Update: See below.
When I heard rumours of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints financial involvement to pass Proposition 8, last November’s ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California, I assumed they were lies spread because of malice toward the institution. Though I felt repulsed by the Church’s aggressive position, I thought it acted within its rights to encourage members in voting to strip away the rights of same-sex couples.
I also thought that the church was wise enough to respect the separation of church and state and refrain from actively funding the campaign. It turns out, I was wrong.
In a campaign filing, amid an investigation by Fair Political Practices Commission—a California state campaign watchdog agency, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has revealed it spent nearly $190,000 since September to help pass Proposition 8.
While many church members had donated directly to the Yes on 8 campaign—some estimates of Mormon giving range as high as $20 million—the church itself had previously reported little direct campaign activity.
But in the filing made Friday [January 30, 2009], the Mormon church reported thousands in travel expenses, such as airline tickets, hotel rooms and car rentals for the campaign. The church also reported $96,849.31 worth of “compensated staff time”—hours that church employees spent working to pass the same-sex marriage ban.
For all the crying about how the church has been unjustifiably targeted it’s incredible that it would have opened itself up to such a huge legal blunder and a public relations nightmare. I don’t know what the implications for class action suits by the 18,000 people who had their marriages annulled by the passing of Proposition 8 might be, but I hope it is a wake up call to those that think the church is legitimate in the way it went about robbing the rights of same-sex couples.
Correction: It turns out I was just a little confused about the implications of this report. As pointed out by JKS the filing was posted on time and the church did not break any laws with its involvement in Prop 8.
To be clear, all same-sex marriage rights were stripped using legal means.
Update: According to a few sources, it looks like, the Church has been convicted of 13 counts of late campaign reporting.
Class action suits? How do you figure, and one what theory of recovery?
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but is what the church did illegal?
“Separation of Church and State” refers to the State not getting involved in religious matters: not the other way around. I’d say that a Church, as any other body of citizens, has the right to petition the state for whatever it wants.
You wouldn’t expect a church (any church) to stand idly by if the government were to make, say murder, legal in the land.
Before everyone gets all craaaazy I’m not equating gay marriage with murder. So stop it.
Sorry, but Prop 8 doesn’t strip away any rights. California same-sex couples can still file for all legal, financial and other considerations under “common law” or “domestic partnership” status.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports
http://www.examiner.com/x-2357-LDS-Church-Examiner~y2009m2d6-Media-uninformed-of-LDS-churchs-Prop-8-donation-filings
http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8/Questions_and_myths
The filing that they made on January 30th was ON TIME and represented an accurate amount for what was spent the later part of the year. Since they did spend time or resources on it, they had to report it, which they did.
The church did not donate any cash, btw.
There was no legal blunder. It is the church’s right to get involved in society about moral issues.
Yes, I agree. I’m not sure how the financing of that petition works. I could be completely mistaken here, so what are the rules with regard to financing a campaign to get laws changed?
I am fuzzy on the American laws (remember I’m a Canadian), but I remember reading something about the tax free status of the institution making it illegal to finance political movements.
I am the one that’s sorry—I must be confused.
I thought that previous to the passing of Prop 8, approximately 18,000 people who had exercised their right to be married were then stripped of that right after prop 8 passed. I don’t know what made me think that.
@jks,
Thank-you for the links. It surprised me when I drew the (wrong) conclusion that the church would have made such a blatant legal blunder.
On the topic of banning same-sex marriages, here is some food for thought by Nate Silver about the changing climate on these issues:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html
@Jeff: it’s my understanding that the brightest line is drawn when churches endorse and/or campaign for specific candidates. Other issues are grayer. But I’m not an FCC, IRS, or legal specialist.
@all: Rusty Clifton (from Nine Moons) and I just did a podcast that tackled the Prop 8 issues from the perspective (mine) of a faithful, gay saint:
http://www.nine-moons.com/2009/03/30/a-totally-gay-podcast/
I too am Canadian, and am not 100% sure about this, but I believe that it doesn’t have anything to do with tax-exempt status but with elegibility for government funding, which the Church doesn’t receive.
Please enlighten me as to what rights these ~18,000 people had taken away from them? I’m not trying to be smart, I’m curious. From what I understand they are still treated by the law exactly the way that ‘regular’ married people are- sans the title. Am I wrong?
So is calling oneself “married” a right? The term “marriage” is fairly universally understood to mean a union between a man and a woman. Why is this such a fight? Are gay people just seeking legitimacy? Good press? Absolution?
The investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission is still ongoing. One would expect the LDS church (or any accused party) to state that they violated no laws, so why would you take this as a “final answer” regarding the legality of LDS expenditure reporting? That determination has yet to be made.
