DiscussMormonism.com

With this weekend fast approaching, when CA members on Sunday will hear the FP’s June 20 letter instructing them to do all they can to help pass the proposed amendment to the CA state constitution banning gay marriage, I thought I’d make an observation on the “moral issue” catchphrase that is certain to be thrown about like a holy mantra (and elsewhere, because I’m pretty sure the letter will also be read to non-CA congregations). The “moral issue” safety net is perfect, because it allows the Church to jump in political fights as and when it pleases.

Let me provide an example. I hearken back to the early 70’s and 80’s, when the Church became heavily involved in the fight against the ERA. As part of that fight, the Church published a 23-page pamphlet entitled “The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue,” included as a supplement to the Ensign in early 1980. Most of the pamphlet was in Q&A format, addressing the reasons behind the Church’s position on the ERA (a few pages contained FP statements on the ERA). One particular section (on pp. 12-13) discussed whether “the ERA [would] further erode the constitutional division of powers.” Here is a relevant portion of the answer:

Recognized constitutional authorities state that the Equal Rights Amendment would represent a serious eroding of the powers of states and would result in a massive transfer of legislative power dealing with domestic relations from the states to the federal level. This transfer would greatly disrupt the division of powers central to our constitutional system.
…

We conclude that the ERA would also further shift law-making power from elected legislators to nonelected judges. It would accelerate the trend to govern by judicial decisions rather than by passage of law. Placing more power with the courts further erodes the separation-of-powers protective shield surrounding our freedoms. If the ERA is ratified, the federal judiciary will be required to interpret the broad language of the amendment to give new, specific, legal definitions to its sweeping provisions. In order for the law to be implemented, someone has to say what these broad terms mean in such specific contexts as sexual preference, mother/daughter and father/son activities, women in the military, and dormitory living. Under the Constitution, that responsibility is vested in the courts, and once they speak, their decisions are difficult to change. Thus, a new amendment, with key terms to be defined, effectively grants law-making power to the unelected judiciary. One political observer, Michael Kilian, has said that such a condition exists with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which he calls “a menace that must be defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with either side of the issue of women’s rights. The reasons have to do with another menace, perhaps the greatest menace to the individual freedom and representative government in the history of the nation: Government by judicial fiat” (italics in original; citation omitted).

Therefore, maintaining the essential separation and division of powers provided for by the divinely inspired Constitution is a moral issue for Latter-day Saints. (Italics and bold added for emphasis). The Lord himself has said “that every man may act in … moral agency, that every man may be accountable for his own sins …. For this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:78, 80; see also D&C 98:5-6). Without the full freedoms and safeguards it guarantees, our people, our ideals, and our practices could be gravely threatened.

Thus, the division of powers protection in the U.S. Constitution was itself a “moral issue” within the “moral issue” of the ERA, and asserted by the Church as a reason against a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the ERA). However, this “moral issue,” as far as I can recall, was not mentioned in 2006 when the Church was for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (banning gay marriage). Did the division of powers “moral issue” previously recognized by the Church simply disappear? Is it even possible for any “moral issue” to be ignored?

I see the controversy in CA as a microcosm of all this. With the letter to be read in sacrament meeting this Sunday, the Church is instructing CA members to do all they can to help pass an amendment to the CA state constitution banning gay marriage; this is in response to the CA supreme court’s recent opinion “revers[ing] this vote of the people.” In contrast, the Church was against an amendment (the ERA) because it could lead to “Government by judicial fiat.” Seems a bit inconsistent.

This is the reason I am skeptical whenever the “moral issue” mantra is raised to mask involvement in politics. It seems to me that a “moral issue” can be carted out whenever it’s politically expedient; the same goes for when a “moral issue” is ignored. I guess I’m just tired of the Church's screaming “moral issue” to excuse any political fight it wishes to wage. Sorta like “the boy who cried wolf.”

First off, IANAL.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Thus, the division of powers protection in the U.S. Constitution was itself a “moral issue” within the “moral issue” of the ERA, and asserted by the Church as a reason against a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the ERA). However, this “moral issue,” as far as I can recall, was not mentioned in 2006 when the Church was for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (banning gay marriage). Did the division of powers “moral issue” previously recognized by the Church simply disappear? Is it even possible for any “moral issue” to be ignored?

I don't see this being the case. If I recall correctly, the proposed 2006 ammendment wouldn't make gay marriage illegal in all states, but merely something that other states (and maybe the fed itself) would not have to recognize due to the full-faith or whatever clause. Thus division of powers, as far as I know, would have been preserved.

