Are The Leaders Becoming More Bold?

[Robert F. Smith]

With the mayor of Houston moving to subpoena the sermons of local pastors, private organizations being required to provide services their members don't believe in, and federal agents placing moles in Muslim congregations, the affirmation of our First Amendment rights is timely.

Affirmation?  Is there a veiled message there?   

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................................  

..................................................  It's a choice between unmarried gay couples and married gay couples.  Isn't the latter better for society, even if only incrementally?

Probably.

[The Nehor]

I completely agree with you.  I have never had a good answer from anyone explaining why forcing a gay couple to shack up together is more moral than allowing them to be in a committed married relationship.  

 

Careful with that because there are two ways it could go. The way you want it to and the conclusion that all gays should be locked up to keep them from shacking up together.

[Robert F. Smith]

Are The Leaders Becoming More Bold?

.......................................................  

....................................    Something appears to have embolden the Leaders of the Church to now feel safe in speaking directly and specifically on political issues.

LDS leaders were much bolder in the distant past, with the Prophet himself running for the Presidency.

 

Indeed, past LDS leaders frequently got themselves into hot water by speaking their minds and acting boldly.  And each time we got run out of town, until we had to leave the confines of the good old USA.  Mormons have been a good deal quieter for the past hundred years, their leaders having learned to accommodate themselves to American normalcy.  However, the LDS Church having grown tremendously in success and power, some leaders may have decided that the old go-along-to-get-along approach is no longer advisable.

[BCSpace]

Something appears to have embolden the Leaders of the Church to now feel safe in speaking directly and specifically on political issues.

 

Yes.  They continue to imply, while one is free to vote one's conscience, their desire that we all vote based on the doctrine we profess to believe.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

It has been only 6 years since Elder Clayton made those statements about Prop 8.  It is really interesting to read what he said in todays perspective.  And even more interesting to read some of the comments people left at the time.  Some ended up being quite prophetic.

 

 

The issue that Cinepro brought up.  How does the church decide what is a moral issue that need political involvement and what isn't.

 

It took less than a decade.

 

 

The political fall out worldwide for the church has not been good.

 

 

Indeed, it is the first time a proposition took away someone's civil rights.  It took 5 years for the courts to correct this vote of the majority taking away the civil rights of the minority.

 

 

It is taken way less than 30 years for the majority of the population to support gay marriage. 

 

 

The courts ended up agreeing with this poster.

 

 

A feeling that seems to be growing among members, not diminishing.

 

 

The courts ended up agreeing with him.  I wonder why the churches legal department or at least Dallin Oaks did not see this coming.  It seems pretty fundamental even to this poster.

 

I wonder how many members feel the same way about Prop 8 as they did when this article was posted.  

 

One of the posters you cited claimed, as a Mormon, that "we oppressed the African-American population so mindlessly," which is false, and accompanies a lot of other false assumptions about who Mormons are, what they do, and what they believe.

 

Most Mormons live outside the USA (as they did during the Prop 8 campaign).  But even those few living in California did nothing more than exercise their political rights to peacefully campaign for a proposition they believed in, then voting for it.  Many of them were punished mindlessly for that exercise of democratic rights.  Is that tolerance?

 

Many of the posters seemed to think that same sex marriage is becoming more and more acceptable in society.  However, tolerance doesn't necessarily mean that people favor something.  Rather, they may be less opposed to others exercising their constitutional rights.  That is what tolerance typically means.  I don't favor drinking booze, or the use of other drugs, but I am very tolerant of the legalization of booze and of the various illegal drugs.  Why?  I don't consider such practices to be good, but I think it even more problematic to make recreational drug use illegal.  That is tolerance.  Tolerance can mean the lesser of the evils.  Tolerance can mean that I don't wish to force my value judgments upon others.  I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (Evelyn Beatrice Hall).  That is real Tolerance.

