The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also known as “The Mormons”) yesterday issued a press release supporting legislation and constitutional amendments which bar non-traditional relationships from acquiring similar status to legal marriage.
(See the Church’s press release at: http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-20336,00.html)
Utah’s Proposition 3, on the ballot for citizen ratification this November 2, would define marriage in Utah’s Constitution as the union of a man and a woman, and further prevent any other relationship from gaining the same or similar legal status as marriage.
According to critics, the LDS Church’s release so near to election day will almost certainly have an immense effect on the vote, as Church members account for nearly 2/3 of Utah’s population. The timing of this release, they claim, is tantamount to an endorsement. Church public relations spokespeople, on the other hand, deny the endorsement of any specific statute or amendment.
What are the ramifications of the LDS church’s statement, so close to election day, which appears to favor Proposition 3? The ballots will ultimately decide, but with support for the amendment hovering around 67% according to some polls (and as low as 25% according to polls sponsored by the opposition), it’s important for Utah citizens to examine the potential ramifications of the amendment.
Here is the full text of Utah’s proposed constitutional amendment:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
In summary, detractors of this proposed amendment cite these primary reasons to oppose Proposition 3:
- The language is too broad, and will have substantial consequences on heterosexual couples
- It is the only proposed amendment in over thirty years to have completely bypassed the state’s Constitutional Revision Commission, thus avoiding oversight and analysis by that body;
- It will invalidate common-law marriage statutes, which marriages are not considered “legal unions”;
- It will bar common-law and same-sex partners from:
- Making emergency medical decisions for the partner;
- Receiving health insurance under a partner’s domestic partner employment benefits;
- Automatically inheriting property from one’s partner;
- It will prevent a partner from visiting her/his mate in hospitals;
- It will invalidate certain protections to persons under Utah’s domestic violence statute.
Detractors of the proposed amendment maintain that barring domestic partners from having tax and employment benefits similar to those of married couples is discriminatory, and analogous to racist legislation of the 1960’s and 1970’s. This amendment is unclear, unfair, and goes too far in prohibiting civil unions. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Governor Olene Walker, while both supporting a marriage amendment, say “just not this one”. Simple constitutions are best, and, according to Gov. Walker, “the specifics are left to statutes”.
Supporters of the proposed amendment cite:
- The second sentence of the amendment is necessary since the State of Vermont created a “civil union” status for unmarried couples of any sex, which is equivalent to marriage in all but name. Homosexual couples have filed suit in other states to have their civil unions recognized as marriage, in the absence of civil union definition in their chosen state;
- The People of California voted in a similar amendment in 2000, in response to which the legislature created domestic partner legislation in defiance of popular mandate;
- Marriages in common-law *are* legal unions. A man and woman must live together, assume marital rights, duties, and obligations, and hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife in order to assume common-law status;
- Even in cases of “common-law” heterosexual unions, obtaining a marriage license is trivial and inexpensive, which should be no barrier to gaining the license;
- Amendment 3 will not deny protection for individuals under the Cohabitant Abuse Act;
- It will not impact private health insurance from private employers who choose to offer benefits to domestic partners;
- It will not have any effect on wills, trusts, or legal instruments;
- It only limits the ability of the courts to redefine marriage;
- Utah’s Consitutional Review Commission is not required to review current and proposed constitutional amendments.
Proponents of the legislation, in summary, consider it a necessary response to current threats to marriage in the U.S. It would not constrain the legislature from granting medical authority, inheritance, or other benefits to same-sex partners. According to proponents, the only valid reasons to oppose the proposed amendment are because one wishes to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, or wants to create an alternative legal status meant to have the same effect as marriage.
As for how I intend to vote on Proposition 3?
None of your business π But it’s fun to talk about! Which side do you think has a more compelling case?
hmm
Yea I saw the LDS Church’s press release earlier today, figured it had no specific timing, did not know about the Utah ballot, just kinda figured they were publishing the church’s position, like they did with the proclamation the family.
