I wonder what is more important -- an individual sin? Or agency and family?
I remember someone else who wanted to take away people's agency, to force them to do follow God's plan. And that didn't end too well for him.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the Wikipedia on the LDS Plan of Salvation:
quote: Lucifer volunteered to save mankind by taking away man's agency. Nobody would be able to fail the test and so, Lucifer claimed, everyone would be able to return to the presence of Heavenly Father.
Well, then the Lord had a plan:
quote: Integral to this Plan was freedom of choice, which Heavenly Father considered an inviolable right of all his children; every individual would have opportunities to make certain choices that would determine the course of their life on Earth and in the hereafter. No human would ever have their freedom taken away in an attempt to force righteous behavior. People would be free to do evil and good, both to themselves and to those around them.
So you agree that Utah should not take away people's rights to commit a sin in the eyes of the church by getting married? Because that would be taking away their agency?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm in favor of SSM and wish the LDS Church and state of Utah would stop trying to block it, I don't think the issue maps very well to matters of sin or agency. I am willing to believe that the objections are based on fears about the effects on society at large, not on the souls of those involved.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
The official by-line of the church is that homosexual thoughts are okay but homosexual acts are sin.
BUT ... the church also encourages member to read scripture themselves, to pray about things, to ask of God. The real point of the church is to help individuals engage in a relationship with the lord himself, not to act as an intermediary (as some religions do).
Homosexual relationships are a difficult point. From a biological perspective, it seems that some humans may be wired differently, and that there might be neurological differences that are the cause of their predisposition. But I think that raises a number of interesting questions: - Does this mean that the behavior can be okay? Maybe the "soul" of these people is different somehow? - Is this a special test that the Lord has given some people? - Or maybe it's a trial for the rest of us? - How big of a sin is it? There are lots of sins that even the most pious people commit. Is it a bigger sin than hiding who you are and not pursuing happiness? Is it a bigger sin than cursing? - We believe that "special needs" people are exempted from sin in many ways. It is likely a biological anomaly. Does a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality exempt someone from sin in the same way that other people who are born different are exempted from certain laws?
The church administration gets to decide who receives temple ordinations. That's their power. But that's only for living ordinances. Once they're dead, the ordinances are performed for everyone.
God is their only judge. Not me. Not the church.
My personal feeling is that the church should only be involved in politics inasmuch as they are promoting the rights of the individual to pursue their own agency. Making statements of proper behavior is great for members, but they should actively promote freedom and non-judgement in the political sphere.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: While I'm in favor of SSM and wish the LDS Church and state of Utah would stop trying to block it, I don't think the issue maps very well to matters of sin or agency. I am willing to believe that the objections are based on fears about the effects on society at large, not on the souls of those involved.
I agree. The church is "playing politics" in order to influence society toward their conception of righteousness.
I know that the church wants to save the world. But when I wasn't an active member, judgemental relatives telling me what to do had more negative impact than positive.
God loves everyone. We're all sinners. And he's the only one capable of judging what consitutes a sin, how bad a sin is, what the repercussions are, etc.
I think the church should promote morality among its members. But I don't feel that the best way to bring truth to the world is through judgement. It isn't Christlike.
What would Christ do? I can only think he would teach by example, through love, and promote an atmosphere of agency. People join the church because they see good people in the church, people who shovel their driveway, who are family oriented, who are kind. Promoting discrimination contrary to the courts of the land is hateful. I can't see Jesus protesting gay marriage.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a (founded) fear that when society treats as normal/worthy that which the church views as heinously sinful, it heightens alienation and friction for people trying to follow the church's teachings while living in a wicked world.
Personally I think the better solution is to revisit the assessment of what is wicked. I think society is becoming more accepting of homosexuality because it's becoming more and more clear that it's not inherently damaging, not because society is becoming more wicked.
But I can see how fighting against that acceptance makes sense if you are worried that acceptance will be contagious (which it will) which may lead to apostasy (which it might well do, if the church doesn't bend instead).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is also a fear of the diminishing of one of the LDS Church's major beliefs--the difference roles of Gender. A homosexual is a person who does not play the church's defined gender role. This weakens all the gender based doctrine almost as much as women's equality movement does.