[california boy]

One of the posters you cited claimed, as a Mormon, that "we oppressed the African-American population so mindlessly," which is false, and accompanies a lot of other false assumptions about who Mormons are, what they do, and what they believe.

 

Most Mormons live outside the USA (as they did during the Prop 8 campaign).  But even those few living in California did nothing more than exercise their political rights to peacefully campaign for a proposition they believed in, then voting for it.  Many of them were punished mindlessly for that exercise of democratic rights.  Is that tolerance?

 

Many of the posters seemed to think that same sex marriage is becoming more and more acceptable in society.  However, tolerance doesn't necessarily mean that people favor something.  Rather, they may be less opposed to others exercising their constitutional rights.  That is what tolerance typically means.  I don't favor drinking booze, or the use of other drugs, but I am very tolerant of the legalization of booze and of the various illegal drugs.  Why?  I don't consider such practices to be good, but I think it even more problematic to make recreational drug use illegal.  That is tolerance.  Tolerance can mean the lesser of the evils.  Tolerance can mean that I don't wish to force my value judgments upon others.  I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (Evelyn Beatrice Hall).  That is real Tolerance.

 

I agree with you on all counts.

 

Mormons don't like it when others misrepresent them.  I have seen a lot of that towards gay people by church members as well.  It is unfair and not honest for both sides to be misrepresented.

 

Mormons, like everyone else, has a right to participate in the political process.  I just wish that more had the same view of what tolerance means when taking up a cause that took away the civil rights of gays.  Especially when the church values so highly its own rights that are protected by that same constitution.  

[DaddyB]

Yesterday, a letter from the First Presidency was read. The topic was politics. An interesting statement was included at the close of the letter:

 

"The Church also affirms its Constitutional right of free expression on political and social issues."

 

The Church has consistantly maintained a right to speak out on "moral issues"; many LDS maintain that same sex marriage issue the Church spoke out about were "moral issue" and not political. The inclusion of "political" seems a new stance.  Something appears to have embolden the Leaders of the Church to now feel safe in speaking directly and specifically on political issues.

I suspect this change in wording does not change the meaning, but simply clarifies the meaning in previous statements. Many moral issues, such as same sex marriage, are indeed political issues. Any time a political figure takes a position on such issues it becomes a political issue. For this reason many and perhaps most would classify these issues as political.

 

The Brethren may seem to become more bold in certain issues as the needs of society change, but I don't see that they are any more bold in general than the church has been in the past. They speak out in different ways and degrees based on the issue and the circumstances at the time.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................................  

 

Mormons, like everyone else, has a right to participate in the political process.  I just wish that more had the same view of what tolerance means when taking up a cause that took away the civil rights of gays.  Especially when the church values so highly its own rights that are protected by that same constitution.  

The law was clearly in flux at that point in time, while we can look back  now with plenty of perspective on where all this is going, and it will not end with same sex marriage being part of the supreme law of the land.  We will see a great many other forms of non-traditional marriage (including polygyny) made legal.

 

When Prop. 8 was being debated, Black Churches, Roman Catholic Churches, along with Evangelicals and Mormons, were united in their desire to see only marriage between a man & a woman permitted.  They did not foresee that the Proposition which they worked hard to pass would be challenged in court and defeated.  Many of them did not think that the recent decision of a judge permitting SSM was in fact normative (condemning it as judge made law), and they reasoned that an initiative by the people would override it.  None of them believed that any civil rights had been taken from gays in that instance simply because the law had not yet been established by the U. S. Supreme Court.  I think that we both know where that Court will finally go on this question.

[california boy]

That is kinda a hard position to justify with the facts of what was actually happening.  I helped work on the No on Prop 8 campaign. The campaign clearly was a campaign concerning civil rights.  I remember clearly making numerous phone calls for the no campaign talking to people about how Prop 8 took away civil rights from gays.  To pretend that this idea of Prop 8 taking away civil rights as a new idea is clearly revisionary writing.  Either you didn't hear a single ad from the no on 8 campaign or you are in complete denial.  I hate this kind of revisionary version of what was actually going on.  

