Same Sex Marriage Vs. Convenience Abortion - A Question Of Priority And Societal Harm

[Meadowchik]

I understand the politics surrounding Prop 8.  But it wasn't a tipping point in favor of prohibiting SSM (which most assume was the goal of our Church leaders).  Prop 8 was a tipping point in favor of national legal recognition of gay marriage.  So I fail to see your point as to why it was so important for the Church to be involved in it over abortion measures.

 

There ya go.  Prop 8 was a battle ground of proponents AND opponents.

 

There was no comparable moment in the abortion issue, other than perhaps Roe v Wade itself itself, which was decided by nine justices, not a popular vote.  Like I said, it's like comparing a flood to rain.

[Meadowchik]

So let me see if I have this clear.  The church won't voice objection to abortion directed at the general public if

 

1.  The church's numbers in a state are small.  

 

Does that mean the church has to be a certain size before it publicly gets involved in political issues?  How big does it have to be?  What percentage of members in Washington were there in 1970?  There were only 2% members in California when Prop 8 came up.  So if there was only 1% members in California, the church wouldn't have said anything??  This was about the number of members????  

 

2.  It hasn't been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

 

Even though the abortion ballot measure only effected the state of Washington, and even though that at the time abortion was ILLEGAL in the state of Washington, the church would NOT speak out publicly?  The church doesn't speak out about abortion before it is legal and doesn't speak out about abortion after it is legal.  Got it.  No speaking out about abortion.

 

But if it is about gay marriage, then the church speaks out about it before it is legal (as in the state of Hawaii, AND it speaks out against gay marriage AFTER it is legal.  The Supreme Court of California had ruled that gay marriage was LEGAL under the state constitution.  If it is a gay marriage issue, then the church attacks the issue after it is ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court. Looks like the church is only interested in attacking gay couples who wish to legally marry whether it is legal or not.

 

3. First time on a state ballot:

 

So the church doesn't speak up on a state ballot measure making abortion illegal in that state because it is the first ballot measure on that issue.  But the church DOES speak up on a state ballot measure taking away the civil rights to marry of gay couples.  In both cases, it was the first time both issues were put on a state ballot.  In the first case, the church ignores the abortion ballot measure.  In the second case, the church pours 40 million dollars and countless hours to the ballot measure.  Obviously the church has a thing against gay couples, but not against abortion.  Looks like the church is only interested in attacking gay couples who wish to legally marry.

 

4.  The church doesn't speak up after something becomes the legal law of the land

 

So once abortion was legal, then the church doesn't speak up to the public on abortion.  There have been over 56 times the church could have actively gotten involved in ballot measures concerning abortion since it became legal.  Not once did the church get actively involved.  

 

But gay marriage is ruled to be LEGAL by the Supreme Court of California and even though the courts ruled gay marriage legal, the church mobilizes against a law that was ruled legal to take away that legal right from gay couples.  According to you, once abortion was legal, the church should not get involved in state ballot measures.  Can you explain your thinking to me again on that issue?  Because it seems to me the church is only attacking legal gay couples wanting to legally marry but not attacking legal abortion laws

 

Look.  it became quite clear to everyone that the church wanted to attack gay marriage and they had no such motivation to EVER attack abortion, EVER.  It doesn't really matter personally to me because like most people,  I credit the church in doing the lion's share of the work to pass Prop 8.  By passing Prop 8, the truth about equal rights and constitutional protection went to the federal courts and virtually EVERY federal judge ruled that Prop 8 violated the constitution of the United States. As you know, this finally ended in the Supreme Court decision.   If Prop 8 hadn't have happened, then I seriously doubt that gay marriage would be legal in ever 50 states today.  It was worth the wait for California residents. 

 

You can try to read the tea leaves all you want, but the fact remains that the two different issues are different issues in nearly every respect.  The ways each has played out politically in recent history are very different, one from the other. Thus, to draw conclusions about the priorities of the LDS Church based on only a few perspectives of the events would be nonsensical, especially when even a cursory view tells us that the Church has put a great deal of emphasis on both issues over the years.