How does a homosexual marriage damage a heterosexual concept of marriage? If a man can replace the woman, or a woman replace the man, then how can we justify or explain gender roles that the Church Elders have prescribed for everything?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. If we're literally forcing people (biologically gay) to marry the opposite sex, I can't believe that would BOLSTER gender roles. And I think that we as a society are past that. It's happening, and the church can't stop it. It isn't merely as if the opposition can stop societal change.
Homosexual tendency used to be behind closed doors. The argument was that it was sinful. If there's a biological component, it is illogical to believe that straight people are sinning by CHOOSING to be homosexual.
So ... what are the options? - Is a straight person committing a homosexual act sinful? I'd say yes because it is a knowing, carnal act that merely serves gratification. - Is a gay person committing a homosexual act sinful? Only as much as it is distasteful to God. If they're in a state sanctioned marriage, a committed relationship, what then?
The problem with adultery is promiscuity. As far as the church is concerned, intimate relations under a civil marriage ARE NOT considered adultery. Perhaps this should apply to all marriages?
<shug> Maybe Jesus really wants gay people to be celibate. I don't know. But we're all sinners.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: The official by-line of the church is that homosexual thoughts are okay but homosexual acts are sin.
BUT ... the church also encourages member to read scripture themselves, to pray about things, to ask of God. The real point of the church is to help individuals engage in a relationship with the lord himself, not to act as an intermediary (as some religions do).
Yet the church will still actively punish a gay person or gay couple even if they sincerely claim to have asked of God about the morality of their relationship and received understanding from God that their relationship is good with Him.
And in this case, my curiosity derives from not how I would write this out, but precisely how the church would respond to the notion that it would "punish" them. While I know that what the church would do is for all practical intents and purposes and quite literally through a literal reading punishment, I suspect the church's official position would be that this is not 'punishment.' I just don't know what their argument against this fact would be.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: How does a homosexual marriage damage a heterosexual concept of marriage? If a man can replace the woman, or a woman replace the man, then how can we justify or explain gender roles that the Church Elders have prescribed for everything?
And a belief in church doctrine would contend that some gender roles are prescribed by God, not by "Church Elders". The Church didn't give me a penis. As much as feminists would prefer otherwise, there are biological and neurological differences between the sexes. Both sexes have a natural role in procreation.
Just because we're trying to scrub all differences out in the political system doesn't mean that we need to try to scrub out natural spiritual differences.
The ultimate question is this: which parts of doctrine are proscribed by man and which by God?
If you scoff at the fact that ANY of them can be given by God, you aren't taking the question seriously and your opinion is irrelevant.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: The official by-line of the church is that homosexual thoughts are okay but homosexual acts are sin.
BUT ... the church also encourages member to read scripture themselves, to pray about things, to ask of God. The real point of the church is to help individuals engage in a relationship with the lord himself, not to act as an intermediary (as some religions do).
Yet the church will still actively punish a gay person or gay couple even if they sincerely claim to have asked of God about the morality of their relationship and received understanding from God that their relationship is good with Him.
And in this case, my curiosity derives from not how I would write this out, but precisely how the church would respond to the notion that it would "punish" them. While I know that what the church would do is for all practical intents and purposes and quite literally through a literal reading punishment, I suspect the church's official position would be that this is not 'punishment.' I just don't know what their argument against this fact would be.
Yes. You're probably right. Does that matter?
The Bhagavad Gita states that God is infinite. Man's comprehension, on the other hand, is not. Therefore man can never truly understand God.
LDS members believe that God is truly at the head of the church, and that he leads mankind through a living prophet. Is this prophet infallible? No. Is the church? No. They are both run by men. They have been wrong in both policy and doctrine before. They will be wrong again.
