LDS Church issues response to Prop. 8 vote

[Traveler]

Anything can be justified by saying that it is better than something that is absolutely horrible and obviously worse. The point many do not understand is that Prop 8 was not about what can be justified but rather what is the responsibility of government and society. There is nothing anti or judgmental in Prop 8. Its only purpose is to reaffirm that for human society to survive and exist we ought to recognize the importance of providing a deliberate environment that fosters children and families knowledgeable of the need in society to plan for a next generation.

The best environment for fostering children and families is the recognition that children are best off in a family defined by marriage that includes the biological mother and biological father of the children that have learned by their experiences in society to be loving and kind to each other – even to the point of sacrificing their individual passions, desires, wants and personal expatiations so that children can thrive and humanity continue for another generation. Why should any reasonable person want to change that understanding?

The Traveler

[Godless]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Anything can be justified by saying that it is better than something that is absolutely horrible and obviously worse. The point many do not understand is that Prop 8 was not about what can be justified but rather what is the responsibility of government and society. There is nothing anti or judgmental in Prop 8. Its only purpose is to reaffirm that for human society to survive and exist we ought to recognize the importance of providing a deliberate environment that fosters children and families knowledgeable of the need in society to plan for a next generation.

The best environment for fostering children and families is the recognition that children are best off in a family defined by marriage that includes the biological mother and biological father of the children that have learned by their experiences in society to be loving and kind to each other – even to the point of sacrificing their individual passions, desires, wants and personal expatiations so that children can thrive and humanity continue for another generation. Why should any reasonable person want to change that understanding?

The Traveler

I disagree with your views, but I thank you for presenting them in a respectful and intelligent manner.

The main problem that I've found in this debate is the inclination of a handful of people to question the motives of those who oppose the bill (admittedly, I may be a little guilty of the same, albeit in the other direction) rather than address the actual issues surrounding the bill. Many have said that this is a very respectful and civil board (and I'm inclined to agree, btw). However, this is the only board I post on where I've seen people's faith and loyalty to the church brought into question in regards to Prop 8. These attitudes are wrong and explicitly incompatible with the ideals of compassion and open-mindedness that I was taught to embrace by my LDS parents and leaders. So again, Traveler, I thank you for taking the high road by addressing the issue without placing judgement on those who disagree with you.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Godless

I disagree with your views, but I thank you for presenting them in a respectful and intelligent manner.

The main problem that I've found in this debate is the inclination of a handful of people to question the motives of those who oppose the bill (admittedly, I may be a little guilty of the same, albeit in the other direction) rather than address the actual issues surrounding the bill. Many have said that this is a very respectful and civil board (and I'm inclined to agree, btw). However, this is the only board I post on where I've seen people's faith and loyalty to the church brought into question in regards to Prop 8. These attitudes are wrong and explicitly incompatible with the ideals of compassion and open-mindedness that I was taught to embrace by my LDS parents and leaders. So again, Traveler, I thank you for taking the high road by addressing the issue without placing judgement on those who disagree with you.

I do not think anybody is questioning some LDS standing for not supporting Prop 8. I believe questions are raised concerned why someone would want Prop 8 defeated.

It is hard for me to understand why someone with LDS ideals and beliefs concerning the sacredness of family wants to remove the protected status of children and the social environment they are forced to live and learn in because of their birth into a particular social setting.

I have been both concerned and upset over the treatment and demands brought to bear on the Boy Scouts of America by those that have an agenda beyond the scope upon which the BSA was founded. I do not want such forces brought to bear on families concerned about the unique status of children.

I know of no better way to draw a line than Prop 8.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

President Hinckley has only been gone a short time and sometimes I wonder if we have already forgotten his admonition to be a little kinder and to stand a little taller.

That is one theme I will never tire hearing. Hope it will be reemphasized in General Conference in the future.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Traveler

I know of no better way to draw a line than Prop 8.

The Traveler

What about drawing a line for a circle that can include everybody?

[orrinjelo]

Hey, it's me again. Wow, I've never been troubled with an issue as much as this one. Let me give you the quick story: I don't understand WHY it would be bad if prop. 8 failed. I am pro-choice and consider myself an independent in politics. Now, I know the Church's stand, but if I am to agree with the Church, I need to know why and have my own reasons. I've got a few starter questions:

How is proposition 8 not refusing these people their rights?

