Ssm Ruling: What To Expect Near Term

[Stone holm]

They brought religion into the political realm with an attempt to establish religious doctrine by legislation, whenever you do that you risk retaliation in kind. No one was trying to force us to adopt marital customs against our religious beliefs, but if you try to force others to abide by your religious beliefs, you have to expect a backlash. Many saw this coming, not the least of whom were the Marriots who immediately moved to publicly distance themselves from Prop 8. I was not in California so cannot speak to the relative viciousness of the two sides there. I did , however, witness in horror when the the Church's designated spokesman launched into the Church's 12 step program for curing homosexuality during the fight over Civil Unions in Vermont. I would say comparing homosexuals to alcoholics is pretty vitriolic in my book.

[Kenngo1969]

They brought religion into the political realm with an attempt to establish religious doctrine by legislation, whenever you do that you risk retaliation in kind. 

There was no attempt to establish religious doctrine by legislation.  (See also the continuation of my response, below.)  An attempt to enforce religious doctrine by legislation would be if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attempted to e.g., sponsor legislation dictating that only marriages performed in temples should be considered valid by the state.  Last I checked, there were no members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the United States Supreme Court, yet (whether one agrees with them or not) none of the dissenters in Obergfell v. Hodges based said dissent in any way on religious grounds.

No one was trying to force us to adopt marital customs against our religious beliefs, but if you try to force others to abide by your religious beliefs, you have to expect a backlash. 

 

I'm sure this'll come as a shock to you, but there are plenty of people of varying religious stripes (and even of no particular religious stripe) who favor traditional marriage: It's not very "PC" to say this in the current climate, but there are perfectly sound reasons for favoring traditional marriage that are not rooted in religious dogma, including sociological reasons, psychological reasons, cultural reasons, and yes, even legal reasons, and so on.

 

Many saw this coming, not the least of whom were the Marriots [sic] who immediately moved to publicly distance themselves from Prop 8. 

 

CFR.

 

P.S.: And I note your conspicuous silence in response to my point in the previous post that the Brethren are not only concerned about gay marriage, but also about the effect that its adoption nationwide will have on religious freedom.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Stone holm]

We attempted to legislate our religious based definition of marriage. That is very clear and beyond dispute.

[Kenngo1969]

We attempted to legislate our religious based definition of marriage. That is very clear and beyond dispute.

It is not at all clear to lesser minds such as ... well mine, obviously ...  I apologize for attempting to engage you, thinking that you might actually deign to share your brilliance with those of us who so evidently are in such desperate need of it.  All the same, I hope you enjoy the rest of your Fourth of July in more worthy pursuits that more closely match your obviously superior intellect.  

[Stone holm]

With respect to the Marriot CFR, that occurred almost immediately after the Conference nudge for support, sorry can't go back that far copies. Anecdotally, one of my sons who as just starting the legal corporate ladder at the time remarked on how all his fellow Mormon colleagues were busy scrubbing any tell tale signs of LDS affiliation from their resumes in anticipation of the backlash. I don't think we can go after minorities from the pulpit as we did for years and not expect some payback when the tide of public opinion turns. There are many Christian sects which do not accept SSM, but chose not to get in the gay community's face about it publicly and you do not see them being retaliated against now. It's hard to credibly cry victim hood after leading a crusade, even if you soften your position considerably in defeat.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure what you mean by "go after minorities."  Yes, for the foreseeable future, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members likely will pay a price for the Church's high-profile support of traditional marriage, but personally, I doubt the Church would have escaped notice as a target forever.  High-profile support of traditional marriage by the Church of Jesus Christ probably hastened its selection as a target by the militant gay lobby and those who support it, but, personally, I think it's naive to posit that the Church's enemies simply would have always left it alone.  

 

Obergfell v. Hodges may have been about gay marriage; the majority may have deigned, magnanimously, to continue to allow churches and their adherents to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish; and I don't necessarily agree with everything in the "parade of horribles" that many imagine will emanate from the majority's decision (however much I might disagree with the decision).  All of that having been said, I do think the decision will have grave, unforeseen, and likely unintended impacts on religious exercise and on other social institutions.  While "cultural Mormonism" likely is safe, I'm not sure the same can be said of the real thing. Notwithstanding the majority's magnanimous assurances, the militant gay lobby and those who support it now smell blood in the water, and I don't think they'll be content to allow religions and other faith-based institutions to continue, unmolested, to promulgate their quaint "beliefs" and "teachings."  Those beliefs and teachings are bad, wrong, bigoted, and [insert-endless-list-of-pejorative-adjectives here]; they must be eradicated; and those who promulgate them must be punished for their political incorrectness.  Tax exemptions for churches, faith-based organizations, and other non-profits likely will be the next great battleground.  (After all, why do we need to encourage people to contribute to such organizations?  The government can do everything they do, anyway!)