Let's say someone believes that there's nothing wrong with their relationship. Let's say that they pray about it, and God confirms their claim. Most people in the church would counterclaim that the gay person was incorrect about their personal revelation. That it didn't come from God. But nobody ALIVE can know this for sure.
We are encouraged to engender a relationship with the Lord. This relationship is more important than the workings of the church. Excommunication is an official statement for men. But it doesn't stop you from coming to church. And if your revelation is correct, it doesn't mean a darn thing when it comes to your salvation / exaltation.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: You're probably right. Does that matter?
Not particularly, from my perspective. When I say I'm curious, it's just that. By now my own personal feelings on the Church are well thought out for my own purposes, I mainly just have an investigative curiosity into what the church offers as rationale, whether or not I have or care to have a personal opinion on that rationale. Like, I'm only curious about making sure I have an accurate sense of what the church actually says in regards to X or what it would say if confronted with Y.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over the past few years I've evolved to your way of thinking Herblay.
It isn't for me to judge. The church can certainly run things the way they want to, but it should stay out of political decisions. If they don't want to seal gay couples in the temple, let married gay couples hold callings, or even let them marry inside of an LDS chapel, I'm ok with that, it is their decision.
But it SHOULD stay out of trying to sway politics. I understand that the church believes it has a responsibility to stand up for what it believes is right, but it should not exert power to try and force others to live it's teachings.
Has any church member here ever lived in a country where gay marriage is legal? (Most countries in Europe?) I'd be interested to know how members of the church in those areas interact with those that are gay.
And bravo for saying that telling less active members that they are sinning or telling them what to do only creates friction and negativity. I've an uncle that stopped going to church, and stopped coming to family meetings and reunions for over 10 years because other family members would tell him to stop drinking and to come back to church. He wasn't a drunk, he just likes to enjoy a beer with his meal. Luckily after he told us why he didn't want to come around, the family changed their behavior and don't pressure him anymore. We now have our uncle back.
I also have a gay cousin that stopped coming around for similar reasons. Last year he came to our huge family reunion and brought his boyfriend with him. We all had an awesome time with them, and we are looking forward to hanging out with them again this year. Sure we joked around with them, but we joke around with all new couples that come to the reunion Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't for me to judge. The church can certainly run things the way they want to, but it should stay out of political decisions. If they don't want to seal gay couples in the temple, let married gay couples hold callings, or even let them marry inside of an LDS chapel, I'm ok with that, it is their decision.
But it SHOULD stay out of trying to sway politics. I understand that the church believes it has a responsibility to stand up for what it believes is right, but it should not exert power to try and force others to live it's teachings.
I think this would be feasible in a world where government would never infringe on organized religion's rights. But realistically the government will not hesitate to pass laws that either intentionally or unintentionally impinge on the rights that ought to be afforded to individuals who are religious and organizations formed by religious motivations.
Because that is the case, I think it's unconscionable to tell religion to sit idle and let come what may. Instead we just permit them to participate in civil affairs just as any other organization is permitted to. If they don't look out for themselves, nobody else is going to.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: - We believe that "special needs" people are exempted from sin in many ways. It is likely a biological anomaly. Does a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality exempt someone from sin in the same way that other people who are born different are exempted from certain laws?
That is a really interesting question I hadn’t thought about before.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think this would be feasible in a world where government would never infringe on organized religion's rights. But realistically the government will not hesitate to pass laws that either intentionally or unintentionally impinge on the rights that ought to be afforded to individuals who are religious and organizations formed by religious motivations.
Because that is the case, I think it's unconscionable to tell religion to sit idle and let come what may. Instead we just permit them to participate in civil affairs just as any other organization is permitted to. If they don't look out for themselves, nobody else is going to.
You know, you've made this argument before, and I think where it breaks down is you've never explained how "looking out for themselves" somehow equates to "denying basic civil rights to people who aren't part of their church, and indeed want nothing to do with their church."