 

If I had to speculate like you've done above, I'd go with my analogy to rockpond.  We can compare the political dynamics of the recent history of both issues as a flood (same-sex marriage) to rain (abortion.)  The public opinion numbers show the stark comparison: dramatic, sea-change changes in favor of same-sex marriage within a decade, while the opinions on abortion have remained roughly the same for forty years.  So, what would you see as an onlooker watching a flood overtake a house?  You might see sandbags, a big influx of neighbors helping, in any case you'd see water levels rise dramatically.  What about a smaller amount but steady level of rain?  You wouldn't see a yard turn into a lake or rushing river, things would get wet.  The house might need new shingles from time to time, good maintenance on the exterior and a careful watch for mold inside.  Much less dramatic: the response would be different but in each case tailored to protect the house.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

Well that is demonstratively false.  First, Gay marriage was legalized in Connecticut on Oct 10, 2008 one month prior to Prop 8 passing.  Gay marriage became legal 3 months later in the D. C.  It became legal in Iowa and Vermont in April 2009.  From there it just snowballed.  So if stopping gay marriage in California was suppose to stop gay marriage in the U.S. it also failed miserably.

 

 

 

When Prop 8 passed, gay marriage was already legal in the state of California.  Prop 8 didn't prevent gay marriage, it took away the legal right to marry.  Three other states Maine, Maryland, and Washington voted by ballot to legalize gay marriage in 2012, all prior the Supreme Court Ruling.

 

Prop 8 has become the prop heard around the world.  I travel quite a bit in Europe.  The majority of people even in Europe know about Prop 8.  It became a flashpoint not only for this country but for countries throughout the world.  If the church was trying to stop gay marriage, then supporting Prop 8 has to go down as one of the worst failures of church policy in modern times.  

 

On the contrary, California was the "second," as same-sex marriage had already been legalised in California courts before Connecticut's.

 

As you said, Prop 8 was a flashpoint, as I was saying similarly.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Meadowchik

[rockpond]

There ya go. Prop 8 was a battle ground of proponents AND opponents.

There was no comparable moment in the abortion issue, other than perhaps Roe v Wade itself itself, which was decided by nine justices, not a popular vote. Like I said, it's like comparing a flood to rain.

I'm not getting your conclusion... All of these are battles between opponents and proponents.

Prop 8 was an unconstitutional ballot initiative that led to SCOTUS making a decision that nullified the Church's work in CA and elsewhere.

So tell me again why it made sense for the Church to insert itself there over abortion issues?

[california boy]

You can try to read the tea leaves all you want, but the fact remains that the two different issues are different issues in nearly every respect.  The ways each has played out politically in recent history are very different, one from the other. Thus, to draw conclusions about the priorities of the LDS Church based on only a few perspectives of the events would be nonsensical, especially when even a cursory view tells us that the Church has put a great deal of emphasis on both issues over the years.

 

If I had to speculate like you've done above, I'd go with my analogy to rockpond.  We can compare the political dynamics of the recent history of both issues as a flood (same-sex marriage) to rain (abortion.)  The public opinion numbers show the stark comparison: dramatic, sea-change changes in favor of same-sex marriage within a decade, while the opinions on abortion have remained roughly the same for forty years.  So, what would you see as an onlooker watching a flood overtake a house?  You might see sandbags, a big influx of neighbors helping, in any case you'd see water levels rise dramatically.  What about a smaller amount but steady level of rain?  You wouldn't see a yard turn into a lake or rushing river, things would get wet.  The house might need new shingles from time to time, good maintenance on the exterior and a careful watch for mold inside.  Much less dramatic: the response would be different but in each case tailored to protect the house.

 

There are two things that are not in dispute.  

 

The church has NEVER fought abortion at any time when it has come up for a vote.  Not spent a dime.  Not organized it's members ONCE.

 

The church has NEVER gone after any other single political issue like it did to take away the civil rights of gays to marry in California.    Not only is the amount of money and man hours it spent unprecedented in church history, it is unprecedented in ANY church history on ANY other issue, including abortion.