Dallas, I’d recommend that you read the California Supreme Court decision itself, and see how that court explained the plaintiffs’ right to have their legal union called “marriage.” Whether you agree with the court’s ruling or not, their reasoning is actually quite well explained to any fair-minded person.
I’m sure they’d appreciate the implication that they are not “regular”. For future reference, try using the word “straight”.
You’re pretending that the marriage title isn’t a big deal. When you ask, “Why is this such a fight?” I get the impression that you want it both ways. Think for a moment what it would be like to be on the other side of this issue. You could ask the same question.
As for what same-sex couples are seeking? I would agree that legitimacy, good press, and absolution (for those that have been taught such) are probably good guesses. I think straight people are also looking for these things.
I wonder if part of the reason Mormons are so keen on concerning themselves with this issue is that the majority of them have never talked to same-sex couples about their motivations.
I could speculate that, just as experiencing other cultures has been proven to reduce racism, so too would meeting and talking to same-sex couples help people to understand why it is they want this. It’s my feeling that it’s more likely women than men that are being affected, since it’s such a cultural thing for weddings to be about the bride.
I find it surprising that the church is still living in the dark ages on this issue. In the old days, Church policy was to encourage people with same-sex attractions to get straight marriages, assuming that things would just work themselves out. Now that they realize their mistake (and I believe they are genuinely sorry for it) you’d think they would admit the underlying biological circumstances for the attraction and stop ostracizing them.
“meeting and talking to same-sex couples help people to understand why it is they want this.”
But Jeff, what if I catch ‘the gay’?
Better to just keep them as ‘those other folks’ rather than empathizing, no?
As far as the lds church sticking its’ nose into the state policy debates, I’d say they should concern themselves with cleaning up their own house, and dealing fairly with same-sex attracted saints first.
Once they have some knowledge and experience on the matter, they might be able to better advise states on their policies.
Silus Grok (and others),
It is clear that, under the Internal Revenue Code, certain tax-exempt entities (including churches) that endorse or oppose a candidate for office loses their U.S. federal tax-exempt status. (FWIW, it is not “against the law” for a tax-exempt org to support or oppose candidates; it merely causes that organization to become taxable and causes donations to that organization to no longer be tax-deductible.)
Outside of the candidate area, the lines can get a little murkier–essentially, an organization that dedicates a “substantial part” of its activities to trying to influence legislation (or, frankly, for any noncharitable or non-exempt purpose), it can also lose its exemption. There may be law discussing what constitutes a “substantial part”; suffice it to say that I can’t see how ~$200,000 could constitute a “substantial part” of the Church’s activities.
Maybe a bit of a red herring as far as this discussion is going, but of larger concern to me as a member of the church was not so much the church’s direct involvement in the matter, but the indirect or non-official means that were employed.
Two different friends of mine in two different CA stakes had the similar experience of being interviewed by their bishops during the campaign. The purpose of the interviews was to determine what kind of support they were giving to prop 8. The bishops wanted to know how much money, how much time, how many emails, etc. Then came the missionary type commitment pattern leading to “will you increase your financial and other efforts to….”
Purely anecdotal, but the fact that I had independent reports of the same thing happening in two different stakes really bothered me. If it was just one, I would have said “well, maybe your next bishop won’t be such a tool”. Instead I’ve been wondering if there was some direction from farther up the line.
Jeff Milner says: “To be clear, all same-sex marriage rights were stripped using legal means.”
Nonsense. Nothing is farther from the truth and nothing is a greater distortion of the truth. It is a vast mistatement and just flat out false. Name one “right” that was stripped by passing prop. 8. Just one. In fact, virtually every legal protection and so-called right is still in place under California’a broad civil unions laws. Nothing was changed by passing prop. 8 except that the state doesn’t call the bundle of legal protections and privileges a “marriage,” and instead it calls it a civil union.
So here is the challenge to this jaundiced and misinformed position: identify just one — just one mind you — legal protection or privilege that was changed by passing prop. 8 in addition to what we call the relation at issue. I’d love it if just once these types of misinformed statements actually acknowledge how profoundly misleading they are.
From Wikipedia:
It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples’ right to marry.
There’s one.
And Jeff to be clear — calling something a marriage to legitimate gay relationships is just not something I see as the role of the government. It isn’t the role of government to resolve what is moral and immoral — but what is legal and illegal. The civil government never had authority to do anything more than a civil union and calling what the State does a civil union is simply an accurate description of all that it can do.
If you believe it is the role of government to determine what is moral in the bedroom and to promote certain types of sexual practices as socially legitimate, then watch out. If the state can legitimize gay relationships then it can also delegitimize any type of sexual practice by the same rationale. Do you really want that? You cannot have it both ways – it cannot be both the role of government to determine which sexual practices are legitimate and none of its business.
What is legal or not is usually drawn from what the public considers moral. This is usually determined by judges and/or public polling (as per Prop 8). But of course there are some exceptions.
