BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8

[zippy_do46]

Sigh, I guess my age and belief is showing. I only used the word "partner" because this is what I have heard. I am sorry GaySaint I do not believe that what you have is a "marriage". "Marriage" is more then another "word" to be changed to fit your needs. Our Father in Heaven has told us so. Our Prophets have told us so. I have prayed and I know so.

"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"

You know GaySaint I went inactive at one time. It was not because the gospel was wrong. It was because I could not live it. I had to get my life in order and work on my problems. If I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days presents to the world then, "I" am the one who has to make the changes not the other way around.

[GaySaint]

Zippy: That's ok. I hope I helped you understand where I am coming from and why I feel the way I do, and why marriage is just as important to gay people as it is to you. I hope that helps you view it with a bit more understanding, so that you can see that it really is about our families to us – just like it is about your family to you.

And it's ok with me that you don't see what I have, my relationship, as a marriage. What matters is how I view it.

I cannot speak for God on your behalf, so I would firmly say that you should listen to what you have been told by Him. You also cannot speak for God on my behalf, and I must do what I have been told to by Him.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks, GaySaint.

On Pell grants: But, one would presumably oppose vouchers that were paid directly to BYU. What's the practical difference, if we know that money's going to wind up with BYU either way?

I can't speak as to BYU's tax-exempt status; though I would think (I'm not well versed in tax law here) they could probably get exemption as a non-profit under 503©, at least under the current law. (That's a statutory issue, not a constitutional one; and it could change anytime Congress wants it to change.)

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...

Not automatically. Joan has to file a guardianship proceeding, where she could well end up competing with my parents, Just_A_Girl's parents, either mine or Just_A_Girl's siblings . . . et cetera. The criteria the court will use is what is the best interest of the child and who the child has bonded with. I'm pretty sure that UT no longer allows sexual orientation to be a strike against an otherwise-qualified parent figure; so Joan or John would have pretty much equal standing there.

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

Not necessarily. Again, he doesn't get it as a matter of right--but (assuming you were straight) neither would your live-in girlfriend or even your wife.

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?

I have no practical experience here. But as I read Jones v. Barlow, it looks to me like either Joan or John could stand in loco parentis and exercise all the rights of a parent while the relationship continues.

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)

In loco parentis seems to arise regardless of whether there is actually a legal marriage in place or not.

Jones provoked outrage because it involved a lesbian couple who split up, and the non-birth mother (Jones) was denied visitation rights. Again, that's partly a surrogacy issue and I'm not sure what happened to Bio Dad's rights during all of this. But while the relationship lasted, I think Ms. Jones could do all those things you mention. The issue in that case was that once the legal parent (Ms. Barlow) terminated the in loco parentis relationship, Ms. Jones had no standing to unilaterally resurrect it and demand visitation. That would have come out the same had "Ms." Jones been "Mr." Jones, and regardless of whether or not they had ever been legally married.

Though it does put a new perspective on whether Ms. Jones should have been allowed to adopt the child from birth, doesn't it? Because if she had, the case would have come out differently.

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?

I don't have an authoritative answer. Comment 6 at this By Common Consent Thread suggests that maybe LDS Family Services punts the issue by leaving the choice of adoptive family to the birth mother.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

I guess my problem with most of the thought on marriage comes from some of the things i see.

Here in Canada the gay marriage stuff came with a not withstanding clause. People who want to op out, like churches' are protected. Also just on record they are trying to pass the same thing in Cali which renders a few of the arguments against it as moot. Second is, marriage as a civil institution or even a religious one in some cases has become a little less of an honored institution. i'm not saying that's right but it's true. Alone on this site in my time here, i've lost track of the people married in the temple who have cheated or are still cheating on their spouses. Lost track of the married men preying on young women. Don't know how many women on here who are married i've seen trolling for encounters both online and in real life. Heck the number of married men that came to me after i came out asking for the details on sexual encounters with men cause they really really wanted to try it. Off the site lets look at the state of marriage. People getting married in vegas after knowing each other for less than a day. People getting married cause they are in heat rather than love and ending it in under a year. These are the marriages you are really anxious to be protecting along with yours. People don't care about the content or commitment of the people, just that it's a man and woman. This is where i get a little confused. Just because it's a man and woman, inside or outside the church, doesn't mean they come close to what marriage is supposed to be, but that's irrelevant as long as the right people are involved. These people really don't care about your definition of marriage they just care about their lives and doing what they want because that's what they are allowed to do. If the state and federal governments are willing to assure full equality sure i guess marriage could be a term we don't need. I honestly think two men or two women being more faithful and loving than the man and woman married across the street deserve at least the same treatment by their government. People might never like it, but if they are doing all they can to hold to one partner with all their heart, live good lives, follow the laws of the land and just be happy, not sure i see any logical reason to treat them as less than the men and women making a joke of marriage. Right now the only way to be equal is marriage, can people say if we support a sweeping change to civil unions on state and federal level you'd drop all your fighting and help get us what we are looking for?