[jkwilliams]

There are two things that are not in dispute.  

 

The church has NEVER fought abortion at any time when it has come up for a vote.  Not spent a dime.  Not organized it's members ONCE.

 

The church has NEVER gone after any other single political issue like it did to take away the civil rights of gays to marry in California.    Not only is the amount of money and man hours it spent unprecedented in church history, it is unprecedented in ANY church history on ANY other issue, including abortion.

 

I think the church went after the ERA with about the same amount of effort back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was just less public an effort, but I think that's more due to the Internet than anything else.

[california boy]

I think the church went after the ERA with about the same amount of effort back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was just less public an effort, but I think that's more due to the Internet than anything else.

Ok, I will bite.  CFR that the church members spent 40 million dollars and provided 70% of the manpower to defeat the ERA.

[jkwilliams]

Ok, I will bite.  CFR that the church members spent 40 million dollars and provided 70% of the manpower to defeat the ERA.

 

It was a different approach, but just as effective, but you may be right that it wasn't as organized or well-financed. I'll look it up when I have time.

[Meadowchik]

There are two things that are not in dispute.

The church has NEVER fought abortion at any time when it has come up for a vote. Not spent a dime. Not organized it's members ONCE.

The church has NEVER gone after any other single political issue like it did to take away the civil rights of gays to marry in California. Not only is the amount of money and man hours it spent unprecedented in church history, it is unprecedented in ANY church history on ANY other issue, including abortion.

CFR your "nevers."

[Zakuska]

Donations to support the anti-ERA effort were solicited by ward bishops; speeches against the amendment were deemed appropriate at all church meetings, and church buildings were used as an anti-ERA literature distribution points. Church sponsored anti-ERA organizations operated in Florida, Nevada, North and South Carolina, Missouri, Illinois and Arizona.

 

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/equalrightsamendment.html

[Meadowchik]

I'm not getting your conclusion... All of these are battles between opponents and proponents.

Prop 8 was an unconstitutional ballot initiative that led to SCOTUS making a decision that nullified the Church's work in CA and elsewhere.

So tell me again why it made sense for the Church to insert itself there over abortion issues?

The OP is not about the effectiveness of political strategies, it is about judging the values of LDS leadership.

BTW there could be reasons beyond winning a political battles; taking part could be a prophetic function, even if that voice is on the "losing side."

[rockpond]

The OP is not about the effectiveness of political strategies, it is about judging the values of LDS leadership.

BTW there could be reasons beyond winning a political battles; taking part could be a prophetic function, even if that voice is on the "losing side."

 

So what does it tell us about the values of LDS Leadership that they chose to lead an unconstitutional, losing battle to take away the rights of a minority when they don't seem to ever do the same with abortion initiatives?

[Zakuska]

So what does it tell us about the values of LDS Leadership that they chose to lead an unconstitutional, losing battle to take away the rights of a minority when they don't seem to ever do the same with abortion initiatives?

Because it made the minority fight for their rights and thus it makes them appreciate it more once they get it.  Opposition in all things and All.

[rockpond]

Because it made the minority fight for their rights and thus it makes them appreciate it more once they get it.  Opposition in all things and All.

 

Ha.  Nice.

[Storm Rider]

So what does it tell us about the values of LDS Leadership that they chose to lead an unconstitutional, losing battle to take away the rights of a minority when they don't seem to ever do the same with abortion initiatives?

 

This is spin.  There were no rights being "taken away"; they did not exist.  When you are in that glass house, best not throw rocks. 

[california boy]

CFR your "nevers."

lol.  You are my answer to your CFR.  You haven't found one time where the church made any kind of effort politically to stop abortion.  There is no record of church support fighting the legalization of abortion or subsequent ballot measures limiting abortion. There is no fundraising asking members to donate money to stop abortion related ballot measures.  There is no record of a call to knock on doors and stand on street corners waiving signs fighting abortion related ballot measures.My never means I can never find any church political actions against abortion.  If you can find some, I will withdraw the "never".

