Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Do you think the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals?  Any of them can have a say in how others live their lives.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've never said one thing about the legality of the Church's actions. Not a single thing. I'm sure you agree with me, however, that just because something is legal, it doesn't the mean the action is morally right.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote

 

Quote

I find it morally reprehensible that not only does your church require men and women to sacrifice the chance for intimacy in this life based on a whole lot of “I don’t know”, but also that your church was involved in attempting to legislate said beliefs onto the populace at large. YMMV. Feel free to have the last word. 

I am grateful that we live in the United States, which allows my church to exercise of its constitutional rights (Speech, Free Exercise, etc.), even when folks such as yourself object or disagree.

I find nothing wrong with what the Church did, morally, legally or otherwise.  To the contrary, I found it quite healthy and good that the Church participated in the process.

 

You find it "healthy and good" that the Church participated in trying to limit non-members' rights to marry someone of their choosing?

You find it problematic that a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

I just don't get why you think the Church should have any say in how non-members live their lives. That makes no sense to me.

I don't understand.  Do you think the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals?  Any of them can have a say in how others live their lives.

I've never said one thing about the legality of the Church's actions. Not a single thing.

Hence my questions. 

I previously stated: " I found it quite healthy and good that the Church participated in the process."  By "process" I was referring to the legislative process, which is heavily intertwined with the right to vote, Free Speech, and other constitutional rights.

You responded: "You find it 'healthy and good' that the Church participated in trying to limit non-members' rights to marry someone of their choosing?"

Reading between the lines, I took your comment as implicitly disagreeing with the Church's participation in the legislative process. 

Was I incorrect in my surmise?

Do you find it problematic when a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

Do you think the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals?

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm sure you agree with me, however, that just because something is legal, it doesn't the mean the action is morally right.

Yes, I agree with that.  By extension, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean their actions are morally wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hence my questions. 

Do you find it problematic when a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

Do you think the Church should be deprived of constitutional rights that are available to other groups and individuals?

Yes, I agree with that.  By extension, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean their actions are morally wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

1 - I suppose it depends on how it is exercised. How Westboro exercises its Constitutional rights is problematic, IMO, but not legally problematic.

2 - No.

3 - Naturally. My opinion is mine.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:
20 hours ago, Malc said:

It seems that some states would like to ban contraception, but is that really a reasonable idea?

I'm going to issue a CFR on this.  Please provide documentation for your claim that "some states would like to ban contraception."

I don't believe I made the claim you quote. Perhaps I could have been clearer, and said " It seems to me that some states would like to ban contraception, ...". But perhaps you would still want documentation.

My impression about this topic comes from articles like https://stateline.org/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control/.

Quote

Last year, conservative Republicans in the Missouri legislature took a run at blocking Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood, a frequent and prominent target of anti-abortion activists and politicians.

But in the fine print of their measure, those Republicans revealed that their ambition wasn’t only to target a familiar abortion foe. They were going after specific forms of birth control as well, notably, emergency contraceptives, often sold under the brand name Plan B, and intrauterine devices, known as IUDs. GOP lawmakers tried to stop Missouri’s Medicaid agency from paying for those forms of contraception.

and

Quote

Many advocates on reproductive health issues think U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade will further fuel some conservatives’ efforts to limit access to birth control. Although Alito specifically said in the draft that the ruling would not pertain to other rights courts also grounded in privacy, activists worry opponents will marshal his argument on privacy to attack birth control or gay marriage, for example.

And as the Missouri episode demonstrated, skirmishing over birth control methods already has begun, as Republican lawmakers push to restrict access to birth control methods they claim are abortifacient, or causing abortions.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

Do you find it problematic when a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

1 - I suppose it depends on how it is exercised.  How Westboro exercises its Constitutional rights is problematic, IMO, but not legally problematic.

Attempted well-poisoning aside, it seems like your comments are based solely on an ideological disagreement.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things. 

One of those important things is whether we as a society ought to radically re-define the bedrock institution of society.  Alas, the will of the people as reflected by the popular vote was set aside in favor of a bare majority of unelected judges who created a new constitutional right about the ether and the penumbras.

