LDS and Prop 8

[Autodidact]

The overturn of Prop. 22 was an example of Judicial overreach. It promoted gay marriage as a right. It is not a right. To be a right, it would have to pass through a majoritarian process. Judges are not empowered to create rights.

Aha, now I see what you're driving at. So you disagree with the Supreme Court in Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley, and Loving V. Virginia when it held that marriage was a fundamental right?

Different exchanges have a life of their own. They move in different directions. If there is something you don't understand, then you should ask.

When everyone misunderstands you, the problem is probably in the post.

I'm opposed to gay marriage. I don't think the state need endorse or sanction sexual fetishes. I think the government should be neutral on such.

Are you trying to goad me? Do you have any idea how offensive this is? No wonder everyone is calling you a duck--it has to do with the way you walk and talk.

Earlier, you tried to say that when you used the term "sexual fetish," you weren't talking about marriage, and here you equate the two.

You're entitled to your personal bizarre views on human sexuality, but they neither have nor should have any relevance to a national discussion of same-sex marriage.

I'm opposed to anti-gay bigotry. I don't think the state need endorse or sanction sexual fetishes.

Homosexuality is no more a fetish than is your anti-gay bigotry.

Same-sex marriage is no more a sexual fetish than is mixed-race marriage.

 

[Autodidact]

It seems to me that people who lack the ability to respect other people's love and marriage should themselves not be permitted to marry, since the state should be nuetral regarding moral fetishes such as that.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Homosexuality is no more a fetish than is your anti-gay bigotry.

Bigotry and stupidity are practically synonymous

 

[Autodidact]

Orontes: Would a statute prohibiting Mormons from marrying be Constitutional?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Orontes: Would a statute prohibiting Mormons from marrying be Constitutional?

I am opposed to state sanctioned religious fetishes

 

[Smoke]

The bigot charge is boorish. If you cannot engage me in a mature manner then I won't take your posts seriously.

Your bigotry is obvious, and so is your rank hypocrisy. When you called my marriage a sexual fetish you forfeited any right to sanctimoniously complain of boorishness. As for your little threat, you haven't taken my posts seriously up till now, being content to cover your lies and misdirection with feigned high-mindedness, so what have I got to lose?

 

[Mister_T]

***MOD POST***

Folks, let's have everyone turn it down a couple of notches with some of the personal remarks in here.

Thanks. ​

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Independent of one's personal views on homosexuality: the Church agreed with those who reject Judges attempting to invent rights and impose the same on the body politic. Rights claims should be the product of the Legislative Branch and therefore a reflection of and subject to the popular will. The overturn of the earlier Proposition 22 (that led to the Proposition 8 campaign) was an affront to the democratic process.

Interesting. A few questions:

• You say rights are "subject to the popular will". You do not believe rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by [our] Creator"?
• What is your view of Brown v. Board of Education? Another case of judges attempting to invent rights and "impose the same on the body politic"?
• How are rights being imposed on people? Can you be specific? It's a very curious concept that if others are free to do something which does not involve or affect you in the least, that is an imposition on you. By imposing your beliefs on others and putting an end to their ill-begotten rights, you are protecting yourself from imposition. A fascinating example of double-think.

Look at the statements that were coming from the LDS Church and some of its members during the years of "radical black activism" which sought to "impose rights" on an unwilling population. There's an uncanny resemblance between those statements and the ones being uttered today concerning gays (Orontes is a case in point). Remember your history. Don't make the same sad mistakes of your forebears.

As to homosexuality proper: the LDS Church considers homosexuality a sin. Therefore, any relation involving homosexuality i.e. homosexual marriage, would also be seen as sinful.

Is it a sin to raise a child to not believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ? Is it a sin to promulgate and promote disbelief and disobedience to the LDS Church?

You know, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. Sounds like a kind of a lose-lose deal for us.

That's a fair point, the LDS Church deserves credit where credit is due for taking steps in the right direction. And the Church has taken a lot of steps in the right direction and in some cases was ahead of the game.

 

[Autodidact]

What I'm saying is that although IMO the LDS Church is wrong, that is, I disagree with them, it is their right to spend money in this way. Also I think the best people to pressure them to get the appropriate revelation and put an end to it are members of that church.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm opposed to gay marriage. I don't think the state need endorse or sanction sexual fetishes. I think the government should be neutral on such.

But, you don't want the state to be neutral. You want the state to endorse and sanction the heterosexual "fetish".