Curt
The problem with timing…
The timing of the release, a scant 14 days before the initiative comes to a vote, makes the intent clear. However, despite the objections of those who oppose the amendment, it is perfectly legal: it’s educational material designed to illustrate practical positions that flow from doctrinal positions.
As I’ve continued reading about the initiative, though, I’ve learned about the staggering differential in finances funding the efforts for and against. Those funding the campaign in favor of the amendment have raised a scant $16,000, compared to the opposition which has raised over half a million, and already spent over $300,000.
I think this makes sense when I consider the average response of most Utahns I know towards gay issues range from contempt to utter indifference. I think it’s nearly certain this amendment will pass with an overwhelming majority. I suspect it would be so, even if those who opposed the bill raised several million dollars. It’s my opinion that most Utah citizens do not see the amendment as an equal-rights issue, but a precaution against a self-selected “minority” group seeking legitimacy for perversion.
Is it bigotry to oppose society tacitly endorsing behavior of which you disapprove? I think most would say no, since a primary function of government is to enforce community standards.
Is it bigotry to oppose society granting equal rights to an unpopular minority group? Put that way, it’s a different ballgame…
So many sides to the question…
The money situation, though, is still something to think about that lends credence to popular claims that out-of-state interests are funding opposition to the amendment, while grassroots local support will get it passed. I don’t think it’s nearly that black-and-white, but it certainly doesn’t look good for the “Vote NO” backers that they have outspent “Vote YES” backers twenty-to-one.
Regardless, I am slightly concerned about the wording of the amendment. I recently corresponded about this issue with a gay acquaintance on a mailing list who related the following story:
Of course, this proposed amendment isn’t responsible for that situation, and probably won’t change it, except to make it more likely to continue. As in many of the “fuzzy gray areas” of ethics, it seems like there’s a dilemma: it behooves mankind to promote heterosexual relationships in the interest of the furtherance of our species, but an exclusive focus on that objective rules out the possibility of childless heterosexual couples, too. It also behooves mankind to be compassionate towards others, even those who lives lifestyles with which we disagree, yet by granting equal status to same-sex relationships, are we working against society’s reproductive aims with reproductive dead-ends?
I’m still undecided on which way I will lean on this vote, though. I’m actually leaning towards supporting the amendment, for a simple reason: my deep concern for the societal ramifications of present-day and historical polygamy in the American West. Should this amendment pass, it may prove to be a useful tool to combat heirarchical polygamy in the state, and with it combat the rampant incest, rape, child marriage, and marginalization of young men that are associated with dogmatic polygamy.
But there’s far too much to be said about that; it is a topic for another blog entry in the future π
—
Matthew P. Barnson
– – – –
Thought for the moment:
Gays, gays, gays…
As a non-mormon Christian, I have always been bothered by the tendency of the church to get involved in the morality of the state.
Christ lived in debaucherous Rome, and really spent his time criticizing the behaviors of the Jews, his people, for not doing what their system of beliefs said they should do.
Take this to today.. I think the Church should certainly watch over the behaviors of its members, but not over the behaviors of people who don’t share the same faith.
Gays don’t hold the Christian value that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, Christianity needs to back off this issue.. Homosexuals are NOT HURTING ANYONE!! And we’re alienating people when we should be evangelizing as Christ did – which is to show love and a good example, then share the reason why we’re doing so. This isn’t abortion, where many think children are being murdered. This isn’t incest.. this is consensual activity that disagrees with Christian faith. In the same way, Hindus shouldn’t say I can’t eat beef, Jews can’t say I can’t eat pork, Mormons can’t say I can’t have coffee or a beer.. if I’m not hurting anyone. Same thing.
live and let live
Kind of a live and let live thing then? I am sort of with you, but as LDS person, or trying to be, I do not think a little preaching now and then hurts anyone.
Yeah, but to whom?
The issue is that both Christians and Mormons believe in salvation through faith, and therefore that there is no reason to even examine the quote unquote “Moral” behaviors of people who don’t believe. Theologically, from a salvation point of view, it doesn’t help or hurt them whether or not they’re Gay if they don’t believe.
