Prop 8. and temple recommends

[Wingnut]

I realize there will be some to disagree. Didn't Scott Trotter say something about how there wouldn't be any church disipline for those who disagreed with the church during the prop 8 fiasco? Does someone have a source for that quote? I can't find it...

I do remember that. I don't know if it was Trotter exactly, but probably. Off to the hunt...

[GaySaint]

Well I can kinda see that rationale but being a Southern Baptist growing up I don't buy it. I still don't see why it would not work. It is common sense and simple. It allows the individual Churches to govern marriage in their churches and like I said just about all Christian churches have some form of good/bad standing and so forth.

Moby: I agree, and don't understand the whole Christian point of view here - but like I said, I'm not the one who would be against this solution. Maybe PC could chime in here when he gets a moment, or you could search for his posts (PrisonChaplin) on this issue.

[Hemidakota]

The problem with this type of law or act (how you want to term it), it will be altered in the end. The goal here for Satan and his cronies, is to return to the same conditions as it was doing Noah days. One step at a time...one law at a time...in using many pawns as possible. Now, one needs to see beyond his or her own blinders to see what is coming.

[Guest mirancs8]

Do you feel conflicted at all supporting same sex marriage legally though not morally?

I do not support same sex marriage legally. Homosexuality is a choice. Marriage is between a man and a woman. BTW, I have a nephew who is openly gay as well as some acquaintances who are gay all of whom know my position. We agree to respect each other as people though we may not agree on that issue. Doesn't change how I feel about them as a person.

Do you feel that as the separation of church and state becomes more apparent, that we become a better nation? No.

Why? It is because we are quickly losing any type of morality in this country by taking God out of everything. We’ve become very desensitized to right and wrong becoming more about shades of gray. It’s clear but everyone wants to put their own spin to it.

In the Book of Mormon and in the Bible, church and state were often the same. Prophets were also kings. Which way is better and why? I think it needs to be a happy balance between the two.

Is the legalization of same sex marriage a step closer to the prophesies concerning "the end"?

I have no idea.

Personally I think it should be state by state. If Mass. and such want to be pro-gay so be it. If you are gay and want to get married move to the state that allows you do live as a married couple. It’s like marijuana or the practice of plural marriage… if you don’t want to be in a state that it is legal then move. I know these are extreme examples but they are the ones I can think of right now.

I don't see anything wrong with voting based on your moral beliefs. There are things that I don’t like about AZ. I’m not forced to stay here so if I dislike it that much I can just get up and move.

It's like if someone is LDS and can't agree with what the LDS strongly believe well maybe you need to do some deep searching within yourself. Sure it would be easy for me to say go search for a denomination that fits your lifestyle needs/choices but no I won't say that. instead I would say for someone to sincerely pray for however long one needs to so that the answer will come to them. Gain some clarity to your beliefs and the choices you make in your life. Ultimately you will answer for yourself regarding those choices. I can say without any doubt that this church IS the one true church. If you feel that conflicted pray sincerely about it until you receive the answer.

[Moksha]

Who is Cartman?????

Close your eyes and think of Jiminy Cricket on one shoulder and

Eric Cartman on the other shoulder with you in the middle. Who

said Freudian psychology couldn't be fun?

[Just_A_Guy]

So far, the courts in Maine, Massachusetts, Iowa, and California all agree that there is no Constitutional basis to exclude same sex marriage.

Just to clarify: those courts were ruling based on their own state constitutions, not the federal one.

You claim that marriage is a privilege and that if a non-traditional group wants the privilege of marrying, then they need to first amend the consititution. Constitutional experts disagree, and think that if you want to exclude same sex marriage, then an amendment is necessary. And by the way, conservatives agree too, as it was an idea they kicked around a few years back.

IIRC, conservatives were kicking around a federal amendment on gay marriage because they felt like without one the federal government didn't have the right to tell the states how to define marriages (family law is a state-law issue). It had nothing to do with marriage being some kind of constitutionally-guaranteed right per se.