 

It is not surprise to anyone that as soon as the vote was in, there was going to be a challenge in the courts over this vote.  You can't possibly tell me that Elder Oaks and most lawyers would not have seen this as a violation of equal protection laws that are clearly protected in the Constitution.  Are you really suggesting that the legal attorneys on either side did not think this proposition would be contested in the courts??  I even quoted one of the people who commented on the Deseret News article brought this up.

 

Anonymous

You can hide your hatred behind your religion as long as you like, it's a long held tradition of every controlling entity. 

You can flex the financial muscle of your religion as much as you like, it's a long held tradition of every business entity

You cannot take away civil rights. The courts will overturn this discrimination as illegal. Again.

Perhaps Mormons might consider the persecution of your their own people and ponder how that relates. 

Minority rights cannot be determined by the majority and will always be protected by the courts. 

Otherwise A black man could never have been elected President last night, I am sure that upsets Mormons greatly.

 

 

 

 

Like the person who wrote this comment 6 years ago immediately after Prop 8 passed stated, the churches legal department certainly must have known that the campaign the church so fully embraced took away the civil rights of gay Americans.  Heck, I knew, as did every person fighting on the no campaign that the church was willing to fight for a cause that took away those civil rights while hoping that same constitution would protect their religious liberty.  

 

And don't give me this "a judge permitting SSM was in fact  "a judge made law"   Over 40 federal and district judges have determined that not allowing gay marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause in the Constitution.  This isn't even a gray area.  It is a unanimous consensus.  It is not like the rulings of these courts is a big surprise.  The Supreme Court has in the past clearly established that marriage is a fundamental right and as such can not be denied by a vote of the people.  They have ruled on this issue 14 times in the past.

 

 

 1.            Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): 
Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923):

2.            The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942):

3.            Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965):

4.            “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):

5.            “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):

6.            “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):

7.            “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality):

8.            “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):

9.            “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):

10.        “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):

11.        “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):

12.        “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):

13.        “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):

14.        “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

  

 

I can understand how the masses were unclear about this issue.  They aren't lawyers.  But anyone with any kind of legal expertise certainly must have known there were major constitutional issues in passing Prop 8.  It would be very difficult for me to buy the idea that the church did not consult their legal department about what equal protection laws prop 8 was violating since that was the major political message given by the No on 8 campaign.  Yet the church still went ahead leading an agressive campaign because they thought they could get away with it.  While the church so clearly wants to rely on the protection of the Constitution to protect their religious liberties, the church was willing to be a major participant in taking away anothers Constitutional rights.  That is what is so shameful and what people will remember most about what the church did.  There is a big difference between having a moral issue with gay marriage and activally taking away a citizens guaranteed constitutional rights.

Edited October 31, 2014 by california boy

[Storm Rider]

That is kinda a hard position to justify with the facts of what was actually happening.  I helped work on the No on Prop 8 campaign. The campaign clearly was a campaign concerning civil rights.  I remember clearly making numerous phone calls for the no campaign talking to people about how Prop 8 took away civil rights from gays.  To pretend that this idea of Prop 8 taking away civil rights as a new idea is clearly revisionary writing.  Either you didn't hear a single ad from the no on 8 campaign or you are in complete denial.  I hate this kind of revisionary version of what was actually going on.  

 

It is not surprise to anyone that as soon as the vote was in, there was going to be a challenge in the courts over this vote.  You can't possibly tell me that Elder Oaks and most lawyers would not have seen this as a violation of equal protection laws that are clearly protected in the Constitution.  Are you really suggesting that the legal attorneys on either side did not think this proposition would be contested in the courts??  I even quoted one of the people who commented on the Deseret News article brought this up.