I see the controversy in CA as a microcosm of all this. With the letter to be read in sacrament meeting this Sunday, the Church is instructing CA members to do all they can to help pass an amendment to the CA state constitution banning gay marriage; this is in response to the CA supreme court’s recent opinion “revers[ing] this vote of the people.” In contrast, the Church was against an amendment (the ERA) because it could lead to “Government by judicial fiat.” Seems a bit inconsistent.

I think there is a huge difference between the ERA and the current proposed CA constitutional ban on gay marriage. The ERA was at the federal level for one. For another thing, the ERA was demanding that certain things be allowed while the gay marriage ban is quite simple--no legally recognized gay marriage. I see no complex issues involved in the latter which give huge powers to the judiciary branch to allow them to rule from the bench about marriage.

I agree with their analysis of the ERA. The slippery slope is the rapid loss of power by state and local governments as the Federal Government seizes more and more control and as judges overstep their authority at all levels of the government.

The Nehor wrote:I agree with their analysis of the ERA. The slippery slope is the rapid loss of power by state and local governments as the Federal Government seizes more and more control and as judges overstep their authority at all levels of the government.

Damn those activist judges! They should only serve as models for those fancy robes, remaining otherwise as inactive as possible. Unless we are talking about handguns in Washington DC -- then it's okay for them to be activists.

Rollo, I agree with you that the "moral issue" is just an argument of convenience. Same goes for the "activist judge" complaint, and the "legislating from the bench" complaint. All of this is a ploy to elevate one side above the common fray of fighting for interests, but the ploy is inconsistently applied and unconvincing. People fight for what they want: that's all there is to it.

asbestosman wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Thus, the division of powers protection in the U.S. Constitution was itself a “moral issue” within the “moral issue” of the ERA, and asserted by the Church as a reason against a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the ERA). However, this “moral issue,” as far as I can recall, was not mentioned in 2006 when the Church was for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (banning gay marriage). Did the division of powers “moral issue” previously recognized by the Church simply disappear? Is it even possible for any “moral issue” to be ignored?

I don't see this being the case. If I recall correctly, the proposed 2006 ammendment wouldn't make gay marriage illegal in all states, but merely something that other states (and maybe the fed itself) would not have to recognize due to the full-faith or whatever clause. Thus division of powers, as far as I know, would have been preserved.

I disagree. As part of the U.S. Constitution, the proposed gay marriage amendment would prevent any federal, state or local gov't from recognizing gay marriage. Thus, the federal constitution (the supreme law of the land) would Trump anything the states try to recognize gay marriage. Many folks believe this is an issue better left to the states, not the fed; therefore, an amendment would have affected the division of powers the Church once called "a moral issue."

I think there is a huge difference between the ERA and the current proposed CA constitutional ban on gay marriage. The ERA was at the federal level for one.

Correct, which is why I used the word "microcosm."

For another thing, the ERA was demanding that certain things be allowed while the gay marriage ban is quite simple--no legally recognized gay marriage. I see no complex issues involved in the latter which give huge powers to the judiciary branch to allow them to rule from the bench about marriage.

Here's one: the Church has always supported an amendment that reads "a man and a woman," not "one man and one woman," because of the obvious polygamy issue. Also, how would issues like rights based on marital status that are enjoyed by "domestic partners" or adoption by gay couples, be decided? There are still plenty of issues for the state to decide, but a federal amendment banning gay marriage could put all of them in play to be decided by the feds. Thus, the division of powers "moral issue" comes up again.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:With this weekend fast approaching, when CA members on Sunday will hear the FP’s June 20 letter instructing them to do all they can to help pass the proposed amendment to the CA state constitution banning gay marriage, I thought I’d make an observation on the “moral issue” catchphrase that is certain to be thrown about like a holy mantra (and elsewhere, because I’m pretty sure the letter will also be read to non-CA congregations). The “moral issue” safety net is perfect, because it allows the Church to jump in political fights as and when it pleases.