 

[AxisMundi]

1) Who determines what is a civil right?

2) The Treaty of Westphalia, the English Civil War, the beheading the Charles I, the expulsion of the Huguenots from France etc. all form the larger context of what informed 18th Century Thought: more specifically the works of Hobbs, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau etc. The Founding Fathers did not operate in a vacuum. The results of religious wars and state imposistion of religion were well known.

b) My statemtns are not tied to any religion agenda but simple intellectual history. The whole thrust of the separation clause in the Constitution is geared toward preventing a national religion i.e. like a Church of England. It had nothing to do with faith entering the public square or influencing the same. I'll illustrate this with a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling: In Permoli v. New Orleans (1845) SCOTUS held: "The Constitution makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective states in their religious liberties; this is left to the state constitutions and laws" Thus, states were free to establish a state church should they so desire. This is why states like Connecticut continued to have tax support for religion until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833. New Jersey restricted full civil rights to Protestants until 1844 and Maryland required belief in God as a requirement for public office until into the mid-Twentieth Century. Faith was not seen as something to exclude from civics, rather it was something that wasn't to be controlled by the Federal government. This is why in New York in 1811 a Chancellor Kent upheld a blasphemy conviction on the ground "We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity". Religion and religious sentiment has always informed the American political sphere.

Per strawman: "pubilc square" is vernacular of participating in the politics. This was your comment: "In Prop 8 there is also the matter of the Establishment Clause as well, not only of the US Constitution but that found in the Cali Constitution as well, which forbids not only religious institutions from participating in politics, but religious doctrine from being made into US laws as well." I was addressing your statment religious instittuions are forbidden from political participation. I did not assume you were propossing the end of religion or ban of religion.

4) I don't know what your point 4 is referring to. It doesn't seem to connect with my 4) "That is fine"

3) Murder: My question remains: "Your statement was that religious doctrine is forbidden from being made into U.S. law. It reads as a categorical. Prohibition on murder is a religious doctrine. Did you mean to say U.S. Law forbids religious doctrine being made into U.S. law unless the doctrine is also found in a non religious context as well?"

1. The Judicial Branch determines what comprises Civil Rights, of course.

2. That's like attempting to state that the Harry Potter series caused the Democrats to push so hard for Universal Health Care. Again, I will ask you, where are the elements within that treaty reflected in our Constitution? And, for that matter, I recall asking you to point out where the Ten Commandments are represented in the Constitution or US law.

3. Once again, and again, and again, the Bill of Rights did not make any attempt to eradicate any State level laws already in place, nor could the Bill attempt to as it would never have been ratified otherwise. Also, part of the reason for the Incorporation Clause of the 14th was to put an end to the Judaical confusion concerning the supremacy of the US Constitution. Up until the 14th was ratified, one can clearly see State SC and SCOTUS rulings that ran contrary to one another. Kent used a colonial common law still on the books for the conviction of Ruggles. Other cases from that period also throw out blasphemy cargoes as well.

4. My statement, and question, remain as well. Firstly, substantiate your position that the Prohibition gain st murder is a religiously motivated "moral", and not a socially motivated crime found in almost every culture across the world and across time. My question also stands, show where the Ten Commandments are in place in US or State laws.

Regarding your strawman. Yes, relgiious institutions are indeed forbidden from the "public square", as in engaging in clearly political venues. This is quite clearly illustrated not only in the Establishment Clause, but in those churches and organizations that have had their tax exempt status pulled. Religion is not intended to be banished to the private world, per say, as in not publically shown. However, the Wall is indeed present, and indeed forbids religious institutions from meddling in politics.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

However, the Wall is indeed present, and indeed forbids religious institutions from meddling in politics.

I agree with your basic point but this wording is too strong. My understanding is non-profit organizations will lose tax-exempt status if they directly endorse one candidate or party. But other than that they are free to weigh in on political issues and promote their beliefs. It is true however that laws that are designed to promote or endorse certain religions over others are unconstitutional.

 

[AxisMundi]

I agree with your basic point but this wording is too strong. My understanding is non-profit organizations will lose tax-exempt status if they directly endorse one candidate or party. But other than that they are free to weigh in on political issues and promote their beliefs. It is true however that laws that are designed to promote or endorse certain religions over others are unconstitutional.

When a religious institution is being directly impacted by proposed legislation, then of course that institution is permitted to lobby.

