Family Research Council Thinks Church Compromised Too Much

[Rob Osborn]

"The legislation as it was unveiled today is based on a fundamental misconception..."

 

a viewpoint that is incorrect or faulty.

The FRC doesnt agree with siding with the LGBT movement because of the record the LGBT has. It is my opinion that the FRC doesnt really know the whole issue as intimate as LDS in the Rocky mountains know the issue. I can guarantee you that the FRC has almost everything in common as the church on all moral issues. This isnt one side against the other, its a disagreement of how to solve a problem. The Catholics also do not agree with all the decisions we make, yet they too are a close ally in the war against immorality.

[Rob Osborn]

Your devotion to Coriantumr is impressive but my disagreeing with you does not make me an adherent of Shiz.

I dont have a devotion to Coriantumr- he was too stubborn to listen to the prophets and was the cause for his whole nation to bcome extinct. Shiz was the devils advocate that played off of Coriantumrs misdeeds. Hopefully neither of us relate to either of those guys.

[Daniel2]

I say something needed to be done to stop the gay lobby steamroller. Hopefully this will do it. Maybe not.

Thankfully, there's GREAT news!!: something already exists that will "stop" the 'gay lobby steamroller' at the appropriate time.

Ironically, it's the same thing that is allowing LGBT rights to progress to the extent they have so far.

It's called the Constitution of the United States.

The growing pains you're experiencing are the result of the loss of the ability to treat gays and lesbians in an unequal fashion.

Religion is and very appropriately has been a protected class in the U.S. since our inception. Other protected classes such as race, gender, disability, national origin, and marital status (among others) have been recognized since our nation's birth... sexual orientation is simply catching up.

You aren't used to having to treat individuals' sexual orientation with the same dignity, respect, and according to the same non-discrimiantion regulations as has been previously afforded to both your heterosexuality and religious lifestyle, along with the others I mentioned.

Rest assured, however: once gay rights catch up to and are squarely on the same, equal footing as religion, the 'gay lobby steamroller' will have arrived as the station of equality, and gays will not be more over-privileged than religion--we'll just be equal.

At that point, the Constitution won't allow us to oppress people of faith any more than people of faith won't be able to oppress gays and lesbians--just like recognizing blacks' rights didn't eclipse whites' rights... just like women's rights didn't eclipse men's rights... etc. Because the Constitution protects us all equally, but stops short of allowing the previously oppressed to become the oppressors.

Losing your heterosexual privilege probably feels both alarming and disarming... but our Constitution will ultimately protect both our interests in the most equitably-possible way.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Daniel2

[sethpayne]

 our Constitution will ultimately protect both our interests.

 

Amen.

[The Nehor]

I dont have a devotion to Coriantumr- he was too stubborn to listen to the prophets and was the cause for his whole nation to bcome extinct. Shiz was the devils advocate that played off of Coriantumrs misdeeds. Hopefully neither of us relate to either of those guys.

 

[teddyaware]

Thankfully, there's GREAT news!!: something already exists that will "stop" the 'gay lobby steamroller' at the appropriate time.

Ironically, it's the same thing that is allowing LGBT rights to progress to the extent they have so far.

It's called the Constitution of the United States.

The growing pains you're experiencing are the result of the loss of the ability to treat gays and lesbians in an unequal fashion.

Religion is and very appropriately has been a protected class in the U.S. since our inception. Other protected classes such as race, gender, disability, national origin, and marital status (among others) have been recognized since our nation's birth... sexual orientation is simply catching up.

You aren't used to having to treat individuals' sexual orientation with the same dignity, respect, and according to the same non-discrimiantion regulations as has been previously afforded to both your heterosexuality and religious lifestyle, along with the others I mentioned.

Rest assured, however: once gay rights catch up to and are squarely on the same, equal footing as religion, the 'gay lobby steamroller' will have arrived as the station of equality, and gays will not be more over-privileged than religion--we'll just be equal.

At that point, the Constitution won't allow us to oppress people of faith any more than people of faith won't be able to oppress gays and lesbians--just like recognizing blacks' rights didn't eclipse whites' rights... just like women's rights didn't eclipse men's rights... etc. Because the Constitution protects us all equally, but stops short of allowing the previously oppressed to become the oppressors.