If you aren't trying to federalize the issue, I don't see that a federal constitutional amendment is needed either way. The Supreme Court's power, in conjunction with its inherent role of clarifying the Constitution, leads us to want to Constitutionalize everything. But the fact is, sometimes the Constitution just plain doesn't say anything pertinent.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Just to clarify: those courts were ruling based on their own state constitutions, not the federal one.

IIRC, conservatives were kicking around a federal amendment on gay marriage because they felt like without one the federal government didn't have the right to tell the states how to define marriages (family law is a state-law issue). It had nothing to do with marriage being some kind of constitutionally-guaranteed right per se.

If you aren't trying to federalize the issue, I don't see that a federal constitutional amendment is needed either way. The Supreme Court's power, in conjunction with its inherent role of clarifying the Constitution, leads us to want to Constitutionalize everything. But the fact is, sometimes the Constitution just plain doesn't say anything pertinent.

The judge actually ruled on the basis of principles present in the federal Constitution, namely equal protection and due process.

It doesn't violate due process because the legislation was done constitutionally (morality is neutral in the Constitution), and it doesn't violate equal protection under the law because the law would define marriage and who receives the rights given in marriages. Since gay marriage wasn't legally defined as state recognized marriage, no married couple would be denied their equal protection.

You're correct about the reasoning why conservatives sought an amendment. It really shouldn't be a court issue, but the liberals have decided to break the process and make it one. An amendment isn't needed, either. Legislation is fine.

Which is where the legislature is authorized to come into play. Because the Constitution is neutral toward morality in this case, legislation (in this case directly supported by the people through an initiative) authorizing or banning same-sex marriage is constitutional.

Edited August 8, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Soulsearcher]

You're correct about the reasoning why conservatives sought an amendment. It really shouldn't be a court issue, but the liberals have decided to break the process and make it one. An amendment isn't needed, either. Legislation is fine.

Which is where the legislature is authorized to come into play. Because the Constitution is neutral toward morality in this case, legislation (in this case directly supported by the people through an initiative) authorizing or banning same-sex marriage is constitutional.

So i guess the question i have is, if the ballot for prop 8 had failed, there was no one waiting in the wings on the other side to file a suit to change the results? The push would have ended right there and been dropped because the people spoke?

Edited August 7, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[PrinceofLight2000]

So i guess the question i have is, if the ballot for prop 8 had failed, there was no one waiting in the wings on the other side to file a suit to change the results? The push would have ended right that and been dropped because the people spoke?

A suit shouldn't have taken place from either side. The twelfth article of faith compels us to obey, honor, and sustain the law. This includes respecting the Constitutional process. The only reason the church decided to take it to court was because the liberals had already challenged the initiative.

However, rather than trying to get the court to appeal to our own morality and trample states' rights and legislative powers, the stronger legal argument would be that it's not the court's place to decide.

Remember, what we were discussing before was a means to prove how the initiative was constitutional (through legislating morality), not to have the court impose our morality through judicial activist oligarchy. It's a shame that court rulings are extrapolated in such a fashion. When a judge concurs with reasoning for keeping a law constitutional, that doesn't mean any reasoning present for a law which might have opposite morals is suddenly unconstitutional. Such laws can be used to replace each other. Instead, the courts have decided to use their power to clarify what the Constitution allows as means of adding to and distorting it to suit their own morality.

Since the judge ruled prop 8 to be unconstitutional through a misuse of judicial review, he usurped the people's and legislature's power and took it upon himself to arbitrarily declare morality. This is how fictitious rights not present in the Constitution are created. The proper way to include a fundamental, natural right is by an amendment; such was done with race equality and women's equality. Regardless, marriage is not a right and should remain unlisted. It's a privilege bound by moral criteria, (which is neutral in the Constitution and thereby not a constitutional issue; meaning the courts can't touch it) and subject to legislation. Voting for representation which passes legislation is a powerful moral statement from the masses, and an initiative is an even more powerful one because it involves a direct vote.

This, from a government which is supposedly by the people, of the people, and for the people.

Edited August 7, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Soulsearcher]

A suit shouldn't have taken place from either side. The twelfth article of faith compels us to obey, honor, and sustain the law. This includes respecting the Constitutional process. The only reason the church decided to take it to court was because the liberals had already challenged the initiative.

