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

[Five Solas]

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

There's nothing in the OP to support that conclusion, Meadowchik.  It's not about judging values--it's a sincere effort to understand the values of LDS leadership.  What is it about LDS theology that makes possible a disproportionate political response against SSM in comparison to convenience abortion?  I'd genuinely like to know. 

 

The closest we've got is a couple of LDS posters who wrote LDS teachings provide no guidance on when life begins & therefore convenience abortion isn't certain murder.  But when Hillel2 posted his thoughtful response (post #105) asking why anyone would take risk of being wrong on such a question--there were a couple of responses, but no answers.     

 

Striking only 3 LDS posters on the forum were willing to vote SSM is a more serious matter than convenience abortion.  That's less than 10% of LDS respondents in step with the publicly manifested political priorities of LDS leadership.

 

Nine pages in--perhaps that's why there's been so very little in the way of explaining LDS leadership's values and priorities.  (Many LDS respondents, yourself included, poured forth evidence demonstrating they aren't in the Pro-Choice camp--as if I'd suggested such a thing.  A number of others sought to equate SSM and convenience abortion in explaining their "other" votes.)  I'm going to speculate the voting tells the real story:  Most LDS here aren't comfortable with the priorities of their leadership, perhaps they're even embarrassed by them.  We're not getting explanations that could aid in understanding the values of LDS leadership--because LDS members here have little or no explanation they feel comfortable giving. 

 

--Erik

[Meadowchik]

There's nothing in the OP to support that conclusion, Meadowchik. It's not about judging values--it's a sincere effort to understand the values of LDS leadership. What is it about LDS theology that makes possible a disproportionate political response against SSM in comparison to convenience abortion? I'd genuinely like to know.

The closest we've got is a couple of LDS posters who wrote LDS teachings provide no guidance on when life begins & therefore convenience abortion isn't certain murder. But when Hillel2 posted his thoughtful response (post #105) asking why anyone would take risk of being wrong on such a question--there were a couple of responses, but no answers.

Striking only 3 LDS posters on the forum were willing to vote SSM is a more serious matter than convenience abortion. That's less than 10% of LDS respondents in step with the publicly manifested political priorities of LDS leadership.

Nine pages in--perhaps that's why there's been so very little in the way of explaining LDS leadership's values and priorities. (Many LDS respondents, yourself included, poured forth evidence demonstrating they aren't in the Pro-Choice camp--as if I'd suggested such a thing. A number of others sought to equate SSM and convenience abortion in explaining their "other" votes.) I'm going to speculate the voting tells the real story: Most LDS here aren't comfortable with the priorities of their leadership, perhaps they're even embarrassed by them. We're not getting explanations that could aid in understanding the values of LDS leadership--because LDS members here have little or no explanation they feel comfortable giving.

--Erik

"Judging" or "understanding" can be synonymous, especially in the context of when I said, "The OP is not about the effectiveness of political strategies..."

In terms of the responses to your OP, it was a 2-part OP, first posting a poll and then asking an additional question. When a poll is given, people frequently discuss their poll choice in the comments. So it would not make sense to seek for answers to your "why" in the obvious explanations of the poll choice, right?

Politically, it is clear that the Church has put forth enormous energy against abortion. Pointing toward the relatively spectacular opposition to Prop 8 does not change that. I've pointed out how the two issues of abortion and same-sex marriage are different, which they are, both in substance and in dynamic public perception.

Perhaps people are reluctant to answer a question that they know they cannot answer, because they cannot presume to tell you why another, especially a spiritual authority, did something they did. That's not the same as being so uncomfortable with the result that they don't want to think about it.

Speculation on others' intentions and thinking requires disclaimers, and I did speculate in this thread:

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.

CB repeatedly implied I was desperate by virtue of my appraisal of the situation, and I comfortably offered my understanding as a possible explanation:

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.

So, it's possible that many have found their own answers and continue to support the actions of the Church on these matters. Like I said to CB, with the disclaimer that there may be much for me to learn, I get it.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Meadowchik

[california boy]

"Judging" or "understanding" can be synonymous, especially in the context of when I said, "The OP is not about the effectiveness of political strategies..."

In terms of the responses to your OP, it was a 2-part OP, first posting a poll and then asking an additional question. When a poll is given, people frequently discuss their poll choice in the comments. So it would not make sense to seek for answers to your "why" in the obvious explanations of the poll choice, right?