[thesometimesaint]

The government in the US can do anything it wants within the limits of the Constitution. There is no right to a tax exemption. We do have laws that allow for a tax exemption for certain entities involved in non-political, non-profit, humanitarian work. IE; 501c3's

[Stone holm]

At this point, I am more concerned about the potential for backlash and outright viciousness, not to mention squirrelly behavior that is likely to be promoted by the State RFRA statutes springing up around the country. Am afraid they are going to motivate even more people to join the "none" crowd. Indiana already has a first Church of Canabis, and it won't be long before the FLDS figure out how to pick up that ball and run with it, not to mention religious inspired racism down South. The rest of the planet is going to wonder if Americans all decided to drop acid right before the 2016 elections or something.

[Storm Rider]

The government in the US can do anything it wants within the limits of the Constitution. There is no right to a tax exemption. We do have laws that allow for a tax exemption for certain entities involved in non-political, non-profit, humanitarian work. IE; 501c3's

 

I had always understood that we were a nation of laws; however, we now have a Supreme Court that actually ignores what laws actually say.  The law is whatever they say it says even when it is the exact opposite of what the law says in English.  That is a form of judicial imperialism that destroys nations by planting the seeds of revolution.  When those in authority make up rules to meet their political objectives the nation has lost an honorable, fair judicial system.  This is a dire situation and the Constitution has little meaning - it is what they say it is....not what it reads in English. 

[Kenngo1969]

The government in the US can do anything it wants within the limits of the Constitution. There is no right to a tax exemption. We do have laws that allow for a tax exemption for certain entities involved in non-political, non-profit, humanitarian work. IE; 501c3's

It's always so helpful when you quote law to me!  Yes, I'm perfectly well aware that there's no right to tax exemptions: I actually favor doing away with most of them and lowering rates, but that's another subject for another day.  I am concerned, however, about what's likely to happen to charitable giving once the move to drastically reduce (if not eliminate) deductions for it picks up steam.  I don't think the entities that those who favor this course of action feel will pick up the slack will be nearly as effective as they believe they will be.  I suppose we'll see.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Danzo]

The government in the US can do anything it wants within the limits of the Constitution. There is no right to a tax exemption. We do have laws that allow for a tax exemption for certain entities involved in non-political, non-profit, humanitarian work. IE; 501c3's

And political organizations, like political parties, and advocacy groups, etc. I think you are confusing organizations that can accept tax deductible contributions with tax exempt organizations. Edited July 6, 2015 by Danzo

[Kenngo1969]

And political organizations, like political parties, and advocacy groups, etc. I think you are confusing organizations that can accept tax deductible contributions with tax exempt organizations.

Yeah, I did that, too.  Thanks for the heads-up!

 

P.S.: I studiously avoided taking tax law in law school.  Can you tell?

Edited July 6, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Danzo]

Yeah, I did that, too.  Thanks for the heads-up!

 

P.S.: I studiously avoided taking tax law in law school.  Can you tell?

You should study it. All of the good cases are tax cases. Windsor, after all was a tax case.

[california boy]

I think the biggest fear the church leaders have is not "the gays" demanding marriage in the church but rather the members themselves pushing for gay inclusion to the plan of salvation.

The letter read in sacrament meeting was the first volley to try and nip these changing attitudes towards gays that has already started. They weren't quite ready to threaten excommunication for having pro gay marriage in the church. But they did clearly state that members should seek counsel from first bishops then stake presidents who would be given access to general authorities if needed. While this may always be true it was a reminder that they do not want a shift of attitudes toward giving gays the blessings of temple marriage.

I personally could care less if the church allows temple marriage for all gods children. I think imost gays could care less what Mormons teach their members. But I am pretty confident that this fear the leaders have with members increasingly wanting gay couples to have the blessings of temple marriage will continue to increase not diminish.

[Nofear]

While most gays could care less, that doesn't stop a significant minority from taking action. I predict that significant challenges will be posed to the Church on this front.

 

http://eaglerising.com/6712/government-forces-church-perform-gay-marriage/

[Kenngo1969]

I think the biggest fear the church leaders have is not "the gays" demanding marriage in the church but rather the members themselves pushing for gay inclusion to the plan of salvation.

 

Perhaps, but such a change would require a fundamental shift in doctrine that, even I, as a never-married, long-term bachelor who has successfully attracted the collective indifference of the female of the species in its entirety in a family church, hope to never see.  Such doctrine is declared by the Lord: it's not voted on by the members.  To borrow and slightly alter something attributed to President David O. McKay, right is right even if nobody wants it; wrong is wrong even if everybody wants it.

[Calm]

While most gays could care less, that doesn't stop a significant minority from taking action. I predict that significant challenges will be posed to the Church on this front.

http://eaglerising.com/6712/government-forces-church-perform-gay-marriage/

I am relatively certain the media reported this wrong quite widely and it was only the state supported Lutheran Church that had this requirement given that they received tax money from the government. One way to avoid being required then is to not get money.