 

 

 

Like the person who wrote this comment 6 years ago immediately after Prop 8 passed stated, the churches legal department certainly must have known that the campaign the church so fully embraced took away the civil rights of gay Americans.  Heck, I knew, as did every person fighting on the no campaign that the church was willing to fight for a cause that took away those civil rights while hoping that same constitution would protect their religious liberty.  

 

And don't give me this "a judge permitting SSM was in fact  "a judge made law"   Over 40 federal and district judges have determined that not allowing gay marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause in the Constitution.  This isn't even a gray area.  It is a unanimous consensus.  It is not like the rulings of these courts is a big surprise.  The Supreme Court has in the past clearly established that marriage is a fundamental right and as such can not be denied by a vote of the people.  They have ruled on this issue 14 times in the past.

 

 

 1.            Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): 
Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923):

2.            The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942):

3.            Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965):

4.            “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):

5.            “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):

6.            “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):

7.            “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality):

8.            “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):

9.            “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):

10.        “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):

11.        “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):

12.        “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):

13.        “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):

14.        “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

  

 

I can understand how the masses were unclear about this issue.  They aren't lawyers.  But anyone with any kind of legal expertise certainly must have known there were major constitutional issues in passing Prop 8.  It would be very difficult for me to buy the idea that the church did not consult their legal department about what equal protection laws prop 8 was violating since that was the major political message given by the No on 8 campaign.  Yet the church still went ahead leading an agressive campaign because they thought they could get away with it.  While the church so clearly wants to rely on the protection of the Constitution to protect their religious liberties, the church was willing to be a major participant in taking away anothers Constitutional rights.  That is what is so shameful and what people will remember most about what the church did.  There is a big difference between having a moral issue with gay marriage and activally taking away a citizens guaranteed constitutional rights.

 

Cal, I think you are confusing the spin of a campaign with historical fact.  Do you have any grounds to support you proposal that gay people had a civil right to marriage since the beginning of our nation?  Do you have any sources that support the idea that gay people were allowed even the free exercise of their sexuality since the beginning of our nation?  

 

You and many others had the objective about claiming a civil right to marriage and you have found support within the courts for such a position, but it is not appropriate to state that rights existed when they never had before.  Or do you have the sources that support your claim?

[california boy]

Cal, I think you are confusing the spin of a campaign with historical fact.  Do you have any grounds to support you proposal that gay people had a civil right to marriage since the beginning of our nation?  Do you have any sources that support the idea that gay people were allowed even the free exercise of their sexuality since the beginning of our nation?  

 

You and many others had the objective about claiming a civil right to marriage and you have found support within the courts for such a position, but it is not appropriate to state that rights existed when they never had before.  Or do you have the sources that support your claim?

 

There are very specific rights granted Americans by the Constitution that have been embedded in law since the founding of our country.  While those rights have always existed, history has shown that the government may very well have passed laws that are contrary to those rights granted by the constitution.  Equal protection under the 14th amendment has always been there.  That doesn't mean that equal protection has always been granted to all Americans.  Nor does it mean that states do not pass laws that re in violation of those rights.  There has never been laws against someone marrying the same sex until or recent past.  When states started to create a new law banning such marriages, those laws were against those equal protection guarantees.  These new laws have been challenged in the courts and court after court after court have ruled that the recent laws banning gay marriages is a violation of the equal protection laws that have always existed.  Unfortunately the wheels of justice move very slowly as we have all seen.  Sometimes it takes a while for courts to strike down these new laws that are in violation of the constitution.  

 

In states such as New Mexico, a ban on gay marriage was never passed.  So when a gay couple tried to marry in New Mexico, they were granted a marriage license.  No one prevented such a marriage.  Some did challenge the state of the legality of the granting of such marriage license.  The state ruled that there was no law or reason to not grant gay couples those licenses.  