However, rather than trying to get the court to appeal to our own morality and trample states' rights and legislative powers, the stronger legal argument would be that it's not the court's place to decide.

Remember, what we were discussing before was a means to prove how the initiative was constitutional (through legislating morality), not to have the court impose our morality through judicial activist oligarchy. It's a shame that court rulings are extrapolated in such a fashion. When a judge concurs with reasoning for keeping a law constitutional, that doesn't mean any reasoning present for a law which might have opposite morals is suddenly unconstitutional. Such laws can be used to replace each other.

So in other words you typed all of that to say you don't have an answer. I asked if you knew that the pro prop 8 side would have dropped it for good if they had lost. Yes or no answer, nothing about the constitution or 12th article of faith. Would they or would they have not just dropped it and let the law stand? Remember it wasn't just the LDS church, it was a coalition, so would they have followed our example or taken the high road and accepted the moral injustice forced upon them?

Edited August 7, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[PrinceofLight2000]

So in other words you typed all of that to say you don't have an answer. I asked if you knew that the pro prop 8 side would have dropped it for good if they had lost. Yes or no answer, nothing about the constitution or 12th article of faith. Would they or would they have not just dropped it and let the law stand? Remember it wasn't just the LDS church, it was a coalition, so would they have followed our example or taken the high road and accepted the moral injustice forced upon them?

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Re-reading, I would say the question is irrelevant because constitutionally, the push ends with legislation, initiatives, and repealing said legislation. Again, no one should have filed a suit, nor was one necessary. Both pro and anti laws are constitutional.

No, they wouldn't have "just dropped it and let the law stand" or "accepted the moral injustice forced upon them". We have a process for fighting morally reprehensible laws, and it doesn't come through the courts who have jurisdiction over constitutional matters. That is what the legislative processes are for.

The true moral injustice forced upon anyone involved here is caused by this being made a judicial issue. Supreme Court decisions are excessively hard to overturn, and I have no doubt it will be appealed to that point. Legislation can always be repealed and reinstated when the people's opinion on morality changes. As I said in my first post, oligarchy rears its ugly head once more.

Oh, and by the way, God's laws apply to everyone, whether they believe in them or not, whether they like them or not. So just because these Christians don't accept the twelfth article of faith doesn't mean they don't have an obligation to uphold it, and therefore uphold the Constitutional process. Whether they realize the validity of that obligation, however, is an issue only God can judge.

Edited August 8, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Soulsearcher]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Re-reading, I would say the question is irrelevant because constitutionally, the push ends with legislation, initiatives, and repealing said legislation. Again, no one should have filed a suit, nor was one necessary. Both pro and anti laws are constitutional.

No, they wouldn't have "just dropped it and let the law stand". We have a process for fighting morally reprehensible laws, and it doesn't come through the courts who have jurisdiction over constitutional matters. That is what the legislative processes are for.

The true moral injustice forced upon anyone involved here is caused by this being made a judicial issue. Supreme Court decisions are excessively hard to overturn, and I have no doubt it will be appealed to that point. Legislation can always be repealed and reinstated when the people's opinion on morality changes. As I said in my first post, oligarchy rears its ugly head once more.

So you do or do not know for a fact that there was no intent for them to fight this in the courts if they had failed?

[PrinceofLight2000]

So you do or do not know for a fact that there was no intent for them to fight this in the courts if they had failed?

Why is it relevant? The fact remains that this shouldn't be fought in court regardless of intentions, rather in the legislative hearings.

By the way, you missed my edit which applies to this post.

[Soulsearcher]

Why is it relevant? The fact remains that this shouldn't be fought in court regardless of intentions, rather in the legislative hearings.

By the way, you missed my edit which applies to this post.

It's relevant because if they had lost and filed a suit i really don't think you'd be telling them to drop it, more so if they won. I think you are against this for the reason that you don't like who's doing certain things, but if everything was reversed you'd be supporting their actions.

[PrinceofLight2000]

It's relevant because if they had lost and filed a suit i really don't think you'd be telling them to drop it, more so if they won. I think you are against this for the reason that you don't like who's doing certain things, but if everything was reversed you'd be supporting their actions.