Is civil union still in effect?

Is civil union in this case the same as marriage (in the eyes of the government)?

Can you verify this?:
"First of all, the failure to pass Proposition 8 will "inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty and free speech rights. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family." (Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage)

"If same-gender attraction is legalized, pastors, ministers, bishops, and others who refuse to perform these marriages in their churches will face the possibility of discrimination charges. Churches will no longer be tax-exempt if they do not comply with this law. Religious liberty and religious rights will be devastatingly affected in the long-term if same-gender marriage is legalized to immediately appease liberal attention in the short-term."

[DigitalShadow]

Originally Posted by orrinjelo

"If same-gender attraction is legalized, pastors, ministers, bishops, and others who refuse to perform these marriages in their churches will face the possibility of discrimination charges. Churches will no longer be tax-exempt if they do not comply with this law. Religious liberty and religious rights will be devastatingly affected in the long-term if same-gender marriage is legalized to immediately appease liberal attention in the short-term."

I don't see how that has any basis in reality, and furthermore I don't even think that is what "liberals" want. Churches can (and do) refuse to perform marriages based on whatever criterea they want. Why would a homosexual couple even want to get married by a church who thinks they are going to Hell and commiting a horrible sin on a regular basis? Frankly, this whole slippery slope argument about how the government is going to force religions to change their views is pure paranoid fantasy that is used to justify things like prop 8. The only real reason churches are in danger of losing their tax exempt status is becoming a political tool of a certain party which many churches are already dangerously close to.

[unixknight]

Originally Posted by DigitalShadow

I don't see how that has any basis in reality, and furthermore I don't even think that is what "liberals" want. Churches can (and do) refuse to perform marriages based on whatever criterea they want. Why would a homosexual couple even want to get married by a church who thinks they are going to Hell and commiting a horrible sin on a regular basis? Frankly, this whole slippery slope argument about how the government is going to force religions to change their views is pure paranoid fantasy that is used to justify things like prop 8. The only real reason churches are in danger of losing their tax exempt status is becoming a political tool of a certain party which many churches are already dangerously close to.

Paranoid fantasy, eh?

In Sweden, there is a law being proposed that would compel pastors to perform gay weddings or lose their ability to perform marriages at all. A politician in CA has proposed a similar measure, and there is discussing in Massachusetts of revoking the tax exempt status of churches for not performing gay marriages, which are legal in that state.

Furthermore, Catholic private adoption agencies in San Francisco and in Massachusetts are having to close down because they will not place children with gay couples and are facing the wrath of the state for it.

And the LDS Church knows very well what happens when its own policies on marriage run afoul of the U.S. Government's. Anyone remember how polygamy ended? It was either that or the Church was to be disincorporated and the Temples seized.

So you'll have to forgive us if we're not so willing to believe that we would be left alone to conduct business as usual should the laws change.

[a-train]

Originally Posted by unixknight

It was either that or the Church was to be disincorporated and the Temples seized.

The Church WAS disincorporated via the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The Supreme Court, in 1890, ultimately upheld the disincoporation in 136 US 1 wherein the court held:

That the acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah incorporating, continuing, or providing for the corporation known as the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,' and the ordinance of the so-called general assembly of the state of Deseret incorporating the Church of Jeses Christ of Latter- Day Saints, so far as the same may now have legal force and validity, are hereby disapproved and annulled, and the said corporation, in so far as it may now have, or pretend to have, any legal existence, is hereby dissolved;

The court order actually authorized the seizure of all real property and the bank holdings of the Church WERE seized until their release in 1893. The temples however, were simply not seized. I don't know why or what circumstances prevented it.

-a-train

[unixknight]

Originally Posted by a-train

The Church WAS disincorporated via the Edmunds-Tucker Act. The Supreme Court, in 1890, ultimately upheld the disincoporation in 136 US 1 wherein the court held:
The court order actually authorized the seizure of all real property and the bank holdings of the Church WERE seized until their release in 1893. The temples however, were simply not seized. I don't know why or what circumstances prevented it.

-a-train

Wow... I did not know that. Thank you.