Let me see if I understand something - they put the whole “gay marriage” thing to a vote and lost. So now it’s okay to get mad and oppress some small religious group because they don’t agree? Sounds like someone can’t handle ‘freedom of religion’ or ‘freedom of speech’ very well. Really, if they couldn’t handle the possibility of losing, why did they run the risk? I just can’t agree with belittling or being accusatory of a whole religion like that. Politics I can handle, but I draw the line at religion. I already know that’s going to make me a target of everyone’s ire, so go right ahead and call a total stranger names; I don’t care, nothing you say will ever make me change.
Gay marriage had already been approved. People had gotten married, legally. Then “they” (whoever “they” are) fought to get the ban on the ballot, and succeeded. The expectation was that it would fail, but now the claim is that because of the money the Mormon church pumped into the cause, and because of the large turnout for Obama, the ban passed. So people that followed the law are finding their marriages to be “illegal” after the fact. In all probability, a measure to allow gay marriage will be brought up again, and will likely pass.
Seems the church opens itself up for criticism when it enters the political arena - if it had confined itself to banning gay marriage between its members, or in its places of worship, no one would say anything. If you are going to join the fray, though, you can’t claim immunity to people disagreeing with you.
By the way, gay marriage has been legal for a few years now, where I live. The sky has not fallen.
edcoyote: Wrong, the people of California said No to homosexual marriage through a law that was on the ballot a few years ago and a few judge’s said you can’t do that. So the people of California said No to homosexual marriage again and made it state constitution where the judges couldn’t strike it down.
Besides, why pick on the LDS church? The Catholics and other religious groups were in on it as well. But the Mormons have been an easy target since the 1800’s.
/p.s. as a “Mormon”, I’m quite happy. I don’t have to worry about drunk driving, AIDS, or any other problems that come with vices. I’m having a lot of fun with life.
The difference is that the Catholic Church itself did not fund the Proposition. The Knights of Columbus did. A few fringe Christian groups like Focus on the Family also helped fund it, but in the case of the CoJCoLDS, it was the CHURCH ITSELF pumping money in. Big difference.
Machtyn, I’m all in favor of all the good things churches do for their members, and I include even the most conservative denominations in that. The Mormons, Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists and so forth have many good and valuable teachings to their credit. However, I resent it like all git-out when any religious group, or coalition thereof, gets their foot into the political door and starts trying to get laws passed or constitutions changed in ways that limit the rights we had under the prior laws.
Allow me also to point out that being a member of any religious faith does not insulate you from what are sometimes called “the seven deadly sins”, or from the consequences thereof. At most, it gives you a set of criteria to strive for, and a support group to assist when you need help. It does not give you the right to hold the general population to the same set of standards, even when you represent a majority in the voting population. This would be known as “tyranny of the majority”, and is one of the reasons for the difference in representation between the House and Senate, and for the three-branch system of government.
The founder of the Mormons, Joseph Smith, served time as a con man in New York state before he invented Mormonism and moved West. There are some interesting parallels between his treasure scam and the “golden tablets” that the Book of Moron was allegedly transcribed from.
Nugget0, that is partially correct, but incomplete. The federal courts are charged with assessing the constitutionality of laws, and if they determine that a law is not constitutionally valid, they have the ability to strike it down, regardless of the opinion of a majority vote. When this happens, a constitutional amendment is required to restore the law, and even then the US Supreme Court can strike down such an amendment if they determine that it contravenes our national Constitution.
When this happens, the losing side usually spouts off about “activist judges.”
The upside to the whole California debacle is that it only passed with 52% of the vote, and many younger voters were in favour of allowing gay marriage. With luck, it will be a brief and self-solving problem.
In the meantime, British Columbia is a lovely spot to get married, especially in the summer, and gay marriage is legal across all of Canada!
Indeed it is, Mr. Raven. A couple of my acquaintance did just exactly that a couple of months ago, and came home from Vancouver for a church service (standing room only) at our local UCC.
I love being an American. We have freedoms that are unfathomable to much of the world. Our founding fathers and those who braved the sea and unknown believed that there should be a separation between church and state.
So, please, let’s keep our belief/faith systems out of our civic lives.
You go talk to your God and I’ll deal with mine.
This should never have been or should never be a political issue.
How much of the money supporting prop 8 came from out of state? National elections aren’t allowed to be supported by foreign interests; shouldn’t state elections be held to a comparable standard?
I felt the same way about Rob Sherman, the “Buffalo Grove Atheist”. Some 20 years ago, he recruited a guy to move to Zion IL for the specific purpose of establishing residency then filing a lawsuit against the city for having a cross on their town seal. He had no business sticking his nose into a community he was not a part of. Normally, I sympathize with atheists’ interests (even though I’m not one), but crossing state and town lines just to make trouble definitely stinks.
I heard last night that only about 62% of our eligible voters voted, nationally. That’s not even a record… apparently in the 1960 election, we made it up to 67%. Given the crowds and long lines last week, it makes one wonder whether our system would simply collapse if we ever make it up into the 80%-90% range.
Wow! How many hot buttons can we push in one strip? Roger: your comments are right on but I would have to say that I believe that the church has a responbsibility to speak out and state its position on issues, particularly what it sees as moral ones. You can question how far they should go but silence would be the same as approval. These very emotional issues are often tough for individual congregations to deal with as there are usually strong feelings on different sides. This is where love and understanding come into play and are hopefully the strong point of the church.
And Frida: separation of church and state is there to keep the government out of the religion business - as in establishing an official, or mandatory one. The founding fathers would not have dreamed (I don’t think) of forbidding the church to comment on or criticize government
cadgyod - it’s definitely a fine line there. We have to allow the churches to have free speech, just like the rest of us, which obviously includes public statements of opinions and criticism of government, but when religious groups (whether churches or PACs or 527s) are supporting specific propositions which would require non-religious but law-abiding citizens to conform to a set of standards approved by those religious groups, I think we have a problem. And yes, I think this includes our laws against voluntary polygamy, as well as other non-traditional marriages and relationships, as long as the affected parties are all consenting adults. The founding fathers probably weren’t thinking in terms wherein “religious freedom” could also mean “freedom FROM religion”, but times change and the constitution needs to adapt. Obviously, the founding fathers did recognise this need, because they included procedures for constitutional amendment.
Just an aside… when Spain persecuted the Jews, during the Inquisition, they eventually succeeded in driving away most of the people who actually understood international finance and banking. When Spain also lost the gold shipments as their South American colonies went independent, so that the gold could no longer make up the losses from bad business practices and overspending, Spain became for almost 150 years the “poor man of Europe” and is only recently coming out of that phase. Imagine what would happen if most of our creative writers, musicians, actors, and others from professions which traditionally contain a preponderance of liberals and non-traditionals, up and moved out of our universities, businesses, and tax base. Think of the benefits which would accrue to Europe and Canada!
Roger: I think you and I are iin agreement on just about everything here. I do think though that if you are going to restrict religious organizations from trying to influence an issue you have to not allow any other groups with an interest in the question to push their opinion.
absolutely… I’m not against any group in particular. I’ve also got “issues” with PACs, 527s, and other organizations that muddy the waters and don’t clearly state all sides of any question… but unfortunately, as long as we have our present electoral method, I see no other viable methods for educating the electorate about the issues. If we outlaw the various NGO’s from free speech, even including lies and negative campaigning, it means we have to rely on the government itself, the press, and word of mouth for the information we need. I think the ready availability of web research for exposing lies and partial information is probably a good thing and seems to be having an impact on at least the younger voters’ command of the facts.
Good lord, I’m sure not getting much work done today. Good thing the partners are all out of town.
just a thought…but if some of those “creative types” weren’t there….maybe there would be more worth watching on tv and it wouldn’t all be so slanted toward one point of view.
And just so no one gets the wrong idea….the Mormon church as an organization did not donate money to get Prop 8 passed…they asked their members to organize and work to get it passed….and that after the Catholics asked them to join the fray….the Mormons are nothing if not organized and generous with their money for what they feel are good causes…they were after all one of the first and most effective organizations to help the residents of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina
On the front portico of the Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC, there are four words in big, bold letters: “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”.
The homophobic straits who say that gays are asking for “Special Rights” have it backwards. THEY want special rights. They have the unmitigated gall to say that they can marry the persons they love and gays cannot!!! Anything short of EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW is UnAmerican!!!
Keep it to yourself and those in YOUR religion.
People saying its freedom of religion to oppress other people of their rights and opinions are wrong. Its freedom of religion to do what you want with religion as long as it doesnt effect others!
Niponkid: I enjoy reading your comments. Would you be comfortable sharing why you are living in Japan right now, and your approximate age? I’m just interested in knowing. :-)
margueritem- I dont mind. Im 16 years old and im living in Japan because 2 years ago i signed up to be interviewed for a trip to go abroad. I chose Japan because it seemed like a challenge,which it has been, and a whole different culture. Ive got 8-9 months left. Only been here for 3 of the 11-12 so far. Its taking up my whole Junior year of high school.
All my pictures are on myspace but…well…not going to say my name to tons of people on a forum.
This is incorrect. The LDS church did not put ANY money into it. It did ask it’s members to get involved in any way they could. In some cases, that meant LDS members contributing money.
Yea. Im with Rotary Foriegn Exchange Program and yes im staying with host familys.
Im typing this in school. I get alot of time in computer labs while my classmates are in biology and stuff like that.I only have japanese class once a day and a few english classes that i help with. I get 1-3 periods a day on a computer at school that only has proxys on Myspace out of all the sites i like to go to. This is the main site that im usually on.
Frida said: “those who braved the sea and unknown believed that there should be a separation between church and state.” - the colonists who came here came to establish theocracies of their own - tax-supported churches, oaths of alliegance to a sect as a requirement for holding office, exclusion of members of other sects, and so on - which continued sometimes even after the Constitution went into effect.
cadgyod: “The founding fathers would not have dreamed (I don’t think) of forbidding the church to comment on or criticize government” - they did, but it was the ministers and other religious people who wanted the separation even more.
I’ve been reading Founding Faith, a history of religion in the period before and after the American Revolution.
Let the Mormons and the Catholics forbid whatever they want to their own members. I’m not Mormon or Catholic, and I don’t want laws holding me to their tenets. This isn’t the fijrst time the Knights of Columbus have gotten their noses in the door, either. They were primarily responsible for putting “under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(1) “Religious freedom” means you get to practice your religion as you like, not that you get to force your rules on the rest of us.
(2) Jim Crow laws were also approved by the majority of the voters and struck down by the courts.
(3) Saying that the Mormon and Catholic Churches did not support H8, but just urged their followers to is rather like saying Hitler didn’t kill any Jews or build concentration camps, but just encouraged other people to do it.
But that’s OK… it’s just a minor setback. We’ve always bounced back from these things bigger and stronger. (Remember Anita Bryant?) This only brings us closer to a federal ruling that will give us fully recognized marriage across the US. It’s just a matter of time.
FRIDABONITA about 16 years ago
ooooooooooo, this is such a touchy subject!
Like that we are dealing with state politics as well as national.
You go queenie!
kfaatz925 about 16 years ago
Bravo, Pab. Thanks for not pulling the punches!
ejcapulet about 16 years ago
Let me see if I understand something - they put the whole “gay marriage” thing to a vote and lost. So now it’s okay to get mad and oppress some small religious group because they don’t agree? Sounds like someone can’t handle ‘freedom of religion’ or ‘freedom of speech’ very well. Really, if they couldn’t handle the possibility of losing, why did they run the risk? I just can’t agree with belittling or being accusatory of a whole religion like that. Politics I can handle, but I draw the line at religion. I already know that’s going to make me a target of everyone’s ire, so go right ahead and call a total stranger names; I don’t care, nothing you say will ever make me change.
edcoyote about 16 years ago
ejcapulet -
Gay marriage had already been approved. People had gotten married, legally. Then “they” (whoever “they” are) fought to get the ban on the ballot, and succeeded. The expectation was that it would fail, but now the claim is that because of the money the Mormon church pumped into the cause, and because of the large turnout for Obama, the ban passed. So people that followed the law are finding their marriages to be “illegal” after the fact. In all probability, a measure to allow gay marriage will be brought up again, and will likely pass.
–Ed
marshlc about 16 years ago
Seems the church opens itself up for criticism when it enters the political arena - if it had confined itself to banning gay marriage between its members, or in its places of worship, no one would say anything. If you are going to join the fray, though, you can’t claim immunity to people disagreeing with you.
By the way, gay marriage has been legal for a few years now, where I live. The sky has not fallen.
Wildcard24365 about 16 years ago
This is a painful subject where I live. Thanks for trying to lighten it.
Machtyn about 16 years ago
edcoyote: Wrong, the people of California said No to homosexual marriage through a law that was on the ballot a few years ago and a few judge’s said you can’t do that. So the people of California said No to homosexual marriage again and made it state constitution where the judges couldn’t strike it down. Besides, why pick on the LDS church? The Catholics and other religious groups were in on it as well. But the Mormons have been an easy target since the 1800’s. /p.s. as a “Mormon”, I’m quite happy. I don’t have to worry about drunk driving, AIDS, or any other problems that come with vices. I’m having a lot of fun with life.
Pab Sungenis creator about 16 years ago
The difference is that the Catholic Church itself did not fund the Proposition. The Knights of Columbus did. A few fringe Christian groups like Focus on the Family also helped fund it, but in the case of the CoJCoLDS, it was the CHURCH ITSELF pumping money in. Big difference.
ChiehHsia about 16 years ago
Machtyn, I’m all in favor of all the good things churches do for their members, and I include even the most conservative denominations in that. The Mormons, Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists and so forth have many good and valuable teachings to their credit. However, I resent it like all git-out when any religious group, or coalition thereof, gets their foot into the political door and starts trying to get laws passed or constitutions changed in ways that limit the rights we had under the prior laws.
Allow me also to point out that being a member of any religious faith does not insulate you from what are sometimes called “the seven deadly sins”, or from the consequences thereof. At most, it gives you a set of criteria to strive for, and a support group to assist when you need help. It does not give you the right to hold the general population to the same set of standards, even when you represent a majority in the voting population. This would be known as “tyranny of the majority”, and is one of the reasons for the difference in representation between the House and Senate, and for the three-branch system of government.
zebratigre about 16 years ago
The founder of the Mormons, Joseph Smith, served time as a con man in New York state before he invented Mormonism and moved West. There are some interesting parallels between his treasure scam and the “golden tablets” that the Book of Moron was allegedly transcribed from.
ralphman about 16 years ago
Mormons are very very strange.i lived wth a few in AZ for a short time.
Nugget0 Premium Member about 16 years ago
judges should not make law, only interpret law. voters, whether citizens at the ballot box or those elected to represent voters, should make law.
ChiehHsia about 16 years ago
Nugget0, that is partially correct, but incomplete. The federal courts are charged with assessing the constitutionality of laws, and if they determine that a law is not constitutionally valid, they have the ability to strike it down, regardless of the opinion of a majority vote. When this happens, a constitutional amendment is required to restore the law, and even then the US Supreme Court can strike down such an amendment if they determine that it contravenes our national Constitution.
When this happens, the losing side usually spouts off about “activist judges.”
VancouverRaven about 16 years ago
The upside to the whole California debacle is that it only passed with 52% of the vote, and many younger voters were in favour of allowing gay marriage. With luck, it will be a brief and self-solving problem. In the meantime, British Columbia is a lovely spot to get married, especially in the summer, and gay marriage is legal across all of Canada!
ChiehHsia about 16 years ago
Indeed it is, Mr. Raven. A couple of my acquaintance did just exactly that a couple of months ago, and came home from Vancouver for a church service (standing room only) at our local UCC.
FRIDABONITA about 16 years ago
Oye!
I love being an American. We have freedoms that are unfathomable to much of the world. Our founding fathers and those who braved the sea and unknown believed that there should be a separation between church and state.
So, please, let’s keep our belief/faith systems out of our civic lives.
You go talk to your God and I’ll deal with mine.
This should never have been or should never be a political issue.
runar about 16 years ago
How much of the money supporting prop 8 came from out of state? National elections aren’t allowed to be supported by foreign interests; shouldn’t state elections be held to a comparable standard?
I felt the same way about Rob Sherman, the “Buffalo Grove Atheist”. Some 20 years ago, he recruited a guy to move to Zion IL for the specific purpose of establishing residency then filing a lawsuit against the city for having a cross on their town seal. He had no business sticking his nose into a community he was not a part of. Normally, I sympathize with atheists’ interests (even though I’m not one), but crossing state and town lines just to make trouble definitely stinks.
ChiehHsia about 16 years ago
I heard last night that only about 62% of our eligible voters voted, nationally. That’s not even a record… apparently in the 1960 election, we made it up to 67%. Given the crowds and long lines last week, it makes one wonder whether our system would simply collapse if we ever make it up into the 80%-90% range.
cadgyod about 16 years ago
Wow! How many hot buttons can we push in one strip? Roger: your comments are right on but I would have to say that I believe that the church has a responbsibility to speak out and state its position on issues, particularly what it sees as moral ones. You can question how far they should go but silence would be the same as approval. These very emotional issues are often tough for individual congregations to deal with as there are usually strong feelings on different sides. This is where love and understanding come into play and are hopefully the strong point of the church.
cadgyod about 16 years ago
And Frida: separation of church and state is there to keep the government out of the religion business - as in establishing an official, or mandatory one. The founding fathers would not have dreamed (I don’t think) of forbidding the church to comment on or criticize government
ChiehHsia about 16 years ago
cadgyod - it’s definitely a fine line there. We have to allow the churches to have free speech, just like the rest of us, which obviously includes public statements of opinions and criticism of government, but when religious groups (whether churches or PACs or 527s) are supporting specific propositions which would require non-religious but law-abiding citizens to conform to a set of standards approved by those religious groups, I think we have a problem. And yes, I think this includes our laws against voluntary polygamy, as well as other non-traditional marriages and relationships, as long as the affected parties are all consenting adults. The founding fathers probably weren’t thinking in terms wherein “religious freedom” could also mean “freedom FROM religion”, but times change and the constitution needs to adapt. Obviously, the founding fathers did recognise this need, because they included procedures for constitutional amendment.
Just an aside… when Spain persecuted the Jews, during the Inquisition, they eventually succeeded in driving away most of the people who actually understood international finance and banking. When Spain also lost the gold shipments as their South American colonies went independent, so that the gold could no longer make up the losses from bad business practices and overspending, Spain became for almost 150 years the “poor man of Europe” and is only recently coming out of that phase. Imagine what would happen if most of our creative writers, musicians, actors, and others from professions which traditionally contain a preponderance of liberals and non-traditionals, up and moved out of our universities, businesses, and tax base. Think of the benefits which would accrue to Europe and Canada!
cadgyod about 16 years ago
Roger: I think you and I are iin agreement on just about everything here. I do think though that if you are going to restrict religious organizations from trying to influence an issue you have to not allow any other groups with an interest in the question to push their opinion.
ChiehHsia about 16 years ago
absolutely… I’m not against any group in particular. I’ve also got “issues” with PACs, 527s, and other organizations that muddy the waters and don’t clearly state all sides of any question… but unfortunately, as long as we have our present electoral method, I see no other viable methods for educating the electorate about the issues. If we outlaw the various NGO’s from free speech, even including lies and negative campaigning, it means we have to rely on the government itself, the press, and word of mouth for the information we need. I think the ready availability of web research for exposing lies and partial information is probably a good thing and seems to be having an impact on at least the younger voters’ command of the facts.
Good lord, I’m sure not getting much work done today. Good thing the partners are all out of town.
funforshor about 16 years ago
just a thought…but if some of those “creative types” weren’t there….maybe there would be more worth watching on tv and it wouldn’t all be so slanted toward one point of view.
funforshor about 16 years ago
And just so no one gets the wrong idea….the Mormon church as an organization did not donate money to get Prop 8 passed…they asked their members to organize and work to get it passed….and that after the Catholics asked them to join the fray….the Mormons are nothing if not organized and generous with their money for what they feel are good causes…they were after all one of the first and most effective organizations to help the residents of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina
stpatme about 16 years ago
On the front portico of the Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC, there are four words in big, bold letters: “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”. The homophobic straits who say that gays are asking for “Special Rights” have it backwards. THEY want special rights. They have the unmitigated gall to say that they can marry the persons they love and gays cannot!!! Anything short of EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW is UnAmerican!!!
Nipponkid about 16 years ago
How about no one brings religion into politics?
Keep it to yourself and those in YOUR religion. People saying its freedom of religion to oppress other people of their rights and opinions are wrong. Its freedom of religion to do what you want with religion as long as it doesnt effect others!
margueritem about 16 years ago
Niponkid: I enjoy reading your comments. Would you be comfortable sharing why you are living in Japan right now, and your approximate age? I’m just interested in knowing. :-)
r.dauphinee about 16 years ago
Roger BNTOTOO, Thank you very much for a clear and balanced summation of the issues. I like your style!
Nipponkid about 16 years ago
margueritem- I dont mind. Im 16 years old and im living in Japan because 2 years ago i signed up to be interviewed for a trip to go abroad. I chose Japan because it seemed like a challenge,which it has been, and a whole different culture. Ive got 8-9 months left. Only been here for 3 of the 11-12 so far. Its taking up my whole Junior year of high school.
All my pictures are on myspace but…well…not going to say my name to tons of people on a forum.
Having fun and Kendos a blast. :^D
Heavenly about 16 years ago
it was the CHURCH ITSELF pumping money in
This is incorrect. The LDS church did not put ANY money into it. It did ask it’s members to get involved in any way they could. In some cases, that meant LDS members contributing money.margueritem about 16 years ago
Nipponkid: Thanks for answering. Are you in a foreign exchange program, and staying with a host family? What a wonderful opportunity you’re enjoying.
Nipponkid about 16 years ago
Yea. Im with Rotary Foriegn Exchange Program and yes im staying with host familys.
Im typing this in school. I get alot of time in computer labs while my classmates are in biology and stuff like that.I only have japanese class once a day and a few english classes that i help with. I get 1-3 periods a day on a computer at school that only has proxys on Myspace out of all the sites i like to go to. This is the main site that im usually on.
ChiehHsia about 16 years ago
funforshor - how DARE you accuse us creative types of being involved in TELEVISION???!!!
runar about 16 years ago
Frida said: “those who braved the sea and unknown believed that there should be a separation between church and state.” - the colonists who came here came to establish theocracies of their own - tax-supported churches, oaths of alliegance to a sect as a requirement for holding office, exclusion of members of other sects, and so on - which continued sometimes even after the Constitution went into effect.
cadgyod: “The founding fathers would not have dreamed (I don’t think) of forbidding the church to comment on or criticize government” - they did, but it was the ministers and other religious people who wanted the separation even more.
I’ve been reading Founding Faith, a history of religion in the period before and after the American Revolution.
Let the Mormons and the Catholics forbid whatever they want to their own members. I’m not Mormon or Catholic, and I don’t want laws holding me to their tenets. This isn’t the fijrst time the Knights of Columbus have gotten their noses in the door, either. They were primarily responsible for putting “under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Pab Sungenis creator almost 16 years ago
Roger said “funforshor - how DARE you accuse us creative types of being involved in TELEVISION???!!!”
Ummm… Roger? http://www.idiotboxers.tv thank you very much. :)
jackfertig almost 16 years ago
(1) “Religious freedom” means you get to practice your religion as you like, not that you get to force your rules on the rest of us.
(2) Jim Crow laws were also approved by the majority of the voters and struck down by the courts.
(3) Saying that the Mormon and Catholic Churches did not support H8, but just urged their followers to is rather like saying Hitler didn’t kill any Jews or build concentration camps, but just encouraged other people to do it.
But that’s OK… it’s just a minor setback. We’ve always bounced back from these things bigger and stronger. (Remember Anita Bryant?) This only brings us closer to a federal ruling that will give us fully recognized marriage across the US. It’s just a matter of time.