BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8

[Traveler]

Traveler: What obligation does society have to protect the families of gay couples that DO have children?

The question concerns the rights of children. Any other perceived rights would at best be secondary. I am concerned with how the question was framed.

The Traveler

[Wingnut]

Your thanking of post #7 appears very much to be in support of that kind of hearsay to which I disagree.

I thanked that post because it's true. Many LDS say that they voted for Prop 8 because the prophet told them to. Hearsay or not, that much is true.

[GaySaint]

Traveler: I know a lot of people in mixed-orientation marriages. When those marriages fail, and most do (most I know not even because of infidelity or the gay partner's desire to seek out a same-sex relationship), the children suffer.

My point, to put this back to the subject of the OP, is that your opinion on what constitutes the best family is based upon your religious beliefs. The morals you want legisltated are your morals because of your "eternal perspective" paradigm.

It is no different for gay people (see The Barna Group - Spiritual Profile of Homosexual Adults Provides Surprising Insights). My morals tell me to get married to my partner BECAUSE of what I was taught in the LDS church.

And that was the point the letter writer was trying to point out (at least, that's what I took away from it).

If you really believed what you claim to believe, you would be against mixed-orientation marriages, because they are definitely not in the best interest of children (you included "love" as a requirement for the ideal, but how can a gay man and straight woman satisfy that requirement to the same standard a straight couple could?). I would point out that from my observation, that opinion is either influenced by your religious belief, or you haven't fully considered your position.

I've been saying on these forums for a long time that I prefer people admit they are against gay marriage because of religious conviction, and I'm fine with that. When people try to justify that position in the secular world, secular rules apply (including having to take into consideration how a HOMOSEXUAL views his or her family). And when that happens, I'm not going to let people get away with half-truths or fear tactics (not that you are guilty of this).

[GaySaint]

Traveler: Does a child have a right to a protected family unit if that family unit is headed by a same-sex couple?

And further: How can we provide that without marriage?

[Moksha]

So, they pulled it because people can't think outside their own little box?

Well, it is a little dicey for some members to proclaim they are against something simply because the Prophet told them so. For other members, being told to do something is sufficient. But for the first group who find it dicey, confabulating reasons to go along with request from the Prophet works as a point of rationalization, which as the writer points out, such rationalizing arguments fail to hold water in this case.

Truthiness does not hold up under judicial scrutiny. Now as to the matter of this apparently outstanding student being able to speak his mind, I would first have to inquire whether such thoughts were presented in a clearly marked no thinking zone.

[Over43]

I'm just trying to make a living.

[Wingnut]

Moksha, the "think outside their box" comment was regarding why the article was pulled: many people complained it was offensive. My experience has been that offense is often drawn from ignorance, and people often don't want to see the other side of things when it's easier to just be offended. The comment had nothing to do with why people voted for or against Prop 8.

[skippy740]

Proposition 8 was about the DEFINITION of marriage.

Who originated marriage anyway? We as LDS believe it was G-d. So, who are WE to "re-define" it?

The problem is that it has become a legal term of the land. We have legal precedent and we have moral precedent. We are told that there will be a difference between legal and moral... yeah right. And I've got a bridge to sell you too.

Being more "libertarian" lately, I would wish that we would just have our government issue "civil unions" to ALL - and let marriage be under the jurisdiction of CHURCHES instead of the courts.

But that's just me.

There are many kinds of families out there. Everyone is free to live as they so choose that brings them happiness. However, WE are not at liberty to redefine a word that has been defined FOR us by our G-d.

Everything else is just "noise" behind it. Can we practice our religion as we see fit? That could be a consequence. Can we operate our adoption agencies as we see fit? Another consequence.

For us, as Latter Day Saints, we see ourselves as PART of G-d's plan "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Regardless of everything else being said, same-sex couples cannot produce children to come into this life - to take a body and to be tested in this life. This is simply a biological fact.

It is MY opinion that if you understand the Plan of Salvation, that you support Prop 8.

Now the HARD part is that those who are AGAINST prop 8 think it's "hate". No. We LOVE our Father in Heaven and we love His plan! We are choosing FOR him, and not "against" someone else.

Tolerance does NOT mean acceptance. The Christian nations of this world can and do tolerate much - of those things that are against their core beliefs. That doesn't mean they accept those practices as an acceptable and moral way to live. We know how to love the sinner and hate the sin.

I remember when Prop 8 passed. For people who said "H8" had the ANGRIEST look on their faces. I felt sorry for them. Because they were filled with rage. For me, I saw the Adversary in these people's eyes - and felt that I had seen a glimpse of what the "last days" were going to be all about.