No, and I’m at a loss as to what would make you think that. Not that I particularly want to be drawn into this tangent, but wouldn’t the obvious assumption be that I think it’s none of the governments business what happens “in the bedroom”?
Furthermore, isn’t that kind of my point?
First off, I disagree with that premise. Secondly, it’s not, as far as I’m aware, illegal to be in a same-sex relationship in the United States. Are we still talking about the same thing?
Jeff, you’re obviously missing the point. The only difference between a civil union and a “gay marriage’ in California is what the relationship is called, what it is named. The bundle of legal privileges and protections are the same for both no matter what we call them.
It follows that what is at issue isn’t legal privileges and protections, but merely whether we will call the relationship marriage. Why is it important that the relation is called “marriage”? Only because the state thereby legitimats gay relationships as normative. But I don’t see it as the role of government to determine what is normative in sexual relations and apparently neither do you. Thus, it is an improperrole for government to undertake to legitimate gay relationships by calling them marriages.
Further, the civil government can have authority only to do “civil” ceremonies and therefore cannnot and ought not perform “marraiges” because marriage is a religious ceremony and I think we’d both agree that government ought not get involved in performing religious ceremonies. Thus, the government could only perform civil unions and ought not to pretend to perform anything like a marriage whether for heterosexual or homosexual unions.
Finally, your Wikipedia blurb is just nonsense. Prop 8 didn’t take away a right or privilege because all of the same privileges and benefits exist under the civil unions statutes in California. All it changes is what we call that relationship. Like I said, you’re not getting the point.
Look, if I have a right to contract, but we call what I enter a “covenant” rather than a contract, but I have all of the same protections and privileges under a covenant that I have under a contract, then only a semantic change has been made and nothing subsantive has happened to my right to contract. It is the same with “gay marriage.” Nothing substantive was lost; only the name.
“Nothing substantive was lost; only the name.”
You make it out like it’s no big deal, and yet it’s such a big deal to those in favour of Prop 8. It looks to me like you’re trying to have it both ways.
Jeff: You’re still not getting it. It is a very big deal when government intrudes where it ought not. Perhaps you don’t care about government overstepping its bounds and socially legislating what is morally approved. I certainly do.
I have asked you to identify just one privilege or protection for gays and lesbians that was affected or “lost” with the passage of prop 8. You haven’t identified any — except it doesn’t get called marriage. You didn’t do that because you can’t.
The reason that those who oppose 8 want to have gay relations called “marriages” when approved by the state of California is that they want the government’s good housekeeping stamp of approval that such relations are morally equivalent to marriage. That just isn’t government’s role as I see it. And you seem to agree with the premise, but reject what logically follows.
However, it is a big deal to those who view homosexual relations as sinful and immoral as I do. I don’t want the government saying that my moral judgments are somehow illegal. I also don’t want the government to privilege gay “marriages” over the religious institutions who teach that such relations are immoral.
Already in California licensing has been denied to any individual or institution that refuses to treat gay relationships as the same as heterosexual relationships. As I’m sure you are well aware, in Northwest Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego State Court, an individual was denied a medical license because she refused to provide the means for a lesbian couple to have children. The Supreme Court of the State of California held that she must be denied a medical license by the state. That means that others, including Catholic and LDS Social Services’ licensing are also in jeopardy if they refuse to recognize and treaty homosexual relations as equivale to heterosexual relations. That was before prop 8 was passed and we have yet to see the impact of such a fundamental change to the California Constitution will have on interpreting other statutes.
However, passage of prop 8 didn’t affect any substantive privilege or protection of gay people (which they still have as civil unions); however, its defeat would lead to further erosion of the rights of religious organization that refused to be bullied by the state into recognizing gay marriages as equivalent to heterosexual marriages.
Look, I’ve already told you that I am in favor of civil unions — just for both gays and heteros. I say that we leave religious ceremonies to religions so that we don’t violate that little thing called the First Amendment. Check out this link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090316/us_time/08599188519000
Agreed.
No, I also care.
So, what you’re saying is, you want two?
I agree that is probably part of why same-sex couples want to be married, yes. I disagree that it’s not the government role—after all, I’m not suggesting that the government did anything wrong. I think you have completely missed my point and are arguing against something that I don’t believe.
In this case, I think it’s the people who pushed for Proposition 8 that are in the wrong.
I’ll be same-sex couples also feel that way.
I think you’ve hit on something VERY important here. Something I think we can both agree on—and it’s too bad that Proposition 8 didn’t stick to just this concern. If it had, perhaps there wouldn’t have been the same backlash and perhaps religious institutions would have been protected. Instead it’s a losing battle that will probably be able to be defeated by 2012.
Good for the Supreme Court in refusing to allow prejudices to run rampant in US society.
