“Religious freedom is indeed under attack,” Elder Christofferson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I know of no Bill of Rights provisions that mention marriage at all.

Precisely.

Marriage, however one might define it, is not singled out for special protection in the Bill of Rights. Religious liberty is.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Another CFR. 

PS.  The other two were to your claims that the Church has fought against SSM in the US post-Oberfell

Seriiously?  Yuo issue a CFR that the church was involved heavily with Prop8??????????  Seriously??  If you are serious, There is a movie I want you to watch.  It is called Prop 8, the Mormon proposition.  It provides more documentation than you will ever want to see on the involvement of the church starting in the State of Hawaii.   

And as for the second CFR.  You are going to have to show me where I ever said that the Church has bought against SSM in the US post Oberfell.  

What I said is that that the church was continuing to fight to take away the civil rights of gays knowing full well they were attacking the civil rights of others..  I answered that by showing that the church has now begun by this latest rash of statments fighting gay marriage in Mexico.  And now as the OP of this thread, Australia.  Yeah.  Hard to believe, the church continues it's fight to deny the civil rights of others.  Since they lost that battle in the US, they are now exporting their efforts internationally. knowing full well that by doing so, they seek to take away now the civil rights of gays in other countries. When will it end.  Enough is enough.   Move on to another group.  There are plenty of other groups the church could work to take away their civil rights as well.  Have they not caused enough ill will towards the gay community already??  

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Seriiously?  Yuo issue a CFR that the church was involved heavily with Prop8??????????  Seriously??  If you are serious, There is a movie I want you to watch.  It is called Prop 8, the Mormon proposition.  It provides more documentation than you will ever want to see on the involvement of the church starting in the State of Hawaii.   

And as for the second CFR.  You are going to have to show me where I ever said that the Church has bought against SSM in the US post Oberfell.  

What I said is that that the church was continuing to fight to take away the civil rights of gays knowing full well they were attacking the civil rights of others..  I answered that by showing that the church has now begun by this latest rash of statments fighting gay marriage in Mexico.  And now as the OP of this thread, Australia.  Yeah.  Hard to believe, the church continues it's fight to deny the civil rights of others.  Since they lost that battle in the US, they are now exporting their efforts internationally. knowing full well that by doing so, they seek to take away now the civil rights of gays in other countries. When will it end.  Enough is enough.   Move on to another group.  There are plenty of other groups the church could work to take away their civil rights as well.  Have they not caused enough ill will towards the gay community already??  

No.  Not "that the church was involved heavily with Prop8."  That is called a straw man.  That is not what you said.  You said "Thanks to the Mormon Church."  This ignores that the groups that actually launched the ballot initiative, Protectmarriage.com and NOM are not LDS groups.  If you are seriously going to rely on that documentary for fact, we must live in different realities.  

 

As for the second, before I respond, I think it may be important to really understand how you define "civil right."  

[california boy]

 

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Actually sometimes breaking the law is the only way to give standing to a person so that it can come before the court system. This is especially so when the statute in question is a bad law. I disagree with you wholeheartedly. It is my opinion that SSM is an abomination and should be fought just as hard as the LGBTQ fight for their rights.

I do not agree with laws favoring the forcing of people to go against their consciences, e.g. bakers/photographers being fined for choosing not to bake a cake or take a photo.

The U.S. is becoming a nanny state, now making laws applying to our thoughts and beliefs. There is a difference in enforcing laws that are violated and enforcing laws that try to compel us how to think and what the government wants us to believe to be acceptable. If we choose differently then we are regarded as haters, bigots, etc and then fined if we act upon those beliefs.

Being fined is being compelled. Being fined $120K  in my opinion in some circumstances is worse than being incarcerated.

Fine.  You can certainly quit obeying the laws of this country any time you want   Criminals do it all the time.  But like those criminals, you will be required to face the justice system just as those bakers and photographer did. Not a big deal to me.  Knock your socks off.

The US is not being a nanny state when they enforce existing law.  Where the heck did you get that idea.  If you don't like the civil rights laws that have been in this country for the past 50 years, then work to change the law.  Or get fined.  Or go to jail.  It is that simple.  

While you are certainly entitled to your own personal beliefs just like everyone else in this country, you are not allowed to break the laws of this country without consequences  Yes.  you are compelled to obey the law.  Is this all news to you???  Eventually you will understand the meaning of nanny state when they throw you in jail for contempt of court.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Seriiously?  Yuo issue a CFR that the church was involved heavily with Prop8??????????  Seriously??  If you are serious, There is a movie I want you to watch.  It is called Prop 8, the Mormon proposition.  It provides more documentation than you will ever want to see on the involvement of the church starting in the State of Hawaii.   