 

Nope.  It is only the gays that the church targeted to take away their legal civil right to marry in California.  I wonder why you have such a hard time admitting what is clearly so obvious.  You could certainly ask most of the citizens of the United States whether the Mormon Church fought to pass Prop 8.  It wasn't a small effort.  Yet, you can't find even a single time where the church fought ballot measures that dealt with abortion issues.  Perhaps you see the unbalanced judgement of the church as well and it is hard pill to swallow.  I don't think you are alone.  

[california boy]

This is spin.  There were no rights being "taken away"; they did not exist.  When you are in that glass house, best not throw rocks. 

 

What are you talking about.  Prop 8 took away the legal right for gay couples to marry.  Even in California we live under the law.  Just like the Supreme Court of the United States determins the constitutionality of laws for the federal government, the California Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of laws for the state of California.  They ruled that no one under the constitution of California could deny gay couples the legal right to marry.  Legal marriages then started taking place until the passage of Prop 8 which changed the constitution of the state of California.  It took the federal courts to correct this discrimination against gay couples.  The federal constitution specifically grants equal protection under the law for all of it's citizens.  You know the rest of the story.

 

Hardly spin.  More like fact.  Why would you even make that kind of statement?

[Daniel2]

This is spin. There were no rights being "taken away"; they did not exist. When you are in that glass house, best not throw rocks.

Um.... no. YOUR comment is the "spin," here.

The right to marry someone of one's same gender most definitely had already been recognized by the California Supreme Court according to California's Constitution.

Approximately 18,000 same-sex couples had already exercised that right and were already legally married. Prop 8 didn't negate those marriages--it removed the right with the intention to prevent any more couples from marrying.

Prop 8 definitely removed that legally-recognized right.

EDIT: CB beat me to it--I second what he said. I'm puzzled why you would even try to deny what's so demonstrably factual...

Edited October 16, 2015 by Daniel2

[Meadowchik]

lol.  You are my answer to your CFR.  You haven't found one time where the church made any kind of effort politically to stop abortion.  There is no record of church support fighting the legalization of abortion or subsequent ballot measures limiting abortion. There is no fundraising asking members to donate money to stop abortion related ballot measures.  There is no record of a call to knock on doors and stand on street corners waiving signs fighting abortion related ballot measures.My never means I can never find any church political actions against abortion.  If you can find some, I will withdraw the "never".

 

Nope.  It is only the gays that the church targeted to take away their legal civil right to marry in California.  I wonder why you have such a hard time admitting what is clearly so obvious.  You could certainly ask most of the citizens of the United States whether the Mormon Church fought to pass Prop 8.  It wasn't a small effort.  Yet, you can't find even a single time where the church fought ballot measures that dealt with abortion issues.  Perhaps you see the unbalanced judgement of the church as well and it is hard pill to swallow.  I don't think you are alone.  

 

The Church selected a representative to speak before the US Senate subcommittee considering a new Amendment.  I already posted that.  The Church spoke out against abortion in General Conference for the

 

So no, that's not "never."

 

And,

 

"In the 50 consecutive semi-annual general conferences between October 1970 and April 1995, LDS Church Leaders delivered more than 75 general conference sermons addressing the practice and legalization of abortion. In those critical twenty-five years, during which the novel legal rule of abortion-on-demand was being created, imposed, established, and expanded, and during which the practice of abortion was becoming widespread and cultural acceptance was growing, the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints expressed unequivocal opposition to permissive abortion in every general conference; not a single semi-annual conference passed without some direct criticism of or condemnation of permissive abortion by the General Authorities."  link: http://slideplayer.com/slide/4443836/

 

I already said that, as well. 

 

Both of those are examples of political action.  Also, you shouldn't discount the efforts against the ERA when considering abortion, because continued abortion legalization was considered to be affected by the ERA. 

 

I came on this thread to provide examples of the Church speaking out against abortion, as the Church very much has done so. 

[Meadowchik]

So what does it tell us about the values of LDS Leadership that they chose to lead an unconstitutional, losing battle to take away the rights of a minority when they don't seem to ever do the same with abortion initiatives?