Star Wars had it right:

Anakin/Darth Vader: "If you are not with me, then you are my enemy!"

Obiwan Kanobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."

[Moksha]

Moksha, the "think outside their box" comment was regarding why the article was pulled: many people complained it was offensive. My experience has been that offense is often drawn from ignorance, and people often don't want to see the other side of things when it's easier to just be offended. The comment had nothing to do with why people voted for or against Prop 8.

I understood the comment and tried to provide an indirect response. The freedom to express your opinion in a reasoned discourse does not exist everywhere. While this letter may have been fine for most student or other newspapers, BYU is a bit different by virtue of the Church having dug its heels so deeply into the sand on this issue.

Think of the opponents to fluoridated water. Their science and reasoning against fluoridated water may have been based on bogus science and faulty reasoning, yet they would be well within their rights to keep any and all reasonable people from pointing it out in their own anti-fluoride mimeographs.

If this student were to post his ideas elsewhere, this unfortunate censoring would not have been forced on BYU.

[GaySaint]

…same-sex couples cannot produce children to come into this life

False:

According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway (Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents), between 8 and 10 million children are being raised in gay and lesbian families in the US alone. Of those, only about 65,500 have been adopted. Where did the other (minimum) 7,934,500 children come from?

In addition, I don’t think anyone would argue that the legal form of marriage is actually a half-hearted copy of the God defined marriage (which would be a temple sealing). The LDS church understands this better than any other religion.

Can we practice our religion as we see fit?

As long as you don’t take away anyone else’s right to live as they see fit. Can you provide me an example of how religious freedoms have been taken away in America (where they are protected) that didn’t involve a religious organizations accepting funds from tax dollars (you know, the money gay people pay too? More of, actually)

Can we operate our adoption agencies as we see fit?

The LDS agencies can, because they don’t accept any tax money from the government. They are totally funded by the church. The only agency that has ever been cited in a case where they had to close because they refused to adopt to a gay couple is one that accepted government funding. Even so, they had a choice – adopt to everyone and keep the government funds, or discriminate and lose the government funds. Had the church been self-sufficient with the adoption agency, as LDS Family Services is, they would not have had to close their doors.

Please explain how it is moral for an organization to use the money I put into the system against me?

It would also be irresponsible of me to forgo pointing out that you, yourself, dealt in a lot of absolutes in your post.

[hordak]

quote]same-sex couples cannot produce children to come into this life

False:

According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway (Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents), between 8 and 10 million children are being raised in gay and lesbian families in the US alone. Of those, only about 65,500 have been adopted. Where did the other (minimum) 7,934,500 children come from?

Going to have to go with skippy on this one (this fact, i haven't actually read his whole statement) .

Same sex couples cannot produce children.

It is a biological impossibility, (until we lift the ban on cloning).

[Laureltree]

It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment, or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must be honest about our motivation, and consider what it means to the delicate balance between our relationship with God and with His children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting arguments that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

I actually voted not because of what the prophet said but what ( I ) believe in, its amazing how everything is blamed on the church, rather than what the people truly stand for and believe. The prophet cannot ( Make) us do anything, its all about choice, I had these standards before I joined the church and I will keep them, even if the church changes its values on it .

[skippy740]

Raising children is different than producing children. I was referring to producing children (through reproduction) not raising children. Two men cannot reproduce together. Neither can two women. That was the biological fact I was referring to.

We don't need religous organizations to accept tax dollars. I do want our religious organizations to CONTINUE THEIR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS so more of the contributions received can go towards humanitarian and other causes - not to "pay Caeser".

Just because the LDS church is self-sufficient financially DOESN'T mean that every other church out there can afford to practice what they preach! It just isn't about LDS, it's about ALL religious organizations - regardless of how full their coffers are!

The problem is that our Government "has the gold that makes the rules". (Well, not gold because our currency is backed by the full faith and CREDIT of the government. I digress.) I want religion to be free of government interference - from taxes, from unrighteous dominion and from using "tax credits" to get religious organizations to do what the government wants them to do.

The fact is that the Government is the POOREST administrator of social services. Social services SHOULD be provided through churches and charities. Through THEIR values, NOT the values of the almighty dollar.

Just because you "pay" doesn't mean you're entitled.