And as for the second CFR.  You are going to have to show me where I ever said that the Church has bought against SSM in the US post Oberfell.  

What I said is that that the church was continuing to fight to take away the civil rights of gays knowing full well they were attacking the civil rights of others..  I answered that by showing that the church has now begun by this latest rash of statments fighting gay marriage in Mexico.  And now as the OP of this thread, Australia.  Yeah.  Hard to believe, the church continues it's fight to deny the civil rights of others.  Since they lost that battle in the US, they are now exporting their efforts internationally. knowing full well that by doing so, they seek to take away now the civil rights of gays in other countries. When will it end.  Enough is enough.   Move on to another group.  There are plenty of other groups the church could work to take away their civil rights as well.  Have they not caused enough ill will towards the gay community already??  

 

Never mind.

Edited July 12, 2016 by USU78

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No.  Not "that the church was involved heavily with Prop8."  That is called a straw man.  That is not what you said.  You said "Thanks to the Mormon Church."  This ignores that the groups that actually launched the ballot initiative, Protectmarriage.com and NOM are not LDS groups.  If you are seriously going to rely on that documentary for fact, we must live in different realities.  

 

As for the second, before I respond, I think it may be important to really understand how you define "civil right."  

Well that is not really true.  If you want to know the church's connection wth  Protectmarriage.com and NOM, you should watch the movie Prop 8. The Mormon Proposition.  The facts are laid out and sources of those facts quoted.  It also addresses how the church got involved in Hawaii's SSM legislation.  And it documents the money flow that occurred.  

We got the movie from Netflix.  I probably should not have watched the film with my boyfriend.  He pretty much flipped out about it.  He had no idea how much the church was involved in the whole effort to take away the civil rights of gays.  I think some of it is a bit over the top, but there is enough there to answer your questions you have about NOM and Protectmarriage.com.  Follow the money.  

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Precisely.

Marriage, however one might define it, is not singled out for special protection in the Bill of Rights. Religious liberty is.

It sounds as if you're suggesting that civil rights recognized by the Supreme Court (but not found in the original Bill of Rights) are somehow less valid than those that were included in the original documentation written by the Founding Fathers.

Is that what you mean to suggest...?

Or if not, what was your point, in saying the above...?

Edited July 12, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I understand it, the much hailed "Utah compromise" has set a standard in finding a balance between anti-discrimination laws and guarantees of personal freedom.

The Utah Compromise was a step in the right direction, but it's not and wasn't represented to be the end-all, final legal word on non-discrimination law.  From what I understand, the drafters ultimately abandoned addressing public accommodations within the law because neither side was able to find a suitable compromise and recognized that the issue of public accommodations would be decided elsewhere.

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What you seem steadfastly determined to ignore -- if you ever learned it in the first place -- is that religious liberty is itself a civil right, one that is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I know of no Bill of Rights provision that holds sacrosanct the right of individuals to engage in homosexual behavior and call it marriage -- or that requires others to honor that choice. It may be the law of the land now, but it's not part of the Constitution.

See my previous post (two above this one)...

The fact that the Founding Fathers originally wrote something in their drafting of our country's founding documents doesn't guarantee it's superiority over subsequently-recognized established civil rights.

Case in point: slavery and the classification of black slaves as 3/5 of a person.

Whether or not a recognized civil right is found in the Constitution, once it is established through the appropriate channels, it is a CIVIL RIGHT.  To the best extent and as often as humanly possible, our government attempts to avoid prioritizing any one as "superior" over the others.  Your appeal to authority notwithstanding, religion doesn't automatically get an "I'm MOST IMPORTANT!" card just because freedom of religion was in the First Amendment.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, Anijen said:

It is my opinion that SSM is an abomination and should be fought just as hard as the LGBTQ fight for their rights.

When attitudes like this are expressed, don't be surprised or feign victimization when you hear that your religion is held and treated with the same distain as you treat our marriages and families.  We are prepared to fight

Quote

I do not agree with laws favoring the forcing of people to go against their consciences, e.g. bakers/photographers

being fined for choosing not to bake a cake or take a photo.