Losing your heterosexual privilege probably feels both alarming and disarming... but our Constitution will ultimately protect both our interests in the most equitably-possible way.

 

Well I have some bad news for all of us. There is an adversary of all righteousness and he labors assiduously, both day and night, to destroy all that is good. And one of those good things he's working so hard to destroy is the Constitution of the United States. Through earthly agents who have for many years arrogantly ignored the original in intent of the inspired writers of that document, this same adversary has rendered the Constitution a quaint relic from the past that, like the corrupted and largely impotent post Julius Caesar Roman senate, is still faintly praised and honored, but only in order to create an illusion that all is well.

 

We are getting closer and closer to that prophesied time when the Constitution will hang only by a single thin thread as its text is shot through with more holes like a round of Swiss cheese, And even now there are national leaders who are so brazen in their ignoring of the Constitution that they can make repeated public assertions (more than 20) that some executive branch action is unquestionably unconstitutional, only for these same "leaders" to end up ignoring their own assertions and do the very thing they said they couldn't do under the Constitution. While at first they seem to sincerely assert they are not kings, they then go ahead and act like despotic monarchs. You may trust in the arm of flesh as this once great nation ripens in iniquity -- i don't and I won't. 

Edited March 6, 2015 by teddyaware

[Buckeye]

Well I have some bad news for all of us. There is an adversary of all righteousness and he labors assiduously, both day and night, to destroy all that is good. And one of those good things he's working so hard to destroy is the Constitution of the United States. Through earthly agents who have for many years arrogantly ignored the original in intent of the inspired writers of that document, this same adversary has rendered the Constitution a quaint relic from the past that, like the corrupted and largely impotent post Julius Caesar Roman senate, is still faintly praised and honored, but only in order to create an illusion that all is well.

 

We are getting closer and closer to that prophesied time when the Constitution will hang only by a single thin thread as its text is shot through with more holes like a round of Swiss cheese, And even now there are national leaders who are so brazen in their ignoring of the Constitution that they can make repeated public assertions (more than 20) that some executive branch action is unquestionably unconstitutional, only for these same "leaders" to end up ignoring their own assertions and do the very thing they said they couldn't do under the Constitution. While at first they seem to sincerely assert they are not kings, they then go ahead and act like despotic monarchs. You may trust in the arm of flesh as this once great nation ripens in iniquity -- i don't and I won't. 

 

So the best way to save the constitution is to abolish the second amendment?

[Buckeye]

I just saw a copy of this in my email in-box.

 

So at least one conservative group thinks the Church of Jesus Christ is going too far to appease the GLTB pressure groups in its compromise on Utah legislation to balance demands regarding sexual orientation and gender identity with protection of religious freedom.

 

I say something needed to be done to stop the gay lobby steamroller. Hopefully this will do it. Maybe not.

 

Time will tell.

 

I'm dubious that anything will stop the gay lobby steamroller. The civil rights steamroller is still chugging along as strong as ever - destroying religious rights left and right. Man, it's awful. If us religious folks couldn't stop the civil rights lobby after fighting it for 100+ years, why do we think that we'll fare better with the LGBT lobby?

 

Considering that the church is now meeting regularly with "true blue" members of the lobby, and that large LDS families virtually guarantee that members will have close loving relationships with LGBT people, I can't see anything happening other than our church membership becoming even more accepting of LGBT rights in the future. Oh, the horror!

[Tacenda]

I'm dubious that anything will stop the gay lobby steamroller. The civil rights steamroller is still chugging along as strong as ever - destroying religious rights left and right. Man, it's awful. If us religious folks couldn't stop the civil rights lobby after fighting it for 100+ years, why do we think that we'll fare better with the LGBT lobby?

Considering that the church is now meeting regularly with "true blue" members of the lobby, and that large LDS families virtually guarantee that members will have close loving relationships with LGBT people, I can't see anything happening other than our church membership becoming even more accepting of LGBT rights in the future. Oh, the horror!

Touche!

[teddyaware]

So the best way to save the constitution is to abolish the second amendment?