 

What has happened is that because states started passing laws preventing gay couples from marrying, those new laws have been challenged, and the federal courts have ruled that those new laws are unconstitutional.  So it is not a new right that has been granted, but rather new laws preventing constitutional rights that have always been present being struck down.  The verdicts you keep reading about over and over again are not verdicts granting gay marriage, but rather verdicts striking down laws banning gay marriage that are ruled unconstitutional.  Prop 8 was a new law that took away a right that had always existed.  It was ruled that new law was unconstitutional.  Read the verdicts.  

 

This same scenario has happened throughout the history of our country.  For example, interracial marriages are not prohibited by the constitution.  It was states passing laws preventing interracial marriages that were struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia as being against the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment.  No new right was created by that ruling.  Only new laws preventing interracial marriage by some states were struck down.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you that it is a political issue.  Still not sure what makes preventing gay couples from marrying is a moral issue.  But hey, agreeing you with half of your statement is way more than my usual take on your staements.  Progress.  

If you are denying it's a moral issue, then we are as far apart as we ever were.

 

I'm only saying there is nothing to preclude it being a moral and a political/social issue at the same time. The involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ is motivated by morality, not politics.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

There are very specific rights granted Americans by the Constitution that have been embedded in law since the founding of our country.  While those rights have always existed, history has shown that the government may very well have passed laws that are contrary to those rights granted by the constitution.  Equal protection under the 14th amendment has always been there.  That doesn't mean that equal protection has always been granted to all Americans.  Nor does it mean that states do not pass laws that re in violation of those rights.  There has never been laws against someone marrying the same sex until or recent past.  

 

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that, until recently,  the word “marriage” was defined as a union between members of the opposite sex. Can you name one example of any culture that ever (until recently) defined marriage to include a union between two members of the same sex? 

 

If you cannot, please explain why anybody would have found it necessary to pass a law to prohibit something, which. by definition, was impossible?  .

 

BTW, “equal protection under the 14th amendment” has not “always been there.”  It has only been there since the 14th amendment was passed.  Can you name one person living at the time who believed that the 14th amendment’s “equal protection clause” could possibly mean two members of the same sex would have the right to marry?  

[california boy]

 

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that, until recently,  the word “marriage” was defined as a union between members of the opposite sex. Can you name one example of any culture that ever (until recently) defined marriage to include a union between two members of the same sex? 

 

If you cannot, please explain why anybody would have found it necessary to pass a law to prohibit something, which. by definition, was impossible?  .

 

BTW, “equal protection under the 14th amendment” has not “always been there.”  It has only been there since the 14th amendment was passed.  Can you name one person living at the time who believed that the 14th amendment’s “equal protection clause” could possibly mean two members of the same sex would have the right to marry?  

 

 

Please reread my post.  Because you are not arguing what I wrote, you are bringing up entirely different issues.  I agree there were no states that passed any laws banning gay marriages until they started happening.  But that is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that those laws are against the protection of the constitution.  

 

I am not claiming that the constitution mentions marriage.  I am not claiming that other cultures had ssm.  Is all I am pointing out is that equal protection under the law has been part of the constitution since the 14th amendment was passed. You can not just pretend it is not there no matter what laws you pass.  If they are in violation of the constitution then it will and should be overturned.  

 

Your argument is like saying that if a law was passed banning religion from broadcasting on TV then it doesn't warrant constitutional protection.  Can you name one person living at the time the bill of rights was signed who believed that churches had the right to broadcast on TV?  Just because they would not have foreseen our culture in todays world does not mean they didn't believe in freedom of speech or equal protection should apply today.

[LinuxGal]

BTW, “equal protection under the 14th amendment” has not “always been there.”  It has only been there since the 14th amendment was passed.  Can you name one person living at the time who believed that the 14th amendment’s “equal protection clause” could possibly mean two members of the same sex would have the right to marry?  

 

Not one.  Neither did anyone believe that two members of different races would have a right to marry.  That was settled by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, in 1967.  When the marriage equality issue is settled, shortly, that case will be cited.

[Calm]

"Neither did anyone believe that two members of different races would have a right to marry."