Politically, it is clear that the Church has put forth enormous energy against abortion. Pointing toward the relatively spectacular opposition to Prop 8 does not change that. I've pointed out how the two issues of abortion and same-sex marriage are different, which they are, both in substance and in dynamic public perception.

Perhaps people are reluctant to answer a question that they know they cannot answer, because they cannot presume to tell you why another, especially a spiritual authority, did something they did. That's not the same as being so uncomfortable with the result that they don't want to think about it.

Speculation on others' intentions and thinking requires disclaimers, and I did speculate in this thread:

CB repeatedly implied I was desperate by virtue of my appraisal of the situation, and I comfortably offered my understanding as a possible explanation:

So, it's possible that many have found their own answers and continue to support the actions of the Church on these matters. Like I said to CB, with the disclaimer that there may be much for me to learn, I get it.

 

 

CB didn't buy your explanation for one minute btw.  There was a ballot vote on abortion before Row v Wade.  The church did nothing.  There has been 56 ballot measures since then on limiting abortion,, the church did nothing.  I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves rather than speculate and contort logic to provide some kind of feeble excuse.  Clearly the church had it in for gay marriage.  Abortion, lots of speeches.

[Meadowchik]

CB didn't buy your explanation for one minute btw.  There was a ballot vote on abortion before Row v Wade.  The church did nothing.  There has been 56 ballot measures since then on limiting abortion,, the church did nothing.  I prefer to let the facts speak for themselves rather than speculate and contort logic to provide some kind of feeble excuse.  Clearly the church had it in for gay marriage.  Abortion, lots of speeches.

 

I didn't think you did.  It seems to me that, for you, one must see it your way to be rational.  I took your personal remarks in our recent back-and-forths as a reflection of that. And it's too bad.  One doesn't have to feign "contortion of logic" of another side just to be right.  One day you might see that, I hope!

[Five Solas]

Try this, Meadowchik.  Pretend you can see it CB's way.  Pretend that he (and I) are right and that the LDS Church leadership really did exhibit passion & energy against SSM that was far beyond anything we ever saw them do to oppose convenience abortion. 

 

Now with that hat on (meaning you accept the above premise for purpose of the discussion)--how would you (or any LDS) answer my previous question:

 

What is it about LDS theology that makes possible a disproportionate political response against SSM in comparison to convenience abortion?

 

I suspect a reason you're fighting so hard against the premise is because you don't want to face the question.  Show me I'm wrong.

:0)

 

--Erik

 

[rockpond]

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.

 

It's not disingenuous, it's a fact.  The proposition was and is unconstitutional.  

 

As I said, a number of posts back, if the Brethren want to explain the purpose of using members' time and money to fight a losing battle to pass an unconstitutional amendment that ultimately led to the national legal recognition of gay marriage... they are free to do so.  But I am not aware of that having happened.

 

None of us can really state what legal/political issues the Brethren may or may not care about most.  Frankly, there are 15 of them and its unlikely they'd all agree one any one item anyway.  All I'm saying is that they made an unprecedented move regarding Prop 8 & gay marriage legalization and have never done anything similar with abortion.

[Meadowchik]

It's not disingenuous, it's a fact. The proposition was and is unconstitutional.

It was not "unconstitutional" when it was passed, only when Judge Walker, then SCOTUS declared it to be so. Federal district judges in the past have had opposing viewpoints about the constitutionality of such laws. How can something be constitutional in on state and not in another? It's because there is subjectivity in our laws and there is subjectivity in SCOTUS decisions.

Perhaps your opinion is that Prop 8 was unconstitional in 2008, while in fact it was constitutional in 2008.

A more accurate statement would be that the Brethren supported state amendment Proposition 8 of California which would later be struck down by the US Supreme Court.

BTW, the Church's legal opinion being at odds with SCOTUS does not make the Church wrong about it, but it is SCOTUS who rules on public law. Imo this involvement gave the Church the opportunity to be a witness of marriage as defined by a man and a woman, both as prophets and as participants in the public square.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Meadowchik

[california boy]

It was not "unconstitutional" when it was passed, only when Judge Walker, then SCOTUS declared it to be so. Federal district judges in the past have had opposing viewpoints about the constitutionality of such laws. How can something be constitutional in on state and not in another? It's because there is subjectivity in our laws and there is subjectivity in SCOTUS decisions.

Perhaps your opinion is that Prop 8 was unconstitional in 2008, while in fact it was constitutional in 2008.

A more accurate statement would be that the Brethren supported state amendment Proposition 8 of California which would later be struck down by the US Supreme Court.

BTW, the Church's legal opinion being at odds with SCOTUS does not make the Church wrong about it, but it is SCOTUS who rules on public law. Imo this involvement gave the Church the opportunity to be a witness of marriage as defined by a man and a woman, both as prophets and as participants in the public square.

 

I think you guys are talking past each other. Maybe I could clarify.  Prop 22 passed in California which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman several years earlier.  The Supreme Court of California ruled that it was unconstitutional under California law.  So that proposition was struck down.  Gays had a constitutional right to marry under California law.  Gay marriage began and continued until Prop 8 was passed.  Prop 8 took away the constitutional right for gays to marry in the state of California because Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment.

 

Prop 8 was then challenged in federal court as being against the constitution of the United States (judge Walker was a federal judge, not a state judge).  He ruled that Prop 8 violated the federal constitution.  His ruling was affirmed by virtually every other federal judge throughout the United States, striking down other state laws that banned gay marriage.  When the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, it was a federal ruling which trumps all state laws on gay marriage, and made gay marriage legal throughout the country.  It also affirmed that the California Supreme Court had ruled correctly prior to Prop 8 based on the same guarenteed rights found in both constitutions. 

 

So yes, when the church supported Prop 8, they were supporting a ban on gay marriage that had been ruled a constitutional right by the Supreme Court of California.

 

Hope that clarifies.

[rockpond]

It was not "unconstitutional" when it was passed, only when Judge Walker, then SCOTUS declared it to be so. Federal district judges in the past have had opposing viewpoints about the constitutionality of such laws. How can something be constitutional in on state and not in another? It's because there is subjectivity in our laws and there is subjectivity in SCOTUS decisions.

Perhaps your opinion is that Prop 8 was unconstitional in 2008, while in fact it was constitutional in 2008.

A more accurate statement would be that the Brethren supported state amendment Proposition 8 of California which would later be struck down by the US Supreme Court.

BTW, the Church's legal opinion being at odds with SCOTUS does not make the Church wrong about it, but it is SCOTUS who rules on public law. Imo this involvement gave the Church the opportunity to be a witness of marriage as defined by a man and a woman, both as prophets and as participants in the public square.

Seems like the difference between us is that you are determining a law's constitutionality based on when a judge or judges rule on it. I'm defining it based on the merits of the law.

More on topic, though, is the fact that FP and Q12 as prophets, seers, and revelators aren't bound by the constraint of not knowing what SCOTUS would decide.

I can get behind the idea that they chose to sacrifice the time and resources of church members to "stand as a witness" rather than "living together in mutual understanding and peace". But I think the question posed by this thread is: why was no such witnessing stand ever taken regarding abortion?

[Meadowchik]

Seems like the difference between us is that you are determining a law's constitutionality based on when a judge or judges rule on it. I'm defining it based on the merits of the law.

More on topic, though, is the fact that FP and Q12 as prophets, seers, and revelators aren't bound by the constraint of not knowing what SCOTUS would decide.

I can get behind the idea that they chose to sacrifice the time and resources of church members to "stand as a witness" rather than "living together in mutual understanding and peace". But I think the question posed by this thread is: why was no such witnessing stand ever taken regarding abortion?

"No such" requires a comparable legal situation. Was there ever a state voting for or against abortion, whose legal measure led to the nationwide legalisation of same-sex marriage?

No. There was no such situation, therefore there was no such opportunity.

[rockpond]

"No such" requires a comparable legal situation. Was there ever a state voting for or against abortion, whose legal measure led to the nationwide legalisation of same-sex marriage?

No. There was no such situation, therefore there was no such opportunity.

 

California Boy has already documented that on this thread.  There were opportunities.  Many of them.

[Meadowchik]

California Boy has already documented that on this thread. There were opportunities. Many of them.

There was"no such" opportunity for abortion as there was with same-sex marriage via Prop 8. If you think any instance cited previously compares, cite it and we can look at it together.

[california boy]

There was"no such" opportunity for abortion as there was with same-sex marriage via Prop 8. If you think any instance cited previously compares, cite it and we can look at it together.

 

I think that would be when the State of Washington put it up for a vote on the ballot prior to the Supreme Court ruling.  I have already cited the ballot measure.  We already talked about this.

[rockpond]

There was"no such" opportunity for abortion as there was with same-sex marriage via Prop 8. If you think any instance cited previously compares, cite it and we can look at it together.

 

To stand as a witness, the opportunity did not need to be identical.  This is a false premise.

[Meadowchik]

Seems like the difference between us is that you are determining a law's constitutionality based on when a judge or judges rule on it. I'm defining it based on the merits of the law.

Read enough court opinions and you'll find ample argumentatively crucial references to other rulings and opinions. Judges frequently allow opinions given up to any given point to imply evolution of meanings and necessary consequences of law.

So according to SCOTUS and most probably every other judge in the nation in any circuit, timing most definitely matters.

[rockpond]

Read enough court opinions and you'll find ample argumentatively crucial references to other rulings and opinions. Judges frequently allow opinions given up to any given point to imply evolution of meanings and necessary consequences of law.

So according to SCOTUS and most probably every other judge in the nation in any circuit, timing most definitely matters.

 

But timing shouldn't be a problem for prophets and seers.  And, again, the issue addressed by this thread is why the Brethren have never chosen to take such a stand regarding abortion.

[Meadowchik]

I think that would be when the State of Washington put it up for a vote on the ballot prior to the Supreme Court ruling. I have already cited the ballot measure. We already talked about this.

Yes, we did.

Rockpond brought it up again, though.

Do you seriously think that that Washington vote was comparable to Prop 8 in terms of national politics, yes or no?

[Meadowchik]

But timing shouldn't be a problem for prophets and seers. And, again, the issue addressed by this thread is why the Brethren have never chosen to take such a stand regarding abortion.

In that case, if the ability to discern exposure and understand timing is a potential gift employed by the Brethren, doesn't it make sense that they choose a relatively remarkable approach for a remarkable situation such as Prop 8?

We already know they'd been speaking out against abortion for over a century, so it's not a question of them witnessing, but the manner in which the Church's action supporting Prop 8 was unique that is being scrutinised.

[california boy]

Yes, we did.

Rockpond brought it up again, though.

Do you seriously think that that Washington vote was comparable to Prop 8 in terms of national politics, yes or no?

 

There are no exact comparisons, but it certainly was an opportunity for the church to speak out about this moral issue.  Both were ballot measures.  Both states have about the same percentage of Mormons in them.  Both were moral issues that the church feels strongly about.  Both were hotly contested issues that were pretty evenly split at the time of the vote.  Both were gaining momentum in public opinion.  Those that supported each issue felt it was a constitutional right.  Both were probably headed to the Supreme Court of the United States where that decision would and ultimately in both cases were decided.  

 

So yeah, I would give it a big YES

 

Maybe what is fascinating is the motives of the church.  From my point of view, it just feels like the church had it in for gays.  But then I have never really bought into the whole "moral issue" thing.  I can't see how preventing gays from marrying and instead forcing them to just live together is a better option.  I know.  It is just me.

[rockpond]

In that case, if the ability to discern exposure and understand timing is a potential gift employed by the Brethren, doesn't it make sense that they choose a relatively remarkable approach for a remarkable situation such as Prop 8?

We already know they'd been speaking out against abortion for over a century, so it's not a question of them witnessing, but the manner in which the Church's action supporting Prop 8 was unique that is being scrutinised.

 

First, they, the Church, created the "remarkable" situation of Prop 8.  Second, there have been other opportunities in which they could have taken a remarkable and unique approach to abortion laws.  Imagine, for example, if the Brethren decided to put the same kind of effort behind personhood amendments?  The same remarkable actions could be taken.

 

But they haven't.  Thus the scrutiny.

[Meadowchik]

There are no exact comparisons, but it certainly was an opportunity for the church to speak out about this moral issue. Both were ballot measures. Both states have about the same percentage of Mormons in them. Both were moral issues that the church feels strongly about. Both were hotly contested issues that were pretty evenly split at the time of the vote. Both were gaining momentum in public opinion. Those that supported each issue felt it was a constitutional right. Both were probably headed to the Supreme Court of the United States where that decision would and ultimately in both cases were decided.

So yeah, I would give it a big YES

Maybe what is fascinating is the motives of the church. From my point of view, it just feels like the church had it in for gays. But then I have never really bought into the whole "moral issue" thing. I can't see how preventing gays from marrying and instead forcing them to just live together is a better option. I know. It is just me.

Yet the national profile for the Washington ballot measure was no where near the exposure to Prop 8. The Washington ballot was a popular response to recent deaths from botched abortions. It wasn't an attempt to amend state law after the current state law was found to be insufficient to ban abortion. Prop 8 was happening in a state which already had civil unions, which already had put ssm to the state courts. California was a state with prime conditions to break a more final ground for or against same-sex marriage. Washington's measure was the beginning move toward legalisation. Had Roe v Wade not been decided fairly soon after, it might have found challenges up the dockets. But that didn't happen. No abortion ballot in any US state has had the kind of national legal and political potential that Prop 8 did with same-sex marriage.

I remember, Prop 8 was a huge deal when it was going on and it proved to be huge in the final analysis, as of 2015. When we talk about the legalisation of abortion, however, Roe v Wade is the single legal event that eclipses all other events surrounding abortion, whether individually or collectively. And as we know, SCOTUS decided it, not the people. There wasn't a campaign to be had at that moment in time, just a hearing.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

To stand as a witness, the opportunity did not need to be identical. This is a false premise.

Yet the Church has and does stand as a witness against abortion, the most recent Conference included.

You're talking about the witnessing in terms of financial and organisational magnitude. You're questioning the fact that the Church didn't do an anti-abortion campaign in the way it supported the Prop 8 campaign.

Well, point to me a specific opportunity and let's look at it.

[rockpond]

Yet the Church has and does stand as a witness against abortion, the most recent Conference included.

You're talking about the witnessing in terms of financial and organisational magnitude. You're questioning the fact that the Church didn't do an anti-abortion campaign in the way it supported the Prop 8 campaign.

Well, point to me a specific opportunity and let's look at it.

 

I did... Personhood Amendments.  The Brethren could decide to get behind those in the same way that they did with gay marriage.  Remember, their efforts against gay marriage began back in the 90's in HI.  Then the 1995 Proclamation.  CA Prop 22 in 2001.  Formation/involvement of NOM.  Initiatives in other states.  Prop 8 in CA.

 

They could do the same with the Personhood Amendments but haven't.

[california boy]

Yet the national profile for the Washington ballot measure was no where near the exposure to Prop 8. The Washington ballot was a popular response to recent deaths from botched abortions. It wasn't an attempt to amend state law after the current state law was found to be insufficient to ban abortion. Prop 8 was happening in a state which already had civil unions, which already had put ssm to the state courts. California was a state with prime conditions to break a more final ground for or against same-sex marriage. Washington's measure was the beginning move toward legalisation. Had Roe v Wade not been decided fairly soon after, it might have found challenges up the dockets. But that didn't happen. No abortion ballot in any US state has had the kind of national legal and political potential that Prop 8 did with same-sex marriage.

I remember, Prop 8 was a huge deal when it was going on and it proved to be huge in the final analysis, as of 2015. When we talk about the legalisation of abortion, however, Roe v Wade is the single legal event that eclipses all other events surrounding abortion, whether individually or collectively. And as we know, SCOTUS decided it, not the people. There wasn't a campaign to be had at that moment in time, just a hearing.

 

I am not really willing to go toe to toe against you on this issue.  Like I said, the comparison between the two issues are not exactly comparable, but I gave you my points on how they are comparible.  

 

Perhaps it is not surprising that the church didn't make such a big deal out of the abortion ballot measure.  But what is startiling is the church made NO issue out of the abortion ballot measure.  

[Meadowchik]

I did... Personhood Amendments. The Brethren could decide to get behind those in the same way that they did with gay marriage. Remember, their efforts against gay marriage began back in the 90's in HI. Then the 1995 Proclamation. CA Prop 22 in 2001. Formation/involvement of NOM. Initiatives in other states. Prop 8 in CA.

They could do the same with the Personhood Amendments but haven't.

Well, when one comes up that has potential to be a gamechanger, let's see what happens, shall we?