of government entirely out of religion. Make them all legally enforceable contracts.

 

Operating any business is a function of the state. You have to apply to the state for a business license and agree to follow all the laws and regulations governing that business. You can be fined and/or sent to jail for not following them.

 

PS; Discrimination of the bases of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, and sex, is illegal in all states and the US government. Sexual orientation is being added to more and more states as we speak.

 

See my post above. While there are certain limits to religious freedom in the U.S., those limits have to do with government prohibitions, not government promotions. Logically, religious freedoms are not infringed by the government not promoting religious beliefs. The religious freedom to baptize is not being infringed by states not promoting, through licensing, baptisms. The same, in principle, is true for gay weddings. Religions are free to perform them as they choose.  Their freedom isn't infringed by states rights to freely choose not to promote/license them a "marriages."

 

However, there is a critical difference between marital licenses and business licenses. Not having a marital license doesn't prevent couples from engaging in relationships or even being married, whereas not having a business license prevents businesses from engaging in business. Hence, not licensing the one, doesn't limit religious freedom, whereas not licensing the other may.

 

Lastly, this isn't really a question of discrimination, but definitions. People have mistakenly muddled the two. Legally defining "marriage" as "between a man and a woman," which differentiates it from gay and other types of relationships, ought to be as constitutional as defining "male" as differentiated from "female," or "African-American" as differentiated from "Caucasian," or "Car" as differentiated from "motorcycle," or "minor" as differentiated from "adult," etc. etc.

 

What will it take for people to finally get this?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Buzzard]

 

I wonder where things would stand right now if we had, rather, stood up and said:  give marriage equality to gay/lesbian couples because everyone should enjoy equal protection under the law.

Well, according to the brethren, we would be in opposition to God's revealed knowledge on the subject. (Yes, I know you don't agree that he has revealed this.)

[rockpond]

Well, according to the brethren, we would be in opposition to God's revealed knowledge on the subject. (Yes, I know you don't agree that he has revealed this.)

 

Yes, so instead of being in opposition to what you believe God revealed on the subject we are standing in violation of Section 134.

 

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

[wenglund]

So gays marrying in certain Religions before it was legal in that State imposes their religion on me how?

 

It doesn't. It demonstrates that, contrary to what some have erroneously suggested here, certain religions are not being imposed upon by other religions when states chose not to diametrically mangle the legal definition of marriage.

 

The whole argument that SSM somehow violates our religious freedom simply put is bogus.

 

In a direct sense, I agree, though I don't see anyone proffering that argument--I certainly haven't. The infringement on religious freedom isn't directly through diametrically mangling the definition of marriage, but through the inane and ironic application of "equality" laws.

 

It has no impact on our religious freedom, but imposing our religious beliefs on others to prevent them from getting married most certainly does violate their religious freedom.

 

Since religions are not prevented from performing gays wedding, and religious gays are not legally prevented from entering into gay relationships according to their religious beliefs, and are not being prevented from cohabitating or viewing their relationships as marriages or whatever they like according to their religious views, their religious freedoms are not being violated. They are free to do as they religiously please.

 

But, as iterated and reiterated, their religious freedom doesn't obligate the state to promote or accept or establish their religious beliefs about marriage. Their religious freedom does not give them the right to violate the state's/people's right not to diametrically mangle the definition of marriage or to promote relationships in their best interest.

 

I realize that people don't generally get this, and have chosen to view things otherwise, and so there is not much else for me to do than sit back and watch the asinine unfold and periodically spit into the wind--as the case may be here.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

But, as iterated and reiterated, their religious freedom doesn't obligate the state to promote or accept or establish their religious beliefs about marriage. Their religious freedom does not give them the right to violate the state's/people's right not to diametrically mangle the definition of marriage or to promote relationships in their best interest.

 

I realize that people don't generally get this, and have chosen to view things otherwise, and so there is not much else for me to do than sit back and watch the asinine unfold and periodically spit into the wind--as the case may be here.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am quite confident that people simply did not get your mary jane anology. I thought it was quite apt for this discussion and hits at home the diffence between being legal with in a religous setting and being promoted.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

You are correct, I should have said "constitutional protections" not "religious freedoms".

