Now That The Court Has Made Its Decision

[Avatar4321]

Any way we can go back to talking about the restored gospel instead of gay marriage? Or am I expecting too much?

[Robert F. Smith]

Funny you should mention "the restored gospel," because a key element of that Restored Gospel was plural marriage -- certainly the most notorious.  The LDS Church will not likely be interested in the issue, except as a subject for a Gospel Topics essay (to be discussed as a historical curiosity in Seminary and Institutes), but this Supreme Court decision (solely by Jewish and Catholic justices) is a huge precedent.

 

The decision is not actually primarily about gay marriage (although to hear my High Priests Group discussion last Sunday, you'd certainly think so).  It was rather a very broadly-based decision about marriage equality, or equal access to marriage, and the overturning of Reynolds v U.S. cannot be far behind.  This will take place in courts which are called upon to rule on the legality of plural marriage as potentially practiced by American Muslims or Fundamentalist Mormons.  Lower courts may begin to use this latest decision to broaden the meaning of marriage far more than applicable to same gender marriages -- without even taking it to the U. S. Supreme Court.

[Kenngo1969]

I guess I am just one of those idiots who hasn't had his fill of talking about gay marriage. Still, the decision impacts more than just marriage: There are profound, possibly unforeseen, unintended impacts on states rights (as unpopular as that concept is nowadays), religious exercise, taxation, et cetera. The ripples won't abate any time soon.

[thesometimesaint]

I guess I am just one of those idiots who hasn't had his fill of talking about gay marriage. Still, the decision impacts more than just marriage: There are profound, possibly unforeseen, unintended impacts on states rights (as unpopular as that concept is nowadays), religious exercise, taxation, et cetera. The ripples won't abate any time soon.

 

I'd never call you an idiot, even if we sometimes disagree.

 

The "States Rights" never had much of a claim because of the Federal Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. It lost nearly all of the rest of its cred when southern white demagogs and bigots used it to violently oppose the civil rights of blacks. 

 

I see no big call for eliminating the free exercise clause except when operating in the public market place. My professions Code of Ethics prohibits me for using factors such as race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex and sexual orientation in the delivery of my services, and has for many years.

 

Churches, Mosques, Temples, Synagogues, Kingdom Halls, religious shrines, what have you, are not subject to taxes in the US. This was decided long ago in the Patrick Henry v Thomas Jefferson debates. BTW Jefferson won the debate.

[Buckeye]

Any way we can go back to talking about the restored gospel instead of gay marriage? Or am I expecting too much?

 

Judging by the FP/Q12 letter that will be read in US congregations this Sunday, I think you are expecting too much.

 

ETA:

 

I believe that in the coming months we'll see a dying down of the political issue. Concerns over tax-exemptions, Pell grants, etc. won't become a real issue for years.

 

Instead of political issues, the real issue for the church is how to address the divide in members' views over the morality of LGBT relationships. The recent Pew study shows LDS members support civil SSM at around 20-25%. Our percentage is lower than many other faiths (catholics are over 50%), but it will continue to grow, especially with the youth. The most pressing need for the church is how maintain civility and avoid contention when members have differing views. I don't have much insight here, but my best guess is that, slowly, we'll all just stop talking about - the same as gradually happened with the racial priesthood ban. On a very positive note, Elder Christofferson has already made clear that members who support civil SSM remain in good standing and can receive temple recommends.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Buckeye

[Robert F. Smith]

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

................................On a very positive note, Elder Christofferson has already made clear that such members remain in good standing and can receive temple recommends.

You need to clarify this claim.  Some might get the impression from your statement that sexually active homosexuals can receive temple recommends, and are not subject to Church discipline.

[Buckeye]

You need to clarify this claim.  Some might get the impression from your statement that sexually active homosexuals can receive temple recommends, and are not subject to Church discipline.

 

Done.

[Kenngo1969]

I'd never call you an idiot, even if we sometimes disagree.

Thank you.

 

 

The "States Rights" never had much of a claim because of the Federal Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. It lost nearly all of the rest of its cred when southern white demagogs and bigots used it to violently oppose the civil rights of blacks. 