The U.S. is becoming a nanny state, now making laws applying to our thoughts and beliefs. There is a difference in enforcing laws that are violated and enforcing laws that try to compel us how to think and what the government wants us to believe to be acceptable. If we choose differently then we are regarded as haters, bigots, etc and then fined if we act upon those beliefs.

Being fined is being compelled. Being fined $120K  in my opinion in some circumstances is worse than being incarcerated.

While I recognize the following answer was to a question regarding civil servants, I think the implications in Justice Kennedy's answer about either following the law or finding another line of work, are applicable:

Quote

Justice Kennedy Suggests That Kim Davis Should Resign

by Ian Millhiser Oct 26, 2015 4:25 pm

CREDIT: AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis pauses as she speaks after being released from the Carter County Detention Center.

Share 26,254

Tweet

Comment

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a member of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc who nevertheless has authored several important gay rights opinions, suggested during an event at Harvard Law School last Thursday that public officials who do not wish to follow the Court’s marriage equality decision should resign.

Kennedy’s remarks came in response to a question from a student who described himself as someone who thinks “that rational norms guide the exercise of sexual autonomy.” The student asked whether public officials who disagree with the Court’s decisions on marriage equality or abortion have “authority to act according to her own judgment” of whether the Court’s legal reasoning was sound.

The justice did acknowledge the “difficult moral questions” presented when a public official is asked to “enforce a law that they believe is morally corrupt.” He also steered away from explicitly stating that officials such as Kim Davis, who famously refused to issue marriage licenses due to her opposition to the Court’s marriage equality decision, must resign her office.

Nevertheless, the thrust of Kennedy’s remarks suggested that he believes that officials in Davis’s position should choose to either follow the law or resign. After alluding to the fact that very few judges resigned from the Nazi German government, Kennedy offered his endorsement to officials who do quit when asked to do something they find morally repugnant. “Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they view as morally wrong, in order to make a point,” Kennedy told the Harvard audience.

He qualified this remark, however, by adding that “the rule of law is that, as a public official in performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law.” Thus, Kennedy appeared to be saying that so long as an official remains in their office, they must enforce the law even if they disagree with it. Resignation, of course, relieves them of this obligation.

Kennedy’s remarks in response to this question begin at 51:50 in a video of the event posted by Harvard Law School.

 

 

Tags

• Anthony Kennedy
• Constitution
• Kim Davis

Edited July 12, 2016 by Daniel2

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

When attitudes like this are expressed, don't be surprised or feign victimization when you hear that your religion is held and treated with the same distain as you treat our marriages and families.  We are prepared to fight

While I recognize the following answer was to a question regarding civil servants, I think the implications in Justice Kennedy's answer about either following the law or finding another line of work, are applicable:

I just wish the public officials that granted her 3 divorces would have thrown the hissy fit she did over their closely held religious beliefs based on the words of Christ Himself

such a hypocrite. 

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

When attitudes like this are expressed, don't be surprised or feign victimization when you hear that your religion is held and treated with the same distain as you treat our marriages and families.  We are prepared to fight:

I do not need to feign victimization I can point it out.

I know that the LGBTQ is prepared to fight, and they do so by actively looking for fights to start.

I personally think SSM is an abomination. I stand by my remarks, I am thankful for a First Amendment that gives me that Right no matter how the LGBTQ hate me using it (although all the while they used it for their benefit)

However, Daniel2 you are mistaken, although I abhor SSM, I do not (never have) "dis[d]ain" you, nor do I disdain or treat your "marriages and families." And you are wrong to accuse me of doing so. One can hate the sinful act and love the person. I have tried to live with that philosophy.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Anijen said:

I do not need to feign victimization I can point it out.

I know that the LGBTQ is prepared to fight, and they do so by actively looking for fights to start.

I personally think SSM is an abomination. I stand by my remarks, I am thankful for a First Amendment that gives me that Right no matter how the LGBTQ hate me using it (although all the while they used it for their benefit)

However, Daniel2 you are mistaken, although I abhor SSM, I do not (never have) "dis[d]ain" you, nor do I disdain or treat your "marriages and families." And you are wrong to accuse me of doing so. One can hate the sinful act and love the person. I have tried to live with that philosophy.

Of course the LGBTQ  community is prepared to fight for it's constitutional rights.  It is a SHAME that they have to fight for those rights.  While most Americans are given those rights freely, the bigotry and prejudice and personal religious beliefs against gay Americans forces them to demand that they too are treated with equality and respect in this country.  We are not the only minority who have had to fight for those rights. Sadly this country and religions in this country has  a history of suppressing minorities and denying them their guaranteed rights.  We make those demands not by force, but through the courts of this country whose  sworn duty is to protect and enforce the laws of this country.