But you just finished telling me all the rights you’re trying to take away from them and how the passing of Prop 8 will help that. I would point them out, but you only asked for “one”.
I actually think you are being serious, but you shouldn’t be. Really, that line of thinking is so utterly and completely flawed. Do you really need me to explain why?
Jeff: You still haven’t name one — let alone coming up with two. The only difference for gays is what we call their relationship once sanctioned by the State. So you haven’t identified anything at all. I’m still waiting. What did it change for gays except for the name of what we call the ceremony that joins them? I’ll be looking . . . still.
And yeah, I’d love to hear why you think the First Amendment separation clause isn’t important so that the state can peform what are essentially religious ceremonies. So tell me why the state can do more than perform a civil ceremony. This ought to be good.
I believe that those who opposed prop 8 were the one involving government in an inappropriate role. Explain to me how you can accept that the State ought to not sanction some relations as morally superior or equivalent yet it is OK to do it with gay marriage.
Yes… That’s one! Now stop being obtuse.
As for others, well, why not look at the example you have so kindly provided:
You’re loud and clear that you think civil unions are the same as marriage, but then you turn around and point out how it’s such a travesty that same-sex couples are going to, legally speaking, need to be treated equally. Are you catching onto the dissonant aspects of your argument?
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
I re-read the article you posted and found a couple of interesting things. First off, the article itself points out that
I think that’s a HUGE understatement. Even if they said, old marriages are safe but starting now the state is no longer doing them, the outcry would be deafening.
But let’s see how the article says it won’t matter because, “the folks who cling hardest to marriage are gay couples.” This is outrageous.
Outrageous.
Think of every straight married couple you know and try and parse them through this blatant lie. You honestly think parents that have been married for 50 years are going to roll over on this issue easier than “the gays”. You honestly think the massive majority of the population, which generally speaking, all want straight marriages, are not going to cling the hardest?
Oh, well they can still get married in the church, you say. Well, forgive me for being in touch with some degree of reality when I say, that assumption is completely backwards. We’re talking about big numbers here. There would be a backlash unlike anything you’ve ever imagined.
Let’s keep pressing forward and assume for your argument’s sake, that only churches could perform marriages, and that everybody was fine and dandy with that solution because, hey… we solved that pesky equal rights issue.
How long would it take for same-sex couples to show up at the local Unitarian church and get married. It would happen THAT SAME DAY. Then we’d be back at square one. Oh, except everyone would be royally ticked off.
I missed this one:
I don’t know why you think I have any issue with the State legislating what is legal and illegal. I have no issue with that. I’m not remotely an anarchist.
I want to point out that same-sex marriages have been legal in Canada for a long time and the sky, to my knowledge, has not yet fallen.
Oh, one other thing that saddens me you didn’t come back to, because I think we can find common ground, was your statement that:
This is the fight that the church should have gotten behind. And my question for you is, what could the church have done differently to make this happen? (Or can do in the future).
I, for one, don’t agree with the proposition of creating something that carries every right, privilege and responsibility of marriage and calling it something else. If it walks like a duck, why call it by another name? If it’s substantively identical to marriage, then it’s marriage. The focus ought to be on whether governments choose to confer exactly the same rights, privileges and responsibilities on one set of people as they do on another—not whether the same thing is called by one name for one set of people and another name for another set. Furthermore, I don’t think the Church’s aim in involving itself in various initiatives on marriage is just to ensure that a particular word isn’t used in describing something that is, for all intents and purposes, marriage.
Jeff: It’s frustrating to blog with you because you don’t read carefully — or you just ignore the obvious. I asked: “Explain to me how you can accept that the State ought to not sanction some relations as morally superior or equivalent yet it is OK to do it with gay marriage.”
You responded: “I don’t know why you think I have any issue with the State legislating what is LEGAL and ILLEGAL. I have no issue with that. I’m not remotely an anarchist.”
Note how you changed my comment from legislating what is moral and immoral to what is legal and illegal. These are two very different concepts. You don’t want the government getting involved in determining what is moral or immoral — my point was precisely that the sole purpose for the argument for recognition of gay “marriage” has to do with the state sanctioning such relationships as MORALLY equivalent to heterosexual relations. All of the protections already provided by civil unions are already legally equivalent.
You also failed to read carefully (or even at all) what I said about civil unions and gay marriage. I asked you to tell me just one privilege or protection lost by the passage of prop. 8 EXCEPT WHAT WE CALL IT, I.E., MARRIAGE. You responded: Well, they don’t have the right to marry.
Your (non)response is completely nonsensical since you didn’t pay attention. Yeah, we don’t call it marriage. So what? What LEGAL privilege or protection for gays has been lost or gained? None — except the semantic issue of what we call it.