On the othe rhand, Christians and Mormons bothe believe in evangelism. It becomes very hard to share your faith with people after you have been responsible for what they consider to be an injustice that hurts them. You’ve now made it impossible for them to take your faith seriously because they see you as a moral dictator.
Churches have a right to establish “moral standards” for their members. It is part of the function of a church to provide that kind of compass, whether they’re muslim, jewish, or whatever. Heck, Matt has even posted ethical guidelines for atheists. But to then expext people who don’t share that faith alienates the very people you are “commissioned” to try and reach.
So, in that way, “a little preaching now and then” can be dangerous, when the attempt is to get that preaching turned into policy.. (or if it is judgemental rhetoric, but thats another blog)
Wow.
Speaking non-theologically, that’s absolutely most powerful argument I’ve heard yet to persuade those of Western religious influence that allowing homosexual marriage would not harm the faith. Faith first. Works demonstrating that faith later.
Meridian Magazine, an independent LDS advocacy rag, recently posted an article detailing some reasons for supporting the amendment. Additionally, Yes For Marriage, in detailing the background of the amendment, had this to say:
I’m not convinced by that argument, though. It seems to ignore childless couples; I number many of these among my good friends.
The anti-polygamy angle still has me, though. Not because I oppose the idea of polygamy in isolation — if it’s between consenting adults, who cares? — but because the documented social ills which accompany it, including women being traded like cattle, are repulsive to me and expensive to the state in welfare bills due to people maintaining families larger than they can possibly support.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
– – – –
Thought for the moment: The devil finds work for idle circuits to do.
All That Is Just A Screen
Matt, those 9 bullet points cited by supporters of the Amendment? Why don’t the supporters of the Amendment just come out and say, “we don’t like gays and don’t want them living here and hope they never come within a mile of the state border”. Because at least that way they’d be honest.
This blog thread has done an interesting thing. It’s assumed that the majority of those living in Utah are LDS members whose beliefs are actions are directed by the LDS. Not that I’m debating that assumption.
Where is the $300K coming from? The church? It’s pretty terrible when the state’s constitution is influenced by a religious group or religious belief.
The purpose of the government is NOT to uphold community standards. Show me where in the Constitution it reads anything to that effect. The purpose of government is to protect the ability of the community to develop and practice their own standards. The government needs to distinguish between personal belief and strict interpretation of the law.
It’s this kind of crap that brings in bigger social wedges that drive us all further apart.
The role of government, and additional commentary
We’re agreeing but with different semantics. The Federal Constitution is a minimalistic document guaranteeing rights and clear separation of powers. Among other things, such as the weird “let’s prohibit alcohol!” and then “let’s not prohibit alcohol” amendments of eighty years ago.
When I was speaking about enforcing community standards, I was referring to local goverment, and standards as in “don’t kill other people”, “don’t rob other people”, etc. You’re right, the federal government has no business in local affairs — that’s the job of the jurisdictions who are small enough to have a real say in how their community policing and judging is done.
The $300K was spent by the lobby fighting to defeat the passage of this amendment defining marriage. The $16K is from the people sponsoring it. The whole reason I brought that up is that:
I thought it was ironic that, in an attempt to defeat the amendment, they must play to another stereotype.
I read an extremely insightful message by Christian instructor Walter Wink this morning. His open letter about tolerance, and his frank discussion of biblical contradictions regarding human sexuality in the light of Christ’s teachings was enlightening. It’s impossible for me to do justice to it except to say that he builds a compelling argument that Jesus might have taken the gays’ side in this. Basically, most anti-homosexuality morés are based on Levitical commandments, and those were done away with the higher law of “Love God, Love Your Neighbor”.
He draws a thought-provoking comparison of morés regarding homosexuality to slavery in the 1800’s. Slavery and concubism were common practices in biblical times, and one can draw ample support for supporting slavery using the Bible. But today, most modern Christians would oppose slavery. The morés of society have changed, but they have changed in the right direction: the direction of more tolerance and equality.