From Justice Roberts' dissent in Obergefell:

Quote

Rejecting Lochner does not require disavowing the doctrine of implied fundamental rights, and this Court has not done so. But to avoid repeating Lochner’s error of converting personal preferences into constitutional mandates, our modern substantive due process cases have stressed the need for “judicial self-restraint.” Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). Our precedents have required that implied fundamental rights be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 720–721 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although the Court articulated the importance of history and tradition to the fundamental rights inquiry most precisely in Glucksberg, many other cases both before and after have adopted the same approach. See, e.g., District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U. S. 52, 72 (2009); Flores, 507 U. S., at 303; United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 751 (1987); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion); see also id., at 544 (White, J., dissenting) (“The Judiciary, including this Court, is the most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or even the design of the Constitution.”); Troxel v. Granville, 530 U. S. 57, 96–101 (2000) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (consulting “ ‘[o]ur Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices’ ” and concluding that “[w]e owe it to the Nation’s domestic relations legal structure . . . to proceed with caution” (quoting Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721)).

I think it's pretty difficult to claim that same-sex marriage meets these conditions.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Last year, when the Supreme Court released its decision in Dobbs, the topline takeaways were these: The Constitution contains no right to an abortion, and the scope of abortion access would henceforth be decided by the citizenry and their elected representatives. But even as Dobbs overruled two prominent decisions (Roe and Casey), it revived an approach distilled in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), which appeared to have fallen into desuetude amidst the Court’s more recent ardor for discovering ahistorical constitutional rights—most notably, a right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges.

In contrast to the boundary-defying humanism of Obergefell, Glucksberg was both more restrained and more rigorous. It held that conduct could not attain the constitutional status of fundamental liberty unless it was “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and carefully defined by reference to “concrete examples” within that record. Courts were not to deduce fundamental rights “from abstract concepts of personal autonomy.” Indeed, “the mere novelty” of an asserted right was “reason enough to doubt that [the Constitution] sustains it.” Although Dobbs did not overrule Obergefell, it reaffirmed that the Glucksberg approach would govern future cases where individuals asserted that their desired form of personal autonomy was a constitutionally protected liberty.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If the state derives value from stable heterosexual relationships, it will also derive value from normalizing those relationships--making them not just "normal," but something to be aspired to.  Childless couples, by modeling heterosexual relationships to younger generations, provide that model of what is normal and what they should aspire to.  

Irresponsible procreation is gonna happen regardless of any marriage laws or customs in place.  Marriage at least places legal responsibilities on the procreators that would not otherwise exist.  

Childless couples who adopt may also  provide a model of what is normal and what younger generations could aspire to. I would include childless same-sex couples in that model. Of course, I understand that you may disagree.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Malc said:

Childless couples who adopt may also  provide a model of what is normal and what younger generations could aspire to. I would include childless same-sex couples in that model. Of course, I understand that you may disagree.

Adoption fulfills the policy goal of raising new generations, but not the policy goal of creating them.  If the state wants to incentivize both policy goals, it needs to incentivize the creation of new people (heterosexual sex) as well as the responsible raising of them (marriage).  Only heterosexual unions fulfill both policy goals.  

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Adoption fulfills the policy goal of raising new generations, but not the policy goal of creating them.  If the state wants to incentivize both policy goals, it needs to incentivize the creation of new people (heterosexual sex) as well as the responsible raising of them (marriage).  Only heterosexual unions fulfill both policy goals.  

It seems that technology may soon make it possible for (almost) any two people to create new people. If the state wants to incentivize both policy goals, it may  not matter what combination of X and Y chromosomes the couple possess, they would be able to fulfill both goals.

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, smac97 said:
14 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even worse if such an action was taken for reasons like “God told me.”

How so?

God has a track record of ordering death for arbitrary and minor reasons, as well as telling people to fly planes into buildings. And if you don’t think God was behind any of that, that’s exactly the point. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Attempted well-poisoning aside, it seems like your comments are based solely on an ideological disagreement.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things. 

One of those important things is whether we as a society ought to radically re-define the bedrock institution of society.  Alas, the will of the people as reflected by the popular vote was set aside in favor of a bare majority of unelected judges who created a new constitutional right about the ether and the penumbras.

From Justice Roberts' dissent in Obergefell:

I think it's pretty difficult to claim that same-sex marriage meets these conditions.  See, e.g., here:

Thanks,

-Smac

There was no attempt at 'well-poisoning.' It was an example I knew we could easily agree upon.

As for your hyperbole on "radically re-defin[ing] the bedrock institution of society" I'll not get sucked down into that rabbit hole. Societies change and evolve. It's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years. You can lament it all you want, but I'm pretty sure the Victorian sensibilities of 19th-century America were pretty shocked and offended by the Church's experiment with polygamy, so I'd be careful not to step on that landmine.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

Attempted well-poisoning aside, it seems like your comments are based solely on an ideological disagreement.

There was no attempt at 'well-poisoning.'  It was an example I knew we could easily agree upon.

"{A}n example" in which you seemingly paired the Church's stance on same-sex behavior with the Westboro Baptist Church.

But okay.  I'll take your denial at face value, retract my comment, and apologize for it.

27 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As for your hyperbole on "radically re-defin[ing] the bedrock institution of society" I'll not get sucked down into that rabbit hole.

It's not hyperbole.  Obergefell really did radicially re-define marriage, and marriage really is the bedrock institution of society.

27 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Societies change and evolve.

Not always for the better, though.

27 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years. You can lament it all you want, but I'm pretty sure the Victorian sensibilities of 19th-century America were pretty shocked and offended by the Church's experiment with polygamy, so I'd be careful not to step on that landmine.

Squeamishness aside, polygamy has a far more robust pedigree and quantum of legitimacy than same-sex marriage.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ttribe said:
Quote

Squeamishness aside, polygamy has a far more robust pedigree and quantum of legitimacy than same-sex marriage.

So?

So your characterization of polygamy as a "landmine" doesn't do much.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So your characterization of polygamy as a "landmine" doesn't do much.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, not for me since I know the history, but if you don't see the humor and irony of a firm defender of the Church decrying the loss of "THE (emphasis added} bedrock of society" in terms of the definition of marriage, I don't know how to help you.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, ttribe said:
Quote

So your characterization of polygamy as a "landmine" doesn't do much.  

Well, not for me since I know the history,

Nor for me, as I also "know the history."

The pearl-clutching about polygamy in the Victorian Era doesn't seem to have much relevance here, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

31 minutes ago, ttribe said:

but if you don't see the humor and irony of a firm defender of the Church decrying the loss of "THE (emphasis added} bedrock of society" in terms of the definition of marriage, I don't know how to help you.

I have never condemned polygamy (not categorically, anyway), nor have I ever claimed that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the sole legitimate form of marriage (if I had, then you could point to "humor and irony"). 

Where I have questioned the moral legitimacy of polygamy, I have done so only in a Latter-day Saint context and paradigm.

Meanwhile, again, squeamishness aside, polygamy has a far more robust pedigree and quantum of legitimacy than same-sex marriage.  If you don't see the difference, I don't know how to help you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
  • 8 months later...
Posted (edited)
On 9/8/2023 at 10:15 AM, smac97 said:

Yes, particularly where no such "right" existed at the time.

You find it problematic that a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

Thanks,

-Smac

I see this has already been answered, but I think you are totally coping out since both the California Supreme Court ruling AND Prop 8 were state matters.  No one claimed they were national matters. Even so, the US Supreme Court ruled the exact same way as the California Supreme Court, just a few years later.  Sounds like both a state and a national constitutional right.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
5 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Quote

 

Quote

You find it "healthy and good" that the Church participated in trying to limit non-members' rights to marry someone of their choosing?

Yes, particularly where no such "right" existed at the time.

You find it problematic that a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

 

 

I see this has already been answered, but I think you are totally coping out since both the California Supreme Court ruling AND Prop 8 were state matters.  

I do not understand your point. 

First, are you suggesting that religious groups do not have the legal right to speak on "state matters"?  If so, could you elaborate?

Second, Prop 8 was overturned on federal constitutional grounds at the Article III court level, which ruling was affirmed at the federal appellate level, albeit on narrower grounds.  SCOTUS then found that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked standing to defend Prop 8 (California having refused to appear and defend its own Constitution), and therefore vacated the 9th Circuit's ruling, which left the Article III court's ruling intact.  In other words, there were both state and federal constitutional dimensions here. 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

No one claimed they were national matters.

Again, the Article III court's ruling was based on the U.S. Constitution.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Even so, the US Supreme Court ruled the exact same way as the California Supreme Court, just a few years later.  Sounds like both a state and a national constitutional right.

I was speaking of the right of religious groups to speak on and participate in legislative/constitutional matters (not about the right to same-sex marriage).  You seem to be suggesting that they do not have this right.  Am I understanding you correctly?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 hours ago, california boy said:

both the California Supreme Court ruling AND Prop 8 were state matters.  No one claimed they were national matters.

Not sure what you mean by nobody claiming they were national matters, but Prop 8 absolutely made national news and brought nationwide consequences after the leak pointed out our involvement and funding.  Mormons throughout the country experienced local backlash.  We had several churches and temples vandalized throughout the country.  I remember watching a video of Tongan saints confronting protesters who were vandalizing one of our temples.  The thing made international news.  I remember it as fueling the opinion that the church and its members were "anti-gay".  Prop 8 got quoted for decades, all over the nation and the world, by folks trying to demonstrate mormons were the bad guys.

And Prop 8 in general, was part of the national discussion, for decades.  Anyone else remember tracking or talking about this chart across the 2000's and 2010's?  Thinking back to those discussions, I don't remember a single one that didn't invoke Prop 8 by one side or the other.

gallup-same-sex-poll_wide-4593335a905b9f

 

 

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Not sure what you mean by nobody claiming they were national matters, but Prop 8 absolutely made national news and brought nationwide consequences after the leak pointed out our involvement and funding.  Mormons throughout the country experienced local backlash.  We had several churches and temples vandalized throughout the country.  I remember watching a video of Tongan saints confronting protesters who were vandalizing one of our temples.  The thing made international news.  I remember it as fueling the opinion that the church and its members were "anti-gay".  Prop 8 got quoted for decades, all over the nation and the world, by folks trying to demonstrate mormons were the bad guys.

And Prop 8 in general, was part of the national discussion, for decades.  Anyone else remember tracking or talking about this chart across the 2000's and 2010's?  Thinking back to those discussions, I don't remember a single one that didn't invoke Prop 8 by one side or the other.

gallup-same-sex-poll_wide-4593335a905b9f

 

 

 

Of course you are right.  Church members contributed most of the financial and manpower to pass Prop8. And while the discussion was national, it was the law that was a state issue. I should have been more clear on what I was referring to 

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Church members contributed most of the financial and manpower to pass Prop8.

It's true we were a major vocal supporter, probably the major vocal supporter.  Probably about half the monetary donations came from us, and we probably made up ~85% of volunteer door-to-door canvassing.  But we were hardly alone, these folks were also active on team Prop8:
- Politicians, including the R presidential nominee.
- The Catholics (including archbishops and the Knights of Columbus.)
- Some Jewish orgs, plenty of Eastern Orthodox folks, as well as Evangelicals, and a smattering of smaller orgs like Focus on the Family.

Most religious voters voted for it, but also the majority of african american, hispanic, and latino voters were in favor. 

The thing was absolutely one of the half-decade-long series of milestones as America went from majority oppose, to majority support same sex marriage.   I think it also marked the end of the church putting it's full weight solo behind things, and heralded the beginning of the church working with others to pass joint-effort measures.  These days we're all about partnering with LGBTQ groups to pass fair housing or anti discrimination stuff.  Our partners are in it to protect LGBTQ folks, we're in it to protect religious liberty, let's work together on stuff we can both support.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...