Let me provide an example. I hearken back to the early 70’s and 80’s, when the Church became heavily involved in the fight against the ERA. As part of that fight, the Church published a 23-page pamphlet entitled “The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue,” included as a supplement to the Ensign in early 1980. Most of the pamphlet was in Q&A format, addressing the reasons behind the Church’s position on the ERA (a few pages contained FP statements on the ERA). One particular section (on pp. 12-13) discussed whether “the ERA [would] further erode the constitutional division of powers.” Here is a relevant portion of the answer:

Recognized constitutional authorities state that the Equal Rights Amendment would represent a serious eroding of the powers of states and would result in a massive transfer of legislative power dealing with domestic relations from the states to the federal level. This transfer would greatly disrupt the division of powers central to our constitutional system.
…

We conclude that the ERA would also further shift law-making power from elected legislators to nonelected judges. It would accelerate the trend to govern by judicial decisions rather than by passage of law. Placing more power with the courts further erodes the separation-of-powers protective shield surrounding our freedoms. If the ERA is ratified, the federal judiciary will be required to interpret the broad language of the amendment to give new, specific, legal definitions to its sweeping provisions. In order for the law to be implemented, someone has to say what these broad terms mean in such specific contexts as sexual preference, mother/daughter and father/son activities, women in the military, and dormitory living. Under the Constitution, that responsibility is vested in the courts, and once they speak, their decisions are difficult to change. Thus, a new amendment, with key terms to be defined, effectively grants law-making power to the unelected judiciary. One political observer, Michael Kilian, has said that such a condition exists with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which he calls “a menace that must be defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with either side of the issue of women’s rights. The reasons have to do with another menace, perhaps the greatest menace to the individual freedom and representative government in the history of the nation: Government by judicial fiat” (italics in original; citation omitted).

Therefore, maintaining the essential separation and division of powers provided for by the divinely inspired Constitution is a moral issue for Latter-day Saints. (Italics and bold added for emphasis). The Lord himself has said “that every man may act in … moral agency, that every man may be accountable for his own sins …. For this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:78, 80; see also D&C 98:5-6). Without the full freedoms and safeguards it guarantees, our people, our ideals, and our practices could be gravely threatened.

Thus, the division of powers protection in the U.S. Constitution was itself a “moral issue” within the “moral issue” of the ERA, and asserted by the Church as a reason against a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the ERA). However, this “moral issue,” as far as I can recall, was not mentioned in 2006 when the Church was for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (banning gay marriage). Did the division of powers “moral issue” previously recognized by the Church simply disappear? Is it even possible for any “moral issue” to be ignored?

I see the controversy in CA as a microcosm of all this. With the letter to be read in sacrament meeting this Sunday, the Church is instructing CA members to do all they can to help pass an amendment to the CA state constitution banning gay marriage; this is in response to the CA supreme court’s recent opinion “revers[ing] this vote of the people.” In contrast, the Church was against an amendment (the ERA) because it could lead to “Government by judicial fiat.” Seems a bit inconsistent.

This is the reason I am skeptical whenever the “moral issue” mantra is raised to mask involvement in politics. It seems to me that a “moral issue” can be carted out whenever it’s politically expedient; the same goes for when a “moral issue” is ignored. I guess I’m just tired of the Church's screaming “moral issue” to excuse any political fight it wishes to wage. Sorta like “the boy who cried wolf.”

You aren't doing well on this argument. It is garbled and confused.

First, the late 20th century church didn't "scream" anything. Any public statement is closely and carefully vetted, and issues usually in calm terms. Certainly, individuals may scream, as they do here, but they aren't the church.

For some reason you think that support for a California state constitutional amendment is inconsistent with opposition to a federal constitutional amendment. Your logic is muddled and disingenuous.

You argue that in the ERA amendment fight, the Church argued that a federal amendment would erode state's rights. Thus, how can the church now be supporting a California state amendment.

These are two different pursuits. The adoption of a California amendment is the assertion of states rights and the will of the people.

I did see at one time an inconsistency in the Church's support for a federal Defense of Marriage constitutional amendment or statute, in that it would trample upon states' rights. I have raised this issue with the BYU law professor pushing these acts. But, he explained to me that given the problem with the Full Faith and Credit clause (a marriage in one state has to be honored in another), a federal act is the only solution, as was the 14th Amendment.

You assert that the separation of church and state is a moral issue, and you seem to argue that the Church's support for a California amendment violates that moral principle. However, the Church like so many others in the United States assert that they have a moral imperative to urge the passage of moral legislation, and that the separation doctrine (by the way, nowhere found in the constitution) is a one-way thing. Congress can't enact legislation to favor one religion over another, but religions may freely lobby for legislation. The church has historically said that it doesn't take positions on candidates or parties, but it does and will continue to take positions on various issues -- prohibition, liquor by the drink, the ERA, abortion, zoning restrictions against religious structures, and gay marriage. At one time, the Church opposed entry into both WWI and WWII.

The Dude wrote:

The Nehor wrote:I agree with their analysis of the ERA. The slippery slope is the rapid loss of power by state and local governments as the Federal Government seizes more and more control and as judges overstep their authority at all levels of the government.