That said, though, to accept his reasoning requires a leap of faith for some fundamentalist Christian sects, as evidenced by this passage:
I like that. The Word is a person, not a book; the book is just a witness, and to insist on scriptural correctness is tantamount to idolatry. Interesting concept.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
the Catholics
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned among the many comments on this topic, that as soon as the LDS church took a standing on upholding the definition of a what a family should constitute, that the Catholics immediately came out with a statement opposing the LDS church on where they stand on this amendment. If you’re teaching tolerance then bash the catholic church for encouraging their “fold” to vote against the “Mormons.”
Please understand that the church (LDS)doesn’t tell us how to vote. We are highly encouraged to make our own educated decisions. The church takes a stand on such issues because the church teaches that the family is the most sacred thing we have.
As for me, it is sick and wrong to make a child grow up without a mother or a father. I do recognize that many people have been raised by bad parents, but nonetheless, a mother and a father create a great balance as the parents of the family. There is no doubt how I will vote. And who I will vote into local offices according to how they have said they will be voting on this amendment as well.–
Christy
Divorces…
I’m not positive that, in all circumstances, a particular mother and particular father are the best situation for a particular child. I know that’s not what you said, and there are exceptions to every rule. I think these “exceptional” children, with today’s divorce rates (over 50% per year) are more the norm than the exception now, though.
I take my own childhood as an example. My biological father was an abusive alcoholic, whom I only knew the first three months of my life, and two more months when I was eight and spent a summer with him. That summer bore out my mother’s previous opinions about him. He drank heavily, freely slapped his children around when they didn’t obey him, and was a thoroughly unpleasant man. That was enough to convince me that I’d prefer not to be associated with him, and I agreed that my mother’s new husband could adopt me.
In the intervening years (0-5 years), would it have been better for us to have lived with that father rather than with a single parent?
Of course, that’s not a black-and-white situation. Despite the dysfunction of my growing-up years, for much of my childhood I had an adoptive father in the home. And I agree that a loving, nurturing mother and a father are the ideal arrangement for the raising of a child. I consider us to be that arrangement π
And yet… and yet, there are many children in even worse situations. I look at things like… oh, what’s her name? The Tomb Raider lady. Right, Angelina Jolie. She’s adopted a Cambodian child. She’s bringing the boy up as her own. On her own. Is him being raised with a wealthy, activist mother who involves herself constantly in benefits for third-world countries worse than him being raised, impoverished and uneducated in an orphanage in Cambodia? Of course that’s a rhetorical question; from the boy’s perspective, his life is assuredly of much higher quality now.
It’s not something I’ve formed a firm opinion on, but the evidence, and my feelings, tend to be on the side that a loving household, however denominated sexually, is a better place to raise a child than a sterile orphanage or an abusive home. It may be the “lesser of two evils”, but for a lot of kids bounced from house-to-house in foster care, (I counted several of them among my friends in high school) having any loving family that wanted them would have been enough.
But again, I could be falling into the trap of “smart people believe weird things because they are very good at justifying decisions they made for non-smart reasons” (credit Michael Shermer for that amazing quote). I must acknowledge that dating a lesbian, having a good friend turn out to be gay, and being close friends with several kids in foster care through high school probably effects my perspective on things.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
The Church said to
As a boy raised in a single parent home, I have had the privilage to see alot of different cultures thanks to my mother. Fortunately for me i spend all over my developmental years in california where there is a vast cultural mixture, from racial, sexual and social cultures. When i moved to Utah, I was shocked to see how closed minded most people are about what is going on in the world around them. Most of them believe what they are told to believe, ( from the LDS Church) Don’t get me wrong if you need some one to tell you how and what to believe it’s a good thing that you live in this beautiful state.
My mother and father divorced when i was very young, so i didn’t have the father figure in my life that most people have. So my mother had to do both jobs. Good or Bad she done it. I met my fathers side of the family when i was about 10 yrs old. And to my surprise one of my aunts is a lesbian. I didn’t know this at the time i met her, and had thought that she is a great lady. She is my Aunt. I still think that she is great today. How she chooses to live her life is nobodys business and as a loving and caring society that we should be living in, i will support my aunt in her decisions to live her life the way she chooses.
Who are we to judge anyone on what they decide to do in or with their life. The judging will come from the lord when are time comes.