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/06/10/catholic_church_not_affected_by_new_same-sex_marriage_law_/1101583

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Denmark

Requires only Church of Denmark but individual priests can still refuse if I read it correctly and other faiths can choose to allow it or not. When a Church is seen as an extension of a government, which is what I see happens with official state churches, that is definitely going to cause issues. But the US does not have such so any attempt will need to pursue a different tack.

The Church of England in England may have the same problem with the Queen being considered the Supreme Governor under God, but it does not receive government support. Still it contributes a number of members to the House of Lords.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Structure

Edited July 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[Stargazer]

We attempted to legislate our religious based definition of marriage. That is very clear and beyond dispute.

 

No, we attempted to stop the redefinition of marriage from its multi-thousand year old tradition to something it never was.  That we have a religious reason for wishing to keep it the way it was is completely beside the point.  Did the Church attempt to bring theological arguments to bear upon the issue?  I don't believe so.  And one doesn't need religious arguments in order to oppose redefining marriage, anyway. 

 

If there was an attempt to overturn the US Constitution to something entirely different, and the Church came out in opposition to this, would you then say that we were attempting to legislate our religious-based support of the current Constitution, and essentially oppose that as well?  Has the Church no dog in the fight in either case, and must roll over and play dead because, horrors!, we have a religious reason for wanting to keep the current US Constitution or the traditional definition of marriage?  I think not. 

 

The way you talk it seems that you think that the only valid reason for opposing redefining marriage is a secular one, and since the Church has only a religious reason for opposing it, then it has no right to put its nose into the issue. 

 

I've heard people on the Left arguing that only those who are in favor of what they favor have a right to speak up.  The rest are simply WRONG and must be shut up if they won't stay silent. 

 

It doesn't matter WHY the Church (or I) want to oppose redefining marriage.  It is enough that we want to exercise our right to free speech and to advocate for what we believe in.  If this results in people not liking us, I suppose that that's a fair exchange, but at no time should ANYONE fail to speak up when faced with issues of great importance, just because someone might dislike them or call them names.

[Storm Rider]

No, we attempted to stop the redefinition of marriage from its multi-thousand year old tradition to something it never was.  That we have a religious reason for wishing to keep it the way it was is completely beside the point.  Did the Church attempt to bring theological arguments to bear upon the issue?  I don't believe so.  And one doesn't need religious arguments in order to oppose redefining marriage, anyway. 

 

If there was an attempt to overturn the US Constitution to something entirely different, and the Church came out in opposition to this, would you then say that we were attempting to legislate our religious-based support of the current Constitution, and essentially oppose that as well?  Has the Church no dog in the fight in either case, and must roll over and play dead because, horrors!, we have a religious reason for wanting to keep the current US Constitution or the traditional definition of marriage?  I think not. 

 

The way you talk it seems that you think that the only valid reason for opposing redefining marriage is a secular one, and since the Church has only a religious reason for opposing it, then it has no right to put its nose into the issue. 

 

I've heard people on the Left arguing that only those who are in favor of what they favor have a right to speak up.  The rest are simply WRONG and must be shut up if they won't stay silent. 

 

It doesn't matter WHY the Church (or I) want to oppose redefining marriage.  It is enough that we want to exercise our right to free speech and to advocate for what we believe in.  If this results in people not liking us, I suppose that that's a fair exchange, but at no time should ANYONE fail to speak up when faced with issues of great importance, just because someone might dislike them or call them names.

 

This is worth a thousand points.  How some willfully re-contextualize, re-create recent history in order to achieve the agenda seems rampant in today's world.  Reality is a shadow because there is so much spinning of personal agendas.  When and where was gay sex, gay marriage the norm at any point in the entire history of the world?  The answer - NO TIME as in never, nada, zero, never happened, never existed.  Yet, we even have LDS pushing this agenda that somehow it is the evil Christians pushing their horrible principles based in religion that is hampering the true world order that has been created from whole cloth.  This scares me that so many willingly drink this Kool-Aid. 

[Stone holm]

No, we attempted to stop the redefinition of marriage from its multi-thousand year old tradition to something it never was.  That we have a religious reason for wishing to keep it the way it was is completely beside the point.  Did the Church attempt to bring theological arguments to bear upon the issue?  I don't believe so.  And one doesn't need religious arguments in order to oppose redefining marriage, anyway. 

 

If there was an attempt to overturn the US Constitution to something entirely different, and the Church came out in opposition to this, would you then say that we were attempting to legislate our religious-based support of the current Constitution, and essentially oppose that as well?  Has the Church no dog in the fight in either case, and must roll over and play dead because, horrors!, we have a religious reason for wanting to keep the current US Constitution or the traditional definition of marriage?  I think not. 