And I think that any church that actively works to take away any citizens civil rights in this country is and abomination.  It follows a God that does not believe in liberty and justice and equality to all  I stand by my remarks as well  I am happy  the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law not just to Mormons but to ALL citizens including those that are gay.  We are allowed to be married to the person we love just like every single other American.  We are allowed to not be discriminated against in businesses open to the public and by government officials whose job it is to administer to ALL Americans.  We will fight any person and any church who tries to use their religious beliefs to break the laws of this country.  Those rights are embedded into the constitution every bit as much as your right to your religious beliefs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may continue to try and take away the civil rights of gay Americans. they may try and discriminate in their places of business, they may refuse to perform government services but the church is NOT the law of the land.  And until the church is able to abolish the Constitution of this country, It will be what rules the people of this country.  

And though I abhor the actions of the church against the gay community and the churches lifestyle of forcing others to follow their beliefs at the expense of their personal liberty, I have no ill feelings to the Mormon people themselves.  One can hate the sinful acts of taking away civil rights, denying baptism to children of gay couples and love the person. I have tried to live with that philosophy.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It sounds as if you're suggesting that civil rights recognized by the Supreme Court (but not found in the original Bill of Rights) are somehow less valid than those that were included in the original documentation written by the Founding Fathers.

Is that what you mean to suggest...?

Or if not, what was your point, in saying the above...?

I'm saying that the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have greater stature than other law by virtue of being so enshrined. That's why it's so difficult to get an amendment to the Constitution passed. The Constitution is fundamental -- canonical, if you will -- and all laws enacted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court are to flow from and be compatible with constitutional principles, including First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, assembly and, yes, religion.

As I said earlier, that we seem to be having generations of Americans grow up without a grasp of this concept worries me a great deal.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

See my previous post (two above this one)...

 

See my previous post in which I answered your previous post.

You can't blithely dismiss or ignore the Constitution. To do so is un-American.

Did you really not learn this stuff in school?

I used to be a merit badge counselor for "Citizenship in the Nation." I made certain the Boy Scouts I counseled understood concepts like this before I signed off on their merit badge. Were you ever a Boy Scout?

Edited July 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have greater stature than other law by virtue of being so enshrined. That's why it's so difficult to get an amendment to the Constitution passed. The Constitution is fundamental -- canonical, if you will -- and all laws enacted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court are to flow from and be compatible with constitutional principles, including First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, assembly and, yes, religion.

As I said earlier, that we seem to be having generations of Americans grow up without a grasp of this concept worries me a great deal.

Your error is thinking that the SCOTUS marriage decision was based on marriage. It was not. It was based on equal rights and due process, which clearly are constitutional principles on par with the freedom of religion (see, e.g., 14th Amendment). Marriage just happened to be the avenue in which the constitutional principles were applied. The application was needed because government grants many rights/obligations based on the institution of marriage. 

And for the record, I'm currently a MB counselor for citizenship in the nation.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Buckeye

[Storm Rider]

6 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Your error is thinking that the SCOTUS marriage decision was based on marriage. It was not. It was based on equal rights and due process, which clearly are constitutional principles on par with the freedom of religion (see, e.g., 14th Amendment). Marriage just happened to be the avenue in which the constitutional principles were applied. The application was needed because government grants many rights/obligations based on the institution of marriage. 

And for the record, I'm currently a MB counselor for citizenship in the nation.

Buckeye, I have always been curious why the rights that are tied to a married couple where not just separated from the marriage contract and afforded all citizens.  It seems like there are the federal tax related rights, insurance rights, pension rights/inheritance rights.  Marriage is not a political institution, but one that was started long before a nation recognized such a union.  

Could we not have gotten to the same place by simply allowing much greater flexibility in these areas cited above rather than provide a "right" of marriage?  

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Buckeye, I have always been curious why the rights that are tied to a married couple where not just separated from the marriage contract and afforded all citizens.  It seems like there are the federal tax related rights, insurance rights, pension rights/inheritance rights.  Marriage is not a political institution, but one that was started long before a nation recognized such a union.  

Could we not have gotten to the same place by simply allowing much greater flexibility in these areas cited above rather than provide a "right" of marriage?  