 

I disagree.  For example, there were trappers who had married native american women.

[LinuxGal]

"Neither did anyone believe that two members of different races would have a right to marry."

 

I disagree.  For example, there were trappers who had married native american women.

 

I'll accept that.  However, I myself am married to someone with lighter skin.  This didn't seem to go over well when we visited a restaurant in Ogden.

 

Stop the anecdotal race baiting.

[Kenngo1969]

I'll accept that.  However, I myself am married to someone with lighter skin.  This didn't seem to go over well when we visited a restaurant in Ogden.

That's unfortunate.  If I were you, I wouldn't make the mistake of overgeneralizing that to a "Utah problem" or a "Mormon problem." Besides, if it didn't seem to go over well, how sure are you that such a situation reflected reality less than it reflected the perception of the people involved?

[LinuxGal]

That's unfortunate.  If I were you, I wouldn't make the mistake of overgeneralizing that to a "Utah problem" or a "Mormon problem." Besides, if it didn't seem to go over well, how sure are you that such a situation reflected reality less than it reflected the perception of the people involved?

 

I'm thinking that if my husband was a Lamanite there would have been no problem, or if I was a Nephite there would have been no problem, but it's the Lamanite with the Nephite that was the problem.  Then again, this was back in 1990, so times might have changed.  Haven't been back since then, however.  Went to Yellowstone and steered clear away from Utah.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm thinking that if my husband was a Lamanite there would have been no problem, or if I was a Nephite there would have been no problem, but it's the Lamanite with the Nephite that was the problem.  Then again, this was back in 1990, so times might have changed.  Haven't been back since then, however.  Went to Yellowstone and steered clear away from Utah.

I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but it's unfortunate () that you haven't been back since.  As for me and my house, you would be welcome back any time.

[The Nehor]

"Neither did anyone believe that two members of different races would have a right to marry."

 

Some still don't.

 

When I was visiting family at Thanksgiving my Sister-in-Law told us that her sister was getting married to an asian and her father (who was not there) was concerned:

 

"Maybe I'm just more conservative then you but that is just wrong."

 

My response:

 

"That's not conservative; that's racist."

 

My brother's much better response:

 

"He needs to apply that conservatism more when he makes trips to the buffet table."

[LinuxGal]

I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but it's unfortunate ( ) that you haven't been back since.  As for me and my house, you would be welcome back any time.

 

That's good to hear.  My second stint on this forum seems to be going a bit better.

[rodheadlee]

 

It has been only 6 years since Elder Clayton made those statements about Prop 8.  It is really interesting to read what he said in todays perspective.  And even more interesting to read some of the comments people left at the time.  Some ended up being quite prophetic.

 

 

The issue that Cinepro brought up.  How does the church decide what is a moral issue that need political involvement and what isn't.

 

It took less than a decade.

 

 

The political fall out worldwide for the church has not been good.

 

 

Indeed, it is the first time a proposition took away someone's civil rights.  It took 5 years for the courts to correct this vote of the majority taking away the civil rights of the minority.

 

 

It is taken way less than 30 years for the majority of the population to support gay marriage. 

 

 

The courts ended up agreeing with this poster.

 

 

A feeling that seems to be growing among members, not diminishing.

 

 

The courts ended up agreeing with him.  I wonder why the churches legal department or at least Dallin Oaks did not see this coming.  It seems pretty fundamental even to this poster.

 

I wonder how many members feel the same way about Prop 8 as they did when this article was posted.  

 

 

Yeah 'cause everyone in California is a Mormon. Not. I mean get real a lot of non Mormons voted for prop 8. This ain't Utah.

[Deborah]

I completely agree with you.  I have never had a good answer from anyone explaining why forcing a gay couple to shack up together is more moral than allowing them to be in a committed married relationship.  

 

I don't get how not allowing marriage is "forcing" anyone to shack up together. That applies to heterosexual couples as well.