|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 7, 2008 19:51:15 GMT -4
Obviously they are, since miscegenation laws are obsolete in the U.S. but same sex marriage is actively debated. Which exactly underscores the hypocrisy. Racial orientation is a non-issue, while sexual orientation remains a threat to the very foundations of western civilization as we know it, to hear some people talk. (Which is the comparison I was trying to make in my last post, even though you conflated "racial orientation" with "race.") Then you obviously haven't seen any headlines about them being sued to conduct such marriages, even in today's "litigious climate," because it's a ludicrous argument. It makes as much sense as Jews and/or Muslims claiming the USDA certification of pork as safe for human consumption somehow forces them to eat or serve it, or leaves temples and mosques open to slander lawsuits from the pork-oriented. But seriously, the whole matter can be resolved once and for all by simply divorcing (if you'll pardon the expression) the religious ceremony of marriage from the legal contract. If you want a recognition of your love before the eyes of God, go to a priest and get married. If you want a binding legal partnership, go to a judge and get a civil union. And never the twain shall meet. A couple could be married and civilly joined, or married to each other but have separate civil partners, if any at all. Thus church and state are separated, and the church no longer has standing to complain that a legal recognition could possibly encroach unto its religious doctrine.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 7, 2008 20:18:48 GMT -4
Fair enough: if "No Taxation without Representation" is just, so is "No Representation without Taxation" There are no legal requirements for churches to not express themselves on what they consider moral issues. In fact, the 1st ammendment protects this right. Fine, then they can pay the taxes to support the protection of that right.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Nov 7, 2008 22:58:40 GMT -4
Part of the argument for Proposition 8 is that legal recognition of same sex marriages might form a foundation for lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages, or even for hate speech charges against churches that speak out against homosexuality. That is something really curious about how things are managed in the US, anyone can sue anybody based on silly presumptions, like slipping on the wet floor or toys being improperly used (I remember reading in RD that some Superman costumes for children actually have a warning of the kind this cape does not fly or something like that). So, should Proposition 8 passed the voting, it might actually force any church to perform homosexual marriages or bust? You are right, suddenly, this thing allowed those who claim to be discriminated to force everyone to like or accept beyond one's will their actions! That's definitively not a tolerant action and lacks legal bases. This has gone beyond a petition, looks like a revenge. Should they be told that there's freedom of religion and speech? Seems to me that they like to ask for laws to be obeyed but they don't like to play a fair game... Well, as said above, if there was a law establishing that homosexual marriages are illegal, then that's it. If we pretend to live with order in society, we all must obey the laws. They played the game and lost. Democracy has spoken loud and clear.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 7, 2008 23:40:50 GMT -4
Fine, then they can pay the taxes to support the protection of that right. Their members already do this.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 7, 2008 23:52:01 GMT -4
Which exactly underscores the hypocrisy. Racial orientation is a non-issue, while sexual orientation remains a threat to the very foundations of western civilization as we know it, to hear some people talk. (Which is the comparison I was trying to make in my last post, even though you conflated "racial orientation" with "race.") What can I say? Gender and sexual orientation are different issues than race. Or there aren't any churches still refusing, or at least not enough to make the papers. That's not what the anti-Prop 8 people in CA are upset about. This issue wasn't about legal rights - civil unions in CA already effectively have all the rights that a marriage does - it was about forcing moral acceptance of their behavior through the co-opting of the term "marriage" by judicial fiat. The LDS Church has no objection to same-sex civil unions having hospital visitation rights and the like. What they do object to is de-valuing the concept of marriage further by changing the its definition, and the effective government sanction of what the Church views as immoral behavior that would be the result. And churches are being forced to compromise their principles by the gay lobbies - a Catholic adoption agency in Boston can no longer operate, since they refuse to place children with same-sex couples. It is wrong to use intimidation and government force to make someone work against their religious beliefs, no matter what you think of those beliefs.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 7, 2008 23:57:52 GMT -4
That is something really curious about how things are managed in the US, anyone can sue anybody based on silly presumptions, like slipping on the wet floor or toys being improperly used (I remember reading in RD that some Superman costumes for children actually have a warning of the kind this cape does not fly or something like that). We are a litigious society. This has its advantages too - we don't worry much about whether our water is safe to drink or our food safe to eat either, and we have a reasonable expectation that our contracts and laws will be enforced. Obviously the protests at LDS buildings and online threats are the result of frustration at having lost the debate. So it's not exactly revenge so much as just anger. It will most likely blow over in a few days. It's just interesting that the LDS Church became the central target, when we really weren't the primary movers behind the ammendment. One of the problems with the current public perception of religion in the U.S. is this idea that it should be completely private and seperate from regular life - especially from politics. That's not what the founders intended when they wrote the ammendment. Unless they can convince the CA supreme court to again slap down the people, or until the next time.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2008 0:54:41 GMT -4
There were apparently between 2,000 and 5,000 protestors next to Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake tonight. I think only reporters were around to see them, since they didn't start until 6:00 (after dark, and with the office buildings around the square empty). Downtown SLC is currently under construction, and there was a Jazz game tonight too.