 

This question is more than a little disingenuous.  Prop 8 was a legal venue that the Church supported, which was ruled unconstitutional only later in court.  Many judges before in many states had upheld similar measures across the country as constitutional before Prop 8 was passed.  (Other courts in other nations have also found such laws to be constitutional, btw.)

 

What we know is that the LDS Church opposed same-sex marriage and abortion, that it still opposes both, and that it has done many things to express that opposition for both.  Any objective analysis would say that there was no one single political event surrounding abortion that was comparable to Prop 8 for ssm.  Thus, objectively, one can only speculate about what the Church would have done had there been such an event in the political acceptance of abortion. 

 

However, if the actions and words of LDS Church leadership are any evidence, they care deeply about both. 

[rockpond]

This question is more than a little disingenuous.  Prop 8 was a legal venue that the Church supported, which was ruled unconstitutional only later in court.  Many judges before in many states had upheld similar measures across the country as constitutional before Prop 8 was passed.  (Other courts in other nations have also found such laws to be constitutional, btw.)

 

What we know is that the LDS Church opposed same-sex marriage and abortion, that it still opposes both, and that it has done many things to express that opposition for both.  Any objective analysis would say that there was no one single political event surrounding abortion that was comparable to Prop 8 for ssm.  Thus, objectively, one can only speculate about what the Church would have done had there been such an event in the political acceptance of abortion. 

 

However, if the actions and words of LDS Church leadership are any evidence, they care deeply about both. 

 

The men who lead our Church claim the title of Seer.  I hope you aren't saying it is disingenuous of me to anticipate their fulfilling that role -- that hope is why I sustain them.  They, the 15 men who sit as prophets, seers, and revelators are welcome to explain either 1) their inability to recognize the inevitable outcome of Prop 8 and other similar measures they backed or, 2) why such an endeavor that hurt individuals, families, and Church PR was important or valuable.

 

I certainly agree that the Brethren care deeply about both gay marriage and abortion.  No question.  But they chose to make an unprecedented move with respect to gay marriage.  Remember, they didn't just happen across Prop 8 and decide that it was something worth supporting... they were working on it before it even existed as a ballot proposition.

[Storm Rider]

Um.... no. YOUR comment is the "spin," here.

The right to marry someone of one's same gender most definitely had already been recognized by the California Supreme Court according to California's Constitution.

Approximately 18,000 same-sex couples had already exercised that right and were already legally married. Prop 8 didn't negate those marriages--it removed the right with the intention to prevent any more couples from marrying.

Prop 8 definitely removed that legally-recognized right.

EDIT: CB beat me to it--I second what he said. I'm puzzled why you would even try to deny what's so demonstrably factual...

 

You are speaking of a specific point in time.  I was speaking about the language of this being a "right".  It did not exist and then it did, but only very recently.  I am not slicing history into the last fifteen years, but taking a much longer period.

 

In 1800 was there a right for gays to marry in the USA?  How about 1850?  1900?  1950?  1975? 1980? 1985? 1990?  1995?  The answer for this entire period was NO right for gays to be married.  It did not exist.  In fact, Hawaii and Alaska were the first states to specifically deny any right for gay people to marry in 1998.  

 

This created "right", something that never existed before, did not gain any ground until the end of 1999 when the USSC ruled that Vermont's state constitution did not prevent gay marriage and ordered Vermont to set up legislation to institute gay marriage.  

[california boy]

This question is more than a little disingenuous.  Prop 8 was a legal venue that the Church supported, which was ruled unconstitutional only later in court.  Many judges before in many states had upheld similar measures across the country as constitutional before Prop 8 was passed.  (Other courts in other nations have also found such laws to be constitutional, btw.)

 

What we know is that the LDS Church opposed same-sex marriage and abortion, that it still opposes both, and that it has done many things to express that opposition for both.  Any objective analysis would say that there was no one single political event surrounding abortion that was comparable to Prop 8 for ssm.  Thus, objectively, one can only speculate about what the Church would have done had there been such an event in the political acceptance of abortion. 

 

However, if the actions and words of LDS Church leadership are any evidence, they care deeply about both. 