 

So we agree that if our church, the LDS church, were to lose its ability to perform legally recognized marriages in the temples, it would NOT be a violation of our religious freedoms?  Correct?

 

Correct. Nor would it violate our constitutional protections. As long as the government doesn't prevent us from performing non-recognized marriages (or sealings or whatever), our religious and constitutional freedoms are not violated. We, as a religion, do not have a religious or constitutional right obligating the state to recognized or promoted or religious beliefs. Rather, our religious and constitutional right is to be reasonably free from government infringement of the exercise of our belief.

 

In short, constitutionally, the freedom to exercise our belief does NOT obligate the state to establish our religious beliefs.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 21, 2014 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

What will it take for people to finally get this?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Now that is the million dollar question. Not sure what it is but there is something in people's minds that literally prevents them from seeing it. And I am not trying ot have some sort of complex here.

[rockpond]

It doesn't. It demonstrates that, contrary to what some have erroneously suggested here, certain religions are not being imposed upon by other religions when states chose not to diametrically mangle the legal definition of marriage.

 

It also demonstrates that certain religions are receiving preferential treatment under the law in that weddings performed by their clergy can receive legal recognition.

 

I realize that you disagree with this due to your reasons as to why man/woman marriage should receive preferential legal recognition.  But courts are continuing to rule that lack of legal recognition of gay marriages presents a 14th amendment violation.

 

I know that I will not/can not convince you of this so I'm not interested in debating it.  I'm just saying that I believe our church's efforts against SSM may come back to haunt us.

[rockpond]

Correct. Nor would it violate our constitutional protections. As long as the government doesn't prevent us from performing non-recognized marriage (or sealings or whatever), our religious and constitutional freedoms are not violated. We, as a religion, do not have a religious or constitutional right obligating the state to recognized or promoted or religious beliefs. Rather, our religious and constitutional right is to be reasonably free from government infringement of the exercise of our belief.

 

In short, constitutionally, the freedom to exercise our belief does NOT obligate the state to establish our religious beliefs.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Did you mean to have the "NOT" inserted in your last sentence above?

 

If so, I agree with what you've written above with one exception:  If the government is going to recognize marriages performed by some churches and not recognize those performed by other churches, I believe we have a 14th amendment violation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It also demonstrates that certain religions are receiving preferential treatment under the law in that weddings performed by their clergy can receive legal recognition.

 

I realize that you disagree with this due to your reasons as to why man/woman marriage should receive preferential legal recognition.  But courts are continuing to rule that lack of legal recognition of gay marriages presents a 14th amendment violation.

 

I know that I will not/can not convince you of this so I'm not interested in debating it.  I'm just saying that I believe our church's efforts against SSM may come back to haunt us.

Currious, would you be in favor of the government not recognizing any marriages?

[rockpond]

Currious, would you be in favor of the government not recognizing any marriages?

 

Yes, I would be in favor of the term "marriage" being given back to the realm of religion and using something akin to "civil union" for all couples seeking legal recognition of their unions.

[wenglund]

Did you mean to have the "NOT" inserted in your last sentence above?

 

Yes.

 

 

 

If so, I agree with what you've written above with one exception:  If the government is going to recognize marriages performed by some churches and not recognize those performed by other churches, I believe we have a 14th amendment violation.

 

It is not a matter of the government giving recognition based on which religions perform this or that. The legislatures tend not to pole the various churches to determine what they believe and practice, nor do or don't enact laws according. Rather, particularly in regards to promotional government recognition, they assess and legislate based on state interest.

 

In the U.S., we don't necessarily license, as medical doctors, people who are faith healers, medicine men, acupuncturists, etc., even though there are religions which believe in such things, and even though there are medical doctors in some faiths, but not others. Instead, we set licensing requirement according to what will best serve the health of our people.

 

The point being, laws in general, and promotional laws in particular, ought not be established based on whether something is a religious practice or not, or whether the law may unequally fit the practice of some religions and not others, but whether the law is in the interest of the people.

