DiscussMormonism.com

I'm sure many (if not all) of us remember the letter dated May 25, 2006, and signed by the First Presidency (then GBH, Monson and Faust) addressing the upcoming U.S. Senate vote to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The letter was read in sacrament meeting, and many understood it to instruct members to contact their senators and voice support for the proposed amendment. This bothered some (including myself) as an unwarranted involvement in politics and improper instruction to tell members how to be involved in the political process. Some TBM's claimed this was false because the letter did not explicitly tell members how to instruct their senators; I always thought the letter was intentionally vague on this point so that just this argument could be made.

The days of being coy are over. In the latest letter from the FP (now made up of Monson, Eyring and Uchtdorf) on the topic, dated June 20, 2008, and to be read this coming Sunday in sacrament meetings in California, the FP removed any vagueness by explicitly instructing CA members to support the proposed amendment to CA's state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The initial paragraph in the letter sounds pretty political, referring to the recent CA Supreme Court decision as "revers[ing] th[e] vote of the people" (apparently the FP does not understand the court's reversal was because the law was unconsititutional), the letter continues (my editorial comments in bold):

The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God [Ed. note: note the careful language of "a man and a woman" rather than "one man and one woman" -- this is consistent with the Church's gen'l recognition of plural marriage, if not now then in the next life], and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage [Ed. note: does this mean the FP also supports a consitutional amendment forbidding birth out of wedlock?].

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage [Ed. note: our tithing dollars hard at work]. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause [Ed. note: does this mean Church buidings will be used for political purposes?].

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman [Ed. note: there's that tricky language again to avoid the polygamy issue]. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage [Ed. note: talk about 'mixing church and state' -- the FP is asking for a "legal definition" for a "sacred institution"].

It appears that the new Monson era is not going to mince words like the PR-driven Hinckley era did. Get ready for even greater LDS political activism.

Good. Maybe if some national media asks monson if god was once a man, he won't beat around the bush like hinckley did.

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It passes through the vote of the people. In order to say that the courts reversed the vote of the people you have to argue that the courts interpretation of the constitution is incorrect or not understand what the vote of the people all entails. Since the latter comes only through ignorance or stupidity, the more favorable interpretation is the FP is making a judgment on the correctness of the decision. Of course, chances are they are just expressing the base majoritarian sentiment that makes for a major talking point for those who oppose gay marriage. It's a shame they just didn't start talkin' about activist judges.

EAllusion wrote:The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It passes through the vote of the people. In order to say that the courts reversed the vote of the people you have to argue that the courts interpretation of the constitution is incorrect or not understand what the vote of the people all entails.

The "vote of the people" you initially refer to is the CA state constitution. The "vote of the people" the FP letter referred to was a non-constitutional law, so you are speaking of two different things.

Since the latter comes only through ignorance or stupidity, the more favorable interpretation is the FP is making a judgment on the correctness of the decision.

It's up to the CA Supreme Court to decide was is or is not constitutional under the CA state constitution, not the FP (or even "the people"). The court's decision was not a "reversal of the vote of the people," but a finding that a particular law was unconstitutional under the CA state constitution (regardless of how it was enacted).

Of course, chances are they are just expressing the base majoritarian sentiment that makes for a major talking point for those who oppose gay marriage. It's a shame they just didn't start talkin' about activist judges.

And this is why the issue becomes political, and why the FP should not delve into political issues, in my opinion.

I'm sure many (if not all) of us remember the letter dated May 25, 2006, and signed by the First Presidency (then GBH, Monson and Faust) addressing the upcoming U.S. Senate vote to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The letter was read in sacrament meeting, and many understood it to instruct members to contact their senators and voice support for the proposed amendment.

That is exactly how it should be understood because it is not unreasonable for the Church to assume it's members feel the same way about the issue.

This bothered some (including myself) as an unwarranted involvement in politics and improper instruction to tell members how to be involved in the political process.

I believe a church can take a stand on legislation without running afoul of the law.

Some TBM's claimed this was false because the letter did not explicitly tell members how to instruct their senators;

If any were, I'd say they were being disingenuous.

I always thought the letter was intentionally vague on this point so that just this argument could be made.

Probably so. I don't believe such was necessary though.