 

This is the very tactic the enemies of the defenders of the law of the Lord love to use: Put words in your enemy's mouth that he never said or ever meant to say, and then broadcast that lie as the truth, Thank you for demonstrating once again the mindset and tactics of the sort of people who fought against Proposition 8.

 

Edited to add:

 

You asked me an unfair, ridiculous and totally unfair question so that you could get some ugly paint on me.

Edited March 6, 2015 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Thankfully, there's GREAT news!!: something already exists that will "stop" the 'gay lobby steamroller' at the appropriate time.

Ironically, it's the same thing that is allowing LGBT rights to progress to the extent they have so far.

It's called the Constitution of the United States.

The growing pains you're experiencing are the result of the loss of the ability to treat gays and lesbians in an unequal fashion.

Religion is and very appropriately has been a protected class in the U.S. since our inception. Other protected classes such as race, gender, disability, national origin, and marital status (among others) have been recognized since our nation's birth... sexual orientation is simply catching up.

You aren't used to having to treat individuals' sexual orientation with the same dignity, respect, and according to the same non-discrimiantion regulations as has been previously afforded to both your heterosexuality and religious lifestyle, along with the others I mentioned.

Rest assured, however: once gay rights catch up to and are squarely on the same, equal footing as religion, the 'gay lobby steamroller' will have arrived as the station of equality, and gays will not be more over-privileged than religion--we'll just be equal.

At that point, the Constitution won't allow us to oppress people of faith any more than people of faith won't be able to oppress gays and lesbians--just like recognizing blacks' rights didn't eclipse whites' rights... just like women's rights didn't eclipse men's rights... etc. Because the Constitution protects us all equally, but stops short of allowing the previously oppressed to become the oppressors.

Losing your heterosexual privilege probably feels both alarming and disarming... but our Constitution will ultimately protect both our interests in the most equitably-possible way.

Alas, the Constitution did not protect a dedicated and skilled police officer from being forced out of his job merely for asking if he could trade assignments so as to fulfill his sworn duty without violating his conscience. That's what I mean by steamroller.

How did the oppression of Officer Moutsos protect gay rights? I don't see it.

[california boy]

Well I have some bad news for all of us. There is an adversary of all righteousness and he labors assiduously, both day and night, to destroy all that is good. And one of those good things he's working so hard to destroy is the Constitution of the United States. Through earthly agents who have for many years arrogantly ignored the original in intent of the inspired writers of that document, this same adversary has rendered the Constitution a quaint relic from the past that, like the corrupted and largely impotent post Julius Caesar Roman senate, is still faintly praised and honored, but only in order to create an illusion that all is well.

 

We are getting closer and closer to that prophesied time when the Constitution will hang only by a single thin thread as its text is shot through with more holes like a round of Swiss cheese, And even now there are national leaders who are so brazen in their ignoring of the Constitution that they can make repeated public assertions (more than 20) that some executive branch action is unquestionably unconstitutional, only for these same "leaders" to end up ignoring their own assertions and do the very thing they said they couldn't do under the Constitution. While at first they seem to sincerely assert they are not kings, they then go ahead and act like despotic monarchs. You may trust in the arm of flesh as this once great nation ripens in iniquity -- i don't and I won't. 

 

The American Constitution has been going down hill for a long time.  Every since we ended slavery, started treating the Irish with equal respect and equal employment, allowed the Catholics to be treated equally under the law, gave the women the right to vote and allowed blackies the right to eat in the same restaurants and drink out of the same water fountains religion has been under attack.  The Bible clearly states that blackies should be servants, women should be submissive to their husbands.  At one time, states could pass laws to legally shoot Mormons.  What is wrong with that?  It is what the majority in the state wanted.  It should be allowed.

 

Now it is as if gays want to be treated equally as well.  Today they want to marry just like us.  Tomorrow they are going to want equality in employment and housing.  We gotta start NOW passing laws to prevent that from happening.  We had them right where we wanted them 20 years ago.  Now we have lost control.  What the heck happened to our Constitution?  Christ is bound to come soon.  This can't continue.  We need the priesthood to swoop in and save the Constitution.  Put blackies, women and gays all back in their place where they belong.  We can no longer tolerate these attacks on religion.  The adversary of all righteousness labors assiduously, both day and night, to destroy all that is good.  