 

Boy you are a slippery one.  I can understand your need to be desperately right on this.  But moving the goal post isn't going to work.  No one is disputing the fact that the church has made a few speeches about abortion, mostly to it's own membership, but the statement I made was specifically about ballot measures, not about speaking out.  This is what I said.

 

There are two things that are not in dispute.

 

The church has NEVER fought abortion at any time when it has come up for a vote. Not spent a dime. Not organized it's members ONCE.

The church has NEVER gone after any other single political issue like it did to take away the civil rights of gays to marry in California. Not only is the amount of money and man hours it spent unprecedented in church history, it is unprecedented in ANY church history on ANY other issue, including abortion.

 

 

 

While you have disagreed with the statement, you have yet to come up with any facts that dispute what I wrote.  Perhaps it is shameful that the church went after the gays so vehemently and have only made a few speeches over abortion.  But that is the way it is.  And those are the facts whether you like them or not.

[Meadowchik]

The men who lead our Church claim the title of Seer.  I hope you aren't saying it is disingenuous of me to anticipate their fulfilling that role -- that hope is why I sustain them.  They, the 15 men who sit as prophets, seers, and revelators are welcome to explain either 1) their inability to recognize the inevitable outcome of Prop 8 and other similar measures they backed or, 2) why such an endeavor that hurt individuals, families, and Church PR was important or valuable.

 

I certainly agree that the Brethren care deeply about both gay marriage and abortion.  No question.  But they chose to make an unprecedented move with respect to gay marriage.  Remember, they didn't just happen across Prop 8 and decide that it was something worth supporting... they were working on it before it even existed as a ballot proposition.

 

It is disingenuous to call something unconstitutional before it is actually unconstitutional. 

 

I hope you'd sustain the Church leadership for more than a hope in their abilities as seers.  Why do you find it necessary to claim that they did not know the outcome of Prop 8?  There have been many prophets who were called to testify even when the vast majority of hearers failed to hearken unto their voices.  Yet the testimony stands as a witness to the current ears and to the generations.  I can respect the painful truth that people feel they were hurt by the LDS backing of Prop 8, however, do you actually know God's will in the matter?  Do you know that they should have done something else and not what they did?

 

I'm glad that you agree that they care about both issues.  Making an unprecedented move in regards to gay marriage does not mean they cared more about it than abortion.  We know, and it has been measured, that the change of public opinion over gay marriage was quite rapid and in that regard, the period of time in question was also unprecedented, concerning same-sex marriage.

[Meadowchik]

Boy you are a slippery one.  I can understand your need to be desperately right on this.  But moving the goal post isn't going to work.  No one is disputing the fact that the church has made a few speeches about abortion, mostly to it's own membership, but the statement I made was specifically about ballot measures, not about speaking out.  This is what I said.

 

 

While you have disagreed with the statement, you have yet to come up with any facts that dispute what I wrote.  Perhaps it is shameful that the church went after the gays so vehemently and have only made a few speeches over abortion.  But that is the way it is.  And those are the facts whether you like them or not.

 

The Church did not merely make "a few speeches about abortion."  If, for example, the Church had explicitly spoke against President Obama or Senator Obama preceeding the 2008 or 2012 elections, and in every General Conference during those times, it would have surely been considered political.  This isn't much different, except that since abortion is not a candidate but an issue, it is legal for a Church to speak for or against it.  Seventy-five addresses in 50 consecutive General Conferences during the time the country was embroiled over abortion laws after Roe V Wade would be considered political in any reasonable sense of the word.  They used their pulpit and their role as Church leaders, as those with moral and spiritual authority, to speak out against a major political issue of the day.

 

I cannot pretend to know the thoughts of the Brethren, but I can easily think of reasons why they did what they apparently did, politically, regarding Proposition 8, and regarding abortion.  Given the different time periods and situations of the two issues, neither seems out of balance to me.  With the disclaimer that there could be much I do not know, obviously, I can say "I get it."  You don't, but I can appreciate your feelings.  However, your feeling one way does not mean that I shouldn't feel another.