[GaySaint]

JAG: I have to disagree with this one,

I'm pretty sure that UT no longer allows sexual orientation to be a strike against an otherwise-qualified parent figure

There are numerous cases that can be provided by Equality Utah that prove otherwise.

Specifically, the sexual orientation becomes a big issue if that person is in a same-sex relationship. Did you know it is legal in Utah for a gay man to adopt if he is single, but not if he has a partner (even though utah doesn't legally recognize any sort of same-sex partnership)? And adopting a gay partner's child? Never been done yet - at least not in this state.

There was the case of the woman who had guardianship papers, but then the bio mom got married to a man and that childe was forcefully taken from her: The Lost Mom

The story was in the Trib, but I don't have access to their archives.

EDIT: sorry we've evolved so far off the OP... I'm happy to stop talking and bring it back to the subject...

Edited September 10, 2010 by GaySaint

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG: I have to disagree with this one,

There are numerous cases that can be provided by Equality Utah that prove otherwise.

I'll have to look into these later. In the meantime, if you have a link feel free to PM it to me.

Specifically, the sexual orientation becomes a big issue if that person is in a same-sex relationship. Did you know it is legal in Utah for a gay man to adopt if he is single, but not if he has a partner (even though utah doesn't legally recognize any sort of same-sex partnership)?

The applicable statute is Utah Code Ann. 78B-6-117, and it prohibits adoption by unmarried, cohabiting couples of any sexual orientation. Personally, FWIW, I support the statute out of good-old-fashioned Mormon prudery, not any animus to gays in particular. I might be open to fudging on that if/when Utah gets some kind of civil union legislation on the books, though.

And adopting a gay partner's child? Never been done yet - at least not in this state.

I can believe it; but there's a difference between a guardianship and an adoption. I'm still hashing out what I think about gay adoption, at least under some circumstances. But until I have a chance to delve into Equality Utah's cases, I'm going to stick with my assertion that guardianship is available to all.

There was the case of the woman who had guardianship papers, but then the bio mom got married to a man and that child was forcefully taken from her: The Lost Mom

City Weekly has a sum-up here. (Incidentally, I know Edvalson's attorney, Lauren Barros. Awesome lady.) The article is a bit confusing (and some of Mylar's comments weren't helpful in this regard), but we're not talking about a legal guardianship. The paper in question was a sort of joint-parenting agreement. The judge basically said that under Utah law, the court gets to decide what's best for the child and isn't necessarily going to be bound by what either (or even both) parents have previously expressed (as a matter of statute, I think he's right. I've drafted several stipulated custody agreements, and "will the judge swallow this?" is always in the back of both mine and opposing counsel's head while we do it). Furthermore, the agreement didn't cure the fundamental problem under Jones: Edvalson just plain wasn't a legal parent, and couldn't overrule the wishes of someone who was.

So Edvalson's experience brings us back to the question of gay adoption, certainly. But it doesn't appear to involve "guardianship" as a legal term of art, which is how I was using it earlier.

[GaySaint]

JAG: Interesting. I was told that she had filled out all of the paperwork she possibly could (that the state of Utah allowed). Was there more this woman could have done, legally, before the split of her and her partner?

[Matthew0059]

Why do these threads always dissolve into a round of insult-the-true-blue-Mormons? And always turn to the implications of legal same-sex marriage?

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think so, GaySaint. Back when they were still together, Dickerson could theoretically have consented to Edvalson's legal guardianship of the child and that guardianship could hypothetically have survived the split. But I think (not 100% sure) that to do a guardianship, Dickerson would have had to abandon her own rights (at least temporarily); and if she wanted to get them back later it could only be at the court's approval following a best-interest-of-the-child test.

The only sure-fire way I can see for both Dickerson and Edvalson to get legal rights over the child that would survive their later splitup, is adoption.

[Wingnut]

Why do these threads always dissolve into a round of insult-the-true-blue-Mormons?