I agree with you that many people will be emotionally attached to calling what the state does marriage instead of a civil union. So what? Who cares about such feelings when they exalt a civil ceremony to something more than a civil union and entail that the State is engaged in the equivalent of what is essentially a religious ceremony or rite. Such feelings must give way to the 1st Amendment which forbids such nonsense.
Ltbugaf: You’re too late. California has already created civil unions which are simply equivalent in terms of legal privileges and protections to what the state has called “marriage”. When you say that the focus ought to be on the rights, privileges and responsibilities, not what we call it, you’re merely agreeing with me. Gays did not lose anything by the passage of prop 8 except having the state call their civil union a marriage.
However, as I outlined above, the Church and its members actually stood to lose substantive rights and privileges if prop 8 didn’t pass — the right to be licensed by the state and to treat gays and lesbians differently in terms of social services support. The church doesn’t (and ought not) provide adoptions for gay couples. It doesn’t recognize them as being married and promotes married heterosexual couples as the norm to be maintained. Under the Northwest Coast case, it is fairly evident that the Church would be denied a license to practices social services counselling and to perform adoptions. That is a very significant loss. Indeed, it would entail that the Church’s effort to assist with licensed counselling and adoptions would have to give way the “right” of gays to call their relationships “marriage” — with substantive rights being taken away from LDS in favor of the semantic stamp of approval by the state for such gay relations.
So gays lose nothing substantive when prop 8 passes, but the Church gained important protections against the state discriminating against it because it won’t change the nature of the acts it recognizes as sinfil and contrary to its teachings.
Now let me be clear — being gay per se is not sinful. However, the church regards homosexual conduct as inherently sinful and contrary to God’s plan for the family as the central unit of exaltation. It has every right to promote such a normative view and to critique the existing culture that says otherwise.
Yeah, we don’t call it marriage. So what? What LEGAL privilege or protection for gays has been lost or gained? None — except the semantic issue of what we call it.
While I should find the above comment disgusting, I can’t help but laugh at it. The only appropriate response, of course is to say the following: “Yeah, so we call legally recognized unions between same-sex partners marriage. So what? What LEGAL privilege or protection for heterosexuals has been lost or gained? None — except the semantic issue of what we call marriages between persons of the same sex.”
Your comment illustrates the REAL motivation of those who try to “protect” marriage by denying it to same-sex couples. You folks simply are passing a religiously-based judgement that same-sex couples are UNWORTHY of the title of “marriage.” You look so poorly on same-sex couples, that you actually think it would diminish the word, “marriage,” if it was applied to those who you consider substandard, unworthy, and ultimately subhuman. It’s far more than just a “semantic” issue, and your attempt to make gays and lesbians consider it one is a poor mask for your contempt.
Nick: Your statement about “you folks” demonstrates more clearly than anything that I can say how you fail to grasp that you are the bigot here.
However, you are right that to the extent any relationship could pass for “marriage” no matter what shows that the word has lost all meaning.
However, the sheer hatred of your comment, the lack of any reasoning or rationale, the sheer refusal to engage the issues in a way acceptable to responsible dialogue, does more tototally invalidate what you say than anything one of “us folks” could possibly say. Are you always so hateful — or is your emotional outburst here truly how you interact with others?
ROTFLOL! Blake, you’ve obviously learned well from the people at the LDS Public Affairs Department, who in turn learned their craft from the evangelical anti-gay movement! Black is white, white is black, anti-gay bigotry is love, and anyone who dares call you on your bigotry is an EEE-VIL HATER who’s “taking away your rights” to legally discriminate against same-sex couples!
We all note, of course, that you pretend to completely misunderstand what I wrote, twist it beyond all recognition, and pretend I’ve “agreed” with your nonsensical argument. We also note that you didn’t bother to refute the fact that your REAL obection to the use of “marriage” to describe legally-recognized same-sex couples is your contemptuous determination that same-sex couples are unworthy of that respected title.
Nick: Your apparent inability to grasp the issues is fairly apparent. You don’t engage anything I’ve said, you assert insults and call names. I didn’t have to “refute” the “fact” that the real objecrtion to marriage has anything to do with “unworthiness” since I’ve said nothing about worthiness at all and you have come in here refusing to engage in good faith dialogue and insistence that I must mean something different than I say.
You’re not doing your cause any good here. I supported prop 8 because gays lost nothing substantive and the church stood to lose substantive rights if it didn’t pass. I’ve argued that we ought to treat both homo an d heteros equally under the civil law.
What is really happening here is that you refuse to engage the arguments because to do would require you to think beyond your prejudices and bigotry.
So here is the challenge Nick — I’m asking for just a shred of decency on your part and some sense of rationality — which so far you have failed to show even in the least. Name one substantive protection or privilege lost by passage of prop. 8 by gay couples expcet what they call their union. Just one mind you without the mindless “well, they can’t call their ceremony marriage” that I got from Jeff.