I have no problem with, say, the Church publicly opposing any legislation that would in any way prohibit them from exercising their religion freely. So long as the free exercise thereof doesn't endanger children or non-members. (I.e, if the Church decides that part of their religious freedom should include ritual sacrifice of gentiles, or giving rattlesnakes to children, etc.) I think they cross the line when they try to pass laws to oppress people who aren't part of their religion. That crosses a big line, and wanders into the "established religion" area, IMHO.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think this would be feasible in a world where government would never infringe on organized religion's rights. But realistically the government will not hesitate to pass laws that either intentionally or unintentionally impinge on the rights that ought to be afforded to individuals who are religious and organizations formed by religious motivations.
Because that is the case, I think it's unconscionable to tell religion to sit idle and let come what may. Instead we just permit them to participate in civil affairs just as any other organization is permitted to. If they don't look out for themselves, nobody else is going to.
You know, you've made this argument before, and I think where it breaks down is you've never explained how "looking out for themselves" somehow equates to "denying basic civil rights to people who aren't part of their church, and indeed want nothing to do with their church."
I have no problem with, say, the Church publicly opposing any legislation that would in any way prohibit them from exercising their religion freely. So long as the free exercise thereof doesn't endanger children or non-members. (I.e, if the Church decides that part of their religious freedom should include ritual sacrifice of gentiles, or giving rattlesnakes to children, etc.) I think they cross the line when they try to pass laws to oppress people who aren't part of their religion. That crosses a big line, and wanders into the "established religion" area, IMHO.
I think BB was responding mostly to this part of the statement:
quote:But it SHOULD stay out of trying to sway politics.
Which would also include staying out of any legislation that would "prohibit them from exercising their religion freely." I'm inclined to agree with you and Geraine though, that I wish the church would limit it's involvement in politics unless it was an infringement on religious rights. At the same time there is a lot of gray area as to what constitutes an "infringement of religious rites".
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the church is really protecting is their relevance. Normalization of behaviors and family structures which the church is opposed to as a matter of doctrine will have significant effects on conversion and retention. Ultimately they'll have to go the route that scifi suggested - "revisit the assessment of what is wicked". That's what they did in 1978 with blacks and it's obvious in retrospect that it was necessary. Can you imagine the public opinion of the church today if they still excluded blacks from full participation?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a bit of a catch-22 when a doctrine has been heavily and frequently reinforced as unchanging. I'm really interested in the question of what would happen if the church did a reversal on homosexuality or eternal gender roles - could they pull it off? Or would such a thing merely convince people that the church was swaying in the cultural wind and lacked any divine guidance. I suspect that there'd be a lot of fallout, but maybe paying that price extends the church's long term cultural acceptance.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my view, the changes the church makes are first and foremost to further its ability to carry out its central mission. Sometimes that takes it closer to cultural acceptance, sometimes farther away. I think it definitely makes missteps in doing this that hurt its image unnecessarily; however, the goal of the church has never been, IMO, to win the acceptance of mainstream culture.
Now, the church does have a very active PR presence and is obviously doing its darndest to improve its image and stay visible in the changing media and cultural landscapes. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to make big changes just to get public opinion on its side. That's my view of it, at least.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, the church does have a very active PR presence and is obviously doing its darndest to improve its image and stay visible in the changing media and cultural landscapes. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to make big changes just to get public opinion on its side. That's my view of it, at least.
I too think that the church leaders will try to do what they think they are supposed to do to carry out their roles in the church.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think this would be feasible in a world where government would never infringe on organized religion's rights. But realistically the government will not hesitate to pass laws that either intentionally or unintentionally impinge on the rights that ought to be afforded to individuals who are religious and organizations formed by religious motivations.
Because that is the case, I think it's unconscionable to tell religion to sit idle and let come what may. Instead we just permit them to participate in civil affairs just as any other organization is permitted to. If they don't look out for themselves, nobody else is going to.
You know, you've made this argument before, and I think where it breaks down is you've never explained how "looking out for themselves" somehow equates to "denying basic civil rights to people who aren't part of their church, and indeed want nothing to do with their church."