[GaySaint]

Hordak: Ok, maybe I should have said gay PEOPLE can produce children, just as well straight PEOPLE can. Gay COUPLES can produce children just as well as a straight COUPLE could if one partner were infertile (in that, together, they can make a concious choice to bring a life into the world... but yes, they will need assitance. In my mind, that couple is still producing: it's still a biological production; it still results in a +1 addition to the world)

Over 7 million children are biologically the result of a gay person - THAT is a fact. These children deserve protection just as much as any other child, and I get a little riled up when people dismiss these children because they don't agree with how they were born.

[GaySaint]

Skippy: Why should I have to pay for the existance of an organization that would discriminate against me? That would be like you being forced to donate to the HRC (which is not even tax exempt, by the way)

I agree churches and government should be separate, and have no problem with tax-exemption of religious organizations (which may be a difference of opinion between me and other gay people). But if the government is handing them tax dollars from a pot I paid into to provide a service to the public tax-paying citizens, I should not be excluded.

I also do not believe churches should administer social services, because as we've seen in the past, they tend to favor those who align with their beliefs (and would thus administer social services with inequality). In that case, gay people would be completely excluded from all social services. Maybe you would be ok with that, but I find that morally wrong... and what would you do if it were the Catholics that where set up to provide those services, and they decided to exclude Mormons?

I think such a system would cause serious freedom of religion issues.

Edited September 10, 2010 by GaySaint

[skippy740]

The entire U.S. Financial system is full of discriminations! If you earn less than $20k, you get the Earned Income Tax Credit of a few thousand dollars. Yet, if you're a successful individual earning 6-figures a year, you PAY a lot in taxes. Now, who is being discriminated against and why should they pay into "the system"?

We're ALREADY paying for an organization that discriminates against us. It's called the United States Government!

Why should you pay? Because we're law abiding citizens that value following, upholding and sustaining the law and that includes paying our taxes.

I know this doesn't answer your question - but the true answer is this: Nothing in life is fair. Nor should it be.

Now, you wonder about how well churches are in distributing aid to those in need? The LDS welfare system is fully available to non-members in addition to members. We simply don't advertise it. Ask a current or former Bishop if they've helped a familly outside the church through the welfare system.

The abuse of such a system I could see is that people can go to one church asking for aid and then to another church to get more "aid" above what their needs are. This is already happening, but it would become more rampant.

I don't have all the answers. I cannot make a perfect system. That's why I'm not in public office.

[hordak]

Hordak: Ok, maybe I should have said gay PEOPLE can produce children, just as well straight PEOPLE can. Gay COUPLES can produce children just as well as a straight COUPLE could if one partner were infertile (in that, together, they can make a concious choice to bring a life into the world... but yes, they will need assitance. In my mind, that couple is still producing: it's still a biological production; it still results in a +1 addition to the world)

I wouldn't call it a couple (as in 2) producing if a 3rd party is brought in, gay or straight couples. (not saying there is anything wrong with that, but see a "product" of a couple as "product" of the 2

E.G.,

Little Billy who is from Mrs Jones egg , donor x, and raised by Sam Jones is not a "product" of the couple (the Jones) . but a product of donor x and MRS Jones. Biologically speaking

This is true whether Sam is female ( and it is a lesbian relationship) or the best Priesthood holder in Elder quorum.

Guess It really just comes down to semantics.

Over 7 million children are biologically the result of a gay person - THAT is a fact. These children deserve protection just as much as any other child, and I get a little riled up when people dismiss these children because they don't agree with how they were born.

Amen.

[zippy_do46]

I always wondered something and guess I never had the nerve to ask a gay person. Why not go by the word "partner" and just fight for your rights as "partners" instead of trying to say marriage? I have heard the argument that you want the rights as couples do. I heard the story of partners who were not able to be with their partner when they were dying because of laws. This is wrong. This is sad. Why not just fight to build up those rights? Why, does it have to be a marriage?

In my opinion "marriage" is not another "word" that can be changed to suit others. This is more then a word.

Edited September 10, 2010 by zippy_do46

[GaySaint]

Zippy: I'm glad you asked, and you shouldn't feel weird about asking us these questions (although I'm sure some gay people will be jerks, most will want to help you understand).

Pretty much, there are some places where the rights are more-or-less the same (minus federal protections, which don't exist at all). The issue is that even in these places, simply having a second "class" causes people, organizations, and government entities to treat us differently. Currently, the only societally accepted form of monogamy is marriage.

Even if everthing was equal between marriage and "civil unions" across the entire government, federal and state, our FEAR is that this separation would be cause for future discimination. The only way to ensure equality for all couples to have the same protections for their family units is to either grant marriage to all, or disolve marriage completely, and give all civil unions (and give marriage to the churches, which would mean gay-affirming churches would marry gay couples).