 

Just stop a minute and realize what you are defending.  I personally find it indefensible.  Gays demanding to be treated equally under the laws of the Constitution is not destroying the Constitution.  Denying them equality under the law is.  Every court in this country agrees, yet you feel the Constitution is being shot through with more holes like a round of Swiss cheese.  I think your post is deplorable and on this subject without basis.

[Rob Osborn]

The CFR is on to something knowing you cannot mix gay rights with religious rights.

[california boy]

Alas, the Constitution did not protect a dedicated and skilled police officer from being forced out of his job merely for asking if he could trade assignments so as to fulfill his sworn duty without violating his conscience. That's what I mean by steamroller.

How did the oppression of Officer Moutsos protect gay rights? I don't see it.

 

Scott, you have been trying Officer Moutsos in the press for a week now.  You don't know all the facts.  You don't know what was said in that meeting with his chief that resulted in him being put on suspension.

 

That is what courts are for, not newspapers.  If he was treated illegally under the law, he has a case.  He has recourse.  That is the proper place for all of the facts to be brought out, where a person is required under oath to tell the truth.  Where all the facts are brought out, not just what is released in a press statement and weighed by a jury of his peers.  To say the constitution did not protect this officer is completely false.  This officer never used the law to justify his actions.  The constitution does not allow for trial by public newspaper.  It allows his day in court.  And that sir has not happened.  The steamroller you speak of is people like you who want to try him in the court of public opinion and not the courts.  CFR in the Constitution that a citizen has a right to be tried by self serving press releases that he issues to newspapers.

 

The complete irony in all of this is you yourself going on for days about Kate Kelly using the press to manipulate public opinion, and make herself look good while not giving the church their side of the story.  Is it just because you are a newspaper man, that you have decided this is where justice is served?  

 

Seriously.  Listen to yourself.  Trial by press release is not how the Constitution is set up.  Not for this officer and not for Kate Kelly.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Uh-huh. They secretly spent $25,000 and did their best to hide it because they wanted to quibble over language in the resolution? Why hide it? Now we have only their word after the fact that that was their objective. They got caught and were pulling PR damage control.

 

Even if you believe them (and I don't) they could be classified as worthless spendthrifts for spending so much money on unimportant legalese in something that is not a law. I certainly would not give them money if this is what they are spending it on. Yeah, still not buying it. There would be no need to hide such a lobbying effort if that is what they were doing.

 

They also had fun trying to spin-doctor the whole thing by arguing that the Ugandan law was only intended for those intentionally spreading HIV which is untrue based on a reading of the Ugandan law. If you want to kill all gays then at least be honest about it.

This is rich. So ROb offers something official from FRC that rebuts your statements. You offer nothing more than opinion on the matter. Were is your evidence of "They secretly spent $25,000" And you offer up "They also had fun trying to spin-doctor the whole thing" with nothing more than your say so.

 

Oh well carry on.

 

For the record I don't really care about the FRC. What I care about is some one smearing or bearing a false witness on a group the people politically don't agree with. IF these are true then it should be easy to make your case.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, you have been trying Officer Moutsos in the press for a week now.  You don't know all the facts.  You don't know what was said in that meeting with his chief that resulted in him being put on suspension.

 

That is what courts are for, not newspapers.  If he was treated illegally under the law, he has a case.  He has recourse.  That is the proper place for all of the facts to be brought out, where a person is required under oath to tell the truth.  Where all the facts are brought out, not just what is released in a press statement and weighed by a jury of his peers.  To say the constitution did not protect this officer is completely false.  This officer never used the law to justify his actions.  The constitution does not allow for trial by public newspaper.  It allows his day in court.  And that sir has not happened.  The steamroller you speak of is people like you who want to try him in the court of public opinion and not the courts.  CFR in the Constitution that a citizen has a right to be tried by self serving press releases that he issues to newspapers.