Dating a Lesbian…
I must acknowledge that dating a lesbian, …
You’re dating a lesbian? Man, that is cool! «worships Matthew P. Barnson»
Seriously, you’re dating a lesbian? I respect that, and not just because it’s my fantasy. I have a friend who’s wife cheated on him with another woman, and when I commented how cool that is and how I wish my wife would do the same he said something about how I can say that now, but if it really happens I would think differently.
I’ve thought about what he said, but I still have the same opinion. I don’t think being married to a lesbian would be a bad thing. It’s not like I have a very healthy relationship with my wife anyway.
Anyway, I like your reasoning. You have some very well thought out points on the subject of marriage. It’s refreshing to see someone in Utah actually think about issues.
Dated (past tense)
I dated (past tense) a girl who, after several breakups/get-togethers with me, decided she was a lesbian and broke it off with me for the final time. We’re talking nearly a decade and a half ago at this point.
As far as I know, my wife is a wild, flaming, passionate heterosexual π She’s a lot of fun.
Contrary to popular belief, I know many people in Utah who think deeply about these issues. This is why secret ballots are so important with elections — it’s one thing to agree with your neighbor or ecclesiastical leader publicly, it’s another to do so at the ballot box.
One need look no further than Prohibition to see how deeply divided Utah has been on morality issues in the past. It was Utah’s vote to repeal Prohibition that was the deciding state in achieving the super-majority that got rid of that amendment. Prohibition was responsible for an enormous amount of crime and black-market traffic, causing a cascading spiral of prisons full of non-violent offenders who simply wanted a drink, requiring more guards, more police for enforcement, and more draconian punishments.
Most Utahns recognized that prohibiting alcohol was causing more social ills than it was solving. They recognized that habitual drinkers needed treatment and assistance to overcome their problem, not incarceration. So they cast a deciding vote to repeal it, over the objections of Church leaders. It was enlightening reading transcripts of talks given by the President and Apostles at the General Conference following the successful Prohibition repeal in Utah.
The disappointment was palpable in the text across nearly seventy years of history.
But I think, in that case, the people as a whole were smarter than a few key leaders. They thought through the ramifications, and despite the prominent demagoguery demonizing alcohol consumption, recognized the reality that people wanted to drink, and would continue to do so regardless of legality. Incarcerating them was not the solution, so the people as a whole came to a smart conclusion.
It remains to be seen how the people respond in today’s wartime, fear-driven climate.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Citation?
I must have missed this sentence…
I searched, but was unable to find out what this response by the Catholic Church was to the Proclamation on the Family? The Proclamation is an entirely separate issue from this recent endorsement of Proposition 3, since it was issued nine years ago. It may be a good topic for another entry, but wouldn’t it be really old news?
I also don’t think anybody here is teaching anything to anybody, really. We’re just a bunch of friends discussing issues, much like one would over dinner at a restaurant. Lots of different opinions. Except that the world is our eavesdropper π
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Sick and wrong
In my opinion, it is sick and wrong to state that any one kind of family is any more effective or “correct” than any other. While there is still abuse (physical, sexual, or emotional) going on in “traditional” two-parent families, I see no logic to the argument that a family containing a mother and father is intrinsically “better” than a family with two mothers, two fathers, or only one of either kind.
In my opinion, it is sick and wrong to suggest amending the Constitution (state or federal) for the sole purpose of restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens who simply want to be recognized as consenting adults in legitimate relationships. People who just want to have children and grow old together like anyone else.
In my opinion, it is sick and wrong for any religion to attempt to impose its religious views on others in a civic or governmental context. Gay marriage is a civic debate, not a religious debate. If the LDS church wants to continue to not perform or recognize gay marriages, that is its right as a religious institution (after all, the Catholic Church still refuses to marry divorced people). But by injecting religion into the argument, it is clouding what is fundamentally a civil rights issue.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Sick and Wrong
Ben, Amen you said it right!!!!!