The Church's response: "Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States -- that of free expression and voting.
"While those who disagree with our position have the right to make their feeling known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process."
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 8, 2008 2:09:32 GMT -4
What a bunch of muck.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 8, 2008 12:02:28 GMT -4
It really makes me sad to see people denying others basic human rights. What makes me angry is that apparently, one of the major factors in Prop 8's success is socially-conservative blacks coming out to vote for Obama and voting yes to make others second-class citizens.
And before you can tell me they're not . . . it's still legal to deny gay people equal rights to housing in some places. We had a failed ballot initiative (in that it didn't actually get on the ballot) a few years ago to rescind all gay rights legislation in the entire state. Oh, sure, it failed, but people were seriously trying.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2008 14:29:24 GMT -4
It really makes me sad to see people denying others basic human rights. What makes me angry is that apparently, one of the major factors in Prop 8's success is socially-conservative blacks coming out to vote for Obama and voting yes to make others second-class citizens. How dare those black people express their opinions! You should go protest in black neighborhoods right away. I am somewhat frustrated by the inability of the people against Prop 8 to beleive that their opponents might be motivated by something other than bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Nov 8, 2008 16:18:08 GMT -4
It really makes me sad to see people denying others basic human rights. What makes me angry is that apparently, one of the major factors in Prop 8's success is socially-conservative blacks coming out to vote for Obama and voting yes to make others second-class citizens. Actually, I think that people voted no because almost all western civilization has grown with a very clear family model: mother, father and sons. You can blame evolution for doing so (at least it's true for humans. You need a male and female to have descendants). It's been like that since men existed on earth. The best model (i.e. man, woman and sons) has ruled out same gender marriages. And don't forget that Christianity has deep roots in the whole continent. We all have been raised inside the above model. It was natural that common people voted NO because their moral model weighted a lot. Jason noted that the moral foundation of society was at play and he's right. The change will come as an evolutive step, not a as a revolution. Romans were very tolerant, but it seems that their fall had a lot to do with their moral. There's a lot of things, especially those with family ethics that will come to discussion now.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 8, 2008 16:45:35 GMT -4
The silly thing is that De Facto, or common law relationships are far more common these days and in many countries are granted none of the protections of marriage either. (NZ is one of the few examples I can think of that treats De Facto relationships, including same sex ones, equally to marriages for property rights and such.) Instead of forcing people that don't want marriage to be changed from 1 man and 1 woman to accept an all-inclusive (except those we are still bigoted against like sibblings) marriage definition, why not just change the systems to include all de facto relationships (regardless of the couple) above a certain term as recognised by the State (unless they opt out) and also introduce a legal next of kin where the person can choose who represents them as next of kin. This actually solves all issues very easily, but hey why would we want to get all logical about it?
Now I know that Gillanren isn't too keen on the idea because of her unique situation, but with an opt out that would mean that those not wanting to be treated as married can opt out of it, simple.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 8, 2008 18:12:11 GMT -4
I doubt if in this context the Roman's morals have anything to do with this thread. The empire didn't "fall" really, it merely wore out over time. You can only control with a firm hand so much territory for so long. With the increasing advance of new so called barbarian tribes on their borders, it was destined to collapse. The Romans brought order and discipline to conquered provinces and in many cases, increased justice in the courts. Marriage and Inheritance laws in Rome were actually more complex than today's. It is interesting that the Roman Empire began to "fall" after it became a Christian society and had outlawed homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 8, 2008 18:31:44 GMT -4
So what? The founders lived over two hundred years ago and thought differently about many things. They also had slaves.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 8, 2008 18:40:09 GMT -4
Sucks to be an unfairly-targeted minority, don't it. We're used to it. LDS Church history is basically one long story of persecution, and we fully expect people will hate us more and more as moral standards continue to decline while we work to uphold what we feel is right. And we weren't targeting anyone by supporting Proposition 8 - we were in fact defending a moral institution we support from an over-reaching liberal court. If Prop 8 had failed, you would not be seeing Mormon protestors at ACLU or LGBT buildings. Certainly you wouldn't see comments coming from Church members like the following: On the record, the Church itself donated about $2,000, in in-kind travel costs. Church members as a whole probably donated quite a bit more, but of course those are private contributions. Claims that the Church donated "$80 million" to the campaign are simply false. Well, just goes to show you that ten percent of idiots are homosexual too.,.
|
|