On the contrary, I would be telling them to drop it. It might support God's word when it comes to allowing homosexual behavior, but it breaks God's word when it comes to upholding the rightful legal process.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm going to differ from PrinceofLight slightly: I don't think the 12th AofF bars Church members from initiating court challenges to laws that they believe are flawed.

That said: barring allegations of vote-tampering, I don't think there'd be a legal basis for challenging the results of a no-vote on Prop 8. Can't speak for the entire Yes-On-8 crowd; but I personally wouldn't support any such action.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'm going to differ from PrinceofLight slightly: I don't think the 12th AofF bars Church members from initiating court challenges to laws that they believe are flawed.

That said: barring allegations of vote-tampering, I don't think there'd be a legal basis for challenging the results of a no-vote on Prop 8. Can't speak for the entire Yes-On-8 crowd; but I personally wouldn't support any such action.

It does bar them from doing so because they're breaking the legal process, thereby doing something illegal, not to mention highly deceitful.

Again, this isn't an issue of whether either law is constitutional or not. They're both constitutional. Therefore, the courts should use restraint and have no say in the matter, and Church members should be taking it up in their local legislative hearings through petitions, by contacting their representatives, or by putting an initiative on the ballot.

However, if a Church member is challenging a law that is constitutionally, not morally flawed, then you bet they have every right under both the constitution and the 12th AoF to do so. What the liberals are trying to do here is, like you said, blur the lines between what is constitutional and what is moral.

Edited August 8, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh, OK. :)

[Justice]

Frankly, there are a lot of comments in this thread by people who haven't studied the issue well enough... on both sides.

We need to fall back on truths that both sides can agree on. The first and foremost truth is:

There is a difference between Same Sex Attractions (SSA) and Same Sex Relations (SSR).

"We" have determined that homosexual behavior is a choice.

All sexual behavior is a choice, because all behavior is a choice. Now, the choice to engange in this behavior my be as a result of an addiction, but addictions only come by choosing that behavior for a period of time.

I think many people who have posted in this forum need to watch a video and read a discussion.

This video:

And this discussion:

Same-Gender Attraction - LDS Newsroom

Pay very close attention to what is being said in both.

What I like in the video is the remark about the rock hitting the water being different than the ripples that are a natural consequence of the impact. Elder Bednar is inspired with these comments. If you think this has no chance of affecting you, then I suggest a serious study of this video.

The read is a long one, but many who have posted here seem to not understand many of the points made by Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman. After watching this video and reading this link, read this entire post again (especially your own comments) and see if many of the remarks made shouldn't be edited for "lack of understanding."

I stand behind proposition 8. It may not be perfect, but it will protect free speech for religions who teach a marriage is ordained of God and is between a man and a woman. Those who want it to [edit: NOT] pass speak of tolerance and rights, but they have NEVER shown that they will ever be tolerant of the majority's rights once they get a law passed. If they intended for the majority to retain their rights, this wouldn't even be an issue.

It goes both ways.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Justice

[Justice]

Look, Prop 8 was passed by a majority vote. The courts are now being used to further push the issue of those who disagree, regardless of the voice of the majority.

This is dangerous ground when courts are allowed to overturn a decision made by the people. They aren't concerned for the freedom of the people nor the rule by majority aspects of the Constitution. They cheer and applaud as their efforts to undermine majority votes are rewarded.

If Prop 8 opponents were interested in your rights and freedom, they wouldn't go to court now to try to push their agenda anyway, in spite of the majority vote.

Watch Elder Bednar's video about what will happen next.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Justice

[Justice]

Another video:

[PrinceofLight2000]

Another video:

Thank you, thank you, and thank you!

This place needs an applause gif, because I would definitely use it right now.

[Wingnut]

This place needs an applause gif, because I would definitely use it right now.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Many thanks to you, kind lady.

Edited August 9, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Boris_natasha]

Sometimes when you choose a religion, you have to decide which one is the place where the Spirit is felt, however you think the Spirit should be felt. If a pastor or bishop promotes something I couldn't, I'll still attend. But I would be honest about my position and accept the consequences. During my temple recommend interview, I told my branch president my thoughts on this issue, which can get complicated, so, I won't go there. I have my recommend.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Boris_natasha