 

 

Few who argue in favor of a stricter interpretation and broader application of the Tenth Amendment would favor curtailing civil rights, and can reasonable minds disagree about what constitutes a fundamental civil right?  I believe they can: Don't forget that Obergfell v. Hodges wasn't a 9-0 decision, or an 8-1 decision, or a 7-2 decision, or a 6-3 decision; it was a 5-4 decision.  And even if one favors how the majority applied the Fourteenth Amendment, I think unforeseen, likely unintended consequences are likely to result from the decision.  And in order for the Supremacy Clause to apply, any given exercise of federal power must be consistent with the Constitution, and there's the rub.  Can reasonable minds disagree, or is the constitutionality of any given exercise of federal power self-evident?  I believe reasonable minds can disagree.

 

I see no big call for eliminating the free exercise clause except when operating in the public market place. My professions Code of Ethics prohibits me for using factors such as race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex and sexual orientation in the delivery of my services, and has for many years.

 

We'll simply have to disagree about whether isolated, episodic, de facto discrimination is different than widespread, institutionalized, entrenched, de jure discrimination.  I would still permit a gay couple denied service by, e.g., a cake-baker to sue, but I would require the couple to show reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to obtain comparable, comparably-priced services, and I would limit recovery to the difference between the two (along with related expenses such as travel).  I applaud your fidelity to the ethics of your profession, but, just as is the case with constitutional interpretation, while many ethical questions are clear-cut, others are murkier.

 

Churches, Mosques, Temples, Synagogues, Kingdom Halls, religious shrines, what have you, are not subject to taxes in the US. This was decided long ago in the Patrick Henry v Thomas Jefferson debates. BTW Jefferson won the debate.

 

I'm less sanguine than you are about the prospects that the tax-exempt status of churches, faith-based organizations, and other non-profits will remain undisturbed.  I hope you're right.  Time will tell.  And, as I mentioned on the other thread, even if one downplays the concerns of those who believe the decision doesn't do enough to preserve religious freedom, the fact of the matter is, all the majority had to say to allay such concerns is, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to the the Free Exercise clause."  It didn't say that.  Instead, it magnanimously granted the religiously devout the more narrow privileges to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish.  I think there's reason to be concerned about that, and I'm not alone.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

Thank you.

 

 

Few who argue in favor of a stricter interpretation and broader application of the Tenth Amendment would favor curtailing civil rights, and can reasonable minds disagree about what constitutes a fundamental civil right?  I believe they can: Don't forget that Obergfell v. Hodges wasn't a 9-0 decision, or an 8-1 decision, or a 7-2 decision, or a 6-3 decision; it was a 5-4 decision.  And even if one favors how the majority applied the Fourteenth Amendment, I think unforeseen, likely unintended consequences are likely to result from the decision.  And in order for the Supremacy Clause to apply, any given exercise of federal power must be consistent with the Constitution, and there's the rub.  Can reasonable minds disagree, or is the constitutionality of any given exercise of federal power self-evident?  I believe reasonable minds can disagree.

 

 

We'll simply have to disagree about whether isolated, episodic, de facto discrimination is different than widespread, institutionalized, entrenched, de jure discrimination.  I would still permit a gay couple denied service by, e.g., a cake-baker to sue, but I would require the couple to show reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to obtain comparable, comparably-priced services, and I would limit recovery to the difference between the two (along with related expenses such as travel).  I applaud your fidelity to the ethics of your profession, but, just as is the case with constitutional interpretation, while many ethical questions are clear-cut, others are murkier.

 

I'm less sanguine than you are about the prospects that the tax-exempt status of churches, faith-based organizations, and other non-profits will remain undisturbed.  I hope you're right.  Time will tell.  And, as I mentioned on the other thread, even if one downplays the concerns of those who believe the decision doesn't do enough to preserve religious freedom, the fact of the matter is, all the majority had to say to allay such concerns is, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs our previous precedents with respect to the the Free Exercise clause."  It didn't say that.  Instead, it magnanimously granted the religiously devout the more narrow privileges to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish.  I think there's reason to be concerned about that, and I'm not alone.

 

I see the 10th Amendment argument as having been resolved to the law says is what the law says. The individual states are pretty much free to govern as they wish within the bounds of the US Constitution particularly the 14th Amendments statement of equal protection under law. For better or worse here in the US we depend on the courts for what the legal understanding of the law is. Lord knows I often disagree with their decisions. Dred Scot anyone?

 

That comes across as just a less formal Jim Crow. I hope that isn't what you meant.

 

I think that as long as we respect the rights of others to believe and practice their religion as they wish, and they ours. We don't have much to fear.

[Tacenda]

 

Great sermon!  Message: to err on the side of compassion.  

[KevinG]