LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[darkendless]

Exactly, madhatter. My family, consisting of my children and their parents, considered as a group, is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. That protection includes the parent's right to marry.

Strictly speaking yes but just wait for some excuse by the faithful to prevent your rights from being adhered to. Marriage is a right, who are the faithful to control who marries who? If the shoe was on the other foot we'd never hear the end of it.

 

[emiliano]

The Obama victory was tempered in certain circles of California by the victory of Proposition 8 -- an outcome that seemed to genuinely shock many opponents. How did the Yes on 8 crowd win the day? Political experts told The Times' Dan Morain a lot had to do with a simple, clear message that hit with a broad cross-section of voters:
They were able to focus the debate on their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes, churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings, and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed. Supporters of gay marriage, along with political leaders including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) and the state's superintendent of public instruction, denounced those messages as scare tactics, but they were not able to sway voters. Preliminary returns showed Proposition 8 passing 52% to 48%. "It was masterful of the campaign to raise the implications of what it could mean in terms of the school system," said Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson. He said voters may have started out "thinking that as long as it doesn't affect me, do what you want," but the supporters shifted the focus to children.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/how-proposition.html

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Obama victory was tempered in certain circles of California by the victory of Proposition 8 -- an outcome that seemed to genuinely shock many opponents. How did the Yes on 8 crowd win the day? Political experts told The Times' Dan Morain a lot had to do with a simple, clear message that hit with a broad cross-section of voters:
They were able to focus the debate on their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes, churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings, and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed.

In other words, the win was because of a lie.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

In other words, the win was because of a lie.

I wouldn't call it a lie. Well, I would, but it is not a lie that is entirely unfounded. In the UK we have civil unions, and there is a push for homosexual relationships to be discussed in schools. Granted, I am sure that the USA would be a lot more slow moving in this respect, but it is a direction that is conceivable in the long run.

 

[LuisDantas]

What about this part, MC?

churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings, and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed.

Looks very much like a lie to me.

I wonder. Who could possibly sanction churches for not performing same-sex weddings? I can only assume it would be the higher authorities of the same churches, since logically the State has no business going there.

And the harm for marriage as an intitution... well, I know many people claim that as a reason. But really, do they believe in that?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

What about this part, MC?



Looks very much like a lie to me.

I wonder. Who could possibly sanction churches for not performing same-sex weddings? I can only assume it would be the higher authorities of the same churches, since logically the State has no business going there.

And the harm for marriage as an intitution... well, I know many people claim that as a reason. But really, do they believe in that?

Well, I know it is (actually very) different, and again a UK example, and I am stretching my mind back so I cannot remember the specifics but here we go.

There was a law being passed that would allow transgender individuals to alter their original birth certificate, or something along those lines, such that religious institutions would be unable to recognise the person as transgender, and refuse marriage on those grounds. The law also carried that refusal to marry someone who had been gender reassigned would make the church liable to be fined as well as potential lisence issues. The reason marriage would be refused from a Mormon perspective is that we believe that gender is an eternal aspect of ourselves, and thus a transgender individual is still spiritually their original gender. Thus, a marriage between a transgender individual and someone the opposite of thier new gender would be, essentially, a spiritual same-sex marriage.

I hope you got that. It's late and I can't quite tell if that makes sense.

Anyway, the law was passed, thus disallowing religious organisations the right to refuse to marry a transgender individual. I'll go try find some sources on this, as my memory is a little hazy and I could do with clarifying some details there.

Here we are

BBC NEWS | Politics | Anger over transsexual marriage

Gender Recognition Act 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't find clarification as to how large the freedom of conscience extended, though it sounded to only be for C0E

 

[Orontes]

The Obama victory was tempered in certain circles of California by the victory of Proposition 8 -- an outcome that seemed to genuinely shock many opponents. How did the Yes on 8 crowd win the day? Political experts told The Times' Dan Morain a lot had to do with a simple, clear message that hit with a broad cross-section of voters:
They were able to focus the debate on their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes, churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings, and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed. Supporters of gay marriage, along with political leaders including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) and the state's superintendent of public instruction, denounced those messages as scare tactics, but they were not able to sway voters. Preliminary returns showed Proposition 8 passing 52% to 48%. "It was masterful of the campaign to raise the implications of what it could mean in terms of the school system," said Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson. He said voters may have started out "thinking that as long as it doesn't affect me, do what you want," but the supporters shifted the focus to children.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/how-proposition.html

In other words, the win was because of a lie.