Maybe. If you could come up with a good reason not to recognize gay marriage by the government. Read thr court briefs. No one could come up with one. The only argument was religious tradition, which is not a legal reason. Especially since some religions embrace gay marriage

[Buckeye]

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Buckeye, I have always been curious why the rights that are tied to a married couple where not just separated from the marriage contract and afforded all citizens.  It seems like there are the federal tax related rights, insurance rights, pension rights/inheritance rights.  Marriage is not a political institution, but one that was started long before a nation recognized such a union.  

Could we not have gotten to the same place by simply allowing much greater flexibility in these areas cited above rather than provide a "right" of marriage?  

Of course we could have excluded marriage as a basis for rights/obligations in our law. Marriage could have been treated essentially like LDS sealings - existing wholly within a religious body, but lacking any legal weight outside that body. 

But we didn't go this course. Instead, We The People chose to define thousands of rights/obligations in terms of marriage. As a few examples, veterans survivorship benefits, social security benefits, income tax rates, hospital visitation rights, paternity assumptions, and on and on. And over they years we've accepted that the government will define marriage by why the general citizenship thinks; the primary case of this, of course, being the fight against mormon polygamy that was spearheaded by the party of Lincoln after they defeated slavery. 

Our country's decision to tie laws to marriage is not just an antiquated vestige. The government has continued to tie laws to marriage through the present day. Consider the strong push during the Bush presidency to strengthen marriage and encourage fathers to marry their kids' mothers. Many conservatives, including leaders in our church, were strongly supportive of such government efforts. It's only when the equality and due process principles of our constitution began to open the door to gay marriage that people began to wonder "why is the government involved in marriage anyway."

For myself, I fully support government efforts to strengthen marriage: both gay and straight. Marriage is the bedrock of our society. It should be encouraged and supported. We are a stronger nation because of marriage bonds. Yours, mine, and Daniel2's. 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Buckeye

[thesometimesaint]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Precisely.

Marriage, however one might define it, is not singled out for special protection in the Bill of Rights. Religious liberty is.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

[kllindley]

On 7/12/2016 at 3:57 PM, Daniel2 said:

The Utah Compromise was a step in the right direction, but it's not and wasn't represented to be the end-all, final legal word on non-discrimination law.  From what I understand, the drafters ultimately abandoned addressing public accommodations within the law because neither side was able to find a suitable compromise and recognized that the issue of public accommodations would be decided elsewhere.

Unfortunately, as this comment demonstrates, many on both sides will see any compromise as nothing more than a step in the right direction.  They only final word they will be satisfied with is complete dominance.  I appreciate the Church's hope that calling on "the right" to compromise may defuse the winner-takes-all situation.  I worry that as a society, we are too deeply entrenched in our views to respect other views as valid.    

[Daniel2]

This seems relevant:

Contempt ruling upheld against Kentucky clerk against gay marriage

July 13, 2016

By Steve Bittenbender

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court on Wednesday declined to vacate a contempt ruling that sent a Kentucky county clerk to jail last September after she refused to issue marriage licenses for gay couples.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did lift an August 2015 injunction against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis because the law is being changed and the court order that she issue marriage licenses despite her religious objections to same-sex marriage will no longer be relevant.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court said in a brief ruling that a district court judge's September contempt finding against Davis, issued when she defied the August injunction, did not meet the legal requirements to be vacated.

Davis's attorneys had argued the contempt decree should not have been issued.

Davis stayed in jail for five days last September after refusing to issue marriage licenses after the Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage. Davis claimed same-sex marriage went against her Apostolic Christian beliefs.

Earlier this year, legislators in Kentucky passed a law removing clerks' names from the license form. The law is due to go into effect on Friday.

For that reason, the appeals court instructed the district court to remove the injunction against Davis. She had argued that her name on the document equaled her approval.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which helped represent four gay couples who sued Davis last year, said in a statement that while the law has changed in the state it was important to keep the contempt ruling against Davis.

"We're pleased that the appeals court kept that decision on the books," ACLU staff attorney Ria Tabacco Mar said in the statement. "It will serve as a reminder to other government officials that placing their personal views ahead of the Constitution and the rule of law is not acceptable."

Davis's attorney Mat Staver issued a statement in which he called the ruling a "final victory" for his client.

"The injunctions are gone and Kim Davis received the accommodation that she requested," said Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. "County clerks are no longer forced to compromise their religious liberty and conscience rights."