It is the right of the church to get involved to the extent it does not break campaign laws in regards to charitable organizations. It is every person's right to decide for themselves.
However the church's passion for this arena really confounds me. The church does indeed make political statements. It is not unusual for the church to prepare a press release with its opinion clearly stated. It is the passion for this issue that is unusual.
I don't understand the logic behind some of the statements made by church officials.
One such statement is that made by L. Whitney Clayton of the Presidency of the Seventy.
He said, "Freedom of religion is at risk." I mention this because I have heard this before.
I can't at all understand what he means. There is no history of any church being forced to integrate persons into their congregations that they do not wish to accept, no history of any church being forced to baptize, bless, marry, or perform any ceremony for anyone or group of people that any church does not want. No restrictions or new obligations of these kinds have been proposed. What does Elder Clayton mean? What is the real concern represented by this comment? Can anyone explain this comment?
15 comments:
I am not aware of the specific circumstances surrounding the statement, except, of course, that he is referring to Prop. 8. Nevertheless, the church has reason to fear based on precedent related to the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts have be under siege by lawsuits from atheists, girls, and homosexuals. For the most part, the courts have found in favor of the Boy Scouts, but the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in the James Dale case (see http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/), which means that with another liberal vote on the Court, the decision would have been reversed.
This is an issue of freedom of association, and although there have been no major cases (there was a minor case in NJ) so far, I think such a lawsuit may be inevitable regardless of the outcome of Prop. 8. It seems very likely to me that some homosexual couple will make an issue of it and file a lawsuit, especially if more liberal judges are named to the courts.
Update:
The news report about Steve Young's position on Prop. 8 appears to be incorrect. He is not taking a position, but his wife is against the proposition.
It is true that she wrote the check. But a 50 grand check without agreement is hard to imagine! Their home as well has five signs/posters. He has not made a statement, but that may be due to requirements by his employer that prohibit it. As a sportscaster, he must remain really, really neutral in public.
It is indeed an issue of freedom of association, but I don't see any threat at all. None at all. Consider the ferocious nature of militant feminism: its anger against religions that do not allow equal access to women to various positions and privileges is well known. If success of a lawsuit to force religions to change their dogma were possible, feminists would have very certainly already pursued this course of action until it was exhausted. Unless someone can really present me with a plausible reason for such a comment, I think it is either very unjustified paranoia or an excuse in search of a constitutional/Bill of Rights concern in an attempt to intellectualize a bias.
I personally would not at all support any lawsuit that would require religions to be inclusive in any way whatsoever. I have long ceased to have any respect of the Boy Scouts whatsoever and send them packing every time they come to our door.
BUT I sided with their right as a private organization to discriminate in any way they saw fit. Same with the Boston St. Paddy's day parade that rejected a gay contingent of gay Irish folk. It was a parade by the Catholic Church: it is their right allow and reject prospective parade-goers as they see fit.
I have been very involved in Utah in gay politics and I have never heard anyone say that such a lawsuit would be a good tactic.
You may be right that Elder Clayton participated in some "rhetorical flourish," as politicians are wont to call over-the-line statements. The statement does beg for further clarification.
As a Californian, I am voting yes on Prop 8. I can't do all of the fancy political talk like you guys, but this is what I think. This propostion is simply saying that homosexual couples cannot be "married". It is not taking away their choice of life style or the insurance benefits they already have under "domestic partnerships", or any of that stuff. Heavenly Father has said clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is quite simple, and that is why I am voting yes. It has nothing to do with anything else.
One more thing about Prop 8... The " No on Prop 8" group has acted so badly, that I know of people who originally were leaning toward voting no, and are now voting yes beacuse of their negativity. My "Yes on 8" sign was first spray painted with black paint. I moved it close to the house against some bushes to hide the painted stuff, only to have the sign stolen a few days later. Our whole neighborhood's signs were stolen. This has happened everywhere in calif. There is a better way of campaining than to steal or deface the opposition's signs.
In relation to stealing lawn signs, I found the following article to be very interesting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-busse/confessions-of-a-lawn-sig_b_139179.html?page=2&show_comment_id=17488238
I would have to vote like Fabienne if I were in California. I do not agree with redifining marraige. I strongly beleive that Marraige is for a man and woman to unite and it is a sacred institution of God. Any alturation to his institution is a mockery.