I agree
I myself am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and our church does believe that marraige should be between a man and a woman. But that should not mean that those personages who see and live life differently should have to follow our standards. We live in America and I believe that we pride ourselves in being the land of the free, please correct me if I’m wrong, so why aren’t people free to choose whom they want to marry and grow old with? People who are heterosexual are free to chose whom they grow old with so why can’t everybody? People of the gay community are not forcing their lives on you, they are not forcing you to belive that it’s right, they just want to be able to support the ones the love just like everybody else, so why do people feel it is their business to tell them what rights they can or cannot have as a couple?
Not forcing lives on others
People of the gay community ARE forcing their lives on everybody else. When they decide to have a family they force their lifestyle on the children that are brought into their households. In turn those children are now forming certain ideals that will affect other children and their own future. The future of our society is our children. If they experiment on these children with these alternative family units what will happen to our future?
To sick and wrong
So, you said “consenting adults in a legitimate relationship who just want to have children and grow old together like anyone else.” Consenting adults can do what they want behind closed doors, and grow old together if they don’t die of aids first, but don’t go adding children to the picture. How are women supposed to get pregnant without a daddy’s “input”? Men have to borrow a woman’s womb to have a child of their own. Doesn’t seem to go with the natural plan, does it? Maybe it is sick and wrong to deviate from the natural process?
Yes, some dad’s and some mom’s are not good ones, or have to do it alone, but a man and a woman is still the most functional unit in society for the best results in raising children. That is the ideal to shoot for. Why confuse children any more with perverting the family unit? Remember that a lock is no good without the key. What can you do with just two keys, or just two locks? The relationship is no longer functional to society. It is the same for same-sex unions.
Yo! Genius.
“Don’t Die of AIDS first?”
What the -EXPLETIVE DELETED- are you talking about..
I don’t tend to flame, but.. Okay, here’s the deal… I’m the token outspoken conservative on the site. It also helps that I know a lot about AIDS (Medical Professional and all). So, if you look at all the statistics and the way the disease is passed and the literature available, it proves one thing.
-EXPLETIVE DELETED-
Why do I have to be attacked by people who think that I’m a -EXPLETIVE DELETED- judgemental -EXPLETIVE DELETED-s because I’m conservative and judgemental people like you get lumped in with other conservatives.
You could maybe make a -EXPLETIVE DELETED- good point on the issue if you want to look at it either religiously or evolutionarily, but instead you throw in a -EXPLETIVE DELETED- AIDS comment that makes everyone think conservatives are -EXPLETIVE DELETED- judgemental -EXPLETIVE DELETED-s.
TO EVERYONE: THIS GUY REPRESENTS NO ONE. DON’T LUMP HIM IN WITH ME.
Proposition 3
The endorsement of Propositiion 3 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints furthurs my belief they continue to attempt to dictate the lifestyle of believers and non bilievers alike in the State of Utah. God forbid they ever become a voting majority nationwide. As it stands in the state of Utah: there exists a separation of Church and State, and only those wealthy enough to have an Electron Microscope can observe that seperation. As for the Mormon belief in Free Agency…. there is a gross lack of a consistency component here–AGAIN!!!
Non-endorsement
It’s important to recognize that the LDS church specifically refuses to “endorse” the proposition. As a matter of fact, to do so would cause potential issues with the church’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, tax-deductible status. It is only the timing of this announcement, which is a re-iteration of a previously stated position, that causes critics to refer to it as a “de-facto endorsement”.
That’s an interesting, but wholly separate, discussion. One I’d rather not get into on this blog if I can avoid it.
Obi-Wan Kenobi said it best. “What I said was true,” says Ben Kenobi, “from a certain point of view”. The fact is, the 60+% of Utah residents who are likely to vote in favor of the amendment in a couple of days are doing it of their own free will and choice. They are being consistent with their value system, from a certain point of view.
I think the fight about this bill is over. My prediction is it’s going to pass. The real fight is about to begin, and that fight will be over whether the Supreme Court of the United States is allowed to overturn provisions of a state constition. They are, if it involves inter-state issues, which, really, gay marriage is.