I have no problem with, say, the Church publicly opposing any legislation that would in any way prohibit them from exercising their religion freely. So long as the free exercise thereof doesn't endanger children or non-members. (I.e, if the Church decides that part of their religious freedom should include ritual sacrifice of gentiles, or giving rattlesnakes to children, etc.) I think they cross the line when they try to pass laws to oppress people who aren't part of their religion. That crosses a big line, and wanders into the "established religion" area, IMHO.
I would never argue that church's should be permitted to run roughshod over people's rights. But I think you are presenting a pretty low bar. One, I don't think any organization could pass. NAACP supports affirmative action, well that infringes on the rights of white males to be given a fair chance at employment or school admission.
A defense contractor thinks we should go to Iraq and blow stuff up, well that infringes on the rights of my enlisted friends and family to not die needlessly in a foreign war they cannot opt out of participating in.
Look at this Hobby Lobby kerfuffle, it too is framed as a woman's right to contraception vs a religious organization denying that right. It's a pretty rare instance where when one side doesn't get what it wants, it does not claim that what they want is a matter of rights and preserving the constitution. Be it forcing businesses to provide insurance, because health insurance is a right.
I think the church has been terribly misguided in how it attempts to protect the family. It should still be permitted to be involved in civil affairs just as any other organization is. To tie its hands is to invite its abuse at the hands of others either intentionally or unintentionally.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Affirmative action: yes, that's debatable, but the NAACP sure as hell hasn't tried to back legislation that forbids businesses from hiring white men. (which is the equivalent of what the church is doing with marriage and gays)
Defense contractors: If you refer to lobbying, I agree with this 110% and think it needs to be changed too. I'm fairly certain I have just as much beef with them as you do.
Hobby Lobby: Are they proposing legislation trying to make it illegal for women to buy contraception?
Again, the CJCLDS stands out among your examples, because it's actively trying to deny a group a civil right. Not, "if you're openly gay you can't work for the church", or even, "if you work for us and are gay, we won't pay for your spouse's insurance", it's "if you're gay, whether or not you are in any way affiliated with our church, you aren't allowed to have this basic civil right. And we're going to change the law to ensure you're denied this right"
Can you see the difference there?
And again, your argument is a strange one. "The church needs to be allowed to abuse other people, or whole groups of people, because otherwise it's going to be abused." It's very much of a kill or be killed, reactionary, paranoid point of view. I know many Christian denominations, especially the Mormons, hold this view, and to be fair I think it comes from a history of being oppressed and abused. But this whole "we have to attack first, before they attack us" mentality leads to atrocities like the Mountain Meadows massacre, and truly disturbs me. I honestly believe if the Mormon Church would tone down it's political aggression, it would not suddenly become a victim. I think quite the opposite would occur, actually.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, the church does have a very active PR presence and is obviously doing its darndest to improve its image and stay visible in the changing media and cultural landscapes. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to make big changes just to get public opinion on its side. That's my view of it, at least.
I too think that the church leaders will try to do what they think they are supposed to do to carry out their roles in the church.
posted
Just didn't want to leave the impression that I thought the church leaders would consciously frame such decisions in the same way I would.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: We seem to be talking past each other. I do not support the measures that stop gay marriage from happening that the church has sponsored. I think it's mis-stepping because in part it's trampling on somebody's right to equal protection under the law.
But I grow leery (and you haven't said this) of the argument that because church's are not taxed like other organizations that somehow should bar them from the political process. It sounds no different than those crazy fringe Republicans who have suggested that if a person doesn't pay income tax they shouldn't get to vote.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a strict condition of tax-exempt status, and churches need to comply like everyone else has to.
For example, I was a Girl Scout back in the day (okay, I have a lifetime membership, so I guess I still am one), and it was made very clear that we could campaign for absolutely nothing political as part of scouting.
Okay, I googled it. Here's a page from a council in Atlanta (no, not mine) that lays out the policy.
quote: The laws governing nonprofit organizations draw a distinction between lobbying activities and electioneering activities. While GSUSA encourages councils to actively work with and lobby their public officials on policy issues, it is important to remember that any type of electioneering in your official Girl Scout capacity is prohibited. Electioneering is defined as participating in the electoral process by promoting particular candidates for office. Such activity is a direct violation of the tax law that governs non-profit organizations. You may, however, campaign on behalf of a political candidate as an individual without reference to your role as a Girl Scout leader.
Girl Scouts of the USA respects that Girl Scout staff and volunteers may hold strong political convictions concerning the upcoming elections; however, it is crucial that you adhere to the GSUSA policy. Participation in electioneering as Girl Scouts could result in the loss of our 501 (C) (3) tax-exempt status.
posted
They were actually fined for some of the illegal stuff they pulled with Prop 8, but unfortunately that's like a drop in the bucket compared to the huge amount of money and resources the Mormon Church spends trying to buy elections.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: They were actually fined for some of the illegal stuff they pulled with Prop 8, but unfortunately that's like a drop in the bucket compared to the huge amount of money and resources the Mormon Church spends trying to buy elections.
They were fined for accounting irregularities, not for breaking electioneering laws.
I'm comfortable with non-profits not being permitted to push candidates. But lobbying is something I feel they must be allowed to do. I hate defense contractors and the graft they peddle, but I'm not going to make it illegal for them to solicit the attention of our representatives just like anybody else can. Nor do I think defense contractors are ethically obligated to forbear from doing so.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be at least a little uncomfortable with barring that sort of lobbying. Complete financial transparency, on the other hand, I would wholeheartedly endorse. Unfortunately Momonism as an institution on this issue doesn't do too well either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not fully comprehend why the church's financials are kept secret, even though I remain confident nothing evil is going on. But I still remain unconvinced it's necessary.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evil? Well even I wouldn't go that far, although it is the church itself that nurtures doubt on that question. But dubious, problematic, unethical, sketchy, self serving, pick your shade of word for 'corrupt'...and I would be surprised if it *wasn't* happening.
Even if I believed the church was true, that God existed and was directly involved in its administration in an ongoing way, I would *still* be surprised if in the face of that secrecy there wasn't significant corruption. Just on the basis of the church's own religious texts-other iterations of the same church in the past not being immune to corruption.
The only reason I'm not angrier about the secret financials is that it gets lumped in with all the other special exceptions and don't-ask-questions that are part and parcel for religion in our country. So it's not some special Mormon nefariousness, it's just what humans get up to when they're considered above reproach.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the church believes it is above reproach. I suspect (totally a guess) they feel that if the financials are transparent, then everybody gets hung up on how the money is managed. Why this amount in *this* fund. If they have money for this, why not money for that? Why is this ward's budget bigger than that ward's? Money can be a pretty divisive topic. And I doubt there is an equal potential for good.
Also, I think many people would wilt if they saw how much BYU costs to operate. But that's all idle speculation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said the appellate court's decision "needs to be appealed because we can't get finality and final resolution unless the Supreme Court hears the case and makes a decision."
Halting the state's defense of the voter-approved Amendment 3 to Utah's Constitution now, he said, would be "like stopping a game in the middle of the contest."
what on earth game is he trying to make analogous to this. does he think it's halftime at the Super Discriminate Against Gays Bowl or what
yes yes I know there's reason behind a state defense, even a token one, of voter-passed resolutions but welcome to the lens of history, Gary, you're a comical holdup now. "It'd be like stopping doing something totally evil to someone, in the middle of doing something totally evil to someone! lol it makes no sense to just ... you know, stop, so let's drag it out to its miserable, contemptuous end at the expense of others"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. It's a sports metaphor. Happens in politics. And frankly I can't say I'm much torn up about this, because not all of the voter-approved amendments the state defends will be ones that are as dishonorable as this one.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No surprise, but I'm pretty put out that voter initiatives can be ignored by the state attorney general and governor and basically then have no standing.
So like literally if your government is full of horrible people, and you try to pass laws as a populace because they sit around being horrible, they can thumb their noses at you. It's like your representative doesn't actually have to represent you. Fun!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there civil rights that the government does not compel businesses or religions to grant (participate) in? For instance, equal protection for employment opportunities. If you own a company you cannot discriminate against hiring someone because of their sex, race, color etc.... I think one of the fears is that marriage will become a protected right in that vein and that would then require any church that provides rites of marriage do so equally without regard to gender. This would violate many religions' canons.
The only solution I see is that the government grant civil unions and if you want your union solemnized by your religious institution you do so in a separate ceremony. It would be a hassle from our current “one-stop shopping” model but it would be the only way to guarantee any church’s freedom to recognize marriage as they believe God does. I know it is done this way in many other countries and I believe it is the only real solution to the problem we are faced with here.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are there civil rights that the government does not compel businesses or religions to grant (participate) in?
Businesses, no. Religions, yes. It is still, for instance, legal for a religion to refuse to marry a black couple. Religions have broad exceptions carved out for them and there's not really any indication of those being eroded.
Even the Hobby Lobby situation was not about a religion - it was a *business* that claimed to have religious objections to obeying a law. And they won that case.
I like to think of it like car registration. The state has the authority to register cars. Your car is only registered when the state says it is registered. However, if you buy a car from a car dealership the dealer is authorized by the state to register the car on your behalf as a convenience. They are not required, however, to register the car of anyone that walks in the door.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the whole fear of "if gay marriage is legal, every church will be forced to marry gays!" is one of the most ridiculous arguments out there. Right now, any church can refuse to marry you for any reason they want. I.e, a church in my hometown will refuse to marry anyone outside of their denomination, or interracial couples, or brides who have necklines too low on their wedding dresses. Gay marriage being legal won't suddenly change this.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's all part and parcel with the selling of absurd culturally apocalyptic fears that gay marriage represents to some fundamentalists and other homophobes. The wedge issue got pushed so hard that you have a depressingly consistent percentage of americans who view marriage for straights only as the tenuous and feeble holy glue that's the only thing keeping this country together.
The largest hand in that, the one that bears the most culpability, is the politicians and political groups that kept having to sell the issue of 'protecting marriage' to the faithful to keep them in the voting booths, with the hallucinatory stakes being raised ever higher and higher, the consequences for inaction fiercer and more grandiose. Fear was manufactured and sold.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think the whole fear of "if gay marriage is legal, every church will be forced to marry gays!" is one of the most ridiculous arguments out there. Right now, any church can refuse to marry you for any reason they want. I.e, a church in my hometown will refuse to marry anyone outside of their denomination, or interracial couples, or brides who have necklines too low on their wedding dresses. Gay marriage being legal won't suddenly change this.
Granted this will probably never happen. However we are already seeing small private businesses being told they have to service people whose way of life they don't agree with. Most would argue that if the government is already going that far in telling private businesses who they can do business with, it is only a matter of time before they tell churches the same thing, or risk being fined or have their tax exempt status revoked.
I should clarify that I do think the church should be able to voice their opinions, I just don't think they should get involved monetarily or tell their members what to vote for, as was the case with Prop 8.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: brides who have necklines too low on their wedding dresses.
How do they know this before the bride shows up at the church? I'm imagining some very interesting scenes here.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Granted this will probably never happen. However we are already seeing small private businesses being told they have to service people whose way of life they don't agree with. Most would argue that if the government is already going that far in telling private businesses who they can do business with, it is only a matter of time before they tell churches the same thing, or risk being fined or have their tax exempt status revoked. [/QB]
Serious question. If wedding photographer or a cake baker was asked to do a dog wedding, would they refuse because it mocks marriage, or take a paying customer, even if they were a bit odd?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think the whole fear of "if gay marriage is legal, every church will be forced to marry gays!" is one of the most ridiculous arguments out there. Right now, any church can refuse to marry you for any reason they want. I.e, a church in my hometown will refuse to marry anyone outside of their denomination, or interracial couples, or brides who have necklines too low on their wedding dresses. Gay marriage being legal won't suddenly change this.
Granted this will probably never happen. However we are already seeing small private businesses being told they have to service people whose way of life they don't agree with. Most would argue that if the government is already going that far in telling private businesses who they can do business with, it is only a matter of time before they tell churches the same thing, or risk being fined or have their tax exempt status revoked.
I should clarify that I do think the church should be able to voice their opinions, I just don't think they should get involved monetarily or tell their members what to vote for, as was the case with Prop 8.
Can't agree with you here, Geraine. I think most people are fine conceptually with 'the government' telling businesses that there are people and reasons you can't refuse to serve/fire/refuse to hire/etc. This doesn't seem to upset people very much, until of course their own particular group they'd like to do those things to is protected.
You won't find many willing to stand up and say, "Yeah, Arby's ought to be allowed to say 'no blacks!' if they want to." For all that people like to complain about political correctness, this particular outlook was actually attained when political correctness on racism was definitely not the status quo. But as the argument that homosexuals aren't inferior deviants needing public censure continues to be won, the same kind of thinking will likely trend into businesses and homosexuals.
However, for all the furor over 'churches might be forced!' we have a pretty compelling historical basis to realize that's total bunk: as others have noticed, there are churches today that exist after two generations of the civil rights act that refuse interracial marriages, with not much in the way of signs that this will change that I'm familiar with.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I think the whole fear of "if gay marriage is legal, every church will be forced to marry gays!" is one of the most ridiculous arguments out there. Right now, any church can refuse to marry you for any reason they want. I.e, a church in my hometown will refuse to marry anyone outside of their denomination, or interracial couples, or brides who have necklines too low on their wedding dresses. Gay marriage being legal won't suddenly change this.
Granted this will probably never happen. However we are already seeing small private businesses being told they have to service people whose way of life they don't agree with. Most would argue that if the government is already going that far in telling private businesses who they can do business with, it is only a matter of time before they tell churches the same thing, or risk being fined or have their tax exempt status revoked.
I should clarify that I do think the church should be able to voice their opinions, I just don't think they should get involved monetarily or tell their members what to vote for, as was the case with Prop 8.
Can't agree with you here, Geraine. I think most people are fine conceptually with 'the government' telling businesses that there are people and reasons you can't refuse to serve/fire/refuse to hire/etc. This doesn't seem to upset people very much, until of course their own particular group they'd like to do those things to is protected.
You won't find many willing to stand up and say, "Yeah, Arby's ought to be allowed to say 'no blacks!' if they want to." For all that people like to complain about political correctness, this particular outlook was actually attained when political correctness on racism was definitely not the status quo. But as the argument that homosexuals aren't inferior deviants needing public censure continues to be won, the same kind of thinking will likely trend into businesses and homosexuals.
However, for all the furor over 'churches might be forced!' we have a pretty compelling historical basis to realize that's total bunk: as others have noticed, there are churches today that exist after two generations of the civil rights act that refuse interracial marriages, with not much in the way of signs that this will change that I'm familiar with.
And I would agree with you that this historically in AMERICA that has not happened. That doesn't make the concern less valid. The more "politically correct" society becomes, the less "tolerant" society will be towards religion. Historically that HAS happened in other nations in the world. The Roman empire comes to mind.
The argument I am bringing up is in regards to publicly traded companies versus private companies. Should there be a difference? No, I don't believe there should. But the Supreme Court just ruled that they are. I'd be surprised if a case such as the gentleman that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding doesn't end up in front of SCOTUS in the next few years.
I should point out also that the Civil Rights Act only considers a denial of service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Sexual Orientation is not included in that YET. Many states have their own laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, however on the federal level it currently DOES NOT. Some states (Nevada being one of them) have even instituted another protected class based on genetic disposition.
Here's a map of states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation:
Understand, I'm not defending anyone who refuses service, I'm saying under current law people in many states can legally do so.
By the way, the case of the baker that refused to make a cake for the same sex wedding was in Colorado, which has a state-wide non-discrimination law in place that covers sexual orientation and gender identity. As such, the court got it right in ordering the baker to go through with baking the cake.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