 

The complete irony in all of this is you yourself going on for days about Kate Kelly using the press to manipulate public opinion, and make herself look good while not giving the church their side of the story.  Is it just because you are a newspaper man, that you have decided this is where justice is served?  

 

Seriously.  Listen to yourself.  Trial by press release is not how the Constitution is set up.  Not for this officer and not for Kate Kelly.

The Constitution doesn't allow for trial by newspaper but it does recognize the essential role of the press in a free society, which cannot function without an informed citizenry. We wouldn't even know of the injustice done to Officer Moutsos were it not for an unfettered press. Certainly the police department wasn't going to disclose the essential facts. They clearly demonstrated that.

If what went on in the meeting makes a difference, let them say what it is. They have yet to do so.

The Constitution does not allow rule by police state, and if anything in that nature is happening, the people need to know about it.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

This is rich. So ROb offers something official from FRC that rebuts your statements. You offer nothing more than opinion on the matter. Were is your evidence of "They secretly spent $25,000" And you offer up "They also had fun trying to spin-doctor the whole thing" with nothing more than your say so.

 

Oh well carry on.

 

For the record I don't really care about the FRC. What I care about is some one smearing or bearing a false witness on a group the people politically don't agree with. IF these are true then it should be easy to make your case.

Actually I politically agree with a lot of their views. I am opposed to SSM. The FRC are just fanatics.

[The Nehor]

Alas, the Constitution did not protect a dedicated and skilled police officer from being forced out of his job merely for asking if he could trade assignments so as to fulfill his sworn duty without violating his conscience. That's what I mean by steamroller.How did the oppression of Officer Moutsos protect gay rights? I don't see it.

You must really be desperate for martyrs.

[Scott Lloyd]

You must really be desperate for martyrs.

I'm just against government oppression and mob mentality.

[The Nehor]

I'm just against government oppression and mob mentality.

Me too but I have no idea how that stance relates to that case at all.

[Scott Lloyd]

Me too but I have no idea how that stance relates to that case at all.

Forcing a man out of his job and then lying about the reason is an abuse of power.

And mob mentality is what I saw going on in the other thread before and after I joined it. You were a fi leader, vilifying the man and giving no better reason than "I feel it in my gut."

[The Nehor]

Forcing a man out of his job and then lying about the reason is an abuse of power.And mob mentality is what I saw going on in the other thread before and after I joined it. You were a fi leader, vilifying the man and giving no better reason than "I feel it in my gut."

I am a mob leader? Sweet!

[california boy]

The Constitution doesn't allow for trial by newspaper but it does recognize the essential role of the press in a free society, which cannot function without an informed citizenry. We wouldn't even know of the injustice done to Officer Moutsos were it not for an unfettered press. Certainly the police department wasn't going to disclose the essential facts. They clearly demonstrated that.

If what went on in the meeting makes a difference, let them say what it is. They have yet to do so.

The Constitution does not allow rule by police state, and if anything in that nature is happening, the people need to know about it.

 

I totally agree that freedom of the press is an essential part of our checks on government.  So show us where anyone has tried to stop the press from publishing any stories about officer Moutsos.  Just what are you claiming is a threat to the Constitution?  Was the press denied the right to report anything on this case?  Was the officer denied the right to defend himself in court?

 

And I am assuming that you have completely changed your position on Kate Kelly.  I am sure you are now championing her cause to use press releases outlining her "factual" persecution by the church.  Because after all, if a person releases a press release, we should all believe their innocence and stop this mob persecution of her.

[Buckeye]

This is the very tactic the enemies of the defenders of the law of the Lord love to use: Put words in your enemy's mouth that he never said or ever meant to say, and then broadcast that lie as the truth, Thank you for demonstrating once again the mindset and tactics of the sort of people who fought against Proposition 8.

 

Edited to add:

 

You asked me an unfair, ridiculous and totally unfair question so that you could get some ugly paint on me.

 

That's exactly the response I would expect from a minion of satan who consistently twists logic and scripture to justify his lack of compassion, his gross improprieties, and his renouncement of the Lord's annointed.

 

Edited to add:

 

   

Edited March 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[KevinG]

I am a mob leader? Sweet!

 

I had you pegged as more of a court jester type.