Your tantrums here are really insulting only to you.
WOW, Blake…Do you have any idea how amazing it is to watch you go over the top like this? Take some time to study “cognitive dissonance reductionism,” and you’ll understand why we’re all a little bemused at your behavior!
Poor guy—You can’t handle being called on your game, so you pull out the “I know you are, but what am I?” card. Then, for good measure, you play the “Name one example” game, where each time someone points something out, you say “Well THAT one doesn’t count!” The only thing that mitigates the humor here is the real sadness–sadness that you’re so invested in the talking points of the anti-gay movement, that you probably even BELIEVE what you’re typing.
So go right ahead, Blake! Wield that sword of lies and injustice, in defense of untruth and unrighteousness! After all, your deity will reward you for deception, so long as it’s in his name, right?
Nick: I can see how you’ve engaged in a hateful and contemptible manner here. You engage in personal attacks. I asked for a simple thing — anything lost by passage of prop. 8. Your response? Nothing but childish nonsense and no response in sight. Why is that? I suggest it is because you cannot respond except to call names and belittle yourself by your 4-year-old antics.
As for the anti-gay movement I belong to — I have supported civil unions long before you came out of the closet. But you don’t need to keep making a complete fool of yourself, you’ve already convinced me that you are bigot, an irrational idealogue without capacity for rational discussion.
The only person who has been judgmental and accused somebody of being unrighteous in this exchange is you — with exhibit A your last post.
So once again, just one privilege or protection. Come on, show us you can give us just one rational response. I’ll make a point of referring to this exchange when I dialogue with gays who argue thoughtlessly and mindlessly “but I hate all of you because you’re so hateful, I just hate others who hate others.” Your self-loathing couldn’t be clearer and your inability to come up with anything rational in response to my very reasonable request any more glaring.
Come on Nick, show us you can do something other than hate and call names — can you identify just one thing except a change in what we call it?
First off, I have to commend ltbugaf. Even though I know we don’t see eye-to-eye on this issue, at least he is willing to admit where the line is drawn.
As for Blake’s comment and my response, let me try again:
I think I understand why it was not clear in regard to what you were trying to get at. I never did it intentionally as a weasel manoeuvre. I think the confusion stems from the difference between the state legislating morals vs. laws. Am I correct?
It’s my way of thinking, (and perhaps this is why I appeared to change what you were getting at), that when a state legislates something, it decides what is legal or illegal. Therefore it’s sort of a confusing mixture, I don’t consider them to be “legislating morals”. They legislate the law.
In this particular case, they ruled in favour of a ban against same-sex marriage. In some ways a moral decision, but ultimately a legal one. Hence my response.
If I’m still missing what you’re trying to get at, it’s because I really don’t know what position you’re putting me in by saying, “[I] can accept that the State ought to not sanction some relations as morally superior or equivalent”. I’m not sure what that means.
I do think the state should sanction same-sex marriages. Please don’t accuse me of being daft, though that might be the case, but I just don’t get what you’re trying to say.
Oh and Nick, my ribs still hurt from the laughter I got when you accused me of adopting the church’s PR stance. Wow, I didn’t realize that they called for civil unions for heteros as well as for gays. If you would just post the link to the Church PR taling-points website where that suggestion is made for all of us to see then I would be a lot clearer how I’m just mimicking the position of the Church thoughtlessly. I’ll be looking for it Nick . . . don’t let me down now. I really need that link.
Until you are willing to admit that the loss of the right to get married is significant, I’m not going to go any further with it.
Originally you asked for, “identify just one — just one mind you — legal protection or privilege”.
You’ve refused to admit that not being able to get married is a privilege, and a significant one at that. There are now ~18,000 married people that don’t know the legal standing of their marriages because of that loss. I’m sure they all consider it a huge loss.
Jeff: The failure in communication here is probably mine. Here is what I am saying: (1) gays lost nothing substantive by passage of prop. 8 because civil unions remain in place and provide all of the same privileges and protections as gay “marriage”. (2) Since there are no substative rights involved for gays in the marriage issue, what is really at issue is whether the State will sanction gay relationships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage. (3) The equivalenchy sought by gays is not legal equivalence because theyt already have that thry civil unions. The real issue is social acceptance of their relations as morally equiivalent to heterosexual relations. (5) Gays care about this issue, if they are informed, not because of the substantive privileges and protections (since none are lost by passing prop 8) but because they don’t want their relationships to be seen as morally inferior to heterosexual relationships. They believe that if the state recognizes gay marriage that their relationships are declared to be on equal moral footing as well as equal legal footing (which they already have without gay marriage). (6) It is not the role of government to make such moral declarations.
That is my line of reasoning broken down a bit more. Does that make it clearer?