Here is a link to watch another reason to vote yes. We need to protect our children from this very confusing adult issue while they are children. I would scream if I were in this couples situation. That school has no right to infringe on a 2nd graders world by introducing homosexuality at that age. I would be fuming in the school boards face! That is a families moral standard to teach at that tender age and it is not the schools place to do any thing like what they did. By voting no to prop 8 would give all kinds of school districts even more leverage to start introducing and teaching their liberal, free for all ideas to children. I atomately disagree with that. Society is way out of control with this issue. Here is the link to the video. Obviously put out there by those who are voting "Yes". So although it may appear one sided....this couples story infuriates me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLHWBWSaW-4&feature=related
I will make no comments about your choices to vote for Prop 8. I did not initiate this post to discuss whether or not my family should vote for or against this. I simply wanted to know what was meant by the statement made by Elder Clayton as it is representative of a sentiment that I still believe is wholly unjustified and which seems rather fluidly accepted in the LDS community.
I respect both Fabienne's and Teresa's opinions and reasons to vote for Prop 8 because you are both honest and hide behind no rhetoric. Essentially your argument is, "The Lord said it, that settles it."
I have no argument to make. However, you might beware of making such comments because they feed directly into arguments that will eventually undo your desired results. A political position uniquely based on a religious dogma will eventually lose out in a free and progressive democracy -unless it crosses over into basic laws of social order: don't kill, steal, damage etc- otherwise there are no good non-religious reasons to vote against gay marriage. I recognize that there are traditional, emotional, religious reasons to vote against it. But logically and non-religiously, being gay and marrying a same gender person does no harm.
I will discuss in a post sometime why gay marriage ought to be encouraged and why I believe that the reasons against it are flimsy.
You are right and I do understand that in today's society, our religeous arguement holds little weight for these kinds of issues. Although they make perfect sence for those of us that beleive.
I am not an intellectual, and I don't speak up on issues as if I were. I am a mom. Most of what I come up with is based on my own "mommying" experience and my natural woman's desire to nurture and protect children. So, I don't expect to be completely understood, but here is my opinon. (and probably my final comment on the issue)
I still beleive that the traditional relationship of a mother and father is best for a child. There are unique differences between men and women that when united to raise children offer a natural balance. It is my beleif that purposly formed families that disturb that balance, like a gay or lesbian couple raising a child, is not to the child's benefit. When it comes to a child I am passionate in my view that we as a society must protect children and we are doing a very lousy job of that. (abuse, neglect, pornography, etc...) Therefore, the issue allowing gay marraige for me, is the threat to the traditional home that I feel is best for the welfare of children. Perhaps my ideas might be the direction that Elder Clayton is talking about too.
I believe the statement is true and warranted. My reason is simple. Churches must be free to teach it's members the principles of their religion. In our case we believe we are teaching the principles as given to us by the Savior himself. We can't change those principles regardless of what society tells us or dictates to us based on "legal authority". The church can be put in a very difficult situation if those "legal authorities" start dictating to us what principles we have to live with. For example, suppose a gay couple who the state says can marry, wants to contest being excommunicated because of their life style, takes the church to court on the basis that since it is legal, the church shouldn't be allowed to use that as a condition of excommunication.
You can take that one step further. That same couple could then take the church to court using the same reasoning, to allow them to be married in the temple.
Dean's point is important and related to the problem the Boy Scouts have been having. The Boy Scouts were on the verge of loosing their freedom of association (5-4 SCOTUS) and the LDS church and other churches fear the scenario that Dean has described.
In the end, my argument is the same. Religions will not be required to perform any rites or ceremonies for anyone they don't deem fit. Freedom to practice religion without government interference. You have it already and there are no examples to the contrary in this domain. I don't understand basing an argument on a fear that doesn't have precedent. I conclude that given it is based on fear of what might happen, it is chiefly emotional. You have a right to your emotions.
The Boy Scouts decision, although close, proves my point. Remember as well, and this is very important to the argument, that the Boy Scouts is not a religion. It is an organization that had been thought to be open to all, the question was whether it was a public or private organization. In the end, it was a ruled a private institution. That was the right decision in my opinion. Religions are categorically private institutions. You would have nothing to fear.
I already used the feminist example, but let me give you an even stronger one. When the LDS Church refused blacks the priesthood, most considered that blatant and incomprehensible discrimination.
Given the slew of civil rights lawyers at the time and the passion of the equality movement at the time, if it had been possible to challenge in the courts the LDS Church's prohibition of blacks participating fully, it would have most certainly been attempted. Regarding Uncle Dean's concern, there have been no such challenges because they cannot succeed. Feminists and blacks did not even attempt it, I don't understand why gays are suddenly a greater threat than the two more powerful civil rights movements I mentioned (in regards to my question in my original post).
In your attempt to answer my question, you merely restated your fear. That is not an answer. There may not be an answer. There may just be fear.
Doug is correct, we do fear, but just because something has never happened does not mean we should not fear it. My home has never been robbed or invaded, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't fear it. In fact, it is because I fear it that I lock and bolt my doors. (ah yes, another analogy.)
Post a Comment