Proof of this was presented at the federal Prop 8 trial - even the witnesses for the defense of prop 8 agreed and testified that there was an inherant difference between marriage, and civil unions, even in California where the state was supposed to treat them the same.

Personally, if it is the word you are worried about, I don't understand how calling something that is exactly the same thing by a different name solves the problem. Just because I call a rose a duck doesn't mean it isn't a rose. If the institution itself needs protecting for some reason (either secular or religious), then giving that same insitution to gay people but calling it something else doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe you can help me understand that. Would calling my marriage a "partnership" even though it is exactly the same as marriage make my partnership any less sacred?

[Just_A_Guy]

As long as you don’t take away anyone else’s right to live as they see fit. Can you provide me an example of how religious freedoms have been taken away in America (where they are protected) that didn’t involve a religious organizations accepting funds from tax dollars (you know, the money gay people pay too? More of, actually)

With regard to individuals, GaySaint, we've been through this before. I know I've already pointed out to you how the gay rights lobby is trying to cleanse the photography profession of all who disagree with them; and it's also happening in medicine.

With regard to Catholic Charities: The key issue, as per this article, was state licensure--which Catholic Charities couldn't have kept even if it rejected the public funds it was receiving, because no politician of any consequence was willing to push for an exemption from the state's general policy requiring nondiscrimination as a prerequisite for licensure.

Please explain how it is moral for an organization to use the money I put into the system against me?

The logical implication to this statement is that BYU students shouldn't be allowed to get Pell grants or federally-subsidized student loans. Is that your argument?

If not, why not?

[GaySaint]

Zippy: I should add that secularly I would also be happy as long as my family is protected, regardless of what it is called (and civil unions would be better than nothing).

But religiously, I also think that marriage is ordained of God (thank my LDS upbringing for that). I just don't think God would want me excluded from that because I am gay. Thus: I also have religious reasons for wanting to marry my partner.

[Just_A_Guy]

Two other observations, GaySaint:

First, you mention the seven million children of gays. These children were either produced by a) in vitro/surrogacy agreements, or b) prior, straight unions by people who later decided they were gay. I have no idea what the breakdown is as to how many children were produced in what manner, and I won't attempt to negotiate the legal minefield of surrogacy agreements (some states honor them, some states don't). But as for b) - those children do have a mother and a father, and subsequent spouses of a parent have no legal relationship to the children. If I divorce Just_A_Girl and remarry Joan (or John), Joan/John has no parental rights vis a vis my children with Just_A_Girl.

Second, you state that

Pretty much, there are some places where the rights are more-or-less the same (minus federal protections, which don't exist at all).

These federal protections come out of DOMA, which I understand was (rightly, IMHO) struck down in the last couple of months on tenth amendment grounds.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[GaySaint]

JAG: I didn't mean to bring up old stuff. I concede the photographer issue - and I don't understand New Mexico's laws, but they seem to be the exception. I also believe that religious freedoms should be codified into any gay marriage laws to prevent that sort of thing. Perhaps civil unions would be a good option as Zippy suggested if anti-discrimination were codified into that law to ensure that governments don't use it to create inequality in the future. I suppose either way would put the majority of fears to rest - but obviously we would have differing opinions on which one would be the better solution

As to the pell grant issue: I'd have to think about it, but my initial issue with denying pell-grants to students in that case is that it isn't the institution that is applying for federal funds, but a specific person, who is free to have as many prejudices as he/she sees fit.

Is BYU part of the church, or part of the tax-paying corporation? Is its tax exempt status based on it being an educational institution (just like any university that accepts and rejects students), or a religious one?

[GaySaint]

JAG: If you die, and for sake of arguments lets say JAGirl is dead, your children would be able to be legally adopted by Joan, and have legal protections. If JAGirl isn't dead, there are still things that could be done to make sure that in the event of your death, your children will go to Joan instead of in foster care...

In Utah, if I had a child, and I died, the chances of my partner getting him/her would be slim.

And there are issues that seem small to outsiders, but big to us: Could Joan sign a permission slip for a school activity, or be denied the right to pick up your child by a "divorcophobic" teacher?

Isn't Joan still a legal guardian of your minor children, by virtue of your marriage? (I'm asking because I really don't know)

[GaySaint]

... push for an exemption from the state's general policy requiring nondiscrimination as a prerequisite for licensure.

I'm curious as to how LDS Family Services is still operating then. Is there some requirement that exempts them from having to be licensed in the state?