You unwittingly imply that anyone who isn't in favor of legislating morality on this issue isn't a "true-blue" Mormon.

[Moksha]

You unwittingly imply that anyone who isn't in favor of legislating morality on this issue isn't a "true-blue" Mormon.

Excellent point, belief does not hinge upon forcing its compliance on anyone. Nor should any religious belief be contingent upon political ideology.

[Matthew0059]

You unwittingly imply that anyone who isn't in favor of legislating morality on this issue isn't a "true-blue" Mormon.

It was not implied unwittingly, sister.

[prisonchaplain]

Yesterday on the Daily Universe web site (the BYU student newspaper) the below letter appeared. However, sometime during the day is was pulled from the website. (I've removed the submitter's name, however copies of the letter are out in cyberspace and a simple google search would easily find it, but I don't feel I should include the name here without the author's permission.)

I don't want to start yet another debate on prop 8 or homosexuality, but why do you think the university pulled this letter? Was it too inflamatory? He actually makes the argument the reason most LDS supported Prop 8 was because the Prophet told us to. For many Mormons that's good enough reason.

I thought the gist of the original post was to underline and disagree with censorship of a university paper. That may be a larger issue than prop. 8 itself. Is it common for BYU's student paper to experience heavy censorship on the editorial page?

[MarginOfError]

I thought the gist of the original post was to underline and disagree with censorship of a university paper. That may be a larger issue than prop. 8 itself. Is it common for BYU's student paper to experience heavy censorship on the editorial page?

No. But it is quite common for people to write in and editorialize about how women must repent for wearing skirts too short.

[prisonchaplain]

Are those complaining staff or students??? If the latter, then...wow! LOL

[Just_A_Guy]

Censorship per se isn't common, but this letter (second one down) got Todd Hendricks (a friend of mine) fired.

The dirtbag--er, misguided son of our Heavenly Father--who threatened to (and then did) yank Todd's pregnant wife's health insurance if Todd went public with the story, remains employed at BYU.

[Moksha]

Two news stories about this letter pulling:

The first by Mormon author Joanna Brooks : Everyone Should Know the Story of Cary Crall | Religion Dispatches

The second by Paul Rolly: Rolly: At BYU, now you see it, now you don’t | The Salt Lake Tribune

[Saguaro]

I thought the gist of the original post was to underline and disagree with censorship of a university paper. That may be a larger issue than prop. 8 itself. Is it common for BYU's student paper to experience heavy censorship on the editorial page?

Thanks for trying to get us back on track. As I said in the original post I wanted this thread to be about the letter to the editor and its subsquent yanking, not about prop 8, homosexuality, or gay marriage. But hey, it's a free country, threads seem to take a life of their own.

[Wingnut]

It was not implied unwittingly, sister.

Deliberately, then. Even worse.

[zippy_do46]

Sorry about my part in getting away from the topic, but since it had already went that way I decided to ask my question before I lost my courage. Sometimes I do not start a new thread because I seem to be doing that wrong.

[Matthew0059]

Deliberately, then. Even worse.

Obedience is the first act on our part to increase faith, sister. Without faith we are nothing, and a dead faith is useless.

I should clarify: only ones who will actively oppose the Church's stance on Proposition 8 aren't true-blue. Anyone who has problems with it yet still would vote Yes on Prop 8 if they had lived in California are showing obedience sufficient to be true members of the kingdom.

And then there's always repentance. No one is perfect.

[Wingnut]

And what of agency?

(Oh, and by the way, stop calling me "sister" when you're being condescending. And since you probably don't think you're being condescending, just stop calling me "sister" at all. It's condescending.)

[Matthew0059]

And what of agency?

What of agency? Are you alluding to the agency of same-sex couples to get married?

(Oh, and by the way, stop calling me "sister" when you're being condescending. And since you probably don't think you're being condescending, just stop calling me "sister" at all. It's condescending.)

My apologies. My last desire was to appear condescending, as that is not the spirit in which I mean to approach this issue. Once again I lament the emotionlessness of purely textual communication. Edited September 14, 2010 by Matthew0059
Clarification

[Just_A_Guy]

And what of agency?

Do we really want to get into that here?

[Wingnut]

What of agency? Are you alluding to the agency of same-sex couples to get married?

No. I'm alluding to the voters' (and members' of the Church) to vote as they want to.

Do we really want to get into that here?

I haven't read that thread at all, so I won't comment on it.