Damn those activist judges! They should only serve as models for those fancy robes, remaining otherwise as inactive as possible. Unless we are talking about handguns in Washington DC -- then it's okay for them to be activists.

Rollo, I agree with you that the "moral issue" is just an argument of convenience. Same goes for the "activist judge" complaint, and the "legislating from the bench" complaint. All of this is a ploy to elevate one side above the common fray of fighting for interests, but the ploy is inconsistently applied and unconvincing. People fight for what they want: that's all there is to it.

No, they're there to preserve the constitution of the state/nation. I admit I'm a strict constructionist but show me where in the Constitution there is a right to marriage, to privacy, etc. It's not there in the federal one. We made it up. When the standard for judges to overturn laws is made-up stuff, what binds them? Now if there's a law restricting religious freedom or trying to delegate powers assigned by the Constitution to someone else or attempting to meddle with a state's rights that aren't covered by the Constitution then I want the judges to charge in guns blazing.

rcrocket wrote:First, the late 20th century church didn't "scream" anything. Any public statement is closely and carefully vetted, and issues usually in calm terms. Certainly, individuals may scream, as they do here, but they aren't the church.

I was using "scream" metaphorically, of course. I figure if a church can metaphorically "get involved in politics" (of course, it's the people in the church doing the politicking), then a church can also metaphorically "scream" its political position.

You argue that in the ERA amendment fight, the Church argued that a federal amendment would erode state's rights. Thus, how can the church now be supporting a California state amendment.

You misunderstood. I was comparing the Church's position against a proposed federal constitution amendment (the ERA) and the Church's position for a proposed federal constitution amendment (the marriage amendment in 2006). I only referred to the CA situtation as a "microcosm" because of the language in the June 20 letter about the CA supreme court's "revers[ing] this vote of the people" (another way of describing "government by judicial fiat," in my mind) and the direct reference to "Government by judicial fiat" in the ERA pamphlet.

I did see at one time an inconsistency in the Church's support for a federal Defense of Marriage constitutional amendment or statute, in that it would trample upon states' rights. I have raised this issue with the BYU law professor pushing these acts. But, he explained to me that given the problem with the Full Faith and Credit clause (a marriage in one state has to be honored in another), a federal act is the only solution, as was the 14th Amendment.

It's the "only solution" of you don't want the states (via the people in those states) to have any say in the matter, which is the most blatant usurpation of the division of powers that the Church feared would erode with the ERA.

You assert that the separation of church and state is a moral issue, and you seem to argue that the Church's support for a California amendment violates that moral principle.

I never said that -- I simply pointed out that in the Church's ERA pamphlet, it asserted that the division of powers eroded by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was "a moral issue."

However, the Church like so many others in the United States assert that they have a moral imperative to urge the passage of moral legislation, and that the separation doctrine (by the way, nowhere found in the constitution) is a one-way thing.

The problem is what the Church claims to be "a moral issue," which seems to change with the political winds (as far as the Church's inconsistent actions establish).

Congress can't enact legislation to favor one religion over another, but religions may freely lobby for legislation.

I don't disagree, but I was pointing out that the Church's view of "a moral issue" changes based on what it wants to accomplish. This hurts the Church's credibility, in my opinion.

The church has historically said that it doesn't take positions on candidates or parties, but it does and will continue to take positions on various issues -- prohibition, liquor by the drink, the ERA, abortion, zoning restrictions against religious structures, and gay marriage.

Ah, even you have forgotten the division of powers protection, which in 1980 the Church viewed as "a moral issue."

At one time, the Church opposed entry into both WWI and WWII.

Too bad they didn't do the same with the Iraq War.

The Nehor wrote:I agree with their analysis of the ERA. The slippery slope is the rapid loss of power by state and local governments as the Federal Government seizes more and more control and as judges overstep their authority at all levels of the government.

I remember folks griping in Utah about how those activist judges were so out of line on the Brown v. Board of Education decision, decades after it happened. Should the Church have mounted a campaign to overturn this back in 1954?

moksha wrote:

The Nehor wrote:I agree with their analysis of the ERA. The slippery slope is the rapid loss of power by state and local governments as the Federal Government seizes more and more control and as judges overstep their authority at all levels of the government.

I remember folks griping in Utah about how those activist judges were so out of line on the Brown v. Board of Education decision, decades after it happened. Should the Church have mounted a campaign to overturn this back in 1954?

I think the decision in that case was also in many ways wrong and not based on the Constitution. However, it did overturn decisions made by the court that were even more out of line so my feelings about it are mixed. Ideally, it should never have been needed if Plessy v. Ferguson hadn't turned out the way it had.