One more point; while committed gay relationships are morally superior to promiscious relationships with many partners, I believe that it is obvious that the State has a much greater interest in fostering heterosexual relationships because of obvious issues related to the potential to foster offspring (wanted and unwanted) and the nature of the mother/father relationship as role models for children. Now I’m well aware that single have children and gays in many states adopt children. What I’m saying is that these exceptions don’t change the fact that the State still has a greater interest in heterosexual relationships (that was the rationale of the New York court in rejecting gay marriage challenges). That is a new argument that I am making now here.
Jeff: You’re right — in the context of pre-existing civil unions that give all of the same privileges and protections, what we call the union of gays is not legally significant for gays. It is morally and legally significant for the Church since it stands to lose extremely important privileges.
However, a refusal to go further in naming anything lost seems to me to be more likely really just an excuse for being unable to further. You’re dodging the issue by refusing to acknowledge that nothing but the name changed for gays when prop. 8 passed.
For all your talk about how same-sex couples are still protected under all the same rights and privileges as married couples, it feels a bit insulting to my intelligence when you turn around and say, oh but the church gets to hold them to a different standard because they are no longer protected from the church singling them out.
How are they protected equally when obviously they are not equal in terms of how religious institutions treat them? The right of the church to serve who they please conflicts with their right to be served.
If your response to this is that, no, they are still protected by all the same rights and privileges as straight couples—you have to understand why that seems disingenuous. If the church is protected, that protection is one of the rights and privileges that has been robbed from same-sex couples.
Their right to discriminate makes the rest of the folks, that see same-sex attraction as a biological fact of life, think the church is acting in a bigoted manner. It’s feels tacky that the perpetrator is claiming to be the victim. The argument is, if you don’t let me discriminate against x, then I’m being discriminated against because my rights are being robbed, meanwhile saying my discrimination isn’t really robbing them of anything—well I call BS.
I understand where the church is coming from. I just think the Prop 8. fight wasn’t the right one to get behind. You appear only concerned with how the changes in law affect the church. You propagate the theory that by not calling same-sex unions a marriage that suddenly the flood gates of permission to refuse service to same-sex couples opens up. It seems I can’t say it enough to get through to you, these rights that the church is holding onto, are exactly the type of thing I’m talking about when I say, same-sex rights that were lost.
In my mind, the church should have gotten behind a proposition that focused on protecting religious institutions. One that gave them the right to give the cold shoulder to same-sex couples wanting to be married on church property or the ability to metaphorically tell same-sex couples to get lost when they come looking for social services.
I still wouldn’t agree with them, but at least I could see how they were looking out for their own comfort zone / moral compass.
Remember how you thought I was twisting things earlier? I hope this only appears as a twisting of things. You start off saying I’m right, but then continue with the opposite of my opinion. Was this intentional?
And I don’t think I dodged the issue, I feel like I’ve been pointing out these rights and privileges for a few posts now. I sometimes feel perhaps you’re not reading carefully either.
As for your topic of getting rid of marriage from the State and letting churches handle it. Do you still think it’s a good idea considering the fact that many churches would provide marriage services for same-sex couples? Wouldn’t the end result be kind of similar to just allowing the state to perform same-sex marriages?
I’m wondering how those who vociferously argue that government should not withhold the legal institution of marriage from those who want to marry a member of the same sex feel about other types of marriage that are also forbidden: For example, what’s your take on government denying people the right to marry their near relatives, or the right to marry more than one spouse at a time, even when all potential spouses are consenting adults? If any of you feel like addressing this, I’d be interested to see your responses.
I mention this, in part, because Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court has pointed out, quite sensibly in my view, that if we accept the proposition that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, then there is simply no way to argue that prohibiting polygamy is constitutional. Even setting aside the sheer absurdities of that court’s 19th century polygamy rulings, I think he’s right.
Of course, I realize this is a Canadian ‘blog, and I’m emphasizing the American legal system. But then again, this thread is about an American phenomenon. I’m interested in both US and Canadian views.
Jeff, you seem to be asserting that people have a “right” to be treated a certain way by a private organization or party. But that’s never been true. I don’t have a right to have you call me your friend or invite me over to watch a football game, even if you treat other people that way. You can discriminate against me all you want. If we adopted the view I think you’re espousing, then every girl would have a right to go to the prom with a certain boy because, if he asks one of them, he must ask all.
The reason for the taboo of marrying relatives is that often offspring from that relationship will develop with mental and physical disabilities.
I’m certain I wouldn’t feel comfortable with a same-sex couple that were also brothers/sisters wanting to marry, despite the fact that the reason for the taboo wouldn’t exist in their case. That being said, I probably wouldn’t try to pass new laws to stop them.
As someone that comes from both a church and a heritage of plural marriages, I don’t see it as inherently wrong, if, as you say, all potential spouses are consenting adults. It’s another issue when one party feels obligated by a spouse or religious authority.