 

Why we forget all this when it comes to deciding about diametrically mangling the definition of marriage or not, is quite puzzling to me.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 21, 2014 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, I would be in favor of the term "marriage" being given back to the realm of religion and using something akin to "civil union" for all couples seeking legal recognition of their unions.

I think we are in agreement. I think this is the proper course that should happen. The only word I would get rid of is legal. BUt it really doesn't matter much, just semantics.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Stone holm]

It doesn't. It demonstrates that, contrary to what some have erroneously suggested here, certain religions are not being imposed upon by other religions when states chose not to diametrically mangle the legal definition of marriage.

 

 

 

 

In a direct sense, I agree, though I don't see anyone proffering that argument--I certainly haven't. The infringement on religious freedom isn't directly through diametrically mangling the definition of marriage, but through the inane and ironic application of "equality" laws.

 

 

 

 

Since religions are not prevented from performing gays wedding, and religious gays are not legally prevented from entering into gay relationships according to their religious beliefs, and are not being prevented from cohabitating or viewing their relationships as marriages or whatever they like according to their religious views, their religious freedoms are not being violated. They are free to do as they religiously please.

 

But, as iterated and reiterated, their religious freedom doesn't obligate the state to promote or accept or establish their religious beliefs about marriage. Their religious freedom does not give them the right to violate the state's/people's right not to diametrically mangle the definition of marriage or to promote relationships in their best interest.

 

I realize that people don't generally get this, and have chosen to view things otherwise, and so there is not much else for me to do than sit back and watch the asinine unfold and periodically spit into the wind--as the case may be here.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Not sure there is any Constitutional protection of definitions as far as I know, there may however be a Constitutional prohibition against using definitions to deny persons rights and privileges.  That has yet to be determined by SCOTUS, don't think they or any Court is going to give much weight to protecting a definition.

[mcjathan]

Can a nation who doesn't offer tax-exempt status to churches still claim to offer and foster religious freedom?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Can a nation who doesn't offer tax-exempt status to churches still claim to offer and foster religious freedom?

Depends on who is running the IRS and setting up the rules. But ultimately no. It can't.

[Stone holm]

Can a nation who doesn't offer tax-exempt status to churches still claim to offer and foster religious freedom?

 

Good question.  I suspect the answer is yes, but not offering them tax exempt status is going to get the government more entangled with religion than offering them tax exempt status -- so my guess is that for the most part we are going to let buildings devoted strictly to religious worship skate free.  As a result Temples and Chapels are not going to get taxed.  Will other properties get taxed like Universities and granaries, etc.  Not clear.  However, our religious universities have become so essential to our economy -- that I doubt that any effort is going to be taken in that direction, except those who carry truly disgusting baggage along with them may be in danger.  Bob Jones University was so disgusting that nearly every Presidential Wannabe up until Reagan had avoided the place like the plague.  So the longer this culture war goes on, and the weirder the arguments are that are made, the more likely that the tide will turn crushingly against us on the issue.  When the nudge in favor of Prop 8 was made at Conference, the Marriots were very, very quick to point out that they had nothing to do with it and it was no part of their company or corporate policy.  One of my sons indicated that people in the corporate ladders were busily scrubbing anything in the resumes which would identify them with the Church, etc.  Everytime we win or lose a high profile battle on this subject, ultimately we lose, and we make it more likely that things will eventually rebound badly against us.  IMNSHO we would be much better off if we just quit stirring the pot, stick with our values quietly make sure that everyone understands that the Lord does not approve of homosexual activity period, and move on -- we would be respected for our position and gain greater credibility.  The alternative is that we keep trumpeting our position and trying to force others to live our standards by legislation, which will eventually be unsuccessful and then we wind up in the same category as the Conservative Southern Evangelicals as written off as a bunch of cranks accompanied by the b word.  But making those decisions is way above my ecclesiastical pay grade.

[Mystery Meat]

It also demonstrates that certain religions are receiving preferential treatment under the law in that weddings performed by their clergy can receive legal recognition.

 

I realize that you disagree with this due to your reasons as to why man/woman marriage should receive preferential legal recognition.  But courts are continuing to rule that lack of legal recognition of gay marriages presents a 14th amendment violation.