Of course, with four justices having a good chance of kicking the bucket within the next four years, should Bush be re-elected, it’s fairly certain the Supremes will rule in favor of Utah when the contest reaches that court. Should Kerry be elected, he’s more likely to choose far more liberal justices that may rule in favor of those who will end up taking Utah to court over the amendment.
It’s fun to see how everything is all tied together…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Another Anonymous
So how is it that the Mormon Church’s stand on supporting legislation that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman is any more of an attempt to tell us how we should vote than say the Catholic Church’s stands on moral issues to non Catholic’s in predominantly Catholic areas? Do they feel more like the Catholic Church is forcing them how to believe and vote?
The timing of the Mormon Church’s announcement does make an effect on influencing their more faithful church members to consider their their voting, but they don’t give any specific endorsements to proposition 3 and it not just because of fear of losing their tax exempt status, but there may be another reasons. Whenever there has been hot contending issues or controversies involving the Church in any aspect such as involving polygny, the church doesn’t exactly reach for the media spotlight to give their two cents worth. In fact they try to keep aloof and away from commenting as much as possible.
If the Church takes any public stands, they tend to be very basic and brief, not giving a whole lot of specifics, and certainly not giving instructions to anybody. This situation seems to be no different. Their stand on supporting legislation to specifically define marriage to be heterosexual is brief, general and simple.
The statement is not telling anybody to specifically vote for Utah proposition 3, and that message was not just for the state of Utah, because there are a lot more Mormons in the U.S. that live outside of Utah than Mormons living within. It quite presumptous to say that the Church’s stand doesn’t focus anywhere else. They are not saying how to vote on other specific propositions in other states dealing with defining marriage, and not all such propisitions between states are alike. Even those propositions that have the wording between a man and a woman.
It seems that the Church’s stand was to make people aware that voting on this issue is important and should take alot of consideration. That this is a moral issue and you should vote upon your morals.
EDIT by matthew: Fixed formatting
True, but…
What you say is relevant. It was the LDS church’s press release on the matter that inspired me to write, because:
I also disclaim anybody else’s opinions on my blog but my own π
That said, I’m writing this comment on the day the polls are open, and am about to head out to vote. To me, that’s more important than anything else: that people make their voices heard. The 50% that doesn’t vote, when they can, could sway any election should they be motivated enough to get out and do it!
—
Matthew P. Barnson
That’s right, rock the vote!
Get off your butts, and just go vote on this issue. I personally have no problem with saying that prop. #3 is sick and wrong, and doesn’t represent the majority of people here in Utah. Not everybody in Utah <agrees>.
EDIT by matthew: Fixed spelling. Removed curse word. Removed epithet against religious group.
You just edited this post
You just edited this post because you are a coward in my opinion. If the comment doesn’t fit into your perfect little “family friendly” atmosphere then just delete the entire point trying to be made? Thats chicken <exletive deleted>.
EDIT by matthew: I am the moderator, which means I can run this board as I see fit. The posting guidelines are clear, and nobody else here seems to have problems expressing themselves without resorting to personal insults and rudeness. Your previous comment included expletives which were deleted, as did this one. Don’t do it again.
Dear sir.
The difference, you eating son of a , is that I know where the I’m posting. This site is about rational debate, not your brand of horse .
So if you want to around with swearing.. try http://www.moviepoopshoot.com – and you can swear your little off.
Otherwise.. I would have liked to hear your point, and now i never will because you a rubber turkey Celine Dion.
Merry Xmas.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
I apologize//
I shouldnt have said Celine Dion. Sorry.
Visit the Official Justin Timpane Website Music, Acting, and More! http://www.timpane.com
Rock the vote.
Get off your butts, and just go vote on this issue. I personally have no problem with saying that prop. #3 is sick and wrong, and doesn’t represent the majority of people here in Utah. Not everybody in Utah <agrees>.
P.S. What a pain, just to post a comment on a blog…waste of time.
EDIT by mattheew: There’s a reason I require registration to post comments, principally so that I can notify people if I have to edit their posts. barnson.org is a family-friendly site where I am a petty dictator π Edited this post for content.