In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the states, as I understand it, each state has a set of constitutional rights. Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I’m under the impression that people do have certain rights even when dealing with private organizations or parties.
And therefore the prom analogy doesn’t match up.
Don’t get me wrong, I see what you’re saying about how my right to choose a date might conflict with every girl’s “right” to go with who they wanted. Nobody has a right to force someone else to go with them, if they don’t want.
I believe they do, however, have rights with regard to state licenced institutions. Aren’t there laws that make sure they will be treated equally? Isn’t that why proposition 8 was passed, to counteract those laws?
When we look at what the California Supreme Court has ruled in re Marriage Cases (2008). They hold that “statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny” and the existing “California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.”
Of course the power in those statements is inhibited by proposition 8, but nevertheless, it appears to me (IANAL) that the state’s constitutional rights are supposed to protect same-sex couples’ rights.
But surely you aren’t suggesting that anything someone does out of a sense of religious duty is therefore wrong? Whether it’s marriage, or serving in a ward calling, or anything else?
I’m no expert on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but let me try to explain the US Constitutional system: The states are the original seat of sovereign power. In adopting the Constitution, they ceded certain powers to the Federal government, such as the right to print money, to maintain armed forces, to levy taxes on the states, to regulate interstate commerce, and so forth. Each state may have certain rights expressed in its own constitution, but by and large our attention is focused on the Federal Constitution and the individual rights it enumerates. That’s by no means a complete explanation, but I hope it’s a good start.
The rights expressed in our Constitution are essentially protections against the power of government. Freedom of speech, for example, means that the government can’t intervene to force people to say or not say something. However, it has little or nothing to do with private individuals or organizations. If someone wants to preach neo-Nazi doctrine, for example, the government can’t usually stop him, but I can certainly kick him out of my house.
The US Constitution says nothing about sexual conduct, but the one word “liberty” has been widely construed by our court to encompass all sorts of rights, including the right to engage in various types of sexual behavior. That right, however, does not mean an individual or a church has to approve of that behavior, or encourage it, or even tolerate it. You can discriminate against me for my conduct and I can discriminate against you for yours.
Now, there are certain laws that forbid discrimination on certain bases, for people who are offering public accommodations. For example, we decided about half a century ago to start making taxis, buses, restaurants, hotels and so on offer their services on an equal basis regardless of skin color or ethnicity. But our law does not, nor should it, compel a church to treat everyone the same regardless of whether they violate the teachings of that church.
The ajority of justices on California’s Supreme Court took the position that the “strict scrutiny” standard which is currently applied in US law to discrimination by government on the basis of race or sex should also be applied to the question of same-sex marriage. That’s not an untenable legal position, but it certainly isn’t an inevitable one. One point the court ignores entirely is that laws limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman are applied equally to everyone regardless of sex or sexual desire.
By the way, there’s another small point I’ve been wondering about: Aren’t you being a bit inflammatory in the way you titled this post? In saying the Church “admits” it did this you seem to be saying the Church lied about it previously or concealed it. Is that accurate?
Surely not.
But surely you’re not equating marriage done out of a sense of religious duty to serving a ward calling or “anything else”. (How can I know what anything else means?)
Regardless, they are very different things. Taking a ward calling that you don’t feel excited about or comfortable with is completely different than entering a marriage you don’t want. It feels silly to even make the comparison.
Here’s a question I have….why was it so important to the church to fight this in California? It sure gives credence to the idea that this is an “American Religion”.
The fight about gay marriage just happened in Canada.Sure didn’t see the involvement of the church here.
Many other countries also allow gay marriages. The church hasn’t seemed to have noticed.
Doesn’t the moral fabric of other countries matter? How come it’s so important in the states?
Dawn
OK, but what about really long and difficult things that people do out of a sense of religious duty? Take the missions of Paul, for example. Or the sufferings of Christ.
Perhaps it’s a function of where the Church is most able to muster its people and resources to influence issues such as this. There’s a gigantic number of Latter-day Saints in California. The numbers are nowhere nearly so great in many other areas.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this—are you planning to somehow reconnect with the topic?
I’ll go out on a limb and answer what I think is your question. Entering a marriage one does not want is NOT the same as “really long and difficult things that people do out of a sense of religious duty”. Including “the missions of Paul” or “the sufferings of Christ”.
You seem to be saying, in comment 42, that if a person feels any sense of religious obligation regarding how, where, when or whom he or she marries, then that feeling is illegitimate and a result of the abuse of power.
I don’t think it’s wrong to connect a sense of religious duty to something like marriage any more than it would be wrong to connect that sense of duty to something like crossing the great plains in a handcart, going on long and arduous missionary journeys, bleeding in Gethsemane, or any of a host of other things that induce misery.