 

I know that I will not/can not convince you of this so I'm not interested in debating it.  I'm just saying that I believe our church's efforts against SSM may come back to haunt us.

 

There is little doubt in my mind that they will come back to haunt the Church if they haven't already. But the Book of Mormon is pretty clear about what happens to those who reject the prophets. That will come back to haunt the world.

[wenglund]

Not sure there is any Constitutional protection of definitions as far as I know, there may however be a Constitutional prohibition against using definitions to deny persons rights and privileges. 

 

Any legal definition, by its very nature, sets the boundaries for the law and the rights and privileges conferred thereby, while denying  the same rights and privileges otherwise. The word "citizen" sets the bounds for laws related to citizenship, and establishes which people have rights and privileges as citizens (as traditionally defined), while effectively denying the same rights and privileges to persons who are not citizens. The same is true for the terms "adult" and "minor," Laws that apply to adults give rights and privileges to people who qualify under the definition of  "adult," and deny those rights and privileges to people that are minors. The legal term "person" or "people," and the laws related thereto, confer rights and privileges to those who qualify under the definition of "people," and deny rights and privileges to other animals. The word "poor" conveys certain rights and privileges to poor people, and deny those right to the rich.

 

I could go on and on. The point being, legal definitions, by their very nature, confer and deny people rights and privileges. It is unavoidable. If definitions are ruled unconstitutional on the basis that they deny rights and privileges, then virtually no legal definition would pass constitutional muster. The very thought makes reason stare--for, the legal term "constitutional" is, itself, defined in such a way as to both confer and deny rights and privileges.

 

California is grappling bizarrely with the legal definition issue on another, though related front besides Prop 8, The state legislature has attempted to change the legal definition of "male" and "female" in such a way as to alter who has rights and privileges to women's bathrooms and locker rooms and dorms. Is there no end to the madness?

 

But, this is what it has come down to when people abandon common sense and good judgement and a rational grasp of language and have selectively made mangling the definition of marriage and other important terms a confused product of a muddled view of "equality."

 

 

 

That has yet to be determined by SCOTUS, don't think they or any Court is going to give much weight to protecting a definition.

 

From what I can tell, the ruling majority on the Supreme Court have been so confounded by the legal wranglings that they haven't a clue that it is essentially about legal definitions, and that the 5th and 14th Amendments were never intended to challenge legal definitions. Such inanity. But, what can be done?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 22, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Good question.  I suspect the answer is yes, but not offering them tax exempt status is going to get the government more entangled with religion than offering them tax exempt status -- so my guess is that for the most part we are going to let buildings devoted strictly to religious worship skate free.  As a result Temples and Chapels are not going to get taxed.  Will other properties get taxed like Universities and granaries, etc.  Not clear.  However, our religious universities have become so essential to our economy -- that I doubt that any effort is going to be taken in that direction, except those who carry truly disgusting baggage along with them may be in danger.  Bob Jones University was so disgusting that nearly every Presidential Wannabe up until Reagan had avoided the place like the plague.  So the longer this culture war goes on, and the weirder the arguments are that are made, the more likely that the tide will turn crushingly against us on the issue.  When the nudge in favor of Prop 8 was made at Conference, the Marriots were very, very quick to point out that they had nothing to do with it and it was no part of their company or corporate policy.  One of my sons indicated that people in the corporate ladders were busily scrubbing anything in the resumes which would identify them with the Church, etc.  Everytime we win or lose a high profile battle on this subject, ultimately we lose, and we make it more likely that things will eventually rebound badly against us.  IMNSHO we would be much better off if we just quit stirring the pot, stick with our values quietly make sure that everyone understands that the Lord does not approve of homosexual activity period, and move on -- we would be respected for our position and gain greater credibility.  The alternative is that we keep trumpeting our position and trying to force others to live our standards by legislation, which will eventually be unsuccessful and then we wind up in the same category as the Conservative Southern Evangelicals as written off as a bunch of cranks accompanied by the b word.  But making those decisions is way above my ecclesiastical pay grade.

 

Yes, social and political expediency should always prevail over virtue and efficacy--or so it is suggested by my liberal acquaintances. I passionately believe otherwise. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-