Your an…
Thanks for butchering my post you <expletives deleted>
EDIT by matthew: Comment mostly deleted and IP address banned. I do not tolerate unsupported ad-hominem mixed with expletives.
Bad grammar…
Also, it looks like he left out a comma. I believe it should read “Thanks for butchering my post COMMA you”
We can’t be having with people who won’t bother to proofread teh posts they make.
seperation of church and state
Our founding fathers believed “In God We Trust”. They had a deep and abiding love of God and attributed their success in the establishment of our great constitution to Him. They also believed in the great gift that God gave us of the freedom to choose. But it was meant for that freedom to mean that anything goes. We as a people need to consider the consequences of allowing certain things into our society or legitimizing incorrect behaviour. Isn’t that what most laws are written for? The costitution says that I have the freedom to speak out against things that I don’t want in my community, even if it is also my religious belief, too. Isn’t our religious beliefs the most sacred in our hearts? Beliefs that we would fight for? We must protect the future of families and the children in them. What is best for them? The future of our children is at stake here.
Debunked
There is, unfortunately, a major assumption in your post that has been thoroughly debunked:
Though opinions varied amongst the Fathers, in general they believed no such thing. That phrase was added to some denominations of U.S. currency in the aftermath of the Civil War at the behest of a religious coalition that felt it would help bring together the North and south because of a single common God-belief.
The notion that the Fathers were Christians, which (I assume) underlies your posting, has been debunked. In particular, Thomas Jefferson was an outspoken opponent of Christianity and the Christian God, and the founding fathers actively worked to remove God from politics due to abuses by previous generations.
America is a noble experiment in the government acquiring its right to govern from the governed, rather than from biological heritage or from God.
I don’t contest your right to speak your mind and encourage the government, which is a representative of you, to enact legislation that supports your positions. It’s a duty and responsibility of every citizen to vote his or her conscience. Sadly, too many of us don’t even devote the few hours every two years to vote, and I applaud your commitment to making your voice heard in your government.
I do, however, contest governmental decisions that result in denial of rights to minorities of any stripe, or which erode freedoms. Unfortunately, as a nation we’ve been in “freedom-erosion mode” since 9/11. Benjamin Franklin said it best.
I’m concerned about the separation of church and state in defining marriage, which for the last several hundred years has been a religious acknowledgement of a secular fact. Government really only gets involved, other than in granting the “marriage license” and verifying that spouses do not have sexually transmitted diseases without the knowledge of their prospective partner, in equitably distributing common goods in the case of a dissolution of that relationship.
I have a grave and growing concern that the U.S. government, which established in our Constitution provisions for preventing one religion from recruiting the government to oppress another, appears to increasingly be a tool of certain radical religious extremists to promote an agenda of inequality.
Just food for thought. These things, of course, wax and wane between secularism and religion. I value the balance between the two, and hope we never abandon one for the other; at the center of the U.S. soul lies the desire to prevent one from suppressing another.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Matt..
Be balanced, man. It hasn’t been debunked. We had this discussion a year ago and I gave you like 20 quotes from the founding fathers about God.
At least link to the post I made on the issue. (I would but I’m computer dumb. Me no know how.)
Debunking and balance
I believe your exact response was this one, which was in the context of this larger thread about the Pledge of Allegiance.
Unfortunately, as many arguments as can be made for the Founding Fathers advocating a Christian nation, there are many that contradict them. A balanced perspective would say the question is not settled, but this much, to me, is settled: the Founding Fathers had enough religious differences that they intentionally created a Constitution devoid of any references to any religion’s God other than in reference to what year it was. Any argument that presupposes a desire on the part of all the signers to the Constitution to create a Christian nation is, in my humble opinion, fatally flawed.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
FIRST AND SECOND
First.. I appreciate your (as usual) fairness in providing the link and presenting a balanced argument.
Second… While I don’t think the idea was to create a “Christian Nation”, the idea that there was a deliberate attempt to “remove God” from government is incorrect. They were neither trying to include nor disclude God.
Most were Christians, and that guided their ideals. Some were not and that guided theirs. It wasn’t “anti-God” or “Pro-God”, and thats my real point.