However, the "Establishment Light" you propose has seen the near eradication of our original Motto and Pledge, religious doctrine in public schools, as well as those institutions overstepping any rational boundaries and pouring tens of millions into the anti-Prop 8 campaign among the many concerns that impact religious freedom and equality.

The Establishment Clause states "no law". That seems quite final, and strong, to me.

 

[Orontes]

I agree. Well, I might not put it that way, but Roe v. Wade is bad law, regardless of your position on abortion.

I agree.

Same-sex marriage seeks to retain the meaning, and expand the group who can participate in the institution.

Same sex marriage is not a retention of the meaning, but a change of the meaning. It expands the definition from the tradition which has been cross gender to include single gender.

Orontes: What is your position on Loving v. Virginia?

Per Loving: I think anti-miscegenation laws are wrong. I think race is a false category. I think the Court was right to overturn Pace v. Alabama. The Reconstruction Era Amendments were concerned with removing race as a category for legal discrimination. Even so, I think some of the rationale of the court opinion is problematic. There is no right to marry per the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on the topic. Marriage predates the state. There is nothing that requires the state take up marriage as a category of interest: that it has done so is fine, but the necessity is missing.

 

[Orontes]

Aha, now I see what you're driving at. So you disagree with the Supreme Court in Zablocki v Redhail, Turner v Safley, and Loving V. Virginia when it held that marriage was a fundamental right?

See my comment in the prior post on Loving. Let me know if you have questions on my position.

Are you trying to goad me? Do you have any idea how offensive this is?

I do think homosexuality falls into the fetish/addiction arena. I don't take the view to offend, but because I think it is the root of the behavior (at least with men, female sexuality is a different creature in some regards). I think the rhetoric surrounding the gay lobby while interesting is flawed. It is generally anachronistic. The Modern portrayal of homosexuality is new. It finds no corollary in the past. Even with more sexually open societies of the past.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Same sex marriage is not a retention of the meaning, but a change of the meaning. It expands the definition from the tradition which has been cross gender to include single gender.

You're missing the fact that legalizing same sex marriage leaves people and religious institutions free to choose their own meanings and traditions. The meaning and tradition of marriage will not change for the LDS Church simply because the Episcopelian, Unitarian, reform Jewish, Native Americans, secularists and other groups are free to practice marriage according to their meanings and traditions, which include same sex marriage.

You are making the incredibly fascinating and curious claim that if others are free to choose meanings and traditions different from those of your Church, then your Church must change its own meanings and traditions.

Strange logic, but not new in the history of opposition to rights and freedoms.

 

[Orontes]

Interesting. A few questions:[/size][/font]

• You say rights are "subject to the popular will". You do not believe rights are "inalienable" and "endowed by [our] Creator"?

Rights claims typically fall into two categories: positive law or natural law. Natural law is the older form. "(I)nalienable and "endowed by [our] Creator" is part of the natural law tradition. It requires adopting a larger metaphysic to maintain coherence. Thomistic Thought would be one example. The metaphysical appeal i.e. grounding rights in appeals to the Divine, is problematic when one is dealing with a secular society. Given the U.S. is a secular government, I don't think natural law rights appeals can or should carry reasonable force of law. An individual may appeal to such to justify their actions, but that alone doesn't have place with a secular government.

The other category is rights claims as a product of positive law. This means a right exists because it was made a legal privilege by action of the government. I believe in the democratic model of government. This means I hold that rights are only justified insofar as they subject to popular consent. Rights cannot be imposed, but must go through a legislative process.

• What is your view of Brown v. Board of Education? Another case of judges attempting to invent rights and "impose the same on the body politic"?

Brown was a proper overturn of Plessy. Race as a category for legal discrimination was rejected by the Reconstruction Era Amendments.

• How are rights being imposed on people? Can you be specific? It's a very curious concept that if others

  are free to do something which does not involve or affect you in the least, that is an imposition on you.

Rights can be imposed by the power of the government. Your question requires a distinction in rights language. Using the classic work by Hohfeld on the subject, there are different categories of rights. One category we will simply call a right. This form entails a concomitant duty on the state. For example, if we say there is a right to not be racially discriminated against, the state has a duty to enforce that right. Locals that racially discriminate can have action taken against them. Another form we can call a liberty. This means when there is a designated privilege to a thing X, others without that same privilege have no-right to hinder. For example, if we recognize ownership of private property as a liberty, then the owner has license to go about freely on their land. Others may not have that same freedom and could be barred entry. Marriage insofar as it exits (a state controlled status acting as licenser and guarantor of the contract) assumes a duty. The state can move against institutions that may refuse to recognize or make relevant distinction of such.

Look at the statements that were coming from the LDS Church and some of its members during the years of "radical black activism" which sought to "impose rights" on an unwilling population. There's an uncanny resemblance between those statements and the ones being uttered today concerning gays (Orontes is a case in point). Remember your history. Don't make the same sad mistakes of your forebears.

The rejection of racial discrimination finds its legal basis in the passing of law/rights. Gay marriage or other gay related fair, must go through a majoritarian process to have the same standing.

Is it a sin to raise a child to not believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ? Is it a sin to promulgate and promote disbelief and disobedience to the LDS Church?

I would say no to both questions. Sin may be defined as simple wrong doing, but I would go farther and say sin requires a willful rejection of the good. If one doesn't believe Jesus is the Christ and teaches their child the same, then it doesn't merit the sin label. If one believes Mormons or Mormonism is a bad thing and actively works against it, again I don't think the sincerity of belief can be labeled a sin. I may believe one who doesn't believe in Christ as the Savior is wrong or that those who promote disbelief in things Mormon are wrong, but they are not sinful. I don't demonize those who don't agree with me.

 

[Orontes]

But, you don't want the state to be neutral. You want the state to endorse and sanction the heterosexual "fetish".

I've made no comment on whether I want the state to be involved in marriage at all. However, the state has shown an interest. In rulings like Loving and other cases like the more recent Hernandez v. Robles the court indicated the state's interest was that marriage is the model for producing and evidently fostering new citizens: continuing society.

 

[Orontes]

1. The Judicial Branch determines what comprises Civil Rights, of course.

1) Where does this power derive and why should any recognize that power?

2. That's like attempting to state that the Harry Potter series caused the Democrats to push so hard for Universal Health Care. Again, I will ask you, where are the elements within that treaty reflected in our Constitution? And, for that matter, I recall asking you to point out where the Ten Commandments are represented in the Constitution or US law.

2) I don't think you understand my point. The Treaty of Westphalia was significant not only because of the massive blood letting that preceded it in Central Europe, but because it established that princes of the Empire could designate their 'state' religion. This, along with other events of the 17th and 18th Centuries (like my mention of the English Civil War, and the expulsion of the Huguenots etc.) all form the context for Enlightenment Thought and informed it. State imposment of religion was a real concern. The Founders wished to avoid the religious wars and issues a state religion had created.

3. Once again, and again, and again, the Bill of Rights did not make any attempt to eradicate any State level laws already in place, nor could the Bill attempt to as it would never have been ratified otherwise. [/quote]

3) That is right. The Constitution rejects any religious test for office and did not and could not impose a religion on the states. The states were free to do as they would regarding religion and religiously informed law and many did. I have given some examples. These alone contradict your position. There was no bar on religious people or bodies participating in politics.

4. My statement, and question, remain as well. Firstly, substantiate your position that the Prohibition gain st murder is a religiously motivated "moral", and not a socially motivated crime found in almost every culture across the world and across time. My question also stands, show where the Ten Commandments are in place in US or State laws.

Regarding your strawman. Yes, relgiious institutions are indeed forbidden from the "public square", as in engaging in clearly political venues. This is quite clearly illustrated not only in the Establishment Clause, but in those churches and organizations that have had their tax exempt status pulled. Religion is not intended to be banished to the private world, per say, as in not publically shown. However, the Wall is indeed present, and indeed forbids religious institutions from meddling in politics.

4) Murder was a local law issue. Localities have already been shown to have overtly religious elements in their law per my last post. Murder itself was part of the Common Law Tradition. This traces back into the Medieval Era. The act is designated in the law as malum in se which translates as 'evil in itself'. The language is religious. The Era in which it came to be swam in religious justification for legal mores. If you wish to argue murder was made illegal in the U.S. independent of this larger Common Law Tradition and its religious roots, do so. The Judeo-Christian basis of the law was accepted and not controversial.

 

[Orontes]

I agree with your basic point but this wording is too strong. My understanding is non-profit organizations will lose tax-exempt status if they directly endorse one candidate or party. But other than that they are free to weigh in on political issues and promote their beliefs. It is true however that laws that are designed to promote or endorse certain religions over others are unconstitutional.

This is the language found in Code 501.(c) (3) of the tax code related to non profit organizations: Such “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates.”