This statement is confused.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks, MC. Your sources were very enlightening indeed

Well, I know it is (actually very) different, and again a UK example (...)

Anyway, the law was passed, thus disallowing religious organisations the right to refuse to marry a transgender individual. I'll go try find some sources on this, as my memory is a little hazy and I could do with clarifying some details there.

Here we are

BBC NEWS | Politics | Anger over transsexual marriage

Gender Recognition Act 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't find clarification as to how large the freedom of conscience extended, though it sounded to only be for COE

I would think so too, especially due to this transcription from the Wikipedia article you indicate:

The two main exceptions are a right of conscience for Church of England clergy (who are normally obliged to marry any two eligible people by law), and that the descent of peerages will remain unchanged.

Emphasis mine. If it is correct that the Church of England has such a duty to UK Law, then of course we are dealing with a very different situation from that of the USA, where there is certainly no priest with a comparable legal duty.

In a sense, it seems, Anglican priests are understood to be civil servants, and therefore answearable to the Government authority in a way that most (all?) other faiths just are not. A consequence, I gather, from both having the same nominal supreme authority in the person of the British Monarch.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how priests of the Church of Scotland relate to this law. Both are established churches of the UK, but I understand that their duties are not all that similar.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

You're welcome. I think that the church actually officially advocated members to contact local MPs to raise their objections to the bill, but I can't find record of this anywhere.

But my point was that enforced equality does have the potential to be damaging to the rights of the religious, and thus the prop 8 fears are not entirely unfounded, though in the American climate ( which I consider quite a contrast to the European one) the things that are feared to result have a long time coming, in which time the church can do plenty to protect its freedoms rather than externalise the battle so far.

 

[LuisDantas]

But my point was that enforced equality does have the potential to be damaging to the rights of the religious,

How so? The Church of England was a special case, because it potentially puts the religious and legal duties of Anglican priests at odds with each other. No such situation may occur where Church and State are independent.

Religious faiths are quite free to recognize and proclaim marriages (or refuse to do so) as they please, but as long as there are legal aspects to marriages, it is the State's duty to apply civil marriages as equally as possible, regardless of any possible religious objections. Isn't it so?

and thus the prop 8 fears are not entirely unfounded, though in the American climate (which I consider quite a contrast to the European one) the things that are feared to result have a long time coming, in which time the church can do plenty to protect its freedoms rather than externalise the battle so far.

Actually, it seems to me that the exception here are the UK, not in the USA or in the rest of Europe. Very few European countries have established churches; I can only think of the UK and the State of the Vatican, really.

As for the fears, sorry, I just don't understand what there is to be feared from homosexual marriages.

 

[fantome profane]

You're welcome. I think that the church actually officially advocated members to contact local MPs to raise their objections to the bill, but I can't find record of this anywhere.

But my point was that enforced equality does have the potential to be damaging to the rights of the religious, and thus the prop 8 fears are not entirely unfounded, though in the American climate ( which I consider quite a contrast to the European one) the things that are feared to result have a long time coming, in which time the church can do plenty to protect its freedoms rather than externalise the battle so far.

But it would seem that the problem you are describing is a direct result of the confluence of church and state. That is the whole point, the state should not be telling churches who the have to marry, and the state should not be telling churches who the cannot marry.

 

[Magic Man]

This statement is confused.

No, it's quite clear and follows directly from the previous information.

But my point was that enforced equality does have the potential to be damaging to the rights of the religious, and thus the prop 8 fears are not entirely unfounded, though in the American climate ( which I consider quite a contrast to the European one) the things that are feared to result have a long time coming, in which time the church can do plenty to protect its freedoms rather than externalise the battle so far.

They're only not entirely unfounded because this proposition shows that it's possible to contradict the Constitution as long as it suits the sensibilities of a large group of people some of whom are in power. If supporters of this proposition weren't setting a precedent that you can legally deny rights for no good reason, then they themselves would never have anything to fear. If they were more supportive of separation of church and state, equal rights and not imposing beliefs on other groups simply because they disagree with yours, then they would be able to point to it in the future, if anyone tried to force them to go against their beliefs.

Also, anything has potential to do anything. I have the potential to murder someone. It's a matter of how good that potential is, and in the case you present, it's an extremely low probability, about on par with my probability of murdering someone.

 

[emiliano]

I think that the argument that if this issue were allowed to continue unchecked would lead to more bizarre demands, I agreed with “their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes” was well found and here in Australia we had a good example, during our own debates on this issues, that by the way resulted in a rejection of same sex marriage, this tiny minority demanded recognitions and also a replacement of all educations resources used to educate young children in public school, the terms mother, father and children is what constitute a family, they demanded a change because there are guy marriages with a couple of people of the same sex, thus daddy in not always a man and all the stories used teach them never mention same sex marriage families. Any way the result was the majority wants a band on such marriage and there are more important issues to pay attention to.

 

[Magic Man]

and there are more important issues to pay attention to.

Yes, of course. Now, maybe you could enlighten us as to what is more important than basic human rights, and denying them to others.

 

[Orontes]

The Obama victory was tempered in certain circles of California by the victory of Proposition 8 -- an outcome that seemed to genuinely shock many opponents. How did the Yes on 8 crowd win the day? Political experts told The Times' Dan Morain a lot had to do with a simple, clear message that hit with a broad cross-section of voters:
They were able to focus the debate on their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes, churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings, and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed. Supporters of gay marriage, along with political leaders including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) and the state's superintendent of public instruction, denounced those messages as scare tactics, but they were not able to sway voters. Preliminary returns showed Proposition 8 passing 52% to 48%. "It was masterful of the campaign to raise the implications of what it could mean in terms of the school system," said Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson. He said voters may have started out "thinking that as long as it doesn't affect me, do what you want," but the supporters shifted the focus to children.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/how-proposition.html

In other words, the win was because of a lie.

This statement is confused.

No, it's quite clear and follows directly from the previous information.

Alas no. The statement attacks the integrity of people it is highly unlikely the poster actually knows. This is untoward. The substance is also incorrect as redefining marriage to include same sex couplings would indeed mean it would become part of California School curriculum. Further, as is occurring right now in Massachusetts: the ACLU is arguing that parents opposed to their children being exposed to gay marriage (both text and instruction), cannot opt out. A simple quote from the ACLU's brief:

"Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate childrens' book..."



This is from the brief of the Anti Defamation League:

" In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents."



This is from the Human Rights Campaign brief:

"There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment's free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one's children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue - or to threat them as suspect by imposing an opt- out system."




In simple terms: once a right is declared the state is no longer a neutral party, but must both sanction and endorse that right. The base argument being put forward in Massachusetts by the pro-gay lobby is that the state cannot allow any opting out as that would undercut the whole purpose of the state instilling acceptance.

 

[Orontes]

Yes, of course. Now, maybe you could enlighten us as to what is more important than basic human rights, and denying them to others.

There is no basic human right to gaydom.

 

[Storm]

There is no basic human right to gaydom.

Do you have any idea how hurtful remarks like that are?

 

[Magic Man]

Alas no. The statement attacks the integrity of people it is highly unlikely the poster actually knows. This is untoward. The substance is also incorrect as redefining marriage to include same sex couplings would indeed mean it would become part of California School curriculum.

Alas, yes. May people voted "yes" based on false information. Therefore, the win was because of a lie.

How would it become part of the school curriculum? In what way?

 

[Magic Man]

There is no basic human right to gaydom.

Thank you for that very ignorant comment.

Now, I never mentioned a right to "gaydom". My comment was about the right to marry whoever you want. Only heterosexuals have that right. There is a basic human right to equality, which is what is being denied to homosexuals.

 

[LuisDantas]

In simple terms: once a right is declared the state is no longer a neutral party, but must both sanction and endorse that right. The base argument being put forward in Massachusetts by the pro-gay lobby is that the state cannot allow any opting out as that would undercut the whole purpose of the state instilling acceptance.

Fair enough, and IMO the answer for those who ask why a civil union isn't enough and/or the same as a marriage. The true matter isn't so much the name itself, but how far the State should go in recognising and supporting same-sex unions.

It is probably a good idea for us same-sex marriage supporters to make that clear: we do indeed want the State to go all the way and fully support and recognize such unions, including for diplomatic and educational purposes. I do, at least (keeping in mind that I don't live in the USA).

All the same, it is also probably a good idea for those who dislike the idea of their own communities recognizing "foreign" same-sex marriages and/or having their children learning about them as a normal part of society at school to admit that this is a real concern of theirs, and the reason why they don't want civil unions to be fully elevated to marriages. I happen to strongly oppose such a stance, but it would be hypocrital of my part to fail to recognise that such worries do exist, and some people few very troubled indeed because of them. I don't think they should, but there is precious little I can do directly to help them out of such worries.

Fair enough?