 

The way you talk it seems that you think that the only valid reason for opposing redefining marriage is a secular one, and since the Church has only a religious reason for opposing it, then it has no right to put its nose into the issue. 

 

I've heard people on the Left arguing that only those who are in favor of what they favor have a right to speak up.  The rest are simply WRONG and must be shut up if they won't stay silent. 

 

It doesn't matter WHY the Church (or I) want to oppose redefining marriage.  It is enough that we want to exercise our right to free speech and to advocate for what we believe in.  If this results in people not liking us, I suppose that that's a fair exchange, but at no time should ANYONE fail to speak up when faced with issues of great importance, just because someone might dislike them or call them names.

 

No the Church did not use religious reasons for establishing a definition of marriage.  And yes, it does matter why we want to legislate something.  If we are legislating something for the sole purpose of establishing or preserving a religious principle, then we are in fact establishing religion.  Both sides tried to avoid mentioning religion in their briefs, as the cases were argued for the most part upon equal protection grounds.  How long a tradition has existed is for the most part irrelevant to this debate, slavery and racism are as old as humanity -- but no one would, well actually some might, argue that this is grounds to preserve them. 

[Kenngo1969]

No the Church did not use religious reasons for establishing a definition of marriage.  And yes, it does matter why we want to legislate something.  If we are legislating something for the sole purpose of establishing or preserving a religious principle, then we are in fact establishing religion.  Both sides tried to avoid mentioning religion in their briefs, as the cases were argued for the most part upon equal protection grounds.  How long a tradition has existed is for the most part irrelevant to this debate, slavery and racism are as old as humanity -- but no one would, well actually some might, argue that this is grounds to preserve them. 

Although the Proclamation doesn't call them that, and while many of these arguments are implicit rather than explicit, in The Family: A Proclamation To The World (even though the Proclamation is an explicitly religious document), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cites psychological, sociological, cultural, and other secular evidence in support of maintaining the traditional family.  And while you're right that mere age is not sufficient ground for preserving a longstanding tradition, it behooves one to look at why some traditions are as old as they are. Few, if any (especially today), would argue that slavery and racism have endured for so long for anything approaching noble reasons.  By contrast, whether one favors or opposes same-sex marriage, few would argue that many of the reasons traditional marriage has endured are, indeed, noble.

[Stargazer]

No the Church did not use religious reasons for establishing a definition of marriage.  And yes, it does matter why we want to legislate something.  If we are legislating something for the sole purpose of establishing or preserving a religious principle, then we are in fact establishing religion.  Both sides tried to avoid mentioning religion in their briefs, as the cases were argued for the most part upon equal protection grounds.  How long a tradition has existed is for the most part irrelevant to this debate, slavery and racism are as old as humanity -- but no one would, well actually some might, argue that this is grounds to preserve them. 

 

No, but you want the church to shut up anyway.  It doesn't freeking matter why I oppose gay marriage, and I say that because those who want it want it only because they want it.  Fairness!  Dignity!  Love!  Specious arguments for overturning marriage, which, unlike your attempt to switch context to slavery and racism, is a universal good for all of humanity, and only exists because there is a desperate societal need for a safe place to raise children, without which the entire human race suffers.  And the next thing you will bring up will be the exceptions.  As if exceptions destroy the rule -- which they don't, because as you perfectly know or should know, exceptions prove the rule.  Simply because there are exceptions means the rule is valid in a general sense.

 

When a man can beget a child on another man, then I suppose SSM would have a purpose beyond making its proponents and participants feel good.  Until that day then it is a glilttering generality with no inherent purpose nor meaning.

[thesometimesaint]

If the only reason for heterosexual marriage is the production of children. Then that is a sad commentary on marriage.

[Gray]

 

No, but you want the church to shut up anyway.  It doesn't freeking matter why I oppose gay marriage, and I say that because those who want it want it only because they want it.  Fairness!  Dignity!  Love!  Specious arguments for overturning marriage, 

 

When was marriage overturned? Mine is still valid. 

[Stone holm]

There seems to be a general misunderstanding of my stance and that of many others. I do not condone or embrace SSM. There are many things whichIdo not condone or embrace because of my religion. However, I also do not condone attempting to force others by legislation to abide by my beliefs, or accept my religious traditions. I believe there are a fair number of faithful Mormons who believe the same, and that Church leadership crossed the line politically on this issue. It's one thing to condemn SSM, it's another to try an ban it via legislation. Am proud to be an American and that we do not live in a theocracy. I am proud of the Book of Mormon and view it as a keystone to better understanding and sifting out what was doctrinal in the Old Testament and what was merely history upon which we put a moral spin. It's time the Church and its membership moved on, we lost the culture war, but if we keep kicking a dead horse, we are likely to lose even more.