The days of being coy are over. In the latest letter from the FP (now made up of Monson, Eyring and Uchtdorf) on the topic, dated June 20, 2008, and to be read this coming Sunday in sacrament meetings in California, the FP removed any vagueness by explicitly instructing CA members to support the proposed amendment to CA's state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The initial paragraph in the letter sounds pretty political, referring to the recent CA Supreme Court decision as "revers[ing] th[e] vote of the people" (apparently the FP does not understand the court's reversal was because the law was unconsititutional), the letter continues (my editorial comments in bold):

Perhaps they discovered what I have already known? I don't know all the legal nuances but I don't think it unreasonable for an organization to take time to decide and figure it out. The righteous have waited too long in false security believing this day would never come and now they are playing catch-up.

It appears that the new Monson era is not going to mince words like the PR-driven Hinckley era did. Get ready for even greater LDS political activism.

Amen! The tools are ready. For example, our commmunity has LDS members fresh from a victorious battle against planned parenthood in the school system.

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It passes through the vote of the people. In order to say that the courts reversed the vote of the people you have to argue that the courts interpretation of the constitution is incorrect or not understand what the vote of the people all entails.

I agree to a point. Appointed judges are relatively immune to public backlash. Where you are correct is the implication that elections are critical because they could determine the kind of judges we have.

It's a shame they just didn't start talkin' about activist judges.

Indeed. Why not just tell it like it is?

The court's decision was not a "reversal of the vote of the people," but a finding that a particular law was unconstitutional under the CA state constitution (regardless of how it was enacted).

Sounds like a reversal to me.

Hmm..
I wonder if this type of announcement will hurt or help Mitt's chances to snag the VP..

Hmm..
I wonder if this type of announcement will hurt or help Mitt's chances to snag the VP..

It depends on how conservative McCain wants to look. There is Mitt conservative and there is Huckabee conservative. Neither is truly conservative but I think Mitt is closer to the ideal.

Frankly, I wouldn't be suprised if McCain is actually considering Hillary Clinton for VP.

I thought the 2006 letter to be inappropriate, even with the *wink wink* aspect ("Tell your representative how you feel", without such feeling specified). I was similarly uneasy with the letter read in California when the original marriage initiative was on the ballot (basically saying to vote because it's important to vote, but not saying how to vote). But the 2008 letter goes even further, which is even more distasteful to me - instructing members to use their money and time to pass the constitutional amendment, based on the directives of the local church leaders.

It's as simple as this to me: the church does not need to recognize or perform marriages between same-sex couples. Aside from that, they should just butt the hell out. The church happily discriminated against blacks for most of its existence regardless of societal pressures and norms; it can do the same here.

Do we see the church trying to revive Prohibition, to ensure that no one can sin by breaking the WoW? Do we see the church pushing laws criminalizing adultery, since that is a grievous sin? I don't even see the church contributing to pro-life organizations, or working to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It really angers me that this is the battle the church has chosen to undertake. The church's position on this is just one of several reasons I've left, but it is a significant one. And this letter is just wrong. Wrong.

bcspace wrote:Frankly, I wouldn't be suprised if McCain is actually considering Hillary Clinton for VP.

I would.

And if he did, he oughta get an official food taster. ;o)

(No way would Hil take the offer if one were made - she's ambitious, but idealistic enough to not cross over to the dark side).

Rollo Tomasi wrote:And this is why the issue becomes political, and why the FP should not delve into political issues, in my opinion.

Why not? Major religions are often involved in speaking out on moral issues. The wall of separation of church and state is only one way.

Examples:

Catholics:
Lobbying in several countries and states against the death penalty.
Opposes abortion laws in several states.
Anti-war pronouncements

Evangelicals (this is a rather loose affiliation)
Supporting "blue" laws in several states
Campaign reform in several states

Mormons
Opposition to the MX missile around 1980, killing the proposal.
Opposition to the repeal of prohibition.
Opposition to the ERA
Opposition to liquor by the drink laws in Utah
Lobbying Congress (along with othe religious groups) to overturn a Scalia decision which impairs protection of religions
Testifying before Congress to support a law which discourages land use restrictions for churches
Amicus brief with a California evangelical organization supporting that organization's right to provide spiritual counseling without liability fears
Oppose in several countries the taxation of religious properties