Respect for Marriage Act

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

The post to which I was responding was a condescending lecture about how a piece of paper doesn't actually have teeth and therefore can't actually bite people (enforce itself). I wasn't sure if you were trying to imply that I was stupid or if I you were just looking for cheap debate points. Either way, I chose to be charitable and focus my response on the substance of the discussion. Namely, that the Constitution has proven itself to be up to the task of governing people in this country when they mutually agree to be bound by it. 

If it would be more enjoyable for you, I'd be happy to return to anthropomorphizing paper.

I assume you took it as condescending because I said you didn't seem to be following my thoughts. I wasn't assuming or meaning to imply you were stupid. I was meaning to imply that I had failed to communicate. I had meant for the comment that I had been cryptic to communicated that, but apparently it did not. And it seems I also failed in my effort to explain what I meant by the constitution not having teeth.

[laronius]

3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Isn't a legal prohibition against gay marriage an imposition against the free exercise of the Episcopal religion?

I think there is a difference between legal prohibition and legal recognition. When the govt threw members of the church in jail for practicing polygamy, that was a legal prohibition that infringed on religious freedom. But had they simply said we refuse to recognize it as a legitimate marriage but you can continue doing it as a religious practice, then that would not have infringed on religious freedoms. 

[LDSGator]

44 minutes ago, laronius said:

I think there is a difference between legal prohibition and legal recognition. When the govt threw members of the church in jail for practicing polygamy, that was a legal prohibition that infringed on religious freedom. But had they simply said we refuse to recognize it as a legitimate marriage but you can continue doing it as a religious practice, then that would not have infringed on religious freedoms. 

Polygamy is a bit complicated. In a perfect world it would be nice and legal. Consenting adults after all. Tragically and repulsively though, many modern day polygamists marry people underage who don’t have a choice. Gross.  
 

Fun fact-the first RS class LG ever attended was on…you guessed it. Plural marriage. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by LDSGator

[Vort]

8 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

The post to which I was responding was a condescending lecture

FTR, I think you completely misinterpreted TFP's tone. I don't believe he was aiming for condescension at all.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Fun fact-the first RS class LG ever attended was on…you guessed it. Plural marriage.

That's what's known as baptism by fire.

[LDSGator]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's what's known as baptism by fire.

She was pretty much unbothered by it. 
 

It probably isn’t that surprising but when you grow up in New England way far away from LDS culture the only thing you know about the church is it’s past with polygamy, and even that the knowledge is very shallow. Both her and I had never even seen an LDS temple until we were in our 20’s driving past the DC one! 

[LDSGator]

And, on another note, everyone from the bishop to random members were totally open and accepting of questions about it. So the entire narrative of “you can’t ask questions” is complete rubbish. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by LDSGator

[laronius]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Polygamy is a bit complicated. In a perfect world it would be nice and legal. Consenting adults after all. Tragically and repulsively though, many modern day polygamists marry people underage who don’t have a choice. Gross.  
 

Fun fact-the first RS class LG ever attended was on…you guessed it. Plural marriage. 

Yeah there will always be some grey area between religious practice and the governments ability to govern. If, for example, a religion believes in getting married young, at what point does the government step in and say "no, that's too young" ? 

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, laronius said:

Yeah there will always be some grey area between religious practice and the governments ability to govern. If, for example, a religion believes in getting married young, at what point does the government step in and say "no, that's too young" ? 

Oh, agree fully. 

[Anddenex]

45 minutes ago, laronius said:

Yeah there will always be some grey area between religious practice and the governments ability to govern. If, for example, a religion believes in getting married young, at what point does the government step in and say "no, that's too young" ? 

This is one of the points, rights within the Constitution I find very intriguing. In reality, the Constitution provides the opportunity for the Church to be fully guided by the Lord (direct revelation); however, when misguided, controlling, or even evil man are in power (Governor Boggs) they tread on the Constitution.

One of those greys areas is that of some Muslim/Islam practices. On my mission I met an individual who converted to Christianity, as a result he could never go home. If he went home, professed his conversion to Christianity he would have been killed.

If religious freedom was without contest, then this practice would be seen even in America. Fortunately, it isn't, because one of the most important rights is that of "speech," which entails our thoughts and actions.

[The Folk Prophet]

What are the chances BYU gets sued over this bill now fairly soon after it's signed into law?

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What are the chances BYU gets sued over this bill now fairly soon after it's signed into law?

I'm interested in what thoughts you have for this?

It's a great question, in light of the history over the past 20 years.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I'm interested in what thoughts you have for this?

It's a great question, in light of the history over the past 20 years.

Well, in a way the honor code is now potentially against the law if people are "married". The school cannot be forced to perform gay marriages. And it can't have tax breaks or other government benefits removed because of their views. But it isn't protected from law suits.

Say, for example, a gay married person applies to BYU and gets rejected based on the honor code. The law doesn't allow for the Federal government to remove any benefits to the school, but it doesn't prohibit law suits forcing the school to accept legally recognized marriage as equal in all regards.

I mean this is one of a myriad of examples one could come up with. It was off the top of my head, so it may not be perfect. But, you know, if people can sue and think there's a shot at a payout...you know they will. And when it comes to sticking it to religious people, the motivation is even higher.

I could be entirely wrong. I hope I am. But.....???

Edited December 1, 2022 by The Folk Prophet

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What are the chances BYU gets sued over this bill now fairly soon after it's signed into law?

100% certain this will happen. However, recent rulings have been favorable to religious rights, so it’s hardly a slam dunk for the hypothetical gay couple. 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well, in a way the honor code is now potentially against the law if people are "married". The school cannot be forced to perform gay marriages. And it can't have tax breaks or other government benefits removed because of their views. But it isn't protected from law suits....

I don't disagree, and thus we will see how this section affects this type of scenario.

Quote

SEC. 6. No impact on religious liberty and conscience.

 

(a) In general.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.

(b) Goods or services.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

59 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

100% certain this will happen. However, recent rulings have been favorable to religious rights, so it’s hardly a slam dunk for the hypothetical gay couple. 

Recent rulings didn't have the new law behind them. But I hope you're right. 

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Recent rulings didn't have the new law behind them. But I hope you're right. 

I’m optimistic. Despite conservative pessimism (which I think is a good thing in theory) we are still a nation that has a nominal Christian faith. 
 

Time will tell of course. 

[The Folk Prophet]

28 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I don't disagree, and thus we will see how this section affects this type of scenario.

 

It's really a question of how a court interprets "in celebration of".

[laronius]

With our current conservative Supreme Court it makes me wonder how far they would want to push the issue in a court of law. Right now they can hang their hat on having "done something" but if they start filing law suits they will be taking the chance of the Supreme Court striking down provisions in the law as unconstitutional. Then what could they run on in the next election? 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, laronius said:

With our current conservative Supreme Court it makes me wonder how far they would want to push the issue in a court of law. Right now they can hang their hat on having "done something" but if they start filing law suits they will be taking the chance of the Supreme Court striking down provisions in the law as unconstitutional. Then what could they run on in the next election? 

The problem is this is assuming a big universal "they" who all act in concert and do exactly what "they" want "they" to do. (They're preferred pronoun is "they", in case it wasn't clear).

But the person suing BYU for not letting them something or other because they're gay married isn't going to necessarily be thinking politics.

I do think what you're suggesting is a positive thing though. Taken all the way to the supreme court, the favor goes to the religious...and it would hurt the left politically. Interesting.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I electronic mailed my Senators and told them to vote against the "Respect for Marriage Act" as it would violate religious freedom.  As usual Mike Lee voted against it and Mitt Romney voted for it.

[Still_Small_Voice]

"Respect for Marriage Act" was signed into law today.  This will not lead to good things.

The rot inside this country continues to get worse.  I believe it will get better eventually but things will get a lot worse before they better.  We have a long and dark night to go through in America before the morning arrives.

[The Folk Prophet]

So just in case anyone missed it, Elder Oaks's statement:

"Some of our members have expressed concerns that the new national Respect for Marriage law is in conflict with the Church’s teachings against same-sex marriage. We see a need to clarify the Church’s position on that new law.

At the time the national Respect for Marriage Act was adopted, the Church publicly reaffirmed our Church doctrine approving only marriage between one man and one woman.

Marriage bills previously proposed in the Congress made no attempt to protect religious freedom. The Church came out in favor of amendments that added religious freedom protections to the proposed Respect for Marriage Act. The amended bill was signed into law, but its overall effect was misunderstood because many news stories focused on only the part of the act that affirmed same-sex marriage.

The Respect for Marriage Act did restate same-sex marriage as the law of the land, but that added little because that law was already in effect under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. The focus of the Church’s efforts was not on same-sex marriage, but on ensuring the act contained the necessary protections for religious freedom.

As signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act included valuable provisions to assure that no federal or state laws could be used to harm the religious or conscience rights of faith-based institutions or their members. In the end, the total law ensures that religious organizations, religious schools, and their staff do not have to perform or host same-sex marriages or celebrations. It protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. It protects the grants, licenses, contracts and accreditation of religious schools. And it specifically provides that its own provisions cannot be used to violate anyone’s rights to religious freedom. Putting such protections in the federal law was a big step forward. We will be alert to proposed future state action and legislation as we continue our defense of religious freedom."