Sunday, September 28, 2008

Prop 8: The Personal Stuff

I posted some info, now I'm going to post the personal stuff.

I don't think that the Prop 8 items distract from the gospel whatsoever. The gospel is true but it means very little unless its put into action.

The Prophet has asked us to do everything in our power to help with this. So for me this is just me exercising the things that I've been taught within the confides of the gospel. This is about protecting marriage and about protecting families. I've prayed about this, and I feel that its what the Lord has asked me to do through his prophet. It is supported by the Family Proclamation and everything that we hold sacred about families.

This isn't an attack on me or anyone who struggles with same gender attraction who is trying to stay faithful to the gospel. This is about a few people trying to redefine what is basic in society.

As for people saying ignorant things, do you mean people who are legitimately misinformed or people who disagree with me? Sometimes I find that term ignorant to be used more in the latter sense.

To be honest I have found that it has provided us with an opportunity to really educate those in the church about why we believe its a sin and dispels some silly and really ignorant ideas. Its helped members know that it is possible to struggle with same gender attraction and be a faithful, temple recommended holding Latter-day Saint, its made people stop and rethink why they think the way they have, and its provided a way for Latter-day Saints to get involved with other like minded Christians to help do the same about our various faiths.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Prop 8 and Background on the 8 Consequenses

I have attached three things to this post. The first is a memo in response to several documents circulating that claim to argue against information sent to LDS Church leaders about the Consequences if Prop 8 fails. The second is the actual response with links and suplimental research material on the topic, the third is a copy of the actual "Six Consequences" memo. I hope this info is helpful. All three are from the source and aren't from second hand sources. There is also a wealth of info at the newsroom at and

As a side, don't go to seeking info in favor of the measure, its been purchased by the NO group and is used to direct traffic there way.

By now probably most of you seen a document circulating that attempts to refute the Six Consequences piece we are using to describe what could happen should Prop 8 fail. This anti Prop 8 document comes in different forms and supposedly from different sources. One apparent source is from LDS members who are opposed to Prop 8 because they believe the LDS Church is wrong. Another apparent source is from LDS members who claim to be in favor of Prop 8 but “believe” the Six Consequences are erroneous and not well grounded in the law.

Whatever the source the purpose is the same---to undercut YES on Prop 8 arguments and specifically the Six Consequences.

The Six Consequences literature we have been circulating has its origin and roots in the document found on the official LDS website. This document is entitled “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” What the opposition has been circulating attempts to undercut the legal concerns the Church expresses. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the Church’s legal concerns ( Six Consequences literature) have been vetted at the highest level and have taken into consideration the best legal advice possible.

The piece I have attached above, authored by William C. Duncan, spells out the legal opinions and precedents that undergird the Six Consequences literature. As you see fit please feel free to circulate the Duncan document.

Most people are rightfully leery of buying something just because the seller touts his or her personal religious activity. In California, right now, there are groups working to defeat Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Part of their sales pitch is their religious identity.

They feel the need to advertise this because their own church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has officially announced its support for the common-sense measure that would reverse the actions of a bare majority of the California Supreme Court that ruled in May that a hitherto unknown and still unwritten provision of that state’s constitution required that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples.

Most recently, an attorney and a group calling itself “Mormons for Marriage” have been attacking the idea that redefining marriage in California creates possible negative ramifications for religious liberty in this state. They have attempted to refute an anonymous document that lists some of these potential ramifications. They say the document misconstrues legal precedents and that, actually, there is no reason to worry that churches and religious believers will be harmed in any way if California redefines marriage.

Anyone can read the LDS Church’s official statement on the issue, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” published on August 13, 2008 and available on the Church’s website for a careful and persuasive examination of this question that concludes that the redefinition of marriage does bode ill for religious liberty. Interestingly, one of the attacks cites to the Church statement to argue that the debate over marriage should be civil (a point on which all hopefully agree) but does not note this section.

In addition, eminent religious liberty scholars who have a variety of opinions on the subject of same-sex marriage all agree that a conflict between the state and religious organizations and believers is an inevitable result of redefining marriage understood to be a given.

The California Supreme Court itself has made it abundantly clear that it does not think the Federal or State Constitutions provide a religious exemption to laws mandating identical treatment of same-sex couples or gay and lesbian individuals. In a recent, unanimous, opinion to this effect, the court said a doctor could not invoke his religious beliefs in a lawsuit brought against him because he did not provide an artificial insemination procedure to a woman in a same-sex couple. See North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego Superior Court, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 708 (Cal. 2008). In its opinion, the court said that even under the legal standard most protective of religious liberty the doctor would lose because the state had a compelling interest in requiring identical treatment of homosexuals. One judge wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the result and identifying the court’s
same-sex marriage decision as the authority for the proposition that every law must treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly the same. Ibid. at 722 (opinion of Justice Baxter).

Since many churches’ religious beliefs do not allow them to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples, it is not very hard to see that the court’s ruling sets up a serious quandary for believers.

Those who are now arguing that “all is well” for religious liberty say that it is not the redefinition of marriage that has caused these changes. In one way they are right, but their argument is also very misleading. It is true that states which have not redefined marriage have significantly interfered with religious liberty in advancing the cause of gay rights. They have relied on state statutes enacted by legislatures. These statutes, though, could be amended to make exceptions for religious groups. When the court redefines marriage, however, it makes the issue a constitutional matter and the court interpretation will trump any statutory exemption and might, as the California Supreme Court ruled, even outweigh other constitutional rights like religious freedom.

This is what the U.S. Supreme Court held in a famous case brought to remove the tax exemption of a religious college, Bob Jones University, which at the time forbade interracial dating. The government argued successfully in that case that the university should have its tax exemption revoked because the government’s policy of ending racial discrimination outweighed any other consideration. See Bob Jones University v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574 (1983)

It is common sense to most of us that racial discrimination is wrong and that a belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a different matter. When the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage had to be redefined, however, they turned the issue of marriage into a civil rights issue and gave official government endorsement to the idea that those who believe in husband/wife marriage are bigots. The Bob Jones case and many other laws teach us that the law does not tolerate those it considers to be bigots.

Proposition 8 would overrule the California Supreme Court’s holding about marriage and allow those who believe in marriage to continue that belief without the official stigma of being considered bigots.

The marriage decision will have effects beyond religious liberty. One of the most obvious is that it requires schools to teach students of every age that there is no difference between marriage between a husband and wife and between same-sex couples. California law now requires that students in public schools from kindergarten on must be taught about “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” California Education Code 51890] Now that marriage has been officially redefined, any discussion of marriage must include discussions of same-sex marriage. Another provision of the law forbids discrimination in any school program on the basis of “sexual orientation” which reinforces this policy. California Education Code 200

This is not a hypothetical concern. In Massachusetts, the only other state to redefine marriage, this exact situation has arisen. Parents who objected to pro-gay curriculum at their children’s elementary school lost their lawsuit seeking an injunction to exempt their children from the material, in part because a federal court said the public schools “have an interest in promoting tolerance, including for the children (and parents) of gay marriages.” See Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008).

There are other religious liberty concerns as well. In Canada, where marriage has been redefined, a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was fined for canceling a reception for a same-sex couple’s wedding. See Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus, 2005 BCHRT 544 (2005) The list could go on.

These concerns do not exhaust the potential harms to which Proposition 8 would respond.

When the California Supreme Court redefined marriage, they did so not only for the small group who might benefit from the change but for every citizen of the State of California. This change means that the law of California now strongly endorses three ideas: men and women are essentially interchangeable, children do not need a mother and father and those who disagree are bigots.

In reality, every healthy human society, across time and cultures, has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for those children and for each other. Marriage is fundamentally about children’s needs, not adult desires.

Our society owes children the opportunity, whenever possible, to know and develop a meaningful bond with their own mother and father. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to provide this opportunity.

California law now creates intentionally motherless or fatherless families where children will not experience the unique contributions of at least one of their parents.

Decades of social science research has effectively demonstrated that the best arrangement for children’s well being is to be raised by their own mother and father who are married to each other. Even married couples that do not have children promote society’s concern for children by providing an example to those that do and, by observing their marriage vows, preventing the creation of other motherless or fatherless homes.

Proposition 8 is not about taking people’s rights away. It is a simple way to protect marriage. It is also the last chance California voters may have to get their say on this matter.

William Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Protect Marriage campaign in California or of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified If Proposition 8 Fails

